Ralley inlet

[Bedford126]

I think its needed as if he isnt talking utter s**t he is telling people they cut there fingernails short or that fully trained mechanics and mot testers that they dont have a skill to there profession. Yet he measures his 0-60 time using his speedo gauge and a mobile phone stop watch. This thread is just full of fail's

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Having owned two saxos and a 106, in my experience the clocks are almost always out.
Mine have been out 4-7mph.

In my current 106, the clocks are out by about 5mph and thats going by the satnav and I doubt that it bang on to be honest.

Having seen the video, it does look like about 8 seconds but if you take into account the inaccuracies of both the Saxo clocks and the timings on the device you measured it on, I would say its more like 9 seconds.

At the end of the day, you own a 1.4 Saxo
It's hardly cool to be bragging about the 0-60 times, who gives a shit
Oh, my cock is bigger than yours btw....I measured it and it is definitely 25 inches!

I'm only going to reply to this one, as you seem not to be able to read. There are no inaccuracies with the device I have recorded on. It is a digital video as I stated already, they are time marked in hunderedths of a second, you can see that when you use an editing package. Even if there were inaccuracies why do they have to favour your argument? they could be overstating the elapsed time.

Secondly I know the speedo might be overreading slightly. Believe it or not I have come across that concept before. Surprised that its as much as 5 mph at 60 but then it would be if I have disagreed with you abour car insurance. But like I said I will report back on gps. But it IS 8 seconds. It is over a second elapsed before the car starts moving. Official 0-6 times are tripped from first movment and don't include driver reaction time. And it hits 60 at 9 seconds elapsed on the video. Get an editing package and I will send vid by email. I can also get it lower with pactise and post another vid.

But this thread is interesting again from the angle of mass delusion, and how people carry on believing what they want to believe even when evidence to the contrary. It is because they 'want' to believe. I put you lot in the same category as believers in religeon. They are usually based upon some bloke that does impossible things, like float up from a mountaintop, or walks on water. You will happily worship something that can't be seen and defies logic and will actually kill each other for your beliefs. Look how upset some of you have become. "My 16v will trounce yours on a track, cry cry"

[Bedford126]

yet you ask our advice on how to fit the rallye inlet to a 1.4 who is the real dreamer?

As for the rest of the shite you just said if you don't like this site so much why keep coming back to it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by -shuggles-

60ish bhp? I am sure I have seen gypsys with more pony's?

Another fail for Shuggles. All 1.4 Saxes are supposed to be 75hp. But why should you think the later ones are better? The early model Saxos have the best styling and are slighly faster. The Earlier Xsi's were rated at 100hp.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by bedford126

yet you ask our advice on how to fit the rallye inlet to a 1.4 who is the real dreamer?

As for the rest of the shite you just said if you don't like this site so much why keep coming back to it?

Wht is wrong with asking for Sax technical advice on a Sax board? You talk utter carp. And wev'e already been over the mechanics issue before why bring it up again if you are not trolling?

[Bedford126]

because you blatantly have no idea. you were told the correct way to fit the inlet yet you decide its easier to do it your way. why ask when after all you know everything about everything and every one else has no opinion on the matter as they are just dreamers and deluded.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Meto

Getting your arse handed to you Railroader??

I actually think you are a troll, but you are doing it in such a way that draws minimum attention to yourself, credit to you for that.

As for the video, I think you are going downhill, purely based on when you change gear, ie when you are not accelerating, the speedo still seems to be rising.

No Im not a troll it is genuine Sax discussion. It is a commonly known phenomenom that although all cars are made in the same factory, somethimes there is a Friday evening one and sometimes there is a Monday morning one. If I've got a little good 'un and am proud of it, what is wrong with that?

The vid is not going downhill, it was on the A6 just south of junction 6 M61 going north. I had just turned left off Dicconson Lane and there is no incline at all. I had the idea and did it there and then, in fact I think I eased off slightly at the end as I was approaching the roundabout and cars.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by bedford126

because you blatantly have no idea. you were told the correct way to fit the inlet yet you decide its easier to do it your way. why ask when after all you know everything about everything and every one else has no opinion on the matter as they are just dreamers and deluded.

I asked to gain information, I leaned that you need a diesel throttle cable. And there is always a better way to do things. If I got hold of a Ralley inlet I would look at the method described earlier, maybe do it that way or maybe do it my way, or some of each. I would'nt know until I got the thing. You sound like an opinionated bigot to be honest

[Bedford126]

Coming from the little man who thinks that mechanics is not a skilled trade ha!!

[titchster]

So, you're claiming your car is less than half a second slower to 60 than a VTS, yeah?


My old 106 was timed (with proper laser equipment, not a fucking stopwatch, or a phone, or any other shit) to 60 in 6.6 seconds (yes, I do harp on about it, i'm fucking proud), a standard VTS was a hell of a lot slower, so, let's say, even if you got fucking lucky, 7 dead for a standard VTS (anyone who knows anything knows they won't, not without a set of sticky rubber, R888s etc, in which case it's not standard). Yours is still, then only a second slower. Just think about that, the same car (hence, same weight, give or take), but 45bhp down, and it's a second slower?

My 106 wasn't that much lighter that it was half as quick again, on top of a standard VTS, with the same power.


Time it properly, or not at all. Hell, use a G TECH timer if you want to 'prove' us all wrong.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by titchster

So, you're claiming your car is less than half a second slower to 60 than a VTS, yeah?

My old 106 was timed (with proper laser equipment, not a fucking stopwatch, or a phone, or any other shit) to 60 in 6.6 seconds (yes, I do harp on about it, i'm fucking proud), a standard VTS was a hell of a lot slower, so, let's say, even if you got fucking lucky, 7 dead for a standard VTS (anyone who knows anything knows they won't, not without a set of sticky rubber, R888s etc, in which case it's not standard). Yours is still, then only a second slower. Just think about that, the same car (hence, same weight, give or take), but 45bhp down, and it's a second slower?

My 106 wasn't that much lighter that it was half as quick again, on top of a standard VTS, with the same power.

Time it properly, or not at all. Hell, use a G TECH timer if you want to 'prove' us all wrong.

I will happily borrow a Gtech timer but cant buy one as the electric bill needs paying. Secondly a 1.4i is 100kg lighter than a standard VTS, and the spare wheel is off. Thirdly I have no reason to disbelieve your time, did you have mods on it? Fourth it might be 45hp down on published figures but you only use peak HP momentarily most of the time its farther down the torque curve.

I cant understand this sentence so it must be my fault, sorry. "My 106 wasn't that much lighter that it was half as quick again, on top of a standard VTS, with the same power."

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by -shuggles-

-roll cages do help handling, the safety factor is massive too
- after market exhaust do help if they are a decent brand such a supersprint,btb ect

I've already said twice that quality aftermarket exhaust helps performance. Yet you make it out as though you are disagreeing with me. It might help if you went back to school to learn comprehension, in fact I have an English teachers qualification I will give you a discount, say £15 per hour.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by -shuggles-

you are not listening to what me and blackie where saying. standard clocks on a saxo are rubbish! everybody on here would agree, how do you know you are accurate at getting the starting and finished time accurate also? you could be late or early by half a second. you wont get any extra power from doing that to you'r car, you might get it back to factory spec but it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

Didn't notice this earlier. You are quite evidently clueless. A vid gives you accurate start and finish times times because you can see it on the slider bar.

And you can get extra power by doing that thats why I have done it. When I go to the scrapper I have pulled sensors of other cars and have tried them, and a different throttle body. I know the car so well I can tell the difference in running with different temp sensors which are supposed to be the same. I put a lambda on from a different car entirely, and gained MPG as well as top end.

[titchster]

Originally Posted by Railroader

I will happily borrow a Gtech timer but cant buy one as the electric bill needs paying. Secondly a 1.4i is 100kg lighter than a standard VTS, and the spare wheel is off. Thirdly I have no reason to disbelieve your time, did you have mods on it? Fourth it might be 45hp down on published figures but you only use peak HP momentarily most of the time its farther down the torque curve.

I cant understand this sentence so it must be my fault, sorry. "My 106 wasn't that much lighter that it was half as quick again, on top of a standard VTS, with the same power."

Basically, you're saying your car runs 8s to 60. I was saying that even IF a stock VTS managed 7s to 60 (which, in reality, it probably wouldn't), then that would mean that the extra 45bhp has given it roughly a second quicker time, for mine to have the same power, and then be almost half a second quicker again, it'd have to be a hell of a lot lighter than the VTS, which, whilst it had lots removed, it wasn't that much lighter, hell, it was only really half a second quicker over a 1/4 mile.

This is before we even start to mention where a VTR, which is between yours and a VTS would run to 60. Because, they sure as hell don't run mid 7s to 60.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by titchster

Basically, you're saying your car runs 8s to 60. I was saying that even IF a stock VTS managed 7s to 60 (which, in reality, it probably wouldn't), then that would mean that the extra 45bhp has given it roughly a second quicker time, for mine to have the same power, and then be almost half a second quicker again, it'd have to be a hell of a lot lighter than the VTS, which, whilst it had lots removed, it wasn't that much lighter, hell, it was only really half a second quicker over a 1/4 mile.

I'm still struggling to understand what you're on about. Was your 106 an XS? Thats a 1.6 8 valve? or the GTi? I presume it had been tuned to get to 6+ seconds, I asked earlier about mods but you didnt reply. The stock VTS is supposed to be 7.8secs? and your's was a bit lighter with more power so it was a second quicker? Thats all logical.

Whats not logical is how my supposedly 75hp Sax does 8 seconds when its only 100kg lighter. I said at the beginning that its faster than it should be and I really cant explain it. But the evidence is there to see, even with speedo error.

[titchster]

Sorry, didn't see the question about mods. Yes, it was an XS, but it was 16v'd. Power wise, it was a little bit more powerful, exhaust and induction, that's it. Despite rolling road figures (one said 119bhp est@fly, one said 142bhp est@fly), real world, you're looking 10bhp tops.


Book figures for my car said 895kg, VTS is 950kg IIRC, so, say I was 850kg, since the seats and plastics don't really weigh as much in these as they do in others.
So, that'd make a stock VTS ~128.34bhp/ton. And my 106 ~155.40bhp/ton. So, that's ~1.2s quicker to 60.

Your 1.4, you say is ~100kg lighter than a VTS, and is 45bhp down. Which equates to 89.65bhp/ton.

VTS: 128bhp/ton
My 106: 155bhp/ton
Your Saxo: 89bhp/ton

So almost 30bhp/ton more than a VTS in mine gains me ~1.2s, and 66bhp/ton more in a VTS than your 1.4 gains 0.2 of a second. Even taking into account different gear ratios, the wind blowing the opposite direction, polar shift, and someone having a chat, that just doesn't add up. If we consider there could've been more weight out of my car, that'd put an even bigger gap between me and a VTS, power to weight wise.


See what i'm saying?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by titchster

Sorry, didn't see the question about mods. Yes, it was an XS, but it was 16v'd. Power wise, it was a little bit more powerful, exhaust and induction, that's it. Despite rolling road figures (one said 119bhp est@fly, one said 142bhp est@fly), real world, you're looking 10bhp tops.


Book figures for my car said 895kg, VTS is 950kg IIRC, so, say I was 850kg, since the seats and plastics don't really weigh as much in these as they do in others.
So, that'd make a stock VTS ~128.34bhp/ton. And my 106 ~155.40bhp/ton. So, that's ~1.2s quicker to 60.

Your 1.4, you say is ~100kg lighter than a VTS, and is 45bhp down. Which equates to 89.65bhp/ton.

VTS: 128bhp/ton
My 106: 155bhp/ton
Your Saxo: 89bhp/ton

So almost 30bhp/ton more than a VTS in mine gains me ~1.2s, and 66bhp/ton more in a VTS than your 1.4 gains 0.2 of a second. Even taking into account different gear ratios, the wind blowing the opposite direction, polar shift, and someone having a chat, that just doesn't add up. If we consider there could've been more weight out of my car, that'd put an even bigger gap between me and a VTS, power to weight wise.


See what i'm saying?

Yup I know what you mean. Its says 935kg for a VTS here. The obvious answer is that my Sax produces more than 75hp and as I described earlier, peak hp is not a factor in all of the timed seconds, only part of them. As you change gear you ride up the torque curve and as it hits peak hp rpm or just past it, you change gear again.

Also maybe Im as Im so used to the car I can change gear so fluidly it makes a difference, somebody said ealier that they thought it was going downhill.

[Gareth_R]

Saxo clocks never under read, always over, so yes the inaccuracies work in our favour not yours

Also your method for working out the possible time difference based on a 2% inaccuracy is flawed as you have done it based on linear acceleration, when a car is far from it,

Plus, it's probably clear that the time stated on the video I.e 9 seconds elapsed or whatever, is accurate. What is inaccurate is what the video is viewing, for the reasons above.

You wont be the first Internet warrior to say their paxo has the fastest acceleration ever oh my godz I must have some special limited edition with 400 bhp and you won't be the last. For some reason you are one of the most persistent though and that inability to listen to the argument put to you and actually respond in a way that isn't 'omg you iz so deluded' makes you look like a tool

[-shuggles-]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Didn't notice this earlier. You are quite evidently clueless. A vid gives you accurate start and finish times times because you can see it on the slider bar.

And you can get extra power by doing that thats why I have done it. When I go to the scrapper I have pulled sensors of other cars and have tried them, and a different throttle body. I know the car so well I can tell the difference in running with different temp sensors which are supposed to be the same. I put a lambda on from a different car entirely, and gained MPG as well as top end.

I am clueless? you have a cheek calling anybody clueless get a grip and stop thinking your saxo with upgraded sensors can make a difference haha

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by -shuggles-

I am clueless? you have a cheek calling anybody clueless get a grip and stop thinking your saxo with upgraded sensors can make a difference haha

I see you got up early to read the thread? lol. But what point is there at all replying? Of course sensors make a difference you prat. The best Lambda to buy is the Bosch one its been on here many times. The one I gleaned from another car [not Saxo] gives 10 more miles from 10 litres sometimes.