ok first of all search nazi's i DID do a search

anyways

i recently found out how cheap ralliart cams r ........... the quick question in how much more torque and kw's would i get .... i know they r considered like stage.5 or something liek that


ta

++++
Greetings All.

I think you will fins that you will make the most power when they have been tuned wit ha haltec or unichip or the like...thats where they will see the best gains...

Cheers,
--Tonba
++++

Do tell, they should be in plentiful supply as they are used in the 6G75 as well as the valve springs.

ok first of all search nazi's i DID do a search

anyways

i recently found out how cheap ralliart cams r ........... the quick question in how much more torque and kw's would i get .... i know they r considered like stage.5 or something liek that


ta
Ok.. so the output differences between a VR-X and a Ralliart are 17kW of power, and 1Nm peak torque. The configuration differences between the two are that the Ralliart has extractors, higher compression (9.4:1 vs 9:1), the new cams, a mild port job on the cylinder heads, and a new ECU tune.

So assuming you already have extractors and that you'll use a piggy back ECU, that means you're still missing higher comp pistons, and head work. So you might get 10-12kW instead of 17kW, and peak torque may not change much, but it should hold that torque longer into the higher RPM range.

Of course you'll probably get a more agressive tune up than what they gave the Ralliart so you'll probably end up fairly close to what a Ralliart makes stock, with more to gain if you do some head porting or up your compression.

Ok.. so the output differences between a VR-X and a Ralliart are 17kW of power, and 1Nm peak torque. The configuration differences between the two are that the Ralliart has extractors, higher compression (9.4:1 vs 9:1), the new cams, a mild port job on the cylinder heads, and a new ECU tune.

So assuming you already have extractors and that you'll use a piggy back ECU, that means you're still missing higher comp pistons, and head work. So you might get 10-12kW instead of 17kW, and peak torque may not change much, but it should hold that torque longer into the higher RPM range.

Of course you'll probably get a more agressive tune up than what they gave the Ralliart so you'll probably end up fairly close to what a Ralliart makes stock, with more to gain if you do some head porting or up your compression.
So in laymans terms: probably not worth it.

Ok.. so the output differences between a VR-X and a Ralliart are 17kW of power, and 1Nm peak torque. The configuration differences between the two are that the Ralliart has extractors, higher compression (9.4:1 vs 9:1), the new cams, a mild port job on the cylinder heads, and a new ECU tune.

So assuming you already have extractors and that you'll use a piggy back ECU, that means you're still missing higher comp pistons, and head work. So you might get 10-12kW instead of 17kW, and peak torque may not change much, but it should hold that torque longer into the higher RPM range.

Of course you'll probably get a more agressive tune up than what they gave the Ralliart so you'll probably end up fairly close to what a Ralliart makes stock, with more to gain if you do some head porting or up your compression.

Only 1nm? A ralliart had 333nm of torque and a vrx had 317nm :P

So in laymans terms: probably not worth it.
I don't think so.. especially when for $500 more you can get RPW's Stage 1 cams and pull over 200kW as WTCHME did.

Only 1nm? A ralliart had 333nm of torque and a vrx had 317nm :P
Oh yeah :doh::doh:.. I got confused with the Exec -> VR-X change, which went from 316Nm to 317Nm, right?

I don't think so.. especially when for $500 more you can get RPW's Stage 1 cams and pull over 200kW as WTCHME did.


He also had adjustable cam gears too. Ive been talking to him a fair bit lately about his set up and cams
He pulled around 140kw's @ wheels which equals around the 180-185kw @ flywheel

what are the Stage two cams worth? can it be done in the ralliart?

if so, _stonesour_ i got some cams up for sale soon :D

also.. what are the gains compared to ralliart stock cams? worth it?

He also had adjustable cam gears too. Ive been talking to him a fair bit lately about his set up and cams
He pulled around 140kw's @ wheels which equals around the 180-185kw @ flywheel
I'm sure I remember him making a post on MOGWA about pulling closer to 210kW at the flywheel after the timing adjustments.. MOGWA seems to be offline at the moment though so I can't verify that.

It would seem a little disappointing if you're right.. in which case it would also mean I'm talking crap so I hope you're not ;)

RPW's adjustable cam timing gears are pretty cheap also, so that's no biggie.

what are the Stage two cams worth? can it be done in the ralliart? All of RPW's grinds cost the same.. around $1100, plus valve springs and adjustable gears. No one on these forums has ever fitted the Stage two cams, but just between you and me, a couple people might be getting them done soon.

I've talked to Mitsiman about them a bit, and hopefully he'll chime in here later on, but in his absense - there's not much to be gained with Stage 2 over his Stage 1 profile on a standard motor unless you increase compression. Ralliarts already have slightly higher compression than a regular Magna, but they're only just creeping in to the bottom end of the range.. I believe Mitsiman would recommend upping static compression to 10:1 to really see the benefits.

I'm sure I remember him making a post on MOGWA about pulling closer to 210kW at the flywheel after the timing adjustments.. MOGWA seems to be offline at the moment though so I can't verify that.

It would seem a little disappointing if you're right.. in which case it would also mean I'm talking crap so I hope you're not ;)

RPW's adjustable cam timing gears are pretty cheap also, so that's no biggie.

I just went on to there site and his car was dynod at 137.6kw's @ wheels after cams, gears and tune which = around 180-185kw's @ flywheel not 210-220kw's. :shock: Most magnas lose around 20-25% thru driveline loss. :)

I'll use VRX-II car as an example he has 206kw's @ wheels which sprintex say equals 257kw's @ flywheel.
My car which has 161kw's @ wheels and when i had the engine on an engine dyno it was putting out 208kw's @ flywheel.

All is good mate. :D

MOGWA's back now, and right you are, Jason.. 136.5kW ATW..

Although WTCHME did have this to say..


the torque actually works out to be about 370Nm peak. On the dyno I went on a stock magna gets around 95kw. So peak power should be around 215-225kw at the engine.
400m times will tell the story once he gets to the track, I guess.

yeah i was gonna say that the place that watchme dynos on has a low reading output

most STOCK 3.5 manuals on the dyno we use in SA hit around 115-125 compared to his 95kw when he was stock

MOGWA's back now, and right you are, Jason.. 136.5kW ATW..

Although WTCHME did have this to say..


400m times will tell the story once he gets to the track, I guess.

As we ALL know dyno numbers dont really mean a great deal unless you go to the same dyno each time and then only use them as a guide to see that the mods had made or lost power.

When my TH 3.5 was stock it pulled 112kw's at the wheels.
I know that mine engine had 208kw's @ flywheel after i rebuilt it, the engine dyno showed that and now it has 161kw's @ wheels, compare figures.

Unless you engine dyno the motor you can never get a dead accurate figure by converting @ wheel kw's back to flywheel kw's.

The track will show the answer to the question i guess, traction allowing. :D

So Mitsiman, would the slightly higher compression of a Ralliart make fitting a stage 2 cam worthwhile? Or would you still recommend a stage 1?

You say there is a loss in low down torque that at lower compressions isn't offset by high end gains. Do more aggressive cams just change the shape of the power/torque curve and not result in an across the board gain ie more peaky? Or is the net gain an improvement on standard?


.

I just went on to there site and his car was dynod at 137.6kw's @ wheels after cams, gears and tune which = around 180-185kw's @ flywheel not 210-220kw's. :shock: Most magnas lose around 20-25% thru driveline loss. :)

I'll use VRX-II car as an example he has 206kw's @ wheels which sprintex say equals 257kw's @ flywheel.
My car which has 161kw's @ wheels and when i had the engine on an engine dyno it was putting out 208kw's @ flywheel.

All is good mate. :D

I dont get it why then you are slower than TZABOY's Ralliart then. He's not putting as much power as you are. He's around 150kW ATW.

Do you have a really weak low end power/torque curve or something? Cuase you have the top end for sure looking at your 400m speed.

I dont get it why then you are slower than TZABOY's Ralliart then. He's not putting as much power as you are. He's around 150kW ATW.

Do you have a really weak low end power/torque curve or something? Cuase you have the top end for sure looking at your 400m speed.

I have only about 10kw's more @ wheels than him AND i run my car in full street trim, I dont remove the spare wheel, sub box etc etc. My car weighs 1630kg's on the scales and thats how i run it at the drags and around the race circuit and everyone knows that weight is the enemy off front wheel drive launches. So if i took the sub box and spare wheel out i'd shave 70 odd kg's off the cars weight but i like to run it as is.

I have massive wheelspin off the line that only very soft street tyres/slicks or soft launches will fix, thats why i have bad 60' times cos i have to launch the car slowly.
So the answer to your question about a weak low down power is wrong, i have a bit to much low down power and thats causing traction problems.

Oh and remember at the drags you dont drop outta the power band.
I change gears at 6600rpm and that only drops the revs back to around 4700 during changes.
This also answers a bit of the 3L v 3.5L argument, the lack of the 3L torque down low is not a big factor at the drags cos your always keeping the engine in the powerband.

Hope that answers your question. :)

Think of it this way, on street tyres you have a ralliart slightly modded pulling 14' flat with round numbers of say 200hp at the wheels with a top end speed of aroudn 160 km/hr

Then you have my twin turbo magna with round numbers 400hp at the wheels, only pulling a 13.30 on street tyres and a top end speed of 190 km/hr
But feel free to prove me wrong :badgrin:
Go me!!!!
get my tune done 2morrow with the new manifold from dave and off to the race track 2morrow night for some 13 second action!

im itching u hear what he gets tonight~!!

wake up jase...

what did you get fella?? :D

And to everyone elses question on quarter mile times, with a FWD vehicle the more horsepower / torque you create, beleive it or not the slower you go with a higher top end speed because it gets harder and harder to get traction.

Think of it this way, on street tyres you have a ralliart slightly modded pulling 14' flat with round numbers of say 200hp at the wheels with a top end speed of aroudn 160 km/hr

Then you have my twin turbo magna with round numbers 400hp at the wheels, only pulling a 13.30 on street tyres and a top end speed of 190 km/hr

Very small time difference for such a large horsepower and torque difference. The reason being purely traction. Put the same scenario in a rear wheel drive car and you wuold have completely different results with the rear wheel drive car pulling high 13's and low 12's. Simply all due to the first 100 feet of traction.

If you don't have a LSD I do not beleive any FWD car even has a chance of getting below a 14.5 to 14.0 flat simply because if it has enough power to do it, it won't be able to get any traction with a normal open differential.

Usually a FWD will launch off the line quicker than a RWD because of the static weight over the wheels produces less wheelspin with higher revs so you should make a little back on the RWDer's. But yes that low speed hard acceleration is where a FWD loses out.

Could you get better 1/4 mile drag times by changing the gear ratios? if youve got 400 horses surely theres enough power to make the gears longer and thus one less gear change? just a thought.

Thread mine :)

Well at least you did a search instead of making a new thread :)

Usually a FWD will launch off the line quicker than a RWD because of the static weight over the wheels produces less wheelspin with higher revs so you should make a little back on the RWDer's. But yes that low speed hard acceleration is where a FWD loses out.

Could you get better 1/4 mile drag times by changing the gear ratios? if youve got 400 horses surely theres enough power to make the gears longer and thus one less gear change? just a thought.

mate.. have you heard of the term "Weight Transfer"?

what happens when you launch off the line? all the weight transfers to the REAR of the car making a REAR wheel drive easier to launch because all the weight is over the REAR wheels....

I like chicken.

Usually a FWD will launch off the line quicker than a RWD because of the static weight over the wheels produces less wheelspin with higher revs so you should make a little back on the RWDer's. But yes that low speed hard acceleration is where a FWD loses out.



Thats one of the silliest things I've heard, almost as bad as the argument about dragging things rather than pushing equating to fwd being better :nuts:
IMO Fwd has two purposes, packaging and assembly speed.


Matthius

Thats one of the silliest things I've heard, almost as bad as the argument about dragging things rather than pushing equating to fwd being better :nuts:
IMO Fwd has two purposes, packaging and assembly speed.


Matthius
Dude, without getting into a massive argument, touring cars in England are FWD. FWD cars CAN be fast around a track, just look at Integra Type R's. Youtube them, they generally own up the best motoring races. In a car with a good chassis and suspension a FWD can be just as effective. I'm not saying you're wrong man cause everyone has their opinion, just throwing that out there for you.

Dude, without getting into a massive argument, touring cars in England are FWD. FWD cars CAN be fast around a track, just look at Integra Type R's. Youtube them, they generally own up the best motoring races. In a car with a good chassis and suspension a FWD can be just as effective. I'm not saying you're wrong man cause everyone has their opinion, just throwing that out there for you.


But at the end of the day, all of those cars mentioned are built fwd - name a purpose built race car that's front engined, front drive ? :P

Matthius

But at the end of the day, all of those cars mentioned are built fwd - name a purpose built race car that's front engined, front drive ? :P

Matthius
seen an evo transformed into just fwd for drag racing purposes in a US video, ran in the 9's for memory. purpose built for the fwd catagory of course

They're all 4WD.

FWD is preferred coz:

- easy to make
- cheaper to build
- easier to drive

It's not too good for fun tho.

What was this thread initially about anyway :)

well i started quite the arguement...

yeh choonga i heard of weight transfer... what im saying is if you were to apply a sudden rotational force to the wheels (dropping the clutch) to both a RWD and a FWD they will have maximum potential to lose traction at different times during the acceleration of the vehicle.

the FWD will attain grip in the first instance followed by sudden acceleration and then maximum possible traction will decrease as the inertia causes the vehicle to transfer weight to the back wheels.

a RWD will do the opposite, it will have a lower maximum possible traction while it is stationary because most of the weight is evenly distributed or over the front wheels. as the sudden rotational force is applied the vehicle will have more chance of loss of traction followed by a sudden acceleration which transfers weight to the back wheels which in turn creates more traction.

i think i was misunderstood. hope that clears the air a bit. (or i will have mad it worse:badgrin: )

Lewis.

well i started quite the arguement...

yeh choonga i heard of weight transfer... what im saying is if you were to apply a sudden rotational force to the wheels (dropping the clutch) to both a RWD and a FWD they will have maximum potential to lose traction at different times during the acceleration of the vehicle.

the FWD will attain grip in the first instance followed by sudden acceleration and then maximum possible traction will decrease as the inertia causes the vehicle to transfer weight to the back wheels.

a RWD will do the opposite, it will have a lower maximum possible traction while it is stationary because most of the weight is evenly distributed or over the front wheels. as the sudden rotational force is applied the vehicle will have more chance of loss of traction followed by a sudden acceleration which transfers weight to the back wheels which in turn creates more traction.

i think i was misunderstood. hope that clears the air a bit. (or i will have mad it worse:badgrin: )

Lewis.

/me runs around confused...

haha.. i get it.. but that all happens in the space of a bees dick.. so in the end fwd has less grip

But at the end of the day, all of those cars mentioned are built fwd - name a purpose built race car that's front engined, front drive ? :P

Matthius
I do see your point, and totally agree. But i didn't think we were talking about race cars. lol There are nutters out there who make purpose built FWD race cars for the drags to compete in the FWD category. :P