60-130 Vbox and 1/4 Timeslip Database
 

As more and more turbo/supercharger kits come to market, it's become apparent a more quantifiable database is needed to show the true performance of these kits.


Dyno graph data alone is not enough to prove performance, as the data can be so easily manipulated by the dyno operator.


Many a product in this industry has been sold with manipulated data, as poor 1/4 performance gains (or any gains for that matter) has shown.


AMS Performance put out this video in 2013 which opened many consumer's eyes to the validity of dyno data.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDwjfZvmPHg"]AMS Performance Dyno Parameter Manipulation Overview - YouTube[/ame]


With that said, I'd like to work with the vendor community and moderator staff to come up with a fair metric by which to compare HP gains.


I would like to propose creating a 1/4 timeslip and 60-130 MPH Vbox (GPS Guided) Database....as these metrics are more reliable indicators of true HP.


Examples across the web:


http://tothefloor.com/60-130-mph-times-for-all-cars/


http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/9...mile-list.html


http://www.gtrlife.com/forums/topic/...r-60-130-list/


http://www.dragtimes.com/vbox-60-130-times.php


I don't propose this for our own gain, but strictly for the sake of general consumers who may be sold a kit that doesn't match up to the sort of gains being marketed by the vendor community. (Not singling out anyone, so please don't take my comments as such.)


I'll let the members discuss, but I do appreciate your time in entertaining the idea.


VBox Performance Box


http://www.vboxmotorsport.co.uk/inde...performancebox


New 2013 Release- Vbox Sport


http://www.vboxmotorsport.co.uk/inde...ers/vbox-sport

Ive always been a big fan of real world times instead of dyno bs.

Helps people realize the talkers from the guys that actually get it done.

I remember giving you shit for your 1000whp GTR trapping what 850whp cars were trapping over on GTRLIFE :)

Let he who makes the proposition post the first VBOX and timeslip data.

We'll get it done this upcoming weekend, pending the weather holds.

Getting more snow here at the moment.

Us too, sleet everywhere. Ugh. Stay safe up there!

Isn't there some kind of liability on a database administrator that asks people to run their car up to 130mph on the street?

Not trying to be debbie downer, I'm just curious.

We plan to get Vbox data at the drag strip, and I hope everyone else would as well.

What about variables such as tires/track/weather/driver. There is always going to be some discrepancies.

I know I've been down the drag strip about twice so my results would be pretty poor compared to someone who does that kind of thing.

I'm just not one for drag racing, currently I'm building my own turbo kit and it probably wouldn't do great at the drags because that was never in the cards during the design.

Doing something like 60-120 times may work

I think the "60-130mph" constraint is intended to minimize those variables.

The flip side is that a 60-130mph run is only going to show performance above ~5300rpm. It's a great indicator of true high-end horsepower, but it will mask the deficiencies of a slow-spooling turbo or an overly-parasitic supercharger which will kill low-RPM performance.

Also, 130mph is incredibly optimistic for a 1/4 mile run. Full Blown posted a 10.8s 1/4 mile and it only got to 128mph. The stage 1 kits seems to be getting somewhere in the 100-110mph range in 1/4 mile.

The focus is trap speed, which is the indicator of HP.

ET can be found in the 60ft, and isn't the metric that would reflect what the customer would see side by side rolling on the street.

This is meant to be an open discussion, and I'm all ears for setting the Vbox metrics to be compared.

Perhaps it's 60-120, the beauty of the Vbox is that you can set whatever range you want.

The point of this thread is to get the community talking, to centralize data on this platform for all to see.

Good idea! Hopefully people don't run out of tarmac before they hit 130mph.

See post 11, lol

I see where you guys are coming from with manipulating dyno numbers. At the same time I have found this community to be very critical of each kit built to be marketed. I have seen where large companies like AVO, Greddy, and Vortex say you can expect XXX whp with their kits. They give a range to cover themselves. Companies like MAPerformance who have threads showing the process they went through to build their kit don't market on dyno numbers. Yes they are shown in their thread, but if someone buys their kit and makes 15 whp less then what other cars have made they did good. If nobody makes even close to the same power that company would have a problem on their hands. That is how I see this industry being.

Trap speed is NOT an indicator of horsepower. If you run identical cars with different rear ends the trap speed will be different. I can see where there is just as much room to manipulate numbers with this system as with a dyno.

I see where you are coming from, I understand your point. But you mean to tell me swapping inputs in a computer program is as easy as replacing the rear end? There will always be a way to manipulate data, the point is making it harder to manipulate it and its the only thing that can be done.. make it harder.

As much as I am pro finding an even playing field I don't think it can happen.

Trap speed is 100% an indicator of horsepower......


You're confusing ET with Trap speed.


Ex. 10.8 @121.....10.8 is ET, 121 MPH is the trap speed.


If I have two cars at the drag strip, and one goes 11.4@144 (2.4 60 ft) due to bad tires, granny shifting out the hole, poor suspension setup, gearing mismatch....and the other goes 10.8 @128 (1.5 60 ft)....which car is making more power to weight?


It's the car that traps 144 MPH.


If you put both of these cars on the street, from a roll, the 144 MPH car is going to absolutely destroy the 128 MPH car.


This is the reason why many forums have 60-130 metrics, as it's a gauge of brute horsepower....and it's the reason I'm suggesting we setup a metric on this forum, to judge true HP performance.

30-100? 30-90? :iono:

Agreed with 100%.

Gearing does make a difference in trap speed, and yes I mean in mph not seconds. Thus the reason I said identical vehicle's. With these cars a rear end can be swapped fairly quickly and without side effects. A common factor in racing is what the final gearing is as it is the easiest to change next to tire size. A 2700 lb car with 350 whp and a final gear ratio of 3.9 will end up with a different trap speed in 1/4 mile then a car with 4.44 final gear with the same power provided it doesn't run the engine to its extreme limit. It is simple physics. And will effect 60-120 times as well, as seen in Nascar with teams selecting different rear end gears from their given choices at each track.

While more data is good I am just saying it still won't be a absolute gauge of actual performance, like the idea is being sold as.

Trap speed is trap speed....no matter how you slice it.


In the example above 144 MPH is 144 MPH, doesn't matter what gearing is in the car, as your crossed the 1/4 mark at xxx MPH.

Now, not having to shift into 5th gear, because your new gearing allows you to go through the traps in the top of 4th would effect ET....but our focus here is trap speed, and that's why I'm proposing determining a metric that would allow for fair comparisons among setups....

couldn't people just use normal logs rather than buying a vbox? is the vbox more accurate than your wheel speed sensors?

It's GPS guided, so yes, more accurate.


And if selling a several thousand dollar FI kit is your goal, $400 spent on a Vbox should be an after thought to promote your product.


At the consumer level, I can understand....but at the vendor level, $400 is a tiny investment compared to the cost of designing and fabricating a kit for mass sale.

true... i guess as a consumer it's a heavy ask for something my iphone can do reasonably well. but for a manufacturer it'd be a great way to compare things on a level playing field. now let's see how many of them actually want a level playing field :)

Wrong.. You must not race much

I can go 10.8@136mph shifting into 5th at the top of the track and 10.7@140 holding out 4th. The shift to 5th hurts mph on the top side of the track, but the et doesn't suffer much. Kinda like lifting right before the traps. Just like I can change my 1/8th mph if my gear is almost done close to it.. hold it gain MPH, shift right before loose mph.

Ive made 10 passes on the same day with my GTR, I could get a 4-5mph variance just by cutting a 2.0ft bog versus a 1.8 that just rolled and didn't bog.

Ive made a bunch of passes on our P&L stg1 kit on pumpgas and saw a drop of 2-3mph when I shifted to 5th and barely any loss in ET. The drop in acceleration kills mph.

So trap speeds can be deceiving, a good driver can pick up mph with faster shifts on the same car vs a guy that shifts slow and doesn't keep the car in boost.

Its way easier to compare these things on auto/dual clutch stuff. On a MT car driver variables just way too heavily on results.


Make the list, but I wouldn't base much off of it. As for vbox results, the subie guys use 50-100 due to gearing, maybe use that here.


Jr

Its not the wheel speed sensor, its more the sample speeds and time stamps on logs can be misleading.


Vbox is way more accurate

This statement is not accurate. 99.9% of all serious drag tests are above 5300 even from 0-130mph (assuming FRS/BRZ only). Unless you're launching like a granny, or on street tires. Either way you're above 5300 after the 60ft.

I would be more inclined to say that a 60-130mph run lessens the traction variable. Even then it's probably not the answer.

The reality of it is, you can fudge, argue, theorycraft, edyno, desktopdyno, until you're blue in the face there's always going to be a discrepancy.

We should just educate the population that reading a number on a forum and thinking it's 100% accurate is bad.

There we go

Someone posted this chart for the twins on stock tires.

Looks like for 60-130 you start at about 5200rpm in 3rd.
And again from around mid 5000s that in 4th.
Then 5th hauls you over 100mph from around 6000rpm.

The unit uses GPS, so it's flat foot from any speed under 60 for a 60-130 pull. Also the best way to do a pull like that is to near redline in each gear. Shifting at 5000 rpm will make times wicked slow. Probably never make it to 130 either.

Looking at that chart I'd vote for a 30-105mph pull, only using 4th gear.

These are typical speeds in say a roll race in a street / highway encounter, hell speeds get much higher very quickly. I do like this idea but anyone doing these test can at no point point any fingers for any trouble they get into as they are ultimately the ones that did it. In my area a typical 100mph pull above agreed starting mph is how a lot of the roll races go down. The only thing I am curious about for the turbo cars is break boosting, as I could see that scewing the readings some instead of just flat footing at the start mph. I have yet to use one of these things and am curious about this. I am sure those that have can confirm this info for me. I would also recommend keeping the speeds the same as what other platforms are using for the simple apple to apple comparisons as well see how it performs in comparison to other platforms.

I can't get over why these lists don't list weight.

30-100. Start in second and run most of fourth out. And a running start is the right way.

could we not also get the data via logging and doing a 30-105 run on a dyno, so we don't have to put anyone at risk?

I was actually just thinking on the way home today that a 30-100 run solely in fourth gear AND a 30-100 run however-you-want-to-do-it give a well-rounded picture. The 4th gear run would demonstrate the power band over the entire rev range, and the however-you-want-to-do-it would demonstrate the street acceleration potential.

Edit: wrxgoose, I think the idea is for vendors to do the runs in a closed and controlled environment, not for joes to do runs down the highway.

I think through top of 4th is probably best....for simple comparison purposes.

ah. good point, Tend. Though if we had any abandoned runways around here, i'd gladly go for a run. :D

Street racing us a helluva drug!