Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi guys before you start telling me off about how illegal and dangerous and bad it is to do so, I'm just asking for some opinions and thoughts about my question, not the ethics behind it, thanks.

So tonight, I dragged my manual stock 99' R34 coupe against my mate's stock 97' ej8 Honda civic and barely beat him. He's running a 1.6L single cam engine, while I have a 2.5L twin cam rb25de....what amazes me is that he kept up and I just barely won at about 120km/h. Then he kept telling me how he didn't get a good start, here's how I started off the line. Revved to 4k RPM, as soon as the light went green I dumped the clutch and floored the gas changing gears as fast as I could at around 7000 rpm. My tires lost traction after about 10metres and I had to adjust my steering wheel left and right to keep the car straight. I could see him in my peripheral vision and in the end I beat him. Now are NA skylines really that slow that they can't even match a puny car like an old civic? I can't imagine what a drag against an integra type R or even an S would be like, totally smoking an NA skyline, how embarrassing.

In the car I also had my mate who weighed 80kG if that makes a difference?

Are NA skylines really that much of a heavy slow car that eats fuel and is shit at drags?

How would my car compare to other N/A cars in stock if it were identically skilled drivers?

Any thoughts please?

Thanks.

You're doing it wrong.

> Hey nafags

> Today i f**ked this ricer piece of shit civic in a race... f**king burner bro... full thought he was king shit with vtec

> f**ked him up mate

> anyways my cars f**king slow whys that?

either that or just don't mention it was a street race?

"So we were at the drags and we did *blah*"

Do you REALLY think anyones going to know any different?

I know people who "go to the drags" every weekend for three years, yet they've been to wsid once or twice.

inb4 p-plate hoon; I just think the guys an idiot for openly admitting to breaking the law on a public forum.

'93 stock NA Supra will do 0-100 anywhere between 6.2 (independently tested) and 6.7secs (factory claimed) according to various sources. nyaanyaa.gif

Yeah cool. We did this for lols. My mates na supra vs another mates normal 3.5 litre 2002 magna ( not a vrx or a ralliart). Magna shat all over it.

Yeah cool. We did this for lols. My mates na supra vs another mates normal 3.5 litre 2002 magna ( not a vrx or a ralliart). Magna shat all over it.

Too many variables. Were both auto, modded, did they both launch, were they good launches, good shifts, good/bad tyres, did the Supra single peg, blah blah.

I've witnessed this exact line up too and the Supra shat all over the Magna. They're both very similar in speed (slow) and it really comes down to mods/driver skill.

For the record, Ralliart Magna's are slower than the "normal" ones, and VRX is pretty much a luxury version with no performance upgrades.

Too many variables. Were both auto, modded, did they both launch, were they good launches, good shifts, good/bad tyres, did the Supra single peg, blah blah.

I've witnessed this exact line up too and the Supra shat all over the Magna. They're both very similar in speed (slow) and it really comes down to mods/driver skill.

For the record, Ralliart Magna's are slower than the "normal" ones, and VRX is pretty much a luxury version with no performance upgrades.

you might want to do some more research on them. vr-x had between 8 and 20kw more power than the executive (vr-x was 163kw, executive was 143kw in the TH and early TJ models, 155kw in the series 2 TJ models and later), and the ralli-art had 180kw. they are both a touch faster than the executive models. fastest "mildly moded" NA magna in QLD runs about 14.4 1/4 mile. there are faster NA and force fed ones, but they have more mods than simple exhaust, etc.

you might want to do some more research on them. vr-x had between 8 and 20kw more power than the executive (vr-x was 163kw, executive was 143kw in the TH and early TJ models, 155kw in the series 2 TJ models and later), and the ralli-art had 180kw. they are both a touch faster than the executive models. fastest "mildly moded" NA magna in QLD runs about 14.4 1/4 mile. there are faster NA and force fed ones, but they have more mods than simple exhaust, etc.

You're right the VRX does have slightly more power, but the Ralliart is still slower, according to ultra reliable source that Wikipedia is. They claim the whilst it handled infinitely better the added weight of the AWD system slowed it down despite the additional power.

Oh really, so p players can't have imports? Sucks to be you guys lol

We have one of the more easier P-plate systems, doesn't even have P-plate Car restriction, the only other state more easier than us is TAS I think...

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...