Whoops, yeah there could be quite a few different variables.

 

Results should be up some time this week. I'll post a link for those interested.

I wish I could've stayed longer, stretched it to 10.30 as it was. Would've liked to have seen that ES300. Saw a stock XR6T run, ~190rwkw. Not a bad package for a family car.

 

WOW.... XR6T can go 190rwKW?! that's a really good result!!! that means the power loss on its drive train is a lot less than the zed? not bad at all, no wonder so many folks love that car!

cheers,

richie

 

That was an auto BTW. Some fairly simple mods such as an exhaust, CAI, unichip and more boost sees them pulling ~285rwkw. Very hard to pick from the standard XR6 as well.

 

Yeah 300kw @ Wheels is reasonably easy to achieve with that car, but the same can be said for any larger displacement turbo car.

The badge is different on the back, under the XR6 bit it’s got turbo underneath in small writing, but yeah impossible to see from any angle except directly behind it.

 

XR6T can go 190rwKW?! that's a really good result!!! that means the power loss on its drive train is a lot less than the zed?

What makes you say? XR6-T has 240kW out if factory. So if it reard 190kW @ the rear wheels then that is 21% of drivetrain losses. Though, keep in mind that the numbers from the dyno have close to zero indication of the drivetrain losses as the numbers are totally arbitary. They are only made to look appropriate, but at no point can a dyno figure out what the engine power is, or what the drivetrain losses are. There is no reason why you can't take a stock Zed to another dyno and that will read 220kW at the wheels (eg. I have seen a stock S2000 pull 168kW @ rear wheels on one dyno). Does not mean that the car makes more power than th1e factory claims ... it just means that the dyno is calibrated to read 'optimistic' figures.

Still, you can compare 2 cars on the same dyno and same day. On the same day Apsilon's Zed pulled ~165kW @ rear wheels so that would be 20% of drivetrain losses in relation to the XR6-T's 21%. Though, if you pressume that Apsilon has extra 15kW at the crank (due to his mods), then the relative losses would be shown as 25%. Still, I'm not sure what power Apsilon's car makes at the crank so I'm only speculating.

 

It ain't gonna be much fun gettin' blown away by mum and the kids from the lights!

Like I already said - the z's not much more than a boulevarde cruiser.

Very disappointing, mr nisshit.

FROZTY

 

The XR6T may be faster in a straight line (anyone got the stats? DavidM aka Stat Man?) but I would hope the Zed would have a handling edge and certainly looks better IMO.

 

Agree with you Aps. I did part of the great ocean road last week and wouldn't be able to throw a tank like the falcon around like I did with with the Z ...

 

I'd bet on the Zed over an xr6t at a track like Wakefield any day.

As for straight line speed I doubt you'll see many xr6t winning at the drag strips. More like rotaries on NOS and mucho boost.

 

yeah.... I am sure that zed will be better on the track!

Zuff, you should go do a before and after dyno for the nismo flywheel that I am going to send up for ya and you will definitely see some good results!

cheers,

richie

 

DavidM:

You are correct there.... my wrong... thought XR6T had 220kw or so, didn't know it outputs 240KW..... never care about fords and holdens.... hehehe... my wrong!

cheers,

richie

 

The XR6T may be faster in a straight line (anyone got the stats? DavidM aka Stat Man?)

XR6-T is quick ... it is as quick as an SS Commodore. Though, the 350Z should be a fraction quicker (evedn in a stock form as 350Z covers 160kph in around 14sec flat). A stock 350Z is only a fraction slower than a 260kW HSV (which is about 100kg lighter than the XR6-T).

The times for the XR6-T are in this range usually (pepending on the day/conditions):
- 0-100kph = 6.0 - 6.8sec
- 0-160kph = 14.5 - 15.5sec
- 400m = 14.2 - 14.8sec

Generally speaking the XR6-T should be very quick on the roll, but it has a hard time getting off the line (ie. heavy and skinny tyres ... it weights ~1750kg), so a Zed should outlaunch it with a good launch. On the roll there will be very little between them, but the Zed should have the edge, in particluar once the speeds increase.

btw, I just read an article on the XR6-T where they were measuring it's 0-100kph times and they said that they managed 6.6sec, but ofter a few runs could not do better than 7.2 due to the heat-soak in the engine.

As far as laptimes go, just take a look at the laptimes from the PCOTYs where they had both (Zed this year, XR6-T last year) at Winton:
- 350Z = 1:43.09
- XR6-T = 1:46.28

Or, how about Wakefiled in '03 BFYB:
- 350Z = 1:11.97
- XR6-T = 1:14.38

Not really comperable in terms of laptimes, but in the straighline it'll give you a run for your money ... just like a any GenIII powered Commodore.

ps. I got a friend who should be picking one up in a couple weeks so hopefully I'll get to find out for certain how they compare in terms of acceleration.

You are correct there.... my wrong... thought XR6T had 220kw or so, didn't know it outputs 240KW..... never care about fords and holdens.... hehehe... my wrong!

np, at all. We all learn something everyday ;-)

 

I knew you'd come through with the numbers David. I don't know where you get them but you always seem to have them right away.

I would've thought it'd be a bit quicker 0-100. If it has trouble launching in stock form the modded ones would be even worse (probably explains why every time I've seen the yellow Croydon ute on the road it's been sideways).

 

You cant compare the two cars together. Come on people, its just a turbo taxi. IMO the Zed is better in all aspects. And where is the sex appeal?

Zeds: 1463kg / 206kw = 7.1 kg per kw
XR6T: 1694kg / 240kw = 7.06 kg per kw

But thats not taking into account aero dynamics, drive train loss, gear ratios, launch etc

David, I got those weights from the manufactures websites so I dont know how accurate they are.

 

Or for power to weight

Zeds: 206kw / 1463kg = 0.141 kw per kg
XR6T: 240kw / 1694kg = 0.142 kw per kg

 

I've got a mate with the non-turbo XR6 and he would have you believe its got 200kw, but according to the Ford website which I just saw its actually only got 182kw using 4 liters! No competition.

If you get a chance to look under the hood of the non-turbo version its actually quite a strange sight. Its obviously been designed for the turbo engine as the non-tubo one has a HUGE gaping hole in the engine bay which you can actually see the gravel road through. You could fit a small person through it should the need arise.

 

There was a stock (IIRC) XR6 ute at last years dyno day. It pulled ~117rwkw. Tell that to your mate

 

I'll be sure to pass that on, thats a good 50kw at the wheels less than your dyno!

 

I knew you'd come through with the numbers David. I don't know where you get them but you always seem to have them right away.

In my head .... at least no one can say that it's empty ;-)

I would've thought it'd be a bit quicker 0-100.

General 'rule' with cars is that the lighter the car, the better it get's off the line. Though, of course the weight distribution and the size of the tyres play a big part too .... though, all of those factors are in favour of the Zed.

Elise is a great example. If you ever meet one (that is the basic 88kW example) on the roll, then you'd take it a V6 Commodore. Though, off the line they rocket off like nothing else and even something like the S2000 takes 'till around 140kph 'till to catch it and pass it. Mind you, it passes it like it's standing still (ie. good 10 - 15kph speed diferential), but for those first 200 - 250m the Elise is ahead. Sidenote, where the S2000 can reach 160kph, the Elise can muster maybe 145kph.

Back to the XR6-T. Here's the best numbers clocked for the car:
Wheels:
- 0-100kph = 6.1sec
- 0-160kph = 15.1sec
- 400m = 14.5 @ 156kph

Motor:
- 0-100kph = 5.91sec
- 0-160kph = 13.83sec
- 400m = 14.14 @ 162.6kph

The XR6-T is quick, but if you look at the 'best' figures clocked for a 350Z then you'll get:
- 0-100kph = 5.8sec
- 0-160kph = 13.5sec
- 400m = 13.77 @ 162.2kph

So, just going by the 'best' figures, the Zed 'should' beat the XR6-T by about 3 - 4 car-lengths over 400m. Still, this is just specualtion as I have never seen the 2 lined up .... as I mentioned before - I might get a chance to do so myself.

btw, Motor measured 185kW arw for the XR6-T, compared to 178kW arw from a GenIII Commodore and 189kW arw from a GenIII Monaro. The GenIII Commodore SS and Monaro CV8 are generally regarder as quicker cars than the XR6-T.

XR6T: 1694kg / 240kw = 7.06 kg per kw. David, I got those weights from the manufactures websites so I dont know how accurate they are.

They are accurate. Though, XR6-T has an option for Brembo brakes (or some other big brake kit). That would add another 20kg to the weight and then there's the usual options. Still, it'll be between 1694 - 1730kg, instead of 1750kg as I metnioned.

Zeds: 1463kg / 206kw = 7.1 kg per kw
XR6T: 1694kg / 240kw = 7.06 kg per kw

Yep, you're right - there is more to it then weight/power ratio (even though it is a very good indication). In this case the gearing is what will make the most difference. Work out the weight to power for a 1704kg HSV R8 that pumps out 260kW. It is 6.55 (ie. convincingly superior to the Zed), but really will get only 2-3 car-lengths on the Zed over 400m. Again, the gearing plays a big part.

ps. The magazines have the 350Z's weight at 1453kg ... though, I can't find any consistency there as I see anything from 1440 - 1460kg listed.