I did not get to read the whole article, just browsing the magazine racks, but if I read what I thought I did it said the NISMO R-tune car they tested wound up making 10 additional wheel power.

I think they did the cams, headers, intake, exhaust, as well as lots of other non horsepower making parts.

Anyone better informed have the scoop on this article? I'll have to go back with some cash and pick up the mag...

Dan

 

just goes to show you that NA mods on our car will yield little results... heads/cams/intake/exhaust and u get 10hp??? that is well into the thousands of dollars in crap mods

 

You guys need to read this thread about the same article.

https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....0&pagenumber=1

A few guys with NA mods are putting out serious HP. If you re-read the article, the writer made it clear that he thought that it was the relatively low 91-octane gas in CA that prevented more performance from being produced.

 

Definitely, I am running all Nismo except I have not done headers yet just Test Pipes. My Dyno 2 weeks ago was 257rwhp so the article is obviously mis-leading.

 

cant say that for sure, what was your baseline, could have easily been 247, or even if it was low 240s, a nismo Z has no HF cats or test pipes. and you do, so that could and would bump your dyno a good bit.

 

My baseline was 235.3 rwhp, I did another dyno back in February after installing Test Pipes, keep in mind that I had added Nismo Exhaust, CAI and grounding kit also since the baseline, that dyno was 243 rwhp and 237 rwt, then the dyno we did 2 weeks ago was with camshafts and UR underdrive crank pulley and we pulled 257.2 rwhp and 242.4 rwt. We also did a Y-Band to check A/F ratios and they were between 12.1 and 13.6, we found that where the cams peaked it was also where the A/F was the richest, will definitely do the re-flash soon.

 

Am I wrong to think that a power loss of 52 hp to the wheels is wrong? I don't know why but I would have thought a stock Z would DYNO at 250+ for sure. I'm just asking, and claim no knowledge on the matter.

BTW I was just going off of TimZ's 235 rwp baseline FWIW.

 

Assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, 244 rwhp / 0.85 would get it close to the factory rated/claimed 287 hp at the crank.

So the Z has more drivetrain loss (17%+) and/or the factory rated/claimed HP is inaccurate.

 

In addition, there are production tolerances that should be accounted for. Some engines come stronger from the factory and vice-versa.

I hope I have a "Wednesday" motor

 

Also, take dynos with a grain of salt. There are way too many variables that go into a dyno run.

 

This has been a huge debate with the Maxima/Altima owners with baseline dynos. The bottom line is that Nissan *seemed* to be over rating their engines.

The 2k2-2k3 maxima is listed at 255hp...but dyno's at 210. The Altima, is rated at 240hp, but dyno's at 210. Go figure.

We've speculated the Z is closer to 270 than 287. Regardless, dyno's are flaky and who really cares. BMW underrates their engines, which is why some people may have trouble with older M3's and such.

 

i glanced over the article. it also mentioned that the stock ECM was pulling too much timing. all of those mods, especially cams, would require a new ECM and tune.

 

There is nothing wrong with a car dynoing less HP to the wheels than what is claimed/rated by manufacturers, which is crank HP -- not at the wheels. In fact, it is expected due to the drivetrain loss which varies.

 

If the Maxima is rated at 255 (crank/factory), and dyno'd 210 at the wheels, I personally don't think that's overstating the HP at all. Factoring in a 17% drivetrain loss, which is definitely not out the question for a car, 210/0.83 = 253 -- pretty darn close in my book.

 

I realize that there is a difference between crank HP and wheel HP, the point was how can two cars with different HP ratings (240 vs 255) dyno the same at the wheels.

Also, you're using 17%...I haven't done the math, but people were expecting closer to 15%. Not a big deal, but would explain why Nissan's #'s seem to be a little on the high side.

 

Doc,

Ah! I apologize for not seeing your point regarding the same dyno output at the wheels for 2 different cars with different claimed/rated factory HP.

It could be a combination of things, primarily drivetrain loss, inaccurate factory HP (whether understated or overstated), and dyno variances.

Regarding the drivetrain loss, most people tend to use 15% but who really knows how much drivetrain loss there is. For a manual car, I'd say 12% - 17% isn't out of the question.

 

This is off topic... but would my roomates Mustang GT 2004 have the same "expected" 17% power loss. I think his crank power was 265 probably putting him at 212-215 RWP right?


Back on topic, the NISMO write up showed 48000 in parts, of course all not horsepower making parts, but still a huge number for a 10 hp, no braking, and hardly any handling difference. I think someone else said on the board that FI was the way to go and I am beginning to believe!!

Is a Supercharger in my near future??? Let's wait and see

Dan

 

I can't beleive you guys are not considering the source. Sport Compact magazine? Come on guys. Are you trying to get dumber?

 

RP

 

I don't understand what you mean. I'm sure SCC had Nissan bring them 3 cars to show off. I would think Nissan would have put in a quality effort in order to boost sales of their already long awaited parts.

Any magazine of SCC stature must have a functional DYNO and a monkey able to operate it and I'm pretty sure they did not lowball the HP numbers.

All they did was take the NISMO MSRP list, add up the parts and come to a final price.

So assuming thats all true then I don't see how SCC's reputation, or credibility would be questioned. Can they do a DYNO or not?

Furthermore I'd bet if SCC wrote up a Nismo R-tune with the basic powermakers for say $5,000 (arbitrary number) that made 350 RWP on pump gas, you'd be less driven to bash SCC's work.