Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

04 vs 06 vs 08 Stock for Stock?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 24, 2008 | 08:54 PM
  #161  
HDPDZO6's Avatar
HDPDZO6
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas
Default

Originally Posted by RobH_350z
my friend when he was stock ran a 14.0 in his 07 hr
i ran a 13.9 all stock in my 04 de. all comes down to
reaction and just driver....
If you are comparing vehicle vs vehicle, driver has nothing to do with it. The top 1/4 times on this site prove that. The HR is a stronger vehicle... Period.

BTW, reaction time has nothing to do with ET.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2008 | 04:24 AM
  #162  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

Dude, I have owned a car with a light clutch. Maybe you haven't? You must REV the car a lot to take off a lot harder! Less mass, means you rev more, more mass means more weight being turned which helps you move more without reving the engine more.

And what you just said is what I said already. Wow.... So how am I incorrect? Laugh.

Originally Posted by Mike@RiversideInfiniti
Totally incorrect.

You have less STORED power, so you need to either rev higher, or let the clutch out slower.

In a racing situation, you'd be launching anyways, and stored power in a flywheel is totally insignificant relative the the amount of power necessary to turn 4 wheels and move the car.

Calculate how much energy a 14 lb flywheel has, vs a 27lb flywheel, both spinning at a given RPM.

Now calculate the energy required to move 3500lbs (car + driver + fluids) including the energy required to rotate 4 masses each weighing roughly 45 lbs (we'll assume it's a solid mass to simplify calculations for both the wheel/tires and flywheel)
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2008 | 04:25 AM
  #163  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

Originally Posted by RobH_350z
my friend when he was stock ran a 14.0 in his 07 hr
i ran a 13.9 all stock in my 04 de. all comes down to
reaction and just driver....

14.0 is a very slow time for a HR most run low 13s.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2008 | 05:19 AM
  #164  
HDPDZO6's Avatar
HDPDZO6
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas
Default

Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
14.0 is a very slow time for a HR most run low 13s.
Most HR's do NOT run low 13's.
Add about a half second.

Most DE's are posting high 13's & slower.
Reply
Old Sep 25, 2008 | 11:24 AM
  #165  
Mike@RiversideInfiniti's Avatar
Mike@RiversideInfiniti
Vendor - Former Vendor
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: riverside
Default

Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
Dude, I have owned a car with a light clutch. Maybe you haven't? You must REV the car a lot to take off a lot harder! Less mass, means you rev more, more mass means more weight being turned which helps you move more without reving the engine more.

And what you just said is what I said already. Wow.... So how am I incorrect? Laugh.
You don't need to rev any higher than before. Like I said, you just need to be more gentle with the clutch and gas pedals. Yes, you'll be giving it more gas, but NO, you shouldn't be revving higher. You're just burning off more clutch materiel. If you'd like to start at the same pace as you did BEFORE the clutch change, then you just need to adapt your driving, not rev higher. Revving higher is just a waste.

Even with my flywheel, (and heavy duty PP/clutch), I dont need any more than 1400 or so to get going at a very decent pace.
Reply
Old Oct 4, 2008 | 08:47 PM
  #166  
costilla's Avatar
costilla
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
From: santa rosa, TX/Kuwait
Default

I had a friend that put on a light flywheel on his svt focus and I did not feel a diff. I will still beat him in my modded zetec with stock tranny. Another friend put on a flywheel and clutch on his evo and I didn't feel a diff either. I still beat him in my hr. I think the only thing I will put on my car will be gears. its working for a lot people here in this site. I love my car.
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 01:48 AM
  #167  
RobH_350z's Avatar
RobH_350z
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 217
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio
Default

Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
14.0 is a very slow time for a HR most run low 13s.
did you get a 13.9? in a nismo 07?
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 07:59 AM
  #168  
gabez33's Avatar
gabez33
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,035
Likes: 1
From: SATX
Default

lol at this thread....NO RWHP gain for a flywheel...period. I'll put it like this....Its like grabbing a 20lb dumbell and spinning it with your wrist back and forth as fast as you can. Then grabbing a 5lb dumbell and doing the same....I didnt get any strong, just less weight to move...same exact concept....
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 12:55 PM
  #169  
nismo212's Avatar
nismo212
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: texas
Default

my budy has a 08 std with stillen shortrams and catback and my auto 03 with just an injen catback stays with his
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 12:56 PM
  #170  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

Tell him he needs to learn how to drive if he gets beat by a 03 auto. laugh.
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 07:13 PM
  #171  
costilla's Avatar
costilla
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
From: santa rosa, TX/Kuwait
Default

^^Your right, my friend with a 03 auto took off on me by 2 cars, then I caught up and still passed him like he was standing still. He has exhaust only.
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 07:32 PM
  #172  
costilla's Avatar
costilla
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
From: santa rosa, TX/Kuwait
Default

Originally Posted by nismo212
my budy has a 08 std with stillen shortrams and catback and my auto 03 with just an injen catback stays with his
Al, is that you? LOL
its mike.
Reply
Old Oct 5, 2008 | 11:12 PM
  #173  
OldDirty Z33's Avatar
OldDirty Z33
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,040
Likes: 0
From: Inland Empire
Default

From the research that I have done it comes down to driver... On the other hand the HR will have a better advantage for the slightly higher HP it has.
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 04:34 AM
  #174  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

Slightly more HP? The HR dynos almost 30 more hp than the DE does. Drivers being equal, the HR would beat a DE every day and every time.
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 06:19 AM
  #175  
WhiteNoiz's Avatar
WhiteNoiz
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
From: Boise, Idaho
Default

Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
Slightly more HP? The HR dynos almost 30 more hp than the DE does. Drivers being equal, the HR would beat a DE every day and every time.
Link to stock vs stock dyno? If there is an added 30 bhp for the HR, why didn't Nissan catch that, instead of marketing the added 19 bhp increase? I know this thread is heated, so don't get all pissed off, honest question.
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 06:24 AM
  #176  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

Stock DE's dyno 235-245 range, Stock HRs dyno 265-275 range. Try to search some.

Don't you recall that in 2005 SAE got changed to a new measurement?! The new one is more strict, and causes manufactures to really get a lot more power out of their cars. Some didn't change and decided to drop power in their cars like the Acura TL.

This is the reason why the HR is way more powerful, because Nissan didn't want to come out with a engine that produced less hp than the old one. They had to make up the difference from the old SAE rating to the new one and increase the # of HP for a selling point.
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 06:28 AM
  #177  
SOLO-350Z's Avatar
SOLO-350Z
'12 TL SH-AWD
Premier Member
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,348
Likes: 1
From: Alamo
Default

hp (SAE)
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse after the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended manufacturers use hp (SAE) to indicate the net power of the engine, given that particular car's complete engine installation. It measures engine power at the flywheel, not counting drivetrain losses.

Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972, US carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment.

SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel. Contrary to some reports, it does not measure power at the drive wheels.

Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, at best, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating (often considered to be understated) and a net rating of 375 hp.


SAE-certified horsepower
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[5] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW).
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 07:13 AM
  #178  
WhiteNoiz's Avatar
WhiteNoiz
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
From: Boise, Idaho
Default

Thanks Solo. I was confused by the bhp ratings in the 350z wiki.

**edit
I also was wondering what that was copied from, source would be good.

Last edited by WhiteNoiz; Oct 6, 2008 at 07:33 AM.
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 07:32 AM
  #179  
OldDirty Z33's Avatar
OldDirty Z33
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,040
Likes: 0
From: Inland Empire
Default

Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
hp (SAE)
In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse after the American Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended manufacturers use hp (SAE) to indicate the net power of the engine, given that particular car's complete engine installation. It measures engine power at the flywheel, not counting drivetrain losses.

Starting in 1971 automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower (as defined by standard J1349). This reflected the rated power of the engine in as-installed trim, with all accessories and standard intake and exhaust systems. By 1972, US carmakers quoted power exclusively in SAE net hp. The change was meant to 'deflate' power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies, as well as to obfuscate the power losses caused by emissions-control equipment.

SAE net ratings, while more accurate than gross ratings, still represent the engine's power at the flywheel. Contrary to some reports, it does not measure power at the drive wheels.

Because SAE gross ratings were applied liberally, at best, there is no precise conversion from gross to net. Comparison of gross and net ratings for unchanged engines shows a variance of anywhere from 40 to 150 horsepower. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, for example, in 1971 carried a 425 hp gross rating (often considered to be understated) and a net rating of 375 hp.


SAE-certified horsepower
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[5] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW).
Where did you copy that from??
Reply
Old Oct 6, 2008 | 09:15 AM
  #180  
SnakeBitten's Avatar
SnakeBitten
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
From: NY
Default

Originally Posted by HDPDZO6
Most HR's do NOT run low 13's.
Add about a half second.

Most DE's are posting high 13's & slower.

Dont fault the car for that, fault the driver. A good driver should put a "typical" HR in the low 13's. I agree on the DE's......
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:32 AM.