SPOautos

Wade, I agree if you guys want to test acceleration bump the mph up to say 60-90. That should make a HUGE difference and you still dont have to switch gears.

Later,
STEPHEN

LUV94RX7

iTrader: (3)

It's in my powerband.

40-70 = 4000-7600 rpms.

235-45-17 tires.

Ken

jimlab

The 40-70 test isn't meant to favor the FD, or any other car, for that matter. If you chose 50-90 to favor an FD's powerband, who says that's ideal for a Corvette or an Integra, for example?

The point was not to favor any one car, but to provide a standard basis for comparison suitable for all cars which can be legally performed on public highways.

You're already skewing the results if you take a "running start" from 30 mph and start timing at 40, but you also want to run at higher speeds so that an FD will be at full boost for the duration of the timing period because the 40-70 test doesn't favor the FD? That's one of the weakest excuses for an FD's performance I've heard in awhile...

Ken... 235/45-17??? Do you swap back and forth with a Civic or something?

LUV94RX7

iTrader: (3)

I lost you on that one. Tires on my FD currently are 235/45-17. Ideal for 40-70 test.

Ken

jimlab

Then you've lost me also. How is a P235 tire ideal for traction on a single turbo FD? It's a little, um... pettite.

LUV94RX7

iTrader: (3)

Hey, I haven't driven my car since 11-2000. It was shipped to KDR in 3-2001. That's the tires that were on it then. Way before a ton of mods and single turbo.

I doubt with all the delays with AEM that I'll ever see my car again.

Ken

Wade

iTrader: (1)

I'm not saying we should adjust the test to favor the FD. I'm saying if we are in an FD Forum and people want to either compare their FD against others, or compare their car before and after some mods, then it is better to make the test include the biggest part of the power curve.

If you want to compare any car vs. any other car, just use 1/4 mile MPH and less importantly, ET. Or if you just want a test that is similar to the 1/4 but with less launch error involved, specify a speed (such as 40-70 or 50-90) and use the "ideal" gear. IIRC this test was specified in 3rd gear which is definitely not the fastest way to get from 40-70 in an FD.

Quote:

The point was not to favor any one car, but to provide a standard basis for comparison suitable for all cars which can be legally performed on public highways.

If this is the case, "best" gears must be used instead of specifying a certain gear for all cars. Obviously, you are talking about a test with different purpose than I am. Obviously two different tests are needed to best compare two different things.

Quote:

You're already skewing the results if you take a "running start" from 30 mph and start timing at 40, but you also want to run at higher speeds so that an FD will be at full boost for the duration of the timing period because the 40-70 test doesn't favor the FD? That's one of the weakest excuses for an FD's performance I've heard in awhile...

Jim, you're making me laugh! If we want a fair test to compare any cars, apples and oranges, then yes the test should start at a constant speed and then mash the throttle like you say. This would make boost lag a factor in the test.

But again, to compare one FD's power to another's, or to benchmark your own FD before and after, the test should start after the car is rolling and the turbos spooled. Similar to the way a dyno sheet gives little indication of boost response and in a way, favors cars with with turbo lag that would be much slower in the real world. I can see both sides when it comes to how the start of the test should be performed, it's very arguable.

Quote:

Ken... 235/45-17??? Do you swap back and forth with a Civic or something?

I won't jump on Ken's case, I feel sorry enough for him as it is. I couldn't be without my FD for long (Jim, I can understand your situation with a Z06 to get your jollies)

Wade

SPOautos

As far as I'm concered to use this test between 2 different cars no matter if one is a rx7 or not is just stupid. What is the point? It wont tell you which car is truely faster unless you change gears to stay in the power band for each cars.

The only thing this test is good for is comparing 2 fds to see if the seq system is healthy and to make sure they are as fast as another similarly modded or unmodded car.

To me it doesnt matter which car comes out on top if your comparing different car because the test tells you nothing of the true accelleration of the car.

Its about like saying which car should be faster based on torque. It just doesnt work like that, that figure alone is meaningless in terms of accelleration

just my .02

STEPHEN

LUV94RX7

iTrader: (3)

If you want to find out which car is faster at acceleration the best test, to me, is mph at the end of 1/4 or 1/8 mile.

This pretty much eliminates missed-shifts, poor launchs etc.

Maybe for this forum we should just play it safe and do it for 1/8 mile. Speeds will not be too high, except for the big power guys, they'll be over 100mph.

Measure out an 1/8 of a mile go back and run it and see the mph. How you measure it, I don't have a clue.
My VC2000 does all this stuff for me.

Cartest2000 says mine s/b 101mph at the 1/8 mile mark.

Ken

LUV94RX7

iTrader: (3)

Stock FD s/b about 75mph in the 1/8 mile.

Ken

gfelber

The problem with your test is that the X-5 will downshift into 2nd in sport or manual mode. 2001 X-5 is 282 HP, BTW.

Gene

Flybye

So where are the rest of everyone else's times?

jr

Sorry for bringing this back from the dead but I just made some runs and wanted to post my times:

40-70 Run 1 - 4.285
40-70 Run 2 - 4.617
0-100 - 11.945

So that's an average of 4.451 which isn't too good considering my mods but there's no such thing as a flat road around here but this was on the closest I could find. The 0-100 impressed me considering I got a crappy launch and the last part was going uphill. I have logs from Datalogit if anyone wants to see them. According to R&T my car is faster than a Viper RT/10 and almost as fast as a 911 Turbo 3.6 and is quite an improvment over the stock FD's 15.0. I'm getting those numbers from this test:

http://mkiv.com/publications/road&tr...94/0100_09.jpg

My relevant mods:

M2 Intake
RX-7 Fashion DP
Racing Beat Dual Tip CB
Stock Main Cat
RX-7 Fashion FMIC
Efini Y-Pipe
Apexi Power FC
~13lbs of boost on the stock sequential twins

kwikrx7

If I remember right, a stock FD does 0-100 in 13.5-13.9 seconds. Most FDs trap at 100 mph in the 1/4 and run high 13s - makes sense - but still a great improvement over stock!

fitzrx7

iTrader: (1)

40-70 3.48 best time.
~12.5 lbs boost
30C intake temps

PFC not tuned well, 850cc x 4, 3" DP, 3" HF Cat, Borla CB, mild streetport, intake, 80gph fuel pump, stock sequential turbos blowing oil, M2 large IC

should be much faster after some dyno time with a datalogit and wideband.

Jon
'93 SSM base

ttb

This other road and track article has a 94 touring doing 0-100 mph in 14.6 seconds. It has the 0-60 mph of 5.5 seconds. Both seem pretty slow to me.

ttb

intake temp 40C
boost 10.5 psi
full tank of gas
dp, cb
pfc tuned too rich
103k original engine/turbo/clutch

i did the "old" test where i was constant at 40 mph then punched it.

1st: 5.0 sec
2nd: 4.9 sec

ttb

same conditions...this time i floored it at 35pmh...3.9 seconds,but i think i stopped the stopwatch a bit early, maybe 4.0 seconds.

ExFastWS6

i'd say under 2 seconds for me... but im light... and a ported single turbo car.... so far from average... not to mention i love the short spool time to 25psi i have with a 1/4 tank of straight toluene..

technonovice

3.5 SEC WITH -PFS Cold-Air Intake -PFS Intercooler -PFS Downpipe -PFS High-Flow Cat -PFS Straight Through Muffler w/ 4" Tip -Apex-i Power FC Computer w/ Commander -Fluidyne High Capacity All Aluminum Radiator -Silicon Vacuum Lines -TurboXS Manual Boost Controller -Crane Hi-6 Ignition Booster with Leading Coil -Taylor Ignition Wires -PFS Progressive Sport Springs (made by Eibach) -Tokico Illumina shocks (5-way adjustable) -Yokohama A032's @ 245/45/16 -Hawk Brake Pads -Fat anti-sway bar in front -Stainless steel braided brake lines -PFS Boost Gauge -DryCell Battery Relocated to Driver Storage Bin -HKS Turbo Timer

adam c

iTrader: (2)

I did a similar test in June, except it was 40-80. I had an average time of 5.16 seconds. 12.5 psi. Mods in sig.

https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...ght=post+times

fd3typer2

29degrees C Air temp, slight uphill.

DP MP Intake 10PSI stock ECU.

5 runs, average 4.5 secs.

technonovice

I re-ran today using the Datalogit. I may have grossly mistimed before using the "stopwatch method." This time my runs were 4.0-4.1 seconds.

I know I am getting a little ignition break up. I'll be curious to see if new plugs and wires will lower the time any. Not to mention the intake air temp. It was 30 deg C today. I seem to recall it being much cooler on the day above.

technonovice

I got 5.25 seconds 40-80mph. 30 deg C Intake Temp

DamonB

I should log all of this with Geez! and report back...