Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

wow, quicker than both Motor and Wheels who couldn't crack 4.0 secs. Why are they so slow, when EVERY single acceleration test around the world regularly yields 0-60 mp/h times in around 3.3 sec and 0-100 km/h between 3.5-3.7 secs?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4600450
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

Wow! Will be interesting to see the future results!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4601844
Share on other sites

the nissan dealer told me if i used the LC for twice or more, it will damage the transmission/clutch, which will cost big bucks to replace.

but it seems like everyone here is not too concern about it and keep using the LC.

any feedback????

I think you'll find that's scare tactics. My dealer has been quite reasonable about it. Unlike LC1, LC2 seems to be reasonably easy on the car - that said I've only done it twice, and wont be using it at all with the modifications.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4602186
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

I have not timed mine yet using GTech or equivalent but had a few races against my brother's 997 911Turbo, Auto, (the faster one), with overboost engaged. (680Nm instead of 620Nm for 10 seconds). Carried out on a closed track. Using walkie talkies to countdown to the start made for a very unscientific starting process and each of us would win the start on different occasions making for some varying results.

1) 911 stalled to approx 2000 with gentle throttle and GT-R stalled to 2500 with partial throttle. 911 won start by a car length, (due to me napping at the get go), GTR had passed it by 100 KPH and was a car length ahead at 150 KPH.

2) Same conditions GTR won start and pulled ahead by 2-3 car lengths at 150 KPH.

3) Both cars launched with no brakes whatsoever, just floor the accelerator. GT-R leapt ahead by 2-3 car lengths and pulled away steadily.

4) 911 stalled to 2100 RPM with throttle floored. His boost rose to 9 PSI before we even started moving... GT-R again stalled "gently" to 2500 RPM so no "pre" boost to speak of there. I napped again at the start, or perhaps he cheated!! Lost start by 2 car lengths and maintained gap to him to around 100 KPH but did not reel him in at all.

I had 1850 kms on the clock, his car 10,000 kms. All my tests were done with VDC set to race and Suspension to comfort, in Auto with trans set to race. I didnt disengage VDC and it still allows the revs to rise to over 3000 RPM so why bother disengaging it? VDC in race mode does not cull engine power if traction is lost. I didnt have the fortitude to do a 3000+ RPM launch with both pedals floored......yet

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4603192
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

With just 1150km on the odometer and K&N filters installed, my GTech Pro RR results were not as good as yours:

All 3 settings on R, no launch control, stall to 2500RPM (electronically limited!), floor the gas and step off the brake: 4 runs:

0-20m 2.552 sec, 0-100kph 4.344sec

2.575 4.377

2.542 4.316

2.560 4.351

The first second and a half after launch it feels like stretching an elastic band as the boost builds up and then all hell breaks loose. I am wondering if the brand new clutches need to bed in more because it feels very laggy from a dig, until a second or two after launch when it goes berserk. I never got a hint of a wheel spin on smooth new asphalt. Also, the engine may still be a bit tight?

This car is definitely a rolling start king but from a dig, without launch control, it's not setting the world on fire.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4618228
Share on other sites

I've heard so much inconsistency with pricing in Australia for this new GTR, and there has been some discussion over another forum about ...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Acne Adult Medicine Cure

wheelchair lift

And how is the pricing policy going to improve the 0-100kph times?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4618919
Share on other sites

With just 1150km on the odometer and K&N filters installed, my GTech Pro RR results were not as good as yours:

All 3 settings on R, no launch control, stall to 2500RPM (electronically limited!), floor the gas and step off the brake: 4 runs:

0-20m 2.552 sec, 0-100kph 4.344sec

2.575 4.377

2.542 4.316

2.560 4.351

The first second and a half after launch it feels like stretching an elastic band as the boost builds up and then all hell breaks loose. I am wondering if the brand new clutches need to bed in more because it feels very laggy from a dig, until a second or two after launch when it goes berserk. I never got a hint of a wheel spin on smooth new asphalt. Also, the engine may still be a bit tight?

This car is definitely a rolling start king but from a dig, without launch control, it's not setting the world on fire.

I've been told the standard airbox is better than the aftermarket job, I certainly had this problem with my EvoIX, it went faster with the std airbox.

Interestingly my 0 - 20m times were similar to yours. I had 2600 kms on the car.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4624654
Share on other sites

I've been told the standard airbox is better than the aftermarket job, I certainly had this problem with my EvoIX, it went faster with the std airbox.

Interestingly my 0 - 20m times were similar to yours. I had 2600 kms on the car.

Thanks for the tip. The thought crossed my mind!

It appears that both cars have the same turbo lag down low, hence similar sluggish 20m, but yours has a better top end which could be due to the air box.

I will swap back to stock air filters and give it another shot at 2000km.

What was your max HP reading? Mine was only 265kW with 1830kg gross weight input.

Good luck with the HKS! :action-smiley-069:

Edited by GT-Ricer
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4625420
Share on other sites

4.3sec-4.4sec 0-100km/h.

Seriously fellas, 370Z with a few mods would probably do that, or very, very close to that. For sure I know that an EVo-X would do 3.5sec 0-100km/h in FQ-400 guise. If my car is 30% slower than what Nissan advertised in 2007 and 2008, 3.3sec, then I would be seriously pissed of with them.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4626857
Share on other sites

4.3sec-4.4sec 0-100km/h.

Seriously fellas, 370Z with a few mods would probably do that, or very, very close to that. For sure I know that an EVo-X would do 3.5sec 0-100km/h in FQ-400 guise. If my car is 30% slower than what Nissan advertised in 2007 and 2008, 3.3sec, then I would be seriously pissed of with them.

I suspect the 4.3 - 4.4 second car is an exception. I was getting 3.7 easy, in fact each run was getting quicker. The journos managed 4.0 flat (without LC).

The 4.4 second car had an aftermarket airbox in it which probably slowed it down.

The JDM cars are getting 3.3 seconds because they are running 15 psi compared to the ADM 12 psi. And as you would know, that is very easy to fix. My gut feel is that these cars (even in JDM spec) are going to be easy to tune to big power without too many risks, which is no different to most turbo cars these days.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4627099
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I suspect the 4.3 - 4.4 second car is an exception. I was getting 3.7 easy, in fact each run was getting quicker. The journos managed 4.0 flat (without LC).

The 4.4 second car had an aftermarket airbox in it which probably slowed it down.

The JDM cars are getting 3.3 seconds because they are running 15 psi compared to the ADM 12 psi. And as you would know, that is very easy to fix. My gut feel is that these cars (even in JDM spec) are going to be easy to tune to big power without too many risks, which is no different to most turbo cars these days.

Today I re-tested my car’s acceleration times over 5 runs after 1800km, with stock air filters in place for the past 500km.

My 0-100kph times ranged from 4.37ces to 4.55 sec. I tried everything and every combination: stall against the brake to 2400RPM (limit) ; step of the brake and hit the gas. No real difference.

My car engages quite well and after 10-20m or so it bogs down for about 1 sec before taking off again with real momentum.

It refuses to accelerate from a dig in a linear fashion.

This bog-down happens in first gear so it has nothing to do with a gear change.

It seems that after the initial launch something in the ECU shuts down or retards the timing, before it resumes on its ballistic trajectory.

I spoke to Mathew at Col Crawford who will be doing my first service next Wed-Thurs. We will go for a test drive and also compare with the demonstrator car.

It’s a real disappointment so far!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4650647
Share on other sites

Today I re-tested my car's acceleration times over 5 runs after 1800km, with stock air filters in place for the past 500km.

My 0-100kph times ranged from 4.37ces to 4.55 sec. I tried everything and every combination: stall against the brake to 2400RPM (limit) ; step of the brake and hit the gas. No real difference.

My car engages quite well and after 10-20m or so it bogs down for about 1 sec before taking off again with real momentum.

It refuses to accelerate from a dig in a linear fashion.

This bog-down happens in first gear so it has nothing to do with a gear change.

It seems that after the initial launch something in the ECU shuts down or retards the timing, before it resumes on its ballistic trajectory.

I spoke to Mathew at Col Crawford who will be doing my first service next Wed-Thurs. We will go for a test drive and also compare with the demonstrator car.

It's a real disappointment so far!

I hear you.............

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270400-0-100kph-times/#findComment-4650903
Share on other sites

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

    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
    • Ceste, jak se mas Marek...sorry I only have english keyboard. Are you a fan of Poland's greatest band ever?   
×
×
  • Create New...