Close

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 197
  1. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    740
    Rep Points
    453.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by GG///M3 Click here to enlarge
    Maybe a Hta gt37
    Jason at ProEFI has suggested a GT35r (620-650 with good TQ) for a great quick spooling track turbo. Or a GT37r (720) for a little more top end. Still debating what to do.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
    Jason at ProEFI has suggested a GT35r (620-650 with good TQ) for a great quick spooling track turbo. Or a GT37r (720) for a little more top end. Still debating what to do.
    That would be a good solution on an S52, but the S54 revs too high to make use of the GT35R low end torque. You should stick to something like a 6562 or 4088R


  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,831
    Rep Points
    31,568.7
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Ok? It doesn't change the fact that they still race FR500S and C lol with solid axles based on the homologous GT.
    I'm pointing out that the particular race car you mentioned has no homologation requirements any longer since it isn't even being used. It would seem the 2012 302R is going to an IRS based on early specs. It might have something to do with the IRS BMW M3 whooping on it...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    No - clarify. Cobra owners do not want a solid rear. They want a suspension that holds power for drag racing. That happened to be a solid rear with a 4 link setup. A solid rear alone means nothing. IRS can be setup for any given configuration. You will not have good luck with an IRS using trailing arms. Thus, the 4 link. Just because a car runs an "IRS" do not associate it with what BMW does. The "I" in the RS is just that - no solid beam. A solid beam in an E46 M3 won't do jack squat. It needs to have proper suspension to handle the task. An "I" RS with proper geometry (4 link rear) works just as well as a solid rear w/ 4 link. Its just usually more difficult to draw up a chassis with an IRS and 4-link than it is to have a single beam. It comes down to cost and engineering. However, since we're talking about unibody cars here, a 4 link IRS would be PERFECT. Note the axles on the the following IRS. Also note the 4 link bars.
    I don't know if you should be speaking for Cobra owners. It's very easy to go on Mustang forums and search for how many switched from IRS to solid rear axle for drag racing on the '03 or '99 Cobras. They didn't bother with "setting up" their IRS.

    There are Cobra owners who ditch their solid rear for an IRS for the road course. They don't bother with "setting up" their solid rear.

    Saying a solid rear won't do squat isn't accurate though as almost any solid rear setup, namely one that will be chosen specifically for drag racing such as the Ford 9 inch that was suggested, will be stronger than what the E46 rear end currently offers on the strip.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Nope - but I wouldn't stick a solid rear in it. I'd fix the rear axles and geometry. I wouldn't want an E46 M3 with a solid rear... that's terrible.
    Nobody has an E46 with a solid rear. All that was stated was if he wanted to make it a pure drag car a solid rear Ford 9 inch would not be a bad way to go, and it wouldn't, it's tried and true

    .
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Because they can't be bothered with the engineering of an IRS. It is more work to turn an E46 M3 into a tubbed IRS car. You have two axles that need to point the same direction individually of one another. A solid beam is much easier to make point forward. But, there are twin turbo vipers on IRS killing the 1/4. The C4 setup I am talking about is only a C4 axle setup - look in the image above. If you find a corvette running that stock then they wouldn't be swapping a solid rear. It takes more thought. Unfortunately drag racing is like the cavemen - "I keep breakin' these here sticks... put in a bigger stick!". Guys are taking 500 - 600 rwhp car's and putting huge solid axles on them, adding 350 lbs to the weight of the car and going slower because they had a bad pinion angle the whole time and not enough positive camber pre-load. Point is, if you venture outside of BMW world, a lot of things make more sense. You should go over to Yellowbullet
    When it comes to drag racing in particular, I spend a lot of time on Mustang forums. I don't just pay attention to the BMW world which is also why we have a network of 3 sites and intend to branch out further. The BMW guys do not tend to push their setups on the strip so at least brainstorming rear end changes to maximize the E46 is fun.

    I'm not familiar with the setup you posted or what the point of failure is on C4's only that a quick search of Corvette forums shows guys offering Ford 9 inch solid rear axle kits for drag racing applications and these seem to be pretty popular.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I can address the mustang stuff later, but the point is that its easier for a mustang to swap in a solid rear because they have an entire rear subframe that comes with it. They move not only from an IRS to a solid rear but from a trailing arm to 4-link setup.

    You keep saying "solid rear solid rear" - that is just the axle. That has VERY little to do with how the rear end works - the suspension is the key component. There's a big difference between a 2005 Mustang solid axle with the spring sitting on the beam and the shock bolted to the carrier with a single diff mount and forward arms... vs a solid axle with a 4 link setup. A triangulated 4 link setup is king over any "solid axle" setup. Once you grasp that the actual workings of the suspension is in the "4 link" aspect, then you can specify IRS or solid rear. Almost synonymous with a 4 link is a ladder bar setup where theres a unified bar that acts as the 4 link. Once you understand how these suspensions work and why they're better then you can evaluate IRS vs solid axle beam, but both an IRS and solid rear CAN BE 4 link or ladder bar. If you travel on over to Yellowbullet you'll see what goes fast. Dedicated tube frame drag cars go to a solid rear because its easy to point the wheels in the same direction during fabrication. You will notice though that even crazy hp fast cars will still run an IRS, with a ladder bar or 4 link setup.

    Put it this way - you could pull the axles and diff out of an E46 and put a solid beam in place. Attach it to the rest of the suspension that's under the car. That is NOT going to work. The problem with the car is the trailing arm and suspension travel/geometry for linear traction. Enter the 4 link/ladder bar.


  5. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Points
    460.0
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    6765 would be perfect.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Gt4088r or the GT4094r would be a monster setup for an s54 motor.
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,608
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Reputation: Yes | No
    This isnt a drag suspension thread but I thought I would throw this out here. A decent piece of software for those who want to take advantage of optimal drag suspension geometry.

    http://www.moto-delta.com/store/inde...roducts_id=255

    http://www.baselinesuspensions.com/i...A_Drag_Car.htm

    Sorry for OT thread rape hijack.
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    FWIW i played with Pro EFI software today - its very clumsy. .Net interface, barf. Brought my Core i5 laptop w/ 8GB of RAM to a semi crawl.


  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    FWIW i played with Pro EFI software today - its very clumsy. .Net interface, barf. Brought my Core i5 laptop w/ 8GB of RAM to a semi crawl.
    How would you compare it to dta?
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,831
    Rep Points
    31,568.7
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    I can address the mustang stuff later, but the point is that its easier for a mustang to swap in a solid rear because they have an entire rear subframe that comes with it. They move not only from an IRS to a solid rear but from a trailing arm to 4-link setup.

    You keep saying "solid rear solid rear" - that is just the axle. That has VERY little to do with how the rear end works - the suspension is the key component. There's a big difference between a 2005 Mustang solid axle with the spring sitting on the beam and the shock bolted to the carrier with a single diff mount and forward arms... vs a solid axle with a 4 link setup. A triangulated 4 link setup is king over any "solid axle" setup. Once you grasp that the actual workings of the suspension is in the "4 link" aspect, then you can specify IRS or solid rear. Almost synonymous with a 4 link is a ladder bar setup where theres a unified bar that acts as the 4 link. Once you understand how these suspensions work and why they're better then you can evaluate IRS vs solid axle beam, but both an IRS and solid rear CAN BE 4 link or ladder bar. If you travel on over to Yellowbullet you'll see what goes fast. Dedicated tube frame drag cars go to a solid rear because its easy to point the wheels in the same direction during fabrication. You will notice though that even crazy hp fast cars will still run an IRS, with a ladder bar or 4 link setup.

    Put it this way - you could pull the axles and diff out of an E46 and put a solid beam in place. Attach it to the rest of the suspension that's under the car. That is NOT going to work. The problem with the car is the trailing arm and suspension travel/geometry for linear traction. Enter the 4 link/ladder bar.
    I'm sure there are plenty of differences and nuances to various solid rear setups but the fact is many prefer solid rear axles for the strip and a solid rear axle has its advantages on the strip. An IRS setup could be made to work of course but with all the weaknesses in the E46 rear end that have been shown thus far I believe a solid rear Ford 9 inch if anyone does it will be a major step up specifically for drag racing. Almost any solid rear even, no matter how it is configured.

    I think everyone understands we are using solid rear as a blanket term and not figuring out the entire suspension setup as nobody is actually going to do this swap.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,831
    Rep Points
    31,568.7
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by GG///M3 Click here to enlarge
    How would you compare it to dta?
    I'm going to take a wild guess here and say he prefers DTA.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    522
    Rep Points
    122.9
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    a 6765 or 4088 would be very similar to the current stage 1 and 2 t67, no?

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    294
    Rep Points
    -1,994.5
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    FWIW i played with Pro EFI software today - its very clumsy. .Net interface, barf. Brought my Core i5 laptop w/ 8GB of RAM to a semi crawl.
    I played a bit with it too...installed in about 30seconds...page swapping is instant. Tried this on my laptop which is a 3 year old Core2@2.8ghz with 6gb of Ram running Word, Excel and VLC Media Player in the background with no issues.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    740
    Rep Points
    453.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Commanderwiggin Click here to enlarge
    I played a bit with it too...
    I toyed around with it on my Alienware M11x lap top and I didn't notice anything slow about it.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    644
    Rep Points
    608.0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I just downloaded it and installed it on my like 3 1/2 year old Dell XPS Desktop.. while running a huge instance of Outlook, 3-4 LMI Sessions, Quickbooks, tons of IE Instances.. and had no issues. Was actually quite responsive..

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Ran it on a 4.4GHz Core i7 this morning, its sluggish. It's .Net based. Means they can release/edit things easily, but it has a lot of overhead. The tuning software download is 100 - 120 MB lol. Maybe I am used to more efficient software. The layout is pretty scattered. Though, most tuning platforms have crap software. The best software I've used is the AEM, though their hardware is meh. The worst to date has been Autronic.

    Also I should clarify I installed the 64-bit version.


  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I'm going to take a wild guess here and say he prefers DTA.
    All software is different. No matter what platform you pick, you're stuck with the software that is provided. I don't really prefer one over the other, I am just more familiar with one more than another. That said though, the Pro EFI is all over the place. I prefer the AEM software over the Pro EFI, but the Pro EFI hardware over AEM. Common occurrence.


  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    As I expected - opened it up again today just to see what was going on. Seems to have a decent memory leak and it looks like the developers control on it is to dump the memory pool once it hits about 150MB lol. So it goes 100....110...120 MB up to 150MB and then starts over and over. All the while using 15%+ CPU while just idling.

    Click here to enlarge

    Here's AEM for grins

    Click here to enlarge


  19. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,159
    Rep Points
    526.1
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    nice info dude.
    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Yeah what stinks is they run this ControlCoreServer for CAN/USB interfacing that runs as a service the entire time your computer is up. So, when ProEFI is open its running like 10 - 18% CPU + 2 - 4% for the ControlCoreServer. That's anywhere from 12 - 20% of your processor just being hit by ProEFI. Kind of lame.

    But, I have noticed that the best hardware has the worst software. So, it is what it is. My laptop can run it, obviously, but its definitely not smooth/fluid like a typical Windows API app.


  21. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Points
    375.4
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 600whp S4 Click here to enlarge
    6765 would be perfect.
    +1
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    I can address the mustang stuff later, but the point is that its easier for a mustang to swap in a solid rear because they have an entire rear subframe that comes with it. They move not only from an IRS to a solid rear but from a trailing arm to 4-link setup.

    You keep saying "solid rear solid rear" - that is just the axle. That has VERY little to do with how the rear end works - the suspension is the key component. There's a big difference between a 2005 Mustang solid axle with the spring sitting on the beam and the shock bolted to the carrier with a single diff mount and forward arms... vs a solid axle with a 4 link setup. A triangulated 4 link setup is king over any "solid axle" setup. Once you grasp that the actual workings of the suspension is in the "4 link" aspect, then you can specify IRS or solid rear. Almost synonymous with a 4 link is a ladder bar setup where theres a unified bar that acts as the 4 link. Once you understand how these suspensions work and why they're better then you can evaluate IRS vs solid axle beam, but both an IRS and solid rear CAN BE 4 link or ladder bar. If you travel on over to Yellowbullet you'll see what goes fast. Dedicated tube frame drag cars go to a solid rear because its easy to point the wheels in the same direction during fabrication. You will notice though that even crazy hp fast cars will still run an IRS, with a ladder bar or 4 link setup.

    Put it this way - you could pull the axles and diff out of an E46 and put a solid beam in place. Attach it to the rest of the suspension that's under the car. That is NOT going to work. The problem with the car is the trailing arm and suspension travel/geometry for linear traction. Enter the 4 link/ladder bar.
    Just throw this in there! It's what I'm using. http://www.swracecars.com/Files/CATpg3.pdf

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Ran it on a 4.4GHz Core i7 this morning, its sluggish. It's .Net based. Means they can release/edit things easily, but it has a lot of overhead. The tuning software download is 100 - 120 MB lol. Maybe I am used to more efficient software. The layout is pretty scattered. Though, most tuning platforms have crap software. The best software I've used is the AEM, though their hardware is meh. The worst to date has been Autronic.

    Also I should clarify I installed the 64-bit version.
    Haltech ftw!

  22. #47
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    740
    Rep Points
    453.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    My laptop can run it, obviously, but its definitely not smooth/fluid like a typical Windows API app.
    .net is a Microsoft framework Click here to enlarge

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ccsykes Click here to enlarge
    .net is a Microsoft framework Click here to enlarge
    Yes it is, good work - the fact that it's running in .Net means they're not utilizing Windows API, and rather require .Net installed (and working, etc) but further, it means they have no standard "window" interface. Part of Windows API is the standard/norm that we're used to with applications running. It allows application integration with Windows native code function so that you don't need massive amounts of packages wrapped in the .Net framework. In fact, there's a funny thing called "The Windows API Code Pack for Microsoft .Net Framework" - guess what that's all about?

    This is why their package is some 100+ MB for a rather simple application while other applications doing the same thing utliizing Windows API (note, with a program utilizing standard API you don't need .Net framework or this ControlCoreServer installed/running...). It works, sure. But some of us have tuning laptops that are a few years old (the screen shot I posted is not, its from a Core i5 laptop with 8GB of RAM in Windows 7 Ultimate x64) and might have trouble running it. It won't be that they can't click or change values, it'll be that the realtime data will exhibit latency and the system will struggle to keep it going. 15% CPU and 120+ MB of RAM is pretty crazy, considering Photoshop CS5 is open right now with 3 21 megapixel images and is running at 89MB of RAM and 0% CPU lol.

    They run that ControlCoreServer to talk to USB/CAN devices. That thing seems to be polling constantly. If this were a typical Windows API application you'd see a menu similar to that of the AEM screen shot with typical main window with typical pull downs/drop downs. What you are seeing in the Pro EFI software is each "button" loading a mini application. We do it with our ERP software where each of our windows (G/L, payables, receiving, etc.) is actually its own application with a key parsed to pass credentials from the main host application to sub application. .NET framework allows you to do something similar but instead of having individual executable files, you have modules.

    Please, argue software with me - this is where my profession resides Click here to enlarge They made the application look nice cheaply by going the .Net way. It also allows them to update portions of the package without full releases which is nice. However, it uses a lot of overhead as can be seen. Very, very typical of something that might be written in Java, for instance.

    Point is - you can plainly see it uses a ton of resources. Its bloated. Its not snappy and responsive. That's what I commented about earlier and have no provided quantitative information regarding. Let's argue computing though, that'll be fun Click here to enlarge


  24. #49
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    740
    Rep Points
    453.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Let's argue computing though, that'll be fun Click here to enlarge
    Well I'm no software guru you got me there, all that code would make my head explode. However I have helped several software and application development Companies raise millions of dollars as well as provided consulting on start-up and going public. Most the software executives I have dealt with don't seem to have the same opinions as you do on .net though.

    Maybe there are better solutions I don't know, but from a business perspective .net seems to be a pretty popular choice for application development. I think you just like to argue points when the knowledge is in your corner in order to appear smarter than everyone else. Shall we get into a discussion about public finance or actually running a business? I imagine I'd mop the floor with you.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PEI, Canada
    Posts
    1,123
    Rep Points
    1,665.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I don't think most people use a GUI while driving, and I get the impression the OP is looking to drive his car without worrying about the tune. Sure the software for the ProEFI is a bit slow....but if the car drives perfectly I don't think most people will care.

    So what turbo options are being considered?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •