COMPARE THE PAIR 3.0R vs GT

[SIMBAT]

I have SI drive in my 3.0R so i was sure to pit it in S# once it was warm enough . Also i wanted the GT for the same reason as you but after i drove that one i've decided to keep the 3.0R just because i would cbf choosing turbos and tuning when it feels so crap to start with plus the H6 sounds amazing!!! (with the mufflers off) and i think they are a too underrated and a bit of an underdog, because i have beaten a family friend of mine from 0-100 in his stock 2007 wrx by a car length! Both of us launched hard and he also knows how to drive manual properly. Needless to say he was absolutely reeling! Plus it Rapes all the HSV's when i attend motor kana days with my dad who is part of the vic HSV club. you should see how cut the brogans get when a (then) stock liberty beats a $80,000 GTS which has had 20,000 dollars worth of engine work done to it!

Hahahahaha... clearly the hsv with 20k of engine work has a bad driver. 14k will twin turbo a commodore which will get you no less than 600wkw. I love liberties as much as all of us but thats just ridiculous!

P.s. its really not hard to make a GT fast. An exhaust and a tune will give it 180wkw... thats more than enough to smash a 3.0r. So I wouldn't be turned off, tune and exhaust is very easy to get done. From the sounds of it youve put an exhaust on your 3.0r so its a null point really.

Actually the driver competes in Targa Tasmania events so he knows how to control a car, the point is controlling a much heavier car which only has 2 wheels that drive >330rwkw around different tight-ish stages with cones all over the place and sections, where you need to do handbrake turns. He was loosing too much traction, and with traction control on it was so invasive that it slowed him down too much.

Also could 15k will twin turbo a 3.0R aswell, to get over 300wkw. I've already considered going down that road i was quoted 15k and that included changing rods and other internals of the motor to handle the extra power.

Though this topic has digressed from what i intended it to be about which is comparing apples with apples (stock). I understand its easier to make the GT more powerful... personally i would prefer to spend money on my car in the category that will actually make me happy... handling, braking, exhaust and a tune. i think people go too far power wise as they are not designed or refined to handle the huge power figures they are able to produce. reliability would be compromised and at the end of the day its just a car, when the traffic lights stop ahead of you the mazda 2 that you would have just dragged off will catch up once again... But if your full of money and you want to go balls out on a liberty i think you would choose still the H6 over the H4.

[Kekotic]

whatever you say

http://i.imgur.com/DREY27p.jpg

Note the drop in boost and g/rev as RPM increases above 5000, because the VF46 is not a top end turbo.

[SIMBAT]

whatever you say

http://i.imgur.com/DREY27p.jpg

Note the drop in boost and g/rev as RPM increases above 5000, because the VF46 is not a top end turbo.

I understand it drops and it isn't as efficient in producing boost at that stage in the rev range but remember the laws of physics will prove as i said...

"in any case the rate of acceleration say in 2nd from 6000rpm to the limiter will always be quicker than the equivalent rate of acceleration if you changed into 3rd once you had hit 6000rpm in 2nd due to the the fact 3rd is a taller ratio."- plus you would loose ground if you were in a drag race by changing earlier...

[Kekotic]

whatever you say

http://i.imgur.com/DREY27p.jpg

Note the drop in boost and g/rev as RPM increases above 5000, because the VF46 is not a top end turbo.

I understand it drops and it isn't as efficient in producing boost at that stage in the rev range but remember the laws of physics will prove as i said...

"in any case the rate of acceleration say in 2nd from 6000rpm to the limiter will always be quicker than the equivalent rate of acceleration if you changed into 3rd once you had hit 6000rpm in 2nd due to the the fact 3rd is a taller ratio."- plus you would loose ground if you were in a drag race by changing earlier...

So now you completely agree with what I said, after 10 minutes earlier being a condescending prick with "whatever you say".

[kiahatsiu]

Take that 15 k twin turbo built ez. That is a steal.

[SIMBAT]

Where did i say i agree? I said i understand your irrelevant bullshit but i never said i agree. It's a free country pal so you keep changing at 6 grand and continue living in your fairy tale sorry to shatter your dreams with physics.

[KiDo_Tuning]

whatever you say

http://i.imgur.com/DREY27p.jpg

Note the drop in boost and g/rev as RPM increases above 5000, because the VF46 is not a top end turbo.

I understand it drops and it isn't as efficient in producing boost at that stage in the rev range but remember the laws of physics will prove as i said...

"in any case the rate of acceleration say in 2nd from 6000rpm to the limiter will always be quicker than the equivalent rate of acceleration if you changed into 3rd once you had hit 6000rpm in 2nd due to the the fact 3rd is a taller ratio."- plus you would loose ground if you were in a drag race by changing earlier...

Incorrect actually, you want in gear torque for acceleration. If 6700rpm took you past peak engine torque in 3rd gear... your instantly losing acceleration

[SIMBAT]

Incorrect actually, you want in gear torque for acceleration. If 6700rpm took you past peak engine torque in 3rd gear... your instantly losing acceleration

First Please show me changing 6700rpm in second WILL land you past peak torque in 3rd. Then if possible show me that rate of acceleration in 2nd between 6000rpm and redline is slower then equivalent acceleration in 3rd after changing from 2nd when you hit 6000rpm... i'm sure you won't be able to Prove me wrong also we are talking about milliseconds so any difference would be marginal anyway. But in your honest opinion if you were told to do a 400m run in a stock GT as quick as possible would you honestly change early in any gears??? I know i for sure wouldn't.

[fibble]

Incorrect actually, you want in gear torque for acceleration. If 6700rpm took you past peak engine torque in 3rd gear... your instantly losing acceleration

First Please show me changing 6700rpm in second WILL land you past peak torque in 3rd. Then if possible show me that rate of acceleration in 2nd between 6000rpm and redline is slower then equivalent acceleration in 3rd after changing from 2nd when you hit 6000rpm... i'm sure you won't be able to Prove me wrong also we are talking about milliseconds so any difference would be marginal anyway. But in your honest opinion if you were told to do a 400m run in a stock GT as quick as possible would you honestly change early in any gears??? I know i for sure wouldn't.

I'm normally ambivalent when it comes to these types of expert forum debates, but I couldn't help myself this time.....

The acceleration that I am usually interested in is vehicle acceleration...not engine speed acceleration....you might want to think carefully through the comments about gear ratios etc......

I also thought I'd share a story from my distant youth riding dirt bikes......a bloke at the track was laughing hysterically at my comment that 4-stroke dirt bikes had powerbands as well........he kept pointing at the expansion chamber on his 2-stroke repeating the "band" is in there - its like a belt thing......

At some point in time, everyone thinks they're an expert on something....

Go for it....

[peadya100]

Actually the driver competes in Targa Tasmania events so he knows how to control a car, the point is controlling a much heavier car which only has 2 wheels that drive >330rwkw around different tight-ish stages with cones all over the place and sections, where you need to do handbrake turns. He was loosing too much traction, and with traction control on it was so invasive that it slowed him down too much.

Also could 15k will twin turbo a 3.0R aswell, to get over 300wkw. I've already considered going down that road i was quoted 15k and that included changing rods and other internals of the motor to handle the extra power.

Though this topic has digressed from what i intended it to be about which is comparing apples with apples (stock). I understand its easier to make the GT more powerful... personally i would prefer to spend money on my car in the category that will actually make me happy... handling, braking, exhaust and a tune. i think people go too far power wise as they are not designed or refined to handle the huge power figures they are able to produce. reliability would be compromised and at the end of the day its just a car, when the traffic lights stop ahead of you the mazda 2 that you would have just dragged off will catch up once again... But if your full of money and you want to go balls out on a liberty i think you would choose still the H6 over the H4.

Ok, so when you said the hsv had 20k under the hood you were just exaggerating. As 330rwkw is achievable for 3-4k in a hsv.

Youre right you could twin turbo a h6... but you were saying that you couldn't be bothered modifying a GT yet youre happy to modify your h6... im not really understanding? Anyway, as I said im glad you like your h6, you dont have to like GT's. But I think youd be best to go for a ride in a better GT thats only had 2k spent on it and then make up your mind.

[dr20t]

But in your honest opinion if you were told to do a 400m run in a stock GT as quick as possible would you honestly change early in any gears??? I know i for sure wouldn't.

Is this the same 400m that you believe a stock 3.0 will be faster over a GT?

And to answer your question - yes I would

[KiDo_Tuning]

I spent $8k on my old Twin Turbo VY SS ute... made 480rwKw and ran mid 10's on a stock auto AND was one of the quickest at hill climb events too.

There is not even a point reving the 3.0L past 7200rpm(stock limiter is 7000rpm)

As for this:

First Please show me changing 6700rpm in second WILL land you past peak torque in 3rd. Then if possible show me that rate of acceleration in 2nd between 6000rpm and redline is slower then equivalent acceleration in 3rd after changing from 2nd when you hit 6000rpm... i'm sure you won't be able to Prove me wrong also we are talking about milliseconds so any difference would be marginal anyway. But in your honest opinion if you were told to do a 400m run in a stock GT as quick as possible would you honestly change early in any gears??? I know i for sure wouldn't.

Are you sure you will understand the Excel data sheet? Ever wonder why 3rd gear in a turbo car is referred to as the 'fastest'? It is because in 2nd gear, your lucky to see full boost in a stock LGT, let alone get to 6psi. Suddenly 14psi in 3rd gear at 3000rpm seems like a good idea

[SIMBAT]

But in your honest opinion if you were told to do a 400m run in a stock GT as quick as possible would you honestly change early in any gears??? I know i for sure wouldn't.

Is this the same 400m that you believe a stock 3.0 will be faster over a GT?

And to answer your question - yes I would

What are you on? you have an auto you...

[SIMBAT]

Ok, so when you said the hsv had 20k under the hood you were just exaggerating. As 330rwkw is achievable for 3-4k in a hsv.

No exaggeration stock was 265rwkw he changed the intake, billet manifold, cams, pushrods, crank shaft and pistons because he has plans to supercharge in the future and wanted his engine to have no weak points. 65rwkw gain after a tune and 20 grand worh of parts and labour he hadn't touched the exhaust at that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo

[SIMBAT]

Are you sure you will understand the Excel data sheet? Ever wonder why 3rd gear in a turbo car is referred to as the 'fastest'? It is because in 2nd gear, your lucky to see full boost in a stock LGT, let alone get to 6psi. Suddenly 14psi in 3rd gear at 3000rpm seems like a good idea

Well to satisfy my own curiosity sine we were talking about changing at 6000rpm for both the 3.0R and a GT. I was in the outer norther suburbs of melbourne this morning where they have 100k straight flat country roads. i have an app on my phone which records true 0-100 times with gps. I did 4 runs, the only way i could ensure an exact take off for all the runs was to just take of normally (no dropping of the clutch). After i did each run i went back and did the others on the exact same stretch of road. i did 2 runs changing gears at 6000rpm since a few of you have insisted not revving a stock car past that, then i did 2 runs to the limiter. here are my times

run one changing at 6000rpm= 7.223----note for both gear changes (1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd) were performed at 6000rpm
run two changing at limiter= 7.006
run three changing at 6000rpm= 7.198----note only 2nd to 3rd were performed at 6000rpm, 1st to 2nd were performed at limiter
run four changing at limiter=6.979


My car is a 2008 3.0R B-spec manual with 57000kms just has the rear mufflers deleted with 1 3/4" stainless steel pipes, k+n panel filter no tune as of yet.

If someone can do the same in a stock GT??? (by stock i mean no tune)