Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Specifications

Engine

Type: V12

Displacement cu in (cc): 365 (5988)

Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 660(485) / 7800

Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 484(657) / 5500

Redline at RPM: 8200

Brakes & Tires

Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/vented disc

Tires F-R: 245/35 ZR19 - 345/35 ZR19

Exterior Dimensions & Weight

Length × Width × Height in: 185.1 × 80.1 × 45.2

Weight lb (kg): 2766 (1255)

Driveline: Rear Wheel Drive

Performance

Acceleration 0-62 mph s: 3.65

Top Speed mph (km/h): 225 (362)

Fuel Economy EPA city/highway mpg (l/100 km): n.a. (23)

ferrarienzo.jpg

ferrarienzo_04.jpg

ferrarienzo_seats.jpg

ferrarienzo_inter.jpg

i think the interior is really nice for such a cheap car

nothing is wrong with it....ive seen them go in very good condition for $5k with RWC and 12 months rego

My mate got one for his first car, he got it for 8k! and that was without reg + RWC, when he sees this he will be pretty pissed.

5k is cheap as. Maybe its that cheap because its red?

the only downside is that apparently their known for their engine and gearbox problems. I heard they are really rough, thats why they dont hold their re sale value. Its a pity, its one of those cars that look good but are really a lemon.

Edited by Paradizzle

Hey, i dont know why all these guys are giving you a hard time, ill let my car go for 3k. My parents are making me sell it, they say its too dangerous and i sorta got nowhere to live until i sell it. So yeah.

the car makes just over 500rkw on 2bar boost. Breaks traction in 5th gear on street tyres.

Tried to get it dyno'd at 4bar boost, but the car came off the dyno rollers, luckily we stopped it in time before it hit anything. So its got alot more potentional.

The engine is stock, the turbo has been changed tho. The engines are good for like 1500rwkw.

the car is in my pic

Mate stick to the Aussie cars, atleast you know where they're from and what they are like. Believe me, you can get a VS Commodore for around 7K, thats value for money. Forget about these highly modified cars for 3K. You'll have problems like engine failures, blown tires etc

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...