03-14-2007, 01:11 PM
Yay, someone's actually as bored as me to give this some thought! Thanks man.
Just to be clear, I only did a 2nd to 3rd shift for both cars during my test. And that shift is even a touch quicker in the m42 since the gearing is closer.
BTW, where'd you find the tq figure for the m10? I've never seen anything that high, I thought it was supposed to be pretty close to the HP, like 105 or 110 or something. That's why I ignored it, I thought the torque figures for each engine were pretty close the HP. The G-tech meter I tested a while ago <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mmsports.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2974&highlight=gtech">http://mmsports.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... ight=gtech</a><!-- m --> told me I'm getting ~84ft/lbs to the wheels, so there's no way it's making 137 at the crank.
CaptainHenreh Wrote:Not to mention the extra time spent *not* accelerating by changing gears.
Just to be clear, I only did a 2nd to 3rd shift for both cars during my test. And that shift is even a touch quicker in the m42 since the gearing is closer.
BTW, where'd you find the tq figure for the m10? I've never seen anything that high, I thought it was supposed to be pretty close to the HP, like 105 or 110 or something. That's why I ignored it, I thought the torque figures for each engine were pretty close the HP. The G-tech meter I tested a while ago <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mmsports.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2974&highlight=gtech">http://mmsports.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... ight=gtech</a><!-- m --> told me I'm getting ~84ft/lbs to the wheels, so there's no way it's making 137 at the crank.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a van is a good guy with a van