"Lateral Performance 450bhp syncro gear kit"
13 January 2004, 12:32 AM
#121
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
since you have not got your calculator out I thought I would have a go at answering Marks question.
Certainly on the face of it, your car is quicker on the the figures you give, and no-one, certainly not me is saying anything otherwise. You know I have praised your results elsewhere
Anyway, using the figures from TOTB I, I did a little calculation with the help of French-Property.com to save any mistakes on the imperial metric calculations.
My assumptions are
TOTB I = 500m drag
TOTB II = Quarter mile drag = 402.336m
Difference over the drag = 97.664m
13.45s for 500m with an EV of 126mph
Assuming that ideally the car was travelling at its terminal speed for the last 97.664m, i.e. 56.3255 m/s, then this would give a potential quarter of 11.716078s.
Not bad for a car running like cack!
Mind you, this would be the worst case, as according the the tapes the car was still accelerating towards the end of the run.
So lets assume that the car passes through the quarter at around 110mp and slowly accelerates to 126mph, and take a conservative view of average velocity, say 115mph, or 51.408194m/s, then this gives a quarter mile time of 11.55s.
Ok, so these are pretty conservative quarter mile times, nothing startling there given this years results. Except that, conservatively, Marks car is 150kgs heavier than yours, if not nearer 220kgs IIRC, as it weighs in at well over 1400kgs loaded. Although the above figures do not take account of this!
Of course, if the car was slowing down to 126mph over the last 97m, the potential quarter time would be slower, but then the quarter final speed would be much better!
Cheers,
Rannoch
since you have not got your calculator out I thought I would have a go at answering Marks question.
Certainly on the face of it, your car is quicker on the the figures you give, and no-one, certainly not me is saying anything otherwise. You know I have praised your results elsewhere
Anyway, using the figures from TOTB I, I did a little calculation with the help of French-Property.com to save any mistakes on the imperial metric calculations.
My assumptions are
TOTB I = 500m drag
TOTB II = Quarter mile drag = 402.336m
Difference over the drag = 97.664m
13.45s for 500m with an EV of 126mph
Assuming that ideally the car was travelling at its terminal speed for the last 97.664m, i.e. 56.3255 m/s, then this would give a potential quarter of 11.716078s.
Not bad for a car running like cack!
Mind you, this would be the worst case, as according the the tapes the car was still accelerating towards the end of the run.
So lets assume that the car passes through the quarter at around 110mp and slowly accelerates to 126mph, and take a conservative view of average velocity, say 115mph, or 51.408194m/s, then this gives a quarter mile time of 11.55s.
Ok, so these are pretty conservative quarter mile times, nothing startling there given this years results. Except that, conservatively, Marks car is 150kgs heavier than yours, if not nearer 220kgs IIRC, as it weighs in at well over 1400kgs loaded. Although the above figures do not take account of this!
Of course, if the car was slowing down to 126mph over the last 97m, the potential quarter time would be slower, but then the quarter final speed would be much better!
Cheers,
Rannoch
13 January 2004, 12:43 AM
#122
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan,
Happy New Year to you too!
if you would like to discuss the protocol for mapping my car then I suggest you put it in my Projects thread as it would be off topic here.
The potential power of Marks car is relevant to this thread.
Cheers,
Rannoch
Happy New Year to you too!
if you would like to discuss the protocol for mapping my car then I suggest you put it in my Projects thread as it would be off topic here.
The potential power of Marks car is relevant to this thread.
Cheers,
Rannoch
13 January 2004, 12:43 AM
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for clearing that up. With spending time mapping on a bench dyno, then having to map again on the road, i wondered why you would want to go down that route and incur double costs (if you're not a mapper).
Why do you not just build the engine, put it in the car and go out and map on the road, slowly making the necessary adjustments the engine will need with regards to fuelling and timing
Why do you not just build the engine, put it in the car and go out and map on the road, slowly making the necessary adjustments the engine will need with regards to fuelling and timing
13 January 2004, 12:44 AM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With relevance to this thread, both Mark and PAR have emailed me with suggestions as to resolution and I have replied to both and await the earliest possible resolution to my claim.
13 January 2004, 12:50 AM
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rannoch
The reference on dyno/road mapping was really a generic statement aimed at no one in particular. Reason for questioning the worthiness of mapping on a dyno and then on the road was brought about by Marks need to re-map the car when it was installed in the car.
I couldn't understand why anybody should have to map a car twice!!, but you've explained the problem with fuel supply at the dyno company.
Alan
The reference on dyno/road mapping was really a generic statement aimed at no one in particular. Reason for questioning the worthiness of mapping on a dyno and then on the road was brought about by Marks need to re-map the car when it was installed in the car.
I couldn't understand why anybody should have to map a car twice!!, but you've explained the problem with fuel supply at the dyno company.
Alan
13 January 2004, 01:03 AM
#126
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" In this case read theoretical calculations. Let's just stick to the facts.
So we have a high percentage of failed PAR gear sets, operating below their rated power.
Unsubstantiated claims about their testing.
No explanation as to how they could be tested rigerously without failure but in the field suffer a high failure rate.
And now we hear for the first time that the manufacturer has changed his supply and guarantee policy.
How does that effect the existing users, many of whom bought on the strength of the claims and sales bull in ignorance of the mounting failure rate.
No wonder people are asking for proof of vendor claims on this and other threads.
[Edited by harvey - 1/13/2004 1:09:07 AM]
So we have a high percentage of failed PAR gear sets, operating below their rated power.
Unsubstantiated claims about their testing.
No explanation as to how they could be tested rigerously without failure but in the field suffer a high failure rate.
And now we hear for the first time that the manufacturer has changed his supply and guarantee policy.
How does that effect the existing users, many of whom bought on the strength of the claims and sales bull in ignorance of the mounting failure rate.
No wonder people are asking for proof of vendor claims on this and other threads.
[Edited by harvey - 1/13/2004 1:09:07 AM]
13 January 2004, 01:08 AM
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WITHOUT PREDUDICE:
Ok, I have just emaild John, and will wait for a reply.
Alan,
As I said before, I was told that the bearing that has "locators" for the case in it (IIRC) wasn't located, and this had caused the bearing to be compressed, and no doubt took a while before it made a noise.
Please contact Rally Collin for the specific details.
IMO, the cost involved to have an engineer come over from Aus', and spend a couple of weeks training two/three builder, will be prohibitive.
I think my best option will be to use PAR's own build service, where there is no room for arguement.
Mark.
Ok, I have just emaild John, and will wait for a reply.
Alan,
As I said before, I was told that the bearing that has "locators" for the case in it (IIRC) wasn't located, and this had caused the bearing to be compressed, and no doubt took a while before it made a noise.
Please contact Rally Collin for the specific details.
IMO, the cost involved to have an engineer come over from Aus', and spend a couple of weeks training two/three builder, will be prohibitive.
I think my best option will be to use PAR's own build service, where there is no room for arguement.
Mark.
13 January 2004, 01:21 AM
#129
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before, I was told that the bearing that has "locators" for the case in it (IIRC) wasn't located, and this had caused the bearing to be compressed, and no doubt took a while before it made a noise.
JB?
I think my best option will be to use PAR's own build service, where there is no room for arguement
JB has a donor casing yours for about 2k
13 January 2004, 01:21 AM
#130
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Colin can reply on here 
I and i'm sure others aren't quite sure what bearings are being referred to here. Can't see how you could box up a gearbox with a bearing which isn't located since it will be on a shaft and the gearbox wouldn't have worked from the outset
If it is the original builders fault, are you going to claim for costs incurred?
On the other topic with your engine. What results did you get on the engine dyno before fitting to your car? (relating to component spec ratings).
Alan
[Edited by AlanG - 1/13/2004 1:46:58 AM]
I and i'm sure others aren't quite sure what bearings are being referred to here. Can't see how you could box up a gearbox with a bearing which isn't located since it will be on a shaft and the gearbox wouldn't have worked from the outset
If it is the original builders fault, are you going to claim for costs incurred?
On the other topic with your engine. What results did you get on the engine dyno before fitting to your car? (relating to component spec ratings).
Alan
[Edited by AlanG - 1/13/2004 1:46:58 AM]
13 January 2004, 02:38 AM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: SSO2003 2nd, SSO2005 1st, SSO2006 2nd, TACC Rd4 5th 4wd: In my car ;-)
Posts: 2,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan,
This engine made 555bhp/538ftlbs on the dyno (yes, I know, we like 555bhp).
I spec'd the pistons/pins, etc' to run 550bhp/550ftlbs, not as a peak, but at a "conservative" level.
Had I have spec'd the pistons to run a MAXIMUM of 550bhp/550ftlbs, and run it to the limit all the time, I think my supplier would have had just cause to reject my claim !
It turned out that JE didn't carry the required spec' of pin, in the right size, and it took over two months to have them custom supplied.
Now that John, and I are in discussion, it's not appropriate for me to post anything related, until we have come to an agreement.
Mark.
This engine made 555bhp/538ftlbs on the dyno (yes, I know, we like 555bhp).
I spec'd the pistons/pins, etc' to run 550bhp/550ftlbs, not as a peak, but at a "conservative" level.
Had I have spec'd the pistons to run a MAXIMUM of 550bhp/550ftlbs, and run it to the limit all the time, I think my supplier would have had just cause to reject my claim !
It turned out that JE didn't carry the required spec' of pin, in the right size, and it took over two months to have them custom supplied.
Now that John, and I are in discussion, it's not appropriate for me to post anything related, until we have come to an agreement.
Mark.
13 January 2004, 02:56 AM
#132
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark
No problem with regard to ongoing situation with John and i will refrain from that topic for the present time.
In my mind then with regard to your engine, then i wouldn't have had any concern over durability of it at that power level if the engine components were rated far beyond what the engine produced.
I know i'd be mighty cheesed off spending 000's on an engine to see it go up in a puff of smoke after such a short time.
Alan
No problem with regard to ongoing situation with John and i will refrain from that topic for the present time.
In my mind then with regard to your engine, then i wouldn't have had any concern over durability of it at that power level if the engine components were rated far beyond what the engine produced.
I know i'd be mighty cheesed off spending 000's on an engine to see it go up in a puff of smoke after such a short time.
Alan
13 January 2004, 01:17 PM
#135
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
T-uk has done all the work fitting/removing numerous failed turbo's engines and gearboxes. I have also commited some of my free time to JB's car and assisted with the original 2.3 engine install. I was also interested in an uprated gear kit for my current car.
What is your current involvement with Impreza's Craig ?
Andy
What is your current involvement with Impreza's Craig ?
Andy
13 January 2004, 01:30 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
T-uk here but jb has left his name in my computer and I did not notice during posting.
marks first TD04 hybrid, that was sent for testing, worked well andy, it just went **** up after that
.
now I just want my car back in my garage
[Edited by john banks - 1/13/2004 1:32:52 PM]
marks first TD04 hybrid, that was sent for testing, worked well andy, it just went **** up after that
.now I just want my car back in my garage
[Edited by john banks - 1/13/2004 1:32:52 PM]
13 January 2004, 02:01 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already said - the actual problem with these gearsets is the possibility that the specs are slightly off the target (torquewise), or that there's a material issue.
The manufacturer which has supplied his dealers with these specs is to be blamed - if you need to point fingers.
You guys can't hardly expect that Mark has the time, and finances to put every single thing through extensive testing before releasing them to the market can you?
He has little choice but to rely on the manufacturers specs.
On the other hand - for anyone that's rebuilt a scooby tranny, it's a miracle failures aren't more frequent than they are - face it - the gears are weedy, no matter how you look at it, they're still weedy.
The only real way to sort it is to go for a full on dog setup that has more space for wider gears, but that type of tranny has it's own drawbacks.
The only good thing out of this thread would be if PAR would have a look at these 4th gears and come up with a fix/solution or even an explanation besides blaming the builder.
What doesn't feel good at all is the recent change in warranty policies, it's a sign that PAR doesn't think there's anything wrong with their gearsets, and that's a possibility that the builders are to blame (all I know is that the three I've built are still running fine, be it with puny specced cars by your standards).
/J
[Edited by SecretAgentMan - 1/13/2004 2:11:12 PM]
The manufacturer which has supplied his dealers with these specs is to be blamed - if you need to point fingers.
You guys can't hardly expect that Mark has the time, and finances to put every single thing through extensive testing before releasing them to the market can you?
He has little choice but to rely on the manufacturers specs.
On the other hand - for anyone that's rebuilt a scooby tranny, it's a miracle failures aren't more frequent than they are - face it - the gears are weedy, no matter how you look at it, they're still weedy.
The only real way to sort it is to go for a full on dog setup that has more space for wider gears, but that type of tranny has it's own drawbacks.
The only good thing out of this thread would be if PAR would have a look at these 4th gears and come up with a fix/solution or even an explanation besides blaming the builder.
What doesn't feel good at all is the recent change in warranty policies, it's a sign that PAR doesn't think there's anything wrong with their gearsets, and that's a possibility that the builders are to blame (all I know is that the three I've built are still running fine, be it with puny specced cars by your standards
)./J
[Edited by SecretAgentMan - 1/13/2004 2:11:12 PM]
13 January 2004, 02:23 PM
#139
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh, no reason Craig
Rannoch - thats the biggest load of boll0cks I've seen since I tried to do the same and estimate my own cars 500m times based on 1/4 mile times
Anyway, in case you forgot, it's the terminal mph that is a more accurate indication of the power produced.
Andy
Rannoch - thats the biggest load of boll0cks I've seen since I tried to do the same and estimate my own cars 500m times based on 1/4 mile times
Anyway, in case you forgot, it's the terminal mph that is a more accurate indication of the power produced.
Andy
13 January 2004, 07:07 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why do I get a 1/4 terminal of 124.9 mph (on AP22 mind you, but in the wet, 2 up, full trim/spare/tools/ICE, same in both directions) when I am running only 420-430 BHP and 380-390 lbft? Does it really take another 90 or so metres to add 1mph or is it the AP22 which is optimistic?
13 January 2004, 09:16 PM
#149
Subaru Tuning Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 7.74 @179 mph 1/4 mile - road legal
Posts: 6,654
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think this is because I do not have the 'rollout' enabled on my AP22. This is the distance the car rolls before the starting light beam is broken at a drag meet. This is worth around 0.2-0.3 secs.
The AP has this facility but my main aim was to find a relative increase in performance so it has remained switched off.
The AP has this facility but my main aim was to find a relative increase in performance so it has remained switched off.
13 January 2004, 09:31 PM
#150
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Posts: 3,105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark -
Are you and PAR happy for me to have the failed 3rd/4th item professionally analysed? It will require the assembly to be cut in half along it's centre line so that both surface hardness, and the hardened surface depth, can be measured for the entire external surface area.
I'm still awaiting confirmation that any results would provide this detail, along with the likely costs involved to perform such a task, before I proceed.
But I also need to know if you're happy for me to do this before returning the whole kit to you?
Richard
Are you and PAR happy for me to have the failed 3rd/4th item professionally analysed? It will require the assembly to be cut in half along it's centre line so that both surface hardness, and the hardened surface depth, can be measured for the entire external surface area.
I'm still awaiting confirmation that any results would provide this detail, along with the likely costs involved to perform such a task, before I proceed.
But I also need to know if you're happy for me to do this before returning the whole kit to you?
Richard