240...10's? Possible?
05-23-2005, 01:06 AM
#16
Originally posted by flatblacksleepe
http://www.web-cars.com/math/qtr_mile.html
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close.
But, if that was my goal (10s) i would prob go with the rb26dett.
http://www.web-cars.com/math/qtr_mile.html
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close.
But, if that was my goal (10s) i would prob go with the rb26dett.
There are many factors that "CANNOT" be calculated at all such as hot air, or cold air, stickyness of the tires and there PSI inflation, suspension "stiff or soft", size and weight of rims, differential gearing, compression of the engine, transmission gearing ratios, RPM redline and overall power band margin of the engine, and last but not the least the driver and his or her condition. These factors are called the X factor, "X" cannot be calculated on paper, it simply needs to be done at the track.........
Horse Power is only the denominator in breaking down the dynamic of engine power you also have to calculate the amount of torque the engine produces.
As far as the rb26dett hitting 10's, I would find that to be rare, an RB30dett can hit 10's with mild boosting. SR20's are breaking better times than any of the RB class engines, fireplug has already proven that in another post.
Last edited by BigVinnie; 05-23-2005 at 01:10 AM.
05-23-2005, 07:49 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 133
rb26... umm converted to single turbo... T88 yum yum
I have a video of a s14 on stock suspension running mid 8's with an rb26 i believe... So 10's are definately do-able
heres a divx video of its 8 second run... enjoys
right click- save as
http://www.exvitermini.com/movies110...ombatFinal.avi
I have a video of a s14 on stock suspension running mid 8's with an rb26 i believe... So 10's are definately do-able
heres a divx video of its 8 second run... enjoys
right click- save as
http://www.exvitermini.com/movies110...ombatFinal.avi
Last edited by kramsuey2268; 05-23-2005 at 07:55 AM.
05-23-2005, 09:13 AM
#18
Hey Kramsuey your pretty smart, I just tried to explain that in another thread that one single larger turbo is better than 2 smaller turbo's. You also payed attention to what I said about it being a TT. TT produce's more torque, Single larger turbo's have faster spooling times for producing more HP sooner than later........
So why don't people get smart keep that KA they have and strap a T88 to that large displacement KA for one quick stroker.
So why don't people get smart keep that KA they have and strap a T88 to that large displacement KA for one quick stroker.
Last edited by BigVinnie; 05-23-2005 at 09:17 AM.
05-23-2005, 06:05 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 22
"
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close"
But, its better than saying just take a ****ing guess out of a shot of hell. We all know theres elmetents that can not be thrown into the the forumla, IE drivers. But hey, like i said, its better than nouthing.
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close"
But, its better than saying just take a ****ing guess out of a shot of hell. We all know theres elmetents that can not be thrown into the the forumla, IE drivers. But hey, like i said, its better than nouthing.
05-23-2005, 08:58 PM
#20
Originally posted by flatblacksleepe
"
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close"
But, its better than saying just take a ****ing guess out of a shot of hell. We all know theres elmetents that can not be thrown into the the forumla, IE drivers. But hey, like i said, its better than nouthing.
"
Thats a acceleration calculator, it may not be 100% accurate but its close"
But, its better than saying just take a ****ing guess out of a shot of hell. We all know theres elmetents that can not be thrown into the the forumla, IE drivers. But hey, like i said, its better than nouthing.
What do you think is faster in the quarter mile?
A 300HP truck that weighs 2800LB.S, or a 300HP car with tight gear ratios that weighs 2800lb.s?
Exactly my point that calculator is a guess like anything else, mumbo jumbo...........
You cannot take HP as a direct source of it's limitations to acceleration.......
05-24-2005, 01:12 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 22
So, what math formulas have you written
"About The Calculations
ET Calculation
1/4 mile elapsed time calculation.
The programs used are based on formulas (see the box to the right) in the "Auto Math Handbook" by John Lawlor. They were based on tests conducted by Patrick Hale, who distributed computer software called Quarter Jr which calculated 1/4 mile acceleration and took into account factors such as aerodynamics, gearing, etc. The QUARTERjr. formulas were derived empirically (via experimentation), and have been used with confidence by professional drag racers for years.
ET Calculations We did our own survey and found that the calculations were a little generous in that every car was faster than it should have been. For more accuracy, the weight and horsepower data for 25 cars was entered in a spreadsheet. The numbers were crunched (eliminating the two highest and the two lowest) and averaged into a more accurate formula, which basically redefined the 5.825 factor. The front wheel drive and rear wheel drive figures, which are based on Car and Driver road tests, are available.
Why seperate formulas for front and rear wheel drive cars? In a word (two words, actually): weight transfer. When a car accelerates, the rear wheels are pushed into the ground (more weight) and the front wheels are pushed away from the ground (less weight). For rear wheel drive cars this is an advantage as the extra weight means more traction and they "hook up" better. It is also why it is so easy to chirp the front tires on a front wheel drive car, even those with low horsepower. The same phenomena can be seen at a dragstrip as the front tires immediately jump from the surface on acceleration.
Play around with these calculations and you will soon discover an old racers adage: "To go faster, add lightness." Put another way, it is often easier to gain speed by taking away weight instead of adding horsepower. A rule of thumb amongst drag racers is that removing 200 lbs. will add 0.1 seconds to the 1/4 mile time. That is why when manufacturers come out with a serious racing version of a car, a weight loss program is part of the package.
The WebCars! calculations do not take into account a number of factors, such as aerodynamics, gearing, elevation, transmission and many other factors. Even tire size can make a difference, as big horsepower cars will slip at the beginning, slowing down the car. Temperature, humidity and elevation affect horsepower and are also factors."
But it follows BASIC ****ING MATH LAW..so....it may not take exacts but give you semi accurate design at what it is.
Im tired of forums..people are little *****es who try to **** each other off instead of helping, me try to help, you try to tell me off. whats the point? Ok, no longer replying to thread.
"About The Calculations
ET Calculation
1/4 mile elapsed time calculation.
The programs used are based on formulas (see the box to the right) in the "Auto Math Handbook" by John Lawlor. They were based on tests conducted by Patrick Hale, who distributed computer software called Quarter Jr which calculated 1/4 mile acceleration and took into account factors such as aerodynamics, gearing, etc. The QUARTERjr. formulas were derived empirically (via experimentation), and have been used with confidence by professional drag racers for years.
ET Calculations We did our own survey and found that the calculations were a little generous in that every car was faster than it should have been. For more accuracy, the weight and horsepower data for 25 cars was entered in a spreadsheet. The numbers were crunched (eliminating the two highest and the two lowest) and averaged into a more accurate formula, which basically redefined the 5.825 factor. The front wheel drive and rear wheel drive figures, which are based on Car and Driver road tests, are available.
Why seperate formulas for front and rear wheel drive cars? In a word (two words, actually): weight transfer. When a car accelerates, the rear wheels are pushed into the ground (more weight) and the front wheels are pushed away from the ground (less weight). For rear wheel drive cars this is an advantage as the extra weight means more traction and they "hook up" better. It is also why it is so easy to chirp the front tires on a front wheel drive car, even those with low horsepower. The same phenomena can be seen at a dragstrip as the front tires immediately jump from the surface on acceleration.
Play around with these calculations and you will soon discover an old racers adage: "To go faster, add lightness." Put another way, it is often easier to gain speed by taking away weight instead of adding horsepower. A rule of thumb amongst drag racers is that removing 200 lbs. will add 0.1 seconds to the 1/4 mile time. That is why when manufacturers come out with a serious racing version of a car, a weight loss program is part of the package.
The WebCars! calculations do not take into account a number of factors, such as aerodynamics, gearing, elevation, transmission and many other factors. Even tire size can make a difference, as big horsepower cars will slip at the beginning, slowing down the car. Temperature, humidity and elevation affect horsepower and are also factors."
But it follows BASIC ****ING MATH LAW..so....it may not take exacts but give you semi accurate design at what it is.
Im tired of forums..people are little *****es who try to **** each other off instead of helping, me try to help, you try to tell me off. whats the point? Ok, no longer replying to thread.
05-24-2005, 07:56 AM
#23
I don't do math calculations.... I do what everyone else does, and I spend $20 to go to the track and prove what the theory of physics is I don't bullshiat on paper.
Yeah I saw those calculations they came up with b.s numbers based on averages, those ballpark figures can be off + or - 1 whole second in the quarter mile "maybe more" those are b.s math figures that anyone can round off.
I'm not here to fight or argue, but if those figures were as accurate as they are people would no longer have to go to the race track, those are facts, not B.S..........
Your only pissing yourself off. Lets put my theory to the test.......
Take what that stupid calculator says and right down what the acceleration rate to your car is........ Then go to the track and prove me wrong........You should be able to get atleast 4 runs in lets see what your average is compared to that paper.
Those guys that designed that math calculator are trying to sell you there software, they are into selling B.S, don't believe evrything you see..........
All cars carry different degredation losses a 240 carries a degredation average of 15%, a mustang at 17% those are power losses through the drive train that cannot be calculated in that calculation figure. Those would be in RWHP dyno results.
So why don't you make it as accurate as possible.......
Take your Crank HP X (15%degredation)= power loss, then take HP - (power loss), then plug it into your calculator and tell me what you get.............
Yeah I saw those calculations they came up with b.s numbers based on averages, those ballpark figures can be off + or - 1 whole second in the quarter mile "maybe more" those are b.s math figures that anyone can round off.
I'm not here to fight or argue, but if those figures were as accurate as they are people would no longer have to go to the race track, those are facts, not B.S..........
Your only pissing yourself off. Lets put my theory to the test.......
Take what that stupid calculator says and right down what the acceleration rate to your car is........ Then go to the track and prove me wrong........You should be able to get atleast 4 runs in lets see what your average is compared to that paper.
Those guys that designed that math calculator are trying to sell you there software, they are into selling B.S, don't believe evrything you see..........
All cars carry different degredation losses a 240 carries a degredation average of 15%, a mustang at 17% those are power losses through the drive train that cannot be calculated in that calculation figure. Those would be in RWHP dyno results.
So why don't you make it as accurate as possible.......
Take your Crank HP X (15%degredation)= power loss, then take HP - (power loss), then plug it into your calculator and tell me what you get.............
Last edited by BigVinnie; 05-24-2005 at 08:09 AM.
05-24-2005, 09:35 PM
#25
Actually the mustang was an example in degredation loss, it shows that all cars lose HP depending on the drive train that they run on but yes mustangs are O.K........
NO matter the weight or CHP all cars share different degredation factors that prove HP to acceleration are different for all cars.
These factors consume anywhere from 3 to 30% of engine HP. These factors manipulate the power band of all engines. different brand cars with the same HP will not make the same quarter mile times, but can infact come close.
NO matter the weight or CHP all cars share different degredation factors that prove HP to acceleration are different for all cars.
These factors consume anywhere from 3 to 30% of engine HP. These factors manipulate the power band of all engines. different brand cars with the same HP will not make the same quarter mile times, but can infact come close.
05-24-2005, 10:16 PM
#27
LOL.......
All I can say is a 10second 240 is very possible even with a KA and a super beefy turbo..............
Especialy since it is 180LB.s less than an RB25/26.................
Displacement and weight speaks for its self.........
All I can say is a 10second 240 is very possible even with a KA and a super beefy turbo..............
Especialy since it is 180LB.s less than an RB25/26.................
Displacement and weight speaks for its self.........
Last edited by BigVinnie; 05-24-2005 at 10:19 PM.