Weighed my car today; I'm shocked!
02-06-2007, 05:11 PM
#41
If you are really dedicated to lightweight you might want to reconsider the Hotchkis TVS 1. I have it, think it's great so far, but did weigh stock vs. hotchkis parts before and after and gained approx. 20.8lbs according to my bathroom scale.
On a positive note, since they lower more in the rear than the front, that might help transfer a little more weight in that direction.
I understand the sways weighing more, but is it typical for aftermarket springs to way more?
On a positive note, since they lower more in the rear than the front, that might help transfer a little more weight in that direction.
I understand the sways weighing more, but is it typical for aftermarket springs to way more?
02-06-2007, 05:18 PM
#42
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350Zenophile
If you are really dedicated to lightweight you might want to reconsider the Hotchkis TVS 1. I have it, think it's great so far, but did weigh stock vs. hotchkis parts before and after and gained approx. 20.8lbs according to my bathroom scale.
On a positive note, since they lower more in the rear than the front, that might help transfer a little more weight in that direction.
I understand the sways weighing more, but is it typical for aftermarket springs to way more?
On a positive note, since they lower more in the rear than the front, that might help transfer a little more weight in that direction.
I understand the sways weighing more, but is it typical for aftermarket springs to way more?
Just kidding, dude. Thanks for the heads up. And seriously, I had no idea. I'm sort of bummed. Hopefully the performance gain outweighs the heftier load.
j.
02-06-2007, 05:28 PM
#43
Originally Posted by streetracer
Thanks for ruining my day. I had no idea it was so much heavier.
Just kidding, dude. Thanks for the heads up. And seriously, I had no idea. I'm sort of bummed. Hopefully the performance gain outweighs the heftier load.
j.
Just kidding, dude. Thanks for the heads up. And seriously, I had no idea. I'm sort of bummed. Hopefully the performance gain outweighs the heftier load.
j.
02-06-2007, 05:33 PM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350Zenophile
LOL. well, at least most of the weight is sprung; 100% of the sways and, from what I've read, only part of the spring's weight is considered "unsprung" so I doubt it would be too detrimental to performance.
02-07-2007, 02:00 AM
#47
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Praz
i have a 2006 and i know nissan cites the weight at 3339, but the sticker in my door jam says like 3900. anyone know why this is?
The question is if the manufacturers theoretical curb weight includes a full tank or not.
02-07-2007, 05:40 AM
#48
Originally Posted by streetracer
I may need to start considering the two piece rotors then. I've read the aluminum hats reduce weight a few pounds each corner. They're just so darn expensive.
02-07-2007, 09:28 AM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Light weight wheels and tires will make a much bigger performance improvement than an equivalent weight reduction anywhere else on the car.
This is why actual performance of the vehicle can be significantly better with smaller diameter and usually lighter wheels.
The big 19's and 20's may look good, but a 13.5lb wheel vs. a 20+ lb wheel will make a huge performance difference.
This is why actual performance of the vehicle can be significantly better with smaller diameter and usually lighter wheels.
The big 19's and 20's may look good, but a 13.5lb wheel vs. a 20+ lb wheel will make a huge performance difference.
Last edited by lww; 02-07-2007 at 09:31 AM.
02-07-2007, 10:49 AM
#50
Originally Posted by streetracer
gross weight is the weight of the vehicle with full passenger weight plus gas.
The question is if the manufacturers theoretical curb weight includes a full tank or not.
In my experience, my 04.5 base curb weight was considerably MORE than what nissan claimed.
My Z weighed 3305lbs with me in it (175lbs), and roughly 8 gallons of gas. This was also with ~60lbs of junk removed from the rear. (tools, jack, spare, sound deadening, rear interior)... but with added weight from dealer/factory installed options like the aero kit, splash guards, kick plates, and floor mats. So without me in it, and a full tank of gas... I'm looking at a curb weight of about 3202lbs.... (and this is AFTER the 60lbs weight removal)... In all... I estimate 3188lbs for the 04.5 base is about 50-60lbs lighter than what it really is.... maybe they used a half tank for their numbers so that the big 20 gallon tank wouldn't make it seem more bloated than it is?? Just speculation...
Last edited by roast; 02-07-2007 at 10:55 AM.
02-07-2007, 11:37 AM
#51
New Member
Originally Posted by ZsDaBest
Well, the stock itself comes with a 53/47 weight distribution ratio.
I understand with your mods/replacements you have managed to change this ratio to 55/45; making the rear less heavier = faster car but lesser traction.
Were you not aware of the above fact before making the mods?
I understand with your mods/replacements you have managed to change this ratio to 55/45; making the rear less heavier = faster car but lesser traction.
Were you not aware of the above fact before making the mods?
Last edited by Nismo 350z; 02-07-2007 at 11:41 AM.
02-07-2007, 05:41 PM
#52
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm running now 255/35/18 and 265/35/18 and they literally melt if I keep it floored. I have to open it up only after my clutch is fully released. But I think part of my problem is the lack of an LSD.
02-07-2007, 05:44 PM
#53
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey roast: Is your Z running good with the less weight? Are you having traction issues as well? Have you taken her to the drag strip? I'm just curious what a similar Z is running.
02-08-2007, 05:43 AM
#54
The lack of weight in the rear doesn't really help digs, but standing starts are not my thing so it doesn't bother me... I have contemplated relocating the battery to the rear of the car, and/or going with a lighter battery to help equal the weight distro back out. Overall I like the lack of weight much better regardless.... car definitely feels lighter and I can feel the acceleration difference from a roll... I don't have what I would consider any traction problems.... I've been to the strip to a few times... mainly for benchmark purposes... K&N drop-in, stock potenzas... 35psi... casual launch from low RPM = 2.2 60ft. Even with that 60ft and a sucky +3000ft DA I've still managed to run 14.03@99.92 mph which is just fine in my book.... when you use the NHRA's correction factor to convert that to sea level I'm looking at 13.6@103.7.... whether I would run exactly those times is questionable... but whether or not I would break into the 13's is unquestionable.
With all of your mods, your weight, and your track location... you should DEFINITELY be running in the 13s regardless of a light rear-end.
With all of your mods, your weight, and your track location... you should DEFINITELY be running in the 13s regardless of a light rear-end.
02-08-2007, 07:07 AM
#55
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by roast
With all of your mods, your weight, and your track location... you should DEFINITELY be running in the 13s regardless of a light rear-end.
02-08-2007, 05:57 PM
#57
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Juan
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nkohler
3280lbs with a 1/2 tank of gas and me (160lbs) in the car.
2003 Base, with OEM LSD installed, spare/tools removed, lighter exhaust.
Seems to be on par
2003 Base, with OEM LSD installed, spare/tools removed, lighter exhaust.
Seems to be on par
02-08-2007, 07:11 PM
#59
streetracer....
Have you ran with your current setup yet?
I would suggest not worrying about the light/reaction times when you do go... don't worry about racing the guy next to you... work on getting a solid launch and getting your 60ft down..... it's hard to work on your 60ft when you're trying to react with the light at the same time.... technique first.... reaction later...
Have you ran with your current setup yet?
I would suggest not worrying about the light/reaction times when you do go... don't worry about racing the guy next to you... work on getting a solid launch and getting your 60ft down..... it's hard to work on your 60ft when you're trying to react with the light at the same time.... technique first.... reaction later...
02-08-2007, 11:55 PM
#60
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sunny, smoggy California
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An expensive option, but a lighter flywheel would get your Z lighter and more balanced, not to metion freeing up some hp through efficiency. Tilton flywheel is too uncivilzed for driving everyday, and JWT/Nismo is not as light as can be for a street car. I've read a lot of possitive reviews about the ATS (carbonetics) carbon setup - 25lbs total compared to about 45 lbs for stock clutch+flywheel. That's another 20lbs off of the front of the Z