mkoebra95

Dave B-

By the way if I am wrong or if my logic or use of physics is off, let me know please. I'm here to learn too.

SkylineGTR

Thats a 300ZX and if it ran 14.48 its either a heavily modded NA or a stock TT.

Norm Peterson

Very simplified.

Still, assuming those numbers to be OK and all the other factors to be equal suggests that there is only a 3% acceleration difference between the two cars (209.5/203.4 = 1.0300). What does that mean? Over a run where the average acceleration is 0.5g (about 11 mph/sec) it's only about one carlength after 8 seconds. Now, since I doubt that either car can maintain that much acceleration for that long, over a 4 second run the difference is less than 4 feet. So what your numbers have also shown is that it's a pretty close match. Toss in the variation in power output among mass-produced engines and I'd have to call it a wash (on the street, anyway). The original post did refer to running from a roll, no?

And that was my real-world observation vs a 5.0 Mustang in my '01 from 15 mph or so on up to 85-ish (both cars with manual transmissions). No clear "winner".

Here's a formula that's a little more complete. From a roll, power-limited rather than traction-limited (IOW, no wheelspin):

a/g = (GTe/R - D) / (W + Wrot)

[Acceleration in g's] = (({[Overall Gearing] * Torque * [Powertrain Efficiency]} / [Rolling Radius of Drive Wheels]) - [Total Drag]) / ([Weight] + [Effect of Rotational Inertias])


Norm

2K2_6spd

iTrader: (1)

It looks to me like he used a 2k2 dyno tho'. We all know the 2k's only made 170-185 @ the wheels. Either way....my brain hurts now from reading all that.

mkoebra95

My #'s were very flattering to the Maxima, so in reality it isn't as close as this super simplified analysis. If I were to get some hard data that broke down the #'s by 100rpms, I fear the difference would widen. If I could get some data from idle or 1500 rpms to red line on both, it wouldn't be close since the 4.6 will kill the 3.5 in low end grunt (never thought I'd tought the low end grunt of the 4.6 seeing how it is gutless compared to the 5.0 but anyway...)

The 3.5's power curve that the plot made from the #'s on the 500's is very flat. The 3.5L's curve is nothing of the sort. At 4000RPM, there is an absolutely HUGE 19% or 40ft-lbs dip for about 500rpms. This is the tale tell sign of some sort of variable valve timing starting, a switch between dual intake runners, and/or a seizmic shift in the computer control. The 4.6's curve is absolutely beautiful. Since it makes torque throughout the rpm range and thus hp, they didn't have to engineer a short/long runner intake or VVT, and thus the thing is baby's butt smooth. It pays for it though since it doesn't make torque past 5000, but the 3.5 doesn't either, it just doesn't limit the rpm, so it's a wash.

Dave B

That 40-lbs drop in torque for the 2k2 Maxima is not normal. Most 2k2s have a relatively flat torque curve from 2000-5000rpms. My 96 SE torque looks like an LS1 torque curve. It's as flat as Kansas from 2000 (where the dyno started) to 5200rpms (when HP starts to take over). My engine also makes power straight to 6500rpms.

You also need to take into account that the Maxima is able to accelerate longer and over more average power than the GT. This is why the Maxima does so good with less peak power. You've gotto remember that revs are an excellent replacement for displacement.

The Mustangs advantage is RWD. We can never get off the line near as well as a low grunt RWD car. FWD, decent low rpm torque, and a deep 3.80+ gear ratio makes Maxima is bit of a bear to get off the line. Look at the trap speeds though. "Most" auto GTs get 95-96mph in 1/4 and "most" stock GT 5 speeds get 97-98mph. Most stock 6 speed Maximas get 96-97mph in 1/4 even though they have pathetic 2.2+ 60 foots. We all know a 2.0-2.1 60 foot would another .2-.3 in ET and gain ~1mph in trap. TO me, these cars look about as even as you can get. From any kind of roll, the GT will have no advantage.

The only difference between my Maxima and a 99+ GT stock or lightly modded at my track is the 60'. The trap speeds are damn close though.


Dave

mkoebra95

I looked at 4 different curves for the 2k2 and they all had a nasty dip at 4000RPM. If I got 4 bad apples, please give me a couple of examples of good ones.

The 4.6's torque curve is up above 260ft-lbs from 2000(as low as I've seen it)-4800rpm and it only varies to a peak of 16 more or so.

The 3.5 may accelerate longer, but that is gear dependant. Yes it has more RPM, but does it rip through the rpm faster because it has 3.80's compared to 3.27's? I don't know.

The other part about average power is flat wrong, and my area under the curve analysis proved that. I think you will agree that from 2500rpm through 6000rpm, the 4.6 is making more power. From 6000-6500rpm, the Nissan is making more because the 4.6 doesn't make anything. In order for the Nissan to make more "average power" it would have to make up the area under the curve from 6K to 6.5K that it looses from 2k - 6K. I'm sorry to point it out again, but it doesn't come close given the #'s in my example. I'm not busting on the 3.5 or Maxima. If anything, I think there should be more family cars with power like this.

The power to weight thing only matters on a convertible as the 43lbs difference between a coupe GT and an SE is negligible. If you have a big SE driver compared to a small GT guy or a full tank of gas in an SE to a 1/4 on a GT, it might actually be to the GT's advantage.

The 3.5 has 500rpm more, but doesn't do anything with it as it is delivering a whopping 80 ft-lbs/100hp +-5 on both at redline. That is because the torque falls on its face from 5K to red line. Not exactly a trait that you want in a smallish engine when competing against bigger displacement. For your statement that it offers better average power to be true, the 3.5 has to keep the torque alive through redline, which the 3.5 in my example didn't. Again, if I selected a dog, please show me a couple of sets of higher #'s. I picked a car that I thought was in the middle of the spectrum, but I might have made a mistake. I know I got a middle to low powered GT, compared to the other printouts the guys provided.

Finally, a lot of the GT's on BON.com and corral.net are posting 97-101 for trap speeds. FWIW, 5.0 and Super Ford magazine just did a test of a bone stock 02 5spd. The times started around 14.557@97.09 on a 2.219 60'. Without a penny more than the $23,400 price of admission + good driving, they whittled it to 13.96@99.02 by changing the tire pressure and removal of the spare tire and jack(that's bang for the buck ). Icing the intake and removing the filter(stupid if you ask me) got 13.721@101.8. While icing the intake isn't something someone will do on the street, they can and probably will do it at the track. That could be constituted as adding something outside of what Ford gave it from birth, so I'll concede a 13.9@99mph. This car wasn't a ringer from Ford. It was some Joe's car from middle America.

SkylineGTR

yea but that goes the same for maximas as well. Most 2k2 6spd are trapping within 97-99mph all over this board and thats usually with a 2.3-2.4 60ft. Also the 2002 Maxima's torque reaches a peak of about 220ftlbs @ 4500rpm, and by redline dips to about 185ftlbs. The Mustang seems to reach a peak of about 270ftlbs @ 4300, but drops to about 190ftlbs by redline. The Mustang GT definitely has more area under the curve from 0rpm to 6000rpm than the 2002 Maxima has from 0rpm to 6600rpm, but the Mustang has less under the curve from 4000rpm to 6000rpm than the Maxima has from 4000rpm to 6600rpm. From a rolling race, the Mustang wont be starting from 1000-3000rpm but would be at 4000rpm or above in a gear depending on start speed, and in this situation that little bit of revs, 500-600rpms is enough to make up for the less torque. You only get to use that really low rpm grunt only once in a race. If u use the area under curve of HP, it only gets uglier for the mustang, where the 2002 Maxima now has significantly more area under the HP curve than the Mustang does above 4000rpm, and the even the area under the HP curve of the 3.0L maxima gets almost identical to that of the Mustang.

When doing power to weight ratios, gearing HAS to be factored in or else it won't be accurate at all. A car that has 2-3lbs more per hp or torque may only get crawled on by a car with a better ratio of weight-to-power. After factoring in gear multipliers, that 2-3lbs may only end up being less than .5lbs. And if it gets that close, driver skill would play a large factor in that race.

SteVTEC

OMG this thread is a CLASSIC!!!

We have the following...

A Kill story: CHECK
Clueless people: CHECK
The Intelligent Ones that lay the smack down on the clueless: CHECK
Russ being, well, Russ: CHECK
The Trolls.

Fortunately in this case, the trolls are INTELLIGENT and helpful ones that simply lay the facts down without flaming. I hope some of the other people that participated in this thread have kept reading, because you obviously know what you're talking about and a lot of people here could learn a lot from you.

Thanks, mkoebra95

Anyhow, back to the original post aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalll the way back on page 1. I ran some numbers in CarTest with the actual dyno numbers entered in, and what I discovered was the following.

1. The Mustang was actually the V8, but it had to have been an automatic. The 5spd would have kicked the Maxima's butt, even with the extra passenger, even with a poor and slow shifting driver.
   
2. The Mustang had to have downshifted to 1st at 30mph, because 2nd gear at 30mph in a GT/auto is only around 2000rpm.
   
3. That the kill WAS legit. From a 30mph roll-on, both cars were DEAD EVEN with IDENTICAL 30mph to 1/2 mile times (21.5s @ 114.5 for the Maxima, and 115.5mph for the Mustang. This basically shows that the race was close enough for it to go either way.
   
4. HOWEVER, the extra weight DID throw the race because the Mustang got a 21.27 @ 116.7 half mile time. two-tenths at over 110 mph is easily a few cars. Power to weight 0wNz j0o.
   
5. ALSO, despite CarTest showing the cars dead even, one possible reason for the Maxima being able to gain and hold a full car-length on the Mustang was that the stang might have experienced a little lag while the auto tranny kicked itself down to 1st gear at 30mph. Manual 0wNz j0o. However, this could also easily be attributed to many other things as well, such as the driver, fuel loads, actual passenger weights, general running condition of both cars, etc.

mkoebra95

Actually I'm the one that should be thanking you guys for not flaming the crap out of me. I tried to post something like this on superhonda.com, and all I got back was a bunch of name calling and a bad taste in my mouth about their version of car enthusiast congeniality (read: intolerant)

I appreciate the compliment. Yes I started as a troll, basically because a troll came to corral.net and posted a link. I consider myself an automobile enthusiast, though I am a domestic car fan, and in general a fan of any car that performs. I consider the Maxima in that group of good performers, especially considering the sea of mundane cars in its class. I'm not here to make enemies, just to learn about this car and add my .02 when I smell something I don't agree with.

Here are a few more points:

1. I did a little more digging on autos (I've never owned one and as long as I have use of both of my legs and companies continue to make cars with sticks, I never will own an auto). I think the auto in the mustang does some funky things like making the redline lower etc. It definitely shifts at less than optimal points. I may be wrong and if I find out differently, I'll own up to it.

2. The fuel shutoff redline in a 5.0 Cobra is 6250. I have dug around and I can't find an answer, but I think the 99+ PI headed GT has that redline or slightly higher. If this is true, then the engine power discussion takes on a whole new face.

3. Here are the Mustang's shift MPH, assuming a 6000rpm redline and resultant power figures:

1-2: 40mph -> 3550rpm 180hp (still equal to what an SE makes at 6.5K)
2-3: 70mph -> 4175rpm 215hp
3-4: 103mph -> 4620rpm 228hp

The only thing a Mustang looses by not having the extra 500rpm (maybe 250 given new information) is the miniscule, but present, time to row the gears. I can't do the same analysis for a Max because I don't know the tranny gear ratios. Also, I wonder how much time it takes each to pull through the rpm range. I would assume about equal given the mustangs clear power advantage and the Max's clear gearing advantage.

4. Lastly, we're talking about theory/cars on paper, and that is good fun. We don't race theory or paper, and I'm the first to admit I'm no John Force. If we raced paper, we'd all dyno our cars, submit the #'s along with other vehicle parameters, and hand out trophies that way. It doesn't happen like that, so real performance #'s are what matters. I have seen the best 1/4 post from you guys stone stock as 14.2@97-99. I have put forward credible 99 GT Mustang stock times of 13.9@99.
I know that .3 seconds seems like a small amount of time, but in drag racing that short of a distance, it is an eternity. It will equal about 44 feet at that speed, which is 2 and a half car lengths. That is enough to have a clear winner every time. Basically the crowd won't have to wait for the win light. For the Maxima to win against a good driver in a 99+GT, the GT driver will have to make a mistake.

SkylineGTR

The best stock 2002 Maxima times are 14.2 @ 97-99mph, but that is still with a less than optimal 60ft time. You can't compare the Mustangs 13.9 @ 99mph to the maximas 14.2 @ 97-99 if the Mustang ran that with a good(2.0-2.1) 60ft while the Maxima ran that with a slower 2.3-2.4 60ft. And its almost fact, that .1 faster in the 60ft translates to about a .2sec faster overall time at the end of the quarter. You've still yet to prove a clear winner.

SkylineGTR

Also u said a Mustang shifts from 1-2 and falls into 3550rpm, and makes 180hp, the 6spd maxima shifts 1-2 at 40mph, and shifting at redline, falls to about 4400rpm, where it makes about 180-185hp. The Mustang shift from 2-3 at 70mph, where the maxima is already in 3rd gear, at 70mph the maxima is at about 5700rpm right about where it makes its peak hp of 210, when the Mustang shifts from 3-4 at 103mph, the maxima is in 4th gear about 5800rpm still using peak hp of about 210. HP isnt the most accurate way to measure out the advantages but u can clearly see that at any given speed for the Mustang, the maxima in the proper gear of course, is making just about as much power.

The Mustang may start out each gear with about the same hp as the maxima, the mustang starts each gear after a shift at about 200hp and goes up to peak of 230 while accelerating, but this is where the extra revs for the Maxima come in. While the maxima starts teh gear at about 190hp and only rises to a peak of 210, while the mustang starts at >190(200) and goes to 230, the maxima revs out the gear longer and makes up for the less peak.

TDoyle

"not bad for 2 cylinders and 1.5 liters less!"

So your Max has a 3.1?

Maybe the Stang was a 5 speed and the guy doesn't know how to shift. He could have been in third for all we know and just lugged it for a minute till he got it into second.

It'd be a tough race, but not impossible. I'd say good kill.

mkoebra95

That's a little double speak. .3 seconds is a clear winner. The 2.0 60' on the mustang is not even close to what a good driver can do with it, given practice, or so I'm told. A lot of the best drivers can get as low as 1.8-1.9. Yes, .1 in the 60 usually translates to .2 at the big end. It is not my fault or the Mustang's fault that Nissan chose to give you a car with good power and wrong wheel drive. Ford hamstrung the Mustang if a person is like me and wants to turn while racing so neither car is perfect.

Something I've learned, at least about the Mustang, is that lower 60's can result in lower MPH and vice versa. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about every time. Basically if your $hitty 60 is because of lack of traction, spinning can help inflate the MPH. If the bad 60's are from bogging, then obviously the MPH and 60' times will rise and fall together.

Unless I get some more info on the true redline of the 4.6 SOHC, I'm not going to post anymore on this thread because I think we are chasing our tails. It's been fun and you guys have been more than cordial! If you ever stop by any Mustang sites, hopefully you will be treated with as much respect as you have treated me. Usually we give all car enthusiasts the big unless your first post is "mustangs suck".

Norm Peterson

As a fairly regular poster on the RR/AX forum over at the Corral I mostly agree with the above. Unless you insist on opening up yet another round of Steeda vs MM/Griggs without bringing any new tech to the table, that is (for the benefit of the .org membership, a comparable topic here might be 235/45's on 17 x 7's).

Norm

AltyPaul

Howdy Russ. long time, no see. Looks like your CL is receiving some TLC. With all these mods, are you in the 14's yet?

RussMaxManiac

Haven't run it at the track yet. Plan to soon.

emax02

iTrader: (1)

Bottom line is a 99+ GT mustang is quicker in the 1/4 mile then a 6spd maxima. It's of course a great race but the best of the best shows that the mustang is quicker. RWD gives it a advantage. On a roll the maxima is a hair faster.. I'm a lot faster

Stereodude

Steve opening up a 55 gallon drum of Whoop ***: CHECK

Gosh I love your ownage...

Stereodude

2000 SE

It will be interesting to see what it runs. I wonder if it will beat your 2nd fastest N/A max's time of 14.8.

Nore474

who would win a 5spd 02 V6 mustang or my 95 auto SE

Nore474

who would win a 5spd 02 V6 mustang or my 95 auto SE

aslo who would win a manual 98 A4 1.8t
or a 5 spd 4th gen?

SteVTEC

Nore474

who would win SteVTEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

00gxe5sp

iTrader: (1)

I can not believe this thread is still here...lol...

Norm Peterson

A bit surprised that it's once again active after a couple of months in hibernation. E-mail notification for it still works, though.

What do you want to bet that Nore474 did a search on 'Mustang'?

Norm

SteVTEC

99+ V6 Mustang 5spds run high-15's as far as I know. So can 4th Gen automagics. So it's probably a driver's race on that one.

98 A4 1.8T (150HP) 5spd vs 4th Gen 5spd is easy. The Maxima will kick it's butt.

RussMaxManiac

I have seen a few 99 v6s run low 15s at the track. So they can do it.

98 A4 1.8t, yeah slow stock, but once a chip is on it, its over for the Max.

Anuj

nore474: I heard someone f'ed up your car when you went for a haircut..what happened?

SteVTEC

uh-huh

slickrick

iTrader: (12)

someone needs to lay off the crack.

jjs

Could this be a hint of the future Russ-mobile??? Already it can RULE a Max...and must kick a CL-S' tail as well.

Nore474

I went to get a haircut on a ONE-WAY street I come out BAM the passenger side is all messed up

Maximam

Did not read all the posts but congrats on the 6cyl kill!

Blu

iTrader: (63)

please let this thread die IBTL

Y2KMaxGXE-R

iTrader: (4)

you'd be surprised that I did 135mph in the same "hubcap" edition of GXE 5spd w/no probs. Only 2k2/2k3s are speed governed