Does anyone have any proof that an SRA free's up HP (more efficient) than the IRS? Not looking for track times (which I know is really more important), but I'm looking for some dyno numbers if possible. Thx.
Does a solid axle free up HP?
- Thread starter THE_EVIL_TW1N
- Start date
I don't think so.... it could but it would be minimal...
SLEEPERSTATUS
Banned
dont see how it would bro.......maybe e/t times but not hp
some people say because an IRS has more joint/parts that there are more driveline losses. Personally, I think it's minimal as in less than 5 hp difference. But some people think it's more like ~2% or more.
The IRS is robbing you of valuable HP. Rip it out, put in an SRA and sell me your IRS for $50.00!!! ;-)
oke:The IRS is robbing you of valuable HP. Rip it out, put in an SRA and sell me your IRS for $50.00!!! ;-)
:lol:
LMAO!
The IRS is robbing you of valuable HP. Rip it out, put in an SRA and sell me your IRS for $50.00!!! ;-)
The IRS is robbing you of valuable HP. Rip it out, put in an SRA and sell me your IRS for $50.00!!! ;-)
NEVER!! I have your delrin bushings in there!!! :burnout: (what a bitch to install btw!!)
just trying to find out if it's a myth or not about the HP losses.
I have Bruce's full kit and love it!:beer:
I would say that since the half shafts have 2 flex points in each shaft there is some driveline loss there since it does rob some power at the joints.....similar to a driveshaft. However the power change from IRS to SRA is negligible, and likely can not even be quatified on a dyno.
Yes a SRA is more efficient than an IRS.
Yes a SRA is more efficient than an IRS.
That's what I'm thinking. It's probably so low, it's hard to even read since it's most likely within dyno variance.
Isn't it more about unsprung weight? This is from my website Terminator FAQ page.
As far as the rear suspension, there is much discussion about sprung* and unsprung* weight but the bottom line is that going to a solid rear will save another approximate 175 lbs.
* Here is some additional information concerning sprung and unsprung weight. The unsprung weight (or mass) has to do with the overall design/function of the suspension, and the materials used in the construction of suspension components. Solid rear suspensions, in which wheels on opposite sides are connected as a rigid unit, generally have greater unsprung weight than independent suspension systems, in which the wheels are suspended and allowed to move separately. Unsprung weight is brought up because how the two types of suspensions function (unsprung vs. sprung weight/mass) is as important as a weight savings. There are obviously tradeoffs with a solid rear that might negate the physical weight savings. And there are tradeoffs with the IRS if you're drag racing (wheel hop/weight transfer issues). Simply/generally stated (I am not anywhere near an expert in this area), sprung weight is everything from the springs up, and unsprung weight is everything from the springs down. Reducing unsprung weight is a key to increasing the car's performance, although the application factors in. Ie. drag racing vs. road racing. The greater the unsprung weight, the greater the inertia of the suspension, which will be unable to respond as quickly to rapid changes in the road surface, making an IRS setup more preferred for daily driving (driving on uneven road surfaces) or road racing. Here are a couple of interesting reads relative to sprung and insprung weight/mass.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_suspension]Independent suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight]Unsprung mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
As far as the rear suspension, there is much discussion about sprung* and unsprung* weight but the bottom line is that going to a solid rear will save another approximate 175 lbs.
* Here is some additional information concerning sprung and unsprung weight. The unsprung weight (or mass) has to do with the overall design/function of the suspension, and the materials used in the construction of suspension components. Solid rear suspensions, in which wheels on opposite sides are connected as a rigid unit, generally have greater unsprung weight than independent suspension systems, in which the wheels are suspended and allowed to move separately. Unsprung weight is brought up because how the two types of suspensions function (unsprung vs. sprung weight/mass) is as important as a weight savings. There are obviously tradeoffs with a solid rear that might negate the physical weight savings. And there are tradeoffs with the IRS if you're drag racing (wheel hop/weight transfer issues). Simply/generally stated (I am not anywhere near an expert in this area), sprung weight is everything from the springs up, and unsprung weight is everything from the springs down. Reducing unsprung weight is a key to increasing the car's performance, although the application factors in. Ie. drag racing vs. road racing. The greater the unsprung weight, the greater the inertia of the suspension, which will be unable to respond as quickly to rapid changes in the road surface, making an IRS setup more preferred for daily driving (driving on uneven road surfaces) or road racing. Here are a couple of interesting reads relative to sprung and insprung weight/mass.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_suspension]Independent suspension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight]Unsprung mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
If I were to ever do it (not that I ever would), I would do it only for the weight savings.
But I was just wondering about the power difference as in the *supposed* added driveline losses an IRS has vs. an SRA.
I have a thread in the market to trade my 03 SRA for an 03 IRS
When I traded out my old terminator IRS for my solid in I could definately tell a difference in weight savings, and it eliminated my wheel hop 100%. I did go from the stock 355 gears in the IRS to 373's in my solid but one step lower in gears wasn't what I felt. I could tell a nice performance gain when I put the solid in.
to clear it up I'm trying to get a SN95 SRA under my car now and I need an IRS to trade for one. I have an 03 SRA in now and my tire off sets are wrong b/c I have a SN95 body style.
When I traded out my old terminator IRS for my solid in I could definately tell a difference in weight savings, and it eliminated my wheel hop 100%. I did go from the stock 355 gears in the IRS to 373's in my solid but one step lower in gears wasn't what I felt. I could tell a nice performance gain when I put the solid in.
to clear it up I'm trying to get a SN95 SRA under my car now and I need an IRS to trade for one. I have an 03 SRA in now and my tire off sets are wrong b/c I have a SN95 body style.
Last edited:
I have a thread in the market to trade my 03 SRA for an 03 IRS
When I traded out my old terminator IRS for my solid in I could definately tell a difference in weight savings, and it eliminated my wheel hop 100%. I did go from the stock 355 gears in the IRS to 373's in my solid but one step lower in gears wasn't what I felt. I could tell a nice performance gain when I put the solid in.
to clear it up I'm trying to get a SN95 SRA under my car now and I need an IRS to trade for one. I have an 03 SRA in now and my tire off sets are wrong b/c I have a SN95 body style.
pretty much everything i did on mine...same experience too. Car feels lighter to a degree, absolutely NO wheel hop, acceleration with the 3.73's is nice too. Ive had 2 03-04 cobras and ive done SRA swaps on both of them....2nd favorite mod of all, right behind the twinscrew.
Good post. Absolutely no wheel hop is right. If you don't upgrade the stock control arms the axle could wheel hop still. With upgraded control arms, wheel hop will NEVER be an issue. Hell it really wasn't an issue with the stock ones though. I have upgraded shocks too, and the SRA handles really nice.
Went from 11.3 to 10.66 . . . It made a huge difference . . . highly recommend it :beer:
same set up? same tires? same launching? all you changed was the IRS
different tires. . . but only picked up .03 tenths in the 60ft, 1.59 as to 1.62
I also changed from 3.55 to 3.73 . . . but I also went from a 26inch tire to a 28 inch. . . so they pretty much even out. . .
I did drop 145 lbs from the swap, as well as put some decent suspension under it, but as u can see in the 60, i haven't seen any benefits from it yet. . .
launching was diff, little more controlled. . . instead of WOT. . . then bail . . . LOL
Hey, as long as you never have to turn the steering wheel, go for it! ;-)
I get a kick out of people that say that. . . the differences between the two are not going to be noticeable enough for ANY average driver to notice . . . its like, .87 G to .90 G . . . MINIMAL. . . I think the car still handles great . . . and with all due respect, I don't think anyone on this site is good enough to see the differences on a track . . . there may be a few road course guys on here. . . and they can chime in if they have any experience with that . . .
:beer:
Mike
Users who are viewing this thread
