Turbo FTO 176kW at the wheel!!

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:45 pm

oh yeah here is another pic

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:57 pm

d_stroy_r wrote:So, he does 11 second quarter mile times then?

i don't wanna sound like a sceptic or rain on anybody's parade, but to crack into the 11s territory you'll need close to double that sort of horsepower, especially in a FWD...

to put things into perspective, my friend has about 327kw at the front wheels on his CRX which can only manage mid 11s over the qtr mile with slicks (and as you all would probably know by now, the CRX is much lighter compared to the FTO)

salacious · Post by **salacious** » Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:52 pm

Currently the quickest FTO in the UK which cheats by having an EVO engine in it

ran a 13.6. It was running std EVO 4 boost (I think it is about 0.9 bar) and equates to 280bhp (about 210kW). It had been raining and the drag strip was closed for the first hour when they dried it up and this caused real problems with the launch. I'd expect it at this boost to run very low 13s maybe even 13 dead.

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:13 am

well im not saying he ran a time of 11's but he did sya he beat an rx7 running 12s, may of been 13 but im pretty sure it was 12.
one thing you need to remember too is that beating a car off the traffic ights is completly different to runing an 11 or 12 sec time on a drag strip

RallyMad · Post by **RallyMad** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:21 pm

G_A_V wrote:well im not saying he ran a time of 11's but he did sya he beat an rx7 running 12s, may of been 13 but im pretty sure it was 12.
one thing you need to remember too is that beating a car off the traffic ights is completly different to runing an 11 or 12 sec time on a drag strip

I was about to say exactly the same thing. I know of mates that have done 12's that regularly get beaten on the street purely because the aren't running the same tyres, the don't want to launch it as hard on the street (attract to much attention) and there isn't any clean surface that has traction compounds added on the street.

ANBU_fto · Post by **ANBU_fto** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:37 pm

dudes is this guy talking baloney or something....
sorry dude no offence....
just sounds really weird.... also smells abit fishy....

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:54 pm

RallyMad wrote:
G_A_V wrote:well im not saying he ran a time of 11's but he did sya he beat an rx7 running 12s, may of been 13 but im pretty sure it was 12.
one thing you need to remember too is that beating a car off the traffic ights is completly different to runing an 11 or 12 sec time on a drag strip
I was about to say exactly the same thing. I know of mates that have done 12's that regularly get beaten on the street purely because the aren't running the same tyres, the don't want to launch it as hard on the street (attract to much attention) and there isn't any clean surface that has traction compounds added on the street.

Its all depends on the car setting. eg: lots of 11-12 sec drag "commondoor" had huge top end for 1/4 miles but my gramma can run faster then them at traffic lights cause of the turbo lags.

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:21 pm

Having driven Scracy's car I can vouch for his setup. In normal driving situations it doesn't so much feel like a turbo car, rather it just feels like the car has a shitload of torque, like it has a MUCH larger engine, something like a 3.5L. There is little lag and lots of power making it a very smooth ride and a very drivable car.

If you hoon the car the characteristics change somewhat and you really begin to notice the turbo. (I wonder if I should have admitted to this last statement, as he wasn't in the car at the time

).

GPXXX · Post by **GPXXX** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:14 pm

[quote="FTO338]Its all depends on the car setting. eg: lots of 11-12 sec drag "commondoor" had huge top end for 1/4 miles but my gramma can run faster then them at traffic lights cause of the turbo lags.

[/quote]

true, don't forget quick 1/4 mile times are not just about the size of the turbo - it's also about the car's weight, the gear ratios, the suspension setting, the tyres, etc etc...

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:18 am

i dont think any production car today can run a 11 with 170KW at the wheels.

170KW at the wheels usually equates to just a bit over 200KW at the fly.

I believe a FTO with 170KW at the wheels would be lucky to get a low 13 second time? Considering the inherit flaw of FWD grip a high 13 is a good estimate i reckon.

Also was the FTO with the EVO motor power measure? If so what did it get? If the power was just quoting the mitsu figure, i wouldnt take that for a grain of salt.

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:19 am

FTO338 wrote:
smorison wrote:
FTO338 wrote: I don't think you can measure kw at the wheels with amount of boost, cause it all depends on the setup.

eg: T28 & T28BB which was use on Aus spec S15 & Jap spec S15, even though they both running 7-8psi at stock, they both gave 2 different output at the wheel.
s15 runs lower compression to the stock FTO...

I know, i was just pointing out that u can't measure KW with boost.

also becuase the S15 is turbo, most turbo cars have a lower compression figures.

d_stroy_r · Post by **d_stroy_r** » Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:30 pm

170kw atw isn't a little bit over 200kw at the fly, it's more like + 250kw at the fly.

I think if he had over 250kw at the fly and he wasn't pulling low 13's/high 12's it would be a waste of money.

Guni_GuGu · Post by **Guni_GuGu** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:26 am

All this turbo talk, has got me itchin'!!!

Mikey, how's your bolt-on turbo kit coming along? Can I start saving my pennies? :p

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 1:12 pm

d_stroy_r wrote:170kw atw isn't a little bit over 200kw at the fly, it's more like + 250kw at the fly.

I think if he had over 250kw at the fly and he wasn't pulling low 13's/high 12's it would be a waste of money.

going by countless dynos ive seen such a massive power loss through the wheels, is rare. I've argued this case before on this forum, a 147KW manual mivec producing just under or around 100 KW at the wheels. Thats a massive 50% loss through the drive train. If you would like to believe that a 50% loss through the drivetrain is normal then thats your opinion.

A more decent loss through the drive train is 30% for a Auto and 20% for a manual.

Eg, Proven over many dynos in different places a 290KW GT will on a average produce around 240RWKW stock! So thats a more reasonable 25% or something.

If i had a 250KW car and it pulled 170 KW at the wheels i would be damn unhappy.

ruchi · Post by **ruchi** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:04 pm

I know we probably went to different schools, but in my maths book a drop from 147KW to 100Kw would be a 32% drop. A 50% drop would take it down to 75KW

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:29 pm

ah crap! ehehhe i was thinking the wrong way around! yeah around 30% then!

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:57 pm

another thing is you cannot compare a rwd diff to a fwd cv. especially on a rear engine car (less drive train)

akumi · Post by **akumi** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:10 pm

Hey, has the car been sold? me feel like buying it hahahaha.

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:15 pm

G_A_V wrote:another thing is you cannot compare a rwd diff to a fwd cv. especially on a rear engine car (less drive train)

FWD cars lose less power through its drivetrain anyway.

Post by **smorison** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:51 pm

150kW at the Flywheel is quoted on Jap fuel with the ECU optimsing for that, in a brand new car ...

our cars are old
our fuel isn't as good
aftermarket rims can drastically effect power output (heavy wheels)
dirty spark plugs
dirty air filter
dirty fuel filter
poor oil quality (i.e. near or past its service date - both transmission and engine)

and they are factory figures anyways.