20-80 Times

[Bill Blue]

While the title of this thread is 20-80, it really about determining the usable power under the curve. As such, it is really about acceleration over a wide rpm range. As I am the initial poster, I am requiring no shifting. This is about determining power over a wide rpm range, not shifting abilities. Any rpm range the poster desires. However, the timed speed differential has to be at least 60 mph. 10-70 would be fine, as would 55-115 and well as any interval in between. I am asking the poster keep the speeds in 5 mph increments. Also, post the rpm range. A little description of the engine and conditions would be nice. If this test proves too daunting for your tune, post your 50 mph single gear time and rpm's.

I'll kick it off.
Bill

Engine - 2.3 Duratec. Stock with home made intake and header. Two inch exhaust. Aftermarket ECM. Weather conditions, 80 degrees and sunny, very slight tailwind.

20-80 time, 12.4 seconds. 1575 - 6300 rpm
20-70 time, 9.8 seconds. 1575 - 5500 rpm

Edit 8-16-12 Going back over the log, I find I made a mistake. The correct 20-80 time is either 13.3 or 13.5. These are the times that were logged on two runs, a few days apart. I had loaded data, taken every 10 mph into Bruce Bowling's Road Dyno program and used Bruce's sum. Unfortunately, I had made an error on the 70-80 data. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Bill Blue]

The times recorded above were recorded last fall with the old manifold. It had 1 1/2" runners, 19" long. It pulled like crazy down low, but fell off very badly at about 4500. Over the winter I made a new manifold with 1 3/4", adjustable length runners. Here are the new and "improved" times:

20 (1570 rpm) - 80 (6280) 13.6 seconds
20 (1570 rpm) - 70 (5495) 9.85 seconds

This manifold does not drop off until 4700rpm and makes three more hp, but is slower, as it is inferior until about 4500. There is a lesson in here somewhere.

Next up: Shorten the runners to 16" and retest. Looks like I might be making set of 1 1/2" runners to fit this plenum.

Bill

 

[whoizrob]

Standards

I used to run with the Audi S4 crowd and they created somthing similar called FATS (For the Advancement of The S4) times.

The car needed to be datalogged and was to be driven in a certain gear at a 4200 rpm on as flat as a road as you could find, you would then floor the car until you hit 6500 rpm. The time inbetween was your FATS time and since it was standardized you could compare your car to anyone elses.

Now we can't datalog our cars (at least not without an external device) but it might be worth creating somthing similar but with a longer time window to allow for timing error, say a 3rd gear pull from 1000 to 5000? The gear is important as if you just went with speed differentials you'd get different results for the same car but in different gears. Also a 60 mph differntial on the top end would take WAY longer than a 60 mph differential down low.

Just a thought.

Rob

 

[Bill Blue]

Its a good thought. I'm disappointed there have been no additional posters. I would think the V6 guys would be interested in posting times to see the differences various modifications make.

In my car, the 20-70, third gear run is 3925 rpm span, certainly a useful range and takes long enough to make at least a semi-reliable measure of the time. Maybe we should change the criteria to a 4000 rpm range, third gear. Owners choice of exact rpm range. Things happen way too fast in second to accurately measure times.

Bill

 

[Chuck Ingram]

Its a good thought. I'm disappointed there have been no additional posters. I would think the V6 guys would be interested in posting times to see the differences various modifications make.
Bill

Bill

When I had the V6 in the 62 I knew what the car could do and that was all I cared about so I would not have posted anything.I believe that quite a few owners are in this catagory

As both cars are now V8s I do know what they can do.Are they fast?Yes fast enough.I have gone over 125 MPH and that was once in the Lister.Never again as for an old guy it was getttiing scary
I was once pulled over by the cops by the cop shop while sitting at a red light.The cop hollered to pull over as it looked like I was going too fast.I said yeh you are really being funny.His Partner leaned over and said this guy was a car nut and didn't know how to politely say could I pull over so they could talk and see the car.Made a couple of friends that day
So even though the 20/80 thread is interesting I personally would not have replied

Oh I do rattle on at times

 

[V6 JOSE]

There is only one way to reliably compare how much power two cars make, and that is to put them on a dyno on the same day. That would take out the prowess of one driver over another too.

Running from one speed to another isn't very reliable, because there are too many variables. The road may look flat and level, when in fact it may be a slight down hill grade, or maybe even the opposite, it could be a slight up hill grade. One could have a slight tail wind and the other might have a slight head wind. You'd never know, especially if you do the test on different roads and at different times and altitudes.

Jose

 

[Bill Blue]

There is only one way to reliably compare how much power two cars make, and that is to put them on a dyno on the same day. That would take out the prowess of one driver over another too.

Running from one speed to another isn't very reliable, because there are too many variables. The road may look flat and level, when in fact it may be a slight down hill grade, or maybe even the opposite, it could be a slight up hill grade. One could have a slight tail wind and the other might have a slight head wind. You'd never know, especially if you do the test on different roads and at different times and altitudes.

Jose

If your interested in horsepower, there is this site.
http://www.bgsoflex.com/auto.html
Click on "Roadway Vehicle Dynamometer "
All we would need to do is establish a "standard" alpine (coefficient of drag and frontal area), plug in local conditions and weight of your Alpine, the average of two runs in opposite directions and we'd be in business. Note that it establishes corrected hp and torque, that should correct for altitude and weather conditions. Also, the mph increments are adjustable. I did my calculation on ten mph increments. Since we all can't be on the same dyno on one day, this could be a valuable alternative.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

Nobody else? Am I the only guy that can afford a $5 stop watch and has a car that can accelerate 60 mph in one gear? I thought the V6 and Tiger guys would be all over this. If your concerned about road/wind influence, do a two way run and post them. If anything, that would add interest.

I will eventually post the times for the new setup. This should be interesting as the intake runners have been shortened and larger diameter tires have been fitted. In order to run the same rpm range as before, I'd have to go from a 3.55 rear to 3.80. As its geared now, it will top out in third at over 90 mph.

Bill

 

[socorob]

I don't think I can do 60 in one gear. I haven't had a chance to try yet, but I will as soon as I can get a little free time, but I'll have to shift.

 

[Bill Blue]

I don't think I can do 60 in one gear. I haven't had a chance to try yet, but I will as soon as I can get a little free time, but I'll have to shift.

Robbie, what trans and rear ratio are you running?

Bill

 

[socorob]

4.11 with a V6 T5

 

[Bill Blue]

Not so bad.

The V6 T5 has a 1.29:1 third gear. With 195-55-15 tires and 4.11 rear, 7,000 rpm = 89 mph. That gives 80 mph @6292 and 20 mph @ 1573.

Overall, your 3rd gear gearing is exactly (well, you have 12 more rpm at 80) what I had before changing wheels and tires.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

Here are the times with the big (185-60-15) tires.
mph rpm time
20 - 1627 ------
30 - 2441 - 1.9
40 - 3255 - 1.8
50 - 4068 - 1.8
60 - 4882 - 2.0
70 - 5695 - 2.3
80 - 6509 - 3.4
Total ET ---13.2

I really shot myself in the foot with the 3.80 rear, at least as far as 20-80 times are concerned. That last 10 mph took as much time as 30-50! It was a beautiful day, low 80's, no wind. Fuel tune is pretty good, I might be able to gain a couple of tenths, no more.

Looking on down the scale, things look good. Here is a 60 mph acceleration in 3rd, starting at 15 mph.

mph rpm time
15 - 1220 - ----
25 - 2033 - 2.0
35 - 2847 - 1.8
45 - 3660 - 1.8
55 - 4474 - 1.9
65 - 5287 - 2.0
75 - 6101 - 2.8
Total ET ---12.3

Almost a second faster. It really flattens out above 5000. I wonder if it could be the exhaust? It is mandrel bent 2".

Overall, I'm happy with the results. Even though it is slower with the new manifold, some things must be considered. First of all, the car weighs more. The 185- 15 tires and 6.0" steel wheels are considerably heavier than the old 165R-13 running on 5.5" aluminum wheels. In addition, the front brakes have been upgraded and the new rotors weigh 5 pounds more than the old ones. Also, I now carry a doughnut spare, jack and lug wrench. I would guess the car has gained 100 pounds.

Bill

 

[RootesRacer]

Plot the time deltas against RPM and you have your torque curve.

 

[Gitnrusty]

Bill, I think most folks on this site dont care to get so techinal about thier cars! I love to read your posts about your modifications but most of it is beyond my understanding.
Many guys I know (hot rodders) brag about " the seat of the pants " feel and bolt on "go faster" parts without measuring improvments. I'm impresed by your zeal for documentation but I feel that few guys (except drag racers like JoseV6) will chime in with numbers, (dont want to be shown up).
Just my 2cents.
Now posters....Come on and prove me wrong

 

[Bill Blue]

Chuck, that is exactly why I decided to post my results. It is very easy to make claims, much more difficult to back them up.

The documentation is very easy. I just have to take it from the data log. Data are logged every tenth of a second, so all I have to do is determine the rpm-mph times and copy them off. Unfortunately, as I get older the dyslexia becomes worse and everything becomes suspect. That is why I went back over my first post in this thread and corrected the posted time in an edit. The result is there is no overall difference between the two manifolds.

Yesterday's post should be correct, the overall time was determined by determining the data line that represents 20 mph and subtracted it from the data line at 80, then divided by ten. But if there is a way to make a mistake, I will find it.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

Plot the time deltas against RPM and you have your torque curve.

Yes, but it would not reflect the impact of wind and rolling resistance at 80 mph. I know there are equations that compensate for such variations, but the increased dyslexia and general stupidity makes such calculations very suspect and it becomes a miserable experience. I tried using Bruce Bowling's dyno program, but it is corrupted and produces garbage that is worse than mine!

I think the raw data shows the basic torque curve, very much centered on the low and mid range.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

We retimed the engine and made a 20-80 run. New standard, 12.7 seconds with a pasenger. Since the passenger was my wife, I'm honor bound (and scared shitless) to divulge the amount of weight increase.

Winds calm, temperature 22 degrees C.

I'm pretty pround of this figure. It is probably quicker than a stock Alpine 0-60 time and judging from the lack of response, Ford V6 20-80 single gear time.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

I had some doubts about the timing from 3k up, concerned that I had not advanced timing enough. So I returned (by myself) to the "test track" this morning for additional testing. Bumping timing by one degree a run on four runs netted zero difference. Did not get better, did not get worse. So here are the results of the average of those runs. They were run within a period of about 15 minutes and were run East/West and West/East. The old driver only data is shown along side for comparision.


Here are the times with the big (185-60-15) tires.
Original **** New Average
mph rpm time - -Time
20 - 1627 ---------------
30 - 2441 - 1.9 - - 1.7
40 - 3255 - 1.8 - - 1.6
50 - 4068 - 1.8 - - 1.7
60 - 4882 - 2.0 - - 1.8
70 - 5695 - 2.3 - - 2.0
80 - 6509 - 3.4 - - 3.0
Total ET ---13.2 - -11.8

The "short fat" intake runners either match or exceed the "long skinny" intake runners in every rpm range. Now I know why Ford picked that manifold design.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

Out for a drive today, 6,300 miles on motor, decided to make some 30-70 and 30-80mph runs in 3rd gear (30mph is 2500RPM, 80 is 6500RPM). I got the same result 3-times, 30-70mph at 7.06 seconds and 30-80mph at 8.11 seconds. I do not come on full boost until 3500 RPM.
The above was posted by Bashby in his thread, "Nissan in Alpine".

Bill goes from 70 to 80 in 1.5 secs! Man, that's cooking. My engine is pooped out and takes 3 secs. However, we are virtually tied at 30-70, with an edge (probably) towards Bill's engine, 7.06 vs 7.1. I can't measure to .01 secs, so we will never know.

It's interesting that our overall 3rd gear gearing is almost identical.

Bill