Hi All,
Still in a holding mode for testing.The temp is supposed to go in the 60,s & 70's here by the end of the week.I'll try some runs then to see how much diff the weather makes on my raw data.

Zman could you calculate an equivilent altitude for the folowing condtions?
altitude 525'
temp 39F
dew point 14F
barometer 29.97
Thanks in advance.

 

I think my altitude will be constant @ 15 feet. I see the waves lapping at my feet, although today there is a significant fire in my favorite spot.

 

Here you go. You still have a slight weather penalty--as you would expect.


Your results:
Air Temp 39 (?F)
Altimeter Setting 29,97 (in)
Dew Point 14 (?F)
Altitude 525 (Feet)
Density Altitude 423 (feet)

 

Great. Don't drive into either the waves or the fire. I have noted the 15 feet. No decent altitude adjustment for you.

 

....now watch out 5ers, the 6er is about to do itz thing

 

Yea, u may have missed it. Not sure if we discussed it here or in the longer thread. I actually had it in hand, went for first test and after a run or two to get calibrated it went tits up - no visible text. Had to wait for an RMA to return and then additional wait for them to get new meters in stock. I got the Gtech RR, just ONE of the meters Znod uses.

 

Hi Friends:

In a recent article, CD tested various performance meters, including g-meters. The test encompassed the two types currently being reported on in our forum--the Passport GT2 and the Tesla Pro RR. I decided to look closely at CD's accuracy results for the two meters. My results are approximate because CD's tables are very difficult to read.

CD comments that they used the out-of-the-box uncalibrated settings of the meters for their first four passes--which they subsequently averaged. Then, they "tinkered with [the meters'] available settings and averaged four more passes." They used the timing lights at the Gainesville Florida drag strip to calibrate the meters. In this regard, they also tested their $11,800 VBOX GPS performance device--which CD uses in collecting performance data for its road tests.

Uncalibrated:
1/4 Time.................Car 1 (I ignore car 2 because of incomplete results.)
GT2....................... .30 low
Pro RR................... .06 high
VBOX..................... .02 low (The VBOX does not require calibration.)

Calibrated:
1/4 Time................Car 1
GT2....................... .03 high
Pro RR................... .05 low
VBOX..................... .01 low

Comparing the uncalibrated and the calibrated results for 1/4 time suggests that the Pro RR does better uncalibrated and that the two meters produce essentially indistinquishable results after calibration. In this regard, calibration appears to have improved the ET measuring ability of the GT2 significantly, while it did little for the Pro RR.

Uncalibrated:
1/4 Speed.............Car 1
GT2..................... 1.50 high
Pro RR................... .50 low
VBOX.................... .02 high

Calibrated:
1/4 Speed.............Car 1
GT2...................... .50 low
Pro RR.................. .50 high
VBOX.................... .02 high

Now, comparing the uncalibrated and the calibrated results for 1/4 speed suggests that the Pro RR again does better uncalibrated and that the two meters produce essentially indistinquishable results after calibration. In this regard, calibration appears to have improved the speed measuring ability of the GT2 significantly, while it did little for the Pro RR.

The above observations suggest that it may be more important to calibrate a GT2 than a Pro RR. Also, note that both meters appear to perform well in relation to the VBOX after calibration--with the Pro RR also performing well in this context before calibration. So, from an overall perspective, it appears that g-meters can provide us with highly accurate results.

Note that calibration may be desirable for both meters in testing 545i's, 550i's, etc. with sport packages because of their relatively stiff suspensions (i.e., Car 1 did not have stiff suspension). The GT2 manual provides settings which worked well for Escort when testing their meters on a variety of cars. The GT2 examples include the C5 Z06. Thus, I had ready made settings for my Z06/GT2 combination--which I adopted for use with my Pro RR. The GT2 examples also included enough cars that a reasonable basis for inferring settings that should apply well to 545i's and 550i's could be identified--which I also adopted for use with my Pro RR.

 

Hi Friends:

For now, we have decided to report our results in post #1 adjusted to an altitude of 500' rather than to sea level (0') to allow for more real-world comparability, including enhanced comparability with the big-three US magazine results (for which the altitudes are unknown). Like two of the magazines we continue to adjust for weather. All results in post #1 now have been adjusted as needed for the altitude change.

 

Still an average of under 5!!!!! thats scary! I'm so curious of the 550s times. Hope they're close. That way I can justify being happy with a measily 545

 

Yep, still below 5. But, remember, I have had many, many 0 to 60 runs that don't adjust to below 5. In fact, as implied by post #1 of this thread, I have had only 3 runs that adjust to below 5.

I want the 545i's to be faster given the nasty trick BMW played on us with its stealth introduction of the 550i. I don't think we will ever know much about relative quickness of the two cars, however, unless some of us start testing 550i's. Same with SMG's and manuals versus Steps. I don't think the magazines are likely to provide as good an answer as we could through conscientious testing.