Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

Looking for the best ways at increasing my 0-100km/h time.

I've timed myself and I currently run a 6.9seconds. Still way above the quoted figure of 6.18seconds for a stock r33 gtst. Why am I so far away?

Mods I have

- Splitfires

- 3inch front pipe , 3inch catback (3inch straight through)

- GTR cat

- Pod filter

- Blitz turnflow intercooler

- Pedders coilovers

- electronic Boost controller

- boost set @ 12.5psi

Also done my 100 000km service to freshen the engine up(all new fluids - brake , diff , engine , tranny etc). Also all new hoses, water pump etc... so engine should be fairly fresh.

Transmission is automatic

Car is currently on 128 000km

Ive noticed that the car takes a while from standing still to reach 30km/h , once its there 30 - 100km/h comes quite fast. Its at the start that I lose most of my time.

Im assuming having an automatic transmission plays a big role in my dreadful time.

How can I improve my 0-100 time?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/417909-how-can-i-improve-my-0-100-time/
Share on other sites

who quoted 6.18 seconds? and was that specifically for an auto?

in the r33's day the difference between auto and manual times were quite substantial. 6.18 seconds, to me, sounds a bit ambitious for an auto. for a stock manual in good order i would think 6.18 would be about right.

get better tyres, ditch the coil overs for standard springs (softer suspension gives better weight transfer/grip). also "load" the car up. left foot on the brake, right foot on the gas (not floored, but enough to get a little bit of boost building) and then take your foot off the brake and floor it.

oh and get a manual.

who quoted 6.18 seconds? and was that specifically for an auto?

in the r33's day the difference between auto and manual times were quite substantial. 6.18 seconds, to me, sounds a bit ambitious for an auto. for a stock manual in good order i would think 6.18 would be about right.

the 6.18 is for a manual but almost a second difference between that and the auto?damn thats alot

get better tyres, ditch the coil overs for standard springs (softer suspension gives better weight transfer/grip). also "load" the car up. left foot on the brake, right foot on the gas (not floored, but enough to get a little bit of boost building) and then take your foot off the brake and floor it.

oh and get a manual.

getting a manual is out of the question as its my daily and i like to keep it as a comfy daily driver.

I currently run Kumho KU31'S on all 4's , done about 3000km on them.

I do load the car up ( figured this myself as i realised i can build boost while stationary). My 6.9 is with loading the car .

OP: I'm assuming this is on a drag strip???

ummm...yes...a dragstrip. thats exactly where it was :)

I guess my next question is .... would a shift kit & high stall net me another second? How about a tune to 200rwkw? Really trying to get into the 5 second range.

Edited by tripsteady

the 6.18 is for a manual but almost a second difference between that and the auto?damn thats alot

getting a manual is out of the question as its my daily and i like to keep it as a comfy daily driver.

yup the slushbox would add a second to the time easy. dont forget you've lost a whole gear ratio, meaning the auto's ratios are longer to compensate.

have you even driven a manual? theres a lot of people on here (including myself) who happily daily their manual skylines. just dont put a hell aggressive clutch in it.

Edited by Spurdo

yup the slushbox would add a second to the time easy. dont forget you've lost a whole gear ratio, meaning the auto's ratios are longer to compensate.

have you even driven a manual? theres a lot of people on here (including myself) who happily daily their manual skylines. just dont put a hell aggressive clutch in it.

I have , playing with the clutch in sydney traffic for a year and dont ever want a manual as a daily again. The 33 isnt really a performance car anyway , just a comfortable good looking daily , but i was sure Id be at least near a stock r33 manuals time after all the mods and pushing 12 psi through , but im still quite far away.very disappointing time.

I've told you before to start topics in the correct sections.

From now on, if you won't take the 5 seconds to go to the right area, I'll just lock your threads. It is a waste of Admin's time to keep moving your threads every week.

There is a DEDICATED area for Drag racing, so use it.

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...