Quarter Mile Calculator? Does it fit your ride? - Page 2

phat_stak_tipa · 03-01-2013, 09:24 PM

With me in the car weighed in at 4012 pounds has made 212rwhp and i ran 14.91 it says that i should run 15.4 so its abit off.

Trevor 57 · 03-01-2013, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sprint

xe@1400kg, is there much left of the car?

No, all doors are gutted, plastic side windows, all dash and flooring (including deadner) gone, all interior material, seats gone, jsut a race seat, but it does have one heavy mutha-****** clevo in the front - LOL and my son tells me it is 425hp at the last dyno

In Focus · 03-01-2013, 10:18 PM

2650 pounds, 180 hp = 15.047. Fairly accurate.

I haven't done a 1/4 mile myself, but Motor Magazine tested a Fabia RS at 14.97 during its Bang For Your Buck issue.

dieseltrain79 · 04-01-2013, 07:21 AM

No where near it ...

Says 12.9 . The hundred odd 11.8 second slips say otherwise ;)

The Monty · 04-01-2013, 09:47 AM

Says 13.6 for me, not including driver, fuel, three baby seats, a toolbox and maccas, and I ran a 13.0.

Sprint · 04-01-2013, 10:33 AM

Interesting so many say its on the low side when i think its on the high side.

Its only going on power to weight, so many other factors... driver,weather,setup,road,luck..

http://vexer.com/automotive-tools/1-...MPH-calculator

http://www.quartermilecalc.com/

SpoolMan · 04-01-2013, 10:45 AM

says mine will do 11.23, has run 10.81.

XR8menace · 04-01-2013, 01:26 PM

Says mine should do a 10.84 @ 4000lbs 620rwhp and I did a 10.96 in a manual.

T4ME · 04-01-2013, 01:57 PM

It just doesn't factor in the huge torque spread from a turbo car.
Seems to be about 4-5 tenths out for a few.

prasac · 04-01-2013, 04:28 PM

they take way too much into account for the shift. every shift @ 2/10ths, found it works best if u just put in 1 shift, instead of say 3 or 4.

Sprint · 04-01-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR8menace

Says mine should do a 10.84 @ 4000lbs 620rwhp and I did a 10.96 in a manual.

this description sounds like a v8 supercar

SCTC · 27-01-2013, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4ME

A standard 3.8 V6 from Holden only out performed the 4.0 I6 because of the shorter first gear in the transmission,the BTR is very tall but this is where economy comes into play.

The 5.0ltr Holden motor was the same scenario to the E series Windsor 5.0.....the shorter first gear in the trans getting the torque going sooner.

Why do you think a ZF 6spd BF 6 or 8 beats the same powered BA 6 or 8?

from my testing of torque converters the smaller GMH v6 converter has 40rpm less out put speed from the input speed.While the larger Ford converter has only 13rpm less output speed than the input.Though i have not tested one, the ZF has a smaller converter similer size to the v6 GMH converter so i'd say it also has around 40 rpm less out put speed as well. It is like a higher gear except that it is in the fluid coupling of the converter.Though I have been able to get the Ford converter to slash a 10th in the 60' with standard stall. I can also get more out of the GMH v6 converter as well.VStrong Super Charged Torque Converters (TM)

SCTC · 27-01-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4ME

Yeah but the 1st gear in the Holden 4spd is rather short and helps with take off somewhat.

This is the reason for hole shotting the Fords all these years with the 6cyls and some 8's.

It's not the gear ratio that makes it short is what i'm trying to say, it's the converter size.If i was able to upload some pic's i'd show you some dyno comparisons that show it.A while ago I made up a extra modified GMHv6 converter to fit the Btr trans for a BA fitted and Tested at Heinrich performance and tuning in one of his cars. it come on eariler with extra 20kw right through the rev range but with slower top end speed.T4ME has the first stock stall Super Charged Torque Converter of mine in his BA and has improved his track times considerably,,as well as giving a bit better fuel economy around town!VStrong Super Charged Torque Converters (TM)