When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
odonnell, you have the patience of a saint. 924 if you keep making all of these friends the only one left to speculate and ogle over your car will be the gent in the mirror with all the charm. Best of luck on finishing your build, hope it is everything you imagined.
Agreed. It's all fine and dandy to love old gear. Heck, I find most old cars a lot more interesting than the stuff driving around these days. However, you can't deny that technology, especially electronics has progressed in leaps and bounds from when our cars were built. Modern electronic engine control is undeniably superior to that which came out 30 years ago.
Roger, I have read through your website and you have so far a pretty impressive build. But you also have some deeply entrenched ideas that are just plain wrong. Instead of running around with your fingers in your ears, you could actually stop and listen to what some of the very experienced people on this forum have to say. You might learn something new!
What baffles me the most with this build is claim it will go from 0-60 in less than 6 seconds??
924S which is 924 with 944 engine as this build, weights 2627lbs so approx 1200kg and 2.7 NA 8 valve engine will produce about 170 crank hp, optimistically 180.
Even if we further deviate those values +10% power -10% weight, the car is no where near 6 second car..
Also Roger seems to ignore wind resistance, weight reduction will only be equivalent for more power to the point where wind resistance takes over and less weight will not help there, only power will.
DIdn't he say the car's weight was cut by ~500lbs after all the mods?
Major difference there.
And wind resistance doesn't matter all that much until you are past 60 mph
DIdn't he say the car's weight was cut by ~500lbs after all the mods?
Major difference there.
And wind resistance doesn't matter all that much until you are past 60 mph
Yes,
My local weighbridge recorded 38772 Lbs in 2001
The final estimate is as you say over 8800 Lbs loss
Don't believe it until I see it. And I'm quite sure it won't get under 6 seconds, probably closer to 7 second territory.
E30 M3 with 217hp and slightly more weight will do 0-60 in 6.7 seconds. So getting 1.7 second less with less power has to involve some voodoo or rocket boosters.
That calculator is based on averages from Edmunds...nowhere to factor in things like gear ratios and tire size.
A more accurate 0-60 is 6.3-6.5s according to a numerical ODE solver that does factor in all these variables (if anyone wants to see the MATLAB code I have it...I can't take credit for it though). I entered tire diameter based on the 195/165/R16 tires you are running, the gear ratios are pulled from Clark's Garage data for a 924S, the drag coefficient * frontal area = 0.647 m2 according to Wikipedia for a 944S (closest I could find, from here). I assumed a 0.7s average shift time, code assumes starting with the car in first and no wheel spin (doesn't account for clutch slip). Imported a Spec 944 dyno power and torque curve and adjusted for your expected power and torque. Used 2266 lbs weight. Again I'm happy to show the code, it's based on a Runge-Kutta numerical ODE solver and was a major school project for the numerical methods class at Baylor University that all students had to complete, he got an A for this.
Code:
"The time required to go from 0 to 60 mph is: 6.5122 seconds.
The time required to go from 5 to 60 mph is: 6.2788 seconds.
The time required to go from 30 to 70 mph is: 6.6055 seconds.
The time required to run a quarter mile is: 14.6582 seconds
at 93.05325 mph"
I said as low as 6.3 to account for a slightly lower CoD, maybe lower shift time, and maybe +10 hp. Also shifting higher than 6200. You are still over 6 secs until 200 bhp or so.
and why are you getting onto me for saying "we?" I mean people who have already worked this out in the past. Most people understand basic physics. Nobody here is on a high horse, you're being antagonistic for no reason. You're asking a lot of questions and getting mad and frustrated when you get replies. At this point it's damage control to offset the misinformation you are posting. fml.
02-03-2016, 11:04 PM
