Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Okay so HSV has officially set the world record for worlds Fastest Ute, their clubsport R8's and their soon to be re-vived GTS isnt anything to shy away from and say "err its just a family car, what a piece of shit"

Why does a ute need to go fast? is the tradie going to be late for work or something?

Typhoon has the highest torque output of any production engine ever built in Australia.

so it's the best of the worst. australia dosent make sports cars.

And as you say 4wd's are better at towing than Commodores etc but they are deathtraps

correct, however most of joe public isnt as car savy as most on SAU and dont realise this. the women who buy or infulence the purchase of such vehicles precieve them to be safe because of their size. Safty (even though there is a lack of) is one of the main reasons consumers listed for purchasing a 4WD, i read that in some RACQ thing ages ago.

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why does a ute need to go fast? is the tradie going to be late for work or something?

so it's the best of the worst.

I would have one, tools in the back for when i go to track days, able to towe a track car. Pick up gear in teh back no probs. My brother had a ute, and didnt need one for work. Once you have one you really get use to the practicality of it.

so it's the best of the worst. australia dosent make sports cars.

LOL...call them what you like...they are fast. The Clubsport Track Spec one is quicker then EVO 8, 350Z etc around Oran Park...so dismiss them if you like, but only reason i dont have one is i cant afford one :)

Get over the FPV/HSV bashing.

I would not be suprised if a FPV or HSV would be faster around a race track compared to a stock Silivia, or GTST Skyline.

Yeah me neither... lol

In order to make that comparison fair, you'd have to use a Nismo modified Silvia or Skyline...

Enough with comparing late model HSVs with old stock Skylines. At the end of the day, the HSVs and Fords whatever are bigass GT sedans, the likes of which Japanese car companies don't sell in this country. So any comparison with something Japanese is going to be irrelivent. The Holdens and Fords appeal to a certain type of person, most of which frequent other boards.

Enough with comparing late model HSVs with old stock Skylines. At the end of the day, the HSVs and Fords whatever are bigass GT sedans, the likes of which Japanese car companies don't sell in this country.

About the closest they've got is the SC430's and some of the other stuff they hurl around in the GT300 and GT500 races. For a 'rough' (very rough!) comparison of sorts, be interesting too see some of the 3U V8's with the taps opened up on them for Australian V8 supercars.

Course, that'll never happen...

About the closest they've got is the SC430's and some of the other stuff they hurl around in the GT300 and GT500 races. For a 'rough' (very rough!) comparison of sorts, be interesting too see some of the 3U V8's with the taps opened up on them for Australian V8 supercars.

Course, that'll never happen...

I was pretty suprised Toyota chose the current UZZ40 Soarer as their SuperGT platform. I would suddenly be interested in Aussie touring car racing if that car was competing next year...

Rezz you slackjawed junkbroad minded person.

If you are going to quote me it means you cannot edit my post.

Since your pulling the cuss words out, I'll change my quoted post right away. In future PM me about it and refrain from name calling.

http://blogs.drive.com.au/2006/07/new_comm...o_you_thin.html

Interesting blog on the Drive website that I came accross whilst trying to suss out what they all think on streetcommodores.com.au

Interestingly about the only thing they are commenting on at the street commy forum is the height of the SS at the rear :wave:

Edited by MintR33

Funny how people automatically bag Holden, Ford and even the struggling Mitsubishi for being inefficient.

Note that the Camry has FWD, 2.4L engine, less power and torque and a lighter body (increased by only 30kg) – yet only gets 9.9L per 100km. The Holden VE has a heavy body (increased by 100kg), far stiffer chassis, more room, more power, more torque and a 3.6L v6 – yet achieves a 10.9L per 100km.

I would call the new Camry as inefficient whilst the 380, Holden and especially the 6speed Ford as being extremely efficient.

Just in from Drive.com.au

New Camry in role reversal

Joshua Dowling, The Sydney Morning Herald, 25/07/06

25camry1M_m.jpg

-Toyota released the new, sixth generation Camry today but it has the unlikely tag of being the thirstiest vehicle in its class.

-The new Camry's fuel rating label shows an average consumption of 9.9 liters per 100km, even though it is now available with a five-speed automatic transmission, which is designed to provide better economy at highway speeds.

-While Holden yesterday announced a fuel saving for its biggest-selling model in the new Commodore range, the new Camry's consumption remains the same as the model it replaced.........The car is a little heavier about 30kg than the old model

-The new Camry's main rivals are more fuel-efficient

-It's an embarrassing move for the maker which prides itself on fuel economy. The Camry is a globally-developed car, manufactured around the world, and the product of a much bigger development budget than the Commodore.

-A week ago, Toyota claimed that its V6 Commodore rival (called the Aurion and due on sale in November) would be more fuel-efficient than the new Holden Commodore

-The new Camry is available only with a 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine; the V6 will be exclusive to the Aurion.

From

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleD...18735&vf=12

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

    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
    • It's a place for non car talk. There's whoretown which is general shit talking. But also other threads coving all sorts of stuff(a lot still semi car related)
    • Looked it up. It sounds so expensive lmao I'd rather not. Awwwww but I just love that sound
    • If you want the screaming "weeeee" sound, just let the gasket between the exhaust manifold and the turbo break a little. It'll go "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" everytime its on boost...
×
×
  • Create New...