Kilograms IS mass, I converted to and from pounds for the public.

But weight is directly proportional to mass anyway. Weight is a Force, and F=ma (Force = Mass * Acceleration) (Physics 101)

F=ma
i.e.
weight = mass * acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s^2)

So long as this discussion remains on Earth, we're in the clear.

I never doubted it. I'm only asking for input based on this info. I know people that have spent $500 on mods to gain .2 in the 1/4. If one car is capable of .1 or .2 better of a time (in theory) then wouldn't you be better off racing with that one? This info could also be of value to people who like to race at high speeds, like me. Do the math and see the weight difference at 160 mph.

 

if you race AT high speeds then the nismo is for you. if you race TO high speeds then thats this debate

 

Well, in a top-speed run I think I'd rather get there a hair bit slower with a car that generates downforce and be more stable, than one that generates rear lift.

 

First, the downforce/lift comparisons here on not the rear-end only. It's the downforce/lift on the entire car, front and rear. Weight is weight, it doesn't matter where it is located when you're trying to accelerate it. It still takes x amount of force to move it.

That depends on what you're doing. If you are taking semi-sharp corners at high speeds, I'd highly recommend the Nismo. If you're doing fairly straight-line racing then I'd take the non-Nismo.

The total lift on the non-Nismo with no spoiler is 85 pounds at 160 mph. The total downforce on the Nismo at 160 mph is 255 pounds. That's 340 pounds of difference just from aerodynamics, not including vehicle weight differences. These are TOTAL numbers, not only the rear-end. Although I'm sure that most of the Nismo's downforce is generated from the airfoil.

It's really up to you whether or not you need the added downforce at high speeds. I don't have it and I haven't had a problem. It still feels nicely planted. But I also usually have more than 1/2 tank of gas when I've been running that fast. The lift on the Z is minimal from the get go. I'd really like to see what the downforce is on the GT spoiler, just for comparison purposes though. I may search for that info.

 

So did you start this thread to justify NOT buying a nismo then? Cuz now it just seems that we've gone from "theoretical" nit-pickiness (and being rather silly as well) to just being rather absurd.

 

Are you trying to brag about OWNING a Nismo?

You asked, I answered. I will never own a Nismo by my own choice. FYI, my Touring was just over $40k after all the extras, which is more than the MSRP of the Nismo. I like the luxuries that I got with my Touring. I'll leave the rest of my opinion about your car unspoken out of respect...

 

I believe the stock shocks were made by tokico, but different from the aftermarket ones.

Some magazines and other literature says the track model in the '03 had a stiffer suspension, but I believe this was found to be incorrect by the forum. As far as I know, the suspension was the same.

 

I've reached high speeds in both a track model and the Nismo and the difference is quite noticeable. I too thought that a non-Nismo Z felt secure at speed, but the NISMO feels noticeable more planted and stable.

 

I'm not doggin' you about your choice and I never questioned your credit rating or bank account. It's just that the way I'm reading it, you seem to have taken thread in a more point-by-point direction to show what the car can't do. There's a lot of subtleties of human speech that are lost in text and so that's the impression I get from what you've been saying.

 

You're right. It's very easy to misunderstand people over the internet. I apologize if I came off the wrong way in response to your post. No, I have nothing personal against the Nismo, or it's owners, and I'm not jealous of not having one. It's just not my style of car.

I'm very sure that the Nismo feels more solid at high speeds than the other Z's. But I am happy with what I have.

 

Groovy. There are quite a few members on this board that hate on the NISMO. I'm sure some are because they're jealous and some just because it's not their thing. Not to say that everyone that isn't into the NISMO are like that, but some of the more vocal ones certainly seem to be. And on the flip-side there are even some NISMO owners that don't like the idea that they basically bought an overpriced Enthusiast model so they feel the need to constantly justify their purchase. This model is no better than a base model or grand touring. It's different. Each level of the car has little subtle differences for what each potential buyer could want while still being the same car. I think that's pretty cool.

This car is so polarizing, that sometimes it's difficult to see the difference when someone has an objective point on either side of the argument or if they're just bashing/being defensive.

Since my car isn't likely to see track duty, then most of the truly useful and special parts of this car won't make any difference to me. In essence, I did buy an overpriced Enthusiast model with an outrageous body kit. And the only justification I have for my purchase is that I liked it, I wanted it, and I had the money for it.

I find that's only justification needed.

 

All that matters is that you like it. No matter what you drive there's always going to be haters.

 

 

i think the nismo is slower due to its track tuned suspension. i mean even the regular Z isnt set up to drag. IRS ftl sometimes

 

I think the biggest fail on a car forum is the hardcore fan boys. No matter what, whatever one owns is the best.
Nismo "My car handles better than yours"
Base "My car is faster!"
HR "DE = SLOW"
DE "HR = NOT worth the $$$, soft clutch ECT"
Z people on BMWs "All ******"
Z people on Honda "VTEC JUST KICKED IN YO"

The obvious conclusion to all this drama is one thing
The Z is God's Chariot.

We all drive Z's...
who gives a flying f*ck. people get too emotional about their own ****. Some people just need to look at things from a broader / opposing point of view..

lol..
btw silver alloy is the fastest color. Anybody want to argue? According to my calculations the silver paint is the lightest..
For example.. White Z's have a midcoat base coat and a clear coat. My car only has a clear and a base. I win.. discuss

 

What if I own both? What kind of ***** am I? I think this discussion is pretty amusing. Silly, but amusing.

 

I'm one of those people too. E46 and 350z. I'm just not a fanboy. I appreciate cars in general. I may dislike certain cars, but I don't go as far as being a true harda$$ E-fanboy.

 

I think your mathematics may be correct in aerodynamic downforce calculatons, but flawed in how it relates to actual mass in which inertial acceleration relates to it. It takes more power to accelerate a higher mass. Down force which makes something "weigh more" increases drag, but does not effect inertia/kinetic energy/potential energy in the same manner as a mass increase. I don't really want to pull out my physics book on this, but there are simpler examples in which to understand this. Say you have a 10lb sled on wheels and tug on a string to make it go 5mph. Next say you have a 1lb sled with a fan on top of it exerting 9lbs of down force. So for all intents and purposes, both have 10lbs of down force. Do you really think that it will take the same tug on that string to bring both up to 5mph? Well, I hope you get the point.

Also if weight is mass x gravitational acceleration, then aerodynamic downforce/upforce is different because it can be generated independent of gravitational influences, assuming there was air in which to act on the aerodynamic surfaces.

 

Force is force. It doesn't matter how it's generated. 1+1 always = 2, and 1 Newton of force is 1 Newton of force. So in answer to your question, yes, it would take the same amount of force to move both objects. You're comparing inertia, which is of little value here. Inertia will help keep an object moving at it's current rate of speed (or keep a resting object at rest), but inertia will NOT accelerate the object unless it loses mass/weight. During a 1/4 mile run you are constantly accelerating and constantly adding or subtracting weight as you gain more velocity. Inertia plays a minimal role here in comparison to the other forces at work. But if anything, inertia will help the object that is losing mass as it accelerates more than it will help the object that is gaining mass. Pounds multiplied by .45359237 = Kilograms on Earth, and Kilograms is a mass measurement. Weight is directly proportional to mass. The only difference is on different planets the conversion factor would be different due to different forces of gravity. So since mass can be converted to weight, weight can also be converted to mass.

You're trying to relate this to the vacuum of space where there is no gravity and therefore mass is everything and weight is nothing, which just isn't relevant here since we aren't racing in the absence of gravity.


Once again, force is force. How it's generated is irrelevant. I don't see anyone arguing how a parachute slows a car down better than brakes at high speeds. That's aerodynamics at work right there and it's much more efficient than mechanical methods. The air pushes against the chute and creates force in the opposite direction that the car is travelling in. If you grabbed the rope connecting the parachute and the car, wouldn't you say it's going to be much more difficult to create slack in the rope when the car is travelling at 200 mph vs. 20 mph? I'd say impossible, but anyway...

 

actually, with large rotors and good calipers, brakes WOULD be more effective. they use chutes because the equivalent braking force needed would lock up the tires AND having rotors on the driveline increases parasitic loss, which is especially evident in cars with high HP (read: cars that need a parachute).