Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hello, just wondering what people think of the potential top speed of my car. i mean, i could get out on the highway and test my theory, but i figured this would be slightly more advisable.

R33 RB25det, pushing 240rwkw (perhaps more)

i havent got an a/m speedo. but theoretically, over 180, you can calculate the speed based on the rpm.

ie: 3000rpm in 5th = 120kmh approx.

so:7000rpm in 5th = 280kmh approx.

i know the car pulls very hard all the way to the redline in other gears, so im assuming it would do the same in 5th. but is 240kw at the wheels enough to make 280?

what do you think? also, is there anywhere in syd where you can do this stuff? im guessing wsid isnt long enough.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/211223-potential-top-speed/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As far as i know unless you change your gear/Diff ratios you could have 1000kw and your top speed will be the same as standard, youll just get there quiker :D

also if your running standard computer youll be speed limeted to 180kmh

when i *tested* this speed limeting, it stoped at 5000rpm and was doing about 20km per 1000rpm (if that makes sense)

my guestimate put top speed at about 220km at 7000rpm

i would love to test that also

with a power fc i would say 250 is easy said?

PFC stores top speed for each trip, got mine to 242, but could have gone a bit more (not on public roads obviously)

I recall there was quite a difference between PFC and speedo reading

also if your running standard computer youll be speed limeted to 180kmh

when i *tested* this speed limeting, it stoped at 5000rpm and was doing about 20km per 1000rpm (if that makes sense)

my guestimate put top speed at about 220km at 7000rpm

really? i am absolutely certain there is no limiting on my car, because, well lets just throw it out out there, i have already done at least 230. and that was when i only had 180rwkw.

now im not bragging or indicating that this behaviour is acceptable. im just including it for the sake of this discussion.

i feel the only thing preventing 280 would be wind resistance, ie: not enough power to overcome it.

really? i am absolutely certain there is no limiting on my car, because, well lets just throw it out out there, i have already done at least 230. and that was when i only had 180rwkw.

now im not bragging or indicating that this behaviour is acceptable. im just including it for the sake of this discussion.

i feel the only thing preventing 280 would be wind resistance, ie: not enough power to overcome it.

in that case yes more power would do the trick,

However standard jap computers are electronicly speed limeted to 180...

i belive this to be the case in all jap delivered nissans as my mates 180sx and another mates S14 is the same

unless you have an upgraded ECU i didnt think it was possible to get around it???

unless you have changed the gear box and that is some how changing the speed the ECU thinks you are doing???

i know when i did it (i have since grown out of this sort of behaviour) the speedo read past 180 probly more like 190 but the revs topped out at 5000rpm

more then likely inaccuracy of the speedo as such high speeds

really? i am absolutely certain there is no limiting on my car, because, well lets just throw it out out there, i have already done at least 230. and that was when i only had 180rwkw.

now im not bragging or indicating that this behaviour is acceptable. im just including it for the sake of this discussion.

i feel the only thing preventing 280 would be wind resistance, ie: not enough power to overcome it.

Well I know on mine, I belted through first, second, third, and fourth... about 6000RPM-ish in 4th and it just was like it couldn't go any quicker... The speedo was sayin' a little past the end (180). I'm told this is the limiter. I mean I was accelerating up and up to that point, then it just stopped revving any higher.

Well I know on mine, I belted through first, second, third, and fourth... about 6000RPM-ish in 4th and it just was like it couldn't go any quicker... The speedo was sayin' a little past the end (180). I'm told this is the limiter. I mean I was accelerating up and up to that point, then it just stopped revving any higher.

yeah thats sounds about right, it doesnt bounce or anything like that it just cuts off at 5000rpm

or in your case 6000rpm in 4th

i was on the motor way so didnt really hammer 4th all the way thru

yeah thats sounds about right, it doesnt bounce or anything like that it just cuts off at 5000rpm

or in your case 6000rpm in 4th

Yeah I'm in a N/A... so it's probably something to do with the different diff ratios...

hello, just wondering what people think of the potential top speed of my car. i mean, i could get out on the highway and test my theory, but i figured this would be slightly more advisable.

R33 RB25det, pushing 240rwkw (perhaps more)

i havent got an a/m speedo. but theoretically, over 180, you can calculate the speed based on the rpm.

ie: 3000rpm in 5th = 120kmh approx.

so:7000rpm in 5th = 280kmh approx.

i know the car pulls very hard all the way to the redline in other gears, so im assuming it would do the same in 5th. but is 240kw at the wheels enough to make 280?

what do you think? also, is there anywhere in syd where you can do this stuff? im guessing wsid isnt long enough.

KW does not equal top speed... as stated you could get the same top speed with 100kw it's the gearbox and diff configuration which governs your top speed.

and your 280kmh theory is based upon being able to redline in top gear which is extremely hard to do and would require a massive straight.

KW does not equal top speed... as stated you could get the same top speed with 100kw it's the gearbox and diff configuration which governs your top speed.

and your 280kmh theory is based upon being able to redline in top gear which is extremely hard to do and would require a massive straight.

yes what you have said is true. BUT what i was hoping to learn was whether 240rwkw is enough power to overcome the wind resistance and actually get to 280.

i can guarantee, say, 180 at the wheels, would not be enough to push 280kmh. the wind resistance is enormous at that speed. esp in a skyline with a fmic pushing into the air like sailboat in reverse. therefore the top speed of a 180rwkw R33 might be 240kmh, but a more powerful one...

240rwkw is another story, you can get past 200kmh in no time with that kind of powah! anyone who owns that much donk knows that. but im not going to try it on the road, because at 240kmh you travel a kilometre every 15 seconds... and at 280...well you would be going almost 3 times the speed of any other traffic. and most street tyres arent rated for that. (mine are, but they were $425 each)

so yeh, anyone with any actual knowledge or experience, maybe of driving on an airstrip? that would be cool.

This is such a squid topic :D

I've done 260kph with 110rwhp ...

... on a race track, in a controlled environment, no traffic, ambulance at the ready, on a well prepped and scrutineered machine (motorcycle of course), full protective clothing, and with alot of training and 20 years experience behind me.

Anything less is squid talk.

Edited by RubyRS4
This is such a squid topic :D

I've done 260kph with 110rwhp ...

... on a race track, in a controlled environment, no traffic, ambulance at the ready, on a well prepped and scrutineered machine (motorcycle of course), full protective clothing, and with alot of training and 20 years experience behind me.

Anything less is squid talk.

you make a good point,

however im assuming this topic is theoretical and in the name of sience and plan old interest in the 'what if' style

don't alot more factors come into this than whats been stated?

such as?

i think drag is the biggest one (but i have a gtr wing set at like 0deg lol). maybe mechanical limitations like driveshaft speed?

mate you could have no wind resistance at all and not be able to get to 280kph as it has been stated UNLESS YOU CHANGE GEARBOX AND DIFF RATIOS...........

what are you basing this on? in 5th gear, if the engine is doing 4000rpm at 160kmh, all logic would indicate that at 7000rpm the car will be doing 280kmh. and if you go into the redline, maybe 300kmh (power permitting).

is my speedo or tacho out of whack? im pretty sure in 5th the speeds are approx:

1000rpm - 40kmh

2000rpm - 80kmh

3000rpm - 120kmh

4000rpm - 160kmh

therefore, since its a directly proportional relationship:

5000rpm - 200kmh

6000rpm - 240kmh

7000rpm - 280kmh

im pretty sure my reasoning is correct. and the only thing preventing 280kmh is friction and drag.

hsc physics ftw!

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...