Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i know they do come to life, those rb engines have MASSIVE potential. just dont judge all tx5's/mx6's the same. but like i sed, i got a few tricks up my sleeve for when i need to get away quick. it comes down to more than just power aswell. however, i think a skyline weighs a bit more than a tx5. but anywho, if u understood our cars, u would know about the torque of them. the kw's might be different, but the torque would be similar between a skyline and tx5 with the same mods. im over this, and hopefully I will open someones eyes when i race them on the street.

Hey guys,

Just like to introdce myself. I love my MX6... why? Because it costs less than half than your car does, and to me it has more features that make it a nicer car to drive and is a bit more unique than a fairly common Skyline. Especially where I live. But, I would still take a Skyline over a Commodore :)

Firstly, a stock MX6 was supposed to be about 106kw at the engine. However, ask any MX6 owner what they have their cars dyno at you will hear around 100kw+ at the wheels with engines that are 10 years old and completely stock!

Now my car has had the fuel remapped, boost at about 15psi etc etc... and I dyno at just less than 200hp ATW with about 230 ft/lb torque. Now, I know the torque figure is pretty high, in fact it is just less than a stock R32 at 260 (Nissan website). But this is why our cars are so quick off the mark. We have a lighter car than you, and also a 2.2L engine that is designed specifically for torque rather than HP, hence our horsepower peaks at about 5000rpm.

Now I have been in both cars, and I know how good your cars are. I'm not going to say I would beat a stock R32 or whatever, but I'll be quietly confident. Unless you have been in a MX6 with a decent amount of mods then you really can't comment.

Just thought I would emphasise that we are talking about a modded MX6 and a fairly stock R33.... so lets not get carried away with mods and stuff.

Also, here is a thread from a fairly well known forum about R33's... have a read of it.

http://board.performanceforums.com/forums/...2&highlight=r33

I look forward to replies.

Tripharn

omg there ganging up argghhh

From what i read on our forum, you seemed (not you personally) to judge all skylines the same. Yes the MX6 may have a better take off than a skyline, but the skyline with a bigger engine could quite easily from what i seen reel your MX6 in. Just be prepared comming here saying all this that your gonna get a load of replies from people whos skylines could beat you guys without rasing a sweat.

Personally i would like to talk to the guy who said he owned an R34 GTT. And where did u get this stuff that a skyline runs a 14.5 quater mile when people have sheets off them cracking 12seconds and a few in mid 13's.

MX6 v Skylines, Commodores v Skylines, Fords v Skylines, the bloke next door on his electric skate board v Skyines...

Hourses for courses.

It's funny that the Skylines seem to be used as a bench mark !

This thread could go on for ever......

Oh - and which one are we comparing against? The R32 with the 2lt RB motor, or the R33 with the 2.5lt motor? Not meaning to put the RB20 down at all, but you all know that the SR20 has more torque than the RB20 :( That's what I liked about the RB25 so much, the extra torque :)

(hides waiting for a flaming :) )

Black_TX5 - do us a favour and don't race on the streets, take it to the track.

You guys make me laugh. I love all the comments about the mx6 guys thinking their cars are the greatest… looked in the mirror lately? Why in the world is it so hard to believe an mx6 can beat a skyline? Yes, skylines will beat an mx6 stock for stock but this car was modded and put down a 14.8 ¼. Now a car that runs a 14.8 ¼ can beat an r32 on the street. There are many things that factor into a race, and the faster car does not necessarily always win. It is very possible that the mx6 beat a gtst skyline. Oh wait a minute; I guess I forgot that skylines are invincible…

Sure some things said in the post were a little silly but so are a lot of the things you guys have said. A number of people here need to do a bit of growing up.

You guys are ****in dreams.

Firstly how the hell do u think u can come onto our boards and tell us that a crapbox fwd 80s turbo is better then a 32 33 Skyline which has had more hp stock and better times stock then ur cars.

Secondly u are dreamin if u think a stock mx6 turbo will produce 110 atws stock even thou the engine is rated at what u say 106. Thats saying that the drivetrain loss is -4kws, which is impossible. More like 20% for a fwd leavin the power at around 80kws atws.

Then u think ur cars r fast of the line, yet its a FWd with no traction control, and ive owned a na fwd. They are a bitch to get off the line if they have any power.

Lastly u r comparing ur modded mx6 with a stock skyline. This is a stupid comparison. Why not compare it to one of the modded Gtst's in the 12's. Hey im sure ull still beat it, as u have some tricks up ur sleeve.

Morale of this post, dont talk shit. Dont tell me that ur crap box mx6 handles better then my skyline. I would destroy u on a straight, thru the hills. Anywhere. Your car is a old econ turbo box. Its not a fricken super car. Neither is mine but at least i know this u dick.

Originally posted by Jay95R33

This link makes for good reading - sort of speaks for itself.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/sh...&threadid=22444

hmm they say a skyline runs a 14.5

yet every car in there runs under that

like to see where there info comes fom

What a joke this thread is.

I can't understand why it has got this far.

I thought we had it finished on the first page.

There are several ex-MX6 owners, including myself, on this forum who agree that a Skyline will beat a MX6.

I have already stated that i have had 4 MX6's, count them 4 !!

So, i am a MX6 fan.

My quickest ran a 14.2 but broke every mechanical part in the car.

I am now on my second Skyline and there no comparison.

We are comparing Apples with Oranges here.

I love both cars but the Skyline kills the MX6 for performance.

Wake up MX6 guys.

I was quoting the 2.5L if you talking to me....

I'm not trying to start a flame war. In fact I think it is fun. If you want to race me, I don't care... If you win, good on you, if I do, good on me. If you do win then it is just more motivation for me to play around some more, and vice-versa.

Look, I could go on forever trying to prove something and neither of us will get anywhere. Its all in good fun really. The R32 GTR is over 200kg heavier than my car (if I took my stereo out), and a stock (I said stock) R32 has 206kw at the fly and 260ft/lb... compared to my car at with 150kw ATW... assuming about a 15% drivetrain loss on the GTR its 176kw ATW with say another 5% (at least) loss due to age... and you are at 168kw.

So, we have an extra 18kW in a car that is 200kg heavier and the same amount of torque. Now I admit I don't know how much of a exponential power increase is generated from the Skyline and I don't know how long the turbo can hold boost for... so I'm only assuming here. But if this was the situation... a stock R32 GTR Skyline Vs a modded MX6... then it is at least a close race.

Tripharn

Dude - your all out of wack. It's OK cause I don't expect everyone to know the specs of skylines etc.

R32 GTR is 2.6lt twin turbo 4wd attesa 206kw. Yepp, it's 200kg heavier due to the 4wd (1/4 mile is around the 12.8 sec and 0-100 is about 5.1 ish)

R32 GTS-t is 2.0lt single turbo rwd at around 1320kg ~160kw.

R33 GTS-t 2.5lt single turbo rwd at around 1360kg ~ 185kw.

I can scrape up the bog stock times for a R33 GTS-t somewhere, but tey are something like 14.5 1/4 mile and 0-100km in 6.2 seconds.

But your right, it's good to have a look at different cars and the potential of them. It's just that some people get a bit heated about it :)

Originally posted by EnricoPalazzo

Secondly u are dreamin if u think a stock mx6 turbo will produce 110 atws stock even thou the engine is rated at what u say 106. Thats saying that the drivetrain loss is -4kws, which is impossible. More like 20% for a fwd leavin the power at around 80kws atws.

I can pull out and scan my damn dyno chart if you want where I got 106kW.

Originally posted by EnricoPalazzo

Then u think ur cars r fast of the line, yet its a FWd with no traction control, and ive owned a na fwd. They are a bitch to get off the line if they have any power.  

We don't compare your car to NA sigma in regards to traction, so why compare ours? They are different cars...

Originally posted by EnricoPalazzo

Lastly u r comparing ur modded mx6 with a stock skyline. This is a stupid comparison. Why not compare it to one of the modded Gtst's in the 12's. Hey im sure ull still beat it, as u have some tricks up ur sleeve.  

Remember this post started on our forums, you guys started this forum to laugh at us. The whole thread on our forum stated it was a modded MX6 and a fairly stock Skyline. If you want to chagne the topic to make yourself feel good, go right ahead.

But don't complain that this happens when you guys started the damn thread in the first place.

:)

Tripharn

All that was said on mx6.com was that a guy just upped his boost and was testing his car and beat a Skyline.

Thats it.... No one mentioned modding the Skyline or whatever, and no-one said that the MX6 will win everytime. No-one said that the Skyline driver was the best driver to hit the streets. In fact the owner said that the driver might have been high on exhaust fumes after drinking a bottle of methanol and smoking a whole paddock of weed.

It really got out of hand. All he was trying to say was, that it is a new car with the extra boost. And I can tell you that a stock MX6 is pretty crap, but with only a few mods... you will be surprised. You will probably win, but I guarantee you, you will be surprised. That is all.

Tripharn

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...