Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys long time reader first time poster

:whistling: noob

anyway i took a m35 stagea for a test drive today and it felt slow. it felt slower than my sigma

ive never driven one before so im looking to jump in someones car(with them) for 5min or so

anyone south of the city would be awsome i will drive to them

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/423864-help-buyn-m35-in-sa/
Share on other sites

Slow?

1st time I drove one I was impressed.

You sit pretty high in a stagea.. This would make it seem slower then it is.

That's odd.

Seriously slower then your sigma?

If that's the case, walk away. Look at another car.

yeah it felt slower(sigmas 130kw atw)but u do sit low

in D rolling 10km/h, then flat to the floor and it didnt pull me hard into my seat like all the other turbos ive owned

the fuel light was on, does it go into eco/limp mode

i really need a ride in another to compare, it could be im just use to shitty cars that are either on or off with power and it is fast

Stockies are not all that quick, infact, a stock turbo M35 would be around the 130awkw with a much heavier car that a sigma. However this can be upgraded. Simple mods will net good gains, and wake it up. The stock turbo is fragile and will run out of puff at 200rwkw tuned.

The M35 will drive rings around a sigma with some power and suspension mods. But at the end of the day, it's a big ass wagon, Not a sports car. Buy a sports car if you want one, and a wagon if you need a wagon.

It's 204kw at the fly factory, attessa system is full time RWD with torque split as necessary.

RWD only loose 15 - 20% through the drive train, so that's a max loss of 40kw, which makes around 160rwkw

And in 70/30 split its about 30% loss which is 140kw at all 4.

You have to remember this.

Your sigma, silvia, corolla, datsun, etc are all around 1.0 - 1.2 T.. With the same if not

More power at the treads...The M35 is 1.6 - 1.7 T

That's an extra 0.5 T of weight is has to move.

You can't compare cars like that.

In the end it's a family wagon... It will beat an SS commo wagon...

BUT - the M35 has alot of unlocked potential.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...