Future of the 350Z
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
From: hometown usa
why do so many ppl make it an "us or them" deal? 
If it looks biased it's because he's making a comparison against what he knows...he's been researching the F20C head for quite a while to find more power from the motor. It's like a doctor saying to you "well I saw this one patient that had your knee injury and learned to walk in a month..." do you take that to mean that he's against your own recovery?!?!?! give it a rest!!!!
JDZ - there are dyno charts of s2k in the oct. sport compact car article comparing stock vs. spoon vs. dave "Moton Man" kennedy's SC car. here's a link to one on s2ki. It is stock vs. AEM intake comparison.
It was difficult to improve the F20C, but it's getting easier now that there's been time for more research. AEM intake has been found to increase torque quite a bit, and swap the exhaust and put in a hi-flow cat and you'll get a good amount of power there for little money (comparatively). VAFC was $300 and got me avg.8hp, max 20hp and smoothed out the cam transition to give more usable power.
For the Z...the torque dropoff after 5k startled me a lot when I saw it. I think there will be cams out in the next 6 months that extend the usable rev range. I can imagine some torque gains with a replacement header too. Tuning the intake for higher RPM could keep the torque from dropping so fast but at the risk of losing some low/mid range power. I look forward to seeing what can happen, there are going to be some exciting engines out there
If it looks biased it's because he's making a comparison against what he knows...he's been researching the F20C head for quite a while to find more power from the motor. It's like a doctor saying to you "well I saw this one patient that had your knee injury and learned to walk in a month..." do you take that to mean that he's against your own recovery?!?!?! give it a rest!!!!JDZ - there are dyno charts of s2k in the oct. sport compact car article comparing stock vs. spoon vs. dave "Moton Man" kennedy's SC car. here's a link to one on s2ki. It is stock vs. AEM intake comparison.
It was difficult to improve the F20C, but it's getting easier now that there's been time for more research. AEM intake has been found to increase torque quite a bit, and swap the exhaust and put in a hi-flow cat and you'll get a good amount of power there for little money (comparatively). VAFC was $300 and got me avg.8hp, max 20hp and smoothed out the cam transition to give more usable power.
For the Z...the torque dropoff after 5k startled me a lot when I saw it. I think there will be cams out in the next 6 months that extend the usable rev range. I can imagine some torque gains with a replacement header too. Tuning the intake for higher RPM could keep the torque from dropping so fast but at the risk of losing some low/mid range power. I look forward to seeing what can happen, there are going to be some exciting engines out there
Last edited by The Unabageler; Sep 18, 2002 at 10:19 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally posted by S2kRob
Them Bones,
Continuously variable cam timing is different than VTEC. VTEC changes the actual cam profile, so you can run a mild cam for low revs and an aggressive cam for high revs.
Them Bones,
Continuously variable cam timing is different than VTEC. VTEC changes the actual cam profile, so you can run a mild cam for low revs and an aggressive cam for high revs.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
If I had a Z and I was nuts, I'd rip off the variable intake manifold and install 6 individual throttle bodies. Build a CF plenum chamber to feed them and design a CAI to feed the plenum. This should help boost the top end by a good deal. It's one of the reasons the S54 in the current M3 makes such big top end power. I think we will see some good gains on the top end on the VQ.
When I changed to bigger cams in my Corrado VR6, which had a torque curve similar to but lower than the VQ, I gained an extra 1000rpm of usable power, and a good chunk of torque above 4500rpm. Transformed the car completely. Man was it fun!
When I changed to bigger cams in my Corrado VR6, which had a torque curve similar to but lower than the VQ, I gained an extra 1000rpm of usable power, and a good chunk of torque above 4500rpm. Transformed the car completely. Man was it fun!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
in response to honda troll's engine geek guy, i think he is well spoken, but i dont know. I wont say he is full of **** by any means, but that is the EXACT same thing that was said about the Honda s2000. If my tuning knowledge is correct, give it about 1 year and we will see N/A w/ no port / polish or bore, and only simple bolt ons doing more then 320. My opinion, anyway.
Charter Member #49
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
From: Austin, Texas
Originally posted by ??????
I wish I would have gotten on this site earlier to see all these S2000 and 350Z arguements...
I wish I would have gotten on this site earlier to see all these S2000 and 350Z arguements...
By far, this thread is more technical, civilized and surprisingly no flames.
Both cars and engines have their respective good characteristic. Let's stick to the fact and enjoy the discussion.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by blur2ed
in response to honda troll's engine geek guy, i think he is well spoken, but i dont know. I wont say he is full of **** by any means, but that is the EXACT same thing that was said about the Honda s2000. If my tuning knowledge is correct, give it about 1 year and we will see N/A w/ no port / polish or bore, and only simple bolt ons doing more then 320. My opinion, anyway.
in response to honda troll's engine geek guy, i think he is well spoken, but i dont know. I wont say he is full of **** by any means, but that is the EXACT same thing that was said about the Honda s2000. If my tuning knowledge is correct, give it about 1 year and we will see N/A w/ no port / polish or bore, and only simple bolt ons doing more then 320. My opinion, anyway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by JDZ
Here's a few things that don't make sense about the analysis:
Regarding using cams to increase the high rpm torque and thus increase HP, the VQ can stand to lose some low rpm torque. It has plenty to spare. The S2000 OTOH already has a very peaky torque curve which would become even more peaky with an aggressive cam. VTEC would allow a very aggressive cam change while still being able to idle which is a good thing. However, you would have to increase the redline of the S2000 engine to take advantage of a highly aggressive cam profile. I don't know much about the engine but seems like it might be maxed out already at 9000.
Regarding the intake being a limiting factor for top end flow capacity, so what? Change the intake. He's talking about modding cars but seems to think that an intake manifold must be left in stock form. A good port job may be all that is needed but the aftermarket may offer something even better.
Here's a few things that don't make sense about the analysis:
Regarding using cams to increase the high rpm torque and thus increase HP, the VQ can stand to lose some low rpm torque. It has plenty to spare. The S2000 OTOH already has a very peaky torque curve which would become even more peaky with an aggressive cam. VTEC would allow a very aggressive cam change while still being able to idle which is a good thing. However, you would have to increase the redline of the S2000 engine to take advantage of a highly aggressive cam profile. I don't know much about the engine but seems like it might be maxed out already at 9000.
Regarding the intake being a limiting factor for top end flow capacity, so what? Change the intake. He's talking about modding cars but seems to think that an intake manifold must be left in stock form. A good port job may be all that is needed but the aftermarket may offer something even better.
And he's not talking about the intake, he's talking about the intake manifold. And the way the intake manifold/plenum are set up, you would have to replace it, since it's a limiting factor. However, your manifold is part of what gives the 350Z its power. You talk about replacing the manifold like it's nothing, but you must realize that it's not as simple as that. You may replace one, but it may sacrifice low end torque. That kind of decision should be left up to the tuning engineers, and only time will then tell.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I understand what he's saying. I didn't say that replacing the intake manifold was nothing but it's also not impossible. Besides, a port and polish on the intake may do wonders considering that it is casted for mass production.
The potential for the VQ lies in the fact that it is designed for alot of low and mid range power (intake design among other things). As you S2k owners know, alot of power in this band is not as important for racing as power up high. It's much easier to slide the torque curve into higher rpm's than to add torque at all rpm's. There should be enough torque left over at low rpm's to keep the engine idling but if not, idle speed can be raised.
The potential for the VQ lies in the fact that it is designed for alot of low and mid range power (intake design among other things). As you S2k owners know, alot of power in this band is not as important for racing as power up high. It's much easier to slide the torque curve into higher rpm's than to add torque at all rpm's. There should be enough torque left over at low rpm's to keep the engine idling but if not, idle speed can be raised.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
From: Costa Mesa, CA
Sorry, this is not another "Z is better, S2000 sucks" post. Just posting what I read at www.s2ki.com
Vortech SC'ed S2000 in 9/02 Road & Track
A supercharged S2000's performance:
- 118 additional bhp
- 358 bhp total
- 13.8 @ 105.6 vs 14.1 @ 99.6 stock (as tested in 9/00)
- 5.4 sec 0-60
Poor performance for a $5,000 mod.
Vortech SC'ed S2000 in 9/02 Road & Track
A supercharged S2000's performance:
- 118 additional bhp
- 358 bhp total
- 13.8 @ 105.6 vs 14.1 @ 99.6 stock (as tested in 9/00)
- 5.4 sec 0-60
Poor performance for a $5,000 mod.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by JDZ
I understand what he's saying. I didn't say that replacing the intake manifold was nothing but it's also not impossible. Besides, a port and polish on the intake may do wonders considering that it is casted for mass production.
The potential for the VQ lies in the fact that it is designed for alot of low and mid range power (intake design among other things). As you S2k owners know, alot of power in this band is not as important for racing as power up high. It's much easier to slide the torque curve into higher rpm's than to add torque at all rpm's. There should be enough torque left over at low rpm's to keep the engine idling but if not, idle speed can be raised.
I understand what he's saying. I didn't say that replacing the intake manifold was nothing but it's also not impossible. Besides, a port and polish on the intake may do wonders considering that it is casted for mass production.
The potential for the VQ lies in the fact that it is designed for alot of low and mid range power (intake design among other things). As you S2k owners know, alot of power in this band is not as important for racing as power up high. It's much easier to slide the torque curve into higher rpm's than to add torque at all rpm's. There should be enough torque left over at low rpm's to keep the engine idling but if not, idle speed can be raised.
It will be interesting to see 1 year from now how the N/A 350z's are doing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by BullishZ
Sorry, this is not another "Z is better, S2000 sucks" post. Just posting what I read at www.s2ki.com
Vortech SC'ed S2000 in 9/02 Road & Track
A supercharged S2000's performance:
- 118 additional bhp
- 358 bhp total
- 13.8 @ 105.6 vs 14.1 @ 99.6 stock (as tested in 9/00)
- 5.4 sec 0-60
Poor performance for a $5,000 mod.
Sorry, this is not another "Z is better, S2000 sucks" post. Just posting what I read at www.s2ki.com
Vortech SC'ed S2000 in 9/02 Road & Track
A supercharged S2000's performance:
- 118 additional bhp
- 358 bhp total
- 13.8 @ 105.6 vs 14.1 @ 99.6 stock (as tested in 9/00)
- 5.4 sec 0-60
Poor performance for a $5,000 mod.
basically it's this. 13.8 has been acheived in the STOCK car by good drivers. (i myself have seen 13.8) If you take a car and add 100hp and you can ONLY GET .3 SECONDS OFF YOUR 1/4 MILE.... then you are an idiot. They can post that number all they want, but us at S2ki.com know they just can't drive an SC'd S2000. OUR SC'd s2k's are running high 12's, and low low 13's. so the numbers posted in that mag are WAY WAY WAY off.
Don't post something you say you got on s2ki.com WITHOUT posting the facts about what we said in response. that will only start a flame war, which thus far this thread is not. those numbers are garbage and the whole world should know it.
Stock S2k, capable of 13.6 with 240hp.
SC'd s2k, capable of 13.8??? with 358hp. I don't think so.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by honda troll
You should also read what we stated about that "test" they did.
basically it's this. 13.8 has been acheived in the STOCK car by good drivers. (i myself have seen 13.8) If you take a car and add 100hp and you can ONLY GET .3 SECONDS OFF YOUR 1/4 MILE.... then you are an idiot. They can post that number all they want, but us at S2ki.com know they just can't drive an SC'd S2000. OUR SC'd s2k's are running high 12's, and low low 13's. so the numbers posted in that mag are WAY WAY WAY off.
Don't post something you say you got on s2ki.com WITHOUT posting the facts about what we said in response. that will only start a flame war, which thus far this thread is not. those numbers are garbage and the whole world should know it.
Stock S2k, capable of 13.6 with 240hp.
SC'd s2k, capable of 13.8??? with 358hp. I don't think so.....
[IMG]
http://www.s2ki.com/ezimagecatalog/c...59-640x480.jpg[/IMG]
You should also read what we stated about that "test" they did.
basically it's this. 13.8 has been acheived in the STOCK car by good drivers. (i myself have seen 13.8) If you take a car and add 100hp and you can ONLY GET .3 SECONDS OFF YOUR 1/4 MILE.... then you are an idiot. They can post that number all they want, but us at S2ki.com know they just can't drive an SC'd S2000. OUR SC'd s2k's are running high 12's, and low low 13's. so the numbers posted in that mag are WAY WAY WAY off.
Don't post something you say you got on s2ki.com WITHOUT posting the facts about what we said in response. that will only start a flame war, which thus far this thread is not. those numbers are garbage and the whole world should know it.
Stock S2k, capable of 13.6 with 240hp.
SC'd s2k, capable of 13.8??? with 358hp. I don't think so.....
[IMG]
http://www.s2ki.com/ezimagecatalog/c...59-640x480.jpg[/IMG]
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
From: Costa Mesa, CA
Originally posted by honda troll
You should also read what we stated about that "test" they did.
basically it's this. 13.8 has been acheived in the STOCK car by good drivers. (i myself have seen 13.8) If you take a car and add 100hp and you can ONLY GET .3 SECONDS OFF YOUR 1/4 MILE.... then you are an idiot. They can post that number all they want, but us at S2ki.com know they just can't drive an SC'd S2000. OUR SC'd s2k's are running high 12's, and low low 13's. so the numbers posted in that mag are WAY WAY WAY off.
Don't post something you say you got on s2ki.com WITHOUT posting the facts about what we said in response. that will only start a flame war, which thus far this thread is not. those numbers are garbage and the whole world should know it.
Stock S2k, capable of 13.6 with 240hp.
SC'd s2k, capable of 13.8??? with 358hp. I don't think so.....
You should also read what we stated about that "test" they did.
basically it's this. 13.8 has been acheived in the STOCK car by good drivers. (i myself have seen 13.8) If you take a car and add 100hp and you can ONLY GET .3 SECONDS OFF YOUR 1/4 MILE.... then you are an idiot. They can post that number all they want, but us at S2ki.com know they just can't drive an SC'd S2000. OUR SC'd s2k's are running high 12's, and low low 13's. so the numbers posted in that mag are WAY WAY WAY off.
Don't post something you say you got on s2ki.com WITHOUT posting the facts about what we said in response. that will only start a flame war, which thus far this thread is not. those numbers are garbage and the whole world should know it.
Stock S2k, capable of 13.6 with 240hp.
SC'd s2k, capable of 13.8??? with 358hp. I don't think so.....
Troll on, Mr. Expert.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by BullishZ
That is why I posted the link to the entire thread...
Troll on, Mr. Expert.
That is why I posted the link to the entire thread...
Troll on, Mr. Expert.
Sorry.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
liqalu04
Engine & Drivetrain
31
Jan 2, 2022 12:58 PM
wanderingstuden
Maintenance & Repair
6
Jan 28, 2016 07:03 PM
350Z Project X
Suspension
9
Oct 10, 2015 09:23 AM
