Lawsy

Rather than try and explain it with maths, I'll just give you a graph with relevant information and you can figure it out for yourself. I think the data points can be easily verifiable as real cars without too much hassle... I would just like to point out though that an easy way to verify this is to take the 1000 foot mph, then the final mph, take the average (because acceleration is pretty linear between these 2 points for most cars, even if you have a gear change) and then you can easily work out the distance by multiplying the time by the average speed accross those 2 points.... Or something like that, I know what I'm on about, its up to you to figure out if what I've just typed is actually what I'm thinking Anyways. My quality graph to follow As you can clearly see, its no where near correct as 1 car length is about 4 meteres.... Well roughly 45rwkw made a difference of nearly 30-40 meters... And another few rwkW made another 40-50 odd meter difference.... Infact looking at it again, having roughly 130rwkW more than standard made a difference of about 90 meters.... Which is about right because if you work it out mathematically, you have to be going about 150km/h to travel 100 meters in just over 2 seconds... About right.

I was pointing out what it is capable of in theory with its gearing, and the most I've ever taken a car to is 240kph. If Nizpro were interested in organising such a run I would not say no. That APS run was an excellent effort. The APS car used a 3.28 diff with the old 5 speed, 18" wheels, and 345rwkw. APS estimated a top speed of 309kph at 5900, so they were at the absolute limit at 307kph with regard to gearing. XR6T8U, given its power and gearing should easily exceed that mark, but of course aerodynamics would have to be reviewed and be the major consideration. Brian There are some very basic principles that you could follow to improve the aerodynamic behavious of the car at higher speeds. Flat underbodies, that only have a cutout, heatshrouded area in the shape of the exhaust, have a massive affect on high speed stability by significantly reducing lift. If you could then custom design this undertray to then raise toward the rear and smoothly mould it into rear bumper area, you would actually create a partial area of downforce, resulting somewhere in the middle of the car (a good thing)... Whether this is enough to overcome the natural lift of the car or not is another thing, but anything that helps reduce lift will increase stability... I'm sure that someone could get a hold of a v8supercar front spoiler as well and take some pointers off that to design a slightly more inconspicuous version for your car... One that looks virtually standard in shape, simply with modified dimensions here and there to incorperate some of the undertray in the spoiler.... Its possible, and could probably be done without spending a billion dollars too... Those 2 things together could quite possibly reduce lift almost into the neutral zone if done well, without greatly increasing drag (infact, the undertray would reduce drag as well as lift (which is why they are so good). Anyways, you probably know all this, but I wanted something to do...

Sorry but the C&V car was running a built motor forgie pistons and billet rods and con has told me himself he would have gone alot quicker with that pwr with an Edit as Geea has proved No it wasn't. They went on record in numerous publications saying that it was stock internals. Either way your point is moot because it was tuned by unichip. Edit will allow you to run higher stall converters for quicker ETs but for MPH unichip can do everything it can. That's been shown time and time again so accept it and move on. Where has it been shown time and time again? I'm curious...

Its got nothing... Especially considering its got todays technology.... 1977, Kitty O'Neil was the driver... Kitty ran the quarter in 3.22 seconds @ 412 mph (659)... Owned. I'm trying to find a video I had of this, its pretty poor quality, but it was a video nontheless... I'm almost certain though that someone did a 2.9s quarter mile, but I might have been mistaken.... I'm finding it hard to get the info atm....

Any updates?

On their Chaos AD album, Sepultura have a song called Territory, its track 2.... Its a classic song. Just thought I would bring that to your attention.

Take lots of pictures, make sure they see you doing so as well... Then put the camera down, point and laugh (make sure they see you). Then get on the phone and make sure you call someone, or let the phone ring and pretend to call someone, and make sure you say really loudly... "Haha, mate you have just goto come down here, I've just found the biggest piece of crap that is currently on wheels, come check it out".

Brian, I've got a spreadsheet that I made months and months ago that accounts for almost any factor. It has pretty much takes everything into account. Tyre size, width, pressure, wear.... It works things out to an accuracy of 0.1%.... The only thing I need to get is someone to verify that my pressure calculation is about right and good for most tyres. I know it works for softer, high performance road tyres, but I'm not too sure if my pressure calculation is spot on for your not so stiff, not so well made standard tyre.... Anyways, the point is, if you want it I could pm it too you.... It has horsepower conversions in it, tractive effort to torque calculations (that takes into account the tyre sizes for the gearing) and stuff like that... If you want it, give me a yell....

If it makes you feel any better my PB in the Phoon is 18 secs at 61mph 18.49 @ 59.00MPH to be exact. My oil burning (petrol engine) astina is faster than that... Hell, my mum could drive faster than that, in my astina... And she hasn't driven a manual in over 30 years.....

I still remember some of those debates with peter on the original Ford forums, before they completely deleted that thread. What I recall the most, and find most amusing, is that every single (yes, every)challenge or advancement that peter said he was making in regards to the original Falcon unichip vs (the then completely speculative) Edit (and infact throughout the year before anyone had even heard of an Edit for the Falcon), did not even get a feasability study, let alone any tangable results. Not one of them. On the flip side, you've achieved everything you said you would. Everyone one of them. This is not intended as a suck up post, so get lost and eat some fresh horse turd (to anyone that thinks this is a suckup, that is). I just think that its a fairly honour-worthy achievement when someone actually sticks to there word, to the very end and last detail. So well done, Martin

Part 2. So what about viscosity? Without going into to much detail, newer engines have much tighter clearances and are leap years ahead in terms of oil cirulation compared to even 15 years ago. This requires the oils cold start viscosity to be as thin as possible without compromising the minimum lubrication required to start an engine with minimum damage after long periods of rest (and, breath in...). Oil with a 0 cold rating is a fair wack above this point. New, tighter engines simply must have a thin oil when cold, it must get through the engine as quickly as it possibly can, through the tightest spots it can, at lower pressures and temperatures. This reduces wear and increases cold start stability and smoothness. In the long run, this means that your high performance engine is going to be much fitter, much healthier and much more willing to give more. Mineral oil, especially ones which have lower cold viscosity, have more additives which eventually burn off; they no longer protect your engine as well as they should, especially under much colder conditions because alot of those additives were to give the oil the lower cold viscosity. Mineral oil naturally doesn't want to have a low viscosity at cold temperatures. When the oil heats up, you want an oil that will ran at the manufactureres recommended viscosity; almost no matter what. The cold start viscosity recommendation is most certainly a cost saving in too many cases, recommending the cheapest, or at least a cheaper, oil that meets the minimum cold start requirements. This does not mean that the best oil for your car is the ones specified in the manual. Obviously if you recently purchased a Porsche, or a Bugatti... where the engines were run in on the optimum oils for run in, completely drained and cleaned, and then refilled with an oil which matches that particular engine and its clearances therein, then you should follow the guidelines (if you had the balls to change the oil on a Bugatti anyway, I dunno if I'd be daring enough to touch a thing on one of them...). But on the other hand, the recommended viscosity for oils approaching running temps are recommended such that the oil is not only at an optimum viscosity for lubrication/protection, but also for minimum clearances under pressure, as well as for better heat disapation. The running temp viscosities are not a cost saving. On a turbocharged engine, this is even more important as the engine needs to be running the optimum oil as this gives the benefits of cooler running temps, and this allows your T to perform at its best... Anyways, these are only a few of the reasons why synthetics have an advantage in performance engines. They are reasons which possibly aren't as generally well known, but reasons which I would say are considerably important. So hopefully that helps clear this up a little. Also I hope it allows you to see why 0 - 40w or 5 - 40w synthetic oil is absolutely, possitively better for your engine than 15-40w mineral oil, in this instance. Now don't just take my word for it, if look hard enough (I certainly can't be bothered right now) what I've just posted can be referenced to scientific studies, the oils chemical make up, and lab results that are fully disclosed and conclusive, as well as years and years of road and race track proven results. So this is the real deal, this is not my opinion, or anything else you can think of that gives me any sort of bias. To me, I couldn't care less about oils. I know what I know purely for the reason that when I have the money and time to build up a nice car, I wont do something stupid like put 20-80 mineral oil into a 400rwkw semi race engine....

Lawsy's oil knowledge, part 1. Mineral vs synthetic. Ok, basically if you have a car in which the engine isn't considered a peformance engine (in any way shape or form. 1.8L 92 astina anyone?) you can ignore this and do what you want. You'll get very little of the following benefits. You also wont be hurting anything, either. This means you will still get these benefits but on such a minute scale that the money just isn't worth it. You'd have to do 300 thousand km's to see the results because the engine simply isn't under enough strain for these benefits to truely take effect. Ok what the hell am I on about? Well I'm on about synthetic oil at various viscosities and why you shouldn't be using anything else in your XR6T's. Especially when modified or run hard all the time. Mineral oil, in every instance, will break down and be less consistant in all of its performance characteristics when comparied with a fully synthetic oil of the same quality. So if you go and find the best mineral oil in the world to try and disprove this statement, you have to compare it to the best synthetic oil in the world, and we know which one is going to win that round... Mineral/petroleum based oils are simply filtered and then added to, filtered again, and then more additives are introduced. Repeat with each additive until the mix is complete. that's basically all that is done. There will always be something minute and impure that cannot be fully taken out of the oil. Synthetic oils are fully manufactured for a soul purpose; to lube you up. They are, by design, more consistant, have a lower friction co efficient, and are all round better performing than mineral oils. They have less additives, have higher flash points, and lower freezing points. There virtually isn't anything that mineral oil can do that synthetic oils can't; features can be redesigned/re-engineered into the oil if the need was there. The only exception is if you have a run around car, like me. Not only does it matter little if the car blows up, but sometimes there is actually a benefit to running mineral oils with slightly higher viscosities and more additives; this is appart from the price. With larger clearances and crappy oil circulation in the older motors, the use of a thicker oil which sticks to engine parts for longer periods, as well as some of the detergants in the oils get that used up along the way, actually help clean out the engine more thoroughly. Also, the fact that older, non performance engines usually run cooler, have lower compression/piston pressures and slacker camming gears, performance synthetic oil, like stated above, gives little to no real tangable benefit. BUT If you've happened to run an engine, from new, on the highest quality synthetic oil for that engine, this will never be an issue. Your engine will stay tighter, for longer, have been better protected and wont need a waxy oil to keep everything slippery. So synthetic oil in a performance engine is always going to be the way to go. Note: Don't believe the 'longer running period' crap though. Sure, synthetic oil WILL hold its quality for longer, but even the best of engines can get blow by and soot can enter the oil. It definately is better to be safe then sorry, so change your oil every 6-8 months regardless if you haven't done that many km's....

Im pretty sure the planetary gears are taken out, and re-tempered so the metal is not as brittle. A few people (Inc myself) have broken or chipped the ends off the teeth on the planetaries, so this is something Kewish have done to eliminate the problem. By softening the temper of the gears slightly it makes them a little pliable, allowing them to flex instead of just chipping ofr snapping off. that's why Kewish are not the cheapest, but do a complete job. Well if they are treating the gears like I think they are, then it also makes them able to withsand quite alot more outright force as well. Inder compression and sheering forces the gear itself is alot stronger... But this is assuming they are doing a full heat treatment and blast.... I say they would have to be..

Any news of late, Brian?

I think it looks good. But, I would prefere one that was shorter still. Take about 1.5cm off that and make one so it is only just larger than the DJR lip. I think that would be roughly spot on for a Falcon wanting this look. I still think that looks great though....

I would say the target audience isn't for big efficient inline 6 cylinder engines. I would suggest the biggest gains would be on older 4 pots. I'd say there is a possibility that a a smaller 4 cylinder engine would see better results than pretty much anything else....

I like it!

This is why fuels are quoted as 98RON - Research Octane Number. Once upon a time, fuels were tested with a specialised piston engine (maybe they still are, but it's not done like this at the refinery I used to work in nowadays). The beast that I'm most familiar with was a single cylinder donk with a head that could be raised or lowered with a vernier screw to vary the compression ratio. The fuel was tested and the compression ratio checked against a bunch of charts and the answer was the MON - Motor Octane Number - of the fuel. See this wikipedia entry for more info. This is the sort of constructive, non personal post that I was looking for. Well done

Most of these issues that you are hearing about are things that simply have nothing to do with ethanol at all... that's what is so anoying, alot of the crap you are hearing about ethanol is utter rubbish, and if these people actually had any idea about what the chemical properties of ethanol were they would never have opened there mouth at all, and upon learning more I hope they feel stupid... Because some of these stories are just stupid. It truely is... Ethanol cannot grow slugs, ethanol does not turn green and ethanol does not turn into a solid mass. Its a liquid, and when distilled turns into a fine white powder, last time I checked (though it might have been methanol, not 100% sure, but alcohols do all share significant properties so I can't see it being significantly different in this case). And as for this BOOST 98; it has been shown by independants already to be a quality fuel, with a high octane rating as a base and ethanol to pump the rating up to beyond 100. They then blend this high grade fuel with some of the other safety chemicals and this in turn is what drops it the rating back down to 98 (well its probably closer to 99 but whatever...). My point is this. Talk to someone who knows a bit about chemestry, someone who knows more than me preferably (because I don't know much at all. What I've said so far is about my entire knowledge base in chemestry) and they will tell you the real deal and just how stupid and completely unrelated these stories are to ethanol. So don't believe the trumped up wifes tales of engines being gummed up as a direct result of the ethanol fuel. You'll probably find that those engines would have seized even earlier had they run on the same crap fuel, but without the ethanol in it.

I don't reckon it does. What do you honestly think is different in a cirtified vehicle to one which isn't? Pretty much nothing... Simply one company has realised how many anti corrosive agents has been added to the fuel and what sort of blend the fuel and therefor realise that it would take years of this fuel sitting still to do any sort of meaningful damage... It's also a bit of a pride issue. Remember, some companies kicked up a massive stink, along with the state labour government at the time, when ethenol was added without anyone really knowing it. It was an easy way to dodge a warranty claim, even though we all knew it was a load of crap. Its simply more official that it was a load of crap, that's all...

Bigger rims as well as losing an inch in the suspension department would just be the cherry on the cake (screw cherries, it would be like getting a cake, with a block of chocolate next to it for no apparent reason. Chocolate is better than a cherries).

Alcohol is good... be it in a car or in the person... only problem is that it attracts water... Nice Jack It doesn't attract water per say, well not like magnets; its chemical structure simply makes itself readily acceptable of water. Just like I'll readily accept a beer if one happens to be handed to me, but cans of beer don't fly out from no where heading in my general direction (well not that I know of...).

I have used the United 98 ethanol blend. I got the least amount of k's I ever have from a tank It was ping city as well My T hated it, I reckon you payed for normal 95 petrol or, *gasp*... 91. Oxygenated fuel actually contains more available energy than non oxygenated fuel, as far as I'm aware... This is why (assuming you didn't get ripped off and had normal petrol pumped into your tank) a vast majority of engines running this stuff will be able to produce more power, but use less fuel, and have a slightly cooler burn... Also, regarding fuel ratings. It has just occured to me that fuel companies measure the fuels octane rating based on its chemical make up... Now this is all well and good if you truely are measuring the percentage of octane (octane being an 8 carbon atom strain which make up the fuel) in the fuel itself, but our system is actually really mixed up because its a rating system based on how resistant a fuel is to combustion, rather than have anything to do with the actual make up of the fuel itself. This is a good/smart rating system, while at the same time being completely stupid... Heres why. This system is more practical, as giving people a rating system, rather than an octane percantage, is more real world applicable. This is mainly due to the fact that the percentage of actual octain molecules in the fuel isn't in direct proportion to the fuels resistance to spontaineous combustion (it is very close though). This is due to other chemicals and blends of other hydrocarbons in the fuel itself. This system is rather stupid because fuel companies base there rating systems on a calculated/estimated value based on the fuels chemical make up... Hopefully you're starting to see why this is stupid... Fuels blended differently, but have a calculated octane rating of 98, may infact differ in there actual real world resistance to spontaneous combustion. What is my point? Fuels which contain alcohol that have a calculated rating of 98 infact have a real world resistance to combustion similar to a fuel that has a rating of 100.... So fuels mixed with alcohol will, in almost all cases, perform like fuel of a higher grade... Even with all the anti corosives to dull this mix a little, it does nothing but dilute the fuel down slightly and possibly even help the rating even more... This oxygenated/alcohol mixed fuel is also denser (as far as I'm aware, I'll have to check this though), so its my belief that if the exact same volume of elcohol mixed fuel is put into a cylinder with an exact, known quantity of air, then you will achieve a more explosive outcome than if you did the same thing with non mixed fuels, all volumes being the same... I could be wrong on this last bit though and it could be another reason rather than density/oxygen content related.... I also wanted to post something, regardless of what it was or not, because I'm bored and waiting to go out....

Great write up. I've always liked reading your posts, ding. Whether they are informative or not, they are never lacking in eloquence or understanding. You/nizpro have achieved a great result; keep up the good work.

Most of the auto up windows have sensors, similar to your CD drive, so that if it feels more than twice the normal resistance, it stops the window and goes back down again.... Well the liberty seemed to do that last time I remember (but I don't make a habbit out of sticking my arm in the window to stop it as it tries to go up....).