Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From drive.com.au

Link

And here's why

***

But the company could not meet the projected $215,000 price target. Sources suggest the on-sale figure would have been in the region of $300,000 for the project to have been viable.

***

if they made if for 215K it would have been a bargain, if you look at the cost of all the parts on the car, gearbox, brakes, engine, dry sump setup etc you would not be able to buy a monaro and mod it with a extra 100k and get a car with half the extras this thing had, it would have been a weapon on the street.

It would be like nissan relasing a 9sec R34 GTR for 200K, not possible.

hahaha, suck shit i say. and damn straight they should lose the bathurst title, i can't believe they were allowed to race it even tho it wasn't even a "production car" yet, that means any man and his dog could enter his prototype come production car. F*ck should give the pommies a call and tell em to enter the Zonda, just bullshit that they're gonna make 100 of them. Altho, Zonda is stupidly quick and handles like a go-kart, don't know how it do around the mountain. And the funny thing is, it's hella cheap too. Twin motorbike engines, rev to like 50,000,000 rpm... crazy.

So the ford diff, harrop suspension, le mans engine, that all just for the 24hr car? or was that in the road car as well?? If it was, ford prob crack the sads and said f*ck it, make ur own f*cking diff! HSV would be like...ah... we can't do this by ourselves? someone else makes us parts? pls??? :bahaha: losers

Originally posted by Clint32

if they made if for 215K it would have been a bargain, if you look at the cost of all the parts on the car, gearbox, brakes, engine, dry sump setup etc you would not be able to buy a monaro and mod it with a extra 100k and get a car with half the extras this thing had, it would have been a weapon on the street.

It would be like nissan relasing a 9sec R34 GTR for 200K, not possible.

yeh and with all that shit added it was a high 11 seconds car, which i beleive is still pathetic.. People who would of actually brought those cars must of been off their head, if they want a fast monaro they can get a CV8 @ 50k and spend a 40k on it and have good brakes and do 10 or even less seconds.

Mid 2004, Ford Aus is bringing out the legendary GT-HO with 375kw a supercharged 5.4ltr engine.. So it looks like the game is over for Holden :bahaha:

A car like the 427 is not designed to pull of fantastic 1/4 mile time. If that's the case then the Mclarens F1 is an even bigger waste of money. They are built for circuit racing, not put down impressive 1/4 mile times.

This is good news I reckon. In an attempt to make a mockery out of some world class manufacturers like Porsche and Ferrari, Holden bent the rules and produced a purpose built race car that was almost up to the pace of the HRT V8 supercars. Holden would have known that this car would never have made it into production. They have cheated everybody and deserve to have the trophy taken away from them....

I believe that Holden had alot do do with the organising and the funding of the 24 hour race at Bathurst last year.. Hmmmm. This could have somethin to do with it.

And is it true that Lamborgini didnt compete in the race cos they knew that Holden were cheating? I heard this on the news.

I say we all do up 50 of our cars to look the same, and then enter a 9sec GTR claiming that we all bought the same production car.... ok fine... I'm goin back to sleep

too much GT3 for you bunch... lets see if we can get suzuki to enter their pikes peak escudo.... mmm 390kw stock twin V6 engine goodness with more wings than a riced up civic hatch.

Contrary to some of the overwhelming bias in this thread, in a little disapointed that it didn't make production. It would've been one hell of a car... maybe Holden/HSV can make something in the middle of the HSV GTS and Concept HRT 427, for the road.

The overwhelming bias is from CAMS, not us here.

They banned the GTR because it was just too good for the local pushrod boys. Then they bend over backwards to allow an illegal non existent supposed production car to win.

There is no way you can call a mega dollar one off prototype a production car, No way.

The whole thing is a bloody joke.

yeah, 24hr is not production car race, there are 6categories, with group 1 being FIA N-GT and "invited cars". Leaves it pretty open....

Nations Cup, however, does require production based cars. HSV were not the only company putting low volume race cars into the international gt category, the ferrari is a race special as is the porsche carerra cup car.

Honestly, I'm surprised that HSV canned this if it really was just for cost reasons. If youve got 50 orders @200,000 years before its available, you WOULD be able to eventually sell 50@300,000. And as already pointed out, this model was purely PR, never to make a great profit.

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

    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...