Jump to content
SAU Community

What Is 'too Much' Power For The Street?  

74 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

My 26 GTS4 with 280 odd kw is more then enough on the street - to the point were i haven't even touched the high boost setting

Mind you its running RWD at current so i take it half easy - and is the first Forced Induction car i have driven so of course it feels quick to me

The power im getting used to it....

Hard question to answer but id say even 200kw is more then enough

my gtr had 280rwkw, wasnt anywhere near enough.

all of it was usable on the street.

and I did at times.

well, overtaking anyway.

Varies - but I would say when the driver thinks it's a pain (pig) to drive in traffic. -> unrelated to kws/power <-

driver, clutch, gear box, gear ratio's, steering, suspension/set-up, brakes, tyres

but to provide some general indication due to the subject 100 to 400. (so I spose that's saying I think over 400 :wacko: )

Depending on the driver, vehicle and the destinations frequently travelled.

Edited by Sinista32

I reckon 300kw's is enough for the street, at street speeds its all about the low down torque, to me a VL turbo is/was the ultimate streeter, 3L's of good low down torque off the line with just the sound of the rb whistling thru the streets , riding the clutch for spool ups or frying second gear up a short stretch

speed-bumps-continuous_zps208577bc.jpg

^^ This is how Canberra is starting to look...

But as people are saying it's all down to the driver there is no such thing as too much power for the street.

I always thought 350kw would be "enough" but it wasn't and as I go higher in power level I still drive mine on street on a regular basis when I have it.

I can name four 1000hp Supra's running manual boxes that could be driven daily.

And a few V8's making 1000hp+ on the street with manuals.
Commodore going around with twins on it making 1200 rwhp, and he drives it everywhere no problem.

That being said, a turbo'd V8 has more low end than a Supra or Skyline.

AWD cars aren't usually modded to big power limits because A: More to Break.
And B: Name an AWD car other than a Lambo, or GTR that is capable of producing 1000hp. (Very few I'd assume).
The reason most 1000whp cars are RWD is because 99% of sports cars ARE Rear wheel drive.


Just throwing it out there.
But 500hp is plenty for street bragging rights.
And upwards of 1000 hp is a bit ridiculous, only if you go to the drags every week is it worth it, other wise it's mostly a wank factor IMO.
I'll just be happy cruising in a 280awkw GTR...

LOL.
Too scared to break it. :-\

Too much power is when it puts you into a pole before you can react.

No, that is being irresponsible on the street! Nothing to do with power... With some of the drivers on the road these days i am sure there are people in camper vans capable of this!

A twin turbo commy would be pretty awesome, and unique mainly.

But, a GT-T is a RWD, so that would be better to run 1000hp then a GTR AWD?

Also, i could imagine modifying a GT-T to a twin turbo would be excellent fun, said no one ever.-.-

A twin turbo commy would be pretty awesome, and unique mainly.

But, a GT-T is a RWD, so that would be better to run 1000hp then a GTR AWD?

Also, i could imagine modifying a GT-T to a twin turbo would be excellent fun, said no one ever.-.-

:blink:

Why would you want a twin turbo GT-T? Well in that case it would be a GT-TT lol...... In saying that it has been done more than once on this forum and was no advantage over the single!

I think this thread has been full of opinions and personal beliefs on a question that is really not going to get a correct answer.

DO your research and learn what cars can and cant do, the 1000hp number gets thrown around a lot but very few will ever get there in a street car as there is no point! That and the fact that to do it Legally is impossible as far as i am aware!

Twin turbo commy would just make a shitty car, expensive!

  • Like 1

:rofl:

Its not easy for a 2.5 6 pot either...

34geteetee makes 391rwkw on 28PSI, whereas not only is Scotty's stagea running 4PSI more, but makes 50rwkw less despite running the equivalent turbo and displacement (2.5 6 pot)

Sometimes its not about displacement or cylinders, but more so engine design, the RB2.5 motor is certainly capable of huge numbers with head work and a built motor, but once again irrelevant for street use

34geteetee makes 391rwkw on 28PSI, whereas not only is Scotty's stagea running 4PSI more, but makes 50rwkw less despite running the equivalent turbo and displacement (2.5 6 pot)

Sometimes its not about displacement or cylinders, but more so engine design, the RB2.5 motor is certainly capable of huge numbers with head work and a built motor, but once again irrelevant for street use

I don't have a built motor or head work? Actually I don't even have an aftermarket headgasket so u fail to see how they contribute to big numbers?

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...