Tuner Wars

[russellw]

Those who read MOTOR (or the thread here) know that they recently conducted a test involving 22 after market tuned cars which was won by a number of mega expensive cars that had been made even more so by the fettling they had received. They had also used their own BFYB formula to award the Evolve VW Polo GT that crown.

I thought it might not be a bad idea to look at two of the criteria they used - dyno power and400m times as a guide to applying some different math and see what we came up with.

Methodology

1. The MOTOR figures for rwkw and 0-400m times have been used.
2. The factory figures for fwkw and 0-400m times from the MOTOR guide page have been used as baseline figures. The fwkw numbers have been multiplied by 0.7 to arrive at an approximate rwkw figure for the factory numbers.
3. The performance based costs have been used - including all engine and driveline modifications but excluding wheels, tyres, brakes and other handling oriented items.
4. Cars that cost more than $110,000 in base form have been eliminated.

Dyno Results

Here we are looking at the cost per rwkw gained as an indication of where the most bang for the $$ involved has come from. Using this criteria, the winner is the Herrod modified G6ET which leads the field with a cost of $51.34 per kw gained.



0-400m Results

Similar math is applied here to establish the cost for each 1/10th second gain given that we know how expensive chasing those extra tenths can be. Again the Herrod modified G6ET proves itself a value proposition with a cost of $398.40 for each 1/10th gained and the remaining order unchanged from the table above.



Overall Value

For this we have used to different sets of criteria (as above) but with the total cost of the car taken into consideration.

The first table looks at the total cost per rwkw where the Herrod XR8 Ute takes the crown with a cost of $192.18 per kw ahead of the Herrod G6ET and Commodore SS-V sedan - testament to the value the base vehicles provide in the first place.



The second table looks at the total cost per 1/10th of a second - here the order is turned around to favour the more expensive base cars with the City Performance Golf R32 (which turned in an 11.99) taking the win ahead of the two BMW 335i's entered.



Braking

Some of the packages provided big dollar brake upgrades and it seemed like a good idea to see how these shaped up. The table below uses an index based on the vehicle factory weight, the braking distance and the cost of the brake package.

As you'd expect it's not very definitive and it tends to favour the lighter cars (where the $ spent can provide a greater gain) but it does highlight the relatively poor performance from the KPM big brake upgrade on the SS-V as it needed 5m more to stop than the similarly equipped VCM SS-V for half the brake cost. Likewise it proves that there is no substitute for light weight and big brakes as the shortest stopping distance went to the 1239 kg Polo which was equipped with 350mm front and rear rotors! That it stopped nearly 8 metres quicker than the worst of this bunch is a scary thought.



Cheers
Russ

[Nikked]

Very interesting, the G6E versions are working wonders in comparos

What was done to the lancer?

[Rodp]

Interesting numbers.

Did Herrod give a reason why they went the G6ET route and not the XR6T?

97kw for ~$5000? I'll take 3, thanks.

[russellw]

The Lancer copped an ECU tune and exhaust.

I suspect Rob went the G6ET as it is his daily driver!

Cheers
Russ

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by russellw

The Lancer copped an ECU tune and exhaust.

I suspect Rob went the G6ET as it is his daily driver!

Cheers
Russ

I've seen his G6ET, bloody nice. Good to see Herrod making good inroads with the I6T and the 8.

[Polyal]

Ah an R32 running 11.99 1/4's, holy hell!

What issue of MOTOR was this?

[MONSOON]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Ah an R32 running 11.99 1/4's, holy hell!

It would wanna be fast for the costs of the mods!

[ThePistonHead]

Russ, you say that G6ET had 189RWKW but we know from members that it has around 230-240RWKW from factory, so perhaps not such an impressive gain?

[Dave R]

This doesn't add up right to me. Looks like they've just taken 30% off the engine power figures to calculate rwkw. 189rwkw for G6ET? They dyno well over that. So, if I'm correct (correct me if I'm not), this throws out the whole basis of the $/kw comparison does it not?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by MONSOON

It would wanna be fast for the costs of the mods!

OMG...LOL and every other abbreviation!

$50 odd k on mods to a hatch! A total of $100k spent on a Golf..that is madness.

[ThePistonHead]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

This doesn't add up right to me. Looks like they've just taken 30% off the engine power figures to calculate rwkw. 189rwkw for G6ET? They dyno well over that. So, if I'm correct (correct me if I'm not), this throws out the whole basis of the $/kw comparison does it not?

2. The factory figures for fwkw and 0-400m times from the MOTOR guide page have been used as baseline figures. The fwkw numbers have been multiplied by 0.7 to arrive at an approximate rwkw figure for the factory numbers.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

This doesn't add up right to me. Looks like they've just taken 30% off the engine power figures to calculate rwkw. 189rwkw for G6ET? They dyno well over that. So, if I'm correct (correct me if I'm not), this throws out the whole basis of the $/kw comparison does it not?

If that's the case, then it's Ford fault (benefit) for unquoting?
To start with a level playing field, what else can they go by then the manufacturers quoted Kw -30%?

[Dave R]

Regardless of where the figures came from, they are too low. If you are starting from an understated rwkw figure, the $ price per gained kw is going to understated as well. Although to be fair, the 30% rule looks like it has been used throughout, so the rankings would be about right, but I can't agree with the exact dollar figures, ie, $51 per extra kw for the G6ET.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline
This doesn't add up right to me. Looks like they've just taken 30% off the engine power figures to calculate rwkw. 189rwkw for G6ET? They dyno well over that. So, if I'm correct (correct me if I'm not), this throws out the whole basis of the $/kw comparison does it not?

The "they" you refer to is me.

As noted in the original post all of the factory fwkw figures have had 30% removed to account for driveline losses so that they can be compared with the dyno numbers.

This doesn't invalidate the results as whatever factor you applied the order would remain the same - what would change (naturally) is the cost per kw gained.

Those who don't like the chosen percentage can simply apply their own but I had to choose an arbitrary figure and did so.

If you apply 20% to the G6ET (for example) it ups the cost to $71 per kw gained but given we were after the order and not the actual figure it hardly matters.

A G6ET with only a 15% drive line loss (to return 230rwkw) is clearly incorrect but then without the benefit of before and after dyno results on the same car there isn't exactly much else we can do is there?

The raw data is there for anyone to use so if you reckon there's a better way then be my guest.

Russ

[Iggypoppin']

G6Et did very well but I agree; we have seen these cars in stock form punch numbers well over 189rwkw standard. Stock fwkw they claim 270 so going by the numbers here that's a loss of almost 100kw(ok 81 ). It seems a bit suspicious but nonetheless the G6Et proves it's BFYB factor over the commodore. Look at total costs to that SSV! Purchase+mods 100,000 and it was still slower and braked slower...ouch

[Iggypoppin']

By the time I wrote that, there where two more replies in regards to what I and others had written. Therefore disregard.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

G6Et did very well but I agree; we have seen these cars in stock form punch numbers well over 189rwkw standard. Stock fwkw they claim 270 so going by the numbers here that's a loss of almost 100kw(ok 81 ). It seems a bit suspicious...

There is hardly anything "suspicious" about it. We have likewise seen stock XR8's with better than 203rwkw and a quick glance of the LS1 forum will find you plenty of stock SSV's with well over 230 so for the benefit of the doubting who somehow believe this is rigged here is the same set of numbers with only a 20% drive line loss applied.



Russ

[Dave R]

Thanks for the clarification Russ. At the end of the day, 30% might be accurate for some engines but not others. I've never heard of an FG turbo punching out below 220rwkw, but at the same time WRXs in general might consistently dyno with around a 20-30% drivetrain loss.. so for a more accurate dollar figure as well as list, you'd need to apply what the stock vehicles dyno on average in the real world because deviation from stock is what we are measuring, so the stock figure is obviously very important. Assuming that every motor will lose the same proportion of power from engine to rear wheels on a dyno is my criticism.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by russellw

There is hardly anything "suspicious" about it. We have likewise seen stock XR8's with better than 203rwkw and a quick glance of the LS1 forum will find you plenty of stock SSV's with well over 230 so for the benefit of the doubting who somehow believe this is rigged here is the same set of numbers with only a 20% drive line loss applied.



Russ

my mistake and apology. Written in haste. I was thinking it might have had something to do with a motor magazine mistake and did not realize the 30% loss to rwkw was to ensure an even playing field.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Thanks for the clarification Russ. At the end of the day, 30% might be accurate for some engines but not others. I've never heard of an FG turbo punching out below 220rwkw, but at the same time WRXs in general might consistently dyno with around a 20-30% drivetrain loss.. so for a more accurate dollar figure as well as list, you'd need to apply what the stock vehicles dyno on average in the real world because deviation from stock is what we are measuring, so the stock figure is obviously very important. Assuming that every motor will lose the same proportion of power from engine to rear wheels on a dyno is my criticism.

That's fine in an ideal world and with the resources to conduct the testing in that manner I'd agree that it would produce more accurate results. But in much the same way that dynos differ in their results on any given day it would be almost impossible to achieve a set of numbers that were mathematically pure without actually testing all the stock cars on the same day and dyno.

Anyway, for the sake of the exercise I have gathered a range of real world dyno figures on stock vehicles in the list and averaged them to arrive at the numbers in the table below.



As a matter of interest the drive line losses range between 14.81% (for the obviously understated G6ET) through to 30.33% for the Mazda RX8 with an average a fraction over 20% - a figure I used in the second version above and which I shall probably treat as my new baseline.

Cheers
Russ

[SLO AU XR8]

Originally Posted by russellw

That's fine in an ideal world and with the resources to conduct the testing in that manner I'd agree that it would produce more accurate results. But in much the same way that dynos differ in their results on any given day it would be almost impossible to achieve a set of numbers that were mathematically pure without actually testing all the stock cars on the same day and dyno.

Anyway, for the sake of the exercise I have gathered a range of real world dyno figures on stock vehicles in the list and averaged them to arrive at the numbers in the table below.



As a matter of interest the drive line losses range between 14.81% (for the obviously understated G6ET) through to 30.33% for the Mazda RX8 with an average a fraction over 20% - a figure I used in the second version above and which I shall probably treat as my new baseline.

Cheers
Russ

Sorry to nitpick Russ, but the Golf GTi lost 14.29%

[Fev]

Thats what it says...

[tex]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'performance' costs quoted inclusive of body kits, wheels, tires, brakes, suspension for some of these vehicles?

If that is indeed the case, for complete parity, shouldn't we be looking at engine only modification costs...?

Unless Ive missed something?

Interesting comparo none the less.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by russellw

That's fine in an ideal world and with the resources to conduct the testing in that manner I'd agree that it would produce more accurate results. But in much the same way that dynos differ in their results on any given day it would be almost impossible to achieve a set of numbers that were mathematically pure without actually testing all the stock cars on the same day and dyno.

Anyway, for the sake of the exercise I have gathered a range of real world dyno figures on stock vehicles in the list and averaged them to arrive at the numbers in the table below.



As a matter of interest the drive line losses range between 14.81% (for the obviously understated G6ET) through to 30.33% for the Mazda RX8 with an average a fraction over 20% - a figure I used in the second version above and which I shall probably treat as my new baseline.

Cheers
Russ

Cheers Russ, alot more accurate! Unsurprisingly the G6ET is still on top.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by tex

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'performance' costs quoted inclusive of body kits, wheels, tires, brakes, suspension for some of these vehicles?

If that is indeed the case, for complete parity, shouldn't we be looking at engine only modification costs...?

Unless Ive missed something?

Interesting comparo none the less.

From the original post:

3. The performance based costs have been used - including all engine and driveline modifications but excluding wheels, tyres, brakes and other handling oriented items.

Cheers
Russ

[Nikked]

fwkw into rwkw figures is always gonna cause some sort of discussion.

[Falc'man]

Thanks Russell, quite good to read through.

I'm guessing, in about 6 years time, a whole chunk of 20 y.o. motoring enthusiasts having only one car on their minds.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Thanks Russell, quite good to read through.

I'm guessing, in about 6 years time, a whole chunk of 20 y.o. motoring enthusiasts having only one car on their minds.

People keep saying that as though its a bad thing. Demand=$$$$ and if rabble want turbo Barra goodness it can only mean an increase in resale prices.

[Maggot]

What did the 50K on the commodore buy them if it only ran a 13.09?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Maggot

What did the 50K on the commodore buy them if it only ran a 13.09?

There is more to performance than 0-400m times. Stopping and cornering are often also important to some people.

It is interesting to note how the G6ET has become the "darling" of the performance mod crowd when the XR6T has exactly the same engine and transmission, costs less and weighs slightly less.

Must be because it is a new model.......