A look at the R2650 and how the Predator stacks up to the competition

[V00D00]

From an engineering perspective exhaust is part of the motor. Just like the CAI is. It's part of the overall system. If you change one single part in the system, it's not stock. It would be the same for suspension. You're not running a stock suspension if you have springs, or control arms, or bushing, or dampers, or CC plates, etc. A lot of people claim "stock suspension" because they haven't changed any geometry and'or pickup points.

I'm ok with:

-Stock motor with exhaust.
-Stock motor with bolt ons.
-Stock longblock

I am not ok with "stock motor" if anything from the air filter to the cat back is not stock. Especially when things like exhaust are worth so much power.

u can remove the airbox and exhaust completely and still function, so its a term for racer to use when modifyin, how extreme the modifications are. Bolt ons are just that, can be done in a driveway with minimal experience, minimal tools, minimal time, with minimal gains. "power adder" is another term for FI/N02.

group 1 FBO
group 2 Forced induction/Nitrous
Group 3 Engine internals (+ either above group)

if you say a power adder ( FI/N02) full bolt ons are assumed, as logicaly those came 1st and work better with/some even required for the power adders

and i agree, you cant claim stock suspension if its not.but again, ive never even heard that as an issue, and cant see that being a universal claim.

You can go to any drag strip, street meet, performance forum and 90% will know/understand what you mean when you say "bolt ons" or "stock motor with a blower/turbo etc" or "built motor + xyz"

Once you say Built motor, one can assume Power adder of some sort as well.

Sponsored

 

[sqidd]

u can remove the airbox and exhaust completely and still function, so its a term for racer to use when modifyin, how extreme the modifications are. Bolt ons are just that, can be done in a driveway with minimal experience, minimal tools, minimal time, with minimal gains. "power adder" is another term for FI/N02.

group 1 FBO
group 2 Forced induction/Nitrous
Group 3 Engine internals (+ either above group)

if you say a power adder ( FI/N02) full bolt ons are assumed, as logicaly those came 1st and work better with/some even required for the power adders

and i agree, you cant claim stock suspension if its not.but again, ive never even heard that as an issue, and cant see that being a universal claim.

You can go to any drag strip, street meet, performance forum and 90% will know/understand what you mean when you say "bolt ons" or "stock motor with a blower/turbo etc" or "built motor + xyz"

Once you say Built motor, one can assume Power adder of some sort as well.

I understand that is the parlance in the community. I'm just pointing out (because I'm annoyingly specific/pedantic) that from a technical point of view it's wrong.

It's similar to people's use of the word literally, when most of the time they should be saying figuratively. Which also drives me crazy.

Just let me wallow in my psychosis.

 

[loubif]

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php
Based on what the engineers have stated of the current GT500 running 10.8 @ 134mph (I know this is just hearsay/rumor), I have calculated, using the above and numerous other et/trap/hp calculators, the possibilities for HP, I used curb weights starting at 4000lbs (wishful thinking) to a portly 4200lbs and trap speeds of 130mph.
@4000, 677whp, +15% drive-train loss 796.5bhp, +10% drive-train loss 752.3bhp
@4050, 685.6whp, +15% drive-train loss 806.6bhp, +10% drive-train loss 761.8bhp
@4100, 694whp, +15% drive-train loss 816.5bhp, +10% drive-train loss 771.1bhp
@4150, 702.5whp, +15% drive-train loss 826.5bhp, +10% drive-train loss 780.6bhp
@4200, 711whp, +15% drive-train loss 836.5bhp, +10% drive-train loss 790bhp
I used this calculator for my current ride 2016 Ford Focus RS and what the other RSs has been putting down at the dyno and posting at trap speeds in stock form and the calculations do seen to be on par by what I see based on the RS. I also did some additional calculations based on lower traps of 125mph as well as higher traps of 135mph but I only posted what I came up with based on 130mph traps to be a bit conservative.

 

[Concrete GT]

@4100, 694whp, +15% drive-train loss 816.5bhp, +10% drive-train loss 771.1bhp

There's the money shot.....

 

[Dominator961]

once you add forced induction or OPEN the motor, its no longer "Bolt On"


same as above
the "motor" is stock, as in no valvetrain or internals touched
"My stock Coyote makes 650rwhp with a Whipple". makes sense to racers, hey told you an unopened engine, with a whipple, the supporting fuel and bolt ons, tuning are expected

What holds the crank, rods, blower, cams, intake, headers, etc on?
BOLTS!

 

[Hack]

What holds the crank, rods, blower, cams, intake, headers, etc on?
BOLTS!

Swapping anything even engine blocks just takes bolts.

 

[V00D00]

What holds the crank, rods, blower, cams, intake, headers, etc on?
BOLTS!

Swapping anything even engine blocks just takes bolts.

You can argue semantics and attempt to prove internet intellectual superiority, but my statements will hold across 99% of the nation. If your arguing or asking what FBO is/means your not really involved in racing and and doesnt matter anyway.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Man this went & hit rock bottom.

 

[loubif]

Does anyone here have any knowledge on how much more efficient a DCT trans would be compared to a regular A6/A10 auto trans, just trying to get a good estimate on drive-train loss, I would imagine that the DCT would be more efficient but how much more???

 

[Concrete GT]

Does anyone here have any knowledge on how much more efficient a DCT trans would be compared to a regular A6/A10 auto trans, just trying to get a good estimate on drive-train loss, I would imagine that the DCT would be more efficient but how much more???

That's a good question. I would think(hope)that even being somewhat more efficient and having the CF driveshaft that maybe it'll end up some where in the 10% range.... those 2 factors combined with the CF wheels(TP)and ultra responsive shifts from the DCT will put this thing right on the heels of quite a few supercars trackwise and probably a pulley swap with a set of sticky tires away from a Demon on the dragstrip.

 

[MaskedRacerX]

Yeah, I did some research on this a while back, especially on/around Porsche boards, and the general consensus seemed to be a DCT had very close to the same losses as a manual (some people pointed out DCT in the applications they were considering uses wet clutches, but that shouldn't affect efficiency). Just talking about C vs. RW HP losses, without the *effectiveness* being factored in (i.e., 1% more driveline loss vs. much faster shifting). I'd guess if the rotating mass, components introducing more/less friction, etc., was about the same, there's no reason to think the DCT would be less efficient[?]

 

[Sticky]

Yeah, I did some research on this a while back, especially on/around Porsche boards, and the general consensus seemed to be a DCT had very close to the same losses as a manual (some people pointed out DCT in the applications they were considering uses wet clutches, but that shouldn't affect efficiency). Just talking about C vs. RW HP losses, without the *effectiveness* being factored in (i.e., 1% more driveline loss vs. much faster shifting). I'd guess if the rotating mass, components introducing more/less friction, etc., was about the same, there's no reason to think the DCT would be less efficient[?]

Something else I happened to write on how losses differ between a manual and a dct: https://www.bimmerboost.com/content.php?379-E92-E9X-M3-Drivetrain-Losses-Explained-DCT-

A dry clutch DCT will be about even with a manual. A wet clutch DCT (like the GT500) will have slightly higher losses.

 

[Sticky]

Does anyone here have any knowledge on how much more efficient a DCT trans would be compared to a regular A6/A10 auto trans, just trying to get a good estimate on drive-train loss, I would imagine that the DCT would be more efficient but how much more???

Yes, this is something I wrote comparing the 8L90 to Porsche PDK but keep in mind the newer automatic gearboxes actually function in a similar manner with the torque converter being the main point of differentiation: https://www.boostaddict.com/content...r-than-the-Porsche-PDK-dual-clutch-but-can-it

 

[MaskedRacerX]

Something else I happened to write on how losses differ between a manual and a dct: https://www.bimmerbost.com/content.php?379-E92-E9X-M3-Drivetrain-Losses-Explained-DCT-

A dry clutch DCT will be about even with a manual. A wet clutch DCT (like the GT500) will have slightly higher losses.

FYI, you need to fix your link (bimmerboost.com ... you've got bimmerbost ...)

 

[Sticky]

FYI, you need to fix your link (bimmerboost.com ... you've got bimmerbost ...)

LOL whoops, thank you.

Sponsored