Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

the ford rs2000 held the record in the late 80's early 90's. the current record for 0-100mph-0 is held by the a Ultima GTR (no its not a nissan) at 9.8 seconds. we previously held by a ferrari enzo at 10.9.

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Electric cars aren't gay. Have you seen that new Lexus forget what model it is, but's a big v8 with electric engine as well and it goes so damn hard and quite good on fuel for a big v8. They look awesom as well.

I'll try and dig up a website on it.

Its a V6. 'Power' of a V8 with 'economy' of a 4cyl. But its MILES better than that pyruis thing. Or I think so from what I have read and seen so far.

I still dont get this 100% though.

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Basically

When talking 0-100kmh races, the 'KMH' is the Constant and the 'Distance' reached varies.

When talking 400m races the 'Distance' is the Constant and the 'KMH' reached Varies.

Simple......

Edited by PSI_GTSII
So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Imagine Car B is REALLY laggy, and only does 10k/h for the first 9 seconds, then for the last second full boost comes on crazy hard and it flys from 10k/h to 100/kh in that last second, the first 9 seconds it only covered 40meters because it was going so slow, then the last few metres it speed up to 100k/h..... covered it really quick..

(maths aren't right there just trying to make the point).

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Think of it like this. Both cars accelerate for 10 seconds. Car one accelerates very quickly to almost 100km/h in the first one second, then slowly accelerates to 100km/h over the next 9 seconds. It spends most of its 10 seconds at high speed. Car two accelerates very slowly for the first nine seconds, the quickly accelerates to 100km/h at the end. So it spends most of its 10 seconds at low speeds.

Both cars will reach 100km/h at the 10 second mark, but car one will have travelled more distance because it has spent more time at higher speeds than car two, so the AVERAGE speed over 10 seconds was higher.

This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

Edited by Big Rizza
This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well? :P

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well? :P

The GTR will launch harder, so it will be ahead of the GTST. The leading car will have covered more distance than the trailing car (otherwise it would be behind the other car, right?). Therefore, the GTR will have covered more distance than the GTST, and would be leadin the race. The GTST accelerates harder than the GTR once its tyres hook up properly, so it manages to reach 100km/h at the same TIME, but the GTR is already ahead by several car lengths after the brutal launch, so it has still covered more distance.

Edited by Big Rizza

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples :P

So what your saying Big Rizza is Torque wins races. :P

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

The turbo car runs a 16.3 at 265.69km/h (see what I mean about unreallistic :P)

This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time :P it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

Im still really struggling with this hey. I'll work it out when I get home. I think I got it. I just need to get my head around the whole dont work out out with speed and time, work it out with DISTANCE and time.

Thanks fellas. This really should be basic for me. :P

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story. :P

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver. :P

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples :P

Well, if you don't like it, ignore it! :P If the original example works in your head better, use that!

Edited by Big Rizza
This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time :P it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

I DID say that extrapolating the formulas I chose wouldn't be reallistic :P It is just as unreallistic for the family car, which accelerates at a constant and linear rate for all eternity.

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story. :P

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver. :D

Even with the CVT, I doubt the Bravo would keep with the skyline. The Bravo has a peak power of eighty-something kilowatts as I said, and I reckon that even with gear changes, rev changes etc. my peak power of 160+kw would result in greater average power. Plus skyline is lighter :P .

I understand what you're getting at.

I had an argument in High School with someone about this very thing. Had a pic of the graph you gave and you had to say which car was in front when they all hot 100kms/hr.

It's funny, nearly 90% of people thought they were a the same position! Geeze!

Anyway.....0-100's and quarter miles are good benchmarks..but to get what i think you want, you would like to see a 'How far can a car travel in 10secs..or 20sec' from a standing start (or rolling, or adapt further)

Yeah???

But if you did have that, people could then argue the opposite.. "10sec distance measurements mean nothing, doesn't show how fast it would do a quater mile!" and then show another graph and quote a few formulas.

Gotta do your own research i guess and go from there

:P

..and while I'm thinking about it more (gotta stop soon)

Your comparing apples oranges and lemons.

Everyone here is pretty much apples, apples so it does make sense to compare

Catchya

Birnie :P

Well to me I always thought you could compair fruits.

I mean apple is green or red, oranges are well orange. There is a comparision, its fair... I never understood the problem with it. Thats what comparisions are meant to do :P

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Update 3: Hi all It's been a while. Quite a lot of things happened in the meantime, among other things the car is (almost) back together and ready to be started again. Things that I fixed or changed: Full turbo removal, fitting back the OEM turbo oil hardlines. Had to do quite a bit of research and parts shopping to get every last piece that I need and make it work with the GT2860 turbos, but it does work and is not hard to do. Proves that the previous owner(s) just did not want to. While I was there I set the preload for the wastegates to 0,9bar to hopefully make it easier for the tuner to hit the 370hp I need for the legal inspections that will follow later on. Boost can always go up if necessary. Fitted a AN10 line from the catch can to the intake hose to make the catchcan and hopefully the cam covers a slight vacuum to have less restrictive oil returns from the head and not have mud build up as harshly in the lines and catch can. Removed the entire front interior just shy of the dashboard itself to clean up some of the absolutely horrendous wiring, (hopefully) fix the bumpy tacho and put in LED bulbs while I was there. Also put in bulbs where there was none before, like the airbag one. I also used that chance to remove the LED rpm gauge on the steering column, which was also wired in absolute horror show fashion. Moved the 4in1 Prosport gauge from sitting in front of the OEM oil pressure gauge to the center console vents, I used a 3D printed vent piece to hold that gauge there. The HKB steering wheel boss was likely on incorrectly as I sometimes noticed the indicator reset being uneven for left vs. right. In the meantime also installed an airbag delete resistor, as one should. Installed Cube Speed premium short shifter. Feels pretty nice, hope it'll work great too when I actually get to drive. Also put on a fancy Dragon Ball shift knob, cause why not. My buddy was kind enough to weld the rust hole in the back, it was basically rusted through in the lowermost corner of the passenger side trunk area where the wheel arch, trunk panel and rear quarter all meet. Obviously there is still a lot of crustiness in various areas but as long as it's not rusted out I'll just treat and isolate the corrosion and pretend it's not there. Also had to put down a new ground wire for the rear subframe as the original one was BARELY there. Probably a bit controversial depending on who you ask about this... but I ended up just covering the crack in the side of the engine block, the one above the oil feed, with JB Weld. I used a generous amount and roughed up the whole area with a Dremel before, so I hope this will hold the coolant where it should be for the foreseeable future. Did a cam cover gasket job as the half moons were a bit leaky, and there too one could see the people who worked on this car before me were absolute tools. The same half moons were probably used like 3 times without even cleaning the old RTV off. Dremeled out the inside of the flange where the turbine housing mates onto the exhaust manifolds so the diameter matches, as the OEM exhaust manifolds are even narrower than the turbine housings as we all know. Even if this doesn't do much, I had them out anyways, so can't harm. Ideally one would port-match both the turbo and the manifold to the gasket size but I really didn't feel up to disassembling the turbine housings. Wrapped turbo outlet dumps in heat wrap band. Will do the frontpipe again as well as now the oil leak which promted me to tear apart half the engine in the first place is hopefully fixed. Fitted an ATI super damper to get rid of the worn old harmonic balancer. Surely one of the easiest and most worth to do mods. But torquing that ARP bolt to spec was a bitch without being able to lock the flywheel. Did some minor adjustments in the ECU tables to change some things I didn't like, like the launch control that was ALWAYS active. Treated rusty spots and surface corrosion on places I could get to and on many spots under the car, not pretty or ideal but good enough for now. Removed the N1 rear spats and the carbon surrounding for the tailpipe to put them back on with new adhesive as the old one was lifting in many spots, not pretty. Took out the passenger rear lamp housing... what do you know. Amateur work screwed me again here as they were glued in hard and removing it took a lot of force, so I broke one of the housing bolts off. And when removing the adhesive from the chassis the paint came right off too. Thankfully all the damaged area won't be visible later, but whoever did the very limited bodywork on this car needs to have their limbs chopped off piece by piece.   Quite a list if I do say so myself, but a lot of time was spent just discovering new shit that is wrong with the car and finding a solution or parts to fix it. My last problem that I now have the headache of dealing with is that the exhaust studs on the turbo outlets are M10x1.25 threaded, but the previous owner already put on regular M10 nuts so the threads are... weird. I only found this out the hard way. So now I will just try if I can in any way fit the front pipe regardless, if not I'll have to redo the studs with the turbos installed. Lesson learned for the future: Redo ALL studs you put your hands on, especially if they are old and the previous owners were inept maniacs. Thanks for reading if you did, will update when the engine runs again. Hope nothing breaks or leaks and I can do a test drive.
    • No those pads are DBA too  but they have colors too. I look at the and imo the green "street" are the best.
    • I’m not sure what happened I told them about sonic tunes free OTS tune and the next the I know .. I was booted..   To funny 
    • Yea - I mean I've seen my fuel pump which is decades old and uh, while I'm not saying this with real knowledge... but I sure get the ick at using anything in the fuel system that produced the state of that pump. Many years ago I went through multiple pumps (and strainers) before I dropped the tank to clean it out with extreme violence. I'm talking the car would do maybe 50km before coming to a halt, which resulted in me cleaning out the filter with some brake cleaner and going on my way. None of my stuff ever looked like what came out of your fuel tank. I don't think I'd be happy with it unless every single component was replaced (or at least checked/cleaned/confirmed to be clean here).
×
×
  • Create New...