Hey all,
Just wondering what do you reckon the 0-60 times would be after installing either an APS tt kit, a greddy tt kit or a vortech supercharger in a 2003 6MT?
cheers

 

i reckon they will be less than 4.9 and more than 1.5.

 

probably faster than a ford viper gt camaro

 

Much depends on the rear tires. You can have all the power in the world, but unless you have the meat to hook it up, it is useless.

Another aspect is the suspension. Cars that are built strictly for straight line acceleration run a soft suspension to allow the car's weight to shift rearward over the rear tires. The more wieght over the rear tires, the better.

By way of example, as tested by Car and Driver in their March 2010 issue, a Porsche 911 turbo with 500 hp and weighing 3540 lbs. did 0-60 in 2.9 sec. and the 1/4 mi. in 11.0 sec. In contrast, the Corvette ZR1 with 638 hp and weighing 3350 lbs. (138 more hp than the Porsche and 190 lbs. less weight) did 0-60 in 3.4 sec. and the 1/4 mi. in 11.5 sec.

One huge difference between these cars is the weight distribution. The Porsche has 61.6% of it's weight (2181 lbs.) over the rear tires while the Corvette only has 48.4% of it's weight (1621.4 lbs) in the rear. The extra 560 lbs. over the rear wheels makes a huge difference in acceleration (assuming the total vehicle weight is not increased by that amount).

The downside to having that much weight in the rear is handling, although Porsche engineers have been very good at coming up with numerous ways to compensate. Nonetheless, at Laguna Seca, the more balanced weight distribution and better power/weight ratio came through for the Corvette and there it outpaced the 911 by about a second (136.8 vs 137.8). Not much of a difference considering the power/weight ratios, but then again, the Porsche engineers have been fine tuning the 911 for a long time, while it seems Chevy only got interested in handling within the last decade or so.

Still, Chevy should be embarrased by these results. With such a 28.6% advantage in power/weight ratio, they got their buts handed to them in 0-60 and 1/4 mi., and barely squeaked out a win on a 2.2 mi. road course. Specifically, they lost 0-60 by 17%, lost the 1/4 mi. by 4.5%, and only won the road course by 0.73%.

On the other hand, the average age of the Corvette buyer is 54, and at that age they probably do not give a **** anyways. To them, it is all about tradition and keeping the motor up front, regardless of the performance sacrifices. As those buyers keep getting older and older, however, we can wave good by to the Vette as it fades off into the sunset unless GM makes significant changes to the upcoming C7 (i.e., make it a mid-engine beast and screw the old farts who aren't going to be buying them anyway because they have to pay for the medications).

Sorry, I got a little off track here. I guess the 12 hours of sebring tomorrow is on my mind.

 

Dude I'm in love with the 997.2 turbo. Porsche did some amazing engineering. Who would have thought sticking with their unconventional rear engine design as everyone else dropped it would pay off dividends. As engines have overcome the emissions hurdles of past decades and are reaching horsepower and torque numbers in stock engines that result in 0-60 times that are just traction limited...the engine placement porsche chose was invaluable. As car manufacturers reach the limits of traction to go further you have to have what porsche has or more than 4 wheels. Or tank treads.

You didn't mention all the key things that make it what it is so i'll make the list in importance:

1) AWD (compared to current GT2/GT3, roughly equal horsepower significantly slower due to RWD)
2) rear engine placement
3) Launch control through a PDK transmission.

To be even kinder to the porsche...it hits 60 in a much truer 2.9 seconds in the real world than a big rear wheel drive car hitting 60 in an actual 3.4 seconds. This is due to the NHRA standard of allowing one foot of forward movement wheelspin before starting the watch. All magazines i know of use this standard including Road&Track, and I believe road and track said this can add up to 0.4 seconds to a time. While the RWD is still spinning it's tires, the porsche barely chirped his tires and is off ready to wait at at the next stop light.

Oh and JUST WAIT because porsche didn't put their best street tires on it. I'm wondering how much faster it'll be when people put on r-compound road course tires. I'm curious if the launch control will allow more power to the wheels with stickier tires since it should sense less *slip* *slip* *slip*

 

Now, the question for us becomes "how do we shift more weight to the rear of our cars?" With my TT system and all of the modifications, I have probably added 100 lbs to the nose of my car. I may move the battery to the trunk, and that will help offset all this extra weight a bit. Also, I have race seats going in, which should remove 70 lbs or so, but they are placed near the middle of the car, so I'm not sure how much they will help on reducing nose weight.

One thing I have been looking into is ditching the transmission for a rear transaxle. Between the cost of the transaxle and the modifications that will be needed to make it work, I'm not quite ready to jump in that direction yet.

 

There are a couple things that can be done;

1-Lighter front end body
CF fenders, hood and bumper? too expensive thou
2- Seats
Obviously the front seats are near the center of the car but even reducing weight there helps.
3-Exhaust
Keeping the oem exhaust at the rear will be restrictive but again it weight s a lot.
4-Lighter sway bar in the front (stillen perhaps)
5-Lighter brakes


Even thou these are suggestions they are not good for a daily driver I believe, I guess the best thing to do is leave the car as is and add some custom audio in the rear, with the HP you will be making with a fully built APS TT add a LSD and fat tires and you will be very close to some very expensive cars in the 0-60 territory.

 

I have a Seibon CF hood. It only saves about 8 lbs. The CF fenders do not save a whole lot either.

I have those as well. As I noted, they save probably about 70 lbs on total weight, but do not necessarily affect the f/r weight ratio significantly.

I have a Greddy Evo TT, so that is addressed.

I have Stillen sway bars front and rear.

Unless you are using carbon ceramic brakes, I'm not sure how you can go with lighter brakes without sacrificing stopping power. I have Wilwood 14" brakes with 6 piston calipers up front and 4 piston calipers in back. They stop the car well, but I would venture to say that they probably weigh at least as much as my stock brembo brakes did.


With my 3.5L Greddy TT motor and Toyo R888 305/30/19s in the rear, I could not come anywhere close to using all of my power 1st and 2nd gear without the tires just lighting up. I even got wheel spin in 3rd gear. My rear tires are setup with about 1.5 deg. of Camber for road racing, though. I'm sure with 0 camber traction would be a little bit better.

With my 4.0L motor and the GTM turbo kit, I am going to have to get creative to get traction. Perhaps the RaceLogic traction control unit. We'll see once the motor finally ships and I get the car back together.

 

I once had a porsche 944 turbo with 450whp, the only way I could get traction out of that thing was to use a variable boost controller. Again it is VERY VERY tricky to set it up in a gear by gear base but that was the way I did it. I didn't measure 0-60 times but prior to installing the controller I would spin in 1st,2, and 3rd but after the controller only during second shift without releasing the throttle for shifting. Corvettes were a breakfast then, too sad those times are over LOL

 

Rear camber at -1.5 isn't too bad, that's what I'm running with my F1 GSD3. I tried 1.0 and while it helped in launching in first, it sacrificed too much in overall handling. I believe our first gear is way too aggressive to allow for power over 400 rwhp to be put down properly. For the record, I've ran 330, 340, 350 and 466rwhp on the streets. Even with 330 rwhp, I could do mid first gear burnouts. With 466rwhp now, I don't bother .

To stay on topic, 0 t 60 times never interested me. I'm more interested in 1/4 times and trap speeds. When I had 340 rwhp, I did whip an E46 M3 from a dig, so my 0 to 60 had to be better than 4.9 at that power level.

 

yeh fair enough. i'm not really into the 1/4mile times, i just crave the feeling of gettin thrown back thrown back wen taking off.
aim is to get it under 4.5s.. wat would u guys do to achieve this from a stock 6mt?

 

lol i "reckon" (lolz @ reckon) that we got off topic here eh?

 

With respect to the handling, the shop selected my camber for road racing, and my car handles fantastic. I have a Tein Flex suspension, so that does make a difference.

With respect to 0-60 times, that is not my primary goal. However, with my new 4.0L motor and GTM TT system I should be somewhere around 650-675 rwhp on pump gas (I measured over 600 whp with my 3.5L on a Mustang dyno), north of 700 whp with meth injection on-line, and over 750 with race gas. I would be really embarassed if a 911 Turbo with only 500 engine hp (probably around 430 whp) blew my doors off from a stop.