Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The figures I read must have been old then, explains some of the 30KW gain from a slightly smaller turbo between the BF and FG. Im trying to look after this car so wont be reaching this overtake mode for a while, im interested to know more about it. Also Launch control wont get a workout.

Overtake mode works that from around 70KM/H if you open the throttle up completely, it'll add in an extra 10% of Torque for 3 to 5 seconds. I'm not sure if it's in the autos only or not though.

1710kg is hardly near 2 tonne. Afik the 33 is approx 1370 so 340kg is a big difference but unless you have driven one you just see numbers. Aaaaaaaand your 33 gtst didnt come with Launch control. I love skylines and it disappoints me (on the skyline side) at how good the XR6T's are without any mods. I guess thats why Ford designed and built them like this, to challengebto Import market.

Not a chance.


Plus if your car is still on stock boost, even a N/A FG XR6 will almost keep up from on traffic light GP.

Straight line acceleration wise, stock R33 is no longer fast versus many of the large family sedans we have on the market.

Edited by Mayuri Krab

Not a chance.

Plus if your car is still on stock boost, even a N/A FG XR6 will almost keep up from on traffic light GP.

Straight line acceleration wise, stock R33 is no longer fast versus many of the large family sedans we have on the market.

This^

I'm even confident enough to say a stock V6 camry will keep up with a stock r33 gtr.

Not a chance.

Plus if your car is still on stock boost, even a N/A FG XR6 will almost keep up from on traffic light GP.

Straight line acceleration wise, stock R33 is no longer fast versus many of the large family sedans we have on the market.

A bog stock FG XR6 is quicker than a R33 GTSt, my mates one ran 14.4 @ 98mph. No mods what so ever.

My old man had a similar race before

His GT35R powered R33 at 350rwkw vs a BF XR6T at 330rwkw. The skyline hosed it from anything including roll ons at any speed and off a standing start. For the mods listed in the OP though the XR6T will win without trouble.

I was getting rolled by a FG XR6 turbo automatic ute and sedan at the drags, running low 13's everytime. Also sat in a mates FG XR6 turbo with a full exhaust and the thing has so much grunt down low, its pretty impressive.

Overtook a BA XR6 turbo one day starting at 3rd position on the grid (behind him at the lights), he had a few passengers and i had a boosted stock turbo..

I'm even confident enough to say a stock V6 camry will keep up with a stock r33 gtr.

Not sure about that one...

Unless you mean the current Aurion (Sold as 3.5 V6 Camry in other countries), those were faster than most 6 cylinder falcdores in a straight line I believe.

The older (3.0) V6 Camrys had pretty 'meth' acceleration espeically if they had the ancient slush box auto, my parents had one (2002 model) & overtaking at highspeeds (80km/h+) sucks major donkey kong ballz.

you blokes are dreaming, I ran high 12's with nothing more than a zorst a tboost and a safc. The old skyline with very minimal mods in the right hands can dust the ford no probs.

Obviously the henry has potential for more power with the cubes but dont under estimate weight, the henry is some 3/400 kg heavier than the line.

you blokes are dreaming, I ran high 12's with nothing more than a zorst a tboost and a safc. The old skyline with very minimal mods in the right hands can dust the ford no probs.

Obviously the henry has potential for more power with the cubes but dont under estimate weight, the henry is some 3/400 kg heavier than the line.

do the same mods to a xr6t and they will be in the low 12's with a decent set of tyres. it's all well and good to say a car with mods will beat a stock car, but that goes both ways. a modified xr6t will just be a pair of tail lights off in the distance when racing a stock skyline.

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

    • 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...