Jump to content
SAU Community

My R33 Gts25T v. 2000 R8 Clubsport???


Recommended Posts

I have a little problem.... My mate just bought a 2000 model R8 clubsport and is convinced it is faster then my R33 so we are taking them down to Calder to see for sure. The problem is i dont want to look like a fool if he destroys me.... any one have any ideas on how it will go?

here are the specs:

R33: series 1, lowered, air filter, exhaust system (3.5"), boost up to 12psi.

R8: Stock, 250Kw, Auto

I recon he is in trouble but want to get some opinions from people who have run against similar cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yeah..... i know and he even tries to tell me that the holden traction control button on his dash will work like a F1 launch control box...... i really have to beat this guy, i may just wind my boost up to 20psi for the 1/4 mile run and just pray that nothing explodes.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tests quoted by magazines are based on a g-tech so they are very optimistic

Dont Wheels and Motor use Correvit timing, i was under the impression that this is highly accurate, only they time the cars with half a tank and a passenger so typically carrying approx 100kg additional.

As for his car being quicker... dont worry. Look at it like i do.

Not many of my friends are into cars, but typically those that are all have quicker cars... I love it, they get to spend all their money on getting their cars going quickly, and i get free entertainment joyriding in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by pooski

yeah..... i know and he even tries to tell me that the holden traction control button on his dash will work like a F1 launch control box......

He drives a Commodoor does he? Mmmmm.....

Could you ask him (and say Rezz from Japan wants to know),

HOW THE F*CK DOES HE KNOW WANT AN F1 LAUNCH CONTROL BOX IS LIKE? :looney:

Good luck, I hope you beat him:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am feeling a bit more confident now.... i still think it will be close, but if i lose it wont be by much and i can still give him shit for paying $35g for a car thats just faster then my $14500 car that can go around corners as well as drive in a stright line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Roy

Dont Wheels and Motor use Correvit timing, i was under the impression that this is highly accurate,

Yep highly accurate for a Correvit timing run Not a real dragstrip. The times are always a little too generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robo's

Dont get me wrong i love the skylines, but the LS1 motors are very good and make impressive power outputs. With the computers now cracked, 230rwkw is not uncommon with just tune and exhaust mods to LS1. I know they are heavy lumps, but with the added power, they can be still quick. My mate has ran 13.1 in his VX SS, 6 speed with no internal mods.

But seeing as this ones an auto, the autos slow them down alot as they LS1 loves to rev, so the stock R8 being an auto, you should hand it too him. Good luck anyway!! Its all fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • There are a few variables here, some are relevant but not critical (IMHO) to help answer your question. The two major things: 1) Ignoring anything to do with forced induction - all engines have their own natural torque curve, and it will ALWAYS roll over higher in the rpm.  There is a fixed relationship between power and torque.  When dealing with kw and nm, the relationship between them is roughly: kw = (rpm * nm) / 9549 nm = (kw / rpm) * 9549 The peak torque of an engine (without boost) will typically climb until somewhere nearish the middle of it's operating rev range, give or take a bit - then start dropping again.   The nearer the minimum and maximum rpm of the engine the steeper that drop off tends to be. 2) Boost simply increases the density of the air going into the engine, which inflates the torque at that point.  The ramp up in the torque curve you see on a turbo engine is due to the boost rising, but it's essentially just multiplying the torque you'd see if it was naturally aspirated.  The roll over you see at the end will typically be what would have always happened with the engine, whether it was naturally aspirated or turbocharged.   If the torque never started dropping then power would climb infinitely. The cool thing about this is you absolutely can tune the power delivery to suit the needs of the owner and/or the limitations of the car, and I regularly do this.    With modern turbos we've got to the point where a setup that someone may run well over 20psi of boost with could actually reach target boost well under 4000rpm if the tuner/owner WANTED to - and a lot of people seem to do this when there is actually no realistic benefit, generally it just adds a massive amount of strain to the engine and drivetrain and often actually makes the car harder to drive. As a general rule I tend to tune the boost curves for cars I tune to reach a "useful" torque level through the rev range and will often end up with a curve that ramps hard to a point, then creeps for the rest of the rev range - not to make the boost curve "soft" as such, but more to make sure its neither laggy nor pointlessly violent in it's delivery.   There have been cars I've tuned to be almost like a centrifugal supercharger (or naturally-aspirated-ish) where they actually only hit like 8psi of boost before opening the gate, then ramp up the next 10psi over the rev range... if the car is "loose enough" to drive. On the flip side I've tuned a car that had stock cams and the engine's natural torque curve fell over HARD in the higher rpm and resulted in a slightly awkward power curve to work with, in that case I actually started ramping up boost to boost torque in a way to offset the engines "NA" torque drop off... at peak rpm actually running a good 5psi+ more boost that what the "flat curve" would have defined.  This gave the owner an extra 500rpm or so of useable rev range, and had a fairly solid impact on times he was running at motorsport events due to being able to hold gears a bit longer and also falling into a more useful part of the rev range in the following gears. Here's an example of an RB in a GTSt I've done the "softened" boost curve to not pointlessly ramp straight to the max boost target early in the rpm, but still made sure it builds useful boost.  If you went in the car you'd not guess at all that the boost curve was doing anything "weird", it feels like it spools immediately and accelerates relentlessly (traction dependent) and holds to max rpm.   I don't know if you'd guess what the boost curve was doing by driving the car, or even looking at the dyno plot... but imho it suits the combination.  
    • therefore on the first examples, as we see, changing cams (graph 2) influences the quantity of torque at high revs its OK for me. so a tuner can act on the wastegate via the boost controller to increase the boost at high revs? on the last example, the boost does not decrease ok, but the torque does. this can come from cams etc etc ok. but on the other curves the boost is not constant, it increases, this is what I find strange to my mind. even more so if it comes from the relief valve. sorry I'm very new don't blame me. in my mind I couldn't imagine how the boost could be higher after the spool  
    • right, but fundamentally, for a given mechanical setup, you are either using all the torque (and therefore power) it will give, or you are choosing to run it less efficiently. Many tuners will have a practice of identifying peak available torque and then winding it back a couple of % for safety, but unless you are working around a very specific issue like a weak gearbox, there is nothing to be gained by making 20 or 30% less than the engine can
    • You can manipulate the torque delivery by ramping in boost gently, then throwing it all in after peak torque to keep the torque flat. It's nothing magical.
    • Tuning the wastegate to do it. That is all. Most people want the boost to not fall off like the most recent example. Those also look like dyno runs with an Auto/Torque converter setup, which does fun things to the graph. The boost tapers down like that because the turbo cannot supply the same amount of air at 7000rpm that it can at 3000 in terms of PSI. That, or the tuner has decided that it tapering off like that is what someone chose to do. IF you have a wastegate that can't bleed enough air to slow the turbine, and IF that turbo can flow enough air to feed the engine at high RPM, you get 'boost creep' which is a rise of boost pressure beyond what you are capable of controlling and/or want. None of these show symptoms of that, but if you had a run that was 20psi at 3000rpm, and 27psi at 7000rpm, it could be an example of that. Or simply that the person wanted boost later for their own reasons... The dyno graphs don't always show the full context.
×
×
  • Create New...