Taurran TN Meets MaximumsportZ's APS TT (LOTS OF PICS INSIDE)
04-04-2006, 08:00 AM
#21
New Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seemed hardly a race! I'd like to see from a dig next time. My opinion(which probably doesn't matter much) from a dig the TT set-up would have more traction problems. Take it to the track! Orlando or Bradenton, I'd drive to see that!
04-04-2006, 08:11 AM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 9,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zivman
Word on the street is, after driiving the APS setup, you were VERY impressed. Maybe so impressed that you might have said if you did it over again you would go with the APS twins??????? In your posts, you make nice comments, but kind of end things by saying it could have been the clutch?
Chris' car might not have been tuned to as much power as yours, but in the vid it is easy to see his car start to walk yours.
Not going to say who, but one of you got a taste of a real FI setup
Chris' car might not have been tuned to as much power as yours, but in the vid it is easy to see his car start to walk yours.
Not going to say who, but one of you got a taste of a real FI setup
Between the power delivery of the TT and the clutch, I wouldn't want to have to put up with the way his car drives. My car is MUCH more streetable, and also delivers more power in the midrange, and much more torque. I actually PREFER the power delivery of the ST compared to what I've experienced with the TT's. Also, the clutch played a huge factor when I drove the TT'd car (for about 5 minutes at most). His car had a totally foreign feeling clutch/flywheel setup, and different power range. Also, he has a 7100 rpm redline which I didn't want to test. The car was fast, but you can probably see why I'd feel uneasy driving that setup for the first time...
How about this... can you explain why the TN ST owners that have tracked their car at the drag strip have put down equal or better ET's with trap speeds of roughly 6mph lower? That's right, the ST puts down tons of torque and power in the midrange, where its usable. Well, its either that or the average ST owner can just out drive the average TT owner.
And where did you get this *** backwards idea that my car was putting down more power than his??? Can't you see in his sig where it says 430whp??? My car isn't even tuned! FYI that short little "run" on the highway was from a 60mph roll. I hung in there pretty well for having 30whp less than him. I can tell you that it might very well be a different story if we ran off the line. That's where the ST's torque will come into play. Then agian, I don't really care. We both have decently quick cars and enjoy driving them. That's all that really matters.
I'm done debating. But please, Zivman, stop being such a troll and quit posting here please....
04-04-2006, 08:14 AM
#23
Registered User
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: .
Posts: 9,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mraturbo
Beautiful cars.
M
M
I really don't want to turn this into a debate, but just keep it civil! Fact is, ST vs TT totally depends on three things: money, goals, and driving style. Lets leave it at that and agree that any turbo setup for the Z is pretty awesome.
04-04-2006, 08:35 AM
#25
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by taurran
And where did you get this *** backwards idea that my car was putting down more power than his??? Can't you see in his sig where it says 430whp??? My car isn't even tuned!
04-04-2006, 08:36 AM
#26
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, this has turned ugly quick! Thanks for ruining a thread that was ment to simply displaying two great cars and sharing my experiences with them.
Lets just keep this on topic please.. Craig is very happy with setup and I'm sure when he goes 1.5 it will be even more of a beast I can't wait to see that.
Lets just keep this on topic please.. Craig is very happy with setup and I'm sure when he goes 1.5 it will be even more of a beast I can't wait to see that.
04-04-2006, 08:49 AM
#27
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
craig's dyno was on a dynojet. You can't honestly say the 430whp=480whp on a dynojet....seriously 
it's all in how the dyno was calibrated. it could have been 'simulating' dynojet numbers.
it's all in how the dyno was calibrated. it could have been 'simulating' dynojet numbers.
04-04-2006, 08:51 AM
#28
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gman2004
What brand of dyno was your car run on. Chris's was done on a mustang dyno so 430whp is about 480whp on a dyno jet.
04-04-2006, 08:51 AM
#29
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chimmike
craig's dyno was on a dynojet. You can't honestly say the 430whp=480whp on a dynojet....seriously
it's all in how the dyno was calibrated. it could have been 'simulating' dynojet numbers.
it's all in how the dyno was calibrated. it could have been 'simulating' dynojet numbers.
Well I wasn't meaning it was 480whp exactly but close when you add 10% which is about right for mustang dynos. From what I have been told you can not add correction factors to mustang dynos. The only way to fudge the numbers would be to input an incorrect vehicle weight, but the mustang does not have a correction factor like the dyno dynamics.
04-04-2006, 08:54 AM
#30
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maximumsportZ
No sir, on the mustang I pulled 385 rwhp.
Chimmke,
There you go my correction factor was about right (actually conservative) only the 430whp was a dyno jet number so it wouldn't apply in this case.
385 x 10% = 38.5 + 385 = 423.5 vs the actual 430whp.
^^^^ Pretty close to my assumtion.
04-04-2006, 08:59 AM
#31
Registered User
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 3,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either way can't we just respect both setups? Both are IMO the way to go for each category. If you're going TT imho the APS is best for me. If you're going ST, the Turbonetics stands out.
At the end of the day we have two great cars and owners with awesome setups that took the time to realistically show us both sides of the fence. I'm impressed by both setups, and love both cars.
I'm sure both are wicked fast, just in different ways. Having rode in many APS z's even with built bottom ends, I can say its a rush. Surely the ST is also very quick. Looking forward to be a mixture of both your guys' cars...e.g. Turbonetics ST + Ings Half kit + DB z ahahha..
Awesome, I could park in the middle of you two and it would make sense =)
ravi
At the end of the day we have two great cars and owners with awesome setups that took the time to realistically show us both sides of the fence. I'm impressed by both setups, and love both cars.
I'm sure both are wicked fast, just in different ways. Having rode in many APS z's even with built bottom ends, I can say its a rush. Surely the ST is also very quick. Looking forward to be a mixture of both your guys' cars...e.g. Turbonetics ST + Ings Half kit + DB z ahahha..
Awesome, I could park in the middle of you two and it would make sense =)
ravi
04-04-2006, 09:05 AM
#32
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GQ 350z
Either way can't we just respect both setups? Both are IMO the way to go for each category. If you're going TT imho the APS is best for me. If you're going ST, the Turbonetics stands out.
At the end of the day we have two great cars and owners with awesome setups that took the time to realistically show us both sides of the fence. I'm impressed by both setups, and love both cars.
I'm sure both are wicked fast, just in different ways. Having rode in many APS z's even with built bottom ends, I can say its a rush. Surely the ST is also very quick. Looking forward to be a mixture of both your guys' cars...e.g. Turbonetics ST + Ings Half kit + DB z ahahha..
Awesome, I could park in the middle of you two and it would make sense =)
ravi
At the end of the day we have two great cars and owners with awesome setups that took the time to realistically show us both sides of the fence. I'm impressed by both setups, and love both cars.
I'm sure both are wicked fast, just in different ways. Having rode in many APS z's even with built bottom ends, I can say its a rush. Surely the ST is also very quick. Looking forward to be a mixture of both your guys' cars...e.g. Turbonetics ST + Ings Half kit + DB z ahahha..
Awesome, I could park in the middle of you two and it would make sense =)
ravi
04-04-2006, 09:12 AM
#35
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by taurran
Gman - Actually both of our dyno numbers are off Dynojets (different ones).
04-04-2006, 09:20 AM
#38
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gman2004
Anyway nice cars....both of them. How do you guys keep your paint jobs looking so new? My car looks like chit.....chips and swirls everyone.
Craig's car is a garage queen
