and run with it!! This is very saddening. I was trying to break into the 14's with my auto. I got darn close (15.1's @ 90.45 mph) I rebuilt the tranny and added a JWT ECU and was still stuck in the 15's (ran another string of 15.1's @ 95 mph, traction was a big problem running my "winter" wheels)
I would like to see some other folk pick up the torch and break into the 14's. Use whatever bolt-ons you need, just do it.. Please..
I really miss my Maxima.

 

but someone else will probably do it sooner....
you are talking about no NOS no force induction right?
just good motor power on regular tires...no slick?
^_^

 

Yep, just plain old motor, some bolt-ons and guts...
Go for it man, if you need any advice from an old timer, let me know, I've been know to be full of it.. =)

You can do it if you want to.

 

Jim....what happened to your maxima..
What mods did you have on it?

 

inside my Maxima LOL. I have his Y-pipe and JWT ECU and man can that combination along with the intake make a big POWER diffrence in the Maxima !!!!! Thanks JIM !!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

traction was the issue, my winter wheels were stock 93 GXE aluminums with 215/60/15's on them (Toyo proxes H4's) They had decent traction on the street.
Even dropping the t.p. would help. Then I ended up breaking the tranny again, and I gave up. Didn't want to race the 1320 anymore. With the mph figure, I knew the car was capable, but the driver wasn't up to the chase. Before the ECU and tranny,I was pulling 15.1's with 2.18-2.28 60 ft times.
With the ECU and tranny, the best I could manage was 2.4's, with the same E.T. and trap speeds 5 mph higher.

 

That was with just CAI, catback and RT cat. I added Y-pipe, UDP, valve body kit and Denso Iridium plugs. I'm waiting for the weather to cool down. But, breaking into 14s with a NA auto is going to take more than just bolt ons. I might come close, but not sure how close. I need to explore other options. Some stuff that others haven't tried. Like custom ECU or Cams. The engine needs to suck in more air.

 

my best is also 15.1.....but i don't have cai....hmmmmm

 

Can someone explain to me how exactly mph is related to ET? I don't pretend to know what I don't know
I mean, Jim kept saying his low 90's mph indicating a 14's pass, what exactly is that theory based on? Sometime I scan thru magaines, those drag events, some car ran 9sec at 130mph, some car ran a 10sec at 140mph, it doesn't sound like faster mpg gets the lower ET. In the new MB C320 artical, the car does 15.4@92mph, but if Max has 92mph it should be a 14.9 car?
Can someone explain?

 

The MPH can tell where the power in the car is.

For example....those really gay posts between the GTP vs. 2k 5sp.

Both had 15.1 pass BUT the max had a higher trap speed. Meaning if you and I were standing at the 1/4 mile mark. BOTH cars would be even at that mark BUT the max is going faster so say another 1/4 down the max would be ahead.

SO....Jim had a 15.1 or @ around 90 mph or so.

Then he did the mods and he made still a 15.1 but his mph went up alot. SO that says....he could only get off the line just so well....thank you FWD....but his car really hauled *** in 2nd/3rd. It physically pulled harder. What does that mean. Well....say your going 60mph and you race....sure he may have a worse 1/4mile time BUT he does have the power and could/will beat a car with a slower mph. The 1/4 time has so much to do with launch/low rpm power....the mph shows in racing.

Mike S.

ps-feel free to correct me all

 

thanks for the translation.

 

Basically a car that runs 15.5 @ 85 mph and the driver says "If I had better traction, I'd be in the 14's" is yanking your chain. A car with the power to run in the 14's will have a higher trap speed. For instance, Jeff K. He runs mid/low 14's, and his trap speed is in the 95-97 mph range. That's about right. Even if Jeff had a crappy 2.4 60' time, his trap speeds will still be in the mid 90's. MPH in the 1/4 is an indication of how much power a car is making.
In my case I was pulling 95 mph trap speeds, but my 60' times were in the horrible range (2.4-2.5) range. If I had gotten a decent launch, I should've been able to pull down a respectable ET. If you don't have the power, you won't have the high mph figure.
I've seen some very powerful cars (300-400hp) that pull high 14's because of traction. But the trap speeds were still in the 100's (105-110) That indicates that with a good launch, those cars will run mid to low 13's.
When judging a cars timeslip, you need to take the ET and mph in consideration.

 

 

More confused:

1) >>>Both had 15.1 pass BUT the max had a higher trap speed. Meaning if you and I were standing at the 1/4 mile mark. BOTH cars would be even at that mark BUT the max is going faster so say another 1/4 down the max would be ahead.

So fine the Max will kick *** in the NEXT 1/4m, or in another words you can say the Max will win the 1/3 mile race, but, in the first 1/4m, they are still the SAME fast, even though Max has a higher trap speed, right? And that's exactly my question, why higher trap 100% leads to a lower ET in 1/4m??

2) >>>Then he did the mods and he made still a 15.1 but his mph went up alot. SO that says....he could only get off the line just so well....thank you FWD....but his car really hauled *** in 2nd/3rd. It physically pulled harder. What does that mean. Well....say your going 60mph and you race....sure he may have a worse 1/4mile time BUT he does have the power and could/will beat a car with a slower mph.

Again, fine you are saying he should kick *** from a rolling since the car PHYSICALLY makes more power, but what does that help in 1/4m?? If he still has the traction problem then his 1/4m doesn't get lower EVEN THOUGH theoratically the car is faster, right?

3) >>>MPH in the 1/4 is an indication of how much power a car is making.

My M roadster prolly makes the same power as Jeff's modded Max, but my trap speed is supposed to be ~103mph instead of the mid 90's, why? I know it's a RWD and prolly has aggressive as hell gearing, so it can run 13.7, but it STILL only has 240hp, why would it get a high trap speed like 103?

4) >>>In my case I was pulling 95 mph trap speeds, but my 60' times were in the horrible range (2.4-2.5) range. If I had gotten a decent launch, I should've been able to pull down a respectable ET. If you don't have the power, you won't have the high mph figure.

I definitely agree that higher HP gets your higher trap speed, but the whole point is that does it get you lower ET as well(in real world racing where traction is a problem)?
Let's say you slap few more mods and run with a even higher trap speed let's say 98mph, but if you still have a crappy 2.5 60' due to tarction, then you are STILL not gonna see 14's.

 

The higher trap speed means that the car is making noticeably more power than before. It takes about 25-30 hp to increase your trap speeds by 5 mph. My problem was with traction. I would've needed slicks to channel that additional power into the ground. Example, when MegaMax and Stealthmax raced on the streets, the results were a dead tie. So I was making good power. But I wasn't able to screw that power to the ground.
Now with 240 hp, your car should be able to wring out a couple more mph inthe 1/4. It's not just HP, but the power to weight ratio. An MRoadster has a better power to weight ratio than a modified Maxima has. Modded Max's are probably in the 17-18 lb per hp range, whereas a stock M Roadster is probably in the 13-15 lb per hp range. (may be off, those are off the top of my head approximations)
Having the power to rip off high 90's inthe quarter will just let you know that your car is more than capable of 14's, just a matter of getting that power to the ground.

 

No no no, not true, you numbers are way off. Maxima is actually a LIGHT car.
The M roadster(my '00) weights 3086 lbs. A '96 Maxima GXE(like yours) weights 3001 lbs, according to Cars.com in the specification section.
Now with all the bolt-ons, I will think a Maxima will have more crank HP than the 240hp M, afterall aren't you guys the ones claiming 20hp for Y-pipe, 15hp for CAI, 8hp for GReddy, 20hp for JWT chip whatever for the pulley and etc???
So the hp to weight ratio on my M and your Maxima is very close, definitely not as dramatic as 13-15 vs. 17-18, you might even have a better ratio than me.
Now, why would my 240hp leads 103mph trap speed but your ~250hp(or less if you admit mods don't do $hit) only leads to a trap speed or mid 90's???

Further more, put my GS400 into comparasion also, it weights 3693 lbs with 300hp, that's 12.31. The MZ3 is 12.85. The GS400 has a better ratio, WHY would GS400 has a hi 90's trap speed while MZ3 has a low 100's??
Your theory doesn't seem to be applying


[Edited by WoodEar on 09-07-2000 at 11:55 AM]

 

Like you said before: gearing. Especially in the GS4 vs MZ3, the semi-auto 5-spd vs. the manual 5-spd(which has great gearing).

Doesn't torque mean anything in all this?

I did know "us guys" thought mods gave wild gains. The only mod I noticed was the y-pipe; the intake and GReddy just sound nice

 

No no no.
Jim W. never said anything about gearing related to trap speed, he said power, more specificly, hp to weight ratio determines the trap speed.
(*quote*: ...It's not just HP, but the power to weight ratio...)

Aggressive gearing on the MZ3 vs. automatic on the GS400, that's why MZ3 does 13.7 while GS400 does 14.3 with a slight better hp/wright ratio, so it leads to a lower ET. Same as MZ3 vs. Max, with RWD and gearing, MZ3 gets a lower ET.
But the point is MZ3 has a much higher trap speed than both modded max or GS400 even though it doesn't have a better hp/weight ratio. That's why I say Jim's theory might not be valid.

 

 

well for the maxima vs mz3 there is one thing ur forgetting in the race.. mz3 is rwd which has far better launches than a fwd car.. the gs4 vs mz3.. well i dunno about that one, but the mz3 looks faster so it must win.. hahah isn't that true?

 

he quoted a 96 gxe @3001 lbs....

i have a 97 se loaded (i.e. weighs more than the gxe model) 5-sp (dunno what he quoted auto vs 5 sp should be a little different).

my car w/ 1/2 tank gas weighed about 3040 lbs (give or take 10 lbs) at our divisional scales 2 months ago (without me in the car).

so i think 3001 is pretty accurate for a car w/o all the options i have (plus remember i had lighter wheels = 20 lbs and all the mods save a pound here/there so i think a stock se w/ 1/2 tank gas would be about 3100 or a little more 3150)

however, unless you were in the car and weigh like 400 lbs, i think 3600 is extrememly high....i think shing's 98 se auto only weighted like 3200 or so. (dunno on gas)

Robert

 

Well, I said I got the numbers off cars.com, which I find no reason for them to lie. Of course those are the curb weight, no driver no gas no fluid I think, but the same goes for both cars. If I fill fluid and gas into my M and sit a driver in there, it won't be 3086 either.
I believe Maxima and MZ3 are about the same weight, you prolly just have an extra heavy Maxima off teh production line.
Where did you weight your car?

 

No I didn't forget.
Being RWD, plus aggressive gearing, that's why the 1/4m time is in 13's for the MZ3(quite good for a car with 240hp only). However that has nothing to do with trap speed. Jim claims hp-weight ratio determines trap speed, so far all the example don't prove that to be valid. Especially when both being RWD, GS400 with better ratio has a lower trap speed.

 

Not saying cars.com is lying, but how accurate is that info? I think both you and Biomax are forgetting my car is an auto, which Jeff K and I found to be approximately 300 lbs heavier than his 5 spd.
My car was weighed a few times, at E-town's scales, and at another truck type scale.
For reference, my A6 weighs 4040 lbs with a full tank of fuel and driver (I weigh 220) so figure that car weighs 3840.

 

If you have a crappy launch, the car is not going very far but the clock is ticking, hence you have poor 60' times. However, you have 1320 ft in the 1/4 mile, correct? Although you may have taken 10 sec to get to the 60' mark, typically most cars gain traction by that point and you then have 1260 ft still to go to get the car accelerating through the finish. As a result, the trap speed you'll have will be nearly identical to that of a car with an awesome 1.5 sec 60' time.

Think of it this way: how much speed do you think you'll gain by staying on the throttle for another 60' past the finish? Not much. By that time, acceleration has really peetered out. You'll maybe gain another 1/2 mph. The 60' that you "wasted" at the beginning won't hurt your trap speed much, then, although your ET's could be wildly affected.

If someone gets a 2.4 sec 60' time and runs a 15.1, you can pretty much imagine he'll shave 0.1 sec off his ET for every 0.1 sec he shaves off his 60', and his trap speeds will be nearly the same (maybe a little bit faster because he didn't "waste" his 60' this time).

Make sense?

Another thing: Past 50/60 mph, aerodynamic resistance starts to become a large factor. If two cars with equal weight and the same engine and tranny but one is bigger (more frontal area), both cars would have nearly identical 0-60 times but the smaller one would have a lower ET and higher trap speed.

Gearing also affects the relationship between ETs and trap speeds. Higher gearing will generally lead to improved ET's due to better 60 ft times, but hurts trap speed. Think of a car that revs up very quickly off the line to get you to rocket off quickly, but all that gearing there starts to hurt you near the finish. Towards the end, the engine running out of breathe because it's running at higher rpms than before (where it's weaker) or because you had to shift into the next gear, which drops your at-wheels torque way off.

The torque curve of an engine will also affect the ETs and trap speed relationship. A low torque monster like modified GTPs get bad *** ETs due to getting incredible 60' and low-speed acceleration, but at higher speeds, the engine's poor high rpm torque make it finish weaker. I've seen GTPs running low 13's but with like 99 mph trap speeds. Those low ETs on other cars like LS1's (which have much better high rpm torque, hence higher HP, but similar torque), pull nearly 110 mph with the same ET.

But, in general, usually low 14's will translate into high 90's trap speeds. High 14's: low to mid-90's. Roughly.

 

You know, BMW is a bunch of liers

...they ALWAYS make more power than they advertise.

I wish Nissan lied

I've seen stock M3s dyno in the neighborhood of 210 HP. If those engines truly did only make 240 at the flywheel, that's only a 12.5% loss. No way. Look at any other cars and the power loss through a manual tranny is always around 16-20%. Rear wheel setups typically lose more due to having to spin the long driveshaft. That usually adds a couple more % loss. BMW isn't using unobtainium bearings in their trannies or anything, so you know they HAVE to have similar losses. I can guarantee that the M3 engine is more like a 250-260 HP engine at the crank.

Also, M coupes are damn small, frontal area-wise. Maximas are land barges in comparison. Aerodynamic drag is a function of drag coefficient but also frontal area. I'd bet the Maxima has 25%+ more frontal area. Lots of drag. That really hurts acceleration past 60 mph compared to a relatively small M coupe. Plus, Nissan doesn't lie about engine power.

 

Ok you have auto, I checked again, my '98 GLE(auto as default) is 3085 lbs, that's like 70 lbs heavier than manual one, and remember GLE is loaded with lots of options.
Also it doesn't not matter how accurate cars.com is, because we are not looking at absolute numbers, we are looking at comparasion, they show around the same weight for both cars, so if one is off then both will be off.
I always felt my Maxiam is a light car, Biomax said he weighted it to be 3000 and change. Maybe you really have an extra heavy car
Btw, your math is trippin 4040 lbs with 220 lbs driver and gas, the car is not 3840

 

Well, thanks for writting all that stuff, but it really wasn't hitting the point.
I know, and agree that 60" time determines the ET, I think for every 0.1 you shave off 60", you can get 0.15 off your ET. However, we are really not talking about ET or 60", we are talking about trap speed, more specificly, we are discussing whether trap speed is only determined by hp-weight ratio, also whether a certain trap speed indicates a certain ET.

Also, you said "in general, usually low 14's will translate into high 90's trap speeds. High 14's: low to mid-90's. Roughly.", now, the new C320 does 15.4@92mph, shouldn't the 92mph get them a high 14's ET?

Btw, MZ3 has a very bad drag coefficient, 0.43. Boxter owners always use that to laugh at us

 

Can you read? Just checking because I already answered your new questions:

So what if the CD is 0.43? Maxima is what, 0.33 or so? That's 25% less BUT the M coupe has I'm quite sure greater than 25% LESS FRONTAL AREA. Drag is area x CD times some other stuff, so overall, the M coupe still has an advantage aerodynamically over the Maxima. Plus, like I said, your M coupe makes far more than 240 HP...more like 255 or so. And Jim's car DID NOT have 240 HP no matter what he claims More like 230...or 175-180ish at the wheels vs your 210 or so. You car probably has 30-35 MORE HP at the wheels AND has less aerodynamic drag AND is RWD.

The C320 either didn't get a very good launch or has fairly lazy gearing (which I think it does), which according to my argument (that you failed to comprehend) would result in poor off-line acceleration but higher trap speeds.

And the general numbers I gave for 1/4 mile ETs/trap speeds were GENERAL. G-E-N-E-R-A-L. If you hadn't gotten the basic drift of my arguments, there is NO cookie-cutter formula...different engines, different size/weight cars, better launches than other...all of which will push the ET or mph up or down, either together or independently.

Why do you have to friggin argue about EVERYTHING. Is it because you're always POSTING and never READING peoples posts? One-way communication. Sheesh.

 

just want to add my two cents...

There seems to be many variables to get down a track, manual-auto, FWD-RWD-AWD, NA-Forced Air and the list goes on. You're really talking about 3 different things, trap speed, 1/4mi time & launching.

Let's start with launching. For the best 60' time you need high torque & sticky wheels and preferably a manual tranny for regular cars. A vehicle like a civic (I'm not picking on them so don't flame me) has a little torque off the line. A viper has an extremelty high torque plateau. Any guesses who reaches 60' first? If a viper has crappy tires and is too high in the rpm's, then the result will be a bad 60' time.

On to 1/4 mile times. If that viper launches bad with high rpm's & bad tires, then the time will be significantly slower. If a civic has a turbo or nitro then the time will be good. You could even get both cars to be the same in time.

Trap speed. A viper can make up speed very quickly. A bad launch doesn't mean a bad trap speed. Sure it won't be as good if it got good traction but if a stock geo metro has a bad start it will probably be close to the same trap speed.

I don't believe you can relate trap speed to the quater mile time on different cars. Max to max is fine, but no way on a metro to viper. Every engine has its own power/torque curves. Max starts out low and rises very evenly to 6000 rpm. A viper has all its power available from around 3000 rpm. That's a big differnce. A TT supra has all its power at high rpm's. A turbo car can have a really bat 1/4 time with an outrageous trap speed! 1/4 times have nothing to do with trap speeds!

 

Yea I can, but I didn't.
Why? I glanced at it, I kept seeing words like CD, drag coff, FRONTAL AREA, gearing... blah blah blah, what do those have anything to do with the original topic(which is whether it's true or false that only hp-weight ratio determines trap speed)?! Nothing, so why should I read?

Also, why do you think I am arguing?!
I truly don't understand something, so instead of pretending I know it all like some of you do, I ask the question.
I still don't understand why it's so certain that StealthMax should run 14's *just because* the trap speed is 92mph.

 

THANK YOU! That's my point from beginning.

 

StealthMax's trap speed was 94.96, 95.02 and 95.54 mph..
NOT 92mph..
Like Keven said IN GENERAL, cars with trap speeds in the mid 90's tend to run in the high to mid 14's. That's my observations from having seen several hundred cars run down the 1/4. Did you check out any of the drag racing sites out there?

 

Let's see, I grabbed a MT here, 6/99 iusse with teh yellow Viper on the cover, page 174 with all the test results on cars. Looking at the trap speed between lo-mid 90's:
Buick Regal GS --- 15.0@92.3
Integra TypeR --- 15.3@93.4
Pontiac Bonneville SE --- 15.5@92
Caddy Dville concours --- 15.1@93.8
CLK320 --- 15.2@92.9
SLK230 --- 15.2@91.8
Audi A8 Quattro --- 15.0@95
BMW750IL --- 15.5@95.8
Caddy STS --- 15.1@93.2
Jaguar XJ8 --- 15.0@94.2
Jaguar XJR --- 15.1@93.1
Jaguar XK8 --- 15.0@94.6

All of the above does NOT see 14's despite the lo-mid 90's trap speed. It's as many as those that DO see 14's with mid 90's trap speed!
So half of the cars can and half of the cars can not, how *in general* is that?!

 

I am adding the cars now that DO see mid-hi 14's with a 90's trap speed:
BMW 328is --- 14.7@94.4
BMW Z3 2.8 --- 14.7@94.4
Porsche Boxster --- 14.5@94.6
Bentley COntinental T --- 14.5@98.3
Lexus LS400 --- 14.8@97

Only 5 of them, compared to my previous post, 12 cars do NOT see 14's with 90's trap.
So, maybe I shall say, *in general* cars with low-mid 90's trap speed do NOT get into 14's in ET?!?!

 

Look, all Jim said is that before his last round of mods, his car did 15.1 @ 90ish. Afterwards, his trap speeds improved a few mph but his ET did not. Plus, his 60' times were terrible in the 2.4 sec range. Now we all agree that reducing your 60' times will result in almost a 1:1 reduction in ET's also. Other auto Maximas have gotten better 60' times than 2.4, some near 2.0. Why the hell is it so hard to believe that if Jim were to drop his 60' times to something like a 2.1 (from 2.4), his ETs would drop to something like 14.8/9 (from 15.1)?

I guess I needed to add the disclaimer that the GENERAL ET/mph numbers I gave were for the Maxima only.

 

I don't know why you still don't get the point.

First of all, I am NOT arguing.
Jim claimed his 95mph trap speed should lead to a mid-hi 14's ET time, I failed to see how that's valid, so I ask for explainations. All he could say is that he saw *hundreds* of cars running down the 1/4m at track(I assume it's all sorts of cars), and *in general* those with 90's trap speed get 14's ET. Now I listed all the cars with lo-mid 90's trap speed from magazine, only 5 out of 17 are in 14's. Big discrepancy there.
So, am I allowed to wonder?!

Btw, which auto Maxima has 2.0 60" time? What's his ET and trap speed?

 

You will not listen and you cannot lose.

You are just like Russ.

Damn, how's that for an insult?