WJM Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 This is cool. Small worlds in the USMB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj72 Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 Well me and Rabin will be hooking up next week to compare our cars, as long as the weather gets better. We will be gtech'ing our cars and yes we'll post the numbers. so more soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subarutex Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 I think that was the first ever post whore bump that actually accomplished something... go me!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Well me and Rabin will be hooking up next week to compare our cars, as long as the weather gets better. We will be gtech'ing our cars and yes we'll post the numbers. so more soon. Soooo, I may have been asleep or in hibernation but did you ever get those G-Tech times? How about 1/4 mile times and such? I'm trying to gather as much EA81T/EA82T info as possible. Thanks! *Bumpity* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobie steve Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I am so glad you brought this post back up. I too would like an update on this incredible car. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Why thank you Josh. As for proving the hp, in spring when the dyno gets done i want anybody who wants a copy of the dyno, to give me a fax # and i will send it to them right from the dyno shop. Then we can clear this thing up and be civil to each other, I don't like this arguing about whats what, but i do know for sure that this car will prove many people wrong. Truce? I'll be emailing you my wife's fax number or you can simply email it to me via er....email. It's springtime! Any #s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Hey guys, Long time no speak... I finally got to meet Dean and go for a ride in his car. Although we have no numbers just yet, what I can say is MY GOD IS IT FAST!! It really does incinerate the front tires first, second. and starts to hook up in third. The plan to get some tangible data so you guys have some data to play around with is as follows: I have a 90 AWD Legacy (auto) that I just finished fixing up. Nothing special just a daily driver. I'm going to weight it, then do some G-Tech Pro testing to see what numbers the thing gives. We'll then do the same to Dean's car - even weight it on the same scale. Run the same tests with the same G-Tech Pro and see what comes up. Hardest thing is getting his car to hook up. He's currently running about 10.5 psi boost and it's insane. It really does pull hard well past 7500 RPM - not the slightest bit of valve float or strain. Butt dyno's don't mean squat, so I hope to actually get some numbers to prove just how fast this car is. Like I said though, wheel spin is a serious issue for this XT - it really needs 4WD. Anybody know if the hi/lo 5-sp from a GL wagon can work in an XT? I have a conversion for my wagon that I think would be bettter used in Dean's car. If so, then that is the only way it will hook up. Later guys, Rabin BTW - Dean put some pug 14" alloys on the front of it and WOW did it ever make the car look good! I'm going to set him up with a complete set - hopefully we can get som pics posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subarubrat Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Things were rally slow at work tonight so I read this entire thread. WOW what a fantastic thread. I think the giant ricer wing on the back of the car says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Under normal circumstances I'd definitely take points off for the wing - I myself wouldn't put it on. After speaking and meeting with Dean though - you quickly realize the entire project is for ****s and giggles. This is a case of "what if I did this... What would that look like?" I've also seen his garage guys... Major drooling action over the GORGEOUS 911 Porsche he has under a car cover. Actually... major drooling action over the garage itself! This car is his toy. It takes him to work and it does stupid tire shredding burn outs. The wing is all part of it being a toy... or a "lure" has he likes to call it. Other ricers are drawn to it like a rice magnet and then he destroys them with the funny pointy looking car. After he has the Pug alloys on it - I think the wing might actually look decent! (Yes I know - words I nevver thought I'd say!) Dean is definitely a good guy - so all the calling of BS can stop. His car is very fast - and may not have the numbers first claimed (although everyone knows dyno numbers are pretty meaningless when you compare between machines) - hopefull getting some data from a baseline car and the G-tech - then Dean's car and the same G-tech should let us put this into perspective. (G-techs are VERY accurate to themselves - so testing with the same G-tech can show decent numbers if testing is done back to back under the same circumstances) BTW - when he said with the right fuel you can run 17 psi he's pretty close. We ran C16 in our rally car. 17 psi, no intercooler and no detonation. I didn't like it so I dialed it down to 14 psi and we ran the entire rally like that. With the right fuel - you can stretch the useable range of the injectors since the energy in each injection of fuel is that much more than on regular unleaded. Combustion needs "x" amount to combust. You can get it via volume or by content. Just saying is all... Once we have numbers though this will much more effective. But like I said wheelspin is brutal. Hopefully we can get some decent numbers doing 3rd gear roll on's. Gets pretty speedy though when he can back the tach off the bump stops and it's still pulling. Crazy but true - I saw it myself. Later... Rabin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj72 Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 Rabin you forgot that i'm running an fmic at the time, plus i was running ms103 vp racing fuel to get the 17psi. I only ran 17psi when i really want to play but 80% of the time i'm running 10-12psi and no more, and you know the car is quite fun right there. When we do go do the testing i'll put some 103 in it then we'll crank it up and go have some fun.I'll try to get ahold of ya either tues or wed maybe to go play. I got three of the 14" pugs on there and the one side looks good but (hint hint, you maybe have a fourth one for me to borrow till mine comes in). Going to go put a deposit on a nice big and loud blow off tommorow, haven't decided yet between greddy and turbosmart, but i'll figure that one out tommorow. I'll post some new pics of the car and engine compartment soon. Talk to you soon Rabin and also everybody else, have a good one everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis ex24 Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 thanks for bumping this... can we see some numbers now? a dyno graph would be nice, and not one from a small block chevy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj72 Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 You will have to live with the digital pics of the gthech's on both of our cars for now. Gtech's are more than accurate and you know that. Rabin and me talked today and more than likely we will be doing our testing on wed after supper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prjctturboroo Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 gotta run an intercooler ,I'm planing to use a late 80s mazda rx7 top mount with a hood scoop for my swap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calebz Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 He's using an FMIC I on the other hand have an 87 RX7 TMIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobie steve Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Gtechs can be somewhat accurate but they can also be manipulated into displaying a faster number. If I tilt my Gtech I can easy get a 11 sec run in a stock Escort. So many factors can make a Gtech reading false, unlevel road, suspension sag in rear, wheel spin. A dyno wont lie neither will a run at the track. Anyway what is a 15 sec Gtech time gonna prove??? that you have 300whp....I dont think so. Are you comparing this XT to a 2.2l AUTO LEGACY?? If thats the case i can see how it might feel fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Again for those missing the point... The Legacy is a baseline to show some baseline numbers the G-tech comes up with. Anything can be manipulated - even a dyno graph can be if you want to get into that - which I don't. Once a baseline is set so that we know the G-tech is reading OK by verifying some decent numbers on a un-modded car that has modest power - we can then test Dean's car. Back to back to minimize external factors. Test will simply be third gear roll on in Dean's car, and a 2nd gear roll on for the Legacy. That should eliminate wheelspin in Dean's car, and be enough to get decent numbers. What will be of use is knowing the numbers for a 138 HP Legacy - we should be able to see a relationship of what the car probably has to what it is putting down to the ground. Dean's car is unknown - so with the Legacy data we should be able to get a close approximation of what kind of power his car is making. We will be weighing the cars on the same scale and then doing back to back tests on the same road with the same set up. I'll even use a level on the g-tech while mounting it. I'm the third party independant tester that is trying to just get some numbers that mean something. A dyno pull has just as much clout as a G-tech if done properly. You should know that you can't compare numbers from different dynos. You should know that G-Techs are VERY accurate to themselves (If you know what you're doing) - meaning you can test your car, modify it and then see a real world gain. External factors play a big part but can be minimized by doing back to back testing so that atmospheric conditions are as close as possible. On that same note - comparing G-Tech to G-tech is also a load of hooey. The only way I can think of doing this and getting numbers that means something is the way we're going to do it. You guys should know that we don't have a rolling road dyno in Saskatchewan. It's the G-Tech or nothing. If anyone can suggest a better way to get more accurate results with the available means - let me know. Any suggestions to keep error to minimum - suggest away. If you want to take the tact that we're going to stack the deck by faking the results - then that's your option too. I really don't care - I'm doing this for those that are genuinely curious like myself. Later... Rabin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myxalplyx Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 You guys should know that we don't have a rolling road dyno in Saskatchewan. It's the G-Tech or nothing. Rabin How close is this place to you? Techmotion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 That would be the closest - but Calgary is about 7.5 hrs away one way. 15 hrs round trip to find out how much power this XT is making is a bit much. There might me something closer in the States - but I've never done the research. Cool link though! Calgary is a cool place and I may be going out there this fall with my Peugeot so I wouldn't mind popping in to have my Peugeot Dyno'd just for fun. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Ya know...I've built up two 87+ turbo cars....and slapped together one 86 turbo car. I find it strange that the pre MAF engines seem to pull harder and smoother than the MAF ones....even tho the MAF's are supposed to have more HP at higher RPM...Warp3 and I have the 86 Vane's...and Pleiades has a built up RX, and I have a mostly stock RX. I think some comparing time is in order. I just need some serious cams to play with again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warp3 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Warp3 and I have the 86 Vane's...and Pleiades has a built up RX, and I have a mostly stock RX. I think some comparing time is in order. Well then let's get another dyno day setup at Taylor's (this time insisting on getting real RPM readings not using "calibration" mode) and I'll bring the RX instead of the Impreza this time. BTW, calling the pre-87 models "pre-MAF" isn't really correct. They still have an MAF, it's just a "flap-type" MAF instead of the later hot-wire MAF setup. A hot-wire style MAF sensor DOES free up horsepower over a flap-type since there is far less intake restriction. However, they also made other changes in 87 (like the change in boost control) which could explain the power difference. I still swear that my 86RX at 12psi pulls stronger than Pleiades' 88RX at 12psi (last time I drove it anyway, which was before he prepped it for the GRM challenge), but I also wonder how much of that could be due to the drivetrain loss difference (i.e., PT4WD (in FWD mode) vs FT4WD). Of course, until I get my hesitation fixed (which I'm almost 100% positive I know what it is now) and get my silicone heater hose for the upper coolant turbo hose (which is backordered but should be here in about a week or so), my car will remain at stock boost (about 6-7lbs). Speaking of which, I didn't realize just how big a difference the MBC had made until I removed it...LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Where is Taylor's? Northern states may be just as close as Calgary - long shot but you never know. As for the different air meters - isnt the early car a VAF (vane air flow), and the later cars a MAF (mass air flow)? That's how I call them anyway to differentiate. Rabin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warp3 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Where is Taylor's? Northern states may be just as close as Calgary - long shot but you never know. Mooresville, North Carolina. Quite a ways from Canada...hehe As for the different air meters - isnt the early car a VAF (vane air flow), and the later cars a MAF (mass air flow)? I was under the impression that MAF simply referred to any sensor that measures the actual amount (i.e. mass) of air (as opposed to MAP systems that measure the pressure and temperature and use those numbers to calculate the mass). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I think it is technically incorrect to call the vane/flapper door style a MAF. But thats just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Yep - Mass can not be measured by vane type meter - I believe it is measuring Volume of air entering the motor. Makes sense to call it a VAF wether it means Vane Air Flow - or Volume Air flow - both work! Rabin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Oh yeah - forgot to mention the numbers we got. Specs: Weight of car: 1040 KG (2292 lbs) Weight of car with Dean and I: 1210 KG (2668 lbs) (Couldn't believe how light it was! No wonder it feels so fast) Changes made since I was last in the car - 14" Pug alloys with 195 60 tires. Car looks really good with that much rubber under it. This was the first time I've ever used my G-Tech Pro, and is it simple to use. Set up was very straight forward and the numbers we got were quite consistent - unfortunately it was hard to get the power to the ground in the lower gears so that wind resistance was not as big a factor. We either had wheelspin - or it seemed like some clutch slip at the 1-2 shift after we nicely warmed up the tires and they started to hook up. Numbers we got: Peak G-Tech HP we got was 130 HP Average G-Tech was about 128 HP. We hit the peak numbers as 2nd gear hooked up - Ideally if it could have hooked up in first it might be more accurate. Since the G-Tech is limited to calculating an accurate number from a dead stop - roll on HP figures can't be had accurately. So - I'm guessing the car has about 160 G-Tech HP to the wheels if it can hook it up. I had planned on getting some baseline numbers for the Legacy - but it started a coolant leak at the water pump while en route to the weigh scales. (OEM O2 pump along all new parts for redoing the entire front portion of the motor - and the freaking pump leaks after two weeks - and it's not at the gasket - looks like the leak is coming from the shaft seal. I'm not a happy camper...) There's no need for any childish retorts about the low numbers. Unless your car was out there this very night and was weighed on the same scale and used the same road blah blah blah - you simply can't compare numbers. The car still absolutely fly's and is one hell of car for roll on acceleration. I think he's done a hell of a job getting the car to really perform well - what it needs most is traction - although the excessive wheel spin is really addicting. Later... Rabin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.