- 87
- Brazil
- mtsmtts
Whats the objective behind this thread:
Try to understand, by investigating and doing some math, how power parts interacts with the others and with the PP. Also, analyzing the Weight Reduction and effect on PP.
How
I don't have access to the GT's engine, just the cars specs showed for everyone on the Car Settings tab. So, yeah, I'm doing this on the hard way, and the not-so-precise method. Everyone should now that there are maybe one or two numbers after the comma. And maybe, 10 numbers after the comma.
So, when you see "180 hp", it can be "180,20 hp" or even "180,2000000009"
To show what I'm talking about, let's take my Elise 111R for this test: Custom power parts: Engine Stage 1; Sports Computer; Racing Exhaust; Isometric Manifold; Catalytic converter Sports; Intake tuning;
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................517.........280...............184
98,1%.............................515.........275...............184
98,0%.............................514.........275...............184
50,0%.............................432.........140...............169
With this data, we discovered that:
>> With the power limiter at 98,1% and 98,0%, we've got the same HP, same torque, but a gap of 1 PP. This proves that we got numbers after the comma on HP and torque that they don't show us.
>> The torque kept the same even with 2% of power limiting.
>> The torque is much more less sensitive to the power limiting than the horse power itself. With 50% of power limiting, we got 50% less HP, 280 to 140, and just 9,2% of torque loss.
Continuing, using the El Camino this time: Custom power parts: Full tunned.
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
50,0%.............................510.........413...............660
We got 828hp and a massive torque of 911ft-lb. Again, at 50% of the power limiting, we got a loss off 50% on horse power, and 27,5% of torque loss.
Supposing that we need the car to be used in a 577pp race, we can:
* Lower the Power Limiter
* Try to remove some parts, and see how the PP, HP and torque deals with the new setup.
TEST 1:
Fist, let's do the power limiter thing:
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
93,1%.............................577.........770...............900
Nothing new here.
Now, let's try to get to 577pp, or the closest possible to it, only removing parts:
To make the explanation faster and easier, the letters will be the setups names.
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....93,1%.............................577.........770...............900 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 - Intake standart
D.....100% .............................577.........774...............885 - Standart computer
E.....100% .............................579.........782...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones)
F.....99,0% ............................577.........772...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones) and lowering to 99% the power limiter
Now we got something. Let me show you:
*With the C setup, we got the same PP from B, with more 12hp, but at the price of 40ft-lb of torque.
*With the D setup, we got the same PP from C, with more 25ft-lb of torque, but at the price of less 8hp.
*With the F setup, we got somewhat between the setup B and D.
With this data, we discovered that:
>> PP involves torque too.
>> Certain parts gives more torque instead of horsepower.
>> Certain parts gives more horsepower than torque.
Of course, in this particular case, the best choice we got is the C setup. 860ft-lb is more than necessary, and we'll got more horsepower/pp in this way.
Now, lets try a 550PP setup. In this case, I'll try to remove only one or 2 parts. I don't want to make a giant list of possible setups. I don't have all day.
TEST 2:
Starting again with the power limiter thing:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....69,3%.............................550.........572...............792 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................550.........592...............704 - Engine Stage 1 + Sports Exhaust
This time, we see a major gain of horsepower on C, comprising with B.
By knowing that, you can use this method to try gain more horsepower when trying to lower the PP, or to get a higher torque, by using the power limiter instead of removing parts.
Now that we saw the effect on the specs when lowering the PP, lets take a tour by the tunning thing.
With the original engine, we got: (Remember, we got a full body done, with weight reduction, carbon hood and windows).
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................475.........341...............430 - Original engine
A.....100% .............................510.........428...............577 - Original engine with only supercharger and intake tuning.
B.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....50,0% ............................510.........413...............660 - All performance parts installed.
Analyzing this data, we see, again, that we got more power/pp by using the lowest possible number of engine modifications. By using all performance parts, but limiting to 50%, we got more torque, but a big gap on the horsepower.
TEST 3:
Now, lets take it down to the Weight thing, analyzing the PP and the Power-to-Weight Ratio:
The same case the first one, lets try to get to 577pp, now with the body setup:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................577.........828...............911 ...................1,453 - w/ no weight reduction
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3 + intake standart (the best scenario on the first test)
So, B and C with 577pp. But lets analyze the kg/hp ratio:
*B got 1,75 kg/HP
*C got 1,53 Kg/HP
With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, it's better to remove a power part instead of increasing the Weight.
Now, the last part of the test, lets see what's best: Removing a weight reduction stage, or using ballast weight to lower the PP:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 2
C.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 3 + Ballast
With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, weight reduction change or ballast will work in the same way.
>>Ballast may be a better solution, by allowing you to choose the ballast position and achieving a better Weight Distribution.
--------------------------------
That's all, folks!
Of course I could be here calculating every single power part PP increase, HP and Torque, all in percentage. The problem with this, is that the percentage would be precise ONLY for this car model. Thats happens because, as I said on the beginning, it's impossible to do precise work with only the integer. GT doesn't show us the numbers after the comma on HP, Torque, and maybe KG (this one i couldn't prove, but I'm almost sure that there's numbers hided after the comma on the numbers).
Also, as you guys should noticed, the torque gain in this particular model is huge. I've not tested, but I'm sure that the Elise's torque gain in percentage is not so high as the gain on the El Camino. So, for a particular model, you need to test by your own. But the major rule is what you saw here.
And, IMO, HP > torque. Specially when talking about a car like the El Camino, who got a ton of torque already. But it's up for you, use this knowledge for what you want to get from the car. Don't come here to complain about "hurr, horsepower isn't everything". Thanks .
Just another detail: I'm Brazilian. For us, one thousand is "1.000,00", and for Americans, you guys use the point instead of the comma for the decimal numbers. When I said "after the comma", is the hidden decimals numbers. Also, sorry for any error, specially on the language. I'm not a native speaker, and it's kinda hard to express myself .
Try to understand, by investigating and doing some math, how power parts interacts with the others and with the PP. Also, analyzing the Weight Reduction and effect on PP.
How
I don't have access to the GT's engine, just the cars specs showed for everyone on the Car Settings tab. So, yeah, I'm doing this on the hard way, and the not-so-precise method. Everyone should now that there are maybe one or two numbers after the comma. And maybe, 10 numbers after the comma.
So, when you see "180 hp", it can be "180,20 hp" or even "180,2000000009"
To show what I'm talking about, let's take my Elise 111R for this test: Custom power parts: Engine Stage 1; Sports Computer; Racing Exhaust; Isometric Manifold; Catalytic converter Sports; Intake tuning;
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................517.........280...............184
98,1%.............................515.........275...............184
98,0%.............................514.........275...............184
50,0%.............................432.........140...............169
With this data, we discovered that:
>> With the power limiter at 98,1% and 98,0%, we've got the same HP, same torque, but a gap of 1 PP. This proves that we got numbers after the comma on HP and torque that they don't show us.
>> The torque kept the same even with 2% of power limiting.
>> The torque is much more less sensitive to the power limiting than the horse power itself. With 50% of power limiting, we got 50% less HP, 280 to 140, and just 9,2% of torque loss.
Continuing, using the El Camino this time: Custom power parts: Full tunned.
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
50,0%.............................510.........413...............660
We got 828hp and a massive torque of 911ft-lb. Again, at 50% of the power limiting, we got a loss off 50% on horse power, and 27,5% of torque loss.
Supposing that we need the car to be used in a 577pp race, we can:
* Lower the Power Limiter
* Try to remove some parts, and see how the PP, HP and torque deals with the new setup.
TEST 1:
Fist, let's do the power limiter thing:
Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
100% .............................584.........828...............911
93,1%.............................577.........770...............900
Nothing new here.
Now, let's try to get to 577pp, or the closest possible to it, only removing parts:
To make the explanation faster and easier, the letters will be the setups names.
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....93,1%.............................577.........770...............900 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 - Intake standart
D.....100% .............................577.........774...............885 - Standart computer
F.....99,0% ............................577.........772...............893 - Sports Exhaust (instead of racing ones) and lowering to 99% the power limiter
Now we got something. Let me show you:
*With the C setup, we got the same PP from B, with more 12hp, but at the price of 40ft-lb of torque.
*With the D setup, we got the same PP from C, with more 25ft-lb of torque, but at the price of less 8hp.
*With the F setup, we got somewhat between the setup B and D.
With this data, we discovered that:
>> PP involves torque too.
>> Certain parts gives more torque instead of horsepower.
>> Certain parts gives more horsepower than torque.
Of course, in this particular case, the best choice we got is the C setup. 860ft-lb is more than necessary, and we'll got more horsepower/pp in this way.
Now, lets try a 550PP setup. In this case, I'll try to remove only one or 2 parts. I don't want to make a giant list of possible setups. I don't have all day.
TEST 2:
Starting again with the power limiter thing:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....69,3%.............................550.........572...............792 - All performance parts installed.
C.....100% .............................550.........592...............704 - Engine Stage 1 + Sports Exhaust
This time, we see a major gain of horsepower on C, comprising with B.
By knowing that, you can use this method to try gain more horsepower when trying to lower the PP, or to get a higher torque, by using the power limiter instead of removing parts.
Now that we saw the effect on the specs when lowering the PP, lets take a tour by the tunning thing.
With the original engine, we got: (Remember, we got a full body done, with weight reduction, carbon hood and windows).
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)
A.....100% .............................475.........341...............430 - Original engine
A.....100% .............................510.........428...............577 - Original engine with only supercharger and intake tuning.
B.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 - All performance parts installed.
B.....50,0% ............................510.........413...............660 - All performance parts installed.
Analyzing this data, we see, again, that we got more power/pp by using the lowest possible number of engine modifications. By using all performance parts, but limiting to 50%, we got more torque, but a big gap on the horsepower.
TEST 3:
Now, lets take it down to the Weight thing, analyzing the PP and the Power-to-Weight Ratio:
The same case the first one, lets try to get to 577pp, now with the body setup:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................577.........828...............911 ...................1,453 - w/ no weight reduction
C.....100% .............................577.........782...............860 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3 + intake standart (the best scenario on the first test)
So, B and C with 577pp. But lets analyze the kg/hp ratio:
*B got 1,75 kg/HP
*C got 1,53 Kg/HP
With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, it's better to remove a power part instead of increasing the Weight.
Now, the last part of the test, lets see what's best: Removing a weight reduction stage, or using ballast weight to lower the PP:
.....Power Limiter ------ PP ----- HP ----- Torque (ft-lb)------KG
A.....100% .............................584.........828...............911 ...................1,203 - w/ weight reduction 3
B.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 2
C.....100% .............................575.........828...............911 ...................1,262 - w/ weight reduction 3 + Ballast
With this data, we discovered that:
>>When lowering PP, weight reduction change or ballast will work in the same way.
>>Ballast may be a better solution, by allowing you to choose the ballast position and achieving a better Weight Distribution.
--------------------------------
That's all, folks!
Of course I could be here calculating every single power part PP increase, HP and Torque, all in percentage. The problem with this, is that the percentage would be precise ONLY for this car model. Thats happens because, as I said on the beginning, it's impossible to do precise work with only the integer. GT doesn't show us the numbers after the comma on HP, Torque, and maybe KG (this one i couldn't prove, but I'm almost sure that there's numbers hided after the comma on the numbers).
Also, as you guys should noticed, the torque gain in this particular model is huge. I've not tested, but I'm sure that the Elise's torque gain in percentage is not so high as the gain on the El Camino. So, for a particular model, you need to test by your own. But the major rule is what you saw here.
And, IMO, HP > torque. Specially when talking about a car like the El Camino, who got a ton of torque already. But it's up for you, use this knowledge for what you want to get from the car. Don't come here to complain about "hurr, horsepower isn't everything". Thanks .
Just another detail: I'm Brazilian. For us, one thousand is "1.000,00", and for Americans, you guys use the point instead of the comma for the decimal numbers. When I said "after the comma", is the hidden decimals numbers. Also, sorry for any error, specially on the language. I'm not a native speaker, and it's kinda hard to express myself .
Last edited: