Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Had 3 clean runs in total tonight, glad the box held together..

R32 GTR (400kw) Full street trim

Run 1 (light take off) 13.653 - 3.4 = 60' - 124.30 mph

Run 2 (6500rpm release handbrake) 11.346 - 1.87 = 60' - 126.76mph

Run 3 (7500rpm side step) 11.494 - 1.882 = 60' - 126.05mph

It was very hard to keep traction in 1st & 2nd, the track up here in Nth QLD isn't exactly flash.... After the 1st run I got my notice that I ran a too high mph & that this would be my last meet until I get a harness, which im not keen to do (drive line's saving grace) so now I can only speculate..

I know that every second that comes off from your 60 equals 2 at the end... What im asking is ... "what do the above speeds equal to on a well prepared track"

I uploaded a video of one of the runs to, I apologize for the poor quality was shot on my phone..

Edited by Tomek
Nice work, I got similar times with the 32, maybe I should of slipped the clutch a little lol!. What rubber did you have?

Half worn Potenza adrenaline's (255/40/17) ... The track wasn't very well prepared & resulted in poor 6o's.

I dunno about that.

I once had a car that genuinley made 400kw atw but had shite power delivery and a shite power band and only ran 126mph also.

On another note supporting your case I've also ran 126mph in my current GTR when it had 295kw.

just my 2c as I hate the ol, your car can't be making that power comments... :cool:

Michael

The first thing 126mph says is that the car isn't showing 400kw.

you can't make half a response :cool: Tell us what it is really making :sweat:

126mph should = high 10's

Oh, and Tomek, you ARE welcome back to the track...you just have to have the appropriate safety gear (and licencing) :cheers:

Judging by a et calculator your car should be good for a 10.63 at 126mph this is only an estimate calculator but so either more or less is possible. This was calculated at your car mass (3256 pounds or 1480kg) and power (400kw or 536hp at the wheels).

We use this on our drag car and found it to be fairly close most of the time

If you wanna (or anyone else for that matter) play around with this so you can see for yourself the site is http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php

and you just need the weight of your car and hp.

On this site you can also find the power the car has through the wieght and et or the mph and et.

It is in american so you need pounds and horsepower to work it out.

Hope this helps

Cheers Matt

awsome vids mate, love the limiter on the 2nd one,

N1GTR i hope u make a heap of vids of your car when u run it, or put a thread up in the NSW member forums for members to come watch. ill sure be there....

I dunno about that.

I once had a car that genuinley made 400kw atw but had shite power delivery and a shite power band and only ran 126mph also.

On another note supporting your case I've also ran 126mph in my current GTR when it had 295kw.

just my 2c as I hate the ol, your car can't be making that power comments... :P

Michael

It would have to be a ferociously shit-house power delivery to genuinely make 400kW and run 126mph. My car made 335kW on the same dyno I've always tuned it on and ran 128.51mph @ 3243lbs. To be honest, the 335kW figure isn't really represented in the weight for power calculation either but it's a darn site closer than 126mph and 400kW.

The OP also mentions shitty street tyres and bad 60' times which will normally help mph (and hurt ET) so this isn't right either (even though the sixty was a respectable 1.8).

I'm not taking anything away from the run. 126mph is 126mph after all. But Blind Freddie could see in the first video posted that the power delivery is good and that the gate is open more often than it's not.

awsome vids mate, love the limiter on the 2nd one,

N1GTR i hope u make a heap of vids of your car when u run it, or put a thread up in the NSW member forums for members to come watch. ill sure be there....

Will do mate

Ill start the super long thread up again :)

got a mate that runs 125mph with an R32 GTR and it makes 300rwkw on UniGroups dyno so your 400kw is way off the mark. His car is also a complete street car with NOTHING stripped from the interior at all and races on Bob Jane All Rounders.

If its making 400 it should probably be capable of a low 10?

Post up your dyno sheet if you can

Edited by ido09s

Interesting thread as I will be running mine soon. I think it just comes down to different reading dynos. I dont just mean Tomek's pass where some are suggesting he is making less then 400, but also results like the 126mph that wrxkilla ran with only 295kw which just doesnt seem enough power for that result. It just proves that you cant compare dyno figures unless its done on the same dyno and the same day.

Car sounds awesome dude! Love the 290 one too lol.

A set of drag radials and a 1.6 60ft will see you into the high 10's.

My boss tuned a R34 that weighed 1650kg, made 360kW at the wheels and ran 11.6 @ 122mph also with a 1.8 60ft time.

I have run 134mph with 291kW at the wheels and 137mph with 387kW at the wheels, both on the same dyno, different turbo combinations. Power delivery has a big play in trap speed.

  • 2 weeks later...
I once had a car that genuinley made 400kw atw but had shite power delivery and a shite power band and only ran 126mph also.

I agree, I know of a GTR that makes a genuine 550wkw, runs low 11s @ around 125 as the power is just way too peeky and not suited to drags at all IMO.

Just another example of how dyno peek power can mean very little in real life situations.

Robbie.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...