[chrisdors]

Mits Galant 2.0 DOHC Turbo VR-4
year 1989
power 288hp
torque 282.44

$$$$
9733 car
50 oil change
1250 chip
2700 RC intercooler
4600 stage 1 turbo
1100 stage 1 weight reduction
4600 RC exhaust
5000 NOS

$29033

11.711 @ Vegas

4wd helps, lowered the car all the way, increased spring rate, removed toe-in and camber adj, 100 NOS, raised final gear on trans, increased LSD on accel, lowered traction control to 5 from 7.

[gibus]

man this is hella cool, I have the european version of the game, is there any differences in prices? if it's cool i have to try this stuff, looks really fun thing.

[Teampots]

Skyline Gts-m Price $9313 55k Miles 195 Bhp

9313 Car Cost
50 Oil Change
5000 Nos
4600 Race Exhaust
1100 Stage 1 Light
1600 Sports Cooler
4600 Stg 1 Turbo
2600 Triple Clutch
1000 Race Flywheel
------------------------------
29863 Grand Total

All The Freebies

296 Bhp + 100 Bhp From Nos


Runs 14.89 No Nos
To 12.618 With Nos( EDIT 12.563 )

[chrisdors]

11.359 @ Vegas Strip

Mitssubishi Lancer Evo GSR 1992 4WD
49063 mi
Power: 345HP
Torque: 310.15

$$$$$
9582 car
50 oil change
1250 racing chip
5000 NOS
1100 stage 1 weight reduction
13000 stage 2 turbo
---------
29982

11.359 @ Vegas Strip

[Eveek]

Here is one from Europe and without NOS:

TVR Griffith 500 `94
11.985

393 HP / 3.143
Weight 1235KG
66466.6km

20555 Car
50 Oil
5000 NA1
1100 Racing Flywheel
2800 Twin-plate Cluth

Total 29505

All freebies

Tuned suspension soft and high with no cambers
More weight to the back tires
Transmission was tuned so, that car used only 3 gears to compensate slower shifting and eliminate exccessive wheelspin at start

[bindidot]

Not quite the quickest, but right up there and possibly room for improvement.

'94 Subaru WRX
352 HP
1156 kg
38,741.4 miles

'94 Sub WRX........9,722
stage 2 turbo.....13,500
NOS......................5,000
1st weight red. ....1,200
oil change..................50

total spend 29,472

Car ran 11.293 1/4 mile.

As for the gears, the PS2 is off now so going on memory, but didnt do much other from the auto setting and the auto settings are at what I THINK was 11, but can check later if verification is needed.

For what its worth....I was going to go the lightweigt route and use the Triumph Spitfire, unfortunatly it did well but not competitive enough, however after breaking the bank (and the rules) it ran as quick as the Subaru.

[HUDSONJONES]

cool thread, me and a buddy recently did a week of this with 2 setups(2 ps2's, 2 tv's, 2 dfp's and 2 gamepods) in my lounge, we did various price catergories and vehicle catergories, the did the strip, top speed and a best of 3 laps of a track....great fun!!!


well didn't want to go for a jap car so went for a......

TVR cerbera speed six '97

cost about £28,000
racing chip£1,800
total £29,800

not the best time, but not bad for a nearly stock car??

12.913

[Teampots]

Evo 6 TME RS


12980 CAR COST
5000 NOS
4800 RACE EXHAUST
4800 STG 1 Turbo
50 Oil Change
1200 Stage 1 reduction
1200 Race Fly
29740 Total


12.5 No NOS after changing the LSD accel to max and changing gears to 9 (auto)
11.5 With NOS cant remember settings but were simalar to ones above

[jaxx751]

okay people, power to weight, not weight to power. your p/w ratio should be below 1... let me explain:

random car: power - 300 weight - 2000

2000/300 - 6.6666...

300/2000 - .15

hope this teaches you something about figureing p/w ratios.

i will soon run in this compitition... I think...

-jaxx

[123abc]

I truely think we should divide this into seperate catagories.

AWD
FWD
RWD

If we keep it this way, the only cars that'll be winning are the AWD ones.

[Taneras]

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VI RS '99 - $12,990
Oil Change - $50
NO2 - $5,000
Clutch: Twin Plate - $2,700
Flywheel: Racing - $1,050
Stage 1 Turbo - $4,800
Intercooler: Sports - $1,800
Weight Reduction: Stage 1 - $1,200

Total: $29,590

351hp@6,500rpm (451hp@6500rpm)
336.84ft.lb@3,000rpm
1146kg

11.178

[Scaff]

jaxx751

okay people, power to weight, not weight to power. your p/w ratio should be below 1... let me explain:

random car: power - 300 weight - 2000

2000/300 - 6.6666...

300/2000 - .15

hope this teaches you something about figureing p/w ratios.

i will soon run in this compitition... I think...

-jaxx

Welcome to GT Planet, and I have to say your opening post is very bold and certainly hammered home your point.

However, for Europe at least, thats not the correct definition.

Power to Weight ratios are represented as power to weight, with weight being refered to as a single figure.

Here are a link that clearly state this.

Encyclopedia of technical terms

Additionally every one of my very extensive collection of motoring, automotive and racing books, and every magazine I have come across use this definition.

Certainly in Europe we would commonly represent the example you have used above as follows:

Power 300bhp
Weight 2000 kilos

150 bhp per tonne (metric)

While I have seen PTW represented in the manner you have used, this is the exception not the rule (as I say in my experience).

Personally, I don't care much how people show PTW, so long as they quantify the method they use. I just don't see the point in getting worked up about it.

Finally, your just lucky that its me replying to this and not Famine (who I'm sure you will bump into some time).

[63AvantiR3]

jaxx751

okay people, power to weight, not weight to power. your p/w ratio should be below 1... let me explain:

random car: power - 300 weight - 2000

2000/300 - 6.6666...

300/2000 - .15

hope this teaches you something about figureing p/w ratios.

i will soon run in this compitition... I think...

-jaxx

One horsepower, by definition, is the amount of work needed to move 550 pounds 1 foot in 1 second. Because of this definition, it is more useful in knowing how many pounds each horsepower is driving through the atmosphere. If we get into the literal sence of power:weight, we find how much horsepower is accounted for each individual pound. This is fine, and mathematically it works out, but (from your example) the result of 0.15 horsepower working on 1 pound isn't as useful as 6.667 pounds per 1 horsepower.
As a side note, torque is generally the same as horsepower, but torque doesn't care how long it takes you to move an amount of weight. Torque would simply be the art of moving those 550 pounds 1 foot. See how closely horsepower and torque are related?

Scaff

Welcome to GT Planet, and I have to say your opening post is very bold and certainly hammered home your point.

However, for Europe at least, thats not the correct definition.

Power to Weight ratios are represented as power to weight, with weight being refered to as a single figure.

Here are a link that clearly state this.

Encyclopedia of technical terms

Additionally every one of my very extensive collection of motoring, automotive and racing books, and every magazine I have come across use this definition.

Certainly in Europe we would commonly represent the example you have used above as follows:

Power 300bhp
Weight 2000 kilos

150 bhp per tonne (metric)

While I have seen PTW represented in the manner you have used, this is the exception not the rule (as I say in my experience).

Personally, I don't care much how people show PTW, so long as they quantify the method they use. I just don't see the point in getting worked up about it.

Finally, your just lucky that its me replying to this and not Famine (who I'm sure you will bump into some time).

I agree with this method. This is the one that GT4 uses. In my garage of fifty-eight cars, only six of them are below a 1:1 power:weight ratio. These six cars are all racing cars: four of them are the black prototype cars, one is the CLK-GTR race car, and the last one is the Formula car. Race engineers kill to have more power than weight. For street cars though, as in most of the rest of the cars in my garage, they have more weight than power and have numbers ranging from 1.8xx --> 5.9xx and even higher than that.

[Revheadnz]

123abc

I truely think we should divide this into seperate catagories.

AWD
FWD
RWD

If we keep it this way, the only cars that'll be winning are the AWD ones.

Sounds good, that is how they do it in real life as well. I'm going to come back with a FWD drag weapon just to see how it will do.

[chrisdors]

i am waiting to see who can hit 10's first

[123abc]

Revheadnz

Sounds good, that is how they do it in real life as well. I'm going to come back with a FWD drag weapon just to see how it will do.

Ditto......I'll have to give ya some competition now.

[sideslider]

ok here's the deal....
-a lot can be said about the day you're on in regards to your used car lot selection...but on to the real debate..

-there's debate about nos.....so i decided to do a couple of test....the car i bought for this was a 1998 toyota celica GT four.(st-205) . it is 4wd and has 251 bhp/ 6000 rpm and 22242ftlb/4000 rpm of torque stock , and it cost a whoppin 16,510 with 31678 miles on its 1998cc l4:dohc.it wieghed about 1390kg.

the first thing i did was get a time stock....=14.833 and this was with asm and tcs on then i added the parts..

intercooler,exhaust,chip,and a turbo 2
after my parts were on ran a 12.512
i ran a few times then tuned it to run a 11.836 at 405 hp
at this point in played with the asm and tcs and managed to get a 11.743
but i couldn't stay very consistent..

now for the debate...i traded my intercooler in for nos and cranked it up to 100....
the nos also put me over the budget ...

with nos i ran 11.406
with no nos and an added intercooler i ran 12.723

so to conclude my experiment on the difference with nos i fully modded my car with all parts and ran 11.112 with out nos and 9.996 with it.. so in conclusion my intent was to determine if it would be unfair to use nos. and i found that even taking off performance parts...ie....the chip...or ...exhaust....intercooler....the nos turned up to 100 could more than compensate for the loss of power from removing those parts.

i also made a different discovery....i was trying to tweak my suspension to see if i could gain valueable thousands of seconds off my time... well with out much luck i got board and set all my springs shocks and ride hieght to max hieght settings...higher than stock...well here are the results
tuned suspension=9.996
max suspension=9.979
i also used asm=10 and tcs=4 so that i could stay consistent.. maybe it was a shift but it i ended up getting a best of 9.509

well i was going to post my stats and times but i did all this at a late hour and have now relized an accounting mistake i made and will repost with a time with in our allotted budget...but now i agree that cars with nos should be in another class because 5,000$ nos can replace 10,000$ worth of performance parts..i mean come on people throwing a 100 shot of nos in an engine without buying some of these parts in real life will blow your engine...and yes i know some models of cars could handle some amount of nos stock..but untill next time
keep the rubber side down
-sideslider

[Revheadnz]

Banzai!

Unfortunatly my CRX wasn't metallic gold but, eh, what can you do?

My FWD drag weapon:

1990 Honda CRX SiR "Banzai"
SM tires all round
79,551km
157hp after oil change
1 Way LSD
Full Suspension
Full Transmission

Car cost: 5,414C
Stage 1 Weight Reduction = 1,000C
Race exhaust = 4,500C
Stage 2 Turbo = 12,500C
Race flywheel = 900C
Computer Chip = 1,000C
Triple plate clutch = 4,500C
Total Spent = 29,864C

Which left me with 229hp and weighing only 956kg I had high hopes for a flat 15 or maybe a high 14....

15.362

A bit of a disappointment....but Banzai has more left to give so I will return.

[oil_injected]

post #48 is over budget... i came up with $30,030. My math may be off, but i added it up 3 times and got the same total of $30,030.

[GT40racer]

11.273

13,760 Car
5,000 NO2
4,800 Turbo
1,800 Intercooler
1,500 Chip
1,200 Lightening
1,050 Flywheel
50 Oil Change
0 Suspension
0 Transmission
_______________
$29,160


1995 Impreza Sedan WRX STi
324 HP
1165 Kg/2567 Lbs
.278 HP/KG
.126 HP/Lb