Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Popular Clear All
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-01-2015, 08:28 PM
    I'm still working out a few minor bugs but I've launched the BoostAddict FaceBook page: https://www.facebook.com/BoostAddictNetwork Kindly 'like' it as I need to start building up the Facebook presence to leverage. Like it , post in this thread you liked it, and you'll get 20 rep rep points.
    129 replies | 3600 view(s)
  • MM Performance's Avatar
    04-04-2015, 02:53 AM
    New stock turbo World Record! Got it done today as promised with Terry helping me dyno tune. 80F rainy and muggy outside, plenty of humidity, and it didn't matter, got the new WR thanks to the MMP turbo intakes! Will post more data later but here is the dyno picture for now. This was on my own personal daily driver car with 90k miles on it, 2007 6AT 335i coupe. Also ran leak down on it recently and 2 cylinders are at about 20% so not the most power producing engine out there. A healthier engine will definately see more power. Power mods: MMP turbo intakes JB4 custom tuning backend and user settings fuel it stage 2 LPFP dual meth injection DPs without cats Big Tom intercooler TFT charge pipe custom 3" intercooler up pipe NGK .022" gapped spark plugs fuel: straight E85 run 21 is 4th gear, run 23 is 5th gear. oh and this is on a 6AT with 3% more drivetrain loss than MT. Adjusted for MT drivetrain loss, this would be 512whp
    69 replies | 2059 view(s)
  • andy_divers's Avatar
    03-31-2015, 03:56 PM
    After many months of testing and thousands of miles now logged on our first few kits its into full production mode. We are also proud to announce a much lower price of $5999 for our 62mm "Hot Side" kit. A few things allowed us to do this... better buying and pricing on larger quantity orders have brought cost down, but the biggest change is the intake. The original kit included a high temp resin carbon fiber intake. However, the producer of the intake was not reliable and after not being able to find a new outlet to produce them we made the decision to step away. The intake is now a 6061 aluminum mandrel bent intake with the K&N filter still located behind the left headlight. I really wanted the CF intake, but it looks to be a blessing. No longer including a CF intake paired with parts savings has dropped the kits' price almost $900 without sacrificing quality, fit, or performance. http://www.ad-eng.net/store/p25/AD_Engineering_BMW_N54_Single_Turbo_Kit_%28_135i%2F335i_%29.html Keep an eye out as we add the AD Engineering Intercoolers and Catch Can over the next few weeks AD Engineering BMW N54 Single Turbo Kit ( 135i/335i ) $5,999.00 - $7,099.00 The AD Engineering BMW N54 Single Turbo Kit is now available for purchase. This kit starts with a ceramic coated sch10 stainless steel 6-2-1 tubular bottom mount manifold with T4 turbo flange and 44mm wastegate outlet. Attached to this high flowing manifold is a Tial MVR 44mm wastegate and Precision T4 CEA billet compressor turbocharger with a ceramic coated turbine housing for both heat barrier and corrosion resistance. Exhaust gas exits the turbine wheel into a 3" 304L stainless mandrel bent downpipe with interlocked flex coupler that merges into twin outlets allowing it to easily bolt to the factory or any aftermarket replacement exhaust system. Fresh air is fed to the billet compressor wheel via a 3" diameter 6061 aluminum intake after being filtered by a K&N high flow filter located behind the left headlight. Heat shielding is use on the intake tube to keep radiant heat from the turbo manifold from heating the air prior to reaching the compressor. The compressor outlet carries the charged air toward the intercooler where a 2.5" coupler is location at the OEM breakpoint allowing easy connection to an AD Engineering front mount intercooler or any other factory replacement intercooler you may already have. Additionally, the kit features a new left side utherane dampened engine mount to replace the weak OEM oil filled mount. The urethane mount provides a firm feel without the harsh vibrations of a solid mount. From the top, the kit appears to give the engine bay a stock look with only the air filter and heat shield being the only real visible changes. This Stainless steel heat shield is lined with a heat insulating weave protecting the valvecover, gasket, and wiring harness as well as keeping the underhood temperatures down. O-ring block fitting and one piece crimped line assure oil is fed and returned from the turbo leak free. O-ring fittings are also used to block off coolant holes in the block and a new aluminum coolant manifold is used to transfer coolant bwtween the waterpump and engine block. Key features: -Bottom mount design is both efficient and keeps heat away from temperature sensitive components -Precision turbocharger - highest power producing turbo per millimeter -All quality namebrand components -No cutting or need to relocate anything (i.e. coolant reservoir) -Downpipe outlet and compressor outlet are in stock locations so any stock or factory replacement exhaust and intercooler attach with no modifications needed -included urethane dampened engine mount (usually not included when comparing other kits) -all new gaskets, hardware, and hose to complete installation. No running to the auto parts store or dealership for the nickel/dime parts -detailed and illustrated install instructions Included in the base kit ( “Hot Side Kit” ) -AD Engineering Stainless Steel tubular manifold -Precision 6262 JB T4 Turbo -3" Stainless Steel Downpipe -Tial MVR Wastegate -1.75" Stainless Steel Dumptube -Turbo Hot Side Intercooler Charge Tube -3" 6061 Turbo Intake -K&N Air Filter -Stainless Steel and insulated Heat Shield -Urethane Engine Mount -Coolant Block Manifold and Pipe -Coolant Blockoff Plugs -Oil Drain Plug -Turbo Oil Feed Block Fitting and SS Braided Line -Turbo Oil Return Fitting and SS Braided Line -New OEM Exhaust Manifold Donuts, Studs, and copper nuts -All Necessary Couplers, Clamps, hoses, gaskets, and hardware Optional items: -Ball Bearing Turbo -PTE 6766 T4 turbo (JB or BB) -AD Engineering Intercooler (850HP or 1000hp) -Recirculated Wastegate Dumptube Note: Turbo kits are built to order and take 3-4 weeks to ship. Please call if you need quicker delivery. Carbon Fiber Intake is NO LONGER included
    71 replies | 2321 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-03-2015, 11:54 PM
    Precision turbochargers are fairly popular on the BoostAddict Automotive Performance Network although there are opinions on all sides. Some users point to previous issues Precision had with oil leaks but there is no denying there are many owners making some giant power numbers with Precision turbochargers. This second generation PT6062 CEA is going to be a very popular turbo however you look at it. It features a 60mm inducer and 62mm turbine wheel and is said to support at least 750 horsepower. The CHRA (center housing rotating assembly) is air cooled and features dual ceramic ball bearings. Precision's design seems to put an emphasis on a lightweight rotating assembly for spool. Why Precision did not provide a compressor map in addition to their press release is anyone's guess. We will see how the aftermarket responds to this $1750 turbocharger but there are likely a lot of guys here that will be giving it a look. Hebron, IN – April 1, 2015 – PRECISION TURBO AND ENGINE announced the addition of a new unit to its line of Street and Race turbochargers. The GEN2 PT6062 CEA® turbo features cutting edge technology and the latest in advanced aerodynamics. Featuring an exclusive 60mm inducer GEN2 CEA® (Competition Engineered Aerodynamics) compressor wheel machined from a 2618-aluminum forging and a 62mm CEA® turbine wheel, Precision’s GEN2 PT6062 CEA® turbocharger is rated to support up to 750 horsepower. PTE’s technologically advanced CEA® wheels are known for their unparalleled performance, greater efficiency at higher pressure ratios, less turbo lag, ability to handle higher boost, and offer massive power gains over older wheel designs of similar sizes With prices starting at $1,749.99, Precision’s GEN2 PT6062 CEA® turbo is also equipped with an air-cooled, dual ceramic ball-bearing center housing rotating assembly (CHRA) for faster transient response and added thrust capacity. Additionally, Precision’s GEN2 PT6062 CEA® turbocharger comes with a wide variety of turbine housings, including: • T3 .63 or .82 A/R with 4 bolt (2.5") discharge • T3 .63 or .82 A/R with 3" V-Band discharge • T3 .63 A/R with 5 bolt discharge (with or without wastegate hole) • T4 Divided .84 A/R with 3 5/8" V-Band discharge • T4 Tangential .58 or .68 A/R with 3 5/8" V-Band discharge • V-Band inlet/outlet .64 or .82 A/R • Mitsubishi .63 A/R • Buick .63 A/R • GMC Syclone/Typhoon .85 A/R • K26 .82 A/R Incredibly powerful yet relatively compact in size, Precision’s new GEN2 PT6062 CEA® turbocharger is sure to be a huge hit with the performance aftermarket and will be boosting vehicles to outstanding levels of greatness in no time. Precision customers have a history of setting records and getting noticed. They don't sit in the stands watching the action – they're the ones making it happen. Get involved and be a part of the action today with PTE. For more information regarding PTE’s GEN2 turbos, or to order, please contact Precision Turbo and Engine at (855) 996-7832. About Precision Turbo and Engine, Inc. Since 1987, Precision Turbo and Engine has been a leader in turbocharger technology for street and race applications. PTE offers a complete line of replacement, upgrade and custom turbochargers featuring the exclusive CEA® (Competition Engineered Aerodynamics) compressor and turbine wheels. Additionally, PTE manufactures its own line of intercoolers, boost control products, electronic fuel injectors, and is a top distributor for stand-alone engine management systems and fuel system components. Each sale comes with expert advice and support.
    55 replies | 4908 view(s)
  • Eleventeen's Avatar
    04-01-2015, 09:41 PM
    Hey guys, I just saw this and thought some people may be interested. Precision JUST announced a new turbo that falls between their 58xx and 62xx units. This should be another great option for the N54: http://www.precisionturbo.net/news/Press-Release--New-GEN2-PT6062-CEA®-Turbocharger-Introduced/293
    55 replies | 1146 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-13-2015, 12:13 PM
    What a difference a different dynamometer can make. For forum bragging, there is no better dyno than the Dynojet. It is consistent and tends to produce the highest numbers which owners of course love to dyno race with. The Mustang being a load bearing and not an inertia based dyno functions differently and also provides different numbers. People get caught up in the numbers and attempting to explain that different machines can produce wildly different results even on the same car is often a lost cause. The average person will see figure X, see it is higher than figure Y, and leave it at that without delving any further into it. What you are about to see is just how much the numbers can vary and why dyno racing should be not be taken seriously. This 6-speed manual F10 M5 features the following modifications and was run on 93 octane pump fuel: - Undercover Performance 3 inch catless downpipes - Undercover Performance catless exhaust - BMS JB4 tuning Dynojet figures 620 lb-ft of torque and 659 whp: Mustang figures 553 lb-ft of torque and 544 whp: That is a spread of 115 horsepower at the wheels and 67 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on the exact same car with the only difference being different dyno machines. The output never changes. The way it is displayed to you is the only change. Does the Mustang deserve its reputation as being a conservative dyno in comparison to the Dynojet? It sure does. But do not get too caught up in its figures either. It can easily be messed with to display whatever the operator wants it to display. When used properly dynos are great tools. It's the tools running around with inflated graphs for frum bragging rights that one has to worry about.
    41 replies | 1524 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-22-2015, 02:09 PM
    A twin turbo S85 V10? That is what the boosted BMW world has been missing. Well, at least in a street car. This is a bit of a premature post as there is a long way to go but our friend @Dr.Tamirlan from Russia shared some pictures and details on his build. You get a couple shots of the turbos mounted and the manifolds which are nice to see. BimmerBoost can say for the record they saw these manifolds almost two years ago in person so that gives you an idea of how long this process is. Additionally, BimmerBoost can say from experience that @Dr.Tamirlan better have a lot of patience and a lot of money. To do what he asks is going to take some serious work to the block. The power will be there with some big turbos and the V10, do not worry about that. Worry about keeping the motor together. BimmerBoost also from speaking with Gintani knows they have tricks up their sleeves for strengthening these blocks but the S85 is a better candidate than the S65 V8 for big power anyway due to its larger size, better oiling system, and offering slightly more material. The DCT swap is not as big of a wildcard here as people might think. Dodson is willing to work with Gintani regarding the transmission so they will be able to keep it together. The challenge once again is the block due to its soft and lightweight aluminum-silicon material. We wish our Russian friend luck with his project. The result certainly would be something to behold and it would challenge for the top street BMW spot in the world.
    35 replies | 796 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-08-2015, 08:02 AM
    Mid 10 second stock internal supercharged E92 M3's are becoming more common as more owners take them to the strip. The record currently is 10.46 @ 135.13 but that is from a heavily stripped out car running in negative density altitude with some question marks regarding the fuel and boost used. Regardless, mid 10 second performance is about what one can expect on a well prepped strip from a supercharged DCT M3 pushing 8+ psi on drag rubber. This car ran 10.5 - 10.6 all day but in the process broke its driveshaft. Things break on the strip, that is how it is. The better prepped it is the better the chance is of something breaking as the torque has to go somewhere if the tires are hooking and not spinning. The 60 foots for the most part are in the 1.7X range which makes it somewhat surprising that the driveshaft gave as nobody else who has launched in this range has broken one. It could be a bad shaft or it could just be time for an upgrade to a DSS carbon unit. Based on the 60 foot it does not look like launch control (capable of 6200 rpm launches) was used. With a supercharger 1.5X-1.6X 60 foots should be possible as bolt on cars have done 1.7X's. The car was not pushed as hard as it could and should be out of hole. The car is running Dodson upgraded clutches and Dodson is the only company to have a real working solution for the BMW M3 DCT. The proof is in the 1/4 mile results. The claim is the car ran on 93 octane but when people claim pump it is best to assume race gas or some kind of octane boost (possibly from meth injection). If trying to set records why run pump gas unless you want to act like there is soooo much more in it? Undercover Performance prepped the car and plans to retune it. There will probably be more boost and some more octane with a more aggressive file if some of these things did not already take place. Regardless, mid 10's are essentially the norm now. There is room to hit low 10's. It's a shame more supercharged cars do not hit the strip but most M3 owners tend to be the kinds of people who are afraid of breaking things instead of pushing things. The runs were done at ATCO (one of the fastest East Coast strips) in negative density altitude up to -470 on.
    28 replies | 1479 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 10:40 PM
    The S54 remains the BMW inline-6 power king going into 2015. Well, the S38 may have something to say about that but that is a discussion for another day. Sound Performance built the E46 M3 S54 motor and Saad Racing provided a turbo kit utilizing a Precision 6766 turbocharger. The result? 859 wheel horsepower pushing 29 psi of boost on a Mustang Dyno. Here are the numbers at the various boost levels tested: 678whp @ 18psi 740whp 624wtq @ 23psi 859whp 710wtq @ 29psi On a Dynojet this should be breaking 900 whp. They of course also have 1000+ whp M3's but this shows what is possible with a Precision 6766, a ProEFI 128 ECU, and a built motor. Specs: SP Built 10:1 CR Engine Saad Racing Turbo Kit w/ SP 3" Boost Activated Exhaust Cutout Saad Racing E85 Fuel System Saad Racing Intake Manifold w/ LS3 DBW Throttle Body SP Direct-Port Nitrous Kit ProEFI Pro128 Flex Fuel Standalone EMS OS Giken Twin Disc Clutch They plan to test the Precision 6870 CEA GEN2 turbocharger next. 9XX whp on the Mustang? We will have to wait and see.
    18 replies | 2507 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-17-2015, 05:12 AM
    It is becoming increasingly apparent that the MKVII Volkswagen Golf R is an 11 second car with bolt ons. APR recently managed 12.011 @ 113.44 in the 1/4 mile out of the car with their Stage 1 tune on 93 octane and an intake. In other words, a hair from the 11's. Race gas alone would probably do it. With a 1.734 60 foot the all wheel drive system is showing its benefits off the line. It is just a matter of time before we see a US spec MKVII Golf R in the 11's and this just further reinforces the results from a US spec tuned Golf R we saw earlier this month. This is a new record though and 113.44 is the new fastest trap speed for US spec Golf R's once again. ROW cars are already in the 11's. With race gas these cars should be doing 11's and 115+ traps all day.
    38 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-21-2015, 12:47 AM
    This thread might get intense. So which one do you choose? Honestly, I'm starting to think the Viper is the way to go. I love the Z06. There is no 'wrong' car here. They're both incredible. But the Viper is just... raw. Something about it. There's something that makes you feel like they just won't build like this any longer. It's a tough one.
    36 replies | 480 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 03:25 AM
    Nobody loves the BMW N52 motor. If someone has a 328i or 128i model equipped with the N52 and asks about more power they are told to trade it in for an N54 or N55 based car. Even the aftermarket basically abandoned it and there are no production forced induction kits for the engine. It's rough being an N52 when the N54/N55 exist. Even BMW themselves replaced it with the N20 2.0 liter four-cylinder which is a far more tuner friendly motor. If you love your N52 relax, Active Autowerke has you covered with some performance parts. On a BMW E82 128i 6-speed manual Active Autowerke picked up just under 40 whp on a Dynojet with the following modifications: 1) Active Autowerke N52 exhaust headers installed 2) Stage 3 intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed 3) K+N drop used 4) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler BLUE line- stock 128 6 speed 208.48 whp - 207.63 wtq GREEN line- AA Header, 3 stage manif, K&N drop-in with No charcoal filter, stock exhaust 248.02 whp - 225.15 wtq Not bad, right? Now let's look at Mustang numbers from an automatic E9X 328i with the Active Headers and tune but without the intake manifold: 1) stock intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed but stock factory paper filter ( we did not have a K+N drop in at the time to use) 2) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler Bottom line- stock 328 auto 175 whp - 161 wtq Middle line- AA Header, charcoal filter delete 198 whp - 179 wtq Top line- AA header, AA software and charcoal filter 207whp - 192 wtq So with the full gamut of Active Autowerke N52 products one can expect roughly 40 wheel horsepower gains and roughly 30 lb-ft of torque gains at the wheels. That is about the best anyone is going to do on this motor without forced induction. Which at that point it makes sense to go to an N54/N55 or even N20, doesn't it?
    16 replies | 2841 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-15-2015, 04:52 AM
    This is not a new story but the only way to combat ignorance is with knowledge and data. Fortunately, there are members in the BimmerBoost community who provide quality data such as what you are about to see below and thanks to them we can differentiate between marketing and reality. The marketing is that the F82 M3 as well as the F80 M3 weigh 3306 pounds. What BMW left out was this weight comes from a European spec F82/F80 (they have different crash test standard affecting whether seats with side impact airbags are used) that is a 6-speed manual without any fluids whatsoever. In other words, it's a bunch of BS. Almost exactly one year to the day BimmerBoost posted an indepently weighed figure for an F80 6-speed manual M3 and it came in at 3562 pounds: This year thanks to member @DD GT3 RD (who also weighed his 991 GTS while he has was it) we have an independent weight figure for an F82 M4 DCT and it is 3661 pounds: Does the DCT add weight? Yes. It is not almost 100 pounds though but the difference between the lighter 6-speed F80 M3 and the DCT F82 M4 can be attributed to the transmission as well as fuel. The rule of thumb for fuel is about 6 pounds per gallon of gas. So how do the F80 M3 and F82 M4 compare to a DCT E92 M3? The previous generation car comes in as lighter than either of them at 3549 pounds. Yes, turbochargers, intercoolers, and plumbing add weight so BMW's hype was nothing more than hype. The aluminum-silicon S65 V8 block in the E92 M3 is very light and compact and this also leads to the previous generation car having better weight distribution. Do not believe everything you read. Especially if it's marketing from BMW.
    23 replies | 1521 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 11:15 PM
    The 'professionals' at MotorTrend often amuse this network with their work. For a big name that has been doing this for decades it is mind boggling how the magazine simply can not understand that crank ratings do not mean much of anything. Seriously, does anyone think the S55 engine the F80 M3 and F82 M4 is actually putting out 425 horsepower? It takes just a basic google search to get a dyno of the new M car and see its output at the wheels exceeds the crank HP rating on a Dynojet. We are seeing many high performance cars underrated and BMW has routinely been doing this with their turbo motors. So why does this fly over the heads of the geniuses at MotorTrend? "At 464 hp, the ATS-V has 39 hp and 38 lb-ft on the BMW M3 and M4, which make 425 hp and 406 lb-ft from a twin-turbo 3.0-liter I-6." There is no doubt the ATS-V is putting out 464 horsepower and 444 lb-ft of torque. The thing is, the F80 M3 is also matching that output and then some. Shouldn't a publication like MotorTrend understand their statement based on paper figures is misleading and uninformed? It's hard for enthusiasts to take the big publications seriously when they make basic mistakes and comparisons like this that do not delve even slightly beyond the superficial. I suppose that says something about the writer and the target audience. P.S. This was the power rating Cadillac claimed at the LA Auto Show for the ATS-V: Source
    31 replies | 657 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 06:07 PM
    That is the rumor going around. We have no official source on this but apparently there was some Audi employee meeting in the USA and the RS3 was confirmed for the USA at that meeting. It is really no surprise as we always expected to get the sedan. The hatchback we knew was out of the question based on precedent. Audi already sells an RS3 Sportback in Europe based on the 8V platform. So, expect that same drivetrain to make its way into the 8V A3 sedan. That means a 367 horsepower and 343 lb-ft of torque 2.5 liter turbocharged and direct injected inline-5 sending its power to all four wheels courtesy of a 7-speed dual clutch transmission. Now the 2.5 TFSI motor can put out a heck of a lot more power than that. Remember the 525 horsepower A3 Clubsport concept car from last year? That is what the RS3 should be but it would eat everything else in the Audi lineup alive. That's ok, that is what tuning is for. The most obvious competition for this car would be from the Mercedes CLA45 AMG. The RS3 should be able to out-muscle it though. Whatever happened to Audi's high output EA888 that was supposed to go in the RS3 anyway? Hopefully we can get more concrete details and not just some rumor someone supposedly overheard somewhere. The chances of an RS3 in the US are the best they have ever been though. The sedan seems like a certainty.
    18 replies | 1822 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-26-2015, 07:21 PM
    Not much can play with a BMW S1000RR in stock form. The bike is flat out absurdly fast. When tuned? Well, it takes something pretty damn special to run it. An 1100+ horsepower Boost Logic Nissan GTR may just qualify as something up to the task. The thing is though these two S1000RR's in the video are tuned. The camera bike has a Brentuning ECU tune in addition to a full Akrapovic exhaust system. The other S1000RR just features a full exhaust and a PCV (Power Commander V). The Brentuning ECU tune makes a large difference as the camera bike destroys the other S1000RR and the GTR. They do three runs and in all three it pulls pretty hard. Thank you to BimmerBoost member @Czero for the video.
    7 replies | 2840 view(s)
  • drfrink24's Avatar
    04-02-2015, 11:24 AM
    Wondering if anyone here has experience working on their cars under a 4 post ramp-style lift? I'd have a jack-tray to raise the chassis while on the lift as well. I'll be using this lift to install a turbo kit, as well as other tasks on this vehicle and others. The drive-on diamond plate ramps are 18" wide with 37.5" gap between ramps for work access, and being 175" long, I can have the vehicle on the ramps away from the end cross-member. I realize that a two post lift offers the best access to a vehicle and suspension, however there are some limiting factors in my situation: - I have infloor pex tubing and would like to avoid drilling concrete, my pad thickness is at the bare minimum (4") - I like the idea of having casters and storage potential under a 4 post - I only have 11' ceilings
    24 replies | 798 view(s)
  • Tony@VargasTurboTech's Avatar
    04-12-2015, 02:25 PM
    After a few emails with Sticky it would seem people are becoming increasingly offended by some of the negative vendor interactions by us, and many other vendors on this forum. We have decided to implement a new policy for ourselves, and our threads. It is outlined below. 1. Any vendor is allowed to post, and comment in our threads, doesn't matter who you are. 2. If at any time a vendor participating in one of our threads starts posting negative comments (back handed or blatant), derailing the thread, arguing with people in the thread, or generally side tracking the thread away from what it is intended for, they will be immediately removed from it. At the moment, this means we have to request for sticky to remove the offending person, as the ability to do it for vendors is not yet complete 3. We will keep our interactions with other vendors to a minimum, and will not post anything negative in another vendors thread it does not matter who you are. If us, or our products are directly referred to in a negative way, or false / misinformation is posted, and we feel wee need to address it. This will be done by started our own thread to address it. Not destroying the vendors thread with an argument. 4. At no time will blatant attacks, business, personal or otherwise be tolerated by anyone, non vendors included. We pay money to advertise here, and will not attacked in a place of business. This is social exercise for most, for us it is business, and will be treated as such. Again if we feel someone is being offensive, we will have them removed from the thread. With this system in place, we feel it should not only increase our enjoyment of the forum, but make it a much more enjoyable place for all. It is no secret there is no love lost between some of the vendors here, so we will take a stand to try to bring BB back to a place where there is less drama, and more useful information. If you have any positive comments, or suggestions, feel free to post them. If you have negative things to say, keep them to yourself, or start your own thread, we do not want it posted here. Thanks, enjoy your Sunday! VTT
    19 replies | 840 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-13-2015, 11:42 AM
    This is a very odd result. It does not even make much sense really. Yes, the Porsche 991 generation Porsche 911 Turbo is slightly more powerful at 530 horsepower and 483 lb-ft of torque from its 3.8 liter twin turbo flat-6 than the AMG GT S with its 510 horsepower and 479 lb-ft of torque 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 M178 powerplant. Recently, we witnessed the AMG GT S just easily pull away from a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS as it should considering the 911 GTS is just overmatched. Based on the specifications alone the 911 Turbo and AMG GT S should be a pretty close fight considering the the power is very close between the two and the AMG GT S is sending its power to the rear wheels and not all four. It is also a brand new chassis and also features a dual clutch transmission. 0-60 figures of course will favor the all wheel drive 911 Turbo and they do at 2.9 seconds to the AMG GT S 3.7 second sprint. What is truly is puzzling is the 911 Turbo is just over a full second faster to 124 miles per hour than the GT S. It is almost a full second faster to 100 miles per hour as well (.9) so its advantage is actually increasing with speed. What else is odd here? The 911 Turbo is lighter. Autobild weighs it at 3567 pounds and the AMG GT S at 3679 pounds. Why the AMG GT S is that heavy when it is rear wheel drive and fairly compact is a mystery to us. Ok, fine, but what about performance around the track? The AMG GT S is absolutely destroyed on the Nurburgring Nordschleife turning a 8:10.10 minute laptime compared to the 991 Turbo 7:59.20. Keep in mind these are not hired guns from the manufacturer extracting laptimes but a difference of over 10 seconds between the cars? Really? It's not just the Nurburgring either, the Sachsenring time for the 911 Turbo is seconds ahead as well: This test just does not feel right. We're not saying Autobild is misleading anyone or anything of that sort but we definitely want to see more comparisons from other sources. Vehicle data Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Motor V8 Biturbo Six-cylinder, turbo Mounting position forward along backward along Valves / camshaft 4 per cylinder / 4 4 per cylinder / 4 Camshaft drive Chain Chain Capacity 3982 cc 3800 cc kW (hp) at 1 / min 375 (510) / 6500 383 (520) / 6500 Nm at 1 / min 650/1750 660/1950 Vmax 310 km / h 315 km / h Transmission Seven-speed dual clutch Seven-speed dual clutch Drive Rear-wheel drive Four-wheel drive Brakes, front / rear Discs / wheels Discs / wheels Test car tires v 265/35 R 19 Y -. h 295/30 ZR 20. v 245/35 R 20 Y -. h 305/30 R 20 Y. Tire Type Michelin Pilot Super Sport Pirelli PZero Wheel Size v. 9 x 19 "- h 11 x 20". v. 8.5 x 20 "- h 11 x 20". Exhaust CO2 219 g / km 227 g / km Consumption * 12.2 / 7.8 / 9.4 l 13.2 / 7.7 / 9.7 l Fuel capacity 65 l / Super Plus 68 l / Super Plus Refrigerant R134a R134a Pass-by noise 74 dB (A) 73 dB (A) Trailer weight braked. / Unused. no no Boot volume 285-350 l 115-375 l Length Width Height 4563 / 1939-2075 ** / 1288 mm 4506 / 1880-1978 ** / 1296 mm * City / highway / total 100 km; ** Width with door mirrors Readings Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Acceleration 0-50 km / h 1.8 s 1.1 s 0-100 km / h 3.7 s 2.9 s 0-130 km / h 5.4 s 4.5 s 0-160 km / h 7.5 s 6.6 s 0-200 km / h 11.4 s 10.3 s Intermediate sprint 60-100 km / h 1.9 s 1.5 s 80-120 km / h 2.0 s 1.8 s Empty weight / payload 1669/221 kg 1618/372 kg Weight distribution v. / H. 48/52% 39/61% Tropic left / right 11.7 / 11.8 m 10.4 / 10.3 m Braking distance from 100 km / h cold 35.8 m 33.3 m from 100 km / h hot 34.5 m 32.5 m Interior noise at 50 km / h 66 dB (A) 64 dB (A) at 100 km / h 70 dB (A) 72 dB (A) at 130 km / h 75 dB (A) 76 dB (A) Test consumption - CO2 14.5 liters - 344 g / km 12.6 liters - 300 g / km Reach 440 km 530 km
    19 replies | 780 view(s)
  • DavidV's Avatar
    04-01-2015, 10:16 AM
    The McLaren P1 versus the Porsche 918 Spyder. Both of these cars have carbon fiber tubs and body panels. Both have small displacement, high revving V-8s packed between their passenger compartments and rear axles. Both use twin-clutch transmissions, carbon ceramic brakes, and active aerodynamics. Both have roughly 900 hp. Both are plug-in hybrids. And today, with the help of pro racing driver Randy Pobst, we find out which one is fastest around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca.
    20 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-20-2015, 08:14 PM
    The video below was published in early April but the results were published by MotorTrend back in early March. As we already know what happened there is little point in rehashing the comparison although it is enjoyable to see the cars with a video accompanying the text of course. The reason we are posting this follow up is to do our part in making sure Porsche receives praise for the 918 Spyder and how they are going about testing. Porsche is just giving the keys to the magazines and telling them to go nuts. They aren't sending engineering teams to accompany testing. They aren't saying they will pull advertising. They are not making any threats. They are not trying to control the terms. They are simply letting the car do the talking. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Last year Porsche had no problem having EVO compare the 918 Spyder and McLaren P1. Ferrari was nowhere to be found deciding to hide in Maranello and act like they are (they were) better than everyone else instead. McLaren unlike Porsche requested a retest on different tires and this changed the results EVO achieved. They pulled something similar with MotorTrend. Porsche just smiled and accepted the original results. They did not bother to change the conditions of the test. Changing the conditions of the test is what Ferrari does best. The latest MotorTrend LaFerrari test illustrates that brilliantly. MotorTrend was allowed to test the LaFerrari under Ferrari's watchful eye on Ferrari's test circuit under Ferrari's terms. Ferrari pulled strings to prevent an independent LaFerrari MotorTrend had lined up from being tested in this particular comparison though. Do you respect that? This network doesn't. Yes, the LaFerrari, along with the 918 and P1 are tremendous achievements. They should all be celebrated. Ferrari has managed to suck the fun and automotive enthusiasm out of this latest generation of supercars. The LaFerrari may actually be the best car of the trio but Ferrari's attitude has dampened what should be a cheerful chapter in automotive history. The point ultimately is, if your car can't speak for you at this level why are you even bothering to play? There is some pride involved, isn't there? But there should also be respect of the competition. Should poor sportsmanship be rewarded? Ferrari shows no respect to the 918 Spyder or the McLaren P1 or anyone but themselves. Therefore they do not deserve any respect from anyone else.
    20 replies | 447 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 01:51 AM
    You are going to see these cars compared frequently. They are not exactly the same thing but they represent tremendous performance cars from their respective countries. You are smart enough to know what those countries are so we do not need to go over the basics here and can get right down to the meat and potatoes. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the newest of the trio. The GTR at this point is riding the most dated platform but it can not be overstated just how admirable of a job Nissan has done in continually updating the GTR. The Porsche 991 Turbo S of course is the highest performance turbocharged 911 available these days. All of these cars have forced induction powerplants but the GTR and 911 Turbo S have all wheel drive and dual clutch transmissions. Major factors admittedly versus the 7-speed manual rear wheel drive Corvette Z06. Now, on paper, the Z06 should demolish these cars. Z06 performance has been very perplexing though as MotorTrend learned when they compared the Z06 to the Nismo GTR. Well, now it is Car and Driver's turn. The Z06 is the lightest car here at 3530 pounds. It offers the most power and torque with its 650 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque supercharged LT4 V8. So why is it the slowest in a straight line? It isn't surprising the Z06 can not win 0-60 sprints against all wheel drive competition but trailing 0-150? And in 1/4 mile trap speed? The 991 Turbo S beats both but that also raises questions as Car and Driver previously got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S in a 1/4 mile. Is this car a ringer? Or did Car and Driver suddenly master the ever so complicated PDK? Something already stinks here. Regardless, the 991 Turbo S with its 10.6 @ 130 is the quickest and fastest car. The Nismo brings up the middle with an 11.0 @ 128. The Z06 trails with an 11.5 @ 125. Maybe Car and Driver needs the automatic Z06? Is it the drag of the Z07 package that is an issue again? Acceleration isn't everything, right? The Z06 brakes better than the other two. It is better balanced being the closest to 50/50. Its skidpad number is an insane 1.15g. It has the best slalom speed. It has everything going for it. So what wins on the roadcourse? We don't know. Car and Driver is 'saving' themselves for their Lightning Lap comparison. What is this, a freshman cheerleader on prom night? Give us the goods. MotorTrend put out, why can't you? Instead we get a bunch of talk from Car and Driver regarding which car they liked the best. It turns out the Z06 is the car they liked the best. Its handling is described as next level and indeed it is. The Z06 is amazing when you do things other than accelerate which is why this network is pissed off we have no laptimes. The GTR finishes in last and is said to feel dated. It is dated. That does not mean it still is not a hell of a performance car but when a Corvette Z06 feels more refined there are problems. The 911 Turbo S finishes in the middle of the pack and perhaps it is time too for Porsche to re-evaluate this whole the 911 has to be the top of the food chain mentality. It did finish last in the slalom and perhaps having all that weight over the rear end is not the best for handling transitions. What would happen if they gave the Cayman the 911 Turbo S engine? Yeah, we all know what would happen. Porsche does too. So, an interesting comparison despite Car and Driver not giving us the real goods. These days though, we don't like to be teased. We want to come away satisfied. This comparison does not provide that satisfaction. COMPARISON TESTS VEHICLE 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S BASE PRICE $78,995 $151,585 $183,695 PRICE AS TESTED $102,120 $151,880 $195,175 DIMENSIONS LENGTH 177.9 inches 184.3 inches 177.4 inches WIDTH 77.4 inches 74.6 inches 74.0 inches HEIGHT 48.6 inches 54.2 inches 51.0 inches WHEELBASE 106.7 inches 109.4 inches 96.5 inches FRONT TRACK 63.5 inches 63.0 inches 60.6 inches REAR TRACK 62.5 inches 63.0 inches 62.6 inches INTERIOR VOLUME F: 52 cubic feet F: 53 cubic feet R: 26 cubic feet F: 50 cubic feet R: 17 cubic feet CARGO 15 cubic feet 9 cubic feet 13 cubic feet POWERTRAIN ENGINE supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8 376 cu in (6162 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 232 cu in (3799 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve flat-6 232 cu in (3800 cc) POWER HP @ RPM 650 @ 6400 600 @ 6800 560 @ 6750 TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 650 @ 3600 481 @ 3200 516 @ 2100 REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 7000/7200 rpm LB PER HP 5.4 6.5 6.4 DRIVELINE TRANSMISSION 7-speed manual 6-speed dual-clutch automatic 7-speed dual-clutch automatic DRIVEN WHEELS rear all all GEAR RATIO:1/ MPH PER 1000 RPM/ MAX MPH 1. 2.29/9.8/66 2. 1.61/13.9/93 3. 1.21/18.5/124 4. 1.00/22.4/150 5. 0.82/27.3/183 6. 0.68/32.9/185 7. 0.45/49.8/175 1. 4.06/5.3/37 2. 2.30/9.4/66 3. 1.60/13.6/95 4. 1.25/17.3/121 5. 1.00/21.6/151 6. 0.80/27.2/191 1. 3.91/5.9/42 2. 2.29/10.0/72 3. 1.58/14.6/105 4. 1.18/19.4/140 5. 0.94/24.4/176 6. 0.79/29.2/198 7. 0.62/36.9/180 AXLE RATIO:1 3.42 3.70 3.44 CHASSIS SUSPENSION F: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar R: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar BRAKES F: 15.5-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.3-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled disc R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled disc F: 16.1-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, launch control TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP F: P285/30ZR-19 (94Y) R: P335/25ZR-20 (99Y) Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST CTT F: 255/40ZRF-20 (97Y) R: 285/35ZRF-20 (100Y) Pirelli P Zero F: 245/35ZR-20 (91Y) R: 305/30ZR-20 (103Y) C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION 0–30 MPH 1.6 sec 1.2 sec 1.0 sec 0–60 MPH 3.3 sec 2.9 sec 2.5 sec 0–100 MPH 7.5 sec 6.6 sec 6.2 sec 0–150 MPH 17.9 sec 15.8 sec 14.9 sec ¼-MILE @ MPH 11.5 sec @ 125 11.0 sec @ 128 10.6 sec @ 130 ROLLING START, 5–60 MPH 4.0 sec 3.8 sec 3.4 sec TOP GEAR, 30–50 MPH 13.9 sec 3.8 sec 2.1 sec TOP GEAR, 50–70 MPH 10.8 sec 3.0 sec 2.3 sec TOP SPEED 185 mph (drag ltd)* 191 mph (redline ltd) 198 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) CHASSIS BRAKING 70–0 MPH 135 feet 152 feet 145 feet BRAKING 100–0 MPH 261 feet 275 feet 291 feet ROADHOLDING, 300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD 1.15 g 1.02 g 1.07 g 610-FT SLALOM 50.1 mph 48.2 mph 48.1 mph WEIGHT CURB 3530 pounds 3894 pounds 3590 pounds %FRONT/%REAR 50.3/49.7 54.3/45.7 38.8/61.2 FUEL TANK 18.5 gallons 19.5 gallons 18.0 gallons RATING 91 octane 93 octane 93 octane EPA CITY/HWY 15/22 mpg 16/23 mpg 17/24 mpg C/D 450-MILE TRIP 13 mpg 12 mpg 14 mpg SOUND LEVEL IDLE 60 dBA 54 dBA 55 dBA FULL THROTTLE 93 dBA 90 dBA 83 dBA 70-MPH CRUISE 77 dBA 75 dBA 73 dBA *C/D estimated. tested in California City, California, by K.C. COLWELL and TONY QUIROGA Final Results VEHICLE RANK Max Pts. Available 1 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S 3 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO DRIVER COMFORT 10 8 10 7 ERGONOMICS 10 9 9 8 REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 0 1 1 CARGO SPACE* 5 5 4 2 FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 7 FIT AND FINISH 10 8 10 8 INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 9 7 EXTERIOR STYLING 10 9 9 8 REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 0 0 0 AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 20 2 8 SUBTOTAL 95 76 64 56 POWERTRAIN 1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 16 20 18 FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 3 FUEL ECONOMY* 10 9 10 8 ENGINE NVH 10 8 10 7 TRANSMISSION 10 9 10 7 SUBTOTAL 55 45 53 43 CHASSIS PERFORMANCE* 20 20 17 15 STEERING FEEL 10 10 9 9 BRAKE FEEL 10 10 9 8 HANDLING 10 10 9 8 RIDE 10 8 10 6 SUBTOTAL 60 58 54 46 EXPERIENCE FUN TO DRIVE 25 24 24 20 342352234 203 195 165
    18 replies | 932 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-31-2015, 06:11 PM
    We have already seen over 600 wheel horsepower from the Pure Turbos Stage 2 BMW S55 engine turbo upgrades. That 632 rear wheel horsepower figure they hit was not on pump gas but on race gas. So what can one expect with the Pure Turbos Stage 2 on an F80 M3 or F82 M4 with pump gas? Well thanks to BMS we have the answer to that question. BMS used their F80 M3 for testing and compared the results to the stock turbos. The BMS M3 with a JB4 tune on the stock turbos put down 479 RWHP on pump gas. The number goes to 518 with the Pure Turbos Stage 2 turbochargers. Now 91 octane pump fuel in California is not exactly boost or tuner friendly. To see the most of this upgrade on 91 octane pump one will need to utilize methanol injection. The result with methanol injection is 579 wheel horsepower and a gain of 62 lb-ft of torque at the wheels over straight 91: Of course people will also mention ethanol but E85 is not a reality for everyone. Not to mention this is still early in S55 tuning and we all know how many fueling issues there have been with direct injected turbocharged BMW motors and ethanol. For those who do have E85 available at the pump it should be looked into if they intend to tune the S55. For those on 91 octane pump though, these 91 + meth injection results are promising.
    9 replies | 1767 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-10-2015, 09:41 PM
    Slowly but surely the BMW N55 motor is coming into its own. We saw very impressive results last month of a Pure Turbos Stage 2 upgraded N55 put up an incredible fight against a 695 wheel horsepower single turbo N54. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Pure Turbos N55 work is the top of the game right now. The modifications to the car are below. 523 wheel horsepower and 498 lb-ft of torque at the wheels makes this F30 mean business: Mods: JB4 PURE stage 2 turbo EvolutionRacewerks CP, DP, IC BMS intake Meth
    11 replies | 1348 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-22-2015, 01:10 PM
    Here is yet another absurdly quick and fast 1/4 mile time from the Middle East. Recently, on the BenzBoost forums we witnessed that the something was 'wrong' with a slip and the Yas Marina track was said to be miscalibrated. We wonder just how many tracks in the Middle East are miscalibrated. If we sound skeptical that is because we are. These times are absurdly fast compared to anything else out there. Are they possible with a Porsche 991 Turbo S? Sure, with these mods they are possible: AAP Custon Ecu tune ( remap stock ecu) Custom upgraded Turbos Custom Exhaust system Rear Tyres Toyo R888 We just have to wonder why nobody in the US is matching them or even close. Assuming the is calibrated correctly and the mod list is accurate, this performance is stunning and Al Anabi Racing deserves all the credit in the world. We hope to hear more about these turbos, AAP's tuning, and how the PDK is holding up to what is apparently 800+ all wheel horsepower. What about the fueling? A lot of question marks here but the car clearly hustles.
    21 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-13-2015, 11:34 AM
    This is a very odd result. It does not even make much sense really. Yes, the Porsche 991 generation Porsche 911 Turbo is slightly more powerful at 530 horsepower and 483 lb-ft of torque from its 3.8 liter twin turbo flat-6 than the AMG GT S with its 510 horsepower and 479 lb-ft of torque 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 M178 powerplant. Recently, we witnessed the AMG GT S just easily pull away from a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS as it should considering the 911 GTS is just overmatched. Based on the specifications alone the 911 Turbo and AMG GT S should be a pretty close fight considering the the power is very close between the two and the AMG GT S is sending its power to the rear wheels and not all four. It is also a brand new chassis and also features a dual clutch transmission. 0-60 figures of course will favor the all wheel drive 911 Turbo and they do at 2.9 seconds to the AMG GT S 3.7 second sprint. What is truly is puzzling is the 911 Turbo is just over a full second faster to 124 miles per hour than the GT S. It is almost a full second faster to 100 miles per hour as well (.9) so its advantage is actually increasing with speed. What else is odd here? The 911 Turbo is lighter. Autobild weighs it at 3567 pounds and the AMG GT S at 3679 pounds. Why the AMG GT S is that heavy when it is rear wheel drive and fairly compact is a mystery to us. Ok, fine, but what about performance around the track? The AMG GT S is absolutely destroyed on the Nurburgring Nordschleife turning a 8:10.10 minute laptime compared to the 991 Turbo 7:59.20. Keep in mind these are not hired guns from the manufacturer extracting laptimes but a difference of over 10 seconds between the cars? Really? It's not just the Nurburgring either, the Sachsenring time for the 911 Turbo is seconds ahead as well: This test just does not feel right. We're not saying Autobild is misleading anyone or anything of that sort but we definitely want to see more comparisons from other sources. Vehicle data Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Motor V8 Biturbo Six-cylinder, turbo Mounting position forward along backward along Valves / camshaft 4 per cylinder / 4 4 per cylinder / 4 Camshaft drive Chain Chain Capacity 3982 cc 3800 cc kW (hp) at 1 / min 375 (510) / 6500 383 (520) / 6500 Nm at 1 / min 650/1750 660/1950 Vmax 310 km / h 315 km / h Transmission Seven-speed dual clutch Seven-speed dual clutch Drive Rear-wheel drive Four-wheel drive Brakes, front / rear Discs / wheels Discs / wheels Test car tires v 265/35 R 19 Y -. h 295/30 ZR 20. v 245/35 R 20 Y -. h 305/30 R 20 Y. Tire Type Michelin Pilot Super Sport Pirelli PZero Wheel Size v. 9 x 19 "- h 11 x 20". v. 8.5 x 20 "- h 11 x 20". Exhaust CO2 219 g / km 227 g / km Consumption * 12.2 / 7.8 / 9.4 l 13.2 / 7.7 / 9.7 l Fuel capacity 65 l / Super Plus 68 l / Super Plus Refrigerant R134a R134a Pass-by noise 74 dB (A) 73 dB (A) Trailer weight braked. / Unused. no no Boot volume 285-350 l 115-375 l Length Width Height 4563 / 1939-2075 ** / 1288 mm 4506 / 1880-1978 ** / 1296 mm * City / highway / total 100 km; ** Width with door mirrors Readings Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Acceleration 0-50 km / h 1.8 s 1.1 s 0-100 km / h 3.7 s 2.9 s 0-130 km / h 5.4 s 4.5 s 0-160 km / h 7.5 s 6.6 s 0-200 km / h 11.4 s 10.3 s Intermediate sprint 60-100 km / h 1.9 s 1.5 s 80-120 km / h 2.0 s 1.8 s Empty weight / payload 1669/221 kg 1618/372 kg Weight distribution v. / H. 48/52% 39/61% Tropic left / right 11.7 / 11.8 m 10.4 / 10.3 m Braking distance from 100 km / h cold 35.8 m 33.3 m from 100 km / h hot 34.5 m 32.5 m Interior noise at 50 km / h 66 dB (A) 64 dB (A) at 100 km / h 70 dB (A) 72 dB (A) at 130 km / h 75 dB (A) 76 dB (A) Test consumption - CO2 14.5 liters - 344 g / km 12.6 liters - 300 g / km Reach 440 km 530 km
    19 replies | 147 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-09-2015, 09:03 AM
    Interesting run here between two very different cars. The Mustang Cobra you see here is the 1999-2001 model that came with a naturally aspirated 4.6 liter V8 offering 320 horsepower. This preceded the bad boy Terminator with a supercharged 4.6 liter that escalated the pony car wars to new heights (and the war is still raging). The Nissan GTR everyone knows and loves but this is a fairly modest example. It has the stock turbos, a Pro EFI ECU, Undercover tuning, and is running E85. It is of course also on the stock motor. So, stock motor tuned all wheel drive GTR on E85 versus a built motor 6-speed manual rear wheel drive Cobra with a 2.3 liter Whipple twin screw. What happens? The Cobra gets destroyed. Running a GTR from a stop on the street in a rear wheel drive supercharged manual 99-01 Cobra is suicide. No matter how good the driver is he will not hook like the GTR and he will not out shift the GTR dual clutch transmission. The mildly modified GTR makes easy work of the built motor Cobra. It's not even a race.
    18 replies | 336 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-07-2015, 10:18 PM
    The 991 Turbo and Turbo S continue to show numbers all over the place in tests. Why is this? Conditions? Fuel quality? The computer pulling timing? Who knows, but the numbers are everywhere from 123 miles per hour in the 1/4 mile from MotorTrend to over 130 by Car and Driver recently. The 911 Turbo S convertible obviously weighs a bit more than the coupe at 3741 pounds. Car and Driver weighed the coupe version at 3590 pounds so the difference is 151 pounds. That is not nearly enough of a weight difference for a trap speed spread of 6 miles per hour. Making this more perplexing is Car and Driver themselves earlier got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S coupe which certainly is about the difference one would expect 151 pounds to make versus the heavier convertible going 11.1 @ 124. That also was the fastest time out of any major US magazine up until recently when the Turbo went against the GTR and Z06. To further muddy the waters Road and Track tested the Turbo S coupe at 10.9 @ 124.4 with a curb weight of 3600 pounds. So how in the hell does Car and Driver suddenly get a massive acceleration spike when the Turbo S is being compared to the Nissan GTR and Corvette Z06? You figure it out. Because we certainly can't. SpecificationsVEHICLE TYPE:rear-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible PRICE AS TESTED:$210,620 (base price: $195,895) ENGINE TYPE:twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection DISPLACEMENT:232 cu in, 3806 cc Power: 560 hp @ 6750 rpm Torque: 553 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm TRANSMISSION:7-speed dual-clutch automatic with manual shifting mode DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase: 96.5 in Length: 177.4 in Width: 74.0 in Height:50.9 in Passenger/cargo volume: 70/13 cu ft Curb weight: 3741 lb C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 2.8 sec Zero to 100 mph: 7.0 sec Zero to 150 mph: 17.8 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.6 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.2 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.3 sec Standing ¼-mile: 11.1 sec @ 124 mph Top speed (drag limited, mfr's est): 197 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 151 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 g FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway: 17/24 mpg C/D observed: 15 mpg
    19 replies | 410 view(s)
More Activity