[Shaunee]

No plans to map the DSG. IMO it's not needed. Plan to stay within the limits of the clutch stock pressures. Not interested in extending the rev limit either at this stage.

If any of this changes then I'll obviously go down that route.

[Chungster]

You planning to add extra injectors, or do the OEM ones not need upgrading for the power level you're aiming for?

Good choice on the Syvecs ECU though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shaunee]

You planning to add extra injectors, or do the OEM ones not need upgrading for the power level you're aiming for?

Good choice on the Syvecs ECU though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on end power level. My understanding is at 550 the fuel system still has plenty of headroom. The exception maybe the HPFP. We'll see how we get on.

[Caney]

Can you not use the oem ecu for a bigger turbo?

[Shaunee]

You can, but the functions/facilities available on Syvecs can provide much more flexibility.

[RS3Pilot]

Still following this thread with interest:-)

Also interesting.. I was just reading about Nissan GTR's warranty being voided if launch control was used (there was a class action in the USA when Nissan wouldn't repair a broken transmission which they claimed was damaged by use of launch control). The team writing the article tested a GTR without launch control therefore and the 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile were all slower than your figures shaunee! I hadn't heard of the GTR launch control story, if it's true it would suggest the tuned RS3 would be a lot closer to GTR in real world than i'd thought?

Edited by RS3Pilot, 21 March 2017 - 09:08 PM.

[Shaunee]

Still following this thread with interest:-)

Also interesting.. I was just reading about Nissan GTR's warranty being voided if launch control was used (there was a class action in the USA when Nissan wouldn't repair a broken transmission which they claimed was damaged by use of launch control). The team writing the article tested a GTR without launch control therefore and the 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile were all slower than your figures shaunee! I hadn't heard of the GTR launch control story, if it's true it would suggest the tuned RS3 would be a lot closer to GTR in real world than i'd thought?

 

It's an interesting point.

 

I was led to believe (not sure if this is applicable to the latest 2017 edition of the GTR) that the published 0-60 of the GTR is all but impossible to match in the UK, with 60 normally being seen in the very low 3's. About the same as mine is currently.

 

I don't actually have any VBOX logs from a stock GTR, but it would be interesting to appreciate what a stock GTR trap speeds are down the quarter.  That would allude to where they are on a roll in comparison to a tuned, but under powered RS3 (by comparison) to a stock GTR.  Yes the GTR is much heavier, but the transmission is pretty epic.

 

Unfortunately most GTR's get tuned so it's probably a moot point in reality.

[RS3Pilot]

from the article....
; ;Speed (mph); Time (sec); ;; ;

; ;0-30; ; ; ;1.9

; ;0-40; ; ; ;2.5

; ;0-50; ; ; ;3.2

; ;0-60; ; ; ;3.9

; ;0-70; ; ; ;4.9

; ;0-80; ; ; ;6.0

; ;0-90; ; ; ;7.2

; ;0-100; ; ; 8.6;

; ;1/4-mile; ; 12.2 sec. @ 119.2 mph....

Note that these are our standard corrected numbers (including a one foot roll out and corrections for temperature and elevation), but conditions that day didn’t warrant any massive correction.; In fact, the 0-60 time didn’t change appreciably with correction.

To put the GT-R’s launch control-less performance into perspective, here are the performances of the four cars we had in our October 2007 Science of Speed shootout:

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 0-60 mph; ;1/4-mile

Chevrolet Corvette Z06; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 3.7 sec; ; 11.8 sec @ 121.6mph

Dodge Viper SRT-10; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 3.7 sec; ; 11.7 sec @ 124.4mph

Lamborghini Murcielago LP640; ; ; ; 4.0 sec; 12.0 sec @ 123.8mph

Porsche 911 GT3; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 3.8 sec ; ; 12.2 sec @ 115.2mph

[RS3Pilot]

newer gtr do have launch control, called R mode or something, quite tricky to activate apparently.

Edited by RS3Pilot, 22 March 2017 - 07:22 PM.

[fuzzy4000]

What I don't understand is how they can void a warranty using something that is a feature on a car! A bit like asking Homer not to push the red button. 

[Shaunee]

RS3Pilot,

That data helps to provide some level of context.

 

First off the 1/4m trap speeds are what my car now attains... 119mph.  It's then no great shocker that the 60-100mph times are around the same.  GTR @ 4.7s which is around what I have achieved.

 

Trap speeds on a 1/4m run can tell you a lot about a car, in how it accelerates in the real world through the gears.  This is something that many who concentrate on 1/4m times don't always appreciate.

 

Whilst 1/4m ET's are important if you're looking for the quickest time down the 1/4 (obviously), it's the trap speeds that tell me more about the car itself and how quick it can be on the road with acceleration.

 

This is more important in many ways over what any dyno graph shows as well.

 

I'd rather have a car that achieves a 12s 1/4 with 119mph traps, than a car that achieves a 11.8s quarter with 115mph traps (for instance).

 

Anyway..... based on the data you have provided for a GTR vs what I have attained in my car, it would suggest they're pretty much equal acceleration wise.  Of course the biggest unknown is the Density Altitude and fuel type differences between these two sets of figures.  DA can have quite an impact on performance, as can fuel.  All things considered it's still a nice comparison.

[rocketer]

Still following this thread with interest:-)

Also interesting.. I was just reading about Nissan GTR's warranty being voided if launch control was used (there was a class action in the USA when Nissan wouldn't repair a broken transmission which they claimed was damaged by use of launch control). The team writing the article tested a GTR without launch control therefore and the 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile were all slower than your figures shaunee! I hadn't heard of the GTR launch control story, if it's true it would suggest the tuned RS3 would be a lot closer to GTR in real world than i'd thought?

 

I can find old articles and in forums about that here in Sweden and it`s a complicated to own an GT-R to feel safe about warranties and so on. Go to the track and you are on your own. All brands are acting as that in reality if they know that you have been on the track, so nothing new really, Although article is also from 2007 so pretty old and now they are much more faster. 

[Shaunee]

Hopefully this will be the last substantial update for Stage 2, prior to me getting stuck into the Stage 3 development.

 

As you probably appreciate I like to “tell a story” when key events have taken place…. This update will certainly be no different. lol

 

So, since Stage 2 has been in place I have put the car under the microscope on several occasions with drag runs, dyno runs and vbox data.  Whilst the the car has certainly achieved some impressive performance measures, I was always looking to gain much improved drag strip data.

 

Last year I had issues with launch traction but the car showed a lot of promise with the trap speeds it achieved.  The additional 0-60, 0-100, 100-200 vbox data also backed up the “promise”.  However…. Like most things, logic, theory and data mashing is one thing.  Doing it on the quarter is something else, and something that isn’t easy to do in my opinion….. Especially when you’re hunting down those last few 10ths!

 

If we fast forward to this year I had already visited Santa Pod twice during February.  I only ran the car once as the first event (early Feb) would have been a complete waste of time from the off.  The track prep was the worst I have ever seen it, with the track being very “green”.  All cars were struggling with grip so I gave it a miss.  

 

February 2017

Desperate for a formal drag strip slip (it doesn’t matter how many times I’m able to run on a local airfield for vbox data, a proper formal drag run is the MUST HAVE leveller) I went back down to Santa Pod in very late February.

 

Not only was the track still “green” (they even had flame throwers on the start line to get heat into the tarmac!!), but on this specific occasion there was a 25+mph headwind!! Headwinds usually play havoc with times, especially speeds.  It was stupid of me to even bother running (I had seen the weather forecast), but I was proper desperate.

 

I did one run and it was ALL so wrong.  No grip and a massive headwind.

 

The result on the one and only run I did was an awful and laughable 12.28s @ 113.76mph!!

 

 

So…. in short make sure the track grip levels are good and that you don’t have a headwind.  If you don’t, you could be looking at stock car times! Lol

 

Fast forward to this weekend…..

 

March 2017

The sun is shining, it’s a bit warmer and there’s no headwind.  What could go wrong!!! If previous outings are anything to go by….. All of it!!! lol

 

I set off to Santa Pod as nervous as hell (I’d been up since 5am and the pod is like only 30mins away!!).  Every time I do anything performance related on my cars I always get very anxious…. It’s the pressure and expectation I put on myself every time.  I think I must have a problem!

 

I rocked up at the Pod and it looked like the cars were just about to start running.  I thought I best just get straight on the end of the queue and quickly get signed on.

 

As I literally sat back in the car the cars started to run down the strip, so I very quickly connected my VBOX up and started sweating!!!

 

Quickly got to the front and did all the normal stuff to set the car up for the launch.

 

Bang off I went.  Car felt very good on launch with no real traction issues and just pulled like an Ox up the strip.  I kept my eye on the speedo to get an indication of what I was going to trap at.  I was very close to 120mph so I knew it was a good run, so I kept my foot in to ensure I could get a 100-200kmh (124mph) data log as well.

 

I quickly looked over to my VBOX and saw this:

 

 

I instantly (swore) thought “Holy Moly” and started to flip through the rest of the screens, assuming that at worst it would be an 11.7x on the official timing slip.

 

0-60mph in 3.3s

0-100mph in 7.9s

 

60-100mph in 4.7s

100-200kmh (62-124mph) in 9.0s

 

Whilst these were only rounded (and uncorrected) VBOX figures, they all alluded to the fact this was a very good run.  

 

I nailed it down to the timing office to pick the slip up.

 

 

BOOM!!!!

 

11.55s @ 118.57mph

 

The trap speeds I had seen before, so that wasn’t a shock….. But the ET.  That really did surprise me.

 

If you look at the 60ft time it was a good launch, and to be honest I was hoping for an 11.7 quarter.  Thinking if I was lucky I’d get an 11.6….. But no way did I even think for one minute I’d get an 11.5 (and a good solid one at that).

 

I’ve never just rocked up and “banged one in” on my first attempt.

I then pulled the card on the VBOX and analysed the corrected data.  Santa Pod, like most proper drag strips, is slightly uphill so it would be interesting to see the corrected figures for slope.

[Shaunee]

0-60mph: 3.26s

 

0-100mph: 7.91s

 

60-100mph: 4.63s

 

100-200kmh (62-124mph): 8.97s

 

Apart from the 60-100mph measure, these have been the best the car has achieved with Stage 2.  To be fair though I haven’t really been able to test the car properly since the blown boost hose was found and replaced in December.  It would be logically to suggest that even when I ran the car in October last year down the strip, I already had a boost leak.

 

The only other change has been the dogbone mount.  It’s hard for me to objectively state whether this has helped with the launches, as the track conditions yesterday were good.  When I ran in February (dogbone was fitted late last year) the car was all over the place on the launching, but the conditions were poor.

 

I actually think the car could have gone ever so slightly quicker as I had a higher fuel payload than I normally have when running down the strip.  The fuel gauge just ticked down to half full as I turned up for the first run.  

 

 

I normally run on two bars of fuel.

 

Sounds pathetic I’m sure….. But when you may have been able to reduce your time by 6/100ths (to get in the 11.4’s), every little can help.

[Shaunee]

Stage 2 - The End

I think I can safely say I’ve tested the backside out of Stage 2 and I’m extremely pleased with the results.

 

As far as I’m currently aware, this car is the quickest down the quarter in the UK for a comparatively tuned 8V RS3 (Stage 2) running on normal pump fuel (Tesco finest!) and full weight (no stripping!).

 

 

To highlight as well, this car (apart from the replaced boost hose and dogbone mount) has had NO further performance tuning or remapping since I picked the car up after the Stage 2 work last October.

 

My Stage 2 is pretty basic in reality, but in my opinion works extremely well.

 

I have had a number of people ask me offline if I have anything else done to the car that I haven’t disclosed.  The answer has/is no.

 

I’m on stock suspension.  Stock (original) tyres.  Straight 99 pump fuel.  Full weight car (in fact it’s optioned up with pano roof etc, so pretty much as heavy as these things get). Stock launch control map.  Stock DSG map.  Stock induction.  Stock HPFP.

 

So that’s it for my Stage 2 testing and if these results are anything to go by I really can’t wait to get the Syvecs on alongside a bigger turbo!

Happy days!

[deepspacemillar]

That's some genuinely impressive figures mate - that's a very quick car!

[terminator x]

Can you work out 30-130mph time as that is a good indicator of a fast car?

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Caney]

Bloody hell thats awesome! I'll be happy to get near those times!

[Caney]

Can you work out 30-130mph time as that is a good indicator of a fast car?
TX.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

i think its safe to say his car is fast

[terminator x]

Ha ha true, just interested in the time.

TX.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk