Well got off the phone with Nissan Engineer (coolinfo)
10-18-2002, 08:50 AM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK OK, it wasn't as bad as I initially thought. Here goes:
-------------
>>The emissions system or Emissions Control Module (ECM) is a closed loop feedback control system.
No, not exactly. All OBD I and OBD II engine management systems, including that found on the Z, go into open loop during WOT fuel mapping, and typically during cold start.
>>It monitors the Oxygen sensors (yes plural for the Z, I have pictures) and adjusts the amount of fuel being delivered by the injectors to lean or richen the air/fuel mixture.
Uhh, all modern cars have multiple O2 sensors. Nothing special about the Z here. Typically, OBD I cars (pre 96) only have them upstream of the cats, while OBD II cars (post 95) include downstream sensors as well.
>>Rich mixture means more power but also more polutants and the output voltage of the oxygen sensor changes. There are several types, still waiting on the Shop Manual to know what type is used on the Z. I am most familiar with the O2 sensor that toggles around .5 volts.
To a point. Too rich and you lose power. For naturally aspirated motors, this number is typically around 13.3. . . but for some forced induction applications, mainly aftermarket forced induction, richer mixtures are used, know in the industry as ‘fuel dumping’ to help bring cylinder temps down.
>>>So, if you want to fool the ECM into thinking it's lean when it is actually rich then you have to fool the oxygen sensor. However, this type of oxygen sensor isn't easy to fool.
NO NO NO. An 02 sensor is a ‘dumb’ component. It cannot be fooled and has not logic circuitry. It does one thing, and that is, provides a voltage based on the oxygen partial pressure in the exhaust gas. That’s it. There’s no ‘fooling’ involved.
>>Both types of emissions are what EPA is trying to reduce. So the ECU is always trying to control the Air/Fuel mixture to stoichiometric or about 14:1. At stoichiometric, you have the best situation for least hydrocarbons and least nitrogen oxides. So that is what the ECM does, it continuously reads the O2 sensor and adjusts the amount of fuel being delivered to achieve stoichiometric.
Right. 14.7:1 is stoichiometric. However, o2 sensor readings are ignored during certain running conditions as noted above. One of the reasons is that at WOT, you’ll end up with scorched valves trying to maintain 14.7:1 AFR.
>>Now it gets a little more complicated when you introduce acceleration/deacceleration and air temperature which means air mass and that is where the mass air flow sensor comes into play. The goal of the emissions system is to reduce emissions at all times under all conditions, cold engine, warm engine, high and low air temperatures , iddling, accelerating etc. As EPA reduces the allowable manufacturers emissions, the circuitry has to get more complicated to reduce emissions under all conditions.
Right, see exceptions above.
>>That is why HP advantages by non-breathing improvement ad-ons won't add-on HP if the emissions are the same because the ECM is controlling the mixture. You have to fool the circuitry as well.
No. If you can get more air into the motor you can make more power. Today’s engine management systems will indeed adjust to the increased airflow, just as it would do under differing altitudes, temperatures, barometric pressures, humidity. This does not mean, however, that you will not make more hp with bolt ons that promote free-er breathing. But, many of today’s intake systems are so well optimized, and all sorts of frequency tuning tricks are carried out with modern plenums and even upstream into the airbox, that aftermarket mods can reduce power. But, this issue has nothing to do with your engine management system.
>>If you put on any type of intake (properly designed with info from Nissan that enhances breathing over the stock which is already pretty good) or Forced Induction which will need a bigger input pipe (plenum and MAF sensor) for best efficiency, you are moving more air into the engine and the ECM compensates by adding more fuel to avoid lean emissions.
Not necessarily. Upsized intake piping typically has little, if any effect in connection with bolt ons. It all depends on where the bottleneck is in your intake tract, your MAF and piping generally are not bottlenecks in today’s motors. . . generally it’s the head design or compromises in the intake plenum for increased intake charge velocity for low end tq vs increase flow (more cfm’s) for better top end hp.
>>Which means more power. However as you force more air into the engine, you do two things. First you compress the air, which effectively raises the compression ratio and there is a limit (by design of engine internals - heads cranks bores etc).
No No No. Compression ratios stay the same! Cylinder pressures go up with forced induction, but your compression ratio stays the same.
>>Secondly when you compress air it heats up. So you need an intercooler to cool the air after it is compressed but before it enters the engine to extend engine life and to get the yield out of the increased breathing (cooler air more HP).
Right, but not for n/a bolt ons (you were referencing above an intake bolt on or forced induction).
>>At the same time, the injectors and the computer that controls them (ECM/ECU) has to be able to provide the extra amount of fuel to maintain stoichiometric with the additional amount of air, which is why capacity of the injectors and the pulse-width range of the control electronics are important.
Absolutely. The injectors’ duty cycle becomes very important.
>>Now, turbos run HOT because they use exhaust gas which is hot. All that heat sits under the hood. I know about this, because a friend and I just got done replacing all the rubber under the hood of his RX-7 TT. It even has a circuit on it that lets the engine run for a few minutes when you turn the key off to cool down the turbo bearings and oil so it doesn't coke off. Whereas on my other friends stock supercharged intercooler SVT, it stays pretty cool under the hood.
Don’t confuse underhood heat with intake temperatures. Intake temps, which are critical to control/reduce for durability and power, are more a function of the adiabatic efficiency of the compressor rather than how it is driven (in the case of a turbo, it’s driven off the exhaust gas, in the case of a blower, off the crankshaft).
>>For an already high compression ratio engine, with already good breathing that doesn't require a lot of boost (compression) to get more air flowing into the engine a supercharger is the right choice especially when you consider the less heat under the hood benefit and when what you want to do is force as much air in the engine as you can without causing it to prematurely fail. So I understand his desire for a supercharger in lieu of a turbo charger and agree with it. Can the engine handle more boost as with a turbo charger? He should know. Will you get more HP with turbos versus supercharger? He should know.
The turbo vs. blower debate has raged since the beginning of time. I’m not going to summarize my thoughts on it here. But, I’ll say this in relation to your comments. A turbo does not intrinsically make more or less boost than a blower as your comments appear to indicate. In addition, at Xpsi boost at max power, a turbo car and a blown car, provided each has identical intercooling mechanisms and the respective compressors have similar adiabatic efficiencies, will make close to the same power. The key difference is nature of power delivery.
>>>Supercharger for me please!!!!!
OK
-------------
>>The emissions system or Emissions Control Module (ECM) is a closed loop feedback control system.
No, not exactly. All OBD I and OBD II engine management systems, including that found on the Z, go into open loop during WOT fuel mapping, and typically during cold start.
>>It monitors the Oxygen sensors (yes plural for the Z, I have pictures) and adjusts the amount of fuel being delivered by the injectors to lean or richen the air/fuel mixture.
Uhh, all modern cars have multiple O2 sensors. Nothing special about the Z here. Typically, OBD I cars (pre 96) only have them upstream of the cats, while OBD II cars (post 95) include downstream sensors as well.
>>Rich mixture means more power but also more polutants and the output voltage of the oxygen sensor changes. There are several types, still waiting on the Shop Manual to know what type is used on the Z. I am most familiar with the O2 sensor that toggles around .5 volts.
To a point. Too rich and you lose power. For naturally aspirated motors, this number is typically around 13.3. . . but for some forced induction applications, mainly aftermarket forced induction, richer mixtures are used, know in the industry as ‘fuel dumping’ to help bring cylinder temps down.
>>>So, if you want to fool the ECM into thinking it's lean when it is actually rich then you have to fool the oxygen sensor. However, this type of oxygen sensor isn't easy to fool.
NO NO NO. An 02 sensor is a ‘dumb’ component. It cannot be fooled and has not logic circuitry. It does one thing, and that is, provides a voltage based on the oxygen partial pressure in the exhaust gas. That’s it. There’s no ‘fooling’ involved.
>>Both types of emissions are what EPA is trying to reduce. So the ECU is always trying to control the Air/Fuel mixture to stoichiometric or about 14:1. At stoichiometric, you have the best situation for least hydrocarbons and least nitrogen oxides. So that is what the ECM does, it continuously reads the O2 sensor and adjusts the amount of fuel being delivered to achieve stoichiometric.
Right. 14.7:1 is stoichiometric. However, o2 sensor readings are ignored during certain running conditions as noted above. One of the reasons is that at WOT, you’ll end up with scorched valves trying to maintain 14.7:1 AFR.
>>Now it gets a little more complicated when you introduce acceleration/deacceleration and air temperature which means air mass and that is where the mass air flow sensor comes into play. The goal of the emissions system is to reduce emissions at all times under all conditions, cold engine, warm engine, high and low air temperatures , iddling, accelerating etc. As EPA reduces the allowable manufacturers emissions, the circuitry has to get more complicated to reduce emissions under all conditions.
Right, see exceptions above.
>>That is why HP advantages by non-breathing improvement ad-ons won't add-on HP if the emissions are the same because the ECM is controlling the mixture. You have to fool the circuitry as well.
No. If you can get more air into the motor you can make more power. Today’s engine management systems will indeed adjust to the increased airflow, just as it would do under differing altitudes, temperatures, barometric pressures, humidity. This does not mean, however, that you will not make more hp with bolt ons that promote free-er breathing. But, many of today’s intake systems are so well optimized, and all sorts of frequency tuning tricks are carried out with modern plenums and even upstream into the airbox, that aftermarket mods can reduce power. But, this issue has nothing to do with your engine management system.
>>If you put on any type of intake (properly designed with info from Nissan that enhances breathing over the stock which is already pretty good) or Forced Induction which will need a bigger input pipe (plenum and MAF sensor) for best efficiency, you are moving more air into the engine and the ECM compensates by adding more fuel to avoid lean emissions.
Not necessarily. Upsized intake piping typically has little, if any effect in connection with bolt ons. It all depends on where the bottleneck is in your intake tract, your MAF and piping generally are not bottlenecks in today’s motors. . . generally it’s the head design or compromises in the intake plenum for increased intake charge velocity for low end tq vs increase flow (more cfm’s) for better top end hp.
>>Which means more power. However as you force more air into the engine, you do two things. First you compress the air, which effectively raises the compression ratio and there is a limit (by design of engine internals - heads cranks bores etc).
No No No. Compression ratios stay the same! Cylinder pressures go up with forced induction, but your compression ratio stays the same.
>>Secondly when you compress air it heats up. So you need an intercooler to cool the air after it is compressed but before it enters the engine to extend engine life and to get the yield out of the increased breathing (cooler air more HP).
Right, but not for n/a bolt ons (you were referencing above an intake bolt on or forced induction).
>>At the same time, the injectors and the computer that controls them (ECM/ECU) has to be able to provide the extra amount of fuel to maintain stoichiometric with the additional amount of air, which is why capacity of the injectors and the pulse-width range of the control electronics are important.
Absolutely. The injectors’ duty cycle becomes very important.
>>Now, turbos run HOT because they use exhaust gas which is hot. All that heat sits under the hood. I know about this, because a friend and I just got done replacing all the rubber under the hood of his RX-7 TT. It even has a circuit on it that lets the engine run for a few minutes when you turn the key off to cool down the turbo bearings and oil so it doesn't coke off. Whereas on my other friends stock supercharged intercooler SVT, it stays pretty cool under the hood.
Don’t confuse underhood heat with intake temperatures. Intake temps, which are critical to control/reduce for durability and power, are more a function of the adiabatic efficiency of the compressor rather than how it is driven (in the case of a turbo, it’s driven off the exhaust gas, in the case of a blower, off the crankshaft).
>>For an already high compression ratio engine, with already good breathing that doesn't require a lot of boost (compression) to get more air flowing into the engine a supercharger is the right choice especially when you consider the less heat under the hood benefit and when what you want to do is force as much air in the engine as you can without causing it to prematurely fail. So I understand his desire for a supercharger in lieu of a turbo charger and agree with it. Can the engine handle more boost as with a turbo charger? He should know. Will you get more HP with turbos versus supercharger? He should know.
The turbo vs. blower debate has raged since the beginning of time. I’m not going to summarize my thoughts on it here. But, I’ll say this in relation to your comments. A turbo does not intrinsically make more or less boost than a blower as your comments appear to indicate. In addition, at Xpsi boost at max power, a turbo car and a blown car, provided each has identical intercooling mechanisms and the respective compressors have similar adiabatic efficiencies, will make close to the same power. The key difference is nature of power delivery.
>>>Supercharger for me please!!!!!
OK
10-18-2002, 09:01 AM
#83
Registered User
Thanks frayed for your insights. So, if that were true, then in order for us to extract the potential of the VQ engine, all you really need to do then is to modify the ECM and leave the O2 sensors alone, correct?
10-18-2002, 09:10 AM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, O2 sensors should remain intact. There are O2 simulators out there, however, that send a dummy signal to the ECM to 'trick' your ECM into believing it has stoichiometric running conditions.
However, these typically can only be used on 02 sensors downstream of your cats, as the ones upstream in your exhaust manifold are used to calculate proper running conditions like LTFT (long term fuel trim); replacement would turn your motor into a time bomb. On the plus side, such simulators can permit cat removal, but this is illegal for a street driven car, and not particularly good for our environment.
As to the ECM or whatever acronym Nissan uses, it will likely take a bit for the aftermarket to crack the code (so to speak) but I'm not that up on Nissan tuning so it may already have been done.
Certain cars leave a lot of performance on the table, other cars don't, from ECM tuning. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Nissan left much performance on the table through use of software. But, this is just my gut call. I'd bet that some significant hardware change would have to be made. High flow cats, better tuned length headers with a better collector design, different plenums, different cams, etc. But that's just a guess.
However, these typically can only be used on 02 sensors downstream of your cats, as the ones upstream in your exhaust manifold are used to calculate proper running conditions like LTFT (long term fuel trim); replacement would turn your motor into a time bomb. On the plus side, such simulators can permit cat removal, but this is illegal for a street driven car, and not particularly good for our environment.
As to the ECM or whatever acronym Nissan uses, it will likely take a bit for the aftermarket to crack the code (so to speak) but I'm not that up on Nissan tuning so it may already have been done.
Certain cars leave a lot of performance on the table, other cars don't, from ECM tuning. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Nissan left much performance on the table through use of software. But, this is just my gut call. I'd bet that some significant hardware change would have to be made. High flow cats, better tuned length headers with a better collector design, different plenums, different cams, etc. But that's just a guess.
10-18-2002, 12:40 PM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think there is extra power lurking in the motor. What I'd like to ask you guys is this: When you look at a dyno chart of the Z's VQ it makes peak power around 5500 rpm and then HOLDS that power for another 1,000 rpm to just about redline. I would think that indicates it's constricted (intake, exhaust) or electronically limited by the ecu or ecm whatever you call it. Does this make sense? I would think that it would keep making power up to a certain point and then if that's the max it would tail off afterward, but the Z just holds it there. Now some people are saying 320 HP is probably available with a better ecm and I wonder if that would occur if the new ecm allows power to keep building past 5500 rather than flattening out? IE it will keep pulling until redline and not flatten like it does now. Or am I way off on this? Any ideas? I think I'd be plenty happy with 320 N/A HP.
10-18-2002, 12:53 PM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would buy a supercharger if it wasnt too much. I just got out a turbo car (audi TT0 and I'll never buy another one. I hated the lag and compensating for the car's lack of immedite response. The best thing that I like about the Z is that I drive IT now, it doesnt drive ME. 
10-18-2002, 01:05 PM
#87
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wileecoyte
I personally think there is extra power lurking in the motor. What I'd like to ask you guys is this: When you look at a dyno chart of the Z's VQ it makes peak power around 5500 rpm and then HOLDS that power for another 1,000 rpm to just about redline. I would think that indicates it's constricted (intake, exhaust) or electronically limited by the ecu or ecm whatever you call it. Does this make sense? I would think that it would keep making power up to a certain point and then if that's the max it would tail off afterward, but the Z just holds it there. Now some people are saying 320 HP is probably available with a better ecm and I wonder if that would occur if the new ecm allows power to keep building past 5500 rather than flattening out? IE it will keep pulling until redline and not flatten like it does now. Or am I way off on this? Any ideas? I think I'd be plenty happy with 320 N/A HP.
I personally think there is extra power lurking in the motor. What I'd like to ask you guys is this: When you look at a dyno chart of the Z's VQ it makes peak power around 5500 rpm and then HOLDS that power for another 1,000 rpm to just about redline. I would think that indicates it's constricted (intake, exhaust) or electronically limited by the ecu or ecm whatever you call it. Does this make sense? I would think that it would keep making power up to a certain point and then if that's the max it would tail off afterward, but the Z just holds it there. Now some people are saying 320 HP is probably available with a better ecm and I wonder if that would occur if the new ecm allows power to keep building past 5500 rather than flattening out? IE it will keep pulling until redline and not flatten like it does now. Or am I way off on this? Any ideas? I think I'd be plenty happy with 320 N/A HP.
The problem is this. . . in order to get the motor to breathe at high rpms and make good tq (and hence hp), you typically do things that impact mid range tq. Things like bigger, shorter intake plenums, header/collector design tuned for high rpm power, cams, etc.
The trick is maintaining the Z's healthy midrange but get it opened up on top. As the aftermarket opens up for the Z's, keep this in mind. I predict some hp mods on the horizon, but most of them will hurt the midrange. Most folks would not make that trade off.
Like I said earlier, enroll in a DE, and run the daylights out of your car. After that, I'll bet money you'll come back thinking "I don't need more power, I need to be a better driver". Especialy with street tires, it is very difficult to take advantage of the power the Z's deliver.
You guys did not buy a drag racer. . . I wouldn't try to turn it into one.
Sorry for the rant. . . I'm transfixed right now on choosing new track pads and track rubber. Argghh.
10-18-2002, 02:42 PM
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Detroit (GP), MI
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm willing to bet that the engine, all told, is capable of 350+hp in its NA configuration. Something tells me that from a life-cycle standpoint, they had to leave room for improvement, so that they wouldn't have to change much but still be able to make improvements.
I don't have a technical engineering degree, but shrewd marketing strategy and cost efficiency decisions make this easier to see. Maybe we'll see the 350hp 350Z within the next few years. From a performance standpoint, it would only make sense that they left enough room to pull more power out as the model years went by.
IA - see what the engineer says about this. If he smiles, or goes very silent for a moment, it'll speak for itself.
I don't have a technical engineering degree, but shrewd marketing strategy and cost efficiency decisions make this easier to see. Maybe we'll see the 350hp 350Z within the next few years. From a performance standpoint, it would only make sense that they left enough room to pull more power out as the model years went by.
IA - see what the engineer says about this. If he smiles, or goes very silent for a moment, it'll speak for itself.
10-18-2002, 03:28 PM
#90
New Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: san luis obispo, ca
Posts: 1,580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by frayed
You guys did not buy a drag racer. . . I wouldn't try to turn it into one.
You guys did not buy a drag racer. . . I wouldn't try to turn it into one.
A-men! I've never quite understood why people would pay so much money for cars that were designed and tuned for good handling and "track-ability" and then spend so much time, effort, and money modifying them so they'll go as fast as possible in a striaght line... often at the expense of the track-ability. It would seem more logical in those situations to buy a car designed and tuned for straight line performance. You'll generally pay less money and get much better results if you buy a car that is designed (from the factory) to do what you want to do with it.
But to each their own, I guess.
10-18-2002, 08:12 PM
#91
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by frayed
That was the most rudimentary and techinically inaccurate discussion of thermodynamics and engine control management I've read in a long, long time.
That was the most rudimentary and techinically inaccurate discussion of thermodynamics and engine control management I've read in a long, long time.
No problem, all is good.
I read your detailed replies and it looks like you said what I said, you just said it better, more precisely and with extra detail!
And you are right about the turbo versus super debate, it's like discussing politics or religion! For every pro there is a con for every statement there is a counter statement. And it has been raging since they were invented.
I did not say or mean to say that a turbo puts out any more or less boost or power than a blower. Obviously it depends on the implementation. Was trying to say that if we want to know what is feasible within the design limitations of the Z, all things considered (including secondary affects like engine compartment heat and reliability), that I believe the Nissan engineers should know...unless of course you or somebody else knows?
Enforcer
10-18-2002, 08:22 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jreiter
A-men! I've never quite understood why people would pay so much money for cars that were designed and tuned for good handling and "track-ability" and then spend so much time, effort, and money modifying them so they'll go as fast as possible in a striaght line... often at the expense of the track-ability. It would seem more logical in those situations to buy a car designed and tuned for straight line performance. You'll generally pay less money and get much better results if you buy a car that is designed (from the factory) to do what you want to do with it.
But to each their own, I guess.
A-men! I've never quite understood why people would pay so much money for cars that were designed and tuned for good handling and "track-ability" and then spend so much time, effort, and money modifying them so they'll go as fast as possible in a striaght line... often at the expense of the track-ability. It would seem more logical in those situations to buy a car designed and tuned for straight line performance. You'll generally pay less money and get much better results if you buy a car that is designed (from the factory) to do what you want to do with it.
But to each their own, I guess.
Enforcer
10-18-2002, 08:41 PM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Z33Fan
I'm willing to bet that the engine, all told, is capable of 350+hp in its NA configuration. Something tells me that from a life-cycle standpoint, they had to leave room for improvement, so that they wouldn't have to change much but still be able to make improvements.
I'm willing to bet that the engine, all told, is capable of 350+hp in its NA configuration. Something tells me that from a life-cycle standpoint, they had to leave room for improvement, so that they wouldn't have to change much but still be able to make improvements.
10-18-2002, 09:15 PM
#94
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by InternetABYSS
hmmmm....my car is fixed so i probably will only get one more phone call...I hope he will have a LONG conversation with me....
Enforcer....I liked your post....I barely understand it....but it sounded ALOT like the stuff he was talking about....
You said in your post something about 14.1 ratio.....I distinctly remember him saying something about 17.1 I have know idea what about....this stuff is way above me....I wish one of you techies was talking to this guy....he might give you a job...LOL
MY CAR IS FIXED
Still happy
hmmmm....my car is fixed so i probably will only get one more phone call...I hope he will have a LONG conversation with me....
Enforcer....I liked your post....I barely understand it....but it sounded ALOT like the stuff he was talking about....
You said in your post something about 14.1 ratio.....I distinctly remember him saying something about 17.1 I have know idea what about....this stuff is way above me....I wish one of you techies was talking to this guy....he might give you a job...LOL
MY CAR IS FIXED
Still happy
Dang, sorry you didn't understand it.
remembered some of the basics and thought they might help you.I don't know whats special about the 17:1. Maybe the experts in here might know.
I think your doing great talking to him. Have you suggested he come participate in this forum?
Enforcer
10-18-2002, 09:27 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mike952
Technical question...
What would be the best solution to reducing the vibration of the shifter...and what would be the steps...
BTW, great post..
Technical question...
What would be the best solution to reducing the vibration of the shifter...and what would be the steps...
BTW, great post..
Enforcer
10-18-2002, 09:33 PM
#96
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mr350Z
Mr. Internetabyss what would you be willing to pay for a supercharger kit?...and what would you be willing to pay for the install?
Mr. Internetabyss what would you be willing to pay for a supercharger kit?...and what would you be willing to pay for the install?
3-5k for supercharger...and 600-1000 install
also I was gone all night to night and no call that I know of today....I hope he still calls even though my car is fixed now....I would like to see if I could get him to read this thread...to answer this stuff personally....WELL lets just hope he calls now that I got my car back.
10-19-2002, 02:28 AM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, I don't want to severely affect the handling for more straight line speed ... nor acceleration. But if I can get more acceleration without severely affecting the handling, then I'm all for it. I wonder how much affect a SC would have on the handling?
And, they are tougher on the valvetrain, and affect the free revving nature of the motor. Two the of the fastest club racers in the country in B Mod, both go rid of their forced induction setups in favor of built naturally aspirated motors. With less rwhp, both racers go faster with the change. When running blowers, both had to show up to the track with a big parts bin, it wasn't uncommon to show up with 2-3 extra compressor units. Then, there's the myriad of track ****** at the track that have had issues, from saleen mustangs to blown miatas. The common link was aftermarket forced induction.
High compression motors + stock internals including valvetrain + hard track use at 10/10's + high ambient temps = frustrating experience.
More performance on the track can be had from better driver, better suspension, better rubber and wheels, and better brake pads, than a bolt on hairdryer. Triple adjustable Motons, Hoosiers, more front camber, and a set of Hawk Blues will do far more than 80 rwhp from a Vortech blower unit.
BTW, the Z car pushes pretty badly from the factory. That's the first thing that has to be addressed to truly go fast. It's not a big deal though. . . my M3 pushed pretty significantly out of the box.
This, of course, is IMHO, and is against what all the tuner rags out there try to sell you.
10-19-2002, 05:53 AM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
A-men! I've never quite understood why people would pay so much money for cars that were designed and tuned for good handling and "track-ability" and then spend so much time, effort, and money modifying them so they'll go as fast as possible in a striaght line... often at the expense of the track-ability. It would seem more logical in those situations to buy a car designed and tuned for straight line performance. You'll generally pay less money and get much better results if you buy a car that is designed (from the factory) to do what you want to do with it.
For those of us that do not live in California or have a great road track nearby, al we can do is go fast in a straight line!
I think we should all lobby our local goverments (especially in the Mid-west) to require more curves in all new road constuction!
A-men! I've never quite understood why people would pay so much money for cars that were designed and tuned for good handling and "track-ability" and then spend so much time, effort, and money modifying them so they'll go as fast as possible in a striaght line... often at the expense of the track-ability. It would seem more logical in those situations to buy a car designed and tuned for straight line performance. You'll generally pay less money and get much better results if you buy a car that is designed (from the factory) to do what you want to do with it.
For those of us that do not live in California or have a great road track nearby, al we can do is go fast in a straight line!
I think we should all lobby our local goverments (especially in the Mid-west) to require more curves in all new road constuction!
10-22-2002, 01:09 PM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what Frayed is saying about becoming a better driver. I haven't been able to get to any trackdays...yet. BUT, I drive on the road a lot and in my current car people are constantly trying to race me. Is it as challenging as mastering Watkins Glen? No. Is it fun to run against someone from a stoplight? Yep. I like both, but around me we have lots of fast cars, and I for one don't feel like getting blown out of the water by other high performance cars. If I'm putting up 35k for a car it better move. In stock form it does move pretty well, but a supercharger would definitely sweeten the pot. I want a compact sized car that has great handling and feel, but good power as well. I am a little confused why NISMO can't offer a roots S/C and not void the warranty. You could go buy an NSX or S2000 and have a Comptech supercharger installed by a dealer and not void your warranty. Now if a 3rd party company like Comptech can provide a supercharger kit that Honda will warranty, why can't Nissan's OWN in-house tuning firm NISMO create one? I hope when the parts become available in the near future a S/C will be available and won't void the warranty. The motor can handle a modest power hike b/c the SKyline will have even more power and can handle it. And I know the C/R is high but not any higher than a S2000 or NSX's is and they run well. Like I said before 320 N/A HP would be nice, but as always more would be better. Just my opinion though.