60-130 MPH: New performance measurement!
06-11-2006, 07:31 AM
#646
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Here is one of my "efforts" on the same scale - I will try to dig out a powershift done by a pro, it still didn't look like the one above - Is it because the car has so much momentum that it doesn't slow at all during the change 
06-11-2006, 09:32 AM
#648
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Were you in there when the run was made. I has similar spectacular times when I was calibrating my XA22 at a crawl before launching. This has since being corrected in my procedures. I find the shift pattern unusual and I have a lot of properly executed times on my XA22 on many vehicles.
If the numbers are correct then this is an amazing chart and car,
I would extrapolate that it would do 0-100 mph in 5.0 secs. which would be faster than a McLeran F1 or an Enzo and possibly faster than the Ultima GTR720 which did 0-100 in 5.3 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 10.5 @ 140. 0-60 in 2.7 sec and thus 60-140 in 7.8 sec. and this car weights in at less than 2200 lbs.
Therefore I conclude and have to cry BS to 4.4
LAT
If the numbers are correct then this is an amazing chart and car,
I would extrapolate that it would do 0-100 mph in 5.0 secs. which would be faster than a McLeran F1 or an Enzo and possibly faster than the Ultima GTR720 which did 0-100 in 5.3 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 10.5 @ 140. 0-60 in 2.7 sec and thus 60-140 in 7.8 sec. and this car weights in at less than 2200 lbs.
Therefore I conclude and have to cry BS to 4.4
LAT
Last edited by LAT; 06-11-2006 at 10:00 AM.
06-11-2006, 11:44 AM
#649
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Before going further let's be clear that I am simply reporting a run, the car is not mine, and I don't know the owner more than I know anyone here. The fact that it is the same builder as my car might lead to some skepticism (sp) however, I have been sent all the data to do some analysis on it, and this is what I am doing actually. Everything that I have seen so far seems good..
To answer some questions..
It is a mix of momentum and fast shifting while under full boost, there is a way to do this which I cannot share on the forum openly (these guys race for money sometimes, even pink slips!!). These gentlemen are much better at this than any race track driver, the downside being that if you miss, you break your gearbox instantly. G's get negative when he shifts BTW.
Not sure but I think they are not full slicks. I am very cautious when I post information about HP and torque numbers, I let acceleration speak for itself, this car has dyno'ed 837HP at 1.3 Bar on an engine dyno, and 910 RWHP at 1.5 Bar on a Dyno Dynamics.
LAT,
I think your BS call is a bit hasty. It would be better to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions, you don't know anything about this car. There is much more out there than RUF cars. Where is the performance of RUF cars? The RT12? Please...
I have addressed the shifting question above. The way you shift and the way they shift is not the same.
The cars you are comparing to are literally nothing when compared to this car. Let me put it this way, this car with a gentle 0.60mph in 4.5 seconds, will reach a quartermile trap speed much higher than RUF's RT12....at 0.9 BAR!
One last thing, this car is a heavyweight, and ran a 9second quartermile time with a trap speed of about 160mph, extrapolate the 100-200 and compare to RUF's star the RT12.
The runs were made in 2-3rd gear, the car has a redline of 8k RPMs.
I am checking to see if all the numbers are making sense, so far it all seems good, I have no reason to doubt.
To answer some questions..
Originally Posted by TB993tt
Is it because the car has so much momentum that it doesn't slow at all during the change
Originally Posted by Stummel
BLAST!
What tires? Slicks?
hp and torque numbers?
What tires? Slicks?
hp and torque numbers?
Originally Posted by LAT
Were you in there when the run was made. I find the shift pattern unusual and I have a lot of properly executed times on my XA22 on many vehicles.
If the numbers are correct then this is an amazing chart and car,
I would extrapolate that it would do 0-100 mph in 5.0 secs. which would be faster than a McLeran F1 or an Enzo and possibly faster than the Ultima GTR720 which did 0-100 in 5.3 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 10.5 @ 140. 0-60 in 2.7 sec and thus 60-140 in 7.8 sec. and this car weights in at less than 2200 lbs.
Therefore I conclude and have to cry BS to 4.4
LAT
If the numbers are correct then this is an amazing chart and car,
I would extrapolate that it would do 0-100 mph in 5.0 secs. which would be faster than a McLeran F1 or an Enzo and possibly faster than the Ultima GTR720 which did 0-100 in 5.3 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 10.5 @ 140. 0-60 in 2.7 sec and thus 60-140 in 7.8 sec. and this car weights in at less than 2200 lbs.
Therefore I conclude and have to cry BS to 4.4
LAT
I think your BS call is a bit hasty. It would be better to hear the facts before jumping to conclusions, you don't know anything about this car. There is much more out there than RUF cars. Where is the performance of RUF cars? The RT12? Please...
I have addressed the shifting question above. The way you shift and the way they shift is not the same.
The cars you are comparing to are literally nothing when compared to this car. Let me put it this way, this car with a gentle 0.60mph in 4.5 seconds, will reach a quartermile trap speed much higher than RUF's RT12....at 0.9 BAR!
One last thing, this car is a heavyweight, and ran a 9second quartermile time with a trap speed of about 160mph, extrapolate the 100-200 and compare to RUF's star the RT12.
The runs were made in 2-3rd gear, the car has a redline of 8k RPMs.
I am checking to see if all the numbers are making sense, so far it all seems good, I have no reason to doubt.
06-11-2006, 01:11 PM
#651
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Those are stunning numbers, 100-200kph in what ? 5.8s on the low boost
To be fair to the Ruf cars and other "road" cars out there - just look at that power curve, below 4500rpm it is dead, before it lights up those big blowers. Surely this is simply a different animal than a Ruf or other tuned cars which are set up for a broad spread of torque and daily drivability.
I am fascinated just how long can an engine like this hold together at 1.5 bar - it must be far lower hours than a race motor before the metal starts to warp, oval and bend ? Awesome stuff
To be fair to the Ruf cars and other "road" cars out there - just look at that power curve, below 4500rpm it is dead, before it lights up those big blowers. Surely this is simply a different animal than a Ruf or other tuned cars which are set up for a broad spread of torque and daily drivability.
I am fascinated just how long can an engine like this hold together at 1.5 bar - it must be far lower hours than a race motor before the metal starts to warp, oval and bend ? Awesome stuff
06-11-2006, 01:51 PM
#652
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
TB
The 100-200kph is showing 5.6 seconds or so. Yes it is too fast for this sort of boost levels I guess.
The reason I posted the quartermile run is because (at least to me) it gives me some sense that the numbers are right. With a 11.69s quartermile, it is showing a 60-130mph in 6.3 seconds, if there was a tilt issue, you would be seeing a quartermile in 8 seconds maybe, or a 0-60mph that is much faster.
As far as drivability, it seems that this car is a daily driver and that drivability was the main requirement from the owner, I cannot speak from first hand info though.
Another point to keep in mind is that my car also showed a very peaky torque curve on Todd's engine dyno, when put on the MAHA dyno, the numbers were much higher at low RPMs on the MAHA (If I recall, around 25%) eventhough it was lower boost, pump gas, and with exhaust restriction. At the top end it was the other way around.
This is why I did not want to post HP numbers, it is a useless debate IMO.
As far as reliability, it seems that the owner is a hardcore drag racer, he has been using this car for a while now and done many races, he just took the car for an inspection and it showed almost stock leak down numbers. I think short runs (a few seconds) at high boost can be sustainable by the watercooled engine if it is strongly built? The new 997TT has overboost to 1.5 Bar for a few seconds as well.
I am just speculating here.
The 100-200kph is showing 5.6 seconds or so. Yes it is too fast for this sort of boost levels I guess.
The reason I posted the quartermile run is because (at least to me) it gives me some sense that the numbers are right. With a 11.69s quartermile, it is showing a 60-130mph in 6.3 seconds, if there was a tilt issue, you would be seeing a quartermile in 8 seconds maybe, or a 0-60mph that is much faster.
As far as drivability, it seems that this car is a daily driver and that drivability was the main requirement from the owner, I cannot speak from first hand info though.
Another point to keep in mind is that my car also showed a very peaky torque curve on Todd's engine dyno, when put on the MAHA dyno, the numbers were much higher at low RPMs on the MAHA (If I recall, around 25%) eventhough it was lower boost, pump gas, and with exhaust restriction. At the top end it was the other way around.
This is why I did not want to post HP numbers, it is a useless debate IMO.
As far as reliability, it seems that the owner is a hardcore drag racer, he has been using this car for a while now and done many races, he just took the car for an inspection and it showed almost stock leak down numbers. I think short runs (a few seconds) at high boost can be sustainable by the watercooled engine if it is strongly built? The new 997TT has overboost to 1.5 Bar for a few seconds as well.
I am just speculating here.
06-11-2006, 02:15 PM
#653
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new limited version of the Enzo Ferrari (don't know the name) is supposed to do 0-200kph in about 7 seconds with ~700hp. So, yes those acceleration numbers should be possible.
I have no clue of the 996tt engine but what is the price range for such an engine update?
More like 50k or more like 100k?
I have no clue of the 996tt engine but what is the price range for such an engine update?
More like 50k or more like 100k?
06-11-2006, 02:21 PM
#654
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange Park Acres, CA
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jean,
I forgot who said "we should kill the messenger". A few observations, based upon my limited experience with racing just about every mega horsepower cars that sees fit to show up for a track day. In drag racing this is not a 10 second car, this is a NINE second car with a good launch and based upon its 60-130 times. Racing 935's with 850 hp would have a hard time keeping up with this Protomotive rocket and they weighed less than 1200kgs. You can see my skepticism already.
Many high horsepower turbo cars have narrow power bands with light switch driveability. Heavily modified Surpra's and early 930's come to mind, making them dreadful track cars due to turbo lag, which brings me to my point. It appears that the 60-130 is a fairly good barometer UNLESS the engine tuning is optimised only for this test, (60-130) leaving drivability as an afterthought. The result is unbelievable acceleration numbers and a car you don't want to drive anywhere but on a track. BTW, I can't imagine a 3.6 turbo being 3.2 seconds faster than TB's weighing 600 lbs more.
When results are too good to be true they usually are.
Jimmy the fugitive
993tt 3.8 Andial aka, Blackie
I forgot who said "we should kill the messenger". A few observations, based upon my limited experience with racing just about every mega horsepower cars that sees fit to show up for a track day. In drag racing this is not a 10 second car, this is a NINE second car with a good launch and based upon its 60-130 times. Racing 935's with 850 hp would have a hard time keeping up with this Protomotive rocket and they weighed less than 1200kgs. You can see my skepticism already.
Many high horsepower turbo cars have narrow power bands with light switch driveability. Heavily modified Surpra's and early 930's come to mind, making them dreadful track cars due to turbo lag, which brings me to my point. It appears that the 60-130 is a fairly good barometer UNLESS the engine tuning is optimised only for this test, (60-130) leaving drivability as an afterthought. The result is unbelievable acceleration numbers and a car you don't want to drive anywhere but on a track. BTW, I can't imagine a 3.6 turbo being 3.2 seconds faster than TB's weighing 600 lbs more.
When results are too good to be true they usually are.
Jimmy the fugitive
993tt 3.8 Andial aka, Blackie
06-11-2006, 02:44 PM
#655
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Stummel, this engine took more than a year of development and much more than $100K.
Jimmy the fugitive, I agree with you concerning high HP claims or unreal acceleration numbers, and by now most people know that I am one of the biggest sceptics on this board. I just don't have reason to believe there is anything wrong with the data, unless I am missing grossly something. This is a very well known car in the streetracing scene.
My car shows lousy bottom end torque like this one but it is a fairly fast track car and can be driven daily easily (other than the crappy clutch!).. Exactly my point about the MAHA dyno.
I don't know where you live, but I am sure the owner will gladly give you or any other responsible driver a test drive for both drivability and performance. He lives in the LA/Las Vegas area, I will be more than happy to ask him.
It is a nice chart if nothing else
Jimmy the fugitive, I agree with you concerning high HP claims or unreal acceleration numbers, and by now most people know that I am one of the biggest sceptics on this board. I just don't have reason to believe there is anything wrong with the data, unless I am missing grossly something. This is a very well known car in the streetracing scene.
My car shows lousy bottom end torque like this one but it is a fairly fast track car and can be driven daily easily (other than the crappy clutch!).. Exactly my point about the MAHA dyno.
I don't know where you live, but I am sure the owner will gladly give you or any other responsible driver a test drive for both drivability and performance. He lives in the LA/Las Vegas area, I will be more than happy to ask him.
It is a nice chart if nothing else
06-11-2006, 03:20 PM
#656
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: WEST SIDE OF MPLS, MN
Posts: 2,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to make a comment if I may,
We all know who's car this is...Alex Djedvordvic's (spelling??).
I am sure Jean has talked to Todd about this car several times.
Alex has many very, very, fast cars and this is only one of them.
He has extensively street raced it and has openly told people (he has no reason to lie)
that it runs Mid 9's in the quartermile at 160 mph or so. He also at different times has
stripped weight out of it for certain races/runs. I hardly know the details, but after talking to
Todd at Protomotive myself several times and seeing what Scott (Divexxtremes) 996TT did with
stock gearing and stock internals!!!!! and poor 60ft times!!!!! (10.6 quarter mile),
I have no doubght that Alex's silver 996TT on C-16 and @1.5 bar would kill and Enzo,
A CGT (which I drove yesterday), and most everything else out there. This AX-22 calibration may be slightly off (I cannot figure out mine yet), but I bet it is
close...
IMHO
Marty K.
We all know who's car this is...Alex Djedvordvic's (spelling??).
I am sure Jean has talked to Todd about this car several times.
Alex has many very, very, fast cars and this is only one of them.
He has extensively street raced it and has openly told people (he has no reason to lie)
that it runs Mid 9's in the quartermile at 160 mph or so. He also at different times has
stripped weight out of it for certain races/runs. I hardly know the details, but after talking to
Todd at Protomotive myself several times and seeing what Scott (Divexxtremes) 996TT did with
stock gearing and stock internals!!!!! and poor 60ft times!!!!! (10.6 quarter mile),
I have no doubght that Alex's silver 996TT on C-16 and @1.5 bar would kill and Enzo,
A CGT (which I drove yesterday), and most everything else out there. This AX-22 calibration may be slightly off (I cannot figure out mine yet), but I bet it is
close...
IMHO
Marty K.
06-11-2006, 05:42 PM
#657
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
I thought I would check some quartermile time slips from similar cars..
The time slips attached belong to a Protomotive kit with smaller turbos and no internal work. This car is a TT that has been converted to RWD, saving about 120lbs of weight and ran 1.3 Bar of boost during this run. The car is a daily driver and has no other modifications.
If one extrapolates the numbers, he will find that the 60-130mph in this car would be around 6.5 seconds, based on the 1/8th, and the ending 1/4mile trap speed and time. The quartermile time was 10.65 at 136mph. The 0-100mph is in around 6.5 seconds and the 0-200Kph around 9 seconds, that leaves the RT12 dry with a car that has strictly bolt-ons. Whether it blowsup in 2 weeks I don't know, and I don't think so, but I know the owner drives it daily.
The time slips attached belong to a Protomotive kit with smaller turbos and no internal work. This car is a TT that has been converted to RWD, saving about 120lbs of weight and ran 1.3 Bar of boost during this run. The car is a daily driver and has no other modifications.
If one extrapolates the numbers, he will find that the 60-130mph in this car would be around 6.5 seconds, based on the 1/8th, and the ending 1/4mile trap speed and time. The quartermile time was 10.65 at 136mph. The 0-100mph is in around 6.5 seconds and the 0-200Kph around 9 seconds, that leaves the RT12 dry with a car that has strictly bolt-ons. Whether it blowsup in 2 weeks I don't know, and I don't think so, but I know the owner drives it daily.
06-11-2006, 06:48 PM
#658
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Jean, fIrst I am not shooting the messanger only stating my view of the information posted on a public forum. I believe I have that right don't you agree?
Second if this car does post 9.0 sec et with 160 trap speeds at 3800 lbs it should put out over 1000 Hp. I don't think 850 HP is enough for a 3800 lb car.
Third, I own and enjoy Ruf products but nowhere did I mention this in my posting. Ruf products are daily drivers which I would challenge that this car is not.
Good to enjoy the freedom of speech isn't it.
LAT
Marty, I'll share my knowledge of the XA22 with you next time we chat.
Second if this car does post 9.0 sec et with 160 trap speeds at 3800 lbs it should put out over 1000 Hp. I don't think 850 HP is enough for a 3800 lb car.
Third, I own and enjoy Ruf products but nowhere did I mention this in my posting. Ruf products are daily drivers which I would challenge that this car is not.
Good to enjoy the freedom of speech isn't it.
LAT
Marty, I'll share my knowledge of the XA22 with you next time we chat.
Last edited by LAT; 06-12-2006 at 01:24 AM.
06-11-2006, 09:23 PM
#660
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange Park Acres, CA
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mac993
Remember we are talking about 850 RWHP not 850 at the crank. That put's it over 1000 hp and that is at 1.3bar. Not the 1.5 that it is capible of.
The Andial built 935's with 1.8 bar were close to 1000 hp and would get into the 9's at 155 mph and if my memory serves me correctly and they weighed 2500 lbs.
If Alex's car is truely turning 4.4 times 60-130 ,its making well over 1000 hp or it weighs a lot less than 3800 lbs.
Jimmy the fugitive
993tt 3.8 Andial aka Blackie