For the '03's through '05's, yes (although we're ignoring the Roadsters, right?).

Different magazines have different curb weights for the 35th, but back when it was still on the Nissan website, the factory quote was 3299 lbs (I've seen as high as 3370 lbs, i.e. in R&T).

But the '06's are (per Nissan's site):
Base (MT): 3339
Enth (MT): 3346
Enth (AT): 3344
Tour (MT): 3400
Tour (AT): 3380
Track (MT): 3370
Grand Tour (MT): 3404
Grand Tour (AT): 3391

This would suggest an even lower hp/curb wt. ratio for the '06's, given the same 300hp engine. But we're talking insignificant differences...

 

Wheres the 05 weight list to campare to slacker?
Peace!

 

I tried a google search, couldn't find it. Gonna have to wait until I get home so's I can bust out the OLD school Z catalog (yes, I still have it).

 

Well, my '05 Z track in "race mode" (17in wheels with 255/40 & 275/40) with 3/4 of a tank of fuel, nothing in the trunk plus me in it (200lb) weight in at 3413lb.

I have a Tanabe Y-back and that's it for mods.

 

did you weight it? That would make more sense

Because honestly and seriously... I don't believe a sinlge one of the published curb weights... from 03 to 06. I believe the 03-05 are a bit underrated(lbs), and the 06 overrated(lbs), there isn't a 200+lbs difference.

 

I know they added things with the 04.5, and then with the 05 the weight is listed as the exact same. That never made much sense to me...

 

Yes, at MidOhio last week.

 

I guess that was kind of harsh, but thats ok. You took it well.

Things get heavier when you add them, thats common sense. The 06's are significantly heavier (though no one knows why; chalk it up to heavier rims, more safety stuff with the chassis, etc). However, there is virtually no difference between 287 hp engines and 300hp engines, which you did originally state. The way you originally described it, you associated the 287hp cars with being lighter, when you should have associated it with year of production.

Going back to physics shows me horsepower is a function of torque:

Horsepower = (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252

From Wikipedia:

Where did I go wrong?

 

No kidding???

Oh, they are "virtually" the same, besides the fact one produces 13 more hp, 14ft-lbs less torque, and has a 400rpm higher redline. Right??

BTW, nowhere did I say such nonsense.

Do not try to twist my words into an argument that is convenient for your stupidity. If you add weight to a car it gets slower unless you increase horsepower to offset the difference; That's all I was getting at, and it's simple physics, genius.

Wow!! You're good!! You spout off torque and then retort with horsepower. How long did it take you to figure out horsepower was a function of torque? My guess is not very long considering you relied on wikipedia to do it. That was a nice attempt at digging yourself out of the hole you dug, but alas, you failed. I really thought you might do the respectable thing and apologize for taking my comments out of context in an attempt to insult my intelligence, and then admit you were wrong. Instead you force me to bust your *****.

Going back to your erroneous statement "You'd take HP over TQ? HP sells cars, TQ wins races."

You're damn right I would take HP over TQ, assuming I wanted to win a race. HP is what wins races. If I wanted the ability to easily pull a boat up a steep hill, then I would go for torque. If my original question didn't make it clear enough for you (mustang gt vs F1 comparison): How many quarter mile ET calculators can you find that ask for torque, since torque is what wins races??? LOL

Torque is a measurement of rotational force(the rotational ability to do work), that's why it's measured in FOOT POUNDS. Torque does not reflect the RATE at which work can be done, that's why torque itself has no bearing on acceleration! Do you even know what a torque wrench is??? LOL

I wonder why they don't call it a horsepower wrench!!

Horsepower is a measurement of how much WORK can be done in a given amount of TIME. That's why it directly affects acceleration. It is a function of torque because you must first know how much work can be done to begin with. RPM is where TIME gets factored in (revolutions per MINUTE). That's why torque is measured, HP is calculated. Torque by itself is meaningless in regards to acceleration or winning races.

You don't see racers constantly referring to horsepower:weight ratios because torque wins races, do you???? You can have all the torque in the world, but if you can't dish it out fast enough(horsepower), you can't accelerate for sh*t.

On the other hand, you can have sh*t for torque(f1 car for instance), but if you can dish it out at an insane rate(18,000rpms for instance), horsepower will be through the roof.

That was my explanation of torque vs hp entirely off the top of my head. Let's hear your explanation off the top of your head (without relying on wikipedia) backing up your statement why TORQUE wins races. LOL.

You can admit you were wrong or embarrass yourself further. Again, it's your choice.

 

Engineer cat-fight ?

 

ahaha, I weight 165lbs!

 

And you just lost 5lb according to the mail I just received...

You'll need ALL the help you can get at BAB8... hehe

 

Yes, this is my best/most effective weight-saving measure as well.

145 lbs (makes up for the weight diff. b/t my 35th and the other "lighter" models).

 

lol

 

76kg, I decided to round down

Don't forget I have 3 track days at tremblant just before BAB8... and also close to 200 pocket coffees

 

No, I'm not.

Your original statement from the 1st page of this thread:

I'm not twisting anyones words. And I'm not stupid.

My point is the 287hp cars DO NOT have a lot less weight, like you initially stated. The weight difference in 2003-2005 models was caused by larger wheels, the addition of TCS/VDC, LSD, and on the Track/35th, the Brembo's. In 2006, all models across the board had a weight increase, which included the 287 and 300hp models. Take the 2006 models for example, taken from Nissanusa.com:

Manual Transmission: 3,339 3,346 3,400 3,370 3,404
Automatic transmission: N/A 3,344 3,380 N/A 3,391

As you can see, the weight difference between the 2006 300hp manual models and the 287hp models is anywhere from 2-20 lbs. Not a whole heck of a lot really, at least in terms of absolute performance.

Also, I completely understand the mechanical differences of the 287hp and 300hp. My point was there wasn't much difference in terms of weight between the two. The differences between the two engines (CVT on the exhaust cams, forged internals, etc) do not make up a noticable difference between a car with the 287hp engine and the 300hp engine.

Your explanation does clarify a few things for me, I will admit that. My understanding of the whole hp/tq relationship has obviously gotten misrepresented over the years... it has been quite a while since I've done anything physics related.

Now my question is... since you confirmed HP is basically the amount of work (torque) done is done in a certain period of time, doesn't that mean that the amount of torque you make and how its geared in the transmission determine the actual relative HP? Like you stated, F1 cars have engines built and capable to handle upwards of 15-18k RPM's, but in order for them to get that high, doesn't that require some incredibly high gearing too?

I think I see where your coming from with your argument, I guess the point I'm trying to make is like you said, torque is all about rotational force, which is actually what moves the wheels. HP is simply a caculated number in which the work the engine does over time. I guess my point of view of it was that an engine actually MAKES torque, not HP since HP is just a caculated number, and thats why TQ wins races, not HP.

Or maybe I'm still confused.

Either way, thank you for clarying the whole hp/tq relationship. Obviously my grasp was not as good as I thought it was.

 

You quoted one of my posts and highlighted something that was irrelevant to your claim. I did not say the engines were the same anywhere in this thread.

Maybe I didn't type it in the most accurate way possible, but what I was getting at should have been obvious. I didn't think anyone would have any problems with what I said, or else I would crafted my words a little better. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Then it was worth my time explaining it.

Gearing is a whole topic in itself. In short, gearing is simply torque multiplication. It does not affect power, or "relative hp" as you put it. It's physically impossible to get more work out of a system than you put in. Think of it like a pulley system. You devise a pulley system to allow you to lift a really heavy object. For a basic example, since you can't lift the object at once, you instead pull a rope 20 feet to lift the object an inch. The pulleys don't make you any stronger, they just allow you to put more work in by spreading it out. That's the same thing gearing is.

The gears have no bearing on the engines capability, but yes, they use gearing that takes full advantage of the engine. The gears have a very close ratio so the engine spends all of its time at the higher rpm where the most power is being produced. If the gears did not have a close ratio the rpm would drop too much during gear changes and drop the engine out of its powerband.

They are closely related that's why there is always so much confusion. The internal combustion engine makes both power and torque. Which came first the chicken or the egg?? The combustion that releases energy is not even a rotational force until it turns the crankshaft. It's the power from combustion that produces the torque. You can't say torque wins races because torque has no bearing on acceleration and it takes power to create torque to begin with. A torque wrench produces no torque unless you supply the energy.

You're more than welcome.

 

-->Insert popcorn eating smillie here<--

 

I'm going to start throwing my gummie bears at you if you don't shutup!!!

 

The rev-up (IMHO) is significantly different...different lower plenum, different cams, different air box, different ECU, higher redline -- that seems like more than a few minor changes. Similar, but by no means a small difference..