Top Speed for SE 6-Speed?
12-24-2001, 09:14 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 112
Originally posted by emax95
And for the 850 R?
And for the 850 R?
12-24-2001, 10:39 AM
#42
Originally posted by Yoritomo
Plug in your numbers into the equations Stereodudeprovided...... Guess what. You won't get the same answer. We'd need a dyno homeboy. Hell we'd need a dyno of the car that Motor Trend tested. You can't calculate top speed with a static horsepower number. To translate it into the real world you need other real world things like Rpms, gear ratios, and graphs showing torque curves.
Plug in your numbers into the equations Stereodudeprovided...... Guess what. You won't get the same answer. We'd need a dyno homeboy. Hell we'd need a dyno of the car that Motor Trend tested. You can't calculate top speed with a static horsepower number. To translate it into the real world you need other real world things like Rpms, gear ratios, and graphs showing torque curves.
I'm not argueing either, I am just having a discusion.
12-24-2001, 10:53 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 112
Originally posted by emax95
I know, I'm not using any calculations. I'm just saying that peak HP #'s don't tell the whole story, another words if a F-body has more HP then a max it does not mean alot when it comes to top speed. I am using the 850 R as an example for Dave to look at.
I'm not argueing either, I am just having a discusion.
I know, I'm not using any calculations. I'm just saying that peak HP #'s don't tell the whole story, another words if a F-body has more HP then a max it does not mean alot when it comes to top speed. I am using the 850 R as an example for Dave to look at.
I'm not argueing either, I am just having a discusion.
I'm not arguing but I come off as a little stuffy sometimes. Sorry. It's all good.
12-24-2001, 11:13 AM
#44
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by RussMaxManiac
Well at 145 it was still pulling, at 150 it was crawling...
Well at 145 it was still pulling, at 150 it was crawling...
You cannot go by your speedometer. The faster you go, the more a speedometer is off. If your speedometer is off by 2mph at 60mph then it will be off by about 6mph at 120mph and so on. Example, the 911 TT "indicated" 198mph, but the gun only showed 187mph (Motor Trend).
Dave
12-24-2001, 11:29 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Yoritomo
Do you actually know anything about physics? You pulled this out of your ***. In no way does it reflect real world physics of motor sports. I'll let you figure it out yourself. Take torque at the wheels, (changes based on RPM and Gearing) We need a dyno graph to figure this one out and I'm too lazy to find one. We also need the final drive and gearing of the 2002. Also wheel diameter. Now I don't know the constants based on wind resistance but I guarantee they're not linear. Your equation implies wind resistance is almost linear which is where you get a bloated Top speed from.
Do you actually know anything about physics? You pulled this out of your ***. In no way does it reflect real world physics of motor sports. I'll let you figure it out yourself. Take torque at the wheels, (changes based on RPM and Gearing) We need a dyno graph to figure this one out and I'm too lazy to find one. We also need the final drive and gearing of the 2002. Also wheel diameter. Now I don't know the constants based on wind resistance but I guarantee they're not linear. Your equation implies wind resistance is almost linear which is where you get a bloated Top speed from.
Do you know anything about wind viscosity? Do you know anything about gear ratios? I don't want to type it up but let me correct you by doing it simply
Let me point out afew things you passed up though. Air viscosity. Newtons at the ground. The gearing doesn't enter your equation at all...... Huh?!?!?!? It's all about torque delivered to the ground. I'll do a write up so I can feel smart but I'm not doing it now..... (on Christmas Eve).
Let me point out afew things you passed up though. Air viscosity. Newtons at the ground. The gearing doesn't enter your equation at all...... Huh?!?!?!? It's all about torque delivered to the ground. I'll do a write up so I can feel smart but I'm not doing it now..... (on Christmas Eve).
Don't give false information. Check with somebody before you post equations that you pulled out of your ***. If you want to prove yourself. How bout using your equations and constants and testing a few other cars for us.
Oh another thing. Using your equations..... the 4th gen couldn't break 135.... we know it can.
How old are you by the way. High School physics ain't gonna cut it.
Stereodude
12-24-2001, 11:33 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Very true...BMWs are off in their speedometers also(on purpose). The limiter hits in at 128 on a 330i and I saw an indicated 140 on the speedometer. Same thing happened on our old 740iL. All speedometers are off and get worse the higher the speed you go. The only way to tell true top speed is by radar or hand-held GPS. DaveB referred to an old MT article on speedometer error, maybe some of you guys should read it. As for mathematical formulas ad physics, they arent as relevant as you think. Someone brought up a good point about winds. There are too many variables on the road to make these computations accurate.
12-24-2001, 11:35 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 112
Originally posted by Stereodude
Oh My gosh you're an idiot. Did you see that Velocity is cubed in that formula? That's not linear. The formula does not assume a linear relationship for wind resistance.
Oh really? Plug in the numbers and lets see. It can't be that hard. Prove me wrong. Lets see it. Cmon Mr. BigMan Knowitall... Put your money where you mouth is.
Stereodude
Oh My gosh you're an idiot. Did you see that Velocity is cubed in that formula? That's not linear. The formula does not assume a linear relationship for wind resistance.
Oh really? Plug in the numbers and lets see. It can't be that hard. Prove me wrong. Lets see it. Cmon Mr. BigMan Knowitall... Put your money where you mouth is.
Stereodude
That's my example. You've provided a guesstimate thank you. Depending on where it's revving at those speeds will have the greatest effect on top speed. Peak horsepower is important but I'm sure you know that the torque at the given RPM the speed is acheived is far more important.
By the way I'd love to have that spreadsheet. (I'm not being sarcastic but expressing true interest.) Thanks.
12-24-2001, 11:37 AM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Yoritomo
Do you know how large of a factor wind speed is? I guarantee I could hit 155 in my 2000 5 speed with a 20-30 mile an hour tailwind. Does that give me a top speed of 155.... No. I'm not knocking what thomas did, but incline and wind speed have a lot more to do with people hitting 150 in their 5th gens and 153 with bolt ons in their fourth gens.
I'm sorry to say this but for a good comparison of top speed we'll have to wait for the Mags to test.
Gimme a 20 degree incline and a 30 mile an hour tail wind and I'll show you a 2k 5th gen hitting 160.
Your equations aren't correct.
Do you know how large of a factor wind speed is? I guarantee I could hit 155 in my 2000 5 speed with a 20-30 mile an hour tailwind. Does that give me a top speed of 155.... No. I'm not knocking what thomas did, but incline and wind speed have a lot more to do with people hitting 150 in their 5th gens and 153 with bolt ons in their fourth gens.
I'm sorry to say this but for a good comparison of top speed we'll have to wait for the Mags to test.
Gimme a 20 degree incline and a 30 mile an hour tail wind and I'll show you a 2k 5th gen hitting 160.
Your equations aren't correct.
If you are on an oval windspeed is negated because your speed is an average of the lap and during that lap you both get a tailwind and a headwind. What you're failing to note is that I've not used Thomas's top speed run as the basis for my calculations. I'm using the 143MPH reported by one of the car mags who used an oval. If I start with real world data on one car making certain assumptions and continue with those same assumptions on another car (that's nearly identical to the other) the end result should be very close to being correct because the assumption can apply for both vehicles.
Stereodude
12-24-2001, 11:41 AM
#49
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Stereodude
How do you know a 6spd tranny has more internal drag than a 5spd 4th gen? Oh, you don't. You're just going on your gut feel with no evidence. I've looked at the Dynos for the 5speed and they seem to lose about 18%. The only stock Dyno for the 6spd we have seems to indicate a loss of even less than 15%.
Again you still have yet to produce any shred of evidence that a 02 Max can't go 155. Instead you go into some rambling rant about how a stock CRX can't go 145. You're attempting to undermine my credibility, but you've totally missed the fact I never said a stock CRX could. I only said a CRX could go 145 with a whole lot less power than a 02 Max has. But the F-body can't. My point was that you can't use a f-body for your proof that a max can't go 155mph, or I'm going to start showing you cars with far less HP than the Max to counter your argument.
You're telling me that the formula is wrong and it's only theoretical. Ok smart guy? What's missing? Where's the mistake? What hasn't been factored in?
Oh wait... my bad you inferred from my post that a stock CRX could go 145 and since it can't the formula is wrong. There's some quality deductive reasoning. Silly Me.
Stereodude
How do you know a 6spd tranny has more internal drag than a 5spd 4th gen? Oh, you don't. You're just going on your gut feel with no evidence. I've looked at the Dynos for the 5speed and they seem to lose about 18%. The only stock Dyno for the 6spd we have seems to indicate a loss of even less than 15%.
Again you still have yet to produce any shred of evidence that a 02 Max can't go 155. Instead you go into some rambling rant about how a stock CRX can't go 145. You're attempting to undermine my credibility, but you've totally missed the fact I never said a stock CRX could. I only said a CRX could go 145 with a whole lot less power than a 02 Max has. But the F-body can't. My point was that you can't use a f-body for your proof that a max can't go 155mph, or I'm going to start showing you cars with far less HP than the Max to counter your argument.
You're telling me that the formula is wrong and it's only theoretical. Ok smart guy? What's missing? Where's the mistake? What hasn't been factored in?
Oh wait... my bad you inferred from my post that a stock CRX could go 145 and since it can't the formula is wrong. There's some quality deductive reasoning. Silly Me.
Stereodude
Stereodude-
So your 145mph CRX example was proving what? Now you're talking about modified CRXs going 145mph? Hell, if you add enough power, you can get a CRX to 160mph in 1/4 mile (already been done). As for the driveline drag. The 2002 Maxima has 6 gears vs 5 for the 4th gen (more internal drag). The 4th gen runs lighter 15s/16s vs the 2002s super heavy 17s. All this equates to higher driveline drag. Get it?
What's missing in your formula? Let's see..... How about weight? How about gearing? How about powerband curves? And like Yoritomo said earlier, wind resistance. You might as well be racing in a vacumn.
Your "153mph" picture proves nothing to me. The only way get topspeed is to either time the runs between two points on the ground or with a radar gun. It cannot be done onboard as you did. As for using a GPS to get topspeed, no way. I'm sure many of you don't know this, but the US government dithers the GPS signals for security purposes. With September 11th, the signal has been dithered even more. Only the US armed services has access to the accurate data. If you don't believe me, I can supply a web page sent directly to me by one of my clients, the US AIR FORCE. The onboard car units and handheld units you buy in the store are off by ~40-80 feet when you're stationary depending on conditions, topography, satelitte triangulation, etc. When you're moving they are off by much more. I use GPS for my work and it's clear how far they off when you get your points surveyed by a survey crew. The only way you will get good data for civilian use is by way of $5000 pack mounted surveying GPS units. Most GPS' are wildly off when it comes to altitude which can through the data wildly off.
Look clearly over Yoritomo's posts. He can say it far better than I can. I've gotten into debates with people just like yourself. The last debate was against a guy who swore his SVT Contour (bolt-ons) could go 157mph because the speedo said so (SVT Contour was good for 143mph). He even brought up the same exact formula which was quickly picked a part by the more informed individuals at contour.org.
I've said all I care to say to you on this debate.
Dave
12-24-2001, 11:45 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Yoritomo
Serious question... do you happen to know the Cd of the 4th Gen.
Serious question... do you happen to know the Cd of the 4th Gen.
Stereodude
12-24-2001, 11:55 AM
#51
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by RussMaxManiac
I will have to get into this. The LT1 is not the LS1 in highway power. The LT1 has all low end grunt and not much high end. I have seen many races with LT1s on the highway and they can't pull from other cars with much lower hp #'s much at all.
I will have to get into this. The LT1 is not the LS1 in highway power. The LT1 has all low end grunt and not much high end. I have seen many races with LT1s on the highway and they can't pull from other cars with much lower hp #'s much at all.
I use to own a auto 94 Z28 with some bolt-ons and it ran 13.4s@104mph. I had that car until March of 98 which means I had plenty of races with LS1s. Auto to auto, the stock LS1 could never pull away from me on the topend. In the 1/4 mile I pulled them. Was my Z a freak? Maybe? I know my Z28 would have setroyed my Maxima at all speeds.
In stock form and with an automatic, the LT1 isn't extremely strong after 110mph. Strong enough to beat a stock 95-01 Maxima 5 speed in the topend? Yes. In stock form, the automatic LT1 could hit 150mph. Can my my Max pull away from my friend's stock 95 Z28 auto? Yep. From 60-130mph, I pull away. But around 120mph, he was starting to close the distance. Why could he do that? Torque and bad gearing. By 120mph his car was back in the powerband of 3rd. Could I hang with a 6 speed LT1 in the topend? NO WAY!!! Why is the 6 speed so much faster in the topend? Gearing. When you can stay in the powerband, the car will pull. Of course, in Stereodudes equation, gearing means nothing. A Z28 with a 1.0 rear end gear ratio can go 155mph just like with a Z28 stock 3.42 gear. I wonder if Stereodude's equation would show the Z28 going 224mph since that is redline of 6th.
Dave
12-24-2001, 11:58 AM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 112
Originally posted by Stereodude
.32 I believe. Your problem will be the frontal area. I couldn't find it for the 5th gen, so I backed it out from the formula. It perhaps is a little larger then it should be, but like I said the assumptions for both cars are the same since they are so similar. Something that's not explicitly taken account of in the formula is probably tucked into that number.
Stereodude
.32 I believe. Your problem will be the frontal area. I couldn't find it for the 5th gen, so I backed it out from the formula. It perhaps is a little larger then it should be, but like I said the assumptions for both cars are the same since they are so similar. Something that's not explicitly taken account of in the formula is probably tucked into that number.
Stereodude
12-24-2001, 12:03 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Dave B
What's missing in your formula? Let's see..... How about weight? How about gearing? How about powerband curves? And like Yoritomo said earlier, wind resistance. You might as well be racing in a vacumn.
What's missing in your formula? Let's see..... How about weight? How about gearing? How about powerband curves? And like Yoritomo said earlier, wind resistance. You might as well be racing in a vacumn.
Your "153mph" picture proves nothing to me. The only way get topspeed is to either time the runs between two points on the ground or with a radar gun. It cannot be done onboard as you did. As for using a GPS to get topspeed, no way. I'm sure many of you don't know this, but the US government dithers the GPS signals for security purposes. With September 11th, the signal has been dithered even more. Only the US armed services has access to the accurate data. If you don't believe me, I can supply a web page sent directly to me by one of my clients, the US AIR FORCE. The onboard car units and handheld units you buy in the store are off by ~40-80 feet when you're stationary depending on conditions, topography, satelitte triangulation, etc. When you're moving they are off by much more. I use GPS for my work and it's clear how far they off when you get your points surveyed by a survey crew. The only way you will get good data for civilian use is by way of $5000 pack mounted surveying GPS units. Most GPS' are wildly off when it comes to altitude which can through the data wildly off.
With 5 satellites (which is not hard to get with a handheld GPS unit) Your position is accurate to less than 17feet. The GPS unit I have will tell you how accurate its readings are. And this means if I come back later in the day the next reading will be within 17 feet of the last one. That of course is irrelevant to a top speed run. Since the coordinates taken by the GPS unit are sequentially taken the error between points is virtually none. This means they are very accurate. The GPS doesn't care it is moving or not because it's really always moving. The satellites are moving above us all the time in orbit. Even if you're not moving relative to the ground you're moving relative to the satelites. So nothing is really changing when you start moving on the ground other than the speed at which you're moving to the satellites.
Stereodude
12-24-2001, 12:10 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Dave B
As for using a GPS to get topspeed, no way. I'm sure many of you don't know this, but the US government dithers the GPS signals for security purposes. With September 11th, the signal has been dithered even more. Only the US armed services has access to the accurate data. If you don't believe me, I can supply a web page sent directly to me by one of my clients, the US AIR FORCE. The onboard car units and handheld units you buy in the store are off by ~40-80 feet when you're stationary depending on conditions, topography, satelitte triangulation, etc.
Dave
As for using a GPS to get topspeed, no way. I'm sure many of you don't know this, but the US government dithers the GPS signals for security purposes. With September 11th, the signal has been dithered even more. Only the US armed services has access to the accurate data. If you don't believe me, I can supply a web page sent directly to me by one of my clients, the US AIR FORCE. The onboard car units and handheld units you buy in the store are off by ~40-80 feet when you're stationary depending on conditions, topography, satelitte triangulation, etc.
Dave
Stereodude
12-25-2001, 12:10 AM
#55
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
I will post the site as soon as I get back into my office e-mail. I use Garmen GPS units for field work and they are not remotely close to true survey marks. Believe me. And yes, the dithered signal has been turned back on. The US Air Force (actually AFCEE-Air Force Committee for Environmental Excellence out of Lubbock, TX) sent me an e-mail informing me of this back in November. Do you honestly believe a $100-200 personal GPS is going to be that accurate? A personal GPS is to keep you from getting lost, not marking a exact point on the globe.
Dave
Dave
12-25-2001, 11:14 AM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by flipmode_cali
i dont know whats wrong with your guys 5th gens but ive hit 153 several times
zero tolerence
i dont know whats wrong with your guys 5th gens but ive hit 153 several times
zero tolerence
PS. I always say this but.... nice ride!
12-25-2001, 05:53 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 717
Re: Top Speed for SE 6-Speed?
Originally posted by 6speedMax
Hi,
Anyone know what the top speed is for the '02 6-speed? I asked my dealer, but he had no idea. My guess is 145.
Thanks, AL
2002 SE 6speed Mystic Silver (coming soon)
Hi,
Anyone know what the top speed is for the '02 6-speed? I asked my dealer, but he had no idea. My guess is 145.
Thanks, AL
2002 SE 6speed Mystic Silver (coming soon)
12-25-2001, 07:12 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 173
I bought a hand held GPS unit for just this kind of situation. I got my 2K2 up to an INDICATED 155mph, but GPS wouldn't budge past 147.7mph. I was still happy with the 147 though. I think there was a little head wind, but I'm not even sure if that's all she had - I just gave up. I'll try again sometime soon.
Daniel
Daniel
12-25-2001, 07:31 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by 2K2THEMAX
I bought a hand held GPS unit for just this kind of situation. I got my 2K2 up to an INDICATED 155mph, but GPS wouldn't budge past 147.7mph. I was still happy with the 147 though. I think there was a little head wind, but I'm not even sure if that's all she had - I just gave up. I'll try again sometime soon.
Daniel
I bought a hand held GPS unit for just this kind of situation. I got my 2K2 up to an INDICATED 155mph, but GPS wouldn't budge past 147.7mph. I was still happy with the 147 though. I think there was a little head wind, but I'm not even sure if that's all she had - I just gave up. I'll try again sometime soon.
Daniel
Oh Wait... What's this? It maxed out at 147.7MPH? Maybe my formulas aren't as far off as some doubters would like to believe.
Stereodude
12-25-2001, 07:43 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by 2K2THEMAX
Did you really come up with 147.6? I maybe stupid, but I am curious as to how you factor the top speed of a car without knowing the frontal area, wheel circumference, and barometric pressure?
Daniel
Did you really come up with 147.6? I maybe stupid, but I am curious as to how you factor the top speed of a car without knowing the frontal area, wheel circumference, and barometric pressure?
Daniel
Stereodude
12-25-2001, 08:26 PM
#65
Newbie - Just Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 12
Re: Re: Top Speed for SE 6-Speed?
Originally posted by JAKE02
Do u mean Sterling Mist?
Do u mean Sterling Mist?
Yeah, thats what I meant. I just think "Mystic Silver" sounds better :-). Im also starting to think about backing out the deal and waiting the the Helical Differential, although its going to cost me more.
AL
12-25-2001, 08:38 PM
#67
Re: Re: Re: Top Speed for SE 6-Speed?
Originally posted by 6speedMax
Yeah, thats what I meant. I just think "Mystic Silver" sounds better :-). Im also starting to think about backing out the deal and waiting the the Helical Differential, although its going to cost me more.
AL
Yeah, thats what I meant. I just think "Mystic Silver" sounds better :-). Im also starting to think about backing out the deal and waiting the the Helical Differential, although its going to cost me more.
AL
12-25-2001, 08:52 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by 2K2THEMAX
Stereodude: you're the man. That was awesome! What calculations have you done to figure the 0-60 of the 2K2 Auto and 6-speed. I would assume with a 14.5 1/4 mile that my car does 0-60 in 5.8-6.0.
Daniel
Stereodude: you're the man. That was awesome! What calculations have you done to figure the 0-60 of the 2K2 Auto and 6-speed. I would assume with a 14.5 1/4 mile that my car does 0-60 in 5.8-6.0.
Daniel
Stereodude
12-25-2001, 09:07 PM
#69
Newbie - Just Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 12
Re: Re: Re: Re: Top Speed for SE 6-Speed?
Originally posted by Newman96SE
if you order your car now you'll be able to order it with HLSD. if you're getting one off the lot then you should wait.
if you order your car now you'll be able to order it with HLSD. if you're getting one off the lot then you should wait.
The car is off the lot. Im pretty sure it has to be part of the dealers stock to get the extra $500 incentive and .9% financing for 36 mos. Either way, I think Im going to back out of the deal and see what the dealer can do for me with the HLSD option. I like the idea of improved traction in bad weather and less torque steer.
AL
12-27-2001, 11:51 AM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 398
Russ, I have to fully agree with you on this one-Here's my experience..
I was riding in my friend's '93 Z28 (LT1, with only K&N and FM exhaust, auto) on the highway...This little Saturn SL2 comes up on us fast...We were already doing around 85...So, he mashed the gas...the Saturn kept up! We started to pull away (albeit very slowly) but his front bumper was right at our rear bumper most of the way til around 125MPH, only because we ran out of lanes...I couldn't believe it...
I was riding in my friend's '93 Z28 (LT1, with only K&N and FM exhaust, auto) on the highway...This little Saturn SL2 comes up on us fast...We were already doing around 85...So, he mashed the gas...the Saturn kept up! We started to pull away (albeit very slowly) but his front bumper was right at our rear bumper most of the way til around 125MPH, only because we ran out of lanes...I couldn't believe it...
Originally posted by RussMaxManiac
I will have to get into this. The LT1 is not the LS1 in highway power. The LT1 has all low end grunt and not much high end. I have seen many races with LT1s on the highway and they can't pull from other cars with much lower hp #'s much at all.
I will have to get into this. The LT1 is not the LS1 in highway power. The LT1 has all low end grunt and not much high end. I have seen many races with LT1s on the highway and they can't pull from other cars with much lower hp #'s much at all.
01-27-2002, 10:47 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 211
BIG-AZZ BUMP
Sorry, but this was pretty funny. I think the 2K2 can go above 150, but the reasons are very numerous - what RPMs it makes power, the new gear ratios, past Maximas, etc. and I don't want to get into it.
Anyway, I AM NOT TRYING TO RE-START THIS ARGUEMENT.
I just want to know if anybody has "tested" the theory out yet and found a true top speed. If not, somebody needs to.
And, yes, a GPS is accurate enough to compute these speeds. The amount by which the readings are off is minimal.
Just like if you have a scale that says you weigh 150, but the doctor scale says 140, and you weigh again in a week and it says you weigh 153, you know that the change is 3 pounds (which is what speed computation is - change over time), even if you don't really weigh 153.
Sorry, but this was pretty funny. I think the 2K2 can go above 150, but the reasons are very numerous - what RPMs it makes power, the new gear ratios, past Maximas, etc. and I don't want to get into it.
Anyway, I AM NOT TRYING TO RE-START THIS ARGUEMENT.
I just want to know if anybody has "tested" the theory out yet and found a true top speed. If not, somebody needs to.
And, yes, a GPS is accurate enough to compute these speeds. The amount by which the readings are off is minimal.
Just like if you have a scale that says you weigh 150, but the doctor scale says 140, and you weigh again in a week and it says you weigh 153, you know that the change is 3 pounds (which is what speed computation is - change over time), even if you don't really weigh 153.
01-28-2002, 05:47 AM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Stereodude
The aerodynamic calculations show 155 (based on the fact the 2001 went 143). This of course assumes Nissan didn't limit them to the speed rating of the tires (149).
Stereodude
The aerodynamic calculations show 155 (based on the fact the 2001 went 143). This of course assumes Nissan didn't limit them to the speed rating of the tires (149).
Stereodude
01-28-2002, 05:51 AM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
An LT1
Originally posted by Dave B
Yeah, pay no attention me because I'm clueless. I get in the habit of making stuff up. An F-Body with a .31 CD, more 60hp and 80ft/lbs torque over the Maxima, lower center of gravity, awesome highway gears, and has honestly been tested by numerous magazines to 152-154mph is slightly slower than a 255hp Maxima. Tell me how in the HELL an increase of 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque is going to add 12 mphs (155mph) in the topend???!!! Do you have any idea how much power it takes to overcome wind drag? Go ahead and punch in some numbers on your computer and bring up your theoretical topspeeds. I would bet every car you bring up will have far higher topspeeds than what have been truely tested in the field. By your rational, if Nissan added another 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, the Maxima could go 167mph? If they added another round of power (bringing the Maxima to 321hp/312tq) the Max could go 179mph and outrun a 350hp/350tq 2002 C5 with a far better CD? Does this make sense to you?
Dave
Yeah, pay no attention me because I'm clueless. I get in the habit of making stuff up. An F-Body with a .31 CD, more 60hp and 80ft/lbs torque over the Maxima, lower center of gravity, awesome highway gears, and has honestly been tested by numerous magazines to 152-154mph is slightly slower than a 255hp Maxima. Tell me how in the HELL an increase of 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque is going to add 12 mphs (155mph) in the topend???!!! Do you have any idea how much power it takes to overcome wind drag? Go ahead and punch in some numbers on your computer and bring up your theoretical topspeeds. I would bet every car you bring up will have far higher topspeeds than what have been truely tested in the field. By your rational, if Nissan added another 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, the Maxima could go 167mph? If they added another round of power (bringing the Maxima to 321hp/312tq) the Max could go 179mph and outrun a 350hp/350tq 2002 C5 with a far better CD? Does this make sense to you?
Dave
01-28-2002, 05:53 AM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
An LT1 is not a HIGHWAY monster, the LS1 is. The LT1 is known for its low end only. They don't have the highway power.
Originally posted by Dave B
Yeah, pay no attention me because I'm clueless. I get in the habit of making stuff up. An F-Body with a .31 CD, more 60hp and 80ft/lbs torque over the Maxima, lower center of gravity, awesome highway gears, and has honestly been tested by numerous magazines to 152-154mph is slightly slower than a 255hp Maxima. Tell me how in the HELL an increase of 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque is going to add 12 mphs (155mph) in the topend???!!! Do you have any idea how much power it takes to overcome wind drag? Go ahead and punch in some numbers on your computer and bring up your theoretical topspeeds. I would bet every car you bring up will have far higher topspeeds than what have been truely tested in the field. By your rational, if Nissan added another 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, the Maxima could go 167mph? If they added another round of power (bringing the Maxima to 321hp/312tq) the Max could go 179mph and outrun a 350hp/350tq 2002 C5 with a far better CD? Does this make sense to you?
Dave
Yeah, pay no attention me because I'm clueless. I get in the habit of making stuff up. An F-Body with a .31 CD, more 60hp and 80ft/lbs torque over the Maxima, lower center of gravity, awesome highway gears, and has honestly been tested by numerous magazines to 152-154mph is slightly slower than a 255hp Maxima. Tell me how in the HELL an increase of 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque is going to add 12 mphs (155mph) in the topend???!!! Do you have any idea how much power it takes to overcome wind drag? Go ahead and punch in some numbers on your computer and bring up your theoretical topspeeds. I would bet every car you bring up will have far higher topspeeds than what have been truely tested in the field. By your rational, if Nissan added another 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, the Maxima could go 167mph? If they added another round of power (bringing the Maxima to 321hp/312tq) the Max could go 179mph and outrun a 350hp/350tq 2002 C5 with a far better CD? Does this make sense to you?
Dave
01-28-2002, 06:03 AM
#77
stop that..
Originally posted by 2k2se6spd
BIG-AZZ BUMP
Sorry, but this was pretty funny. I think the 2K2 can go above 150, but the reasons are very numerous - what RPMs it makes power, the new gear ratios, past Maximas, etc. and I don't want to get into it.
Anyway, I AM NOT TRYING TO RE-START THIS ARGUEMENT.
I just want to know if anybody has "tested" the theory out yet and found a true top speed. If not, somebody needs to.
And, yes, a GPS is accurate enough to compute these speeds. The amount by which the readings are off is minimal.
Just like if you have a scale that says you weigh 150, but the doctor scale says 140, and you weigh again in a week and it says you weigh 153, you know that the change is 3 pounds (which is what speed computation is - change over time), even if you don't really weigh 153.
BIG-AZZ BUMP
Sorry, but this was pretty funny. I think the 2K2 can go above 150, but the reasons are very numerous - what RPMs it makes power, the new gear ratios, past Maximas, etc. and I don't want to get into it.
Anyway, I AM NOT TRYING TO RE-START THIS ARGUEMENT.
I just want to know if anybody has "tested" the theory out yet and found a true top speed. If not, somebody needs to.
And, yes, a GPS is accurate enough to compute these speeds. The amount by which the readings are off is minimal.
Just like if you have a scale that says you weigh 150, but the doctor scale says 140, and you weigh again in a week and it says you weigh 153, you know that the change is 3 pounds (which is what speed computation is - change over time), even if you don't really weigh 153.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAN-Toronto FS: Basement cleaning
knight_yyz
5th Generation Classifieds (2000-2003)
12
11-01-2015 01:34 PM