NISMO Z vs. standard Z debate
10-10-2008, 11:47 AM
#101
You didn't say stock, but if you consider a intake not stock whatever. We all know intakes don't do jack.
I'm pretty sure thats for NOT STOCK/ bolt ons ? no ?
scroll down one more post
I was going by stock down to the tire, like everybody else
?
edit and obviously you dont know how to read
edit again- if it makes you feel better, I like this guys look more.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PlYlLaxV38&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PlYlLaxV38&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
scroll down one more post
I was going by stock down to the tire, like everybody else
?edit and obviously you dont know how to read
edit again- if it makes you feel better, I like this guys look more.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PlYlLaxV38&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PlYlLaxV38&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
10-10-2008, 11:48 AM
#102
Getting away from the bashing already....Your Nismo has clicked off 13.3's in the quater from what you have said here? That's moving pretty good...From what I have read the '07 '08's Z's in general are good for about 13.5's and that still is pretty good. Is your's all stock? Run on the street tires? Maybe your just a good shifter and can drive the hell out of the car? Curious...Wonder what it would take to get near flat 13's in one of these cars. Sorry I realize there has to be a performance drag strip thread here.
K223
K223
10-10-2008, 12:14 PM
#103
But since nobody actually knows how much downforce is being applied at top speed and how much drag is actually being created, nobody knows how much slower it actually is, thats what i'm saying. Are we talking like 10,15,20mph+ slower? nobody knows, becuase i'm pretty sure this has never been tested. We just know thats it's slower.
10-10-2008, 12:27 PM
#104
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But since nobody actually knows how much downforce is being applied at top speed and how much drag is actually being created, nobody knows how much slower it actually is, thats what i'm saying. Are we talking like 10,15,20mph+ slower? nobody knows, becuase i'm pretty sure this has never been tested. We just know thats it's slower.
10-10-2008, 01:00 PM
#105
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: dc/md
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point, for anyone serious about buying the 'best performing Z' for the money it would probably be best to wait and see what the 370's stats will be like.
sweet, theres too many variables to actually figure it out, some of which we do not know.
10-10-2008, 05:18 PM
#107
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But since nobody actually knows how much downforce is being applied at top speed and how much drag is actually being created, nobody knows how much slower it actually is, thats what i'm saying. Are we talking like 10,15,20mph+ slower? nobody knows, becuase i'm pretty sure this has never been tested. We just know thats it's slower.
EDIT: I believe the regular Z doesn't have any downforce at speed, in fact I believe it does the opposite...
10-10-2008, 11:33 PM
#110
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fd (downforce) = velocity^2 * Cd * 0.5 * Da
The only unknown would be winds, this assumes no wind.
EDIT: I forgot to add, velocity will need to be in Kilometers per hour and the downforce will be in Kilograms. You will need to convert afterwards if you want to see Pounds of downforce.
mph * 1.609344 = kph
kg/.45359237 = lbs
Last edited by 2007 Z; 10-10-2008 at 11:44 PM.
10-11-2008, 12:34 PM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: florida
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-11-2008, 04:49 PM
#115
Wrong. All you need is the coefficient of downforce which is .0027 for the Nismo and the density of air which is 1.2929 kg*m^-3 at sea level.
Fd (downforce) = velocity^2 * Cd * 0.5 * Da
The only unknown would be winds, this assumes no wind.
EDIT: I forgot to add, velocity will need to be in Kilometers per hour and the downforce will be in Kilograms. You will need to convert afterwards if you want to see Pounds of downforce.
mph * 1.609344 = kph
kg/.45359237 = lbs
Fd (downforce) = velocity^2 * Cd * 0.5 * Da
The only unknown would be winds, this assumes no wind.
EDIT: I forgot to add, velocity will need to be in Kilometers per hour and the downforce will be in Kilograms. You will need to convert afterwards if you want to see Pounds of downforce.
mph * 1.609344 = kph
kg/.45359237 = lbs
10-11-2008, 07:48 PM
#116
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all personal preference and taste. Pick the right Z for your taste.
Why I did not get the NISMO:
1. I am no longer into body kits.
2. The rear wheels are freaking heavy. Needless unsprung weight, The s-tune 19 inch wheels are much lighter.
3. No longer into driving stick shift, I have had a g35 sport coupe with the brembos, and I just have to say I was not happy with the manual gearbox, compared to the corvette or mustang manuals I have driven.
4.the body kit stands out too much for me
5. should have used the S-tune exhaust with custom tips, and then it would have more horsepower.
6. suspension should be lower. In person the NISMO looks like it sits higher than stock.
And for those who are still not sure. The NISMO does not use the S-tune parts. The NISMO uses specially engineered parts.
Of course the NISMO has the best skidpad numbers of all the Z's. But it not that much better than the s-tune set up. I wonder how much of an improvement an S-tune would see on the skidpad with the front and rear dampers, that are standard on the NISMO. and of course the NISMO has a welded chasis.
Why I did not get the NISMO:
1. I am no longer into body kits.
2. The rear wheels are freaking heavy. Needless unsprung weight, The s-tune 19 inch wheels are much lighter.
3. No longer into driving stick shift, I have had a g35 sport coupe with the brembos, and I just have to say I was not happy with the manual gearbox, compared to the corvette or mustang manuals I have driven.
4.the body kit stands out too much for me
5. should have used the S-tune exhaust with custom tips, and then it would have more horsepower.
6. suspension should be lower. In person the NISMO looks like it sits higher than stock.
And for those who are still not sure. The NISMO does not use the S-tune parts. The NISMO uses specially engineered parts.
Of course the NISMO has the best skidpad numbers of all the Z's. But it not that much better than the s-tune set up. I wonder how much of an improvement an S-tune would see on the skidpad with the front and rear dampers, that are standard on the NISMO. and of course the NISMO has a welded chasis.
10-12-2008, 01:31 AM
#117
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what? You said it wasn't possible to figure the downforce and I showed you that it was. 
I'm glad that you asked. I was quoting information from an old post of mine. My old source said the downforce on the Nismo was 55 pounds at 75 mph, I used this information to calculate the coefficient of downforce. I discovered that the information was incorrect. But, simply reorder the equation like this to figure the coefficient (Cd) when you know the velocity (v) and downforce (Fd) at the given velocity:
Cd = Fd * 2 / (v^2 * Da)
All of the information I can find states that the downforce is actually 11 pounds in the front and 33 pounds in the back at 73 mph (a few links at bottom). That means 44 pounds at 73 mph, total (Yes, you can add it together, it will net the same total result).
.00224 = 19.96 * 2 / (117.5^2 * 1.2929)
So the coefficient of downforce is actually .00224, not .0027. That means the downforce at 160 mph is actually...
Fd = v^2 * Cd * 0.5 * Da
96 = 257.5^2 * 0.00224 * 0.5 * 1.2929
96kg / .45359237 = 211.6 lbs.
If you try this yourself, don't forget to convert MPH to KPH and Pounds to Kilograms beforehand!
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new...an-nismo-350z/
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test (only mentions the rear end downforce)
If you can find more accurate information, post it here so I can see it...
Originally Posted by VillaZX
What is the suorce of your coefficient of downforce?
Cd = Fd * 2 / (v^2 * Da)
All of the information I can find states that the downforce is actually 11 pounds in the front and 33 pounds in the back at 73 mph (a few links at bottom). That means 44 pounds at 73 mph, total (Yes, you can add it together, it will net the same total result).
.00224 = 19.96 * 2 / (117.5^2 * 1.2929)
So the coefficient of downforce is actually .00224, not .0027. That means the downforce at 160 mph is actually...
Fd = v^2 * Cd * 0.5 * Da
96 = 257.5^2 * 0.00224 * 0.5 * 1.2929
96kg / .45359237 = 211.6 lbs.
If you try this yourself, don't forget to convert MPH to KPH and Pounds to Kilograms beforehand!
http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new...an-nismo-350z/
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test (only mentions the rear end downforce)
If you can find more accurate information, post it here so I can see it...
10-12-2008, 03:42 AM
#118
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Chicago Burbs
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nissan Sport Magazine article on Wind Tunnel Testing mentions 20 lbs downforce on the front, and 50 lbs on the rear at 70 mph (Fall 2007 pg 77). They didn't test this, but I think I saw on a post somewhere that they got this from Nissan. I have been wondering if Nissan had published actual data somewhere.
10-12-2008, 04:10 AM
#119
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nissan Sport Magazine article on Wind Tunnel Testing mentions 20 lbs downforce on the front, and 50 lbs on the rear at 70 mph (Fall 2007 pg 77). They didn't test this, but I think I saw on a post somewhere that they got this from Nissan. I have been wondering if Nissan had published actual data somewhere.
I've even seen conflicting data on the drag coefficient. I've seen .30, .31, and .34 (.339). I tend to believe .34. There simply isn't any way the Nismo can produce that kind of downforce while still having the same drag coefficient as a regular Z (which has lift, not downforce).
10-12-2008, 10:32 AM
#120
Vendor - Former Vendor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: riverside
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something tells me that it doesn't quite work that way. Maybe for small numbers, or if there is downforce on both sides.
If you have any experience with windtunnel testing, you'd know that vehicle squat, downforce, and speed are the three major factors.
A vehicle may have lift at a given speed, while having downforce at an other speed.
Your formula only works for a car that has a perfectly rigid suspension, and does NOT apply to cars in real life.