chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
He has already stated its an F10
He hasnt specified which FD ratio though, but there are only two options for that box from the factory as far as im aware 4.29 and 4.53
On the 4.29, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 105mph
on the 4.53, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 99mph
Those are based on a 205/40/17 tyre size, which is also the same as a 195/55/15 roughly.
For the 128mph he claimed he would need something along the lines of a 225/40/22 tyre size.
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis
quote:
Originally posted by chip
quote:
Originally posted by BarnshaW
128mph in 4th gear on a 1.4? are u actually fucking serious? just stop now u stupid thick wanker
The size of the engine is irrelevant, the gearbox is all that matters as to what mph per 1krpm it does in each gear.
Perhaps suggest what box he would be using then?
|
Ellis
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 07
Location: Aberdeenshire
User status: Offline
|
Fair enough, although, it doesn't detract from the fact he is a tit
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis
Fair enough, although, it doesn't detract from the fact he is a tit
Indeed, in fact far from it, the very fact that he believes his in gear speed at a fixed rpm will have changed demonstrates he lacks the sort of basic understanding that one would hope someone had before they even tried to change their air freshener frankly, let alone him getting anywhere near an engine.
The fact his car is still running despite this numpty working on it, is IMHO a testament to how strong these little vauxhall engines really are, they are in fact quite literally IDIOT PROOF
|
Ellis
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 07
Location: Aberdeenshire
User status: Offline
|
Haha :lol Well said my son
|
DimDG
Member
Registered: 1st Sep 01
Location: Athens - Greece
User status: Offline
|
Guys, it's true...
I was in the back seat when he did it and took a photo of the clocks... (4th gear).
|
Ellis
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 07
Location: Aberdeenshire
User status: Offline
|
Quality
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by chip
He has already stated its an F10
He hasnt specified which FD ratio though, but there are only two options for that box from the factory as far as im aware 4.29 and 4.53
On the 4.29, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 105mph
on the 4.53, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 99mph
Those are based on a 205/40/17 tyre size, which is also the same as a 195/55/15 roughly.
For the 128mph he claimed he would need something along the lines of a 225/40/22 tyre size.
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis
quote:
Originally posted by chip
quote:
Originally posted by BarnshaW
128mph in 4th gear on a 1.4? are u actually fucking serious? just stop now u stupid thick wanker
The size of the engine is irrelevant, the gearbox is all that matters as to what mph per 1krpm it does in each gear.
Perhaps suggest what box he would be using then?
f10 gear box running 175/70 13 inch wheels
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
5700rpm in 4th on 175/70/13 tyres is:
4.29 FD = 96mph
4.53 FD = 101mph
So if yours is reading 128mph, then you have a SERIOUS problem somewhere!
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
quote:
Originally posted by chip
He has already stated its an F10
He hasnt specified which FD ratio though, but there are only two options for that box from the factory as far as im aware 4.29 and 4.53
On the 4.29, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 105mph
on the 4.53, he would have a speed at 5700rpm in 4th of approx 99mph
Those are based on a 205/40/17 tyre size, which is also the same as a 195/55/15 roughly.
For the 128mph he claimed he would need something along the lines of a 225/40/22 tyre size.
quote:
Originally posted by Ellis
quote:
Originally posted by chip
quote:
Originally posted by BarnshaW
128mph in 4th gear on a 1.4? are u actually fucking serious? just stop now u stupid thick wanker
The size of the engine is irrelevant, the gearbox is all that matters as to what mph per 1krpm it does in each gear.
Perhaps suggest what box he would be using then?
f10 gear box running 175/70 13 inch wheels
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
f10 gear box running 175/70 13 inch wheels
128 mph on the speedo = 118 mph,
how is vauxsport forum going i take it you altered my signature and banned me for asking question as you are a tuner you should know what gearbox ratios are in a f10 gear box, hey chip is we need now is al, gazzamec and siraff
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
|
sand-eel
Member
Registered: 15th Mar 07
Location: carluke/braidwood--IRNBRULAND
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
f10 gear box running 175/70 13 inch wheels
128 mph on the speedo = 118 mph,
how is vauxsport forum going i take it you altered my signature
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
how did you work out the correction factor?
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
f10 gear box running 175/70 13 inch wheels
128 mph on the speedo = 118 mph
Nope, thats not true at all.
You are confused somewhere, even you were doing a LOT more rpm than you say, or you were showing less MPH than you say, or your rev counter or your speedo are completely fucked.
Its simply not possible for it to be anything else.
At that rpm, on that gearing, on those wheels, you will be doing the speeds I have said, not 20-30mph more
End of story, its basic maths
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
Didnt see your edit when you replied:
how is vauxsport forum going i take it you altered my signature
Nope, in fact I dont even know who you are on there.
At a guess though, you are probably the user "Jykell" as he seems to be the only one who is on a par with you intelectually
(ie more retarded than a 10:1 comp engine's ignition timing when running 2 bar of boost on 95 RON fuel)
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
how can rev counter be wrong when the rev counter is driven electrically and not by cable, i am only saying what the rev counter and speedo say
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
how can rev counter be wrong when the rev counter is driven electrically and not by cable
[Edited on 28-09-2008 by 20valver]
I dont believe the rev counter is wrong.
I think either the speedo or you are wrong, and my money isnt on the speedo 
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
(ie more retarded than a 10:1 comp engine's ignition timing when running 2 bar of boost on 95 RON fuel)
why not run 97/99 ron fuel
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
and my money isnt on the speedo
why
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
(ie more retarded than a 10:1 comp engine's ignition timing when running 2 bar of boost on 95 RON fuel)
why not run 97/99 ron fuel
If they did, it wouldnt be retarded enough anymore to make a good comparison to you anymore, as it would then only be a bit retarded.
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
and my money isnt on the speedo
why
Because from what you have said the speedo was apparently reading correctly before you did all your mods, none of which would change the speedo reading.
So think you just didnt notice you were in 5th gear or something like that, you know the sort of mistake that any idiot could make.
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
So think you just didnt notice you were in 5th gear or something like that, you know the sort of mistake that any idiot could make.
should know i was in 4th gear because change up to 5th gear
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
(ie more retarded than a 10:1 comp engine's ignition timing when running 2 bar of boost on 95 RON fuel)
why not run 97/99 ron fuel well why
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
So think you just didnt notice you were in 5th gear or something like that, you know the sort of mistake that any idiot could make.
should know i was in 4th gear because change up to 5th gear
Well then one or more of the following ARE true:
You misread the rev counter
You misread the speedo
One or more of the guages are fucked
You are just talking utter crap and never saw anything like the figures you claimed
Not for me to call which it is. but I still reckon the gauges are probably a lot closer than your figures imply, so although they might have some error in them, im guessing its not 25% or so like your figures DO HAVE!
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
(ie more retarded than a 10:1 comp engine's ignition timing when running 2 bar of boost on 95 RON fuel)
why not run 97/99 ron fuel well why
You are aware of the concept of something just being an example?
No, evidently not, but then you dont seem to know how a speedo works either, and thats a far more obvious concept, so I shouldnt really be surprised.
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
Ps
Why dont you go out and test it again, maybe you will find you can see for yourself what you got wrong last time?
(ideally if you could test it along brighton peer, then it might be for the longterm good of this site from a technical point of view)
|
20valver
Banned
Registered: 14th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
You misread the rev counter = no
You misread the speedo = no
One or more of the guages are fucked = no
You are just talking utter crap and never saw anything like the figures you claimed = no
|
chip
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 08
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by 20valver
You misread the rev counter = no
You misread the speedo = no
One or more of the guages are fucked = no
You are just talking utter crap and never saw anything like the figures you claimed = no
Well then how do you explain the fact that your figures ARE WRONG, not might be, not could be, simply ARE WRONG?
|
