XKR Super G... Going for Mach 1
10-24-2009, 11:22 PM
#1685
SO Blackbird is running 11.0 at 134 with his GTM Stage 5 (twin 3082s).
This will give a good idea how much faster XKR's G will be, granted traction etc. It will crush out of the hole, and still have a few hundred more HP past 4500 rpms with a final tune at the 20+ psi that Blackbird is running
This will give a good idea how much faster XKR's G will be, granted traction etc. It will crush out of the hole, and still have a few hundred more HP past 4500 rpms with a final tune at the 20+ psi that Blackbird is running
Last edited by str8dum1; 10-24-2009 at 11:25 PM.
10-24-2009, 11:35 PM
#1686
^^^^
Rich, is Blackbird the guy who was having some issues with his electrical systems a week or two ago? If so, I think this data shows that there was something wrong with his build. I know Mike has a 4.0L motor vs. a 3.5L motor, but the difference in displacement does not account for the 150 ft-lb difference at 4250 rpm. I still think his cams are not advancing when they should.
Rich, is Blackbird the guy who was having some issues with his electrical systems a week or two ago? If so, I think this data shows that there was something wrong with his build. I know Mike has a 4.0L motor vs. a 3.5L motor, but the difference in displacement does not account for the 150 ft-lb difference at 4250 rpm. I still think his cams are not advancing when they should.
10-25-2009, 07:57 AM
#1691
Terry, ya thats the car. Very fast down the track regardless if the cams are lifting or not. Way stronger than a fully functioning Greddy kit nonetheless.
stage4 vs stage5
The stage 4 has been corrected down by 10% to correlate with dynodynamic #. All the DJ graphs I have use a (DJ hp)*0.90 correction. CLose enough
Essentially no difference between those 2 cars
All these charts I've been accumulating are nice bc it seems like once past the 3071 size, it doesnt matter how big the turbo is. They all have the same bottom end (under4k and except for XKR), so theres no reason not to go as big as you can fit.
I also think its funny when you look at like Hal's car. Make crappier low end than than these cars, but if you can get up to 148 mph in 400m, i doubt you will loose any race to a car with smaller turbos and less lag. Ya the area under the curve might be less, but that wont keep ya from seeing blinkers
stage4 vs stage5
The stage 4 has been corrected down by 10% to correlate with dynodynamic #. All the DJ graphs I have use a (DJ hp)*0.90 correction. CLose enough
Essentially no difference between those 2 cars
All these charts I've been accumulating are nice bc it seems like once past the 3071 size, it doesnt matter how big the turbo is. They all have the same bottom end (under4k and except for XKR), so theres no reason not to go as big as you can fit.
I also think its funny when you look at like Hal's car. Make crappier low end than than these cars, but if you can get up to 148 mph in 400m, i doubt you will loose any race to a car with smaller turbos and less lag. Ya the area under the curve might be less, but that wont keep ya from seeing blinkers
Last edited by str8dum1; 10-25-2009 at 08:06 AM.
10-25-2009, 08:13 AM
#1692
^^^^
Very nice comparison. That actually provides evidence that the cams are working fine in Blackbird's build.
You can definitely see the 3082's breathing better than the 3076's in the higher rpms with no real spool up issues. Were both users using the same cams? If so, what cams are they?
As I noted, the extra displacement of Mike's motor will make a bit of a difference when compared to the other motors, but a 14.2% increase in displacement alone will not give a 42% increase in torque at 4250 rpm. So, there definitely is something else going on. Mike also has the Cosworth plenum, which will make a bit of difference, but again nowhere near enough. Perhaps it is the cams. Mike has the JWT C8 cams. What do the cars in the 2nd plot use?
Hopefully by next week Mike will have the final tune and post his final dyno chart. That will be very interesting.
Very nice comparison. That actually provides evidence that the cams are working fine in Blackbird's build.
You can definitely see the 3082's breathing better than the 3076's in the higher rpms with no real spool up issues. Were both users using the same cams? If so, what cams are they?
As I noted, the extra displacement of Mike's motor will make a bit of a difference when compared to the other motors, but a 14.2% increase in displacement alone will not give a 42% increase in torque at 4250 rpm. So, there definitely is something else going on. Mike also has the Cosworth plenum, which will make a bit of difference, but again nowhere near enough. Perhaps it is the cams. Mike has the JWT C8 cams. What do the cars in the 2nd plot use?
Hopefully by next week Mike will have the final tune and post his final dyno chart. That will be very interesting.
Last edited by ttg35fort; 10-25-2009 at 08:18 AM.
10-25-2009, 08:58 AM
#1693
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (208)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little off topic, but related to this thread: SW (Boostlogic) just backed up his 240+ mph Texas Mile run from last year, with 243mph! This is with a 3.4L 2jz-gte.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ71Tx2t10o
Go get 'em Mike!
Darren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ71Tx2t10o
Go get 'em Mike!
Darren
10-25-2009, 11:13 AM
#1694
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^Out of my league......I would have to bring something else other than the G to do that. 200 is all I want
... or could safely get
... or could safely get
Last edited by XKR; 10-25-2009 at 11:25 AM.
10-25-2009, 11:34 AM
#1697
The underbody concept is pretty far along at this point, now we just need to get it modeled or wind tunnel tested. The modeling will take some time, but if there are any of you 3D modeling guys out there who want to give us a hand generating a 3D model of the G35, it would be greatly appreciated!!! We need to generate the model either as a STEP (.stp) or IGES (.igs) file.
FYI, the 3D models we downloaded from the Internet (following previously posted suggetions in another thread) have turned out to be pathetically inadequate.
10-25-2009, 11:36 AM
#1698
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will be able to get well in excess of 200 mph. The G35 is very aerodynamic, and you will have alot of hp.
The underbody concept is pretty far along at this point, now we just need to get it modeled or wind tunnel tested. The modeling will take some time, but if there are any of you 3D modeling guys out there who want to give us a hand generating a 3D model of the G35, it would be greatly appreciated!!! We need to generate the model either as a STEP (.stp) or IGES (.igs) file.
FYI, the 3D models we downloaded from the Internet (following previously posted suggetions in another thread) have turned out to be pathetically inadequate.
The underbody concept is pretty far along at this point, now we just need to get it modeled or wind tunnel tested. The modeling will take some time, but if there are any of you 3D modeling guys out there who want to give us a hand generating a 3D model of the G35, it would be greatly appreciated!!! We need to generate the model either as a STEP (.stp) or IGES (.igs) file.
FYI, the 3D models we downloaded from the Internet (following previously posted suggetions in another thread) have turned out to be pathetically inadequate.
10-25-2009, 11:38 AM
#1699
Looks like the TT gallarado's are closing the gap quickly with the supras though.......SW's car is gross.
Lots of Pics:
http://www.supraforums.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=563777
Lots of Pics:
http://www.supraforums.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=563777
Last edited by 03threefiftyz; 10-25-2009 at 11:39 AM.
10-25-2009, 01:10 PM
#1700
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^
Very nice comparison. That actually provides evidence that the cams are working fine in Blackbird's build.
You can definitely see the 3082's breathing better than the 3076's in the higher rpms with no real spool up issues. Were both users using the same cams? If so, what cams are they?
As I noted, the extra displacement of Mike's motor will make a bit of a difference when compared to the other motors, but a 14.2% increase in displacement alone will not give a 42% increase in torque at 4250 rpm. So, there definitely is something else going on. Mike also has the Cosworth plenum, which will make a bit of difference, but again nowhere near enough. Perhaps it is the cams. Mike has the JWT C8 cams. What do the cars in the 2nd plot use?
Hopefully by next week Mike will have the final tune and post his final dyno chart. That will be very interesting.
Very nice comparison. That actually provides evidence that the cams are working fine in Blackbird's build.
You can definitely see the 3082's breathing better than the 3076's in the higher rpms with no real spool up issues. Were both users using the same cams? If so, what cams are they?
As I noted, the extra displacement of Mike's motor will make a bit of a difference when compared to the other motors, but a 14.2% increase in displacement alone will not give a 42% increase in torque at 4250 rpm. So, there definitely is something else going on. Mike also has the Cosworth plenum, which will make a bit of difference, but again nowhere near enough. Perhaps it is the cams. Mike has the JWT C8 cams. What do the cars in the 2nd plot use?
Hopefully by next week Mike will have the final tune and post his final dyno chart. That will be very interesting.
I also have noticed that hal was dynoing my car in 4th gear ( almost 80% certain) so that may have affected the dyno numbers
all I know now is that I trust a trap speed alot more than a dyno number