Question for CharlieX or Goth265 owners

[jkfortsmith]

I realize the Gotham 265 flash has been verified by dyno's but has anyone done the performance testing on the road? I have been searching the forums but I have not seen new 0-60, 1/4 mile, 30-60 mph numbers yet? I'm really curious to know how much the flash improves the 4.1 sec to 60 mph...

[jkfortsmith]

Really? No one knows?

[Illumiloti]

Most here probably don't want to do standing start clutch dumps to find out, as it's a more track and canyon carving car a than drag racer. More than a couple "hard standing starts" will also void warrantee and it shows up in the ecu dump at the dealers. Still, I would love to know hard numbers. I can certainly feel the difference seat of pants though.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by jkfortsmith

Really? No one knows?

If I'd have installed my Traqmate before having the Gotham tune loaded, I probably could have given you some hard data. The Traqmate tries to calculate actual wheel HP and torque based on speed, acceleration, vehicle weight, and gear ratios. Of course, aero drag is not taken into consideration, so the calculated HP numbers are probably more accurate at lower speeds (it's still going to underestimate power though). That said, the Traqmate consistently gives numbers around 220 WHP.

EDIT: I've also discovered that my highest calculated HP numbers are usually early in the day... and not correlated to lap times at all. So cooler temps definitely help the engine generate more power.

[SweetDaddyD]

I would think for the numbers to mean anything, they would have to be before and afters from the same car and driver. Otherwise you are going to compare a different car, driver, location, climate, elevation, track surface, maybe even a "correction factor" etc to someones results.
So I don't think it would be a fair review of the product or even very worthwhile information if done by the latter. I'd hate to see Charlies awesome product not get the props it deserves because Johnny Clubfoot McFatterson in South Dakota was comparing the results to Mr Magazine McTesterson from CA on two different cars.
Also agree the how mag test results and published figures may come about from a driving style slightly different from a guy putting his own hard earned dollars into his car and that may want to drive it again tomorrow.

[spf4000]

Usually, people complain when they only see people's times and no dyno data as so many additional variables come into play for acceleration times.

Either way, you will notice a difference in the acceleration from the stock setup, at least until your SC gets heatsoaked.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by spf4000

Usually, people complain when they only see people's times and no dyno data as so many additional variables come into play for acceleration times.

Either way, you will notice a difference in the acceleration from the stock setup, at least until your SC gets heatsoaked.

It's not SC heatsoaking that's the problem... it's intercooler heatsoaking. And that can be solved by getting more air through the intercooler. During the hottest session at Laguna Seca last week, my average intercooler temp never exceeded 150ºF... and there was no significant loss of power from the beginning of the coolest morning session to the end of the hottest afternoon session. Even in the late afternoon, late in the session, the Traqmate was calculating >210WHP.

[glacialmoraine]

As far as 0-60 goes, if you just plug the power to weight ratio (265 HP/ 2000 lb) into a calculator you get about 3.6 sec. The same calculation for stock power gives like 4.19, so pretty darned close, if not a bit conservative.

I put in AWD because the rwd probably assumes front engine rear drive and allows for more slip than a MR car would have.

0-60 mph Calculator - 060calculator.com

Steve

There are calculators for the 1/4 1/8 and probably whatever you want. Google is your friend.

[snuggles1]

Originally Posted by Illumiloti

Most here probably don't want to do standing start clutch dumps to find out, as it's a more track and canyon carving car a than drag racer. More than a couple "hard standing starts" will also void warrantee and it shows up in the ecu dump at the dealers. Still, I would love to know hard numbers. I can certainly feel the difference seat of pants though.

Eactly. I've had mine now for 8-10 months and never yet felt an interest in a hard launch so i can "find out" There's plenty of history and data on power:weight ratios out there. What I did was verify the 265 instead, and weighed the car. 1940lbs. After that, "you do the math" is implied


EDIT: thanks for this link. How cool is this. And it's accurate if you put in the wellknown standard Elise numbers of 190HP and 1984lbs, u get the 4.9 sec that's always reported. So I guess my car is actually 3.7sec. Neato. I'll alert the authorities.

Horsepower
(at the flywheel): 190 hp
Curb Weight: 1984 lbs
Drive Type: FWD RWD AWD
Transmission: Manual Automatic


Power / Weight Ratio: 0.09576612903225806
0-60 mph: 4.856003286514186 seconds

[shay2nak]

according to the calc my car takes 3.3s?

I did some crap launches when I had just Gotham and I was getting 4 flat.

[snuggles1]

I played around with it using other data, incl my racecar, seems pretty accurate, taking into account his comments (he says for when it's not as accurate). I didnt get any 3.3s! whatd u put in?

Even a 265lb car with a 1,850lb weight (!!) yields 3.6 sec...totally reasonable, not hard to believe at all.

Using a recent GT2 (530bhp and 3265lbs, RWD) the calculator shows 3.27sec...that may be a little fast, but not far off? what does Porsche state? The Z06 seems too fast too (using 505hp and 3190) at 3.3.

[snuggles1]

speaking of calculators,,,does this TOP SPEED one seem accurate? i compared it to the inputs required from a book I have and it looks like he has em covered. The old Lotus data is useless but you can edit...

warped.org | VW | Speed Calculator

[shay2nak]

Originally Posted by snuggles1

I played around with it using other data, incl my racecar, seems pretty accurate, taking into account his comments (he says for when it's not as accurate). I didnt get any 3.3s! whatd u put in?

i entered 310 and 1950. Even at 300 it was 3.4.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by SweetDaddyD

Johnny Clubfoot McFatterson in South Dakota ... Mr Magazine McTesterson from CA...

Deeeem. That was harsh, funny as h3ll, but harsh .

[glacialmoraine]

Originally Posted by shay2nak

according to the calc my car takes 3.3s?

I did some crap launches when I had just Gotham and I was getting 4 flat.

UR not doin it rite

[charliex]

i never got around to punching the g265 numbers into the car calc i have, i'll try to do it today.

gothams do mid to top in the powerband, so 0-60 times aren't going to be as effected, it takes a lot of HP to increase the 0-60 time of a car thats already quite fast, aero is a limiting factor, the frontal area/DC of the car isn't that great.

increased throttle response and that extra torque in the middle is what makes it better.

put the launch control on, rev it to 7000RPM and let it go, then come back and let is know how it went

[charliex]

i did a quick add of the torque figures, i only did 500 rpm spacing on the gotham, normally i do 100, so its a little off. i picked a random dyno sheet from the 100's i have, wasn't the best, wasn't the worst.

2057 lbs weight, 0.434 DC, 17 ft,1 60lb driver, 500ms shift time.

[jimmyhoffa]

Hmm, those numbers accurate? My car weighs roughly 2500pnds and has roughly 500hp at the flywheel and its returning

Power / Weight Ratio: 0.2
0-60 mph: 2.7952163316079166 seconds

If this is true, that's fast!

[Demonized]

Originally Posted by jimmyhoffa

Hmm, those numbers accurate? My car weighs roughly 2500pnds and has roughly 500hp at the flywheel and its returning

Power / Weight Ratio: 0.2
0-60 mph: 2.7952163316079166 seconds

If this is true, that's fast!

If you can get traction, and a perfect launch, I'm sure it's not far off.