Me please:

320bhp
4WD
1100kg


Marc

 

OK, Here's some more figures:

4WD:
Toerag 177 1450 122 8.0 16.4

Marcxsmann 320 1100 291 3.7 11.9
(thats quick, are you sure its really only 1100kilos with 4wd?)


RWD:
CraigH 225 481 468 3.3 11.7
dingy 550 900 611 3.2 11.2
(both cars very quick!...must be road legal trackday type cars??)

FWD:
PeteVV 225 1479 152 7.3 15.6

Cheers
STEVE

 

Hi, could I have two more please!

205bhp 1119kgs + fwd (ibiza)

170bhp 535kgs + rwd.

Cheers

Steve.

 

FWD
Steve Terzo 205 1119 183 6.3 14.7

RWD
Steve Terzo 170 535 318 3.9 12.4


I'm off to watch the footie now, but if anyone else wants some figures just leave the details, different stages of tune can be interesting!

Cheers
STEVE

 

Hehehe!!!

The car CraigH gave details of is our XTR2. We are currently considering a 1400cc overbore kit for our busa engine. Power will rise from 172 to Craigs approx figure. Thats a pretty good gain for about £1500 including engine management

Dingys car is - well - just something else

I guess you must be able to calculate terminal speed.

Dingy....give the man your old power figure for the car and see how close it is to what you know you got - this is a very interesting calc.

Keep up the good work

Ian

 

Not bad, either my old car was lighter or it had more power as managed a 14.01 1/4 mile and 5.7 to 60.

Pretty impressive still.

Thanks

 

1230kg
255bhp
4wd
cheers m8

 

Old spec.

405bhp
900kilos
rwd

3.2 to 60 FFS, Never gonna be possible LOL

Far to much wheel spin.....

My last 1/4 was 13.01 @ 124.9mph, with 2 black lines the whole strip

 

Well get your bean tin back on the road then Dingley!


Steve - can you calculate for my heap pls?

310bhp RWD (Sapph) 1250kg

Ta guv
greg

 

I wouldn't go by the 0-60 formulas too much, I'm far happy with the 1/4 mile figures which give better results.

Re the rwd wheelspin issue, and we are using road tyres here, i'm thinking of suggesting on the web site to possible use the fwd formula if you think this is an exessive problem. This calcuates the "much much high power per ratios" as a problem and increases the time slightly depending on it. Its also been set so eventually you get to a point where even more and more power and more and more wheelspin will start to give worse times, def for 0-60.

Anyway, here's some more figures:

4WD
Buff 255 1230 207 4.8 13.2

RWD
Greggers 310 1250 248 4.7 12.9


RWD
Dingy old spec 405 900 450 3.3 11.5 (rwd formula)
Dingy old spec 405 900 450 4.2 12.4 (fwd formula with major wheelspin)

Dingy new spec 550 900 611 3.2 11.2 (rwd formula)
Dingy new spec 550 900 611 4.4 12.4 (fwd formula)

Dinga, this gives, errrrr interesting results! Using the fwd formula it gives a worse time for 0-60 with 550bhp than it does with 405bhp, due to wheel spin, but the 1/4 mile times come up as the same, once the extra power brings it back up to pace. When I eventually do terminal speeds this would be shown. I think I'll stick to the rwd formula and tell you to fit grippy tyres!

The Mclaren F1 seems to work with the rwd formula, and i'm sure that has wheelspin:
Mclaren F1 627 1138 551 3.2 11.2





Seperating the figures, I've also designed a formula that, if YOU provide the 0-60 time, it calculates the 1/4 mile for you. So going by REAL ROAD TEST (2nd to last column)0-60s, it calculates the following 1/4 miles fWD samples (end column):

Citroen Saxo VTS 02 120 935 128 8.4 16.8 7.6 16.1
Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo 00 220 1307 168 6.7 15.1 6.4 14.8
Ford Focus RS 02 212 1278 166 6.8 15.2 5.9 14.3
Honda Civic Type-R 02 197 1204 164 6.8 15.3 6.8 15.2
Mini Cooper S 01 161 1140 141 7.7 16.2 7.4 15.8
Peugeot 106 GTi 1.6 97 120 950 126 8.5 17.0 8.3 16.8
Peugeot 206 Gti 02 137 1028 133 8.1 16.6 7.4 15.9
Peugeot 306 GTi-6 2.0 99 167 1215 137 7.9 16.3 7.2 15.6
Renault Cio Williams 93 150 981 153 7.2 15.7 7.7 16.2
Renault Clio Sport 172 mk1 00 170 1059 161 7.0 15.4 6.6 15.0
Renault Clio Sport 172 mk2 02 170 1110 153 7.2 15.6 7.1 15.5
Renault Clio Sport Cup 02 170 1011 168 6.7 15.1 6.5 14.9
Seat Leon Cupra R 02 210 1376 153 7.2 15.6 7.2 15.6
Skoda Octavia RS 02 180 1354 133 8.1 16.5 7.9 16.3
Volkswagen Golf GTi (mk1) 83 112 906 124 8.6 17.1 9.0 17.5
Volkswagen Golf GTi 8v 3dr(mk2) 86 112 920 122 8.8 17.3 8.3 16.8
Volkswagen Golf GTi 16v 3dr(mk2) 92 139 1020 136 8.0 16.4 7.7 16.2
Volkswagen Golf 1.8T Gti 02 150 1236 121 8.8 17.2 7.8 16.3
Volkswagen Golf VR6 96 174 1220 143 7.7 16.1 7.1 15.5
Volkswagen Corrado VR6 96 190 1237 154 7.2 15.6 6.7 15.1


cheers
STEVE

 

ok try this
600hp,1150kg 4x4

 

The big guns are coming out now-it'll be Ronnie and Simon Norris next.

 

I was thinking of making one of these myself a while ago as I have yet to find a accurate one for 4WD transmission.

OK try this Impreza time. 1235 271 bhp. ( @ 1.2 bar)

I've done loads of 1/4 runs lately for comparisons.

Is it backwards compatable as I done a 13.28 1/4 at 1.4 bar which I've never been dyno'd at so could it give my power?

 

Try my down on power scooby replacement.

165bhp
1190kg
FWD

Lee

 

Topic is still going then! Hoping to have a very skelton version of the web site up and running with a week or so now, I have a friend currently helping out.

Anyway, Martin, you obviously saw your car down as one of the Demo samples I quoted:
Ford Escort RS Cosworth (Martin H) REYLAND 500 1304 383 3.1 11.2
With the new 600bhp engine and a weight of 1150kg's, the best figures come up as:

Ford Escort RS Cosworth (Martin H) REYLAND 600 1150 522 2.7 10.7


Dannyboyturbo - the forumla should be showing the very best you can possile achieve, 271bhp and just 1235kg 4wd comes up as (2 decimal points):
Dannyboyturbo 271 1235 219 4.6 12.93

yes, it can be reversed, the formula shows that the least amount of power required to acheive your time of 13.28secs is 251bhp:
reverse formular 251 1235 203 4.9 13.28
This suggests the car is capable of a lot more than the times you've got, I don't know how much an extra 0.2 bar in your spec will get, but going by say an extra approx 20bhp with 1.4bar ie 290bhp its:
Dannyboyturbo 290bhp 290 1235 235 4.3 12.7

The times look optimistic, but it is, in my theory, what can be done.


Logiclee, here's your fwd new car:
logiclee 165 1190 139 7.8 16.3


cheers
STEVE










[Edited by nisr227 - 3/22/2003 10:46:09 PM]

 

Perhaps you should be asking the question how many people have actually been able to achive your figures. Whilst I appreiciate you are aiming to give the best possible time I still think they are a tad too optamistic.

Just concentrating on the (1.2 bar) 271 bhp run. I am absolutely certain there is no possible way of getting a much quicker time than 13.50 OK so you may be able to shave 0.1 maybe even 0.2 but theres no way anyone could get it down to 12.93

I done run after run changing different things each time and it was consistently between 13.5 & 13.7 This in itself is not enough to say it won't go faster but when you consider I was alot quicker than all other imprezas that were at the event most of which were of the same or higher power. I was also alot quicker than some seriously quick cars (F355, M5, TVR ).

The only thing I can think of is that maybe the concrete air field runway that it was on is makeing all the difference but there is'nt too much spin on any of the vid clips.

 

cheers! i will try to prove your calculations are correct!

 

1600kg - 450bhp 4WD. RS4, should be about 12.7.

 

Two more please

4WD
650 KG
64 BHP

and then 120 BHP

Thanks

 

What i don't understand is why shouldn't someone use a proper car simulator where you can adjust every single parameter of the car/temperature/tarmac coefficient of friction and get some proper results.


I personally use the CARTEST simulator and the program is more accurate than everything else i used.
scroll to the bottom of the page and you'll be able to find a link to download it.
Pat's Programs Page

 

And you can also calculate how fast the car can corner

 

What were your 60' and 1/8 times?If they were more than about 1.7/1.8secs and 8.5secs then there's loads of room for improvement-I find each 1/10 I knock off here translates to 2/10 at the finish as it's in these stages where the improvements are made through better launching and faster shifting.
The formula seems pretty accurate to me(especially consider it's very basic in data needed).

[Edited by skiddus_markus - 3/23/2003 9:19:44 PM]

 

Here a load of different 1/4 times from last weekends TSC-III

I know its not much use to ya cos it does not show weight or BHP but it will give you some idea of realisic times.

click here

[Edited by DannyBoyTurbo - 3/23/2003 7:49:15 PM]

 

skiddus_markus - they only measured the 1/4 times but i'm certain from everyones comments that I had the launches sussed. See the clip below

Dannyslaunch.mpg (right click then save as)

I think I'll invest in one of those accelerometer thingy's for future events of this kind. And also get along to santa pod to see if their glue sprayed tarmac makes all the difference.

 

Oh Steve, I almost forgot about the little project I've been working on in the garage

450kg's 130bhp RWD

[Edited by DannyBoyTurbo - 3/23/2003 8:14:35 PM]

 

Just to clear a few things up, the whole point of my Formula(s) is to find out what the 1/4 mile (and 0-60) times is by just looking at very "basic data", as I mentioned on my very first post, there are far more, and far better, complicated programs out there that require all sorts of data to get an acurate result, and they are excellent, but mine's very simple. WHY?...........becuase, like many others, when I read a preview of a forth coming car, an article about a modified car, or just checking road test results, I can see, "very quickly" what times the car should do, IMO, with basic available data that can been seen in most articles.

The whole point of quoting a 1/4 mile time in articles or where ever, is to show what a car is "fully" capable of, we all know in the real world, epecially on the road, that our times will be slower, due to many factors, including conditions, skill and mainly vehicles TLC etc, in fact in the real world the 1/4 mile isn't that important. But if you went to a very sticky service like SANTAPOD, and perfect your drive with many runs, on a good day, you will get close to the best capable time.

I personally do not compare Airfield 1/4 mile times with the sticky service of Santapod, IMO, I have no doubt that airfields give you slightly slower times, mainly due to the poor concrete service, I know I've got much slower times on them.

Danny, please go to Santapod, and see what you achieve, if the conditions allow it, I'm sure you will be quicker and closer to my optimistic times. But if you not giving it full, then add 0.5secs to the prediticted times to allow this.

I can't comment on Scoob times too much, but I can comment on similar bhp/ton cars. I recently witnessed at SANTAPOD over 10 runs of my friends GtiR with very basic mods, running about 290bhp and 1 bar. He consistantly hit high 12s, with a best of 12.74secs!...this is what my formular suggested with 1250kgs and 290bhp. I was speaking with him most the afternoon. On the other hand, due to a problem with my boost controller safety level, I was only running standard boost (0.65bar) on my Pulsar with 240bhp, with 6 runs, I got three 13.8sec runs, but I was being careful on the gearchanging and could of gone quicker. My formular suggested 13.5secs for a maxed run with such bhp, which seems possible. Next time I'm there running higher boost, I hope to get into the 12's and within a tenth or two of my predticted 290bhp time, we'll see.

The formula is my opinion what the best you can get AT SANTAPOD or similar, ie on a very sticky service, with no TLC, if your running on a airfield then add a bit more time, eg say 0.3/5sec to the predicted figure.

 

Here's some more time's:
Veracocha, I've quoted a standard RS4 for comparison.

4WD:
Audi RS4 Standard 02 375 1620 231 4.4 12.6
RS4 Veracocha 450bhp 450 1620 278 3.8 12.0
RS4 Veracocha 450bhp 450 1620 278 4.3 12.4 (RWD Formula)

4wd:
ScoobyDoo 64 650 98 9.9 18.4
ScoobyDoo 120bhp 120 650 185 5.4 13.9

RWD:
Dannyboyturbo 130 450 289 4.2 12.7


cheers
STEVE

 

Watched the clip and it looked like you got the launch right and a nice fast change into second so like Steve said,get your car to the pod and see what it can really do.

 

I presume the 264 is the power at the wheels figure?? Not bad, its actually 272.2 measured on this rolling road

Results can be seen here

 

Steve - Please note... I'm in no way trying to put down what you're trying to do here. What you're doing is exellent and much appriciated by all.

Keep it up and keep us all informed of how its going.

Thank you.