|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
 |
| #3 |
2-10-2006 @ 08:05:25 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I'd like to point out one thing, though--usable power. The torque units on that dyno plot are in Nm, and basically show that the car pulls only about 150 lb-ft of torque until 4000 RPM; over the next 2000, it surges to 441 lb-ft. Now, that's PLENTY of torque, but you're only above 75% of peak from 5700-8000 RPM.
Basically, my point is that only about 1/3 of the engine's rev range is within the power band. That's not "my VTEC just kicked in, y0" bad, but it basically means that driving it around corners (as shown in the first linked pic) is probably not as good as it could be--it's pretty gutless when it's off-boost, and it looks laggy. Recovering from a corner using torque alone isn't much of an option; you'd have to keep the revs up and the throttle open (which, I suppose, works well with AWD).
The drag run would've been more impressive if the car didn't lose traction and bury itself in the rev limiter in first gear. :p
|
|
| #4 |
2-11-2006 @ 01:10:00 AM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I like it, but I think he may need to employ a tranny with a shorter gear ratio if he wants to get the most out of his turbo. But to me this thing looks like it was built more for driving in straight lines.
|
|
| #5 |
2-11-2006 @ 08:51:08 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, I don't think shorter is the answer there; turbos like load.
|
|
| #6 |
2-11-2006 @ 10:00:22 AM |
| Posted By : GN Poser |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I think the answer is to not be lazy and build a good twin-turbo setup, with one turbo for low rpm and one for top end.
|
|
| #7 |
2-11-2006 @ 10:05:48 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I imagine it was primarily built as a dyno slut/drag thing, although it seems to have launching problems. Maybe it's built with higher-speed runs in mind. All I know is that it seems it'd be pretty difficult to deal with for the kind of driving I'm interested in.
|
|
| #9 |
2-11-2006 @ 12:52:29 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#5, Good point, I just figured he had such a narrow power band, I mean he wasn't seeing peak torque until 6K rpms. But then again a wider ratio would be the better choice, espescially around curves.
#8, Let's not jump to conclusions, yet...
[Edited by Subourbon187 on 2-11-2006 @ 12:54:26 PM]
|
|
| #11 |
2-11-2006 @ 07:29:20 PM |
| Posted By : Cobra Kid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Do you guys have a full-blown ambient hunt going, or what? What the hell is going on? Apparently, I missed everything.
|
|
| #12 |
2-11-2006 @ 07:33:23 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, Relatively tall gears and fairly close ratio spacing would work best. That way, you can always upshift/downshift without losing spool. Still, seems like more trouble than it's worth.
#11, He's banned, and he has a bad tendency to come back. Sort of like herpes.
|
|
| #15 |
2-11-2006 @ 07:41:43 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, A good point, I just thought that more time between shifts would allow for better control around curves since there's more possibility of higher rpm output, and that would help it move through better, it is a wagon after all. But you're right about the cost.
#11 Ambient posted a nasty picture, and that's all I'm going to say about the subject.
|
Showing page: 1 of 1
[ 1 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
View Stats