Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

stagea does 0-100 in class... y wd u wona go 180? 1 wrong move n ur toast!

the 260 has a fuel cut deffender in it... gets rida r+r i think.

TRACK DAY'S ;) , LIKE I SAID , WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW FAST A M35 WOULD GO , IM BETTING 250KM/H FLAT KNACK , JUST A GUESS :(

TRACK DAY'S ;) , LIKE I SAID , WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW FAST A M35 WOULD GO , IM BETTING 250KM/H FLAT KNACK , JUST A GUESS :(
That's 156mph - my guess, bog standard or even with a good exhaust, would be about 210 km/hr
That's 156mph - my guess, bog standard or even with a good exhaust, would be about 210 km/hr

SHIT MY AU FALCON WTH 163KWS AT THE ENGINE WILL DO 225KM/H WITH THE LIMITER REMOVED , STAG HAS 206KWs , horse power dictates your final top speed ,why wouldn;t the stag be able to do maybe 235km/h ???? , heavier yes = longer to get to final top speed, but more torque to move the beast !!!! :blink:

TRACK DAY'S :blink: , LIKE I SAID , WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW FAST A M35 WOULD GO , IM BETTING 250KM/H FLAT KNACK , JUST A GUESS :P

I would agree with your guestimate.

Having had mine to ~195kph (or that's what the speedo said anyway), there was still plenty left.

I would be VERY surprised if mine could not hit the 250 mark.

Just make sure that your suspension is good and the road is smooth....

well yeh i've hit the 180 limiter in 4th gear at around 4000rpms, so thats nearly 1 and half more gears of power to go!!!!

so my guess would be that it would at least hit 250km/h

(5 sp manual of course :laugh:)

Edited by BKC34
well yeh i've hit the 180 limiter in 4th gear at around 4000rpms, so thats nearly 1 and half more gears of power to go!!!!

so my guess would be that it would at least hit 250km/h

(5 sp manual of course :laugh: )

Don't forget air resistance increases to the square of your speed increase so it takes a hell of a lot of horse power to do 250Km/hr and I doubt that any unmodified Stagea would do more than 220 if that. When my S1 was up to around 200AWKW (270engine KW) I got to 200km/hr and figured it would be good for around 220-240 but sadly it is no more so i won't make it to the track day at Pukehoe to find out.
i'm presuming the nm35 is slightly more aero than my au111 falcon , and mybe an s1, i dont know i just like to hipothasize. :)

Has to be better in aerodynamics than the S1 & S2.

The M35 is based on the FM platform (which is the same platform as the R35, V35 plus others). FM is Front Midship, meaning the motor is mounted behind the front axle giving the car more neutral balance, in fact it is 52/48 weight front to rear, same as a R35 also (I wish that good). The design is also is zero lift generated at high speed (not sure what exact speed).

Get a really long piece of road and who knows what it will get to.

All I know for sure is that it will hit 180 (limited) in 3 gear. 2 gear to go but the last one will not give a big lift.

I wait with bated breath to hear what it will do...................................... :laugh:

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...