SC vs. HEMI - Let the TRASH talk begin!

[UselessPickles]

Here's simulated 0-60 mph times...

Stock:
7.59s

Magnuson:
5.49s

RIPP:
5.36s

6.4 Hemi:
4.62s

Prodigy:
4.81s

[Timmy]

Here's simulated 0-60 mph times...

Stock:
7.59s

Magnuson:
5.49s

RIPP:
5.36s

6.4 Hemi:
4.62s

Prodigy:
4.81s

I would love to see your 0-60 time Pickles and compare it to your calculations. 4.81s is just insane! Part of me is sitting here thinking, no way on earth are you going to see that, then the other part says, well... maybe so. I really would be shocked if you are below 5 seconds. An Audi S4 has a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds. That's a 6cyl with a supercharger on it producing 333hp that is geared for speed, weighs 3985 lbs (close to your weight) and has a drag coefficient of 0.30 compared to a Jeep somewhere north of 0.50 (stock.)

Drag Coefficient Comparison
Passenger Train 1.80
Ski jumper 1.20 - 1.30
Person (upright position) 1.00 - 1.30
Old Car like a T-ford 0.70 - 0.90
Tractor Trailer 0.96
Bike racing 0.88
JEEP Wrangler Modified 0.82 (stubby bumper, flat fenders, big-A tires ;-)
Brick Cube 0.80
JEEP Wrangler Stock 0.58 (stock)
Solid Hemisphere 0.42
Bird 0.40
Audi S4 0.30
Common Car like Open Vectra (class C) 0.29
Supersonic Fighter 0.016
Subsonic Transport Aircraft 0.012

[UselessPickles]

I would love to see your 0-60 time Pickles and compare it to your calculations. 4.81s is just insane!

I will refer you to this statement in my previous post

NOTE: I'm not claiming that my simulation will perfectly simulate the real world and make perfect predictions. Real world results depend on so many variable factors, human imperfection, etc. The goal of the simulation is not to accurately predict real-world results, but to compare relative real-world *potential* between different vehicles/configurations, using computerized perfection to remove the uncontrollable variables of the real world. This allows us to objectively/relatively compare stuff without arguing about whether the results were simply due to difference in driver skill, a bad launch, a poorly timed shift, bad weather conditions for traction, etc.

However, I do purposely use input (launch rpm, gear shift time) that seems reasonably attainable to get results that are reasonably close to what should be possibly in the real world. I definitely need to improve my launching skills before I can hope to approach the predicted results

Part of me is sitting here thinking, no way on earth are you going to see that, then the other part says, well... maybe so. I really would be shocked if you are below 5 seconds. An Audi S4 has a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds. That's a 6cyl with a supercharger on it producing 333hp that is geared for speed, weighs 3985 lbs (close to your weight) and has a drag coefficient of 0.30 compared to a Jeep somewhere north of 0.50 (stock.)

A couple things...

* Drag coefficient is not the full story of the vehicle's aerodynamic drag. A drag coefficient (Cd) only describes the shape, but not the size. The drag coefficient must be multiplied by the frontal area to get the drag-area coefficient (CdA), which is what is actually used in calculations to determine the force of aerodynamic drag. So the Wrangler has even a bigger disadvantage than you would expect from drag coefficients alone (compared to typical cars) due to its larger frontal area.

* Aerodynamic drag doesn't have a very big impact on 0-60 mph times. To illustrate this, I simulated the turbo Wrangler's 0-60 run as if it had the same aerodynamic drag as a 2006 WRX STi. The STi's CdA value I have is 0.694. That's less than half of the Wrangler's CdA of 1.762. The end result for a turbo Wrangler that is more than twice as aerodynamic than reality is 0-60 mph in 4.78s. That's only 0.03s faster. Power:weight ratio has a much larger impact on 0-60 times than aerodynamics, just because so much of the 0-60 mph run is spent at low speeds where aerodynamic drag is minimal.

* My Wrangler is almost exactly the same weight as the Audi S4 example, but with about 380 whp, compared to the S4's 333 whp. Given that power:weight ratio is the dominant factor in 0-60 mph times, the turbo Wrangler's simulated 4.81s vs the S4's 5.2s seems pretty reasonable.

[FLIPmeOVER]

Here's simulated 0-60 mph times...

Stock:
7.59s

Magnuson:
5.49s

RIPP:
5.36s

6.4 Hemi:
4.62s

Prodigy:
4.81s

Keep in mind, these numbers are with 3.21 geared 2 door wranglers. (probably).

Stripped down to bare bones.

real jeeps dont do those times.

Pickles turbo might. Thats a soft top 2 door right? What do you say pickles, can you do a 4.8 0-60?

[UselessPickles]

Keep in mind, these numbers are with 3.21 geared 2 door wranglers. (probably).

Stripped down to bare bones.

real jeeps dont do those times.

Pickles turbo might. Thats a soft top 2 door right? What do you say pickles, can you do a 4.8 0-60?

Yes, if you read one of my first posts in this thread, I lay out the exact conditions/assumptions. I based it on my Jeep (base model 2-door sport, manual trans, soft top, 3.21 gears, stock 29" tires, etc). I wouldn't say it's "stripped down", because I haven't removed anything. I'm even using a vehicle weight that includes a full tank of gas.

I also pointed out that it's not the exact numbers/times/results that are important here, but the relative differences. It gives a good indication of how each power mod performs compared to each other, all else being exactly equal (a comparison that is not likely to ever happen in the real world because of the huge variety in vehicle configurations for Jeeps).

I could re-run all the simulations with heavier Jeeps with bigger tires and different axle gearing, but that's a lot of work and I'm lazy :-p
I used the configuration of my Jeep because... well, that's how my Jeep is, so that's what I'm most interested in. I may be self-centered, but at least I'm sharing my findings

I'll take my Jeep to a drag strip this summer to see how close I can get to the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile predictions from my simulation.

BTW - You hurt my Jeep's feelings by implying it's not a "real" Jeep. It gets around off road just fine for my purposes:

[FLIPmeOVER]

Yes, if you read one of my first posts in this thread, I lay out the exact conditions/assumptions. I based it on my Jeep (base model 2-door sport, manual trans, soft top, 3.21 gears, stock 29" tires, etc). I wouldn't say it's "stripped down", because I haven't removed anything. I'm even using a vehicle weight that includes a full tank of gas.

I also pointed out that it's not the exact numbers/times/results that are important here, but the relative differences. It gives a good indication of how each power mod performs compared to each other, all else being exactly equal (a comparison that is not likely to ever happen in the real world because of the huge variety in vehicle configurations for Jeeps).

I could re-run all the simulations with heavier Jeeps with bigger tires and different axle gearing, but that's a lot of work and I'm lazy :-p
I used the configuration of my Jeep because... well, that's how my Jeep is, so that's what I'm most interested in. I may be self-centered, but at least I'm sharing my findings

I'll take my Jeep to a drag strip this summer to see how close I can get to the 0-60 mph and 1/4 mile predictions from my simulation.

BTW - You hurt my Jeep's feelings by implying it's not a "real" Jeep. It gets around off road just fine for my purposes:

I didnt mean your jeep wasnt a real Jeep. I mean that when the power mod companies give out those numbers, its not an unlimited rubicon they are using.

They are using the lighest possible jeep configuration. Wich almost all of us do not have. Got a hard top? those are not your numbers anymore. Got a 4 door? those are not your numbers anymore. Aggressive gearing? Not your numbers anymore.

Your jeep is plenty real. REAL FAST.