0-60mph GS-T or GSX?

[VenomPL]

Who is the winner?

 

[crankbender]

You really believe that AWD drivetrain losses will net a .7 second defecit on 0-60 time, even with taller gearing?

I don't think it's me that needs to learn here.

"Because someone else posted these results, it MUST be true!"

agreed....

btw wtf is cartest anyway...the only cartest i know of is a simulation program.

 

[psychlow]

agreed....

btw wtf is cartest anyway...the only cartest i know of is a simulation program.

You're right, it is a sim program. So it's not even real-world.

I have cartest.exe. Its a pretty cool program but some of the numbers are off. Just remember its not real life driving, its all calculations.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

I dont think you guys should put down fwd so much...Ive heard and seen awd people put down slower 60' and ALOT of people put down slower 1/4 mile times. I put down 14.9@95mph BONE stock 205 all seasons, Ive seen awd pull that time but NEVER the trap. Measuring stock 0-60 is from a stand still NOT revving like mad burning out and accelerating like your dragging. That is NOT why they measure 0-60 for consumers, they do it to tell everyday performance not drag performance.

Now I agree that a better test would be 0-100mph because it better tests the cars full potential, but thats my opinion. Back to the idea of awd vs. fwd 0-60(they way you guys are looking at it) on paper fwd wins in real life awd does. when attempting to do 0-60 as you would attempt the 1/4 awd will win hands down. With that said doing 0-60 like you do in the 1/4, I would have to say that both fwd and awd would have stock 0-60 faster then 6.4. But thats not how they test cars.
Andrew

ps. it is hard for me to admit the awd is faster 0-60...but I do find comfort in the fact that it took a 20g awd with fmic fuel tunning and 20+psi to slowly walk my fwd with b16g @12psi, no fuel or tunning stock sidemount and two passengers from a roll.

 

[VenomPL]

Not 0-60 but 0-62mph (100km/h) CarTest - Car Acceleration Simulation

 

[psychlow]

ps. it is hard for me to admit the awd is faster 0-60...but I do find comfort in the fact that it took a 20g awd with fmic fuel tunning and 20+psi to slowly walk my fwd with b16g @12psi, no fuel or tunning stock sidemount and two passengers from a roll.

I find that hard to believe... something HAD to have been wrong with that AWD.

I just think that many of the FWDers play too much on the "drivetrain loss" deal, or have a misconception of how much it actually matters. I really wish someone would dyno the same car in FWD trim then as AWD trim to see how much of a loss it actually is. I doubt it's anywhere near as much as most people are theorizing.

But, this has been debated many times over. Nobody never learns anything from benchracing, so I'll just leave this one alone.

 

[leakyfaucet]

I was supprised too but its proven(CARTEST)

Cartest proves absolutely nothing. It only gives you a general estimate on how fast a stock car would be. A VERY general estimate. It's absolutely no where near accurate for what you're trying to do.

 

[boostedinaz]

Oh man this thread is full of irgnorance.

I dont care what any horse $hit simulation says or what some bi*** of a car tester you have. In a real world, cause thats what we live in, a GSX will beat a GST there is no way around it. Make a video, take then to track, I dont care, prove me wrong.

For the moron that said a GST will beat a GSX to 60 but lose in the quarter mile, WFT are you talking about. Explain to me how the GST shoots out of the whole then fore some reason falls on its face, yet traps higher. You are wrong. All the incrementals will be faster for a GSX from 60 ft to the end. Will the GST trap higher????? Yes, but we are talking about 0-60 and nothign more.

This thread is not bashing or putting down a GST. It is just physics and the truth, get over it.

This is turned into a bunch of babies crying about this test and that test that were done years apart and if completly different conditions. That, again, is the truth and will explain alot of the odd numbers that have been found.

Michael

 

[Thomas91169]

^^^well said.

A GST in modded form will NOT even be able to take a STOCK GSX in the 0-60. i know, im slightly modded and tried a 1st get AWD talon about a week ago, and he got about a good 2 cars on me before i finally caught traction. it wasnt till about 70 when i started to close the gap a little, but at my 90 mph(which is also my 1/4 ending speed) he still had a car on me. i shut down after that.

so a GST is better than a GSX. anyday. im FWD too, and i know this. we got screwed, put up or shut up. i couldnt find any good awd 2nd gens so i had to get this one. no big deal, so i spin them through 1st and a little of 2nd. scares the crap out of the civics when you downshift and spin the tires and they lok to see the look on youre face while youre trying to compensate for the torque steer, something they will never know about.

but how many times do i actually stop at a light next to someone worth the time/gas to actually let her free and punch it? maybe once a month. and i usually launch easy then hit it hard, so they think theyre winning till i fly by them still spinning tire smoke in their face. i match up with cars while im on the go more often, so most times for me wheelspin isnt a factor in these races, its more about top end.

and about drivetrain loss, it has been speculated that AWD loss is 25%, RWD is 15% and FWD is 13%. i tend to think the awd loss is a little overrated. its more like 20%. rwd is higher than FWD because of the spinning inertia of the driveshaft and rear differential. the awd loss is nowhere near as much as people say it to be. ask mlopez who has just done the FWD-AWD conversion.

 

[midnght]

FWD trim 515whp
AWD trim 489whp

same setup, same car, same boost about 4 months apart


You have to dyno the same day situation to get accurate numbers.


I was only wondering when the GS-T catches the GSX in the MPH at the track.

 

[MrPikolo]

Ohhhh well its not a bullshit! I think you need to learn more about this cars ;] Yep, its true, GSX beats GS-T in 1/4 mile, but it doesnt mean that it reaches 60mph faster!

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Seriously, that statement is just completly dumb. Get out and go race a stock gsx(i'm assuming you are stock as well). See what happens. Your statment is completly against the laws of phisics

If you are talking about those electronic 0-60 testers as well, I think they are crap. My car was running 9.4(in the 1/8, it's "roughly" mid 14s in the 1/4) and one of them said my 0-60 was 7.5 seconds. On my friend mustang, the 0-60 tester said he got a 5.3 second 0-60 and he only ran a 9.3 at best. So I don't trust them very well.

 

[leakyfaucet]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Seriously, that statement is just completly dumb. Get out and go race a stock gsx(i'm assuming you are stock as well). See what happens. Your statment is completly against the laws of phisics.

I completely agree. If the advantage of AWD is a good launch, then 0-60 is where the difference will be MOST obvious. The guy admits that a GSX would win in a quarter but not in a 0-60 race? Wha???

 

[crankbender]

FWD trim 515whp
AWD trim 489whp

same setup, same car, same boost about 4 months apart


You have to dyno the same day situation to get accurate numbers.


I was only wondering when the GS-T catches the GSX in the MPH at the track.

A dyno will overstate the distance because it misses the rear wheels rolling in the FWD. When actually driving the only added rotating mass in the drive line is the X-fer case, drive shaft, half shafts, and rear diff.

When you dyno a fwd the rear wheels sit still yet when you dyno an awd the rear wheels are spinning. You have to correct for the wheels because they should be spinning on the fwd. The only to really compare then would be to dyno the fwd on the awd dyno but you would need a special dyno to keep from breaking it.

Even with that said you only have like a 25 hp diff out of 500 hp. That puts your loss at less than 5% higher..... in this case if a fwd has 13% driveline loss the awd has 18% and that isn't that much of a difference. And as I already stated the AWD is artificially lower.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

I find that hard to believe... something HAD to have been wrong with that AWD.

I just think that many of the FWDers play too much on the "drivetrain loss" deal, or have a misconception of how much it actually matters. I really wish someone would dyno the same car in FWD trim then as AWD trim to see how much of a loss it actually is. I doubt it's anywhere near as much as most people are theorizing.

But, this has been debated many times over. Nobody never learns anything from benchracing, so I'll just leave this one alone.

you would have to be there to fully understand...when I meant slow ly walk I ment I was driving and he put constant distance on me not fast but he still did. I was estimating he was 11s or so. He was fast, and I never stated at anytime I had any chnce at all of beating him...just that it took alot of mods to "walk me slowly" from a roll. Oh and I have nothing against awd ....
Andrew

 

[midnght]

Even with that said you only have like a 25 hp diff out of 500 hp. That puts your loss at less than 5% higher..... in this case if a fwd has 13% driveline loss the awd has 18% and that isn't that much of a difference. And as I already stated the AWD is artificially lower.

I totally agree with you on the loss.

Those numbers came from another GS-T converted into AWD. Both dyno runs were done at the ExtremeMotorsports facility. It is a true AWD dyno, not the "Lock you Diff or pull your case" type.

So 18% sounds alot better to me than 20-22% these others are giving.

 

[sphillips91]

"I was estimating he was 11s or so."

"2.5" cat back, 2.5/3in megan racing downpipe, k and n, Dejon intake, Greddy type s bov, 1g throttle bodie, Ported stock intake manifold, hks turbo timer, accell ignition wires, RRE complete ic piping, B&M fpr-57psi, act 2100 heavy duty clutch, act xact flywheel, OBX short shifter, BIG 16g ported and clipped 10 degrees, ported o2 housing, ported exhaust manifold, walbro 190 pump, mbc-14.5psi, filter block off/ram air"

 

[kpt4321]

I got a news for all of you guys =] Stock GS-T kills stock GSX in 0-100km/h!!! (62mph) GS-T reaches that speed in 6.8s and GSX in 7.5s. I was supprised too but its proven(CARTEST)

You're retarted.

I use cartest A LOT and I also trust it's numbers A LOT. However, you need to keep some things in mind.

Primarily, CarTest will ALWAYS overestimate the traction ability of a FWD car. I have friends with modified FWD cars (primarily turbo hondas) and when we enter their powerband into cartest the trap speed is dead nuts on and the ET is ALWAYS a solid half a second or more faster than they have been able to do. There simply is not enough traction with a FWD car, and cartest assumes that there is.

Want to prove it? Find an AWD and a FWD. My car makes ~270 dynojet WHP in street trim, find me a FWD that makes 300 whp, and I'll race it. I will STILL take it from zero to sixty.

Have you ever driven a FWD and AWD DSM, or a FWD turbo car at all? Traction SUCKS.

I can launch my AWD at 5000 rpm with 8 psi of boost and not spin the tires. Try that in a FWD.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

"I was estimating he was 11s or so."

"2.5" cat back, 2.5/3in megan racing downpipe, k and n, Dejon intake, Greddy type s bov, 1g throttle bodie, Ported stock intake manifold, hks turbo timer, accell ignition wires, RRE complete ic piping, B&M fpr-57psi, act 2100 heavy duty clutch, act xact flywheel, OBX short shifter, BIG 16g ported and clipped 10 degrees, ported o2 housing, ported exhaust manifold, walbro 190 pump, mbc-14.5psi, filter block off/ram air"

why do you roll your eyes? were you there? if you were please tell the story :thumbdown I never said I WON I said he "HE WALKED ME SLOWLY FROM A ROLL". God damn how hard is that to fvcking understand!
Andrew

 

[leakyfaucet]

You're retarted.

It's spelled "retarded", you retard.

 

[leakyfaucet]

When actually driving the only added rotating mass in the drive line is the X-fer case, drive shaft, half shafts, and rear diff.

I don't understand why the wheels don't count as added rotating mass.

 

[crankbender]

I don't understand why the wheels don't count as added rotating mass.

because unless you drive with the rear wheels off the ground with your fwd then the rear wheels are still spinning be it fwd or awd or rwd.

 

[leakyfaucet]

Err... I thought you were basically saying that an AWD car doesn't suffer from any extra rotating mass from the rear wheels.

Edit: Wait, I get it. Nevermind. I never really thought of it like that.

 

[Mackzero]

This is awesome....

All you guys that say GS-Ts are even near as fast as the GSXs in the 0-60, 0-100km, whatever are frickin insane!!! I have had BOTH cars, and I will tell you that the GSX is by far faster in most situations, the only way the GS-T is faster is at over 70 or so mph. And that is by a slim margin.

Of course, you aren't taking into consideration that you can put down 400+whp to the ground with a GSX with minimal traction problems, while the GS-T will basically be useless until over 80 or 90 with that amount of power being used!

And please no one say "But the GS-T with Slicks will not loose traction..." Street cars, not race cars, is what most of us are refering to.

By the way, my buddy with a 97 GS-T thinks he is going to stomp my ass with his 16G and Nitrous in a street race..... We'll have to see how good he does against my setup Of course he is a GS-T so he might be able to smoke me......

 

[foreverinvayne]

The AWD is definitely faster in the 0-60 time. Now if we're talking who could get their wheels spinning to 60mph faster, we would say the FWD because they have more power actually getting to the wheels to spin them. Now that's only if they were flying, but our cars don't fly very well, do they? No, not really.

And also... are the 1st gen AWD's really not supposed to reach 60mph in second gear? Cuz mine reaches about 61 mph in second gear.... Is that normal? And yes i do have the stock rev limiter. (and no, my tires aren't smaller, thus making it look like im going faster) I'm not saying it's ideal to do so with the powerband kinda ending before that. But do they sometimes differ when making the gears?

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

This is awesome....

All you guys that say GS-Ts are even near as fast as the GSXs in the 0-60, 0-100km, whatever are frickin insane!!! I have had BOTH cars, and I will tell you that the GSX is by far faster in most situations, the only way the GS-T is faster is at over 70 or so mph. And that is by a slim margin.

Of course, you aren't taking into consideration that you can put down 400+whp to the ground with a GSX with minimal traction problems, while the GS-T will basically be useless until over 80 or 90 with that amount of power being used!

And please no one say "But the GS-T with Slicks will not loose traction..." Street cars, not race cars, is what most of us are refering to.

By the way, my buddy with a 97 GS-T thinks he is going to stomp my ass with his 16G and Nitrous in a street race..... We'll have to see how good he does against my setup Of course he is a GS-T so he might be able to smoke me......

I hope your not serious about beating your buddy...if so those are some tall words from a guy driving a stock car.

 

[boostaddictgsx]

The AWD is definitely faster in the 0-60 time. Now if we're talking who could get their wheels spinning to 60mph faster, we would say the FWD because they have more power actually getting to the wheels to spin them. Now that's only if they were flying, but our cars don't fly very well, do they? No, not really.

Thank you, this thread was getting really annoying until that