Calgary - random talk thread
New Member
Joined: 04-03-11
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Canada
my fogs are 8000k HID's. and that doesn't really sound like me but it has been known to happen lol. what time did this happen? my passenger headlight currently is 6000k and my driver side is the stock bulb because the stupid driver side HID decided it wanted to burn out again.
but in answer to your question, the only way to get to that whitish point is to go HID
but in answer to your question, the only way to get to that whitish point is to go HID
Ok, I give in.
New Member
Joined: 04-03-11
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Well I'd be willing to try the Hella's.. but I want my money back if they fail to satisfy me. I installed Hella's as my headlight replacements when I first purchased the car, and they sucked *****. Loved 'em on my Jeep, but not at all in my Cobalt.
Most people don't road race and haven't taken the FE3 to it's limit anyway, so you are only negligibly disadvantaged by not having the FE5; at the power levels an SC makes, you are not disadvantaged by having the F23, in fact you could argue it's an advantage cause you don't have to deal with the horribly short 1st and long 2nd in the F35. Just my take on it.
After a bit you get used to it. I really like the second gear in my car, and love first with traction haha, she really gets up and goes that geared down but it's easy to let the tires slip.
When I first got it I didn't even know what was going on when I hit it in first
.
Joel
When I first got it I didn't even know what was going on when I hit it in first
.Joel
Acey, I'm just not seeing it - lets look at the gear ratios;
Getrag F23
FDR: 3.84
1st: 3.58 (effective ratio of 13.75:1)
2nd: 2.02 (56% of prior gear; 7.76:1)
3rd: 1.35 (67% of prior gear; 5.18:1)
4th: 0.98 (73% of prior gear; 3.76:1)
5th: 0.81(M86)/0.69(MG3)
Rev: 3.31
Saab F35
SS/SC 'MU3'
FDR: 4.05
1st: 3.38 (effective ratio of 13.69:1)
2nd: 1.76 (52% of prior gear; 7.13:1)
3rd: 1.18 (67% of prior gear; 4.78:1)
4th: 0.89 (75% of prior gear; 3.60:1)
5th: 0.70
Rev: 3.17
SS/TC 'MC2'
FDR: 3.82
1st: 3.38 (effective ratio of 12.91:1)
2nd: 1.76 (52% of prior gear; 6.72:1)
3rd: 1.18 (67% of prior gear; 4.51:1)
4th: 0.89 (75% of prior gear; 3.40:1)
5th: 0.70
Rev: 3.17
FDR: 3.84
1st: 3.58 (effective ratio of 13.75:1)
2nd: 2.02 (56% of prior gear; 7.76:1)
3rd: 1.35 (67% of prior gear; 5.18:1)
4th: 0.98 (73% of prior gear; 3.76:1)
5th: 0.81(M86)/0.69(MG3)
Rev: 3.31
Saab F35
SS/SC 'MU3'
FDR: 4.05
1st: 3.38 (effective ratio of 13.69:1)
2nd: 1.76 (52% of prior gear; 7.13:1)
3rd: 1.18 (67% of prior gear; 4.78:1)
4th: 0.89 (75% of prior gear; 3.60:1)
5th: 0.70
Rev: 3.17
SS/TC 'MC2'
FDR: 3.82
1st: 3.38 (effective ratio of 12.91:1)
2nd: 1.76 (52% of prior gear; 6.72:1)
3rd: 1.18 (67% of prior gear; 4.51:1)
4th: 0.89 (75% of prior gear; 3.40:1)
5th: 0.70
Rev: 3.17
The whole issue has been that zoning is seemingly unobtainable, and that we already have a track that has the lease written up for many years to come - it's the city that's breaking the contract, and nothing to do with the operator;
but the city's been messing with the operator, has prevented him from being able to actually run the track as a business for several years now - this is why the conditions at the track have gone downhill...
Forget the numbers, how about actually driving the cars. First is usable in an F23 as far as parking lots and what not, the car won't be bouncing around and jerking all over the place. LSJ... not so much. In the LSJ it feels like you're at redline in 1st a fraction of a second after you've gone WOT. I've only spent ~5 minutes driving an LNF, but it was better than the LSJ.
Forget the numbers, how about actually driving the cars. First is usable in an F23 as far as parking lots and what not, the car won't be bouncing around and jerking all over the place. LSJ... not so much. In the LSJ it feels like you're at redline in 1st a fraction of a second after you've gone WOT. I've only spent ~5 minutes driving an LNF, but it was better than the LSJ.
In first gear both the SS/2.4 & SS/SC have virtually the same ratios;
both are at roughly 13.7 engine revolutions per axle revolution.
The SS/SC has a (whopping) 2% wider gear spread when going from first to second, than the 2.4, but thereafter the gear spreads are pretty much bang on...
and even with that 2% difference, the effective gear ratios are nearly bang on in second & third.
(or would you waste your time arguing that a fraction of a single engine revolution is going to be that noticeable?)
The TC would have felt different because there was less torque multiplication;
SC/2.4 = 13.7 engine rev per single axle revolution
versus
12.9 engine revolutions per single axle revolution.
even then it's not even one full engine revolution different...
Odds are your perceived transmission shortcoming are more over about the engine's powerband, and nothing more;
more gear = more torque multiplication
more engine torque = less gear needed
Q) Why do I waste my time on trying to explain this to you?
A) Because the I at css.net seem to regurgitate what they read, and in this case the falsehood that is being purveyed here is that the F35 isn't as good (for one reason or another) as the F23... simply put, this is BS.
The gear spreads are nearly identical, only the torque capacity has been rasied by roughly
but why even bother trying to further proove your point? ~ OBAG only wants an automatic CSS, which means she's sticking to an SS/2.4
I don't think the F35 is inferior. I just personally prefer the less tricky clutch/trans combo in the F23 cars. That 2% spreads translates to about 1 second more that you have wait before engaging 2nd in the course of normal driving. How much of that is attributable to the clutch, I don't know.
see right there... you completely lost me.
there's nothing "tricky"...
I simply have no retort to that seemingly absurd way of boiling down your preference of one transmission over another... bench race much?
there's nothing "tricky"...
I simply have no retort to that seemingly absurd way of boiling down your preference of one transmission over another... bench race much?
Banned
Joined: 02-07-11
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Originally Posted by soundjunky;umm, did you completely miss the current problem? ~ [B
ZONING[/B]
The whole issue has been that zoning is seemingly unobtainable, and that we already have a track that has the lease written up for many years to come - it's the city that's breaking the contract, and nothing to do with the operator;
but the city's been messing with the operator, has prevented him from being able to actually run the track as a business for several years now - this is why the conditions at the track have gone downhill...
The whole issue has been that zoning is seemingly unobtainable, and that we already have a track that has the lease written up for many years to come - it's the city that's breaking the contract, and nothing to do with the operator;
but the city's been messing with the operator, has prevented him from being able to actually run the track as a business for several years now - this is why the conditions at the track have gone downhill...
Take 1st up to 3k or so. To shift to second smoothly, you clutch in, shift to second, and then clutch out when the revs have fallen sufficiently for a smooth shift. What I'm saying is this time is longer in an LSJ than in an LE5 car.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-07
Posts: 16,180
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Alberta
and jon shhhhh don't tell anyone hahaha
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-07
Posts: 16,180
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, Alberta
ya as jonathon said the gap between 1st and 2nd in the 2 transmissions is really negliable. i'm sure the difference is more the flywheel and motor then the trans. IMO