<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marktheblake)</div><div class='quotemain'>
BTW i know where you can get a DOHC turbo right now. http://www.japparts.com.au/products/stock-...k-arriving.html
$3100, Â*100k.</div>
I wouldn't mind getting one of those... hehehe 8)
Sweeeeeeet...
Looks like I am going for a drive next weekend....
The gold Coast is only 1.5 Hrs away from where I live....
Drool....
Thanks for the link Mark.
plus I can test my fixed cruise control...
"Excellent, it's all coming together" - Mr Burns
I'm also looking at slapping some extracters ( headers for the NON-AUSSIES) on my GSR ( As I think my exhast manifold needs replacing) Bah who needs an excuse.... I have found a set for $330 AUD fitted you guys had any experiance with this ??
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HH GSR Owner)</div><div class='quotemain'>Looks like I am going for a drive next weekend....The gold Coast is only 1.5 Hrs away from where I live....</div>
hey, let us know, maybe you will need a bunny like me to sell your old engine too!
maybe when you come down we can hook up. anyway i told the owner at that place you were comin. he said to mention he has the EVO1 engine as well (credit bluedraco as well).
1.5 hours?, well i hope you live in Caboolture. speed cameras seem to be breeding like rabbits on the Pac hwy lately.
I'm aware you didnt have the choice when u bought yours, just lately all I seem to hear is "4WD ? but they're SO SLOOOOW !!" from mindless morons who dont know better !
Now, by no means do I mean any of u guys in the "mindless morons" statement above, but I thought I should just plead my case so anyone who DOES get the chance to own a 4WD doesnt pass it up lightly ! As you said, they're the perfect base for a turbo conversion later on [altho upgrading the rear diff is a good idea, to take the extra power !]
HEHEHE I voted that i dont own a 6g n dont know y im voting!!
YES I STILL HAVE MY GALANT!!
i never said that 4WDs are slow...the big 4WDs that soccer mums drive certainly are!
the thing is, with 104kw, traction won't be a problem for a 1200kg car...so with that in mind, and never going to do the engine conversion, my advice would probably be (if the person was looking for acceleration in a straight line) to stick with FWD over 4WD...4WD has too much drivetrain loss and this is a fact...
HOWEVER (as i said above), if the person was buying it for handling reasons than 4WD will definitely be better...also, 4WD would be better for the person wanting to do the engine conversion for obvious reasons...
i hope this clears everyone up on my opinion on this matter...now don't take me the wrong way, you ... you you you....i dunno, just get on with it!
i would definitely keep my 6G!!! but it would be nice to own a VR4 as a second car.
I bought my galant (4G63 SOHC 8 valves) from a close friend. did some upgrades on the body cladding, detailed the car, and kept it sqeaky clean. Everytime my friend sees it, he always shakes his head and say "If only I had the money to maintain a pajero/montero and the galant...I wish I hadn't sold that car"
great ride & styling!!! and the engine is very durable. had 3 (THREE!!!) overheats and nothing happened to the engine (lucky me). still can go 0-100kph in 10.5secs and can reach 140kph on 3rd gear (i do that once in a while - to clear the carbon deposits in the engine as I'm told).
my target is to get a 4G63T from either an EVO 1 or 2. (but not in the near future hehehe). Some shops here do the conversion from FWD to AWD for just $1000USD and the turbo engine $1500USD. but that's a lot of money to spend for a daily driven car....who nows....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(92mpi)</div><div class='quotemain'>Some shops here do the conversion from FWD to AWD for just $1000USD and the turbo engine $1500USD. Â*but that's a lot of money to spend for a daily driven car....who nows....</div>
I wish! Here it would cost about $3000AU just for the engine let alone the labour. But then again different economy - may well end up being cheaper over here in comparison.
Most HH Galants these days are selling for about $5000 with about 250KMs. I wouldnt touch those with a forty foot pole. The good thing is that we have no restrictions on importing 15yo cars. So in 2-3 yrs or so I am gunna get myself a nice 1990 JDM VR4.
I forgot to mention. The prices I quoted are NOT for brand new items. They are from parts cannibalized and imported from Japan.
Yep, the price i quoted was for Jap 2nd hand imports as well. i I guess shipping from Japan to PPines is cheaper :-)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>4WD has too much drivetrain loss and this is a fact... </div>
where do you get your "fact" from? dan cokic of pruven performance dynoed his awd monster at 500 hp, then did it in fwd, and got 513. 13 hp is what percent of 513? dont look like much to me. now, if you have actual evidence, i'd like to see it. both of the fwd cars i have owned, have NEVER had good traction from the start. and, both had torque steer. if you drive an awd car like a fwd car, of course it will SEEM like it has less power. from a stop, awd is unbeatable.
Mark,
So, it's a fact then that setting up a car is cheaper here. That's a nice thing but it's still hard for us working here to earn that much money.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ken inn)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>4WD has too much drivetrain loss and this is a fact... </div>
where do you get your "fact" from? dan cokic of pruven performance dynoed his awd monster at 500 hp, then did it in fwd, and got 513. 13 hp is what percent of 513? dont look like much to me. now, if you have actual evidence, i'd like to see it. both of the fwd cars i have owned, have NEVER had good traction from the start. and, both had torque steer. if you drive an awd car like a fwd car, of course it will SEEM like it has less power. from a stop, awd is unbeatable.</div>
it's a widely known fact...however, i've also seen it in person too...
for example: stock WRX AWD (claimed 14X kw), at wheels 96kw...stock 200SX RWD (claimed 147kw), at wheels, 122kw...stock mx6 turbo FWD(claimed 108kw), at the wheels 96kw (my previous car)...
those are just some dyno figures of some cars i saw last month when i went to a local dyno shootout between a few mates with their newish cars...however, this isn't where i get my facts from...that's just an example like yours...
i have also been on the dyno a few times myself and have done extensive research into FWD -v- RWD -v- AWD and how they handle different amounts of power...FWD generally have traction issues due to weight transferring to the back when taking off...however, they also lose the least amount of power getting it from the engine to the wheels due to lengths of components...typically it is around the 10-15% amount...RWDs lose more, typically around the 15-20% amounts...AWDs lose the most when trying to get power down...typically around the 20-35% amount...however, AWDs get fantastic traction but the result of this is more strain on the gearbox, etc...
i'm not going to argue any more on this...i KNOW this as a fact...not because i want to believe it (personally i don't give a toss) but because that's the way it is...if you don't want to believe it (or you just want to argue with me because you have nothing better to do) then fine...i'm not worried about what you think about it...it's a fact, ask any dyno professional about it and they'll happily explain the facts to you...
over and out...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(92mpi)</div><div class='quotemain'>Mark, Â* So, it's a fact then that setting up a car is cheaper here. Â*That's a nice thing but it's still hard for us working here to earn that much money.</div>
exactly. to make a real comparison we need to find a common denominator to measure real prices to earnings. The Mcdonalds Big Mac Index is one such measure!
Trouble is is that like the Big Mac itself, the index is full of %$#&!
lol...anyone up for a big mac?
lessee now, you are using different CARS, one awd, another fwd, not even the same manufacturer, and using the manufacturers kw rating done on different dynos, under different conditions, hmmm. pruven takes the SAME car, on the SAME dyno, at the SAME time, under the SAME conditions, and uses the SAME standards. i think i'd go with the pruven test. i am not surprised with the results, having owned several fwd cars(77 vw rabbit, 81 datsun 200sx, 83 buick regal turbo, 84 nissan stanza, 88 olds cutlass, 88 mazda 323gt, 95 mazda 626, 99 mazda millenia), and a few awd cars(88 mazda 323gtx, 91 galant vr4, 93 gsx) and a load of bmw rwd cars in between, i can easily say the awd cars are easily quicker and faster than the fwd cars. there IS a power loss from fwd to awd, but it is negligible at best. if you throw out misleading information, you get corrected.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ken inn)</div><div class='quotemain'>lessee now, you are using different CARS, one awd, another fwd, not even the same manufacturer, and using the manufacturers kw rating done on different dynos, under different conditions, Â*hmmm. Â*pruven takes the SAME car, on the SAME dyno, at the SAME time, under the SAME conditions, and uses the SAME standards. Â*i think i'd go with the pruven test. Â*i am not surprised with the results, having owned several fwd cars(77 vw rabbit, 81 datsun 200sx, 83 buick regal turbo, 84 nissan stanza, 88 olds cutlass, 88 mazda 323gt, 95 mazda 626, 99 mazda millenia), and a few awd cars(88 mazda 323gtx, 91 galant vr4, 93 gsx) and a load of bmw rwd cars in between, i can easily say the awd cars are easily quicker and faster than the fwd cars. Â*there IS a power loss from fwd to awd, but it is negligible at best. Â* if you throw out misleading information, you get corrected.</div>
That's our man!
no, he's not your man...
a 1 minute search on google came up with many many results backing up my argument...
on one message board (the first that came up) it says the following:
"Personally, I think Audi was as full of crap about that as Subaru is in half of its marketing material about the "advantages of AWD". It's pretty commonly accepted that FWD cars have 15%-20% driveline loss on a dyno, RWD cars have 20%-25%, and AWD cars have 30% or more. A stock WRX that's rated at 227 hp puts about 160 hp to the wheels on a dyno. That's a 67 hp loss to the driveline. My Neon, when it was stock was factory rated at 150 hp (which was a bit optimistic -- it's really closer to 145) and put 120 hp to the wheels. That's FAR less driveline loss than an AWD setup.
If you think about the number of extra 90 deg turns the power has to make and all the extra rotating stuff in an AWD drivetrain, it pretty much has to have higher loss than FWD or RWD."
personally, i'm not arguing that AWD is slower...i'm arguing that it has more drivetrain loss...and it does...all the results that came up comparing the losses between FWD, RWD, and AWD have showed that AWD does indeed have a loss, and a noticable one at that...
of course, not every car is the same, nor is every car manufacturer, or is the quality of components used, but i am talking about in general here, especially with stock cars with stock components (how can you argue anything else when there are too many variables)...
the simple fact is (as you WILL be proven if you spend 2 minutes of your time using google to look it up if you aren't a closed-minded person) shows how everyone else has experienced this same dilemma...
don't go off track talking about which is faster...it's simple there...if i had $100,000 to spend on a car i would definitely go AWD...better traction, better handling, capable of handling more power and getting it to the ground, etc etc etc...but we aren't talking about that...
you are obviously missing the point i am trying to make...you are taking the word of ONE person/workshop against the experiences of thousands of people...i know myself plenty of people JUST attempting to get high-hp readings on the dyno and when they start out with an AWD car (such as a WRX) they immediately falled behind a car that has similar power (at the engine) that is RWD due to the loss that an AWD drivetrain has...
if you still won't accept my argument after this (and have to get personal by basically saying i'm giving misleading information and need to be corrected by you "the expert") then don't bother...you are wasting my time as it is having to try to back up my claim when i'm not even talking about contraversial stuff here...it's a KNOWN FACT between many car enthusiasts and dyno operators...they see it EVERY SINGLE DAY...
like i said, all hearsay. you believe what you read. pruven took one car, on the same day, and did identical dyno pulls. you show me another place/person that did the same thing. all the other "loss" is based on different cars, NOT the same car. and all theory. take the same car, do awd pulls and fwd pulls. then, present your evidence. have you ever driven an awd car? just around the block aint good enough. in the last 15 years i have owned 3. i dont need to do no searching on google or whatever, and personally, i dont care. like i said, if you are going to state something, show proof. you have none.
lol
you're so ignorant it's not funny...
i spoke with 3 different performance shops today regarding this and every one of them agrees with what i have said...
you are the on arguing so let's see the physics behind your claims...
one of the guys has a 4wd tx3 turbo...he knows exactly of the drivetrain loss and how having 3 diffs and more bearings and friction surfaces than a FWD or RWD causes a loss along the drivetrain...
you are the one talking crap...
anyway, here is a list of stuff people have responded to me with on a different forum regarding this matter...enjoy reading this:
"Ask him to explain to you why mechanical losses associated with driving 2 extra diffs, extra driveshafts and an extra set of uni/cv joints don't apply to his car...
Sometimes you'll find people who it's just not arguing with. Every now and then I have to end a pub discussion with, 'Yeah, ok mate. The laws of physics obviously don't apply to your car.'
Cheers,
D"
"Alright, not only do AWD cars have a greater drivetrain loss becuase of the extra moving parts you also have driveshaft flex, as little as this may be. Also the centre diff (be viscous or TorSen) also has a lot of loss in it, as well as all the other mechanisms for translating power out from longditudnally to laterally (symmetrical AWD... i.e. Subaru, Nissan (Attessa)) or laterally to longditudinally (E-W AWD, GT-4, GTiR, etc).
There are lots more moving parts, and as such will lose output from engine.
However, this is less noticable because you do get power to all four wheels, and hence less likelyhood of loss of traction. Also with some of the newer systems (Attessa at least, maybe Subaru too) the front wheels, or linked drive wheels, only engage when traction is lost or when the torque split is high enough. Like the Attessa AWD system in the GTRs only engages the front wheels when there is a torque "loss" from the rear wheels.
Ill admit im not 100% on how that works, but thats the basic gist of it.
All in all you will get a power loss through an AWD drivetrain, but whether this is noticable to the driver is another question all together.
For example: ive driven a Celica GT-4 and an SX (modded to 3S-GTE) and i found that the GT-4 had much better acceleration and handling than the SX, because of the AWD. Now, even though both engines are putting out roughly the same power (depends on tune etc) the GT-4 had less power at the wheels than the SX (by about 20% or so) and yet by the seat of the pants ratings did just as well if not better.
A friend has also done the same test on a U12 Pintara with an SR20DET and a U12 Bluebird SSS which was in approximate stock condition, same difference, the AWD system seemed to accelerate faster and handle better.
So real world seat of the pants AWD systems dont "seem" to have any loss over the FWD/RWD equivalents. But in the dyno world they get crapped all over.
Im Chris Porter and ive driven Subaru AWDs, Toyota Celica GT-4s and SXs, Nissan Bluebird SSS' and Pintaras, Nissan GTRs (track only), GTiRs and an Audi Quattro 80.
(Sorry, just had to do the Apple Switch thing)"
"Originally posted by SilentSnipeR
FWD has the least drivetrain loss, RWD second, and of course the last is AWD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
correct
the answer is obvious ( to me at least) when you consider how it all works"
"but yeah, awd=the most parts and mass (more inertia) to spin up, more bearings and friction scurfaces etc, so its without question going to have the most loss."
"My old fading memory tells me that that the FWD version of the Laser TX-3 Turbo was quicker on both 0-100 and 1/4 mile times, than the AWD model.
Some searching should reveal them - might have been official Ford numbers, maybe it was an old motoring mag.
Cheers,
D."
"there is a simple example for this & that is why do people fit 4WD with front free wheeling hubs (because they like geting out of the car for fresh air).
AWD cars are so high tech now that not much is lost but, you would be a complete fool to say the same motor in a 2WD car will pull same kw (funny but i thought we lived on earth & have things like gravity & friction)."
"I don't know if this is related, but when I put my Landcrusier 4WD into 4WD mode (AWD) the power loss is huge! I have to shift to 4th gear to do 40km/h.
-duck"
"Simple engineering tells us that you get large large friction losses every time you make a 90 degree turn in shaft direction. This is what hurts AWD a lot.
FWD it is all in one neat little gearbox, diff included. least friction loss.
RWD has shaft losses and a change in 90 degree direction of shaft.
4wd simply put is both FWD and RWD together, PLUS another 90 degree change in direction on top of that.
light 4wd's like the subaru's are quite good, but you would notice a difference, much more than turning the aircon on!"
"one other thing, you will notice on most AWD and 4WD veichles is that they have a lot of tourqe output to handle the AWD/4WD drivetrains."
AND IF ALL OF THIS STILL DOES NOT WAKE YOU UP TO THE FACTS, THEN READ THIS WEBSITE:
http://www.toymods.org.au/fwd_rwd_awd.html
if after ALL of this stuff, you STILL can't understand the SIMPLE FACTS, then stuff you...you have wasted enough of my time but i just wanted to show you that i'm right on this and that you were very wrong to argue with me when i do know my facts, especially on this very very obvious subject...
over and out for good...
note: other people reading this post - feel free to go and ask ANY other third party if you wish not to believe me when i shown the facts...then it will be proved to you in person by someone else that ken is just *slightly* misinformed here...
Posting Rules
Log in
Register
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks