New Pics !

Good times Phasis! Makes the modified Pugs look sad! Just goes to show what that a difference the two stage inlet manifold makes. I got mine back together today, but as I suspected, mixtures where a bit rich. I'll tune it up tomorrow and hopefully post some times tomorrow night. It's so smooooooth though with clean injectors, it just has to be better.
 
How could you get 8.11 in a 1.4L 8 v??? :(

I HAVE to give it another try wink

Just for the rekord... :

1) Are you sure its a straight road?

2) Are you driving upp to 70 in 3 rd then waiting at 70 for a few seconds before you start acc to 120 ??? or are you guys acc and as soon as you pass 70 you start the clock?

3) thats it hehe

/Samer
 
PugPower,
I think your car is sick. Phasis, you need three times to qualify. James, didn't you say once, that your car ate Mi16's? How's this!

3rd 70-120
6.87
6.93
6.79
Av. 6.86 (I also did 6.00, but slightly downhill)

2nd/3rd 70-120
6.4
6.87
6.90
Av.6.72

405 Mi16 1.9 160hp
Haltech E6A ECU
MSD 6A ignition
2.5" exhaust
 
PeterT,

Thanks ;( hehe
What the hell could it be ?? It really does feel strong, stonger then another 2 mi16 i´v driven...

Could it be the 17" x 7.5" wheels ??
For the rekord i still have the original ecu so thatmight be something i should change as soon as possible :)

730 Kg is one reason :)
 
Well, i was out trying for the last time! :)
70-120 still the same so i thought i`ll do 90-140 in 3 rd cause thats when MY engine really kicks in. (higher RPM)

90-140 in 3 rd

8.12
8.45 Average 8.3
8.33

Well, as speeds increase the wind resistane is much greater , and from my new times it clearly shows that it went faster from 90-140 then from 70-120 in 3 rd.

:) :)

So could anyone do a 90-140 in 3 rd so we can compare ? :)
 
LOL PeterT, didnt realise we had to qualify.

I'll do some more runs (same peice of road) tonight. I am a little hesitant as this is a 60km/h stretch. frown
 
Some reference material:

Car Australia April '89
Mi16 (108kW)
80-120 6.7 sec

Car Australia Nov '89
205 GTi
80-120 6.0 sec
 
Ok, some dramatic variance in times , ay.....
I will attempt the 70 to 120 with a passenger to get some scrutiny to my results.
Got a price for nitrous oxide...$2500 installed ! another 150 hp on tap !!!
Post my times tonight.

As I understand, flat road 3rd gear holding 70k's not accelerating to 70 k's.
Likewise with holding 70k's in 2nd then accelerating to 120.

Later, (virtual) boy racers. evil
 
James,
correct with the technique. Hold 70, then go. I had myself and a passenger. With 3rd, I got better results feeding it in, until it got on the cam, then flooring it. With 2nd, it's already doing 5000rpm @ 70 km/h, so I just dumped it. It was in the wet. It spun the wheels, then again on the 2/3 change. I hit the limiter on the slowest time, so could have been more consistent with the 2/3 times. Great stuff. Looking forward to doing 80-120. Perhaps we should start a new post and invite all Frogs?
 
Althought that is a good idea PeterT, I have no doubt that many of this crowd are not interested in the slighest in these shenanegans. :D

By the way, did some more times last night.
6.8
7.0

added with previous (colder night)
6.65
6.8

average 6.81 seconds

now...without doing an actual run I would estimate my time for 80-120 to be about 5.1 given a difference of 20% (as 80% of the original 6.81 is 5.5) but reducing the % difference to 75% as the engine comes on cam at 4000rpm and accelerates alot harder above 100km/h than below.

I shall test this theory soon.

<small>[ 28 May 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Phasis ]</small>
 
Phasis,
those times are indicitive of the power/torque/weight similarites between our two cars. Mine has 119kW, yours 116kW. I agree about the post.
 
Has been dynoed at 122kw, though when we are talking about these times the extra 6kw produced; at 7000rpm mind you, would probably make very little difference.
 
Ok, 80 to 120k times only. Its pissing down over here and have'nt had a chance to do the second run yet.
Peter I like your idea of opening this virtual challenge to the other forums so will start another topic "80 to 120 times" and post the guidelines.
Regarding my times, dont think its running well yet. Have to spend some "rolling road" dyno-time to get it sorted.
 
I give upp!

either my engine is sick ? or all the changes i made are messing performance since i didnt do anything to the engines ECU!
 
This sounded like fun so I just popped down to my local *ahem* race track and gave it a go.

I forgot to do the 80-120 time now that everyone is talking about it....grrr. Will have to try tomorrow.

Temp - 16 degrees
Car - '00 306 XT

70 - 120 = 7.9 seconds (3rd gear only)
70 - 120 = 6.5 seconds (2nd and third)
90 - 140 = 8.2 seconds (3rd gear only)
 
PugPower,
if you've fitted fast road cams, which I guess would have approx. 280 deg. duration, the ignition and fuel maps will be wrong. The Mi16 has a dramatic increase in fuel at 4000 as the car comes onto the cam, peaking at 5000, where maximum torque occurs, then falling away slowly to redline. The fatter cams will have a higher peak torque, and need more fuel. So just as it starts to get going, you're giving it less fuel! Thus less hp. You will also probably need more initial advance down low, to help burn the richer mixtures caused by more valve overlap. Thus you've lost bottom end torque. There's really no choice if you want the thing to boogy. You need a programmable ECU. Are there any local manufacturers near you? I suggest looking for a unit that will accept an input from the std. Motronic missing tooth flywheel trigger, and will accept values from your existing sensors. Our locally produced Motec units will do all this.
 
Thanxs PeterT

THat makes everything feel better :)

I was thinking of haltec F9A that controlls everything apart from ignition. Is that okej or do i have to use an aftermarket re-programable ignition too ?

Ill check Motec out too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top