Has anyone really pulled 300rwhp yet on a N/A VQ?
02-11-2006, 07:46 PM
#122
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jpc350z
Do you have a pre 3.197 dyno and post dyno for comparison..The Tq curve is of interest..
Plus, the torque didn't really seem much if any higher than usual for the mod's done.
02-11-2006, 07:50 PM
#123
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thawk408
Sorry, but z06 only comes in hardtop 6spd and if you didnt know that then I question your credibilty on the other runs. Maybe you beat them, maybe you didnt.....I dont know.
I'll poke around on the net and see if I can't figure out what he was driving, since he couldn't . . .
02-11-2006, 08:15 PM
#124
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by frostyrock7c
I'm on the fence about getting the gears myself, I track my car quite frequently and seldom drag, but for comparison purposes, what kind of 1/4 or 0-60's are you getting? I guess I'm asking, just how much better does it help the Z33 accelerate? Anyone 
??
Thanks,
Mike
??Thanks,
Mike
At hwy. cruising speeds (70-80) it only bumps up the rpm's about 400 or so more, so it's not like you're giving up a whole gear or anything. With the TS reflash I had done the extra rpm's up top easily make up for whatever top end that I might have otherwise given up (NOT that there's many opportunities to GO 160+ . . . not enough road!)
ANYways . . . I'm going to take it to the track here soon and get some time's, 1/8th & 1/4, and cameras will be rolling. I want to see, and I want to share. Might get a G-Tech too, since the likes of Car & Driver use those. Sure would be nice to push a button and see what I did statistacally in a good street race as well.
Meanwhile, what you would think would happen, does happen . . . you feel lots more torque, not just a little. I don't need to downshift when going for a tight spot on a lane-change like I did before and more importantly, out of a dig it's so much easier to do it w/o either bogging or doing a bonzi-burnout. Even MORE importantly I was able to beat cars I shouldn't be able to and couldn't before, but I know, I know . . . TRACK #'s please! I'm working on it . . . I did finally get a dyno done!
02-11-2006, 08:24 PM
#125
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zzzya
The 3.9 gears were specifically created for people who track their car. A stock Z will see benefits on the drag strip with these but high HP cars (FI) are going to see better 1/4 mile times with the 3.5 or better yet the 3.3 5AT gears due to less shifting and higher gear top speeds. On the track you want to keep the rpms up and the 3.9 gears will help with that allowing for faster acceleration out of turns.
"For n/a ears only," not f/i . . . N/a will love it though.
02-11-2006, 08:33 PM
#126
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DayBlueZ
You are 2 HP ahead of me on that Dyno. I have 240 on the same machine. I haven't had a flash but, i do have the UTEC in my posession and am hoping for good results.
02-11-2006, 08:42 PM
#127
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blownaway
I am assuming you can use UTEC on top of a ecu that has been flashed for fine tuning? What is the best overall price you have found for the whole utec setup
(sorry everyone for the fillibustering/postwhoring/etc. but I'm just now catching up!)
02-11-2006, 09:02 PM
#128
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Z_xtc
O.k., well I'll admit I'm no authority on Corvettes, but it was a new/er/ish model and the driver said that that's what it was, but I guess he didn't know what he was driving!
I'll poke around on the net and see if I can't figure out what he was driving, since he couldn't . . .
I'll poke around on the net and see if I can't figure out what he was driving, since he couldn't . . .
Here's the quote:
Commemorative Edition Corvette Coupes and Convertibles will also be available for 2004. These will share an exclusive package of styling amenities, including Le Mans Blue paint and a Shale-colored interior, with a Commemorative Edition exterior badge noting Corvette's Le Mans titles. Special embroidery on the headrests of each seat is also included.
"At Chevrolet and especially with the Corvette, racing is part of our DNA," says Rick Baldick, Corvette Marketing Director. "The 2004 Commemorative Edition provides us the opportunity to connect our customers even more closely with this unprecedented era of Corvette Racing."
Here's the url: http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2004/index.shtml
Maybe the driver DID know what he was driving . . .
02-11-2006, 09:26 PM
#129
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS- It looked like the one on this site that's blue but it was yellow. It had the same type exhaust. It was not the newer half square / half round exhaust of the brand new vettes; it was four small pipes. I asked the driver "Is that a C5?," and he said '04 Zo6." I quized him further; he persisted.
I guess I could do some more research since I'm on the witness stand here, but . . .
I guess I could do some more research since I'm on the witness stand here, but . . .
02-11-2006, 11:29 PM
#130
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: japan
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PoWeRtRiP
its funny how ppl throw around hp numbers like that. a hp number is not indicative of an efficient engine. it is a factor but not necessarily the best.
i.e. hp is a function of tq @ rpm. so a high revving engine will have high hp if it holds tq at a higher rpm. but will make little tq before then.
look at the f1 cars. 18000rpm redline, huge hp, but low tq. compare that to a v8, huge tq but low hp and redline (<7000).
does having a low hp number mean the engine sux? not at all. it just means the characteristics of the car are different.
when comparing hp/liter ppl try to compare a "highly efficient" 4 banger vs a "highly inefficient" 8 banger. does this mean the 4 banger is superior?
-take into account entropy, the bigger a system gets the less efficient it is. therefore the larger engine can never be as efficient as the smaller one can be.
-also dont compare a high revving engine to a low revving one, its not fair.
-dont use hp numbers, these are not an actual rating of engines power. but rather the amount of "work" the engine can do when moving a certain weight over a certain distance.
hope this helped.
i.e. hp is a function of tq @ rpm. so a high revving engine will have high hp if it holds tq at a higher rpm. but will make little tq before then.
look at the f1 cars. 18000rpm redline, huge hp, but low tq. compare that to a v8, huge tq but low hp and redline (<7000).
does having a low hp number mean the engine sux? not at all. it just means the characteristics of the car are different.
when comparing hp/liter ppl try to compare a "highly efficient" 4 banger vs a "highly inefficient" 8 banger. does this mean the 4 banger is superior?
-take into account entropy, the bigger a system gets the less efficient it is. therefore the larger engine can never be as efficient as the smaller one can be.
-also dont compare a high revving engine to a low revving one, its not fair.
-dont use hp numbers, these are not an actual rating of engines power. but rather the amount of "work" the engine can do when moving a certain weight over a certain distance.
hope this helped.
It's a greater engineering challenge to develop an engine to reliably and sustainably rev high so that it can produce higher horsepower. Higher revs indicates greater stresses on engine internals as well as necessitating a more robust and exact materials and tolerances design that can handle the added stresses of the more extreme forces involved. We know that kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity so a piston moving at 10 m/s will have not twice as much but four times as much kinetic energy as a piston moving at 5 m/s; clearly, higher engine revs pose a significant engineering problem.
We are not talking about the difference between a .05 liter and engine and a 2 liter engine either but rather engines of comparable displacements. That is not to say that big displacement engines suck, but to not recognize how much more difficult it is to engineer a sustainable high reving engine like that in the s2000 is just an indication of one's lack of appreciation for the challenges involved.
Honda engines of small displacement actually do make a lot of both torque and horsepower for their displacement thus the earlier arguement is flawed. Take for example a 5.7 liter LS1 which makes approximately 350 ft -lbs of maximum torque and 350 hp, now look at a 2.0 liter F20C Honda s2000 engine, which produces a maximum of ~ 156 ft -lbs of torque and 246 hp. We can extrapolate that 5.7 LS1 would be making around 122 hp and 122 ft -lbs of torque at 2.0 liters.
GM and Ford were just uninterested in developing systems like variable valve timing and lift to optimize BOTH low and high rpm torque like Honda and others have done. Instead they have chosed to use displacement to overshadow their lack of development in other areas. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons GM is well on their way to bankrupcty now; consumers have noticed their emphasis on marketing over engineering So it can be seen that while one crowd may claim that hp/liter and engineering doesn't matter, it has become a painful reality to GM and Ford that it does, while Honda and Toyota to whom engineering and hp/liter do matter are poised to become the leading auto manufacturers in the world.
The M3 engine displaces 3.2 liters and develops 342 hp and 268 ft-lbs, greater than 100 hp/liter, the M5 is 5 liters and develops 500 hp, or 100 hp/liter. Clearly the differences are not as significant as you have implied in this category of automotive engine size. Therefore it is apparent that through Honda's formidable engineering knowledge of metallurgy and design that it has created a superior engine if seen from a design perspective.
Furthermore, an F1 engine's idle speed is around 4000 rpm and typically doesn't drop below 7000 rpm in a race, so while it may develop only 250 ft -lbs of torque it is still producing a minimum of ~ 400 hp at any one time, therefore it is not really relevant to compare the torque developed by an F1 engine to that of a streetcar.
One horsepower is defined as:
1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min−1 = exactly 745.69987158227022 W
So work done per unit time.
Last edited by skylin3R33; 02-12-2006 at 12:31 AM.
02-12-2006, 08:02 AM
#131
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Z_xtc
Someone else before me said it best . . . "It made the Z the way it should have been from the beginning."
At hwy. cruising speeds (70-80) it only bumps up the rpm's about 400 or so more, so it's not like you're giving up a whole gear or anything. With the TS reflash I had done the extra rpm's up top easily make up for whatever top end that I might have otherwise given up (NOT that there's many opportunities to GO 160+ . . . not enough road!)
ANYways . . . I'm going to take it to the track here soon and get some time's, 1/8th & 1/4, and cameras will be rolling. I want to see, and I want to share. Might get a G-Tech too, since the likes of Car & Driver use those. Sure would be nice to push a button and see what I did statistacally in a good street race as well.
Meanwhile, what you would think would happen, does happen . . . you feel lots more torque, not just a little. I don't need to downshift when going for a tight spot on a lane-change like I did before and more importantly, out of a dig it's so much easier to do it w/o either bogging or doing a bonzi-burnout. Even MORE importantly I was able to beat cars I shouldn't be able to and couldn't before, but I know, I know . . . TRACK #'s please! I'm working on it . . . I did finally get a dyno done!
At hwy. cruising speeds (70-80) it only bumps up the rpm's about 400 or so more, so it's not like you're giving up a whole gear or anything. With the TS reflash I had done the extra rpm's up top easily make up for whatever top end that I might have otherwise given up (NOT that there's many opportunities to GO 160+ . . . not enough road!)
ANYways . . . I'm going to take it to the track here soon and get some time's, 1/8th & 1/4, and cameras will be rolling. I want to see, and I want to share. Might get a G-Tech too, since the likes of Car & Driver use those. Sure would be nice to push a button and see what I did statistacally in a good street race as well.
Meanwhile, what you would think would happen, does happen . . . you feel lots more torque, not just a little. I don't need to downshift when going for a tight spot on a lane-change like I did before and more importantly, out of a dig it's so much easier to do it w/o either bogging or doing a bonzi-burnout. Even MORE importantly I was able to beat cars I shouldn't be able to and couldn't before, but I know, I know . . . TRACK #'s please! I'm working on it . . . I did finally get a dyno done!
Thanks, I look forward to your results
02-12-2006, 08:23 PM
#132
Sponsor
Sport Z Magazine
Sport Z Magazine
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by skylin3R33
It's a greater engineering challenge to develop an engine to reliably and sustainably rev high so that it can produce higher horsepower. Higher revs indicates greater stresses on engine internals as well as necessitating a more robust and exact materials and tolerances design that can handle the added stresses of the more extreme forces involved. We know that kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity so a piston moving at 10 m/s will have not twice as much but four times as much kinetic energy as a piston moving at 5 m/s; clearly, higher engine revs pose a significant engineering problem.
We are not talking about the difference between a .05 liter and engine and a 2 liter engine either but rather engines of comparable displacements. That is not to say that big displacement engines suck, but to not recognize how much more difficult it is to engineer a sustainable high reving engine like that in the s2000 is just an indication of one's lack of appreciation for the challenges involved.
Honda engines of small displacement actually do make a lot of both torque and horsepower for their displacement thus the earlier arguement is flawed. Take for example a 5.7 liter LS1 which makes approximately 350 ft -lbs of maximum torque and 350 hp, now look at a 2.0 liter F20C Honda s2000 engine, which produces a maximum of ~ 156 ft -lbs of torque and 246 hp. We can extrapolate that 5.7 LS1 would be making around 122 hp and 122 ft -lbs of torque at 2.0 liters.
GM and Ford were just uninterested in developing systems like variable valve timing and lift to optimize BOTH low and high rpm torque like Honda and others have done. Instead they have chosed to use displacement to overshadow their lack of development in other areas. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons GM is well on their way to bankrupcty now; consumers have noticed their emphasis on marketing over engineering So it can be seen that while one crowd may claim that hp/liter and engineering doesn't matter, it has become a painful reality to GM and Ford that it does, while Honda and Toyota to whom engineering and hp/liter do matter are poised to become the leading auto manufacturers in the world.
The M3 engine displaces 3.2 liters and develops 342 hp and 268 ft-lbs, greater than 100 hp/liter, the M5 is 5 liters and develops 500 hp, or 100 hp/liter. Clearly the differences are not as significant as you have implied in this category of automotive engine size. Therefore it is apparent that through Honda's formidable engineering knowledge of metallurgy and design that it has created a superior engine if seen from a design perspective.
Furthermore, an F1 engine's idle speed is around 4000 rpm and typically doesn't drop below 7000 rpm in a race, so while it may develop only 250 ft -lbs of torque it is still producing a minimum of ~ 400 hp at any one time, therefore it is not really relevant to compare the torque developed by an F1 engine to that of a streetcar.
One horsepower is defined as:
1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min−1 = exactly 745.69987158227022 W
So work done per unit time.
We are not talking about the difference between a .05 liter and engine and a 2 liter engine either but rather engines of comparable displacements. That is not to say that big displacement engines suck, but to not recognize how much more difficult it is to engineer a sustainable high reving engine like that in the s2000 is just an indication of one's lack of appreciation for the challenges involved.
Honda engines of small displacement actually do make a lot of both torque and horsepower for their displacement thus the earlier arguement is flawed. Take for example a 5.7 liter LS1 which makes approximately 350 ft -lbs of maximum torque and 350 hp, now look at a 2.0 liter F20C Honda s2000 engine, which produces a maximum of ~ 156 ft -lbs of torque and 246 hp. We can extrapolate that 5.7 LS1 would be making around 122 hp and 122 ft -lbs of torque at 2.0 liters.
GM and Ford were just uninterested in developing systems like variable valve timing and lift to optimize BOTH low and high rpm torque like Honda and others have done. Instead they have chosed to use displacement to overshadow their lack of development in other areas. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons GM is well on their way to bankrupcty now; consumers have noticed their emphasis on marketing over engineering So it can be seen that while one crowd may claim that hp/liter and engineering doesn't matter, it has become a painful reality to GM and Ford that it does, while Honda and Toyota to whom engineering and hp/liter do matter are poised to become the leading auto manufacturers in the world.
The M3 engine displaces 3.2 liters and develops 342 hp and 268 ft-lbs, greater than 100 hp/liter, the M5 is 5 liters and develops 500 hp, or 100 hp/liter. Clearly the differences are not as significant as you have implied in this category of automotive engine size. Therefore it is apparent that through Honda's formidable engineering knowledge of metallurgy and design that it has created a superior engine if seen from a design perspective.
Furthermore, an F1 engine's idle speed is around 4000 rpm and typically doesn't drop below 7000 rpm in a race, so while it may develop only 250 ft -lbs of torque it is still producing a minimum of ~ 400 hp at any one time, therefore it is not really relevant to compare the torque developed by an F1 engine to that of a streetcar.
One horsepower is defined as:
1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min−1 = exactly 745.69987158227022 W
So work done per unit time.
With all that said, I would rather drive a Z06 vette anyday compared to any Honda. I dont care how they get it it, just get it.
02-12-2006, 10:20 PM
#133
Originally Posted by frostyrock7c
I'm on the fence about getting the gears myself, I track my car quite frequently and seldom drag, but for comparison purposes, what kind of 1/4 or 0-60's are you getting? I guess I'm asking, just how much better does it help the Z33 accelerate? Anyone ??
Thanks,
Mike
??Thanks,
Mike
02-15-2006, 10:58 PM
#134
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the "going rates" on 1/8th's say, stock, vs. 2theMax?
The closest track to me is 1/8th & I'm thinking about starting there & then hitting the 1/4 . . . anyone?
The closest track to me is 1/8th & I'm thinking about starting there & then hitting the 1/4 . . . anyone?
02-15-2006, 11:12 PM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skylin3R33
One horsepower is defined as:
1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min?1 = exactly 745.69987158227022 W
So work done per unit time.
1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf·min?1 = exactly 745.69987158227022 W
So work done per unit time.
(I'm so-fu¢kn' kidding don't EVEN reply
!!!)
02-16-2006, 05:41 AM
#137
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rct350z
i got 271 rwhp...
skunk2 plenum spacer, greddy sp2 exhaust , aem cold air intake , tein flex coilovers
skunk2 plenum spacer, greddy sp2 exhaust , aem cold air intake , tein flex coilovers
02-16-2006, 09:21 AM
#139
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas- Vallley Ranch
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car hit 280 before Nismo exhaust, JWT flywheel/clutch and underdrive pully.
I would like to get it dynoed again and see what numbers I could hit. I think with an ECU reflash I could be in the 290s. Too bad I can't raise my redline because my cams were installed before JWT released their upgraded shims and springs.
I would like to get it dynoed again and see what numbers I could hit. I think with an ECU reflash I could be in the 290s. Too bad I can't raise my redline because my cams were installed before JWT released their upgraded shims and springs.
Last edited by 3-fity; 02-16-2006 at 09:44 AM.
02-16-2006, 12:13 PM
#140
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Another Dimension
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Silo
This information is worthless without a baseline dyno!
I see people baselining in the 250's all over this site; by those standards all my mod's have LOST 8 me hp. But this is not the case, for the dyno I used a) baselines z's at around 220, not 250, and the long-time owner said my 242 was the highest n/a he'd seen yet and b) it's SAE corrected hp which reads lower but is more real-world. To put it another way, I realized an approx. 22 whp gain (based on avg. baselines on that particular dyno), so add 22 to 250 and you have your 272. Or, to be even more accurate, figure in SAE correction and I'm actually a good many ponies above that (not bragging, just saying . . .
).So my questions would be
a) what was your baseline (or at least what is the avg. for the dyno you used for bone-stockers?) And
b) are your figures SAE corrected? I'm betting not . . .