Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Leroy Peterson said:

I should make my triumph project go public for sourcing funds. Anyone want a share?

Sorry mate I don't dabble in penny stocks

23 minutes ago, Birds said:

0-100 in 9.3 seconds

That's not gonna beat me in a drag

that limo? bullshit. i'd be surprised if it could do 100km/h

9.3sec must the stock Fairlane time.

so lets run some numbers on this...

the base weight on a 97 Failane was: 1642 KG
standard Engine was 162KW and 361Nm of torque 
which we get a 9.8s  0-100

 

Great. now they replaced the 162kw with a 3.5l Mitsubishi motor, which we can gather was the magna one.
Magna 3.5 147kw and 300Nm 

hmm not a good move..

now add in a second rear axle and suspension.. there has to be a good 250kg there for everything (axle, suspension, brakes, wheels)
add in an extra 6 front passenger seats (so it appears) circa 40 kg each for those so there 240kg 

so we have ditched 10% power and 20% torque and we are 30% heavier  hmm getting worse.

now the big one that stretch, to keep that from bowing and adding 2 extra doors there is some serious metal involved here lets be generous and call it 800kg

 

so we are now at approx 3000kg 

now a quick google says the GMV of a magna was 1884kg and had a tow weight of 1500kg so 3384kg

so would this do 100 and cruise yes.

 

but wait you idiot I hear you screaming..you forgot the passengers....

so call it 1 driver and 8 in the back

average au person weighs in at 78.5kg from ABS

 

so lets add in that extra 709.5kg in

 

so we at 3641.5kg... best case

 

using a online calculator:

http://www.060calculator.com/

 

gives us a theoretical best time of 14.8sec 0-100
assuming the engine/transmission does not explode as it is now past it's duty level..


yes I am bored today

 

SURELY it would be a pajero diesel engine? Traversely mounted FWD engine would sense. But fark that would be the worst driving car ever. I wonder if it's cable throttle the length of the car/bus...

it states 3.5L and pre 2000 (the build date) my only finds were the magna engine, (same engine was in the pajero but makes more sense to use the magna one as no transfer case and such to stress about.)

cannot think of any drive by wire cars from that era as well so yeah that would be all cable operated, the gear box mech would have to be weird as well unless you built an actuator on top and had it as push button 

so lets run some numbers on this...
the base weight on a 97 Failane was: 1642 KG
standard Engine was 162KW and 361Nm of torque 
which we get a 9.8s  0-100
 
Great. now they replaced the 162kw with a 3.5l Mitsubishi motor, which we can gather was the magna one.
Magna 3.5 147kw and 300Nm 
hmm not a good move..
now add in a second rear axle and suspension.. there has to be a good 250kg there for everything (axle, suspension, brakes, wheels)
add in an extra 6 front passenger seats (so it appears) circa 40 kg each for those so there 240kg 

so we have ditched 10% power and 20% torque and we are 30% heavier  hmm getting worse.
now the big one that stretch, to keep that from bowing and adding 2 extra doors there is some serious metal involved here lets be generous and call it 800kg
 
so we are now at approx 3000kg 
now a quick google says the GMV of a magna was 1884kg and had a tow weight of 1500kg so 3384kg
so would this do 100 and cruise yes.
 
but wait you idiot I hear you screaming..you forgot the passengers....
so call it 1 driver and 8 in the back
average au person weighs in at 78.5kg from ABS
 
so lets add in that extra 709.5kg in
 
so we at 3641.5kg... best case
 
using a online calculator:
http://www.060calculator.com/
 
gives us a theoretical best time of 14.8sec 0-100
assuming the engine/transmission does not explode as it is now past it's duty level..


yes I am bored today
 


In the description it clearly states 12 + driver so there's a heap more seats and people you aren't accounting for.
  • Like 1

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 guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
    • Probably not. A workshop grade scantool is my go to for proper Consult interrogation. Any workshop grade tool should do it. Just go to a workshop.
×
×
  • Create New...