So I got to drive Luis' car last night...
07-28-2005, 10:08 AM
#1
I like rusty spoons
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I got to drive Luis' car last night...
...and DAMN IS IT FAST! :D
(background info in this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-major-horsepower-upgrades-93/dyno-might-have-read-wrong-what-about-mid-13s-1-4-mile-67666/)
Especially in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd...it pulls very strongly starting around 3k RPM and all the way to redline.
Holy ****. Huge difference from stock...huge.
I had to be careful when I got into tighter traffic because I didn't want to WOT it and rear-end anyone by accident. :p
I don't know if he mentioned this before, but here's something interesting:
- he has the GT version in Canada LOADED, which is leather, moonroof, NAV, etc.
- he has the MazdaSpeed bodykit
- when I drove it, Luis and his girlfriend were in the car.
So I'm just guessing, but if he ran a 13.7 with all this extra weight (minus girlfriend), I wonder what the same turbo setup would do on a barebones RX-8 at sea-level? I hope I'm not just being optimistic in saying that he would be into the 12s.
Well done Luis! You definitely have yourself a "rocketship" there.
(background info in this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-major-horsepower-upgrades-93/dyno-might-have-read-wrong-what-about-mid-13s-1-4-mile-67666/)
Especially in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd...it pulls very strongly starting around 3k RPM and all the way to redline.
Holy ****. Huge difference from stock...huge.
I had to be careful when I got into tighter traffic because I didn't want to WOT it and rear-end anyone by accident. :p
I don't know if he mentioned this before, but here's something interesting:
- he has the GT version in Canada LOADED, which is leather, moonroof, NAV, etc.
- he has the MazdaSpeed bodykit
- when I drove it, Luis and his girlfriend were in the car.
So I'm just guessing, but if he ran a 13.7 with all this extra weight (minus girlfriend), I wonder what the same turbo setup would do on a barebones RX-8 at sea-level? I hope I'm not just being optimistic in saying that he would be into the 12s.
Well done Luis! You definitely have yourself a "rocketship" there.
07-28-2005, 11:00 AM
#3
I like rusty spoons
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by evilbada1
doesn't matter if he runs at sea lvl or high up at mountain,
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
Originally Posted by rotarygod
Luis while you do lose some power with altitude, you don't lose nearly as much as a naturally aspirated car. As you pointed out, although the turbo can compensate and provide you with the amount of boost you desire, it has to spin faster to do it. This means more heat and lower efficiency for the boost you are running vs sea level. You still do lose a few percent to sea level though. SAE correction is setup to correct nontubo cars, not forced induction cars. It is a huge mistake for correction to be used on turbo cars so you should go by a noncorrected. Either way you won't get the exact same power numbers you would at sea level uncorrected but then again when was the last time you saw 2 different dynos anywhere give the same numbers? Just correct for temperature only, not altitude. Your uncorrected numbers will come back a little low but your corrected numbers will come back a little high. The key is knowing which one is closer to the truth. That would be the uncorrected sea level based one.
07-28-2005, 11:33 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary/London
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not too mention it was 30 degrees celsius last night.
i only wish i could have stayed long enough to drive it.
i hate having to meet my parents for dinner. maybe this weekend :D
i only wish i could have stayed long enough to drive it.
i hate having to meet my parents for dinner. maybe this weekend :D
07-28-2005, 12:01 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary/London
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Magic8
This is not helping. I've been trying to resist the urge to get the Greddy and dyno tune it to perfection. I got to stop visiting this forum....
07-28-2005, 12:25 PM
#7
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by khtm
...and DAMN IS IT FAST! :D
(background info in this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=67666)
Especially in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd...it pulls very strongly starting around 3k RPM and all the way to redline.
Holy ****. Huge difference from stock...huge.
I had to be careful when I got into tighter traffic because I didn't want to WOT it and rear-end anyone by accident. :p
I don't know if he mentioned this before, but here's something interesting:
- he has the GT version in Canada LOADED, which is leather, moonroof, NAV, etc.
- he has the MazdaSpeed bodykit
- when I drove it, Luis and his girlfriend were in the car.
So I'm just guessing, but if he ran a 13.7 with all this extra weight (minus girlfriend), I wonder what the same turbo setup would do on a barebones RX-8 at sea-level? I hope I'm not just being optimistic in saying that he would be into the 12s.
Well done Luis! You definitely have yourself a "rocketship" there.
(background info in this thread: https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=67666)
Especially in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd...it pulls very strongly starting around 3k RPM and all the way to redline.
Holy ****. Huge difference from stock...huge.
I had to be careful when I got into tighter traffic because I didn't want to WOT it and rear-end anyone by accident. :p
I don't know if he mentioned this before, but here's something interesting:
- he has the GT version in Canada LOADED, which is leather, moonroof, NAV, etc.
- he has the MazdaSpeed bodykit
- when I drove it, Luis and his girlfriend were in the car.
So I'm just guessing, but if he ran a 13.7 with all this extra weight (minus girlfriend), I wonder what the same turbo setup would do on a barebones RX-8 at sea-level? I hope I'm not just being optimistic in saying that he would be into the 12s.
Well done Luis! You definitely have yourself a "rocketship" there.
07-28-2005, 12:49 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 3,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Magic8
This is not helping. I've been trying to resist the urge to get the Greddy and dyno tune it to perfection. I got to stop visiting this forum....
07-28-2005, 01:22 PM
#9
"Call me Darkman"
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto/Florida
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
He would need closer to 300whp to be in the 12s, in addition to that most likely DRs and some upgraded drivetrain parts.
plus I believe luis said that he only launches at 4-5k
Last edited by DARKMAZ8; 07-28-2005 at 01:25 PM.
07-28-2005, 01:26 PM
#10
I like rusty spoons
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
He would need closer to 300whp to be in the 12s, in addition to that most likely DRs and some upgraded drivetrain parts.
Luis' stock setup fastest time was 15.2. He now runs 13.7. That's 1.5 sec. difference.
There are people who have done 14.4 stock. Take 1.5 seconds off that and that's 12.9.
I'll take your word for the drivetrain parts, but that's just my logic the 12's!
07-28-2005, 01:52 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by evilbada1
doesn't matter if he runs at sea lvl or high up at mountain,
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
If you run at sea level at 14.7 psia, the turbo at 8 PSI gives you 22.7 psia (approx). Atmospheric pressure decreases by approximately 1.0 psi for every 2,343 feet.
07-28-2005, 06:00 PM
#14
port hacker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: socal
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by evilbada1
doesn't matter if he runs at sea lvl or high up at mountain,
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
only NA engine will be affected due to altitude not the turbo engine
ultimate horsepower, yes, but i've seen turbo cars spool 5-700 rpm quicker at sea level, than where i live.
07-28-2005, 07:20 PM
#15
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by khtm
My theory is:
Luis' stock setup fastest time was 15.2. He now runs 13.7. That's 1.5 sec. difference.
There are people who have done 14.4 stock. Take 1.5 seconds off that and that's 12.9.
I'll take your word for the drivetrain parts, but that's just my logic the 12's!
Luis' stock setup fastest time was 15.2. He now runs 13.7. That's 1.5 sec. difference.
There are people who have done 14.4 stock. Take 1.5 seconds off that and that's 12.9.
I'll take your word for the drivetrain parts, but that's just my logic the 12's!
07-28-2005, 08:40 PM
#16
05 Champ Car Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
People have done 14.4 with a G-tech, don't know of anyone that's done it on a track. Most people, even good drivers, run high 14s and low 15s in the RX-8. As for the 13.7 and the 15.2, g-techs are fun toys but they're not real times, even if Luis' first run at the track was close to his best G-tech time...
Bottomline, everytime i say something i post some hard proof. Everytime "some people" say they can run low 14's "bone stock" no proof is given. So what is your claim?
Last edited by Lschiavo; 07-28-2005 at 09:02 PM.
07-28-2005, 09:10 PM
#17
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
People have done 14.4 with a G-tech, don't know of anyone that's done it on a track. Most people, even good drivers, run high 14s and low 15s in the RX-8. As for the 13.7 and the 15.2, g-techs are fun toys but they're not real times, even if Luis' first run at the track was close to his best G-tech time...
all the testing on the gtech and the gtimer shows them at .10 slow. as compared to a .25 mile run. and the differnce between the gtech and the gtimer is nill.
so get one or the other and post your time. or post a slip.
google gtech or gtimer. then read.
07-28-2005, 09:24 PM
#18
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My theory is:
Luis' stock setup fastest time was 15.2. He now runs 13.7. That's 1.5 sec. difference.
There are people who have done 14.4 stock. Take 1.5 seconds off that and that's 12.9.
I'll take your word for the drivetrain parts, but that's just my logic the 12's!
Luis' stock setup fastest time was 15.2. He now runs 13.7. That's 1.5 sec. difference.
There are people who have done 14.4 stock. Take 1.5 seconds off that and that's 12.9.
I'll take your word for the drivetrain parts, but that's just my logic the 12's!
It takes considerably more power to go from 14.4 to 12.9 than from 15.2 to 13.7.
As for the 13.7 and the 15.2, g-techs are fun toys but they're not real times, even if Luis' first run at the track was close to his best G-tech time...
07-28-2005, 09:29 PM
#19
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by swoope
ike,
all the testing on the gtech and the gtimer shows them at .10 slow. as compared to a .25 mile run. and the differnce between the gtech and the gtimer is nill.
so get one or the other and post your time. or post a slip.
google gtech or gtimer. then read.
all the testing on the gtech and the gtimer shows them at .10 slow. as compared to a .25 mile run. and the differnce between the gtech and the gtimer is nill.
so get one or the other and post your time. or post a slip.
google gtech or gtimer. then read.
Oh, and here's my slip from the first time at the track when I went semi stage 2. I'm on the left.
07-28-2005, 09:31 PM
#20
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sigma
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
It takes considerably more power to go from 14.4 to 12.9 than from 15.2 to 13.7.
If we were talking about one-off occurences you'd be right. But if one consistently ran a 15.2 before and then could consistently run a 13.7 afterwards, the gain is real. Does that mean that you'd run a 13.7 at the track? No. But it means you'd probably shave something close to 1.5s off what you would have ran otherwise.
It takes considerably more power to go from 14.4 to 12.9 than from 15.2 to 13.7.
If we were talking about one-off occurences you'd be right. But if one consistently ran a 15.2 before and then could consistently run a 13.7 afterwards, the gain is real. Does that mean that you'd run a 13.7 at the track? No. But it means you'd probably shave something close to 1.5s off what you would have ran otherwise.
07-28-2005, 09:33 PM
#21
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Virginia/Maryland
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gtechs are actually very accurate, in the sense of the word accurate. They are off by less than 0.01s. They use the same technology that planes navigate with. Just simple integration of the acceleration force detected by an accelarometer. It is proven technology. They do not give the same time as a track for the following reasons.
-If the user is on a road with a variable slope, it will not be accurate.
-If they don't calibrate the vertical position properly it will not be accurate.
-At the track there is about 1.5 feet of flexibility in where you launch from since the wheel sensors only make sure some part of the tire is in line with it. I've seen experiments done that can take over a 0.1s off the time by adjusting the position you launch from. On the gtech pro, maybe other models too, there is a feature to accomodate this variable though.
As long as these error sources are addressed, the Gtech is a pretty accurate tool.
-If the user is on a road with a variable slope, it will not be accurate.
-If they don't calibrate the vertical position properly it will not be accurate.
-At the track there is about 1.5 feet of flexibility in where you launch from since the wheel sensors only make sure some part of the tire is in line with it. I've seen experiments done that can take over a 0.1s off the time by adjusting the position you launch from. On the gtech pro, maybe other models too, there is a feature to accomodate this variable though.
As long as these error sources are addressed, the Gtech is a pretty accurate tool.
07-28-2005, 09:53 PM
#23
Bummed, but bring on OU!
I don't care about ET's, show me some trap speeds!! . For me, good ET = driver, good MPH = car. So much depends on the 60ft/launch to get a good ET, and the 8's suspension just isn't setup for launching, so it takes even more ability and a good surface to get that great launch. A good trap speed on the other hand, tells me how well the car is running.
. For me, good ET = driver, good MPH = car. So much depends on the 60ft/launch to get a good ET, and the 8's suspension just isn't setup for launching, so it takes even more ability and a good surface to get that great launch. A good trap speed on the other hand, tells me how well the car is running.
07-28-2005, 11:10 PM
#24
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by therm8
I don't care about ET's, show me some trap speeds!! . For me, good ET = driver, good MPH = car. So much depends on the 60ft/launch to get a good ET, and the 8's suspension just isn't setup for launching, so it takes even more ability and a good surface to get that great launch. A good trap speed on the other hand, tells me how well the car is running.
. For me, good ET = driver, good MPH = car. So much depends on the 60ft/launch to get a good ET, and the 8's suspension just isn't setup for launching, so it takes even more ability and a good surface to get that great launch. A good trap speed on the other hand, tells me how well the car is running.
07-28-2005, 11:31 PM
#25
05 Champ Car Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IkeWRX
Is this testing from the manufacturers? Look, g-techs can be fun and they can even be useful, but there are too many ways to fudge things. Slight inclines in the road, bumps, jerking the car on hard shifts will all throw them off. I'm in no way being a "crying baby" about this, I'd just like to see all the crazy g-tech math stop. I'd also love to see Luis go to the track and run that 13.7. I'm not sure why he hasn't since he'd be the first greedy on this site (to my knowledge) to break 14s if he did...
Oh, and here's my slip from the first time at the track when I went semi stage 2. I'm on the left.
Oh, and here's my slip from the first time at the track when I went semi stage 2. I'm on the left.
I havent gone to the track because I have things to do too. There is a track that opens friday night but sometimes i have other things to do than going there. I usually do my runs on my way home when almost nobody is around.
now, is that time slip from an rx8? Bottomline, i shaved 1.5 sec of my best time, i am happy with that.