350Z vs XR6-Turbo
04-22-2004 | 04:53 AM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Sydney Australia
Originally posted by DavidM
Aaaah, I see. Someone you kow, or just someone you 'met' on the street?
Aaaah, I see. Someone you kow, or just someone you 'met' on the street?
we were on a highway with no lights, he started out behind me.... tailgating me actually, but I wasnt in the mood as Im tired after playing tennis. After awhile he passed me at WOT, then I thought... oh well why not and I followed.
Last edited by ottonove; 04-22-2004 at 05:00 AM.
04-22-2004 | 05:32 AM
#25
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: Sydney Australia
Originally posted by ottonove
just someone I met on the street
we were on a highway with no lights, he started out behind me.... tailgating me actually, but I wasnt in the mood as Im tired after playing tennis. After awhile he passed me at WOT, then I thought... oh well why not and I followed.
just someone I met on the street
we were on a highway with no lights, he started out behind me.... tailgating me actually, but I wasnt in the mood as Im tired after playing tennis. After awhile he passed me at WOT, then I thought... oh well why not and I followed.
04-22-2004 | 05:33 AM
#26
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
FPV GT-P with a 290kw V8. Though i'd say we could take that too. Alan sold his S2000 and got one, I consider that a step in the wrong direction.
Yeah, I'd call that a 'step in the wrong direction' as well ... that is unless your priority is to carry 5 adults, tow a boat etc. And I'm not saying it because the GT-P is not quick, it's just not a sport-ccar and does not handle anything like a 'sports car'.
Dave your thoughts on FPV GT-P vs 350ZHT and 350ZS?
Generally speaking (and this is not from experience as I have not 'met' one), I'd say the 290kW Fords would be quicker than stock 350Z. I'm just going by numbers in the magazines, and return 0-160kph time about 1/2sec quicker than the 350Z. The best 0-160kph for the GT-P, that I've seen, is 13.0sec. Best stock 350Z time to 160kph that I have seen is 13.6sec.
Best thing we have to go on is the '04 PCOTY where they had both the GT-P and 350Z at the same time and they clocked them on the same day, same driver and same place. Here are the times from there:
[u]FPV GTP:[u]
- 0-100kph = 6.32sec
- 0-400m = 14.52sec @ 162.8kph
- 0-1000m = 25.81sec @ 209kph
[u]350Z:[u]
- 0-100kph = 6.68sec
- 0-400m = 14.61sec @ 159.6kph
- 0-1000m = 26.31sec @ 206.2kph
So, here the GT-P beat the Zed over 400m by 4m (ie. just under 1 car-length). Though, over the next 12secs of so, the GT-P the GT-P pulls away another 24m by the 1000m line. That is another 5 - 6 car-lengths, which means it was pulling away at good 1/2 a car-length per second from 160kph onwards.
My guess is that the Hi-tech 350Z should keep up with it. Over 400m I'd expect to beat it by couple of car-lengths (give all went well), but after that it would be much of a muchness ... the GT-P might even close the gap as the speeds increase and at some stage be even quicker. Though, I'm just speculating based on these numbers.
i'm sure the New HSV R8 with 285 Kw will win the Z. The problem with Ford is the engine is too heavy.
Yep, the Fords are very heavy. The GT-P weight round 1830kg. Even the 'light' XR6-T weights around 1685kg (abd that's without the performance brakes).
The 285kW R8 is nocicably quicker than the GT-P. I have seen 300kW HSVs on the track, and those things have insane straight-line speed. The 285kW HSVs are not meant to be far off. Just happens to be that they had a 285kW HSV R8 in the same PCOTY as the above-mentioned 350Z and GT-P. This is what numbers they managed:
[u]HSV R8 (285kW):[u]
- 0-100kph = 5.92sec
- 0-400m = 14.08sec @ 167.4kph
- 0-1000m = 25.13sec @ 216kph
As you can see, there is a pretty sizeable gap between that and that GT-P, let alone the 350Z. Just to put some persective to these numbers, the R8 beat the GT-P over 400m by 20m (ie. over 4 - 5 car-lengths) ... add another car-length for the Zed. And then the R8 keeps on pulling away over the next 12sec or so, and pulls away another 20m (ie. another 4 - 5 car-lenghts) by 1000m line. That means by this stage the Zed is good 16 car-lengths behind in a 0-200kph run. Pretty decent beating. No way could a 350Z, even with hi-tech exhaust, get close to it.
I think David raced a 285kw HSV and beat it with this HT muffler.
Nope, not 285kW ... it was a 260kW one. And I'm not sure if I'd call that 'beat him' ... I'd say it was more or less 'even' at best from the roll:
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....threadid=52921
Though, from a standing start I'm sure I'd take the 260kW R8 over 400m just bacause the Zed will outlaunch it due it's lighter weight, better weight distribution and wider rear tyres. I'm guessing that if I got the launch just right, I'd beat it by 3 - 4 car-lengths at most over 400m. Though, more often than not I'd expect the R8 to be closer even from the standstill-start. Though, again I'm speculating as I have not lined them up ... though, I have lined up a the WRX with the R8 from a standing-start ... same one that I lined up with the Zed. That's what I'm basing my thoughts on.
Yeah, I'd call that a 'step in the wrong direction' as well ... that is unless your priority is to carry 5 adults, tow a boat etc. And I'm not saying it because the GT-P is not quick, it's just not a sport-ccar and does not handle anything like a 'sports car'.
Dave your thoughts on FPV GT-P vs 350ZHT and 350ZS?
Generally speaking (and this is not from experience as I have not 'met' one), I'd say the 290kW Fords would be quicker than stock 350Z. I'm just going by numbers in the magazines, and return 0-160kph time about 1/2sec quicker than the 350Z. The best 0-160kph for the GT-P, that I've seen, is 13.0sec. Best stock 350Z time to 160kph that I have seen is 13.6sec.
Best thing we have to go on is the '04 PCOTY where they had both the GT-P and 350Z at the same time and they clocked them on the same day, same driver and same place. Here are the times from there:
[u]FPV GTP:[u]
- 0-100kph = 6.32sec
- 0-400m = 14.52sec @ 162.8kph
- 0-1000m = 25.81sec @ 209kph
[u]350Z:[u]
- 0-100kph = 6.68sec
- 0-400m = 14.61sec @ 159.6kph
- 0-1000m = 26.31sec @ 206.2kph
So, here the GT-P beat the Zed over 400m by 4m (ie. just under 1 car-length). Though, over the next 12secs of so, the GT-P the GT-P pulls away another 24m by the 1000m line. That is another 5 - 6 car-lengths, which means it was pulling away at good 1/2 a car-length per second from 160kph onwards.
My guess is that the Hi-tech 350Z should keep up with it. Over 400m I'd expect to beat it by couple of car-lengths (give all went well), but after that it would be much of a muchness ... the GT-P might even close the gap as the speeds increase and at some stage be even quicker. Though, I'm just speculating based on these numbers.
i'm sure the New HSV R8 with 285 Kw will win the Z. The problem with Ford is the engine is too heavy.
Yep, the Fords are very heavy. The GT-P weight round 1830kg. Even the 'light' XR6-T weights around 1685kg (abd that's without the performance brakes).
The 285kW R8 is nocicably quicker than the GT-P. I have seen 300kW HSVs on the track, and those things have insane straight-line speed. The 285kW HSVs are not meant to be far off. Just happens to be that they had a 285kW HSV R8 in the same PCOTY as the above-mentioned 350Z and GT-P. This is what numbers they managed:
[u]HSV R8 (285kW):[u]
- 0-100kph = 5.92sec
- 0-400m = 14.08sec @ 167.4kph
- 0-1000m = 25.13sec @ 216kph
As you can see, there is a pretty sizeable gap between that and that GT-P, let alone the 350Z. Just to put some persective to these numbers, the R8 beat the GT-P over 400m by 20m (ie. over 4 - 5 car-lengths) ... add another car-length for the Zed. And then the R8 keeps on pulling away over the next 12sec or so, and pulls away another 20m (ie. another 4 - 5 car-lenghts) by 1000m line. That means by this stage the Zed is good 16 car-lengths behind in a 0-200kph run. Pretty decent beating. No way could a 350Z, even with hi-tech exhaust, get close to it.
I think David raced a 285kw HSV and beat it with this HT muffler.
Nope, not 285kW ... it was a 260kW one. And I'm not sure if I'd call that 'beat him' ... I'd say it was more or less 'even' at best from the roll:
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....threadid=52921
Though, from a standing start I'm sure I'd take the 260kW R8 over 400m just bacause the Zed will outlaunch it due it's lighter weight, better weight distribution and wider rear tyres. I'm guessing that if I got the launch just right, I'd beat it by 3 - 4 car-lengths at most over 400m. Though, more often than not I'd expect the R8 to be closer even from the standstill-start. Though, again I'm speculating as I have not lined them up ... though, I have lined up a the WRX with the R8 from a standing-start ... same one that I lined up with the Zed. That's what I'm basing my thoughts on.
04-22-2004 | 05:39 AM
#27
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Either HT exhaust is brilliant or your mates got a dud David!!...
Huh, were you talking to me or Ottonove as you quouted his post? So are you saying that the Zed he met was a 'dud', or that my mate's XR6-T is a dud?
If you're talking about the XR6-T, then I don't think so as the numbers we managed to clock for it do match the mags. Though, the XR6-T suffers in (or with) heat while an XR8 will not. According to the mags, when cold, the XR6-T auto can run 400m in 14.5sec. And 0-100kph in 6.6sec when cold, but when heated up 7.3sec ... that is a 0.7sec loss of perfromance just does to heat build-up. XR8 won't have that kind of problem.
Huh, were you talking to me or Ottonove as you quouted his post? So are you saying that the Zed he met was a 'dud', or that my mate's XR6-T is a dud?
If you're talking about the XR6-T, then I don't think so as the numbers we managed to clock for it do match the mags. Though, the XR6-T suffers in (or with) heat while an XR8 will not. According to the mags, when cold, the XR6-T auto can run 400m in 14.5sec. And 0-100kph in 6.6sec when cold, but when heated up 7.3sec ... that is a 0.7sec loss of perfromance just does to heat build-up. XR8 won't have that kind of problem.
04-23-2004 | 06:39 AM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: Sydney Australia
Originally posted by DavidM
Either HT exhaust is brilliant or your mates got a dud David!!...
Huh, were you talking to me or Ottonove as you quouted his post? So are you saying that the Zed he met was a 'dud', or that my mate's XR6-T is a dud?
If you're talking about the XR6-T, then I don't think so as the numbers we managed to clock for it do match the mags. Though, the XR6-T suffers in (or with) heat while an XR8 will not. According to the mags, when cold, the XR6-T auto can run 400m in 14.5sec. And 0-100kph in 6.6sec when cold, but when heated up 7.3sec ... that is a 0.7sec loss of perfromance just does to heat build-up. XR8 won't have that kind of problem.
Either HT exhaust is brilliant or your mates got a dud David!!...
Huh, were you talking to me or Ottonove as you quouted his post? So are you saying that the Zed he met was a 'dud', or that my mate's XR6-T is a dud?
If you're talking about the XR6-T, then I don't think so as the numbers we managed to clock for it do match the mags. Though, the XR6-T suffers in (or with) heat while an XR8 will not. According to the mags, when cold, the XR6-T auto can run 400m in 14.5sec. And 0-100kph in 6.6sec when cold, but when heated up 7.3sec ... that is a 0.7sec loss of perfromance just does to heat build-up. XR8 won't have that kind of problem.
I thought the XR6turbo much better than that..you surprise me...
04-23-2004 | 08:33 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
I thought the XR6turbo much better than that..you surprise me...
I was/am just as surprised. Before we did the runs I thought I would beat him, but nowhere by as much. I was expecting more like 3 - 4 car-lengths at most .... not up to 6.
Though, as I said before, it seems that the XR6-T suffers very badly from heat (or running hot). So maybe if he cooled the car (for an hour or so?), he would have put up a better fight. We did put a stop-watch to the XR6-T after the runs ... they were pretty consistant with 7.2sec being the best. We'll try at least putting a stop-watch to the car when it's 'cold' ... we'll see what gains it'll mame but I'd expect to be getting around 6.6sec if what I read in the mags is accurate.
I was/am just as surprised. Before we did the runs I thought I would beat him, but nowhere by as much. I was expecting more like 3 - 4 car-lengths at most .... not up to 6.
Though, as I said before, it seems that the XR6-T suffers very badly from heat (or running hot). So maybe if he cooled the car (for an hour or so?), he would have put up a better fight. We did put a stop-watch to the XR6-T after the runs ... they were pretty consistant with 7.2sec being the best. We'll try at least putting a stop-watch to the car when it's 'cold' ... we'll see what gains it'll mame but I'd expect to be getting around 6.6sec if what I read in the mags is accurate.
04-23-2004 | 06:48 PM
#33
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Is'nt the auto trans going to slow the XR6T up 1/2 sec?
From what I gather, the manual XR6-T should be quicker over 0-100kph, 400m and any other higher end run. I don't think that a manual could launch better than we did (as we seemed to have 'just the right' amount of wheel-spin off the line) ... with this we were able to cut off ~0.5sec for it's 0-100kph time compared to just tramping the throttle.
Though, once on the move the manual should have a slight advantage due to it's shorter gearing. Just going by the magazines, the Manual should have around 0.3 - 0.4sec advantage for 0-100kph, and over 400m around 0.2 sec ... that's around 2 car-lengths.
Still, even the manual is going to have the same 'heat' problems as the auto.
From what I gather, the manual XR6-T should be quicker over 0-100kph, 400m and any other higher end run. I don't think that a manual could launch better than we did (as we seemed to have 'just the right' amount of wheel-spin off the line) ... with this we were able to cut off ~0.5sec for it's 0-100kph time compared to just tramping the throttle.
Though, once on the move the manual should have a slight advantage due to it's shorter gearing. Just going by the magazines, the Manual should have around 0.3 - 0.4sec advantage for 0-100kph, and over 400m around 0.2 sec ... that's around 2 car-lengths.
Still, even the manual is going to have the same 'heat' problems as the auto.
04-24-2004 | 09:28 AM
#34
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
here are the best numbers we managed (with 2 on board):
- normal (ie. everyday) launch = 7.7sec
- Agressive, left-foot-braked launch = 7.2sec
Hey, I just did some reaserch, and I had my gearing info wrong for the XR6-T when we did the 0-100kph tests. I thought the 2nd gear goes to 130kph, but it turns out that it goes to 140kph ... here's the XR6-T's gearing (at redline/6000rpm):
- 1st gear = 84kph
- 2nd gear = 140kph
- 3rd gear = 209kph
- 4th gear = 308kph
So with that in mind, we did not clock the XR6-T to 100kph, but 107kph instead. That very much invalidates the numbers that I listed in my 1st post (ie. the ones we measured).
Still, we can interpolate those numbers as it take about 1sec to go from 100 - 110kph. Therefore, it takes about 0.7sec to go from 100 - 107kph. Take 0.7sec from the times we clocked and you get a rough 0-100kph time:
- normal (ie. everyday) launch = 7.0sec
- Agressive, left-foot-braked launch = 6.5sec
If those numbers are accurate, then those are pretty good numbers in particluar if the car was running hot then. When I get the chance, we'll put a stop-watch to the XR6-T (again), but we'll time me accodring to the listed gearing.
- normal (ie. everyday) launch = 7.7sec
- Agressive, left-foot-braked launch = 7.2sec
Hey, I just did some reaserch, and I had my gearing info wrong for the XR6-T when we did the 0-100kph tests. I thought the 2nd gear goes to 130kph, but it turns out that it goes to 140kph ... here's the XR6-T's gearing (at redline/6000rpm):
- 1st gear = 84kph
- 2nd gear = 140kph
- 3rd gear = 209kph
- 4th gear = 308kph
So with that in mind, we did not clock the XR6-T to 100kph, but 107kph instead. That very much invalidates the numbers that I listed in my 1st post (ie. the ones we measured).
Still, we can interpolate those numbers as it take about 1sec to go from 100 - 110kph. Therefore, it takes about 0.7sec to go from 100 - 107kph. Take 0.7sec from the times we clocked and you get a rough 0-100kph time:
- normal (ie. everyday) launch = 7.0sec
- Agressive, left-foot-braked launch = 6.5sec
If those numbers are accurate, then those are pretty good numbers in particluar if the car was running hot then. When I get the chance, we'll put a stop-watch to the XR6-T (again), but we'll time me accodring to the listed gearing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
liqalu04
Engine & Drivetrain
31
01-02-2022 01:58 PM
