Xj-s trans am

grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/06/jags-xj-s-trans-yank-tank/

This thing needs about an extra 200bhp, and should probably be an epic.

The article above is about the specific car in the photograph.

Comments

  • ThatPorscheGuyThatPorscheGuy Posts: 358 ✭✭✭
    http://www.speedhunters.com/2014/06/jags-xj-s-trans-yank-tank/

    This thing needs about an extra 200bhp, and should probably be an epic.

    The article above is about the specific car in the photograph.
    For it to be epic the 0-60 would need to be about 4-4.5 seconds stock, idk if it gains that much but I might be wrong.
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Four second 0-60 seems plausible with 525bhp.
  • ThatPorscheGuyThatPorscheGuy Posts: 358 ✭✭✭
    Four second 0-60 seems plausible with 525bhp.
    That should get it to about 23rq I think 
  • juan_cruz_96juan_cruz_96 Posts: 238 ✭✭✭
    Comparing it with the Abarth 030, the jag should go up to RQ 22... If Hutch accepts this corrections, of course. 
  • ThatPorscheGuyThatPorscheGuy Posts: 358 ✭✭✭
    With a 0-60 of 5.0 it should be about 20rq 
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it just me or does 5s seem awfully conservative for 525 bhp on a slick rubber race car?
  • ThatPorscheGuyThatPorscheGuy Posts: 358 ✭✭✭
    Is it just me or does 5s seem awfully conservative for 525 bhp on a slick rubber race car?
    It does weigh a lot tho, just look at some mercs and it should be a decent comparison.
  • hajduk_fanhajduk_fan Posts: 358 ✭✭✭
    Is it just me or does 5s seem awfully conservative for 525 bhp on a slick rubber race car?
    isn't torque more important for acceleration while horsepower is more important for top speed?

    btw, 525bhp was for 1976 version, the 1978 one (which is in game) had 580bhp: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a23617434/1976-jaguar-xjs-trans-am-race-car-for-sale/

    "The suspension was modified to fit those massive wheels and tires, and by the time the 1978 season started, the engine had been upgraded to 580 horsepower thanks to reworked camshafts and heads."
  • mikesmikes Posts: 4,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    thanks for the link @hajduk_fan. It has been added to the list.
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it just me or does 5s seem awfully conservative for 525 bhp on a slick rubber race car?
    isn't torque more important for acceleration while horsepower is more important for top speed?

    btw, 525bhp was for 1976 version, the 1978 one (which is in game) had 580bhp: https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/a23617434/1976-jaguar-xjs-trans-am-race-car-for-sale/

    "The suspension was modified to fit those massive wheels and tires, and by the time the 1978 season started, the engine had been upgraded to 580 horsepower thanks to reworked camshafts and heads."
    Bloody hell.  I hadn't quite clocked the size of those tyres until I saw this.
  • TD42792TD42792 Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Used to own a facelift v12 6.0L xjs from 1992.
    So beautiful, so wafty, loved it. I miss it sometimes.
    Kingfisher blue, best color in my eyes
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So the twr XJS looks at first glance like it should be less potent than the trans am version.  Will try and do done more research today....

    https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/txt/4670/2/Jaguar-XJ-S-TWR-Group-A.html
  • hillclimberhillclimber Posts: 2,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 30
    isn't torque more important for acceleration while horsepower is more important for top speed?
    that's more some kind of an explanation you would give to your gf.

    Power = Force x velocity 

    Since you have in a combustion engine never torque without rotation, you could say it doesn't make much sense to distinguish the two. When people speak of power and torque they mean peak power and peak torque. And that brings us closer to the answer. For good acceleration you need a wide gap between the two. for illustration:


    the ~62Nm @ ~1400 rpm result in 70kW available between 3000-4800 rpm

    very different to the power diagram of a kart engine.

    The small gap between peak torque at 6100 rpm and peak power at 6450 rpm leads to a tight speed range.

    BUT you can compensate with the right gearing and the right gearbox.

    so some might not like to hear that but torque alone doesn't say anything (❁´◡`❁)

    Post edited by hillclimber on
  • hillclimberhillclimber Posts: 2,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Do we know how the XJ-S from 1978 (RQ17) distinguish to the XJS TWR from 1982 (RQ25)? 
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 30
    Do we know how the XJ-S from 1978 (RQ17) distinguish to the XJS TWR from 1982 (RQ25)? 
    It should have more bhp for a start ... 580 for the rq17, most of the things I've read say 500 for the 82, but given that it's a race car there's no definitive spec that's "right".

    Having said that it's clear to me that the rq17 shouldn't be that low and is woefully under egged.
  • hillclimberhillclimber Posts: 2,221 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2
    Do we know how the XJ-S from 1978 (RQ17) distinguish to the XJS TWR from 1982 (RQ25)? 
    It should have more bhp for a start ... 580 for the rq17, most of the things I've read say 500 for the 82, but given that it's a race car there's no definitive spec that's "right".

    Having said that it's clear to me that the rq17 shouldn't be that low and is woefully under egged.
    so @grandvache , they are both purely race cars.

    The XJ-S Trans Am was used with great success in the Trans Am Series '78. 
    https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/txt/5589/2/Jaguar-XJ-S-Group-44.html
    560-580 bhp to 1360 kg.

    While the XJ-S TWR was used in the European Touring Car Championship Group-A in the season 1982 with good outcome.
    https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/4670/Jaguar-XJ-S-TWR-Group-A.html
    450-500 bhp to 1400 kg and most likely smaller tires, all due to much tighter regulations. 

    The the XJ-S Trans Am was brought to the game in a dark ara B.C.C.C.* IIRC as a RQ15. Now with the XJ-S TWR brought in as a direct comparison hutch would have to nerf the TWR and lift the Trans Am above to remain the hierarchy and their credibility🤦🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏿‍♂️
    *before the Car Correction Council
    Post edited by hillclimber on
  • grandvachegrandvache Posts: 2,104 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 18
    @mikes you don't get any feedback or updates from hutch on these do you?  

    I get that this is a difficult one to "fix" as it's such a dramatic upgrade, but I really don't see how the trans-an can be anything other than an rq 26 or even a 27, and it would be nice to know of I was just tilting at windmills.

    I wonder if it's possible to find old lap times from those 1980's races? I'm convinced the trans-am should be stronger than the twr.
  • lukec436lukec436 Posts: 122 ✭✭✭
    I'm expecting them to give it the proper power, however at the cost of handling, so as to prevent too much of a drastic change. I can definitely see this going to UR in the near future, however to ask it to go to A is a little much, no matter how much we want it.

    but hey, we can hope
  • Benbenx2Benbenx2 Posts: 194 ✭✭
    Anyone noticed it’s a 4 seater. It should be just the 1.

  • HeissRodHeissRod Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Noted for seat correction.
Sign In or Register to comment.