TC-SST only handles 331 lb-ft
Dec 3, 2008, 04:20 PM
#33
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a lot of guys not digesting this info too well. The modding is going to be tough on the RA, at least for now. TTP did a great job extracting what they can, but overall it is going to be modest at best. About 10% gains. Not bad, but with the SST it will not be a beast.
Dec 3, 2008, 04:21 PM
#34
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Pgh, PA to Orl, FL
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a lot of guys not digesting this info too well. The modding is going to be tough on the RA, at least for now. TTP did a great job extracting what they can, but overall it is going to be modest at best. About 10% gains. Not bad, but with the SST it will not be a beast.
Dec 3, 2008, 04:54 PM
#35
Evolved Member
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 places
Posts: 1,245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know they are different, i was questioning your reply to LuDa's pos where he states (assuming its a fact) that lancers with cvt could hold 350lb-ft so why shouldnt lancer ralliart with sst? From it, i dected that you feel that CVT transmissions can hold more torque than SST, why dont you expand on that?
Last edited by pltek; Dec 3, 2008 at 04:58 PM.
Dec 3, 2008, 04:55 PM
#36
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MD
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see a lot of guys not digesting this info too well. The modding is going to be tough on the RA, at least for now. TTP did a great job extracting what they can, but overall it is going to be modest at best. About 10% gains. Not bad, but with the SST it will not be a beast.
I think the information is being digested clearly, but the reaction doesn't have to be OMG 265 LB-FT of torque is the highest we'll ever see out of an SST RA EVAR!
Dec 3, 2008, 05:14 PM
#37
i know they are different, i was questioning your reply to LuDa's pos where he states (assuming its a fact) that lancers with cvt could hold 350lb-ft so why shouldnt lancer ralliart with sst? From it, i dected that you feel that CVT transmissions can hold more torque than SST, why dont you expand on that?
Dec 3, 2008, 05:31 PM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because the torque protection kicked in doesn't mean "that's it, it's over". Thread to thread you're sounding quite definitive that this is the end of RA tuning because of TTP's current results. If the MR transmission is capable of more, then anything is possible with the RA with money and the right people looking into it. It might not be cost effective, but someone will still do it.
I think the information is being digested clearly, but the reaction doesn't have to be OMG 265 LB-FT of torque is the highest we'll ever see out of an SST RA EVAR!
I think the information is being digested clearly, but the reaction doesn't have to be OMG 265 LB-FT of torque is the highest we'll ever see out of an SST RA EVAR!
My statements were WAY too hasty. Sorry.
Last edited by dboz; Dec 3, 2008 at 05:40 PM.
Dec 3, 2008, 05:59 PM
#39
Account Disabled
.
Dec 4, 2008, 06:40 AM
#45
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MD
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
