G-tech times

Today, I finally had the chance to use and abuse my G-tech. I found a long, straight, mostly flat road near the Washington National golf course. It was perfect, because it was sort of in the boonies.

My first run, when I hit the "go" button, I saw that the G-tech was moving between 0.00 and 0.01 Gs. I decided to go anyway, and my time was 7.05 seconds to 60mph.

My second run was in the opposite direction, and I correctly set it to 0.00 Gs. I ran 6.97 seconds to 60mph.

My last run was in the original direction, set to 0.00 Gs, and the time was 7.02 seconds.

The FWD goodness of my SVX managed to spin the tires on all three launches, but they were only chirping as I was moving forward (better than a stationary spin). Testing the 60mph time really makes the lag in second gear apparent. First gear goes through the speedo like the car is on rails, but in second gear it moves much much more slowly.

I did a run in the opposite direction with the horsepower setting, and the most it gave was 172. I dislike this setting, as it tries to take aerodynamics and rear-wheel drivetrain losses into account. My car isn't RWD, so this setting is worthless to me. It might be good for testing horsepower gains, but I don't think it can be relied on one bit in terms of realism. I set the weight to 3650 for this, because the FWD 94L weighs ~3480. I only weigh around 140 - 150, but I added more just to be a little conservative.

The temperature outside was approximately 40 degrees F.

[Chiketkd]

Originally Posted by deruvian

Today, I finally had the chance to use and abuse my G-tech. I found a long, straight, mostly flat road near the Washington National golf course. It was perfect, because it was sort of in the boonies.

My first run, when I hit the "go" button, I saw that the G-tech was moving between 0.00 and 0.01 Gs. I decided to go anyway, and my time was 7.05 seconds to 60mph.

My second run was in the opposite direction, and I correctly set it to 0.00 Gs. I ran 6.97 seconds to 60mph.

My last run was in the original direction, set to 0.00 Gs, and the time was 7.02 seconds.

The FWD goodness of my SVX managed to spin the tires on all three launches, but they were only chirping as I was moving forward (better than a stationary spin). Testing the 60mph time really makes the lag in second gear apparent. First gear goes through the speedo like the car is on rails, but in second gear it moves much much more slowly.

I did a run in the opposite direction with the horsepower setting, and the most it gave was 172. I dislike this setting, as it tries to take aerodynamics and rear-wheel drivetrain losses into account. My car isn't RWD, so this setting is worthless to me. It might be good for testing horsepower gains, but I don't think it can be relied on one bit in terms of realism. I set the weight to 3650 for this, because the FWD 94L weighs ~3480. I only weigh around 140 - 150, but I added more just to be a little conservative.

The temperature outside was approximately 40 degrees F.

Those are nice times to use as a reference for future mods. Any plans to go to the dragstrip to see what ET you'll get in the 1/4?

-Chike

Originally Posted by Chiketkd

Those are nice times to use as a reference for future mods. Any plans to go to the dragstrip to see what ET you'll get in the 1/4?

-Chike

Perhaps... I am getting to know a few people that know a few people here in WA.

I should be able to get on a two wheel dyno soon. My buddy got the invite, and took his modded MR2 to have it dynoed. I missed out because of work.

I also plan to get into autocross this season, but some hefty personal problems have recently arisen for me, so who knows if that will happen. Attending to a track has now fallen under that same category.

In any event, I think I will try the 1/4-mile setting on the G-tech, just to see what happens.

[87f383]

Those times are right on par w/ my GTech Pro RR I just picked up. 7ish secs 0-60 and 15.3 1/4 at 90ish(can't remember). Of course you don't have to have the RR level either though...more idiot (me) proof.

Installed new alternator(reg was failing, flicker light syndrome), ECU Stage 1 and Green air filter and now it times 6.59 0-60 and 14.9 1/4 at 94 MPH.

HP showed 161.2 w/ just a flowmaster (which is almost dead on w/ what a stock one at the wheels) and 174 after chip/air filter. Torque was in the 20+ ft/lb as I recall...have to go to car and check saved runs. I'd say that's pretty damn acurate overall.

Try to avoid all wheel spin on your launch...it will scew your numbers slighlty slower than what they are....

[benebob]

Haven't tested eithe of our SVXs but the XT6 will do 0-60 in a best 6.9 (that was down a slight incline but usually it is in the 7.5-8 range new was about 9.5 for it) Not the most accurate devise but consistantly innaccurate so at least you know if stuff made a difference.

[87f383]

Originally Posted by benebob

Not the most accurate device

Go pick up this months issue of Car & Driver and read their comparison. I'd say its accurate enough for any person...even those that frequent tracks.

[benebob]

Originally Posted by 87f383

Go pick up this months issue of Car & Driver and read their comparison. I'd say its accurate enough for any person...even those that frequent tracks.

Read it but facts don't lie. A stock XT6 should not be in the 7 second catagory especially one with 195k and a leaking cylinder. Considering at best it should be a 8.5 second car that's about 20% off. Which is why I say it isn't the most accurate device but for $40 who cares. I just wouldn't brag about any times one of those things puts off unless it has been verified by other sources.

[Phast SVX]

Good times for an auto na!(granted we are talking gtechs here)
using robs gtech i consistantly got 6.5 second zero to sixtys back to back to back. When trying to not launch the car as hard, like a little 2k dump i managed 7.2ish times. Robs car pulled around the 7.5 range if i remember correctly. I didnt hit up the 1/4 times.
phil

[87f383]

Originally Posted by benebob

Read it but facts don't lie. A stock XT6 should not be in the 7 second catagory especially one with 195k and a leaking cylinder. Considering at best it should be a 8.5 second car that's about 20% off. Which is why I say it isn't the most accurate device but for $40 who cares. I just wouldn't brag about any times one of those things puts off unless it has been verified by other sources.

Yeah...well using the original I might expect that... you had to have those things perfectly lvl... on a perfectly lvl road and perfectly calibrated to get even close to realistic times. The one you can buy now is the 4th or 5th generation....many of those things are no longer the case.... 100% accurate it is not.... a valuable tool for tuning, etc. It 100% is.

That artice proves that even uncalibrated the PRO RR is with in a 10th of a second. Most drivers are not even that consistant...especially if they've never even been to the track....