[hotrod182]

Really should do the more standard 60-130mph test.
If I were trying to get the best 60-100 mph time, I would probably want to see if it is possible to ride 3rd all the way to 100mph. If not, perhaps that is an advantage a 6M would have over the automatic.

Either way, GPS is the way most be acquire comparable data. If you are trying to use your speed sensor signals, please run a GPS also, and share the comparison results with us!

[OpenFlash]

I think you present some bad assumptions there. You suggested that there are 4mph to make up with a 4% calibration error when there are, in fact, just ~2mph. And you calculated the time per mph based upon a stock tune running 60-100 in 5s when we are really talking about tuned cars that do that sprint in 3.7-4.2 sec.

Shiv

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by hotrod182

Really should do the more standard 60-130mph test.
If I were trying to get the best 60-130mph time, I would probably want to see if it is possible to ride 3rd all the way to 100mph. If not, perhaps that is an advantage a 6M would have over the automatic.

Either way, GPS is the way most be acquire comparable data. If you are trying to use your speed sensor signals, please run a GPS also, and share the comparison results with us!

Depending on the tire sizes that we are using, most of the MT guys can go to 100 in 3rd. I think that the 60-100 comparisons are perfect for an MT becuase it takes out the shfting variable.

The last time I tested out my intake, I did the 60-130 but if I shift faster in one run than the next then that takes out the testing.
IMO, 60-100 will keep the tests fair.
Autos don't aply since their shifts will be somewhat the same speed every time.

[Prince ///M]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

I think you present some bad assumptions there. You suggested that there are 4mph to make up with a 4% calibration error when there are, in fact, just ~2mph. And you calculated the time per mph based upon a stock tune running 60-100 in 5s when we are really talking about tuned cars that do that sprint in 3.7-4.2 sec.

Shiv

No stock car can perform a 60-100 pass in 5s. This is a good time for a manual 135i @ 13-14psi.

In addition, as I tried to explain in the previous post, the only mph that count in the difference are the last missing four from 96 to 100. In fact a real 60-100 is quite similar to a 57.6-100 because the first mph are gained way faster (low resistance and engine near maximum torque in third gear).

In fact by reading 4% higher speeds there are two factors on 60-100 miscalculation:
- the real speed increment is 1.6 mph shorter
- the real speed range is shifted on lower values.

The first effect is irrelevant
The second one on the contrary is considerably detrimental on a tune only car because in the 60-100 test the last mph are gained very slowly due to the high aerodynamic drag and the low torque provided by the engine near the redline.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Prince ///M

No stock car can perform a 60-100 pass in 5s. This is a good time for a manual 135i @ 13-14psi.

In addition, as I tried to explain in the previous post, the only mph that count in the difference are the last missing four from 96 to 100. In fact a real 60-100 is quite similar to a 57.6-100 because the first mph are gained way faster (low resistance and engine near maximum torque in third gear).

In fact by reading 4% higher speeds there are two factors on 60-100 miscalculation:
- the real speed increment is 1.6 mph shorter
- the real speed range is shifted on lower values.

The first effect is irrelevant
The second one on the contrary is considerably detrimental on a tune only car because in the 60-100 test the last mph are gained very slowly due to the high aerodynamic drag and the low torque provided by the engine near the redline.

Here's my log of a 60-100mph run:


Judging by the slope of the rpm plot, the last 2 mph doesn't take much longer than the first 2. Aero drag at 100mph isn't very high. It's about as half as much as it is at 130mph. And a 5s 60-100mph run in a 135 running 14psi seems a bit slow. I think we get where each other is coming from.

Shiv

[Pry]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Judging by the slope of the rpm plot, the last 2 mph doesn't take much longer than the first 2. Aero drag at 100mph isn't very high. It's about as half as much as it is at 130mph. And a 5s 60-100mph run in a 135 running 14psi seems a bit slow. I think we get where each other is coming from.

Shiv

You are probably making more power on the higher revs and that's why the ascension of the slope won't decrease too much.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by Pry

You are probably making more power on the higher revs and that's why the ascension of the slope won't decrease too much.

Maybe someone running a tune only car can post up their logs.

Shiv

[alextremo]

Originally Posted by dtp3347

is there an easy way to calculate grade? I have a road by my house that is very flat (as far as I can tell) that I do 60-100 tests on but I dont know the exact grade of it.

Some of the online mapping tools will give you change in elevation - you could get this info and do the math to convert to grade. I use runningmap.com to map my routes and it will give you elevation. I'm sure there are others.

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Maybe someone running a tune only car can post up their logs.

Shiv

I will in about 2 minutes

[Pry]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Maybe someone running a tune only car can post up their logs.

Shiv

As far as I know the aero drag is about 13% higher at 100 mph than it is at 96 mph.
The point I was after is that it won't affect to your acceleration that much because the car is making more power on third gear at 100 mph than it is at 96 mph.

[dtp3347]

This is 4.14 seconds on a flat road (will take pics later)

60 hits at 7.05sec - 100 at 11.19sec

edit : nvm

[Mr. 5]

So you hit 60-100 in 4.14 seconds with a tune only?
There's something wrong with how this is being calculated.

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

So you hit 60-100 in 4.14 seconds with a tune only?
There's something wrong with how this is being calculated.

I was running stage 3 lol

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by dtp3347

I was running stage 3 lol

So your tune only is faster than a Lamborghini Reventon and a New Z06?
I'm having a very hard time believing this.

I know our cars are fast, but we really need to see a comparison between the way the procede calculates speed vs the way the Vbox calculates speed.

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

So your tune only is faster than a Lamborghini Reventon and a New Z06?
I'm having a very hard time believing this.

I know our cars are fast, but we really need to see a comparison between the way the procede calculates speed vs the way the Vbox calculates speed.

Im not trying to claim that my car is fast as fuck im just showing what I got from the procede datalogs! Also maybe the Z06 and Reventon require shifts in the middle of that? who knows!

[jcarlucci1]

Have you dyno'd your car? No offense, but I find it pretty strange that all the cars using the procede logs are running such fast times..my car is 390whp and the best ive seen is 4.5. Was that run on race gas? .4 seconds for cars with the same mods is a HUGE difference. Like a 40-50whp difference. Any chance you can video the run?

Originally Posted by dtp3347

I was running stage 3 lol

[jcarlucci1]

Wait, am I reading this right? You have no other mods and are running stage 3 tune? Or you have full stage 3 mods?

Originally Posted by dtp3347

Im not trying to claim that my car is fast as fuck im just showing what I got from the procede datalogs! Also maybe the Z06 and Reventon require shifts in the middle of that? who knows!

[dtp3347]

I really want to buy a vbox but I don't have the resources ATM I will video a run if I get a chance! Again I'm not trying to claim my car is insanely fast or anything I'm just showing what the datalog spit out

[Pry]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

So your tune only is faster than a Lamborghini Reventon and a New Z06?
I'm having a very hard time believing this.

I know our cars are fast, but we really need to see a comparison between the way the procede calculates speed vs the way the Vbox calculates speed.

I think the procede gives you fairly accurate data. The speed might be a little off if it's not calibrated for your tires and you can't be sure if the road is perfectly level.
If you look at the youtube video shiv posted on a other thread and time the run with a stop watch it really takes about 3.7s to go from 60 to 100 mph.
There are plenty of videos stock Z06's doing acelleration runs and when I timed them from 60 to 100 mph they were almost exactly the same as shiv's run. The biggest difference there was that shiv did the whole run with one gear when the Z06's shifted atleast once.
And yeah, I'm having a very hard time too believing that a Reventon needs over 4 sec to go from 60 to 100 mph. Where did you get those numbers?

[Mr. 5]

Originally Posted by dtp3347

I really want to buy a vbox but I don't have the resources ATM I will video a run if I get a chance! Again I'm not trying to claim my car is insanely fast or anything I'm just showing what the datalog spit out

No worries man. It's not anything against you at all.
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why there is such a difference between the 60-100 times from the procede data logs and the vbox times.

[kenneth]

Running the Procede using a vbox would shed light into this! Has this been done?
I have a feeling that if the procede logger is proven to be accurate, that might mean the Procede has gotten to be extremely fast.....

Can't wait for the answer!

[dtp3347]

Originally Posted by kenneth

Running the Procede using a vbox would shed light into this! Has this been done?
I have a feeling that if the procede logger is proven to be accurate, that might mean the Procede has gotten to be extremely fast.....

Can't wait for the answer!

somebody loan me a vbox