Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Popular Last 24 Hours Clear All
  • 3000gt MR's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:22 AM
    3000gt MR started a thread Ethanol vs methanol in N54
    Well this weeks N54 trend and word of the day is "band-aid". I dont have much time today but i'm sure this thread will be a mess when i get back to reading it. This is a debate between a properly built meth injection system vs a PI e85 injection system First off when searching methanol vs ethanol you will come across 2 things that are mentioned in just about every comparison. 1. Meth is more poisonous 2. Meth has 67% the energy of 100% gas where as ethanol is 83%. BTW. Both are alcohol based and both are poisonous in high concentrates. Methanol is used in racing, theres even a class for it. Yes the engines are build and tuned different to handle the cooler burn and the added fuel but to everyone's surprise a 100% ethanol engine would be built the same. So is there a distinguishable trait that makes 1 fuel less better than another besides needing more meth than eth? They're anti Knock properties are about the same with the octane being close to equal (R+M)/2 112-115 (although true alcohol readings are not obtainable) So now let put fuel to the side and look at systems. 99.5% of meth injection systems are put together cheap with poor design. On the contrary probably 99.9% of failures is due to poor system design. If your just looking for a minor performance enhancer than sticking 2 smaller nozzles in the charge pipe is fine. When you start getting greedy and keep upsizing nozzles and cranking up the boost is when you run into issues. When you start using it to increase your fuel capacity the charge pipe just became the worst place to inject. Would anyone run their ethanol through their charge pipe to make up for fueling? I know Fuel-it is working on a TB injection system which perfectly fine because they are not advertising 1000HP through it. They have done a great job making it pretty conservative. So lets face it, the only practical place to inject any type of secondary fuel whether its ethanol or methanol would be in the intake runner for each cylinder. As most of you know (based off the amount of txt, PM's, phone calls, tagged posts i get) I run meth, I'm starting to think my nickname should be methhead. I love power, i'm no different than the next person. I have access to 1 gas station that carries E85 and now that my GF doesn't live 20 min from it, its now a 40 min drive. I'm stuck with pump 93 and methanol if i want to make any type of power with a ST. So i went out and designed a bullet proof system that has worked great. I did not invent something new here. I just implemented it on a platform that relies heavily on methanol. For some reason when you start talking meth one of the first things people say is "what if a nozzle gets clogged?" I have no idea where this even came about. Was the first methanol injection systems mixed with sand and unfiltered? Meth out of a VP barrel is already extremely pure, 10 times more pure than anything you get out of a pump at a gas station. If you dont run a filter in any type of fueling system than you deserve to have problems. I run 3 which is 66% overkill. Not once have i even came close to this clogged nozzle BS. A proper meth system has boost kill fail safes which i think most all do now. Todays controllers have a range so if there is leaks or a kinked line it kills boost. Basically if the flow isn't within the user specified range. A proper system needs to utilize the following IPW controller with solenoid function of given fail safes individual cyl nozzles quality lines and hardware remote tank Built like you would build a factory fuel system. Dont be stupid Just about all problems are contributed to these. Some methanol donts: Progressive controllers single point injection CP location for added fuel. window fluid tank dyes no filters Most tuners dont mess with tuning meth injected cars for a bunch of good reasons. You dont know the condition its in, how well its working, blah blah blah. So for a tuner to take the responsibility in tuning something with that big of an unknown is dumb. If something shall happen the first person to always get blamed is the tuner. Some references: http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthread.php?61772-Meth-Injection-system-design-best-practice-discussion http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=947629&highlight=direct+port (@sticky If you dont want this link here let me know i'll delete it. Has to much stuff to copy over) i have to end it here for now but please discuss.
    16 replies | 194 view(s)
  • drfrink24's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:40 PM
    Struggling with the decision between upgraded twins + inlets vs. top mount single (VM TM w/6465 1.0AR) for a daily driver 335xi that will never see a track or airstrip. I think with either option, most FBO people will still likely need: Fueling (stage 2 or stage 3 LPFP + PI or VTT HPFP) Charge pipe (some FBO, including myself, haven't had issues with stock CP + DVs) Labor is nearly identical, though you don't need to hassle with shipping your old turbos back w/Single Upgraded twins RB or Stage2 = $3000 + cores (hexon are a cheaper option) TFT inlets = $1500 (includes CP) BOV = $250 = $4750 I agree there are cheaper options (including MM inlets or VTT inlets) but the TFT seem like the most potential for power out of those 3 options. You could go with Hexon, or VTT Stage 1, but you're not saving much money and leaving lots of power on the table for a LOT of labor. VM Top mount $6400 + CP $250 (BMS using stock DVs) = $6650 This is less than $2000 more (yes, $2000 isn't exactly chump change), this gap gets even smaller if you're comparing VTT 2+ or RB "super" turbos. The advantages, that I can tell: - Minimizes regret factor and allows easy swaps of bigger or smaller turbos - Happier engine with less octane required - You could return your car to stock without the hassle of needing new or used stock turbos Seems to me, that for all the labor involved, and potentially being a longer lasting solution, $2000 really isn't all that much more to spend.
    9 replies | 167 view(s)
  • tjobeid's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:09 PM
    http://www.datazap.me/u/tjobeid1991/dyno?log=0&data=1-3-4-6-8-10-11-13-17-18-20-25-26-27-28-29 Here are some logs attached as we'll as a dyno sheet. Car was on e60 running an unmodified bms e85 flash boost set to 20psti from 2500-6000rpm.FBO +255 walbro+ TFT style inlets. RUN 004 was before new intakes
    4 replies | 143 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:21 PM
    AudiBoost raised the question last week as to where the Audi 4.0 TFSI V8 turbo upgrades are. We found a picture of Loba Motorsport's 4.0 TFSI upgrade but that was shown in 2013 and we have not seen much since. AMS also announced their intention of rolling out a 4.0 TFSI V8 turbo upgrade recently. Well here is another entry from The Turbo Engineers located in Germany. This network is not familiar with this German tuner but they are working on a 4.0 TFSI C7 RS6 turbo upgrade. What are the spes? Unknown. Who is doing the tuning? Unknown. All we know is it appears turbo upgrades on the 4.0 TFSI are progressing on a variety of fronts.
    2 replies | 268 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 12:22 AM
    Turbocharged Jeep Cherokee SRT8's are no joke. Having all wheel drive traction helps the boosted Hemi's put their power down. 10.79 @ 124.52 is quick and fast but we have seen SRT8's go as fast as 9.56 @ 145. We even have a member that converted his to RWD and just went full drag prep on the vehicle going 8's. In that context 10.79 @ 124 may not be that impressive but this is an SRT8 with some forged pistons able to run 10's all day. He is running a 76mm single turbo and that makes for an easy 10 second Jeep. Pretty impressive. Especially when you consider it goes head to head with a turbocharged Mustang 5.0.
    2 replies | 38 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 01:51 AM
    You are going to see these cars compared frequently. They are not exactly the same thing but they represent tremendous performance cars from their respective countries. You are smart enough to know what those countries are so we do not need to go over the basics here and can get right down to the meat and potatoes. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the newest of the trio. The GTR at this point is riding the most dated platform but it can not be overstated just how admirable of a job Nissan has done in continually updating the GTR. The Porsche 991 Turbo S of course is the highest performance turbocharged 911 available these days. All of these cars have forced induction powerplants but the GTR and 911 Turbo S have all wheel drive and dual clutch transmissions. Major factors admittedly versus the 7-speed manual rear wheel drive Corvette Z06. Now, on paper, the Z06 should demolish these cars. Z06 performance has been very perplexing though as MotorTrend learned when they compared the Z06 to the Nismo GTR. Well, now it is Car and Driver's turn. The Z06 is the lightest car here at 3530 pounds. It offers the most power and torque with its 650 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque supercharged LT4 V8. So why is it the slowest in a straight line? It isn't surprising the Z06 can not win 0-60 sprints against all wheel drive competition but trailing 0-150? And in 1/4 mile trap speed? The 991 Turbo S beats both but that also raises questions as the Car and Driver previously got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S in a 1/4 mile. Is this car a ringer? Or did Car and Driver suddenly master the ever so complicated PDK? Something already stinks here. Regardless, the 991 Turbo S with its 10.6 @ 130 is the quickest and fastest car. The Nismo brings up the middle with an 11.0 @ 128. The Z06 trails with an 11.5 @ 125. Maybe Car and Driver needs the automatic Z06? Is it the drag of the Z07 package that is an issue again? Acceleration isn't everything, right? The Z06 brakes better than the other two. It is better balanced being the closest to 50/50. Its skidpad number is an insane 1.15g. It has the best slalom speed. It has everything going for it. So what wins on the roadcourse? We don't know. Car and Driver is 'saving' themselves for their Lightning Lap comparison. What is this, a freshman cheerleader on prom night? Give us the goods. MotorTrend put out, why can't you? Instead we get a bunch of talk from Car and Driver regarding which car they liked the best. It turns out the Z06 is the car they liked the best. Its handling is described as next level and indeed it is. The Z06 is amazing when you do things other than accelerate which is why this network is pissed off we have no laptimes. The GTR finishes in last and is said to feel dated. It is dated. That does not mean it still is not a hell of a performance car but when a Corvette Z06 feels more refined there are problems. The 911 Turbo S finishes in the middle of the pack and perhaps it is time too for Porsche to re-evaluate this whole the 911 has to be the top of the food chain mentality. It did finish last in the slalom and perhaps having all that weight over the rear end is not the best for handling transitions. What would happen if they gave the Cayman the 911 Turbo S engine? Yeah, we all know what would happen. Porsche does too. So, an interesting comparison despite Car and Driver not giving us the real goods. These days though, we don't like to be teased. We want to come away satisfied. This comparison does not provide that satisfaction. COMPARISON TESTS VEHICLE 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S BASE PRICE $78,995 $151,585 $183,695 PRICE AS TESTED $102,120 $151,880 $195,175 DIMENSIONS LENGTH 177.9 inches 184.3 inches 177.4 inches WIDTH 77.4 inches 74.6 inches 74.0 inches HEIGHT 48.6 inches 54.2 inches 51.0 inches WHEELBASE 106.7 inches 109.4 inches 96.5 inches FRONT TRACK 63.5 inches 63.0 inches 60.6 inches REAR TRACK 62.5 inches 63.0 inches 62.6 inches INTERIOR VOLUME F: 52 cubic feet F: 53 cubic feet R: 26 cubic feet F: 50 cubic feet R: 17 cubic feet CARGO 15 cubic feet 9 cubic feet 13 cubic feet POWERTRAIN ENGINE supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8 376 cu in (6162 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 232 cu in (3799 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve flat-6 232 cu in (3800 cc) POWER HP @ RPM 650 @ 6400 600 @ 6800 560 @ 6750 TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 650 @ 3600 481 @ 3200 516 @ 2100 REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 7000/7200 rpm LB PER HP 5.4 6.5 6.4 DRIVELINE TRANSMISSION 7-speed manual 6-speed dual-clutch automatic 7-speed dual-clutch automatic DRIVEN WHEELS rear all all GEAR RATIO:1/ MPH PER 1000 RPM/ MAX MPH 1. 2.29/9.8/66 2. 1.61/13.9/93 3. 1.21/18.5/124 4. 1.00/22.4/150 5. 0.82/27.3/183 6. 0.68/32.9/185 7. 0.45/49.8/175 1. 4.06/5.3/37 2. 2.30/9.4/66 3. 1.60/13.6/95 4. 1.25/17.3/121 5. 1.00/21.6/151 6. 0.80/27.2/191 1. 3.91/5.9/42 2. 2.29/10.0/72 3. 1.58/14.6/105 4. 1.18/19.4/140 5. 0.94/24.4/176 6. 0.79/29.2/198 7. 0.62/36.9/180 AXLE RATIO:1 3.42 3.70 3.44 CHASSIS SUSPENSION F: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar R: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar BRAKES F: 15.5-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.3-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled disc R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled disc F: 16.1-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, launch control TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP F: P285/30ZR-19 (94Y) R: P335/25ZR-20 (99Y) Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST CTT F: 255/40ZRF-20 (97Y) R: 285/35ZRF-20 (100Y) Pirelli P Zero F: 245/35ZR-20 (91Y) R: 305/30ZR-20 (103Y) C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION 030 MPH 1.6 sec 1.2 sec 1.0 sec 060 MPH 3.3 sec 2.9 sec 2.5 sec 0100 MPH 7.5 sec 6.6 sec 6.2 sec 0150 MPH 17.9 sec 15.8 sec 14.9 sec -MILE @ MPH 11.5 sec @ 125 11.0 sec @ 128 10.6 sec @ 130 ROLLING START, 560 MPH 4.0 sec 3.8 sec 3.4 sec TOP GEAR, 3050 MPH 13.9 sec 3.8 sec 2.1 sec TOP GEAR, 5070 MPH 10.8 sec 3.0 sec 2.3 sec TOP SPEED 185 mph (drag ltd)* 191 mph (redline ltd) 198 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) CHASSIS BRAKING 700 MPH 135 feet 152 feet 145 feet BRAKING 1000 MPH 261 feet 275 feet 291 feet ROADHOLDING, 300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD 1.15 g 1.02 g 1.07 g 610-FT SLALOM 50.1 mph 48.2 mph 48.1 mph WEIGHT CURB 3530 pounds 3894 pounds 3590 pounds %FRONT/%REAR 50.3/49.7 54.3/45.7 38.8/61.2 FUEL TANK 18.5 gallons 19.5 gallons 18.0 gallons RATING 91 octane 93 octane 93 octane EPA CITY/HWY 15/22 mpg 16/23 mpg 17/24 mpg C/D 450-MILE TRIP 13 mpg 12 mpg 14 mpg SOUND LEVEL IDLE 60 dBA 54 dBA 55 dBA FULL THROTTLE 93 dBA 90 dBA 83 dBA 70-MPH CRUISE 77 dBA 75 dBA 73 dBA *C/D estimated. tested in California City, California, by K.C. COLWELL and TONY QUIROGA Final Results VEHICLE RANK Max Pts. Available 1 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S 3 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO DRIVER COMFORT 10 8 10 7 ERGONOMICS 10 9 9 8 REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 0 1 1 CARGO SPACE* 5 5 4 2 FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 7 FIT AND FINISH 10 8 10 8 INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 9 7 EXTERIOR STYLING 10 9 9 8 REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 0 0 0 AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 20 2 8 SUBTOTAL 95 76 64 56 POWERTRAIN 1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 16 20 18 FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 3 FUEL ECONOMY* 10 9 10 8 ENGINE NVH 10 8 10 7 TRANSMISSION 10 9 10 7 SUBTOTAL 55 45 53 43 CHASSIS PERFORMANCE* 20 20 17 15 STEERING FEEL 10 10 9 9 BRAKE FEEL 10 10 9 8 HANDLING 10 10 9 8 RIDE 10 8 10 6 SUBTOTAL 60 58 54 46 EXPERIENCE FUN TO DRIVE 25 24 24 20 342352234 203 195 165
    1 replies | 79 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:16 PM
    This is the same manual C7 Z06 we previously saw go 9.872 @ 138.42. The weather was warmer this time out but the car is clearly pulling harder up top as evidenced by the three miles per hour gained. It looks like they worked out the fueling and tuning issues that were costing the car some trap speed. There is more in this of course but this is a very nice result based on the mod list: - Fasterproms custom tune by Jeremy Formato - Fasterproms custom 2.31 pulley - Fasterproms Ported Supercharger - Modified air box, and air duct with modified AFE CAI - Fasterproms Thermal reduction plates That reduce blower heat soak - Fasterproms Flex fuel kit- 50% E85 blend - Fasterproms 1.5Gal Expansion tank - ARH 1.875 headers - Hoosier 315/30/18 dr's In cooler weather (600 density altitude) this car should have another couple miles per hour in it. We're starting to get an idea for what bolt on mods can do for the Z06 LT4 though and the benefits flex fuel with ethanol brings.
    1 replies | 45 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:41 PM
    AdminTeam has just uploaded test test! test test test test test
    1 replies | 41 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 01:41 AM
    You are going to see these cars compared frequently. They are not exactly the same thing but they represent tremendous performance cars from their respective countries. You are smart enough to know what those countries are so we do not need to go over the basics here and can get right down to the meat and potatoes. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the newest of the trio. The GTR at this point is riding the most dated platform but it can not be overstated just how admirable of a job Nissan has done in continually updating the GTR. The Porsche 991 Turbo S of course is the highest performance turbocharged 911 available these days. All of these cars have forced induction powerplants but the GTR and 911 Turbo S have all wheel drive and dual clutch transmissions. Major factors admittedly versus the 7-speed manual rear wheel drive Corvette Z06. Now, on paper, the Z06 should demolish these cars. Z06 performance has been very perplexing though as MotorTrend learned when they compared the Z06 to the Nismo GTR. Well, now it is Car and Driver's turn. The Z06 is the lightest car here at 3530 pounds. It offers the most power and torque with its 650 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque supercharged LT4 V8. So why is it the slowest in a straight line? It isn't surprising the Z06 can not win 0-60 sprints against all wheel drive competition but trailing 0-150? And in 1/4 mile trap speed? The 991 Turbo S beats both but that also raises questions as the Car and Driver previously got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S in a 1/4 mile. Is this car a ringer? Or did Car and Driver suddenly master the ever so complicated PDK? Something already stinks here. Regardless, the 991 Turbo S with its 10.6 @ 130 is the quickest and fastest car. The Nismo brings up the middle with an 11.0 @ 128. The Z06 trails with an 11.5 @ 125. Maybe Car and Driver needs the automatic Z06? Is it the drag of the Z07 package that is an issue again? Acceleration isn't everything, right? The Z06 brakes better than the other two. It is better balanced being the closest to 50/50. Its skidpad number is an insane 1.15g. It has the best slalom speed. It has everything going for it. So what wins on the roadcourse? We don't know. Car and Driver is 'saving' themselves for their Lightning Lap comparison. What is this, a freshman cheerleader on prom night? Give us the goods. MotorTrend put out, why can't you? Instead we get a bunch of talk from Car and Driver regarding which car they liked the best. It turns out the Z06 is the car they liked the best. Its handling is described as next level and indeed it is. The Z06 is amazing when you do things other than accelerate which is why this network is pissed off we have no laptimes. The GTR finishes in last and is said to feel dated. It is dated. That does not mean it still is not a hell of a performance car but when a Corvette Z06 feels more refined there are problems. The 911 Turbo S finishes in the middle of the pack and perhaps it is time too for Porsche to re-evaluate this whole the 911 has to be the top of the food chain mentality. It did finish last in the slalom and perhaps having all that weight over the rear end is not the best for handling transitions. What would happen if they gave the Cayman the 911 Turbo S engine? Yeah, we all know what would happen. Porsche does too. So, an interesting comparison despite Car and Driver not giving us the real goods. These days though, we don't like to be teased. We want to come away satisfied. This comparison does not provide that satisfaction. COMPARISON TESTS VEHICLE 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S BASE PRICE $78,995 $151,585 $183,695 PRICE AS TESTED $102,120 $151,880 $195,175 DIMENSIONS LENGTH 177.9 inches 184.3 inches 177.4 inches WIDTH 77.4 inches 74.6 inches 74.0 inches HEIGHT 48.6 inches 54.2 inches 51.0 inches WHEELBASE 106.7 inches 109.4 inches 96.5 inches FRONT TRACK 63.5 inches 63.0 inches 60.6 inches REAR TRACK 62.5 inches 63.0 inches 62.6 inches INTERIOR VOLUME F: 52 cubic feet F: 53 cubic feet R: 26 cubic feet F: 50 cubic feet R: 17 cubic feet CARGO 15 cubic feet 9 cubic feet 13 cubic feet POWERTRAIN ENGINE supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8 376 cu in (6162 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 232 cu in (3799 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve flat-6 232 cu in (3800 cc) POWER HP @ RPM 650 @ 6400 600 @ 6800 560 @ 6750 TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 650 @ 3600 481 @ 3200 516 @ 2100 REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 7000/7200 rpm LB PER HP 5.4 6.5 6.4 DRIVELINE TRANSMISSION 7-speed manual 6-speed dual-clutch automatic 7-speed dual-clutch automatic DRIVEN WHEELS rear all all GEAR RATIO:1/ MPH PER 1000 RPM/ MAX MPH 1. 2.29/9.8/66 2. 1.61/13.9/93 3. 1.21/18.5/124 4. 1.00/22.4/150 5. 0.82/27.3/183 6. 0.68/32.9/185 7. 0.45/49.8/175 1. 4.06/5.3/37 2. 2.30/9.4/66 3. 1.60/13.6/95 4. 1.25/17.3/121 5. 1.00/21.6/151 6. 0.80/27.2/191 1. 3.91/5.9/42 2. 2.29/10.0/72 3. 1.58/14.6/105 4. 1.18/19.4/140 5. 0.94/24.4/176 6. 0.79/29.2/198 7. 0.62/36.9/180 AXLE RATIO:1 3.42 3.70 3.44 CHASSIS SUSPENSION F: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar R: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar BRAKES F: 15.5-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.3-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled disc R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled disc F: 16.1-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, launch control TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP F: P285/30ZR-19 (94Y) R: P335/25ZR-20 (99Y) Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST CTT F: 255/40ZRF-20 (97Y) R: 285/35ZRF-20 (100Y) Pirelli P Zero F: 245/35ZR-20 (91Y) R: 305/30ZR-20 (103Y) C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION 0–30 MPH 1.6 sec 1.2 sec 1.0 sec 0–60 MPH 3.3 sec 2.9 sec 2.5 sec 0–100 MPH 7.5 sec 6.6 sec 6.2 sec 0–150 MPH 17.9 sec 15.8 sec 14.9 sec -MILE @ MPH 11.5 sec @ 125 11.0 sec @ 128 10.6 sec @ 130 ROLLING START, 5–60 MPH 4.0 sec 3.8 sec 3.4 sec TOP GEAR, 30–50 MPH 13.9 sec 3.8 sec 2.1 sec TOP GEAR, 50–70 MPH 10.8 sec 3.0 sec 2.3 sec TOP SPEED 185 mph (drag ltd)* 191 mph (redline ltd) 198 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) CHASSIS BRAKING 70–0 MPH 135 feet 152 feet 145 feet BRAKING 100–0 MPH 261 feet 275 feet 291 feet ROADHOLDING, 300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD 1.15 g 1.02 g 1.07 g 610-FT SLALOM 50.1 mph 48.2 mph 48.1 mph WEIGHT CURB 3530 pounds 3894 pounds 3590 pounds %FRONT/%REAR 50.3/49.7 54.3/45.7 38.8/61.2 FUEL TANK 18.5 gallons 19.5 gallons 18.0 gallons RATING 91 octane 93 octane 93 octane EPA CITY/HWY 15/22 mpg 16/23 mpg 17/24 mpg C/D 450-MILE TRIP 13 mpg 12 mpg 14 mpg SOUND LEVEL IDLE 60 dBA 54 dBA 55 dBA FULL THROTTLE 93 dBA 90 dBA 83 dBA 70-MPH CRUISE 77 dBA 75 dBA 73 dBA *C/D estimated. tested in California City, California, by K.C. COLWELL and TONY QUIROGA Final Results VEHICLE RANK Max Pts. Available 1 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S 3 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO DRIVER COMFORT 10 8 10 7 ERGONOMICS 10 9 9 8 REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 0 1 1 CARGO SPACE* 5 5 4 2 FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 7 FIT AND FINISH 10 8 10 8 INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 9 7 EXTERIOR STYLING 10 9 9 8 REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 0 0 0 AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 20 2 8 SUBTOTAL 95 76 64 56 POWERTRAIN 1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 16 20 18 FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 3 FUEL ECONOMY* 10 9 10 8 ENGINE NVH 10 8 10 7 TRANSMISSION 10 9 10 7 SUBTOTAL 55 45 53 43 CHASSIS PERFORMANCE* 20 20 17 15 STEERING FEEL 10 10 9 9 BRAKE FEEL 10 10 9 8 HANDLING 10 10 9 8 RIDE 10 8 10 6 SUBTOTAL 60 58 54 46 EXPERIENCE FUN TO DRIVE 25 24 24 20 342352234 203 195 165
    1 replies | 14 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 03:25 AM
    Nobody loves the BMW N52 motor. If someone has a 328i or 128i model equipped with the N52 and asks about more power they are told to trade it in for an N54 or N55 based car. Even the aftermarket basically abandoned it and there are no production forced induction kits for the engine. It's rough being an N52 when the N54/N55 exist. Even BMW themselves replaced it with the N20 2.0 liter four-cylinder which is a far more tuner friendly motor. If you love your N52 relax, Active Autowerke has you covered with some performance parts. On a BMW E82 128i 6-speed manual Active Autowerke picked up just under 40 whp on a Dynojet with the following modifications: 1) Active Autowerke N52 exhaust headers installed 2) Stage 3 intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed 3) K+N drop used 4) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler BLUE line- stock 128 6 speed 208.48 whp - 207.63 wtq GREEN line- AA Header, 3 stage manif, K&N drop-in with No charcoal filter, stock exhaust 248.02 whp - 225.15 wtq Not bad, right? Now let's look at Mustang numbers from an automatic E9X 328i with the Active Headers and tune but without the intake manifold: 1) stock intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed but stock factory paper filter ( we did not have a K+N drop in at the time to use) 2) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler Bottom line- stock 328 auto 175 whp - 161 wtq Middle line- AA Header, charcoal filter delete 198 whp - 179 wtq Top line- AA header, AA software and charcoal filter 207whp - 192 wtq So with the full gamut of Active Autowerke N52 products one can expect roughly 40 wheel horsepower gains and roughly 30 lb-ft of torque gains at the wheels. That is about the best anyone is going to do on this motor without forced induction. Which at that point it makes sense to go to an N54/N55 or even N20, doesn't it?
    0 replies | 126 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 12:02 AM
    It's nice to have a sugar daddy, isn't it? That is how Mercedes-Benz characterized its relationship with Aston Martin last year. Rumors have swirled all over the place regarding Aston Martin and Mercedes-Benz. Last year for example Mercedes was rumored to go from supplying Aston Martin with engines to a full blown takeover. Well, Mercedes will indeed serve as the sugar daddy for Aston Martin and supply engines and technology. The first engine they will supply is the M177/M178 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 that sees duty in the AMG GT and W205 C63 AMG. The question now is how will Aston Martin differentiate the engine from its AMG use? Will it just use the same AMG GT S M178 and call it a day at 510 horsepower? Reports are that Aston Martin plans to tune the motor for its use so we could see far more than 510 horsepower among other differences. Regardless, expect to see Aston Martins with AMG engines debut by the end of the year. Source
    0 replies | 96 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:31 PM
    The Porsche 997.1 generation 911 Turbo features a 3.6 liter twin turbo flat-6 engine from the factory. This engine features the GT1 or Mezger racing block and for this reason the 997.1 Turbos are highly sought after as the 997.2 generation brought with it a 3.8 liter direct injected version no longer based on this same GT1 racing block. For someone who wants the best of both worlds the option to bore out the 997.1 Turbo motor exists and that is what BBi Autosport did here. It also looks like they did some valve work and added some GT3 bits. They took some very high resolution photos of the engine build for their 'Project Swan' 997.1 Turbo build. We look forward to seeing the finished build as a lot of high quality components are going to into it from the suspension to the wheels to the motor, you name it. For now enjoy this 3.8 liter 997.1 Turbo flat-6:
    0 replies | 89 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:47 PM
    AdminTeam has just uploaded test test 443! test test 443 test test 4
    0 replies | 30 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Today, 02:21 AM
    Aston Martin is in desperate need of some fresh air. Their models as well as their technology has become somewhat stale. The good news is that they appear to be moving forward with new models and more importantly new motors. AMG will be supplying power for the new car which you can see testing on a DB9 looking mule below. The DB9 successor or DB11 as it may called will feature 4.0 liter V8 AMG power along with the venerable naturally aspirated Aston Martin V12. An interesting decision considering the AMG motor should outperform the V12 and also offer far more tuning capability while sipping less fuel. The typical Aston buyer though likely does not care about tuning, turbos, and fuel efficiency though so the V12 lives on as it is a storied part of Aston Martin history and a status symbol. Carbon fiber is expected to be used extensively for the vehicle. That means less weight of course. Beyond that the entire platform will be new from the ground up. Expect Aston Martin styling and characteristics mixed with AMG technology. Sounds like a win-win. Source
    0 replies | 29 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:45 PM
    Welcome DustyBaraj, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 25 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:23 PM
    Welcome SibylGreen, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 25 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:37 PM
    Hey ArturoH720: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 24 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 03:13 AM
    Hey fllashyz: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 22 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 12:59 AM
    Hey NicholasMi: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 21 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Today, 03:01 AM
    Hey jasmeleg: :text-welcomewave:
    0 replies | 20 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:34 PM
    tommykrazy, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 20 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:30 PM
    ArnetteNyh, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 19 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:12 PM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum hotwired718.
    0 replies | 19 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:45 PM
    AlineFreyc, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 17 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:19 PM
    forarchive, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 16 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:51 PM
    flow2007, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 14 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:16 PM
    LettieLgc4, we appreciate you taking the time to join.
    0 replies | 14 view(s)
More Activity