I decided to see how much HP my G-Tech would say I have. I punched in 3400 Pounds since the cars weights about 3200 + ME 160 and a 1/2 tank of gas(3400 LB may be a little conservitive). To my suprise the G-Tech said I have 218 HP! Keep in mind I was at the dyno a few weeks ago and my car put down 215 FWHP. So my G-Tech was only off by 3HP, since I dynoed I changed my filter too so that may be were I got the extra 3 HP


Now that I think back I tested my 95 max and the G-Tech said I had 172 HP and when I dynoed I had 173!


I figured I would just let you guys know that this thing is a pretty accurate, it may be off a few HP but it's pretty damn close!

 

<<<shakes head>>>

 

What are you shaking your head about

 

he's just upset that he cant break 200fwhp.

 

Most likely your reasoning.


I would attribute the G-Tech values to coincidence as well.

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but how does the G-tech work?

 

Do the test again today and see what it says.

 

There is no coincidence, only synchronicity - Carl Jung

Seriously, people have been using G-tech here for a long time to dial in performance. Isn't all of this - h.p., weight, speed - a matter of physics that is approximated mathematically? If the numbers were way off between the G-tech and dyno, I'd think something was wrong. After all, they are both machines to calculate the results fo a complex piece of machinery.

 

Off course...

 

Of course...

 

yah how does this thing work??? you just plug it in and go?

 

go to http://www.gtechpro.com/how.html it tells you all about how it works.

 

I think the main problem is that the Gtech is off in the 1/4 mile (I know because mine is). For 1/4mi the Gtech reads high on both the ET and mph. I haven't played with the hp reading, but I probably will someday. Emax how do you run the test? I know the mode to set it in, but do you have to start or end at a certain rpm?
-hype

 

When I would run mine I would do it from a top and then you get to around third gear or so and it takes the highest point you hit.

SuDZ

 

I was under the impression that starting from a roll was better because it doesn't skew the results as much as a stop. The less launching the better Maybe Emax can clarify.
-hype

 

I went 3/4 throttle through first and second and then I floored it all the way through 3rd gear. I would have done it in 4th but I don't feel very comfortable going 120 MPH on back roads

I'm going to go try it again right now and see what I get .

 

7digit number from what that website is saying its speed times acceleration times weight of the vehicle. I did that and it gave me a 7 digit number. What numbers do I take??? first three ??

 

213 this time.

 

the new G-tech is accurate to 1/100th of a second in the 1/4...

 

I doubt it. With all the extra factors related to a launch I don't see how it could be that accurate. Even though I'm sure it's better than the old version, it had better be accurate for its price tag
-hype

 

From my experience at the track and using G-tech. Take .4 and add it to the 1/4 time and 5 mph and it will be fairly accurate.

 

The G-tech is no doubt accurate in a laboratory setting, but obviously it's not gonna be accurate in its application. It's kinda like using a stopwatch to time your 0-60. The watch is 99%+ accurate, but the start and stopping of the watch may not necessarily coincide with when the car launched and hit 60.

I think what you say makes sense, because the G-tech can serve as some sort of reference. You gave some real live numbers to add to the g-tech figures.

 

I was just comparing data from what i got at the track to the G-tech. I also tested my dads old 740iL and got 14.8@99mph which is slight off if you check mag tests of that vehicle. I agree that G-tech is a great way to test the validity of mods, but true timing should be done at a track

 

Doesn't anyone understand how an accelerometer works? If the accelerometer is good enough (which it may not be, but it seem to be) the G-tech is going to be very accurate. All you have to do it integrate the acceleration to get velocity and integrate that again to get distance traveled. It's not rocket science, but with an accurate accelerometer the results are valid.

People have run g-tech's at the track and have show them to pretty much line up with the tracks numbers.

Stereodude

 

FWIW on my track times timed with my Gtech I subtract .2 and 3mph to get the actual numbers on my slips
-hype

 

My bad i meant subtract 5 mph and add .4 from your G-tech time: u should have a pretty accurate "Real" 1/4 time. This is how it was for mine. G-tech always seems to run high for the mph.

 

My friend's dad used it on his 500 hp FFR Cobra at the track, both 1/4 and Road and found it inaccurate. If you wanna know how fast ur car is take it to the track. Otherwise, its all speculation when using the G-tech.

 

Yep, I agree that some correction should be made. It's like I said, getting driving directions on the web. When you haven't a clue how to get somewhere, the directions are gonna get you there. But when you do a reality check and ask someone who's familiar with the destination, often they'll tell you a better way to go.

BTW I saw the new 740i in front of me today, some sort of dark blue. Looked a little different but mean as ****, whopping 18's, really sweet.

 

U mean 745i
I test drove one in January. It moved pretty well, but I-drive is the worst invention ever. My dad would have bought the one of the lot if it wasnt for I-drive. It was Black/Black with the optional 19s. Sweet @ss looking car!

 

IMO, G-Techs are for guys that are afraid to take it to the track. I've borrowed friend's G-Techs before, on and off the track, and I don't trust them. When I'm running 14.7-14.8@96mph it's saying I'm running 14.3-14.4@100mph+. The G-Tech takes your ending MPH in the 1/4 mile while the timeslip shows your average MPH over the last 60'. The 100mph might be accurate, but the ET isn't.

Oh, and I consistently get below 6 seconds 0-60


Dave

 

Tell us more about I-drive. What do you think about the Murano with 7-spd CVT? 7 seems too busy. Would us 5-spd'ers like clutchless?

My bad, yep, 745. The back looked SWEET but the front was let's just say different. But it seems every time a new Bimmer comes out it does "grow" on you. The 5th gen didn't for many of us IMHO.

Too much money on a car if you ask me but I love seeing them. Hey I think I won the 1st round of the golf pool today, I had Mickelson, McCarron, and Taturangi, for -13. Enough for an intake......hehehe

 

yo ethan i have the new g-teck i think...if you wanna try it out in a couple let me know, im having the vb mod put in on wen i think i have to make arangments so it goes down right...

 

The G-tech should be MORE accurate for your 1/4 mile speed than the track, since it shows actual speed at the end instead of averaging your speed over the last 60'; however, in practice, you'll get various errors when using the G-tech.
One error that you can't avoid is that your car (and the windshield to which the G-tech is mounted) tilts back when launching, introducing a small component of gravity to the acceleration the G-tech measures. That will contribute to reducing the 1/4 mile time and increase the final speed. It would be nice if the G-tech had a self-leveling swivel mount that could compensate for the rearward weight transfer during launch.

 

i have more fwhp than he does

 

i know. i just like busting your *****.

 

So the moral to this tale is to have your suspension set as firm as it can go (assuming it's adjustable, which most performance addicts will have ...)

 

or somehow hang the gtech from the ceiling.

 

That's an interesting idea. I wonder how much more accurate the gtech would be attached to my sunroof I guess the only problem is that you'd need an extension and you couldn't immediately see the numbers.
-hype