Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Was on the xr6T forum today. They were comparing the new F6 with the w427. There speculating the F6 will have around 600nm of torque and about 320-330kw, compared to the w427 with 370kw and 650nm? torque. the F6 will probably cost 1/2 the price and may actually keep up with the w427.

Now I think the R35 doesnt weigh all that much less than the F6 and w427. It has less torque than both and its power figure sits in the middle of both.

Would it be reasonable to say that the F6 or the w427 could out accelerate the R35 if they were rolling and did not loose traction?

Im not too keen on anything with 7L but the F6 with launch control could be a ball tearer.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/210659-straight-line-performance/
Share on other sites

Was on the xr6T forum today. They were comparing the new F6 with the w427. There speculating the F6 will have around 600nm of torque and about 320-330kw, compared to the w427 with 370kw and 650nm? torque. the F6 will probably cost 1/2 the price and may actually keep up with the w427.

Now I think the R35 doesnt weigh all that much less than the F6 and w427. It has less torque than both and its power figure sits in the middle of both.

Would it be reasonable to say that the F6 or the w427 could out accelerate the R35 if they were rolling and did not loose traction?

Im not too keen on anything with 7L but the F6 with launch control could be a ball tearer.

There was a comparison on the LS1 forums and the outcome of that discussion was that the R35 is quicker to 100 and down the quarter than it by a fair whack. So in short, in a straight line at least, no those cars couldn't keep up.

Well hard to say, I dont really know what both of the local offerings will hit the scales at. I know the GTR is heavy but it does make as much as the 427...I would still tip the Skyline to be a bit quicker.I believe one of the latest motor magazines compares some 427 holden against BMW and Merc.This car was tested making 400 kw ( according to the magazine )..it was quicker than both, but it only ran a 12.8 according to their tests..I am not sure this is the same car as HSV is building ( Maybe an aftermarket job ) but a 12.8 ..? I was expecting a low 12 or high 11 ...Dont really know much about what Ford is building. Potential is there to be fast..who knows

There's probably enough literature and automotive tests on w427 and the R35 (japanese version) to make a punt on who'd come out quicker. But then again, it's not really a fair comparison as the R35 has two less doors and is built ground up as a competitor to the Porsche 911.

There was a comparison on the LS1 forums and the outcome of that discussion was that the R35 is quicker to 100 and down the quarter than it by a fair whack. So in short, in a straight line at least, no those cars couldn't keep up.

i would have thought this would be due to traction. i have a feeling if they were rolling and had no traction loss these cars would keep up.

Was on the xr6T forum today. They were comparing the new F6 with the w427. There speculating the F6 will have around 600nm of torque and about 320-330kw, compared to the w427 with 370kw and 650nm? torque. the F6 will probably cost 1/2 the price and may actually keep up with the w427.

Now I think the R35 doesnt weigh all that much less than the F6 and w427. It has less torque than both and its power figure sits in the middle of both.

Would it be reasonable to say that the F6 or the w427 could out accelerate the R35 if they were rolling and did not loose traction?

Im not too keen on anything with 7L but the F6 with launch control could be a ball tearer.

No way will the F6 come out with 320+kw, try 300...and no they won't compete with the GT-R.

i would have thought this would be due to traction. i have a feeling if they were rolling and had no traction loss these cars would keep up.

The W427 and Typhoon will both be using either manuals or torque converting autos. Even if all else was equal, they wouldn't keep up on that alone.

The 997 Turbo has the same power and less weight than the GT-R (and both are AWD with fat, soft, rubber), but as it doesn't have the instantaneous gearchanges the cars are line ball in a straight line. The two cars' manuals are nowhere near as smooth and easy to use as the Porsche's, so they'll be slower. If you got the autos, they're only marginally quicker than the manual cars.

Unfortunately, not all else is equal. The GT-R's aerodynamics are far better than the two sedans', so once you get up to speed the GT-R will still dominate.

Only if you're talking about an high-gear roll start at low speeds and the R35 is off-boost will the 7.0L Holden have a chance of winning.

I would have to say the GTR, namely

horsepower / weight similar?

traction superior

gearbox changes faster

launch control

For the Ford to be quicker,

- it needs to match the traction (i.e. not one of those dodgy systems where the car puts on the brakes to stop wheel spin in acceleration. So without AWD, and assuming a good TCS then it would need the right tyres to make up for this

- gearbox either needs as quick a gearchange or no change at all i.e. 1st gear all the way to 100km/hr

launch control or an ace driver to make up for the balance of revs/wheelspin without smokin' it or bogging down

So it might be possible with equivalent power/weight and an 'ace' driver to keep up / maybe win but then the GTR will have repeatable performance.

A guy I worked with modded his XR6T so it had 355hp at the rears and it used to freak him out, the traction control would cut in and slow the car down enough to make him think he was going to get t-boned! it shows that a RWD TCS is not really a match for an AWD

Also if you haven't seen this article from Edmunds, then it is not too bad a read - especially for Nissan fans

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/...rticleId=124017

A rolling start certainly doesnt take traction out of the equation

Lets think about that, based on my post that we're responding directly to Amir's question in the first post of this thread?

Would it be reasonable to say that the F6 or the w427 could out accelerate the R35 if they were rolling and did not loose traction?

(Emphasis added by me, spelling mistake is by him)

Would you care to revise your statement, given the context of his question?

Edited by scathing

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...