Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.

Steiler Drep posted:

I'm not too racing car inclined or anything, so this might sound really stupid. Why are you using 116 octane when you've got a low compression ratio of 9.2:1? Again, I come from an old american car history (lincoln continental '68, Jeep Wrangler '90 4.2L) where using 91 octane is common.
I direct you to the hairdryer ducktaped to the manifold.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.

A.o.D. posted:

What would the acceleration difference be between the different gearings?
While lower gearing should give you better acceleration, I guess you also have to consider where it'll put your shift points - for example, a 0-60 sprint is going to be hampered if you choose gearing that means you need to shift into third to do it.

Also, it depends where you want the acceleration. For example, I'd like gearing which would give me the maximum acceleration on a third gear run from 50mph, as that's the most common overtaking or joining-from-sliproad situation I find myself in.

InitialDave
Jun 14, 2007

I Want To Believe.
I don't think it's really about GT vs turbo, though, it is? It's GT vs turbo-and-a-tune.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply