Making a 6A12 go hard!

d_stroy_r · Post by **d_stroy_r** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:35 pm

I've been having troubles with my tyres.

Couldn't launch past 2.5k rpm.

I'll see how i go this time

FTOluv · Post by **FTOluv** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:01 pm

Kev, the 626/probe/mx6 engine u talking about is 2.5Litres quad cam V6 and it only has 125kw at the flywheel. my ex mrss had one. smooth ride though

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:59 pm

do you have a manual dstroyr ? if so why would you launch past 2k ?

Chiangstar · Post by **Chiangstar** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:41 pm

what rpm do you launch at GAV? i always try to launch closer to the powerband....

simon

d_stroy_r · Post by **d_stroy_r** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01 pm

It's a manual.

it's got no power before 3k rpm.

I've tried it with my RSM, if you launch at 2k rpm, i always seem to get 7.5 sec 0-100. I launched it at 3krpm and i got 6.4.

Boris · Post by **Boris** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:34 pm

Hmm. I launch at around 4.5k... but lately my tyres have been crap, so now around 3.5k...

Sometimes when i'm really going for it, i launch around 5.5k... but that's very rarely, as i still want to have a clutch at the end of it.

Vlad, what I found with the RSM's, is that for comparisons you always have to use the same spot, and that area has to be as flat as possible... cos a slight not noticable down hill could add like 0.5 of a second... you probably know this, but just in case...

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:08 pm

holy crap, i would never launch at that, complete wheel spin, or ride the clutch the entire way to 8k. andi have brand new top of the range dunlops on. though i dont have exhaust mods or anything to give top end power, most my powers down low (gr)

Quattro · Post by **Quattro** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:10 pm

FTOluv wrote:Kev, the 626/probe/mx6 engine u talking about is 2.5Litres quad cam V6 and it only has 125kw at the flywheel. my ex mrss had one. smooth ride though

Thats the same engine Ford used in the ST24 Mondeo, good engine that likes to rev. I'd take the ST24 over the other cars that share the engine. Euro Ford, slightly more refined and has its chassis sorted out a lot better.

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:20 pm

Well, while we on the subject of under rated, I line up 2 WRX at NT where theres no speed limit, i beat one WRX on the first gear then lost by second, & the other one only beat me after third gear, although i kill him offline (sh*t driver).

The thing is both WRX owner though i had a turbo running, & you should see their face when i told them is a N/A. PRICELESS

FTOluv · Post by **FTOluv** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:25 pm

btw Kev, how much power u got at the wheels?

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:54 pm

FTOluv wrote:btw Kev, how much power u got at the wheels?

Not enough ehehehehee

afterburner · Post by **afterburner** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:04 am

Quattro wrote:
FTOluv wrote:Kev, the 626/probe/mx6 engine u talking about is 2.5Litres quad cam V6 and it only has 125kw at the flywheel. my ex mrss had one. smooth ride though
Thats the same engine Ford used in the ST24 Mondeo, good engine that likes to rev. I'd take the ST24 over the other cars that share the engine. Euro Ford, slightly more refined and has its chassis sorted out a lot better.

There's a Japanese spec version of this engine as well, which makes more power than the 'export' versions - around 140kw I think (its a 2.5 remember). There was a guy over here who transplanted one into a Mazda Eunos 500 sedan (medium sized sedan). He did some mods to the engine, such as upped the compression, some more aggressive camshafts and fitted a Link computer, plus the usuals of exhaust, filter, etc. In the end it was making 250hp and he had a best 1/4 time of 13.8

- pretty good really. I raced him on a racetrack once, and he was faster than my old twin-turbo 6A12 VR-4

Anyway, I read somewhere that my FTO has a stock 1/4 time of 14.8 (someone feel free to correct this if it's wrong) - whether I can actually get close to that is another question... I'm definitely planning on trying at some stage.

RichardH · Post by **RichardH** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:38 am

RichardH wrote:
HRD2BQT wrote:hahaahahaha.....ok then.

you two r the first FTO owner I know that ran low 15's
Our last West Aussie drag night saw the following times:

14.832 - Leigh's GPX, exhaust, intake (plus unknown X factor! )
15.211 - My totally stock GPX
15.485 - Vlad's GPX, exhaust, intake.

We're going again in a few days. Watch this space for results... Or just ask Teania & Kaveman, who are coming along.

- Rich

...and this time Leigh got 14.81 and I ran 14.84.

Leigh's all time best was 14.6-something a few months ago... which is nothing short of spectacular for a GPX. Damn fine work!

- Rich

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:42 am

come on guys us sydney siders need to get some times to beat these western fellas

FTOluv · Post by **FTOluv** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:31 pm

problem is , half u sydney siders have got GRs.

FTO338 · Post by **FTO338** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:56 pm

FTOluv wrote:problem is , half u sydney siders have got GRs.

Yeah Mil, but u forgot they also got those freaky GRs that woop most GPX

FTOluv · Post by **FTOluv** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:58 am

thats tru, BUT, we havent made our GPX's that freaky yet have we Kev

G_A_V · Post by **G_A_V** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:16 pm

As soon as i get this leaky exhaust worked out, and a cai setup that i like ill post some times that will make you go

payaya · Post by **payaya** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:46 pm

why is it some engines that are compared to the mivec feel like they give out more power but are quoted with less power???

Simple the FTO produces 147KW at a sky high 7500RPM. So how often are you in this zone? Rarely! By the time you hit peak power it will be time to change gear. I guess the way Mitsubishi achieved this 147KW figure with only 2 litres is to design the thing to rev. But a common problem with small CC, NA, high reving engines is usually a very peaky power band. A good example is the S2000, small capacity huge RPM, hence big power from such a small engine. And what did most people who drive them and magazine writers say? It feel like a civic when not revved.

So comparing KW's is one thing but really only take it at a guide. You can have a 4.0L that produces 147KW, but because of its bigger capacity, requireds less revs, and usually these bigger capacity engines produce peak power at a lower rpm, which gives the drivers more time to utilise every bit of engine power. A 4.0L engine of 147KW will have significantly more torque than a 2.0L engine as well, which in turn helps a lot with accelleration.

The 1.8 SOHC might of produced 83FWKW but a lot of factors come into play, you cant just compare KW's!

I guess people to overestimate the strait line performance of the FTO. I guess becuase its a grey import, its strait away put in the category of GTO, Skyline, Supra, etc etc. They machines have greater CC's and more often than not have forced induction. In its class the FTO is a great car, but a lot of people dont see it like this, they usually think, the FTO is slow because my 5.7L is faster or Supras are way faster.

ive excepted the fact that a lot of cars are faster than my FTO out there, im never said my car was fast. There only so much a 2.0L NA can do, and believe the FTO deserves credit in its class.

tommy · Post by **tommy** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:08 pm

beautiful