Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

14.9 and 15.1, huge difference.

This thread delivers....

You've proven my point.

Hence the "15".

If it was a 15.9 then it's a very long way from a 14. As it is a 15.6/7 is still a very long way from a 14. With an exhaust and highflow filter a 15.6 is about right. It might even go a bit faster as N/A SRs respond very well to opening up the lungs. That makes a stocko a flat 16 second car (maybe a 15.9/8 if it's an extra healthy one).

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

If they drop 200kg they should be able to go from 15.1 to 14.9, ...or 15.6 to 15 4.

.......in theory.....I think.......who cares......

I want a 11.9 on street tyres but have only got a 12.2, now thats a long way away..

Unless of course the driver of the commonwhore didnt know there was a "race" happening at the time, bit like the time the Honda YO raced me, he reved it up and took off with a little chirp whilst I took of normaly from the lights, he had a epic win that day and Im sure that somewhere in failbook or twatter land his win was all the talk of the day....

If my math is correct a 15 yr old NA 34 had when new 114 kw at 1550ish kg = 0.07kw/kg

a 15 yr old NA commonwhore had when new 152 kw at 1550ish kg = 0.10kw/kg

Power to weight the commonwhore wins.

Also a note to remember is that alot of the kw have fallen out the exhausts on both cars, but at least the commonwhore is alot less money now too.

Feel free to correct my math.

I see all these complaints about NA skylines getting kained by v6 commies, too bad the other day I saw the same skyline I saw for sale (18,000) get it's arse owned by a v6 commodore flat out

This makes no sense.

You've said twice, how a n/a skyline gets pwnd by a v6 commonwhore.

Internet don't lie!

More math.

A 2001 NA S15 weighs 1250ish kg with 121ish kw, 121/1250 = 0.096kw/kg

So 2001 NA Commonwhore wins with 0.098KW/KG, followed closely by 2001 NA S15 with 0.096KW/KG, dragging its arse at the rear is the 2001 NA Skyline with 0.073KW/KG.

The Skyline has 26.6% less overall power than the Commonwhore and 24% less overall power than the S15.

To find the car with the most power is easy, divide the power and the weight to give the power to weight ratio, there are alot of variables to concider though, but all things being equal the heigher the number the quicker the car.

Bugatti Veyron 736kw / 1888kg = 0.389kw/kg

Mazda MX 5 104kw / 1065kg = 0.097

R32 GTR 206kw / 1450kg = 0.142

R34 GTR 244kw / 1536kg = 0.158

New SV6 210kw / 1656kg = 0.127

New SSV 260kw / 1743kg = 0.149

New GTR 401kw / 1740kg = 0.230

Boring Thursday is boring

I see all these complaints about NA skylines getting kained by v6 commies, too bad the other day I saw the same skyline I saw for sale (18,000) get it's arse owned by a v6 commodore flat out

arse owned by a v6 commodore flat out

v6 commodore flat out

flat out

flat out

flat out

flat out

More math.

A 2001 NA S15 weighs 1250ish kg with 121ish kw, 121/1250 = 0.096kw/kg

So 2001 NA Commonwhore wins with 0.098KW/KG, followed closely by 2001 NA S15 with 0.096KW/KG, dragging its arse at the rear is the 2001 NA Skyline with 0.073KW/KG.

The Skyline has 26.6% less overall power than the Commonwhore and 24% less overall power than the S15.

To find the car with the most power is easy, divide the power and the weight to give the power to weight ratio, there are alot of variables to concider though, but all things being equal the heigher the number the quicker the car.

Bugatti Veyron 736kw / 1888kg = 0.389kw/kg

Mazda MX 5 104kw / 1065kg = 0.097

R32 GTR 206kw / 1450kg = 0.142

R34 GTR 244kw / 1536kg = 0.158

New SV6 210kw / 1656kg = 0.127

New SSV 260kw / 1743kg = 0.149

New GTR 401kw / 1740kg = 0.230

Boring Thursday is boring

that tells most of the story, but not all of it. how an engine delivers it's power will give a better indication of how fast it will be. plus gear ratios. for example, if a commodore had gear ratios similar to those of a skyline then they would give even mild turbo skiylines a bit of a scare because of the amount of low down power they produce compared to small engined turbo cars. they would also be a nightmare to launch without a ploom of tyre smoke.

More math.

A 2001 NA S15 weighs 1250ish kg with 121ish kw, 121/1250 = 0.096kw/kg

So 2001 NA Commonwhore wins with 0.098KW/KG, followed closely by 2001 NA S15 with 0.096KW/KG, dragging its arse at the rear is the 2001 NA Skyline with 0.073KW/KG.

The Skyline has 26.6% less overall power than the Commonwhore and 24% less overall power than the S15.

This is a terrible equation anyway purely because 90% of commodores are auto, 99% if not ALL S15s are manual. Gear ratios would be a lot shorter in the S15 and thus better for acceleration. I think .002 less of a KW/KG would be negated due to the slug auto verses quick shifting and short gears.

All the vehicles I used were 2001,manuals, with specs taken from "carsales" if you start comparing auto and manuals your wasting your time .the history and service condition of the car has more impact than auto Vs manual IMO.

Just like comparing cars from different years,.

pointless boy race pissing content is pointless,

Either go to a race track or drag way, interweb pissing wars about penis size are fought without brains or common sense..

Borc188, where did you get your facts about the amount of manuals and autos for S15s, a quick search seemed to disprove this, were you using the AUD or the JDM or a mixture of both, or was it just a quess ?

Comparing cars on paper for drag outcomes is dumb. Not only are there too many variables in it, that people never seem to take into account (gear ratios being my favourite), but most people on the road do not know how to drag and would struggle to get the factory/test 0-100 times for their vehicles. Even autos can be launched poorly in the traffic light GP.

Comparing cars on paper is the first step in working out their performance, why do you think power to weight ratios are considered before race care and drag cars are built.

Yes their are a plethora of things to consider, but power to weight is the first quick bit of hasty calculations to work out the performance potential.

Borc188, where did you get your facts about the amount of manuals and autos for S15s, a quick search seemed to disprove this, were you using the AUD or the JDM or a mixture of both, or was it just a quess ?

I pulled it out of my arse, wouldn't you also assume that most S15s would be Manual while most VTs and the like would be Auto?

I pulled it out of my arse, wouldn't you also assume that most S15s would be Manual while most VTs and the like would be Auto?

Fair assumption I reckon.

And S15 Autech NAs still won't pull a 14 stock. They might break into the 15s.

I pulled it out of my arse, wouldn't you also assume that most S15s would be Manual while most VTs and the like would be Auto?

No I wouldnt assume, I would do a bit of research and come up with something like around 5% of VT are manual and around 75% of S15 are manual.

But what has that got to do with anything anyway, what if the S15 was a Auto ?? who cares, that isnt the issue, you are not comparing transmissions, you are comparing the performance of different vehicles, and without them having the same platform it would not be accurate, to be fair I chose to use the same platforms for all cars, hence all cars are standard NA and manual.

In the end I dont really care how slow NA cars are, but I do like a good discussion as long as relevant facts are used.

I assume you understand

Now you're just being silly for the sake of being factually correct in any way possible. You know most S15s would be manual and you also know that most VTs would be manual.

If an NA S15 came up against a VT at a TLGP you can safely assume that the S15 would be manual and the VT more than likely auto.

Don't need to get all smartarse with your italics just to prove a point. If you really did care about being factually correct you would go and research and post the official manufacturer 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

Oh and just FYI you didn't choose the same platform, you chose Weight + Power, no where does that suggest what an actual manual versus auto will do, no doubt the manual would be quicker but you haven't proven that yet have you.

You want to be serious? You would assume a 20% drivetrain loss with a VT as MOST would be automatic, the S15 would have maybe a 10-15% loss due to majority of them being manual, so out goes your power to weight theory and that's not even counting the shorter gear ratios of the S15s.

We're comparing apples with apples here so I don't understand why you want to come off as the know it all in the thread when to begin with they're both shit cars in NA form.

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

    • Had I known the diff between R32 and R33 suspension I would have R33 suspension. That ship has sailed so I'm doing my best to replicate a drop spindle without spending $4k on a Billet one.
    • OEM suspension starts to bind as soon as the car gets away from stock height. I locked in the caster and camber before cutting off the kingpin. I then let the upright down in a natural (unbound) state before re-attaching it. Now it moves freely in bump and droop relative to the new ride height. My plan is to add GKTech arms before the car is finished so I can dial camber and caster further. It will be fine. This isn't rocket science. Caster looks good, camber is good, upper arm doesn't cause crazy gain and it is now closer to the stock angle and bump steer checks out. Send it.
    • Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).
    • The frontend wouldn't go low enough because the coilover was max low and the upper control arm would collapse into itself and potentially bottom out in the strut tower. I made a brace and cut off the kingpin and then moved the upright down 1.25" and welded. i still have to finish but this gives an idea. Now I can have a normal 3.25" of shock travel and things aren't binding. I'm also dropping the lower arm and tie rod 1.25".
    • Motor and body mockup. Wheel fitment and ride height not set. Last pic shows front ride height after modifying the front uprights to make a 1.25" drop spindle.
×
×
  • Create New...