[Ford Rocam]

Well my take is bit different, you cannot go faster without spending too much, cause you need to define the definition of fast, is how much it is fast according to you. For me any car if it can do a 1/4 mile in less than 13 sec is a fast car.
To make a noticeable difference the cheapest according to me is following.

1) NOS, a stock engine can take anywhere between 35 to 70 Shot (depending on Engine make & C.C). but it has its own consequences, bottle pressure has to be monitored else it will make things complicated for engine.
* Doesn't makes sense to carry bottle everyday in trunk, will take up space & if you happen to be stopped by traffic cops & in routine check they open your trunk of car, then you are in trouble.

2) Engine Swaps, i am not talking about big engine swaps but small ones like Zen with Esteem engine, it will be cheap & really fun on streets.

3) Turbo..No cheap

If you want Cheap,Fast & Reliable then just read my signature

[CPH]

Originally Posted by Ford Rocam

Well my take is bit different, you cannot go faster without spending too much, cause you need to define the definition of fast, is how much it is fast according to you. For me any car if it can do a 1/4 mile in less than 13 sec is a fast car.
To make a noticeable difference the cheapest according to me is following.

1) NOS, a stock engine can take anywhere between 35 to 70 Shot (depending on Engine make & C.C). but it has its own consequences, bottle pressure has to be monitored else it will make things complicated for engine.
* Doesn't makes sense to carry bottle everyday in trunk, will take up space & if you happen to be stopped by traffic cops & in routine check they open your trunk of car, then you are in trouble.

2) Engine Swaps, i am not talking about big engine swaps but small ones like Zen with Esteem engine, it will be cheap & really fun on streets.

3) Turbo..No cheap

If you want Cheap,Fast & Reliable then just read my signature

Between fast and faster is a distinguished difference. You can't quantify fast as this is a matter of interpretation.

But you can definitively quantify faster when you go from what you ahve to start with.

And if you know what the meaning of the 'green hell' is then you will know that straight line figures aren't the measure to drive top lap times.

Anyhow the original poster has asked the question how to make his car faster to enjoy it a bit more than he does now.

I can respect such wishes without hesitiation despite the fact that I had due to my profession driven cars for testing and development that most of the people never would be able to afford. I hope you can do this too.

[Shan2nu]

If you want Cheap,Fast & Reliable then just read my signature

Or just go get yourself one of these. Hehe

YouTube - Lambo vs Honda CRX

Shan2nu

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by Ford Rocam

Well my take is bit different, you cannot go faster without spending too much, cause you need to define the definition of fast, is how much it is fast according to you. For me any car if it can do a 1/4 mile in less than 13 sec is a fast car.
To make a noticeable difference the cheapest according to me is following.

1) NOS, a stock engine can take anywhere between 35 to 70 Shot (depending on Engine make & C.C). but it has its own consequences, bottle pressure has to be monitored else it will make things complicated for engine.
* Doesn't makes sense to carry bottle everyday in trunk, will take up space & if you happen to be stopped by traffic cops & in routine check they open your trunk of car, then you are in trouble.

2) Engine Swaps, i am not talking about big engine swaps but small ones like Zen with Esteem engine, it will be cheap & really fun on streets.

3) Turbo..No cheap

If you want Cheap,Fast & Reliable then just read my signature

Originally Posted by CPH

Anyhow the original poster has asked the question how to make his car faster to enjoy it a bit more than he does now.

Gurus, Just to clarify:
I got this thread up, as i wanted to learn more on weight reduction in cars.
As everyone knows, all your NOS, Turbos, SC's, Engine internal Mods will bump up your power substantially. What i wanted to stress here is that if you do a Stage 1 mod and also increase the weight if your car by adding Body kits, Spoliers, Bulky ICE components, Heavy Damping, Over sized Tires so on and so forth..The ultimate effect of stage 1 mod (Though marginal) may not be leveraged at all.

Though it may seem like plain common sense, not many of us actually are too keen in practising this common sense.

Just to state an example, Running on wrongly oversized tires may actually drop your top speed by a good 5 km and bring down your acceleration timings (0-100) by around 2 secs.
(No please dont jump on the fact part of this, i just gave a ballpark figure to stress the importance of weight reduction)

'Without Spending Much' is used here..to ..well, just to attract all Engine Gurus' attention to this thread (yup, as simple as that)

[CPH]

Originally Posted by Mi10

Just to state an example, Running on wrongly oversized tires may actually drop your top speed by a good 5 km and bring down your acceleration timings (0-100) by around 2 secs.
(No please dont jump on the fact part of this, i just gave a ballpark figure to stress the importance of weight reduction)

'Without Spending Much' is used here..to ..well, just to attract all Engine Gurus' attention to this thread (yup, as simple as that)

Many years ago I had to improve a 999cc small Italian race car weighing with driver about 755kg with about 70bhp. It was lapped in Donnington in the UK (being a fast track) 4 times in an average 20 lap race before it came to us. Tha fastest cars in the particular championship were Alfa Sud Sprints and Ferraris. They were leading us by 33 seconds a lap after increasing the power output to about 85bhp and loosing 40kg more of the car the lap times improved by over 17 seconds a lap. In other words we closed the gap by over 50% reducing it to a mere 15 seconds a lap. resulting in being lapped once (not far off twice).

The power improvement was not giving us even a third of the time. The main improvement was the weight reduction.

Of couse the straight line acceleration figures were not that much improved. But roads aren't straight in most occasions and traffic light starts are soon getting boring.

[Shan2nu]

Just to state an example, Running on wrongly oversized tires may actually drop your top speed by a good 5 km and bring down your acceleration timings (0-100) by around 2 secs.
(No please dont jump on the fact part of this, i just gave a ballpark figure to stress the importance of weight reduction)

Oversized might not be the right word here, since you're talking about weight alone. A bigger tyre with less profile and a light weight alloy can actually improve performance in a straightline.

It depends on the overall weight, rolling resistance and weight distribution of the wheel-tyre combo.

Many years ago I had to improve a 999cc small Italian race car weighing with driver about 755kg with about 70bhp. It was lapped in Donnington in the UK (being a fast track) 4 times in an average 20 lap race before it came to us. Tha fastest cars in the particular championship were Alfa Sud Sprints and Ferraris. They were leading us by 33 seconds a lap after increasing the power output to about 85bhp and loosing 40kg more of the car the lap times improved by over 17 seconds a lap. In other words we closed the gap by over 50% reducing it to a mere 15 seconds a lap. resulting in being lapped once (not far off twice).

This reminds me of an incident a few years ago.

I was driving the OHC VTEC and following my uncle who was in a 800cc Matiz. I was running 175mm tyres while he had 165s. On the twisties i noticed that i was finding it hard to keep up with him. That car was taking corners so comfortably and i was understeering all the way. So whatever power or rather, power to weight advantage i had over the other car on the straights was of no use when i came to going around corners. His tyres were just 10mm smaller than mine but due to the light weight of the car, he was able to corner at a higher G force.

If a particular car weighing 1000kgs corners at 1G with a particular tyre size and compound, it means the tyres can hold upto 1000kgs of lateral force. Now if this same car was 500kgs, the traction limit of the tyres would still be 1000kgs but that would mean that the 500kg version of that car could therotically go upto 2Gs, before it starts sliding (considering weight dist and COG is the same on both cars).

Shan2nu

[CPH]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

If a particular car weighing 1000kgs corners at 1G with a particular tyre size and compound, it means the tyres can hold upto 1000kgs of lateral force. Now if this same car was 500kgs, the traction limit of the tyres would still be 1000kgs but that would mean that the 500kg version of that car could therotically go upto 2Gs, before it starts sliding (considering weight dist and COG is the same on both cars).

Shan2nu

This would be correct as long as full tyre cantact is assured, which depends on the centre of gravity.

[Shan2nu]

This would be correct as long as full tyre cantact is assured, which depends on the centre of gravity.

Thats why i've mentioned that both cars have similar weight dist and COG. So basically both cars are identical in every way, only diff being the weight of the car.

Shan2nu

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Oversized might not be the right word here, since you're talking about weight alone. A bigger tyre with less profile and a light weight alloy can actually improve performance in a straightline.

It depends on the overall weight, rolling resistance and weight distribution of the wheel-tyre combo.

Shan2nu

Agreed Sir. But i never used the word Oversized. I had mentioned it as 'wrongly' oversized tires.

[Shan2nu]

Agreed Sir. But i never used the word Oversized. I had mentioned it as 'wrongly' oversized tires.

That again depends on what you mean by wrongly oversized.

If i take a 195/60 R14 on steel rims and replace it with a 205/45 R15 on alloys, does that count as a wrongly oversized tyre?

Shan2nu

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

That again depends on what you mean by wrongly oversized.

If i take a 195/60 R14 on steel rims and replace it with a 205/45 R15 on alloys, does that count as a wrongly oversized tyre?

Shan2nu

I actually meant going overboard with tire sizes.(not with rims / alloys)
Say instead of 195/60/15" Alloys i opt for 225/45/16" Alloys, although your weight is said to remain more or less the same, the fact that more tyre area (width) is exposed to road surface which actually makes it prone to more traction.

More tire width >> More Road traction >> more power spent on rolling those

More tire height (side wall) >> more weight (rubber) >> more power need to pull weight

Hence choosing tires should be of optimum size and profile (I am not against upsizing, but just wanted to say upsize optimally).

[Shan2nu]

I actually meant going overboard with tire sizes.(not with rims / alloys)
Say instead of 195/60/15" Alloys i opt for 225/45/16" Alloys, although your weight is said to remain more or less the same, the fact that more tyre area (width) is exposed to road surface which actually makes it prone to more traction.

Oh that way. I thought wheel diameter.

Shan2nu

[Ford Rocam]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

This reminds me of an incident a few years ago.

I was driving the OHC VTEC and following my uncle who was in a 800cc Matiz. I was running 175mm tyres while he had 165s. On the twisties i noticed that i was finding it hard to keep up with him. That car was taking corners so comfortably and i was understeering all the way. So whatever power or rather, power to weight advantage i had over the other car on the straights was of no use when i came to going around corners. His tyres were just 10mm smaller than mine but due to the light weight of the car, he was able to corner at a higher G force.

Shan2nu

When i was working on suspension setup on my honda, what i observed is that OHC stock suspension setup is not optimum, especially the rubber components used in top section of strut, it tends to flex a lot.

now with different suspension & with custom camber plates, there are no rubber components on top section & with 2 deg negative camber its totally on a different level. The handling is rock solid on turns, i remember i have tested it on bandra reclamation turn with w.o.t on that bend, It was like running on rails. So i would say if we replace the rubber top section with some solid alternative you will see a huge improvement in handling even in stock suspension setup.

[nitrous]

^^ +1.
Stock strut mounts are always like that.
But solid strut mounts/ camber plates stress the struts, I feel.

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by Ford Rocam

When i was working on suspension setup on my honda, what i observed is that OHC stock suspension setup is not optimum, especially the rubber components used in top section of strut, it tends to flex a lot.

now with different suspension & with custom camber plates, there are no rubber components on top section & with 2 deg negative camber its totally on a different level. The handling is rock solid on turns, i remember i have tested it on bandra reclamation turn with w.o.t on that bend, It was like running on rails. So i would say if we replace the rubber top section with some solid alternative you will see a huge improvement in handling even in stock suspension setup.

Can you give more details about that? Or some reading material on what you've done? What tools were used and how were the camber plates cut? Can it be done with stock dampers? I'm planning on going with better suspension, though it's still a way off, so I'll read about it until then.