VRT/JWT G35 in Sport Compact Car Magazine
05-23-2006, 12:24 PM
#1
VRT/JWT G35 in Sport Compact Car Magazine
Gentlemen, check out the July issue of SCCM, at page 110. Five pages and pictures of the little beast. The boost was tuned down to only .8bar for the dyno because it kept slipping, but still good numbers. She turned a 1:58 lap time at Cal Speedway on the Grand Am Cup course with the ROVAL, so not too bad on a fast track, and a 1:25.667 on Streets of Willow with the bowl, so decent on a twisty circuit as well.
05-23-2006, 02:13 PM
#3
Banned
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep....IMO, I am very confident in saying that this is the best "Daily driven/ Track Beast" of a G coupe there is, period. Building, testing and tracking this car made me fall in love with it.
Congrats Ed (Eagle 1) you have....."1 perfect G"
Congrats Ed (Eagle 1) you have....."1 perfect G"
05-23-2006, 02:23 PM
#4
Registered User
I read two articles with JWT TT in them. Definitely glad to see the publicity. I did have a few questions, in both write-ups the dyno charts looked very rough, not smooth lines on the torque graph, lots of peaks and valeys. Was that because the wheels were slipping, I haven't seen that on any of the JWT dyno charts posted on the forum.
Not sure if this was the same article, but on one, the guy had quite a few additional mods and was only showing a little over 400 rwhp.
Not sure if this was the same article, but on one, the guy had quite a few additional mods and was only showing a little over 400 rwhp.
05-23-2006, 03:01 PM
#6
Originally Posted by Starchecker
I read two articles with JWT TT in them. Definitely glad to see the publicity. I did have a few questions, in both write-ups the dyno charts looked very rough, not smooth lines on the torque graph, lots of peaks and valeys. Was that because the wheels were slipping, I haven't seen that on any of the JWT dyno charts posted on the forum.
Not sure if this was the same article, but on one, the guy had quite a few additional mods and was only showing a little over 400 rwhp.
Not sure if this was the same article, but on one, the guy had quite a few additional mods and was only showing a little over 400 rwhp.
05-23-2006, 04:15 PM
#7
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats, Ed!! Your car is awesome and the track times prove it, maybe if I can learn to drive as well as you then I could get my times there. I guess all in good time.
It was a pleasure seeing you and hanging out again. Also love seeing all the VRT cars in mags, more to come.....
It was a pleasure seeing you and hanging out again. Also love seeing all the VRT cars in mags, more to come.....
Trending Topics
05-23-2006, 04:48 PM
#9
Registered User
Originally Posted by 350ZNV
I have no clue who's car that was. The only JWT TT equiped Zs & Gs I have seen in the magazines are Eagle1's in the new issue of Sport Compact, and mine in the current issue of Modified. I don't even think my dyno was published in Modified, but I know that neither one of our cars is just over 400whp. I am curious as to which one you saw...maybe the Sport Z issue way back in the day when the did the turbo shootout?
The chart that I saw in Sport Z mag was impressive to me, very smooth and very good numbers, especially on a basically stock Z with the JWT TT, so that's why the charts in the mags surprised me.
USN HM 350Z: Yeah your chart is one of the ones I am talking about that has very smooth power lines. The ones in the mags I saw looked like the heart monitor on a person going through a heart attack!
05-23-2006, 04:50 PM
#10
Banned
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vq.turbo.DremZ
I absolutly love that strut bar on that G. Congrats....
05-23-2006, 05:00 PM
#11
Originally Posted by WA2GOOD
Yah... thanks. Those G Strut Tower Braces where a real pain in the A$$ for me to figure out how to make work, but well worth it in terms of results. That one on Eagle 1's car was the very first one.
05-23-2006, 05:30 PM
#12
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SAN DIEGO
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eagle1
Gentlemen, check out the July issue of SCCM, at page 110. Five pages and pictures of the little beast. The boost was tuned down to only .8bar for the dyno because it kept slipping, but still good numbers. She turned a 1:58 lap time at Cal Speedway on the Grand Am Cup course with the ROVAL, so not too bad on a fast track, and a 1:25.667 on Streets of Willow with the bowl, so decent on a twisty circuit as well.
Excuse my French Ed, your car is the Shieet! Article looks great. Looking for C16 Autostyle Article, anyone get the new copy yet?
M
05-23-2006, 07:33 PM
#13
Mike A has the JWT dyno on my car that he can put up here with 12psi (about .9bar) if he wants to, from the tuning that Jim Wolf and Clark Steppler did personally. The one in SCCM was very problematic, with the boost turned down and one guy sitting on the trunk because of slip on the rollers! (obviously it is a different dyno machine). The basic point in the article is that it is lots more power...and to that extent the chart certainly proves that. They couldn't really go into precisely how much power because they couldn't be precise with that dyno problem, so they dealt honestly with what they were able to get (to their journalistic credit, btw). But how much more....I think you need to just go back to Jim's tune.
The front strut tower brace is something Scott could talk about in some considerable detail, either here or elsewhere. It uses very expensive raw material and if you look at it closely, there is a lot of workmanship to get the little bugger to fit in there. Having that prefabricated in a fashion to fit reliably by a DIY enthusiast is a challenge. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons it has been such a long time waiting for somebody to come up with one. Compared to stamping out a piece and selling it for a fat markup like the rear STBs, the front is a bear of a project. It costs a lot to make, the markup is low, and the bottom line is that it is barely worth it for anybody to make one.
As a user of the STB, I can definitely tell you it is HIGHLY worth it to drive a car with one installed.....but only if you really are going to be pushing the car aggressively. Approaching limits at the track it makes a very significant handling difference and you feel it work, an absolutely wonderful modification to the car. But unless you do drive it hard, while you will notice the difference....you aren't operating in a zone where it makes sense to do it if you are just commuting to work. I would therefore classify the front STB in the same zone as a limited slip differential or a very light flywheel and clutch set up....clear returns, but only at a second or even third level of performance modification where what has gone before has still not taken you to the level you seek...and KNOW that you want. I have to compliment Scott enthusiastically for the STB on my car, he really worked his rear end off to get it to configure properly.
The front strut tower brace is something Scott could talk about in some considerable detail, either here or elsewhere. It uses very expensive raw material and if you look at it closely, there is a lot of workmanship to get the little bugger to fit in there. Having that prefabricated in a fashion to fit reliably by a DIY enthusiast is a challenge. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons it has been such a long time waiting for somebody to come up with one. Compared to stamping out a piece and selling it for a fat markup like the rear STBs, the front is a bear of a project. It costs a lot to make, the markup is low, and the bottom line is that it is barely worth it for anybody to make one.
As a user of the STB, I can definitely tell you it is HIGHLY worth it to drive a car with one installed.....but only if you really are going to be pushing the car aggressively. Approaching limits at the track it makes a very significant handling difference and you feel it work, an absolutely wonderful modification to the car. But unless you do drive it hard, while you will notice the difference....you aren't operating in a zone where it makes sense to do it if you are just commuting to work. I would therefore classify the front STB in the same zone as a limited slip differential or a very light flywheel and clutch set up....clear returns, but only at a second or even third level of performance modification where what has gone before has still not taken you to the level you seek...and KNOW that you want. I have to compliment Scott enthusiastically for the STB on my car, he really worked his rear end off to get it to configure properly.
05-24-2006, 05:17 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Eagle1
Gentlemen, check out the July issue of SCCM, at page 110. Five pages and pictures of the little beast. The boost was tuned down to only .8bar for the dyno because it kept slipping, but still good numbers. She turned a 1:58 lap time at Cal Speedway on the Grand Am Cup course with the ROVAL, so not too bad on a fast track, and a 1:25.667 on Streets of Willow with the bowl, so decent on a twisty circuit as well.
hey eagle - it's good to see you on here also - i love your threads over on fresh alloy - i must say very informative with the sc to tt setup
05-24-2006, 06:42 AM
#15
Thanks, William.
Very exciting to see that you are now going to be doing some of the prototype 530BB JWT TT set ups. As a power plant there is no question that you are going to have some thrilled customers. What Jim and Clark have come up with as an application is magnificent. Friendly on the street, bestial on the track, seamless in delivery of power and torque.
As you know far better than I, there are three important keys to achieving power and safety/reliability.....and they are....tuning, tuning and tuning. I think perhaps that is one reason JW and CS have been so conservative in releasing these kits, and why it is such a salute to you that you would be one of the less than a single handful of lads to be picked to put them on.
I would be interested in finding out more about your business and how you approach your customers with this, and other, such powerful applications of FI, as so many people want it, yet seem to know so little about it...a recipe for lack of satisfaction and mechanical disaster for sure. I like the VRT approach to trying to deliver the customer a balanced car in which power is only one of the passionate obsessions that is provided, handling of course being the other. It was my approach and only accidentally did I come across Michael who shared that angle of approach. He had the one thing I did not have, and that was being essentially a "neighbor" to the great guru himself so that he could get what nobody else could....face time with Jim and Clark and the opportunity to field test their concept. And when serendipidously a year ago we met at the track and that field test car "walked" me on the front straight of the Grand Am Cup track layout at California Speedway......my attention was grabbed.
Even so, and if this has been said once it has been said a thousand times, I think the real inspiration in upgrading these cars is NOT in the motor. The NA motor on these cars is awesome. The upgrading is in the handling, and braking, departments. These cars, the G and Z, are not in my view true top performance sports cars or coupes. That is for the Honda S2k and Miata and Porsche categories. Our cars are made for a very spirited and sporty experience, but they are for the mass market that also wants quiet, comfort, and utility as a daily driver. Thus, they are heavy and sizeable. The big 3.5L motor puts out a lot of grunt for an off the lot car, especially at the price. A heck of a value. But the driving "experience" is not one that is crying out first for more power. It is for performance handling. For the street, the brakes are fine. Barely, but they are acceptable. If you are going to drive it hard in the canyons...I would be a bit cautious. On the track...they are a joke...three laps and you are done for the day. Nothing wrong with that from Nissan...after all this is a street car for masses not a track machine, so why put that money into a component that most folks do not need?
I have been reading and trying to learn as much as I can from these forums about our cars, and others, and how the mix of art and science should be applied to improve performance and deliver what each person needs to have. Spending just enough to get just the right parts to make their car the kind of fun, and comfortable experience that they want, without making the expensive and vexing mistakes that cost a lot, and embarrass and frustrate even more. Do you have defined stages or packages of upgrades, in additon to motors, that you do for your customers in the handling arena? How do you communicate to people effectively what they need or should consider, and what they should postpone or actively be discouraged from buying, at least at that particular time? If there is one thing that seems to come out clearly here on these boards is that we get very enthusiastic people who are fixated, or at least overly focused, on certain types of modifications that clearly are not the right ones for their situations, and if you are in the business and seek ultimately to have 100% customer satisfaction...that can only come about by changing the minds of some of the people that come to you. I would be interested to hear your philosophy about how you go about that.
Very exciting to see that you are now going to be doing some of the prototype 530BB JWT TT set ups. As a power plant there is no question that you are going to have some thrilled customers. What Jim and Clark have come up with as an application is magnificent. Friendly on the street, bestial on the track, seamless in delivery of power and torque.
As you know far better than I, there are three important keys to achieving power and safety/reliability.....and they are....tuning, tuning and tuning. I think perhaps that is one reason JW and CS have been so conservative in releasing these kits, and why it is such a salute to you that you would be one of the less than a single handful of lads to be picked to put them on.
I would be interested in finding out more about your business and how you approach your customers with this, and other, such powerful applications of FI, as so many people want it, yet seem to know so little about it...a recipe for lack of satisfaction and mechanical disaster for sure. I like the VRT approach to trying to deliver the customer a balanced car in which power is only one of the passionate obsessions that is provided, handling of course being the other. It was my approach and only accidentally did I come across Michael who shared that angle of approach. He had the one thing I did not have, and that was being essentially a "neighbor" to the great guru himself so that he could get what nobody else could....face time with Jim and Clark and the opportunity to field test their concept. And when serendipidously a year ago we met at the track and that field test car "walked" me on the front straight of the Grand Am Cup track layout at California Speedway......my attention was grabbed.
Even so, and if this has been said once it has been said a thousand times, I think the real inspiration in upgrading these cars is NOT in the motor. The NA motor on these cars is awesome. The upgrading is in the handling, and braking, departments. These cars, the G and Z, are not in my view true top performance sports cars or coupes. That is for the Honda S2k and Miata and Porsche categories. Our cars are made for a very spirited and sporty experience, but they are for the mass market that also wants quiet, comfort, and utility as a daily driver. Thus, they are heavy and sizeable. The big 3.5L motor puts out a lot of grunt for an off the lot car, especially at the price. A heck of a value. But the driving "experience" is not one that is crying out first for more power. It is for performance handling. For the street, the brakes are fine. Barely, but they are acceptable. If you are going to drive it hard in the canyons...I would be a bit cautious. On the track...they are a joke...three laps and you are done for the day. Nothing wrong with that from Nissan...after all this is a street car for masses not a track machine, so why put that money into a component that most folks do not need?
I have been reading and trying to learn as much as I can from these forums about our cars, and others, and how the mix of art and science should be applied to improve performance and deliver what each person needs to have. Spending just enough to get just the right parts to make their car the kind of fun, and comfortable experience that they want, without making the expensive and vexing mistakes that cost a lot, and embarrass and frustrate even more. Do you have defined stages or packages of upgrades, in additon to motors, that you do for your customers in the handling arena? How do you communicate to people effectively what they need or should consider, and what they should postpone or actively be discouraged from buying, at least at that particular time? If there is one thing that seems to come out clearly here on these boards is that we get very enthusiastic people who are fixated, or at least overly focused, on certain types of modifications that clearly are not the right ones for their situations, and if you are in the business and seek ultimately to have 100% customer satisfaction...that can only come about by changing the minds of some of the people that come to you. I would be interested to hear your philosophy about how you go about that.
05-24-2006, 07:34 AM
#17
Alas. like George Washington, we must be candid. Scott Bush driving my car did the 1:25 at Streets. He did the stock G in 1:35 (only two laps because the brakes were not going to be able to take it). He was the test driver for the two cars in the SCCM article. I was 1:30 in my white G. It was my first day in the car and first time on Streets, so I am sure that I can take it down about three seconds now. However, remember, it was Scott's first time in the G also, so I would expect him to be able to take at least two more seconds off his time, especially when you consider he had only driven Streets a total of about 5 or 10 laps previously in his life! Heck, Sharif, he beat Mike Cronin, Jr. who was out there at the same time in his race prepped 350Z by more than a full second, and Mike probably has more than 5,000 laps on that track, and two years of full on Grand Am Cup experience in a 350Z. Mike is a heck of a driver and a very nice guy, btw. He was gracious and enthusiastic about the performance of the VRT G35 with Jim's TT.
(But I did do the 1:58 at CS.)
The editors said that Scott in the stock G35 was 2 seconds a lap faster than their best driver in an M3 on the Streets course. I was there, I heard him say it. I saw the GPS lap timer print out. So if ever there was proof needed that it is the archer and not the arrow that makes the difference, you have it here. The young man can pilot a car.
However, ahem, I suspect that if Scott was driving my car at CS the spread would be even MORE than 5 seconds, because I "lift" throttle at the end of the front straight from 150mph+ going into the ROVAL, and I know that Scott would keep the hammer down and probably do 150+ all the way through it. (Most of us in the passenger seat would be doing our best Janet Leigh screaming imitation from the shower scene in Psycho at that point!). At 140mph I have to tell you that the diameter of my rear is so tight that it would flatten a BB. To say than I am focused is a major understatement. Scott is probably fiddling with the ***** on the radio. But that is my limit right now for that section of course, I just don't have the skill sets or confidence to take it higher. As it is I was blowing by most of the other cars (Mike A and Scott excepted, and one lad in a specially modified Z06 with a Penske suspension). That driving difference alone would be good for about ten to twenty car lengths per lap just right there. Add to that his superior skills on the infield...and after ten laps and twenty minutes on the track he would be a half lap ahead of me, if not more!
A man has got to know his limitations. My last words are NOT going to be, "Hey guys, watch this!"
(But I did do the 1:58 at CS.)
The editors said that Scott in the stock G35 was 2 seconds a lap faster than their best driver in an M3 on the Streets course. I was there, I heard him say it. I saw the GPS lap timer print out. So if ever there was proof needed that it is the archer and not the arrow that makes the difference, you have it here. The young man can pilot a car.
However, ahem, I suspect that if Scott was driving my car at CS the spread would be even MORE than 5 seconds, because I "lift" throttle at the end of the front straight from 150mph+ going into the ROVAL, and I know that Scott would keep the hammer down and probably do 150+ all the way through it. (Most of us in the passenger seat would be doing our best Janet Leigh screaming imitation from the shower scene in Psycho at that point!). At 140mph I have to tell you that the diameter of my rear is so tight that it would flatten a BB. To say than I am focused is a major understatement. Scott is probably fiddling with the ***** on the radio. But that is my limit right now for that section of course, I just don't have the skill sets or confidence to take it higher. As it is I was blowing by most of the other cars (Mike A and Scott excepted, and one lad in a specially modified Z06 with a Penske suspension). That driving difference alone would be good for about ten to twenty car lengths per lap just right there. Add to that his superior skills on the infield...and after ten laps and twenty minutes on the track he would be a half lap ahead of me, if not more!
A man has got to know his limitations. My last words are NOT going to be, "Hey guys, watch this!"
05-24-2006, 07:45 AM
#18
Sponsor
Sport Z Magazine
Sport Z Magazine
Originally Posted by Eagle1
Heck, Sharif, he beat Mike Cronin, Jr. who was out there at the same time in his race prepped 350Z by more than a full second, and Mike probably has more than 5,000 laps on that track, and two years of full on Grand Am Cup experience in a 350Z. Mike is a heck of a driver and a very nice guy, btw. He was gracious and enthusiastic about the performance of the VRT G35 with Jim's TT.
05-24-2006, 07:54 AM
#19
Registered User
Originally Posted by 350ZNV
I have no clue who's car that was. The only JWT TT equiped Zs & Gs I have seen in the magazines are Eagle1's in the new issue of Sport Compact, and mine in the current issue of Modified. I don't even think my dyno was published in Modified, but I know that neither one of our cars is just over 400whp. I am curious as to which one you saw...maybe the Sport Z issue way back in the day when the did the turbo shootout?
I saw your article again, yeah you definitely have some impressive numbers, and no chart on that one.
However, I couldn't find the SCC with the G write up, what issue is that one? Also I am pretty sure that one had the dyno as well which seemed pretty jagged to me, and I thought I read the HP was in the low 400's, which seemed kind of low for all the money that was put in the car. Maybe I was stoned when I read it.
05-24-2006, 08:13 AM
#20
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SAN DIEGO
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Starchecker
I just did some re-checking. I actually read three TT 350Z article(one was the G). The SCC July 06 issue with the F&F3 write-up had the APS TT Z in the movie dyno'd, it came in just over 400 rwhp and had a very jagged torque curve. The hills and valleys were greatly exagerated as the charts are very tall and narrow.
I saw your article again, yeah you definitely have some impressive numbers, and no chart on that one.
However, I couldn't find the SCC with the G write up, what issue is that one? Also I am pretty sure that one had the dyno as well which seemed pretty jagged to me, and I thought I read the HP was in the low 400's, which seemed kind of low for all the money that was put in the car. Maybe I was stoned when I read it.
I saw your article again, yeah you definitely have some impressive numbers, and no chart on that one.
However, I couldn't find the SCC with the G write up, what issue is that one? Also I am pretty sure that one had the dyno as well which seemed pretty jagged to me, and I thought I read the HP was in the low 400's, which seemed kind of low for all the money that was put in the car. Maybe I was stoned when I read it.
Yet you are correct, that dyno was ugly looking....
M