PP vs. Non PP?

14 TUX BL · April 25, 2015, 10:04:33 AM

Ok, let's keep moving forward ...

My plan is to go to a Test/Tune and see what she runs (everything remaining ultra bone stock, right down to tire air pressure). Yesterday, TT was cancelled at my local track due to "extremely cold weather" (lol, life in the Northeast). Today it's open, but it's barely 5 degrees warmer than yesterday and I don't want to make runs in either very cold/very warm temps.

I want times that are void of temperature excuses, that don't need to be put in a Air Density calculator for normalization.

Hopefully, there should be a decent day sometime within the next couple of months.

ElvenSho · April 25, 2015, 10:39:53 AM

I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.
Edit: just by looking at some youtube vids.

FoMoCoSHO · April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM

2015 PP

13.48@103.12

20-30 MPH headwind

DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH

SHOnUup · April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP

13.48@103.12

20-30 MPH headwind

DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH

Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?

Rich

FoMoCoSHO · April 25, 2015, 11:44:21 AM

Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP

13.48@103.12

20-30 MPH headwind

DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?

Rich

1.8 corn
.2 meth

I fueled up after the track with just 2 gallons of corn (no meth) and the car immediately made more power via Torque. I think the meth screws with AFR, pressure, and possibly how the flame forms in cylinder. Lots of very random +KR events lead me to that conclusion.

Peak WHP/WTQ via Torque PRO

Stock
290/290

Stock + 1.8 gal of E-85 + .2 gal meth
316/336

Stock with 2 gal E-85 only
336/347

Hopefully I can get a calm day to retest as I suspect the 2015 is a tad quicker.

14 TUX BL · April 26, 2015, 09:57:10 AM

Quote from: ElvenSho on April 25, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.

All things being equal, a non PP car shouldn't be able to walk away from a PP car.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP

13.48@103.12

20-30 MPH headwind

DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?

Rich
1.8 corn
.2 meth

People always seem to make use of a wide range of definitions for the term "stock". Been like that since I've been racing in the 80's.

Like the time I saw an F body that was running solid times for what appeared to be a bone stock car. I saw the driver walking around and asked him about it, he told me "She's stock!" So I went back over to his car and peeked inside ... everything was stripped except for the driver's seat and a few gauges on the dash. lol

In truth, stock means the way the car was built at the factory and as automotive journals actually test them. And while it's certainly interesting to see what mods like changes in fuel can do, that can't really be described as stock.

I'll have to wait and see what I run when there's a good day for it ...

ElvenSho · April 26, 2015, 10:22:05 AM

Quote from: 14 TUX BL on April 26, 2015, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: ElvenSho on April 25, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
I bet 80+ with an even start the non-pp will walk away with same mods ofcourse.

All things being equal, a non PP car shouldn't be able to walk away from a PP car.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: SHOnUup on April 25, 2015, 11:27:37 AM
Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 25, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
2015 PP

13.48@103.12

20-30 MPH headwind

DA 667
Corrected
13.404 @ 103.741 MPH
Solid time for stock. Was this with any corn in the mix?

Rich
1.8 corn
.2 meth

People always seem to make use of a wide range of definitions for the term "stock". Been like that since I've been racing in the 80's.

Like the time I saw an F body that was running solid times for what appeared to be a bone stock car. I saw the driver walking around and asked him about it, he told me "She's stock!" So I went back over to his car and peeked inside ... everything was stripped except for the driver's seat and a few gauges on the dash. lol

In truth, stock means the way the car was built at the factory and as automotive journals actually test them. And while it's certainly interesting to see what mods like changes in fuel can do, that can't really be described as stock.

I'll have to wait and see what I run when there's a good day for it ...

Idk man i am pretty sure my car will pull harder in 3rd gear then pp car in 4th. It seems like once they are at high speed pp car will go to 5th a lot sooner and would be done after that for sure.

AJP turbo · April 26, 2015, 11:11:24 AM

But then when u hit 5th say goodnight dick it would be over

SHOnUup · April 26, 2015, 11:16:43 AM

PP VS NON PP...SHO on SHO abuse....ahhh, it's just not right...lol

Rich

FoMoCoSHO · April 26, 2015, 11:40:50 AM

I'm pretty sure this dilemma can be solved with good ol math.

In the end there are just too many variables to know.

What I do know is that in 1st through 3rd, the PP has torque steer which the 2013 nonPP did not have.

SHOnUup · April 26, 2015, 11:45:33 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on April 26, 2015, 11:40:50 AM
I'm pretty sure this dilemma can be solved with good ol math.

In the end there are just too many variables to know.

What I do know is that in 1st through 3rd, the PP has torque steer which the 2013 nonPP did not have.

Which is weird because you'd think the non pp would torque steer more, not being able to fully turn off tcs.

Rich

ecoboostsho · April 26, 2015, 01:41:14 PM

I agree on the torque steer fwiw. My PP definitely experiences it.

panther427 · April 26, 2015, 01:50:14 PM

Quote from: ecoboostsho on April 26, 2015, 01:41:14 PM
I agree on the torque steer fwiw. My PP definitely experiences it.

The pp cars should experience torque steer easier do to the mathematical multiplication of torque to the wheels the gear set offers

14 TUX BL · April 28, 2015, 09:12:44 PM

Ok guys, think I found the info I was looking for ...

In their December 2009 issue, Road and Track did a comparison test of a 2010 Ford Taurus SHO vs. a 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MR Touring. Now R&T no longer has the article on their website, and I tried my local library but they only keep back issues up to one year. So after a bit of interweb sleuthing, I found most of the article reprinted on a forum. Here's the part of interest:

"Although well dressed in base trim, the real action is in the shouldn't-be-optional Performance Package that delivers a numerically higher final-drive gear — a strong tonic for this mature performance car's corpus. This shorter gearing surprisingly didn't improve the SHO's 0–60 time (due to an additional shift), but its advantages were palpable in the quarter mile with 3/10ths of a second shaved and a 2.2-mph faster trap speed."

In that test of the PP, they ran 0-60 in 5.2 sec and the quarter in 13.6 @ 103.2 mph. So that means the non PP they previously tested ran the same 5.2 sec 0-60, but the quarter in 13.9 @ 101 mph.

I still might take the car to the track when the weather is right, but I found R&T's info pretty interesting as they were the only stock PP vs. non PP test figures I could locate.

AJP turbo · April 28, 2015, 09:52:42 PM

kind of a nice reference but it still doesn't mean much...still too many variables...different cars, weather, track,track conditions,tires, driver, fuel,..need I go on...maybe they both did run 0-60 in 5.2 sec. But I couldn't call it equal because of reasons above....maybe when the non pp ran 5.2 conditions were perfect and the pp ran 5.2 so to say the gearing had an adverse effect because the times were the same would be a grossly incomplete evaluation