04 vs 06 vs 08 Stock for Stock?
09-24-2008, 08:54 PM
#161
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, reaction time has nothing to do with ET.
09-25-2008, 04:24 AM
#162
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.
And what you just said is what I said already. Wow....
So how am I incorrect? Laugh.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)
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)
09-25-2008, 05:19 AM
#164
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 5,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-25-2008, 11:24 AM
#165
Vendor - Former Vendor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: riverside
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And what you just said is what I said already. Wow....
So how am I incorrect? Laugh.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.
10-04-2008, 08:47 PM
#166
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: santa rosa, TX/Kuwait
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
10-05-2008, 07:59 AM
#168
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....
10-05-2008, 07:13 PM
#171
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: santa rosa, TX/Kuwait
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^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.
10-06-2008, 06:19 AM
#175
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
10-06-2008, 06:24 AM
#176
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.
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.
10-06-2008, 06:28 AM
#177
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).
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).
10-06-2008, 07:13 AM
#178
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
**edit
I also was wondering what that was copied from, source would be good.
Last edited by WhiteNoiz; 10-06-2008 at 07:33 AM.
10-06-2008, 07:32 AM
#179
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 2,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
