KG TUNING - demo car.
15 November 2014, 04:22 PM
#181
This has made me chuckle I have been working alot so not been on much but all i have to say is mega LOL.
So matt, with my lardy newage 6sp should I be posting times of 10.5 if i went back to a 5sp?
Just to add, another best today in the damp 11.34
So matt, with my lardy newage 6sp should I be posting times of 10.5 if i went back to a 5sp?
Just to add, another best today in the damp 11.34
15 November 2014, 07:00 PM
#182
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Now we all know the 2001-2007 Newage WRX beats the STI, even with 20% less power how do later models fair?
2009:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test
2009 265bhp WRX 0-60 = 4.7 secs 1/4 13.5
2009 305bhp STI 0-60 = 5.0 secs 1/4 13.6
...and now in 2015?
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...ru-wrx-vs-sti/
What the graph shows is that the WRX can get to full boost in about 6.75 seconds, while the STI takes about 9.5 seconds. It's a big difference.
At the beginning of the test, both engines are producing about 130 lb-ft after one second of throttle.
At the 2-second mark, the STI is up to 135; the WRX is already at 165 lb-ft.
At the 3-second mark, the STI is only at 140 lb-ft. The WRX is at a whopping 180 lb-ft!
At the 4-second mark, when the STI has managed to get to 145, the WRX is nearing 190.
At the 5-second mark, the STI is just pushing past 150 lb-ft; the WRX is nearing 200.
And when the WRX is making full torque (210 lb-ft in this case), the STI is only at 165.
2015 265bhp WRX 5-60 = 7.0 secs
2015 305bhp STI 5-60 = 7.1 secs
Bottom line: Unless you're planning to enter time attack, choose the WRX every time folks!
Last edited by RS_Matt; 26 October 2015 at 01:06 AM.
15 November 2014, 07:39 PM
#184
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
With 433 I'd expect 11.5
The difference in the gearboxes is night and day.
The 6 is purely designed for a fat under-powered car, just like the fat Skyline GTR ratios. They are great for normal takeoffs as they get you on boost quicker but for launching with bigger power they are too short, the 5 speed is the opposite, on the road the ratios are too long and you'll be found out if you don't take off with enough revs.
If You increase power 50% or more with a 6 speed and 1st and 2nd becomes unusable. I've seen many Newage STI's at the strip that might as well start off in 3rd.
The difference in the gearboxes is night and day.
The 6 is purely designed for a fat under-powered car, just like the fat Skyline GTR ratios. They are great for normal takeoffs as they get you on boost quicker but for launching with bigger power they are too short, the 5 speed is the opposite, on the road the ratios are too long and you'll be found out if you don't take off with enough revs.
If You increase power 50% or more with a 6 speed and 1st and 2nd becomes unusable. I've seen many Newage STI's at the strip that might as well start off in 3rd.
16 November 2014, 10:57 AM
#188
With 433 I'd expect 11.5
The difference in the gearboxes is night and day.
The 6 is purely designed for a fat under-powered car, just like the fat Skyline GTR ratios. They are great for normal takeoffs as they get you on boost quicker but for launching with bigger power they are too short, the 5 speed is the opposite, on the road the ratios are too long and you'll be found out if you don't take off with enough revs. If You increase power 50% or more with a 6 speed and 1st and 2nd becomes unusable. I've seen many Newage STI's at the strip that might as well start off in 3rd.
The difference in the gearboxes is night and day.
The 6 is purely designed for a fat under-powered car, just like the fat Skyline GTR ratios. They are great for normal takeoffs as they get you on boost quicker but for launching with bigger power they are too short, the 5 speed is the opposite, on the road the ratios are too long and you'll be found out if you don't take off with enough revs.
If You increase power 50% or more with a 6 speed and 1st and 2nd becomes unusable. I've seen many Newage STI's at the strip that might as well start off in 3rd.Go out there and do your times, forget what everyone else is doing as it is a waste of time and energy, by your reckoning an 11.5 in a newage with 433hp should be impossible if my car is cracking 11.3's with 530+hp with less weight and the short 6sp box.
You cant compare between tracks or power etc, the only times comparable are times ran on the same course on the same day. There are too many variables to consider.
I saw a 420hp classic this weekend run an 11.5 and that was a brilliant run but he was on PROPER slicks and had the shortest RA box in it.
I ran 11.3 on road tyres and 550+(Maybe?)hp....
Now he got a better time as with less power and stickier tyres the conditions were not a problem for his car, for my car the track was too slippery and I was getting wheel spin in 3rd and 4th gear. Its not as black and white as "my car will do this, and his car should do this" as there are so many variables, mainly driver and conditions....
16 November 2014, 11:12 AM
#189
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Tbh Jay I've seen too many runs and timeslips to be able to argue in favour of the shirter ratios for drag use. One time has stood out though and that was scoobydoo69's time of 12.1 with 370/360. I can't help thinking though if he added power he'd lose time in the 330 foot ang gain it in yhe last 1/8 so that with 470 he'd still be pushing similar times.
16 November 2014, 11:18 AM
#190
Tbh Jay I've seen too many runs and timeslips to be able to argue in favour of the shirter ratios for drag use. One time has stood out though and that was scoobydoo69's time of 12.1 with 370/360. I can't help thinking though if he added power he'd lose time in the 330 foot ang gain it in yhe last 1/8 so that with 470 he'd still be pushing similar times.
The gearbox argument is irrelevant because at some point you will not have any choice but to do something about the 5speed.
16 November 2014, 11:22 AM
#192
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Not if I'm staying below 350bhp! For me it's worth 450 in an STI, and TBH not many have funds to pass 450 in the STI! ...or get to 450!
16 November 2014, 11:24 AM
#193
16 November 2014, 11:27 AM
#194
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
16 November 2014, 11:34 AM
#196
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I've raced 2 Newage STI's with well over 500bhp and left both to 40-60mph, with a suitable 5 speed they would have shaved a hell of a lot of time of their ET.
Basically they are changing and spinning like mad for the first 100 foot or so. They are like FWD waiting for traction but with the burden of hitting the limiter or losing revs due to changing more..
16 November 2014, 11:37 AM
#197
The one I got off your mate bit the dust yesterday 
See matt you are wrong, the gearbox has nothing to do with that! Its the traction that they are struggling with due to the power..... Imagine how it feels in something like a classic which is much lighter, I was wheel spinning into 4th gear and completely sideways most of the way up the 1/4.
Putting in a 5 speed would not have helped me one bit.... The first 60ft or so yes the slower car was beating me, by the time I hit 3rd gear they get left for dust,
If it breaks, peanuts for another.
I've raced 2 Newage STI's with well over 500bhp and left both to 40-60mph, with a suitable 5 speed they would have shaved a hell of a lot of time of their ET.
Basically they are changing and spinning like mad for the first 100 foot or so. They are like FWD waiting for traction but with the burden of hitting the limiter or losing revs due to changing more..
I've raced 2 Newage STI's with well over 500bhp and left both to 40-60mph, with a suitable 5 speed they would have shaved a hell of a lot of time of their ET.
Basically they are changing and spinning like mad for the first 100 foot or so. They are like FWD waiting for traction but with the burden of hitting the limiter or losing revs due to changing more..
Putting in a 5 speed would not have helped me one bit.... The first 60ft or so yes the slower car was beating me, by the time I hit 3rd gear they get left for dust,
16 November 2014, 11:44 AM
#198
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The one I got off your mate bit the dust yesterday
See matt you are wrong, the gearbox has nothing to do with that! Its the traction that they are struggling with due to the power..... Imagine how it feels in something like a classic which is much lighter, I was wheel spinning into 4th gear and completely sideways most of the way up the 1/4.
Putting in a 5 speed would not have helped me one bit.... The first 60ft or so yes the slower car was beating me, by the time I hit 3rd gear they get left for dust,
See matt you are wrong, the gearbox has nothing to do with that! Its the traction that they are struggling with due to the power..... Imagine how it feels in something like a classic which is much lighter, I was wheel spinning into 4th gear and completely sideways most of the way up the 1/4.
Putting in a 5 speed would not have helped me one bit.... The first 60ft or so yes the slower car was beating me, by the time I hit 3rd gear they get left for dust,
At power below 350 a 6 speed is like having 30-50bhp less than a 5 speed, at power over 350 it become 50-whatever. This basic theory is reflected in the 100's of times I've witnessed.
16 November 2014, 11:48 AM
#199
I think it would. You wouldn't have spun with my 4th gear and launching with a 5 at revs is like setting off in 2nd in an STI without as much spin or sudden change to the next gear!
At power below 350 a 6 speed is like having 30-50bhp less than a 5 speed, at power over 350 it become 50-whatever. This basic theory is reflected in the 100's of times I've witnessed.
At power below 350 a 6 speed is like having 30-50bhp less than a 5 speed, at power over 350 it become 50-whatever. This basic theory is reflected in the 100's of times I've witnessed.
Think logically about this -
Massive power
Wet
Very well worn road tyres
It was never going to go in a straight line yesterday no matter what....
16 November 2014, 11:54 AM
#200
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
TBH Jay I'd like to compare Classic times between cars running a 5 & 6.
For example:
CAR A 6 SPEED 440BHP
CAR B 5 SPEED 340BHP
I can imagine the weight of a powerful 6 speed classic makes it quite forgiving once it gets traction and gets passed the tricky 2nd and 3rd quickfire changes.
Car A 6 speed 11.34 515bhp
Right time to check 5 speed Classic times!!! (in the wet)
I really need to do a Scoobynet drag leaderboard as to not fill my project thread up with hypothetical baloney!
For example:
CAR A 6 SPEED 440BHP
CAR B 5 SPEED 340BHP
I can imagine the weight of a powerful 6 speed classic makes it quite forgiving once it gets traction and gets passed the tricky 2nd and 3rd quickfire changes.
Car A 6 speed 11.34 515bhp
Right time to check 5 speed Classic times!!! (in the wet)
I really need to do a Scoobynet drag leaderboard as to not fill my project thread up with hypothetical baloney!
Last edited by RS_Matt; 16 November 2014 at 12:02 PM.
16 November 2014, 12:01 PM
#201
TBH Jay I'd like to compare Classic times between cars running a 5 & 6.
For example:
CAR A 6 SPEED 440BHP
CAR B 5 SPEED 340BHP
I can imagine the weight of a powerful 6 speed classic makes it quite forgiving once it gets traction and gets passed the tricky 2nd and 3rd quickfire changes.
Car A 6 speed 11.34 515bhp
Right time to check 5 speed Classic times!!! (in the wet)
For example:
CAR A 6 SPEED 440BHP
CAR B 5 SPEED 340BHP
I can imagine the weight of a powerful 6 speed classic makes it quite forgiving once it gets traction and gets passed the tricky 2nd and 3rd quickfire changes.
Car A 6 speed 11.34 515bhp
Right time to check 5 speed Classic times!!! (in the wet)
16 November 2014, 12:07 PM
#202
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
First time I've found is Andy Forrest in an STI v5 with TMIC - 10.7! Love to know with what box!
Right here we go kids - get your times posted and no comments about handling etc.
https://www.scoobynet.com/driving-dy...aderboard.html
STI with the same power as mine 332bhp.
Whole second slower....
...the pattern continues...
I mean the decently launched STI racing this WR1 has 348bhp/401lb and runs a 13.9 - I was running 13.7's with just 285bhp/273lb!!!!!!!!!
How can you argue with the WRX???
13.5 from a 240bhp PPP WRX
...makes the 13.9 from the 348bhp STI look silly. I won't mention the WR1 with at least 316bhp's time.
This run is even more damning for the STI - 13.9 from a 215bhp Bugeye WRX!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test
2009 265bhp WRX 0-60 = 4.7secs 1/4 13.5
2009 305bhp STI 0-60 = 5.0secs 1/4 13.6
Do we need anymore proof the WRX is 20% faster than an STI? The 6 speed gear box is wänk.
Right here we go kids - get your times posted and no comments about handling etc.
https://www.scoobynet.com/driving-dy...aderboard.html
STI with the same power as mine 332bhp.
Whole second slower....
...the pattern continues...
I mean the decently launched STI racing this WR1 has 348bhp/401lb and runs a 13.9 - I was running 13.7's with just 285bhp/273lb!!!!!!!!!
How can you argue with the WRX???
13.5 from a 240bhp PPP WRX
...makes the 13.9 from the 348bhp STI look silly. I won't mention the WR1 with at least 316bhp's time.
This run is even more damning for the STI - 13.9 from a 215bhp Bugeye WRX!
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test
2009 265bhp WRX 0-60 = 4.7secs 1/4 13.5
2009 305bhp STI 0-60 = 5.0secs 1/4 13.6
Do we need anymore proof the WRX is 20% faster than an STI? The 6 speed gear box is wänk.
Last edited by RS_Matt; 22 December 2014 at 01:45 PM.
28 September 2015, 08:21 PM
#203
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Odyssey PC680 7kg lightweight battery with brass terminals now up and running! Installation was interesting.
The battery now installed the right way around!!! (Just blew the main fuse and radio, phew! ...even though the forum "experts" all predicted mass failures) Guys if you do wire the battery the wrong way around, just buy an 80 amp Pal fuse off ebay as nowhere in the UK friggin stock them new or know what they are, luckily my local scrap yard had 1 japanese car in stock!
Car flew through MOT today with just 1 advisory (CV boot yet again) After 9 months away I've forgotten how fast the car is :O
The battery now installed the right way around!!! (Just blew the main fuse and radio, phew! ...even though the forum "experts" all predicted mass failures) Guys if you do wire the battery the wrong way around, just buy an 80 amp Pal fuse off ebay as nowhere in the UK friggin stock them new or know what they are, luckily my local scrap yard had 1 japanese car in stock!
Car flew through MOT today with just 1 advisory (CV boot yet again) After 9 months away I've forgotten how fast the car is :O
Last edited by RS_Matt; 01 March 2016 at 03:22 PM.
11 October 2015, 05:37 PM
#204
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Big thanks to KG Tuning this Sunday aft for loosening the oil sump plug for me.
Dropping down from Millers 10w50 CFS to Millers 5w40 Nanodrive CFS
Not fussed about the 44.9lbft gain some car magazine testers managed, it's the improved MPG claims that excite me!
Dropping down from Millers 10w50 CFS to Millers 5w40 Nanodrive CFS
Not fussed about the 44.9lbft gain some car magazine testers managed, it's the improved MPG claims that excite me!
11 October 2015, 07:44 PM
#206
So you got your missus to undo a sump plug matt?!?!
You do astound me some times.... Anyway get this drag dy organised so you can sort out this arguments once and for all!
You do astound me some times.... Anyway get this drag dy organised so you can sort out this arguments once and for all!
12 October 2015, 09:31 PM
#210
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter