2k2 topspeed?
#2
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
#5
Originally posted by maxgsxr1
no.......what i want to find out is the 2k2 auto topspeed? and if they have built in limiters for h rated tires on 2k2's??
no.......what i want to find out is the 2k2 auto topspeed? and if they have built in limiters for h rated tires on 2k2's??
Stereodude
#7
Originally posted by Bryan H
they are computer limited in theory to 142 mph
they are computer limited in theory to 142 mph
Stereodude
#22
Originally posted by maxgsxr1
no.......what i want to find out is the 2k2 auto topspeed? and if they have built in limiters for h rated tires on 2k2's??
no.......what i want to find out is the 2k2 auto topspeed? and if they have built in limiters for h rated tires on 2k2's??
Dave (*sarcastic*)
#23
Originally posted by Dave B
Dude, don't you know that the extra power boosted topend dramatically? The auto 02 Max is good for a 320hp Mustang Cobra stomping 160mph (electronically limited). The 6 speed 02 Max is good for a C5 slapping 175mph. Atleast that's what my calculations say.
Dave (*sarcastic*)
Dude, don't you know that the extra power boosted topend dramatically? The auto 02 Max is good for a 320hp Mustang Cobra stomping 160mph (electronically limited). The 6 speed 02 Max is good for a C5 slapping 175mph. Atleast that's what my calculations say.
Dave (*sarcastic*)
#24
Originally posted by Dave B
Dude, don't you know that the extra power boosted topend dramatically? The auto 02 Max is good for a 320hp Mustang Cobra stomping 160mph (electronically limited). The 6 speed 02 Max is good for a C5 slapping 175mph. Atleast that's what my calculations say.
Dave (*sarcastic*)
Dude, don't you know that the extra power boosted topend dramatically? The auto 02 Max is good for a 320hp Mustang Cobra stomping 160mph (electronically limited). The 6 speed 02 Max is good for a C5 slapping 175mph. Atleast that's what my calculations say.
Dave (*sarcastic*)
Stereodude
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ill let you all know when my car gets here.
so far this is what all my cars have done.
98 Integra type R, have no clue, ran out of numbers on the spedo. probably 150-155 ish, Not stock
98 supra 183mph, ran out of road, Not stock
00 Ford superduity diesel 93mph speed limited
97 Jeep grand cherokee 100mph, shaking like crazy with 33's ran out of *****!
97 Ram air 156mph, stock 6 speed ran out of rpms.
01 S600 benz (not mine) 155 speed limited.
so far this is what all my cars have done.
98 Integra type R, have no clue, ran out of numbers on the spedo. probably 150-155 ish, Not stock
98 supra 183mph, ran out of road, Not stock
00 Ford superduity diesel 93mph speed limited
97 Jeep grand cherokee 100mph, shaking like crazy with 33's ran out of *****!
97 Ram air 156mph, stock 6 speed ran out of rpms.
01 S600 benz (not mine) 155 speed limited.
#26
Originally posted by Stereodude
Awww poor Dave... Just cause someone ran their 2k2 auto at real 147.7 and the formulas say it should go 147.6 doesn't mean you need to have hurt feelings Dave.
Stereodude
Awww poor Dave... Just cause someone ran their 2k2 auto at real 147.7 and the formulas say it should go 147.6 doesn't mean you need to have hurt feelings Dave.
Stereodude
Don't be a dink. We'll give you a pat on the back when a mag posts a speed at or above your precious 153-5, till then, relax.
Taking the 6 speed dyno numbers and assuming that the PM's were 400 off (which would put the output right inline with nissan specs and actually show that he was putting about 210 to the ground and also explain the rev limiter being low.) then you're getting about 25 less horsepower to the ground than the peak. You know that power isn't a static force. Peak power won't matter if the gearing isn't set up. I will admit one thing though. In a perfect world with perfect gears and the ability to play with gear ratios until you die you could probably get a 2k2 to hit 153 on a two way run on a completely flat surface with skinny *** tires.
About the 2k2 auto.... I'm not even gonna get into since I have no idea the effect a torque converter would have on gear ratios and the engine RPM relation to the wheel RPMs. I'm assuming 3rd and fourth lock.
You already have the spreadsheet. (which is really nice by the way). Care to plug in the gear ratios for a 2k2 4 speed auto? We'll see where it's hitting when you hit speeds like that.
Mag times baby. There may be better quarter miles but it doesn't take much to floor a car in two directions and get the average speed.
Being a jerk started the rather heated argument last time. Doubting doesn't mean we're calling you stupid (although I've mentioned it before, but that was more of a pedantic reaction to your overbloated ego.) Doubting just means we have doubts. I continue to have doubts, at least until I see mag times.
Sometimes you have to allow someone to not agree with you..... Well do I have your permission? Obviously Dave needs it, we wouldn't want to offend you or anything.
#28
Originally posted by Yoritomo
My doubts come more in the way of the torque characteristics of the 2k2. 155 in a 2k2 6sp means redlining 5th (right around 6500-6600 RPM). Based on some of the dynos we've seen, that's not where the peak horsepower is being made. Even Nissan states peak 255 Horsepower at 5800 RPM.
My doubts come more in the way of the torque characteristics of the 2k2. 155 in a 2k2 6sp means redlining 5th (right around 6500-6600 RPM). Based on some of the dynos we've seen, that's not where the peak horsepower is being made. Even Nissan states peak 255 Horsepower at 5800 RPM.
p.s. 6kW for rolling resistance is a bit conservative, I'd bet it would be between 4-5kW with properly inflated RE92's.
#29
Originally posted by maxed
I've been trying to avoid this one, BUT - according to my math, in 5th at 5800 RPM the speed should be 150mph and 154mph at 6000RPM which is 3-4hp off the peak BHP.
p.s. 6kW for rolling resistance is a bit conservative, I'd bet it would be between 4-5kW with properly inflated RE92's.
I've been trying to avoid this one, BUT - according to my math, in 5th at 5800 RPM the speed should be 150mph and 154mph at 6000RPM which is 3-4hp off the peak BHP.
p.s. 6kW for rolling resistance is a bit conservative, I'd bet it would be between 4-5kW with properly inflated RE92's.
Either way you guys aren't keeping me accountable. I found a math error in my solving of the equation that skewed the numbers. I'll post several revelations later.
Stereodude
#30
Originally posted by Stereodude
I'm not sure how you're computing that. Supposedly the tires have 780revs/mi. However there is no data that supports this (from people reported max speeds in each gear of the 01). The deflection of the tires seem to change this to about 820 rev/mi. Even if it really were 780 revs/mi 150 would be 6015 RPM in 5th and 154 would be 6175. I believe that the tires deflect enough to equal revs of 820mi which means 150 occurs at 6325 and 154 at 6490.
Either way you guys aren't keeping me accountable. I found a math error in my solving of the equation that skewed the numbers. I'll post several revelations later.
Stereodude
I'm not sure how you're computing that. Supposedly the tires have 780revs/mi. However there is no data that supports this (from people reported max speeds in each gear of the 01). The deflection of the tires seem to change this to about 820 rev/mi. Even if it really were 780 revs/mi 150 would be 6015 RPM in 5th and 154 would be 6175. I believe that the tires deflect enough to equal revs of 820mi which means 150 occurs at 6325 and 154 at 6490.
Either way you guys aren't keeping me accountable. I found a math error in my solving of the equation that skewed the numbers. I'll post several revelations later.
Stereodude
#31
Originally posted by Yoritomo
I honestly never looked over em. Whoops.
I honestly never looked over em. Whoops.
Stereodude
#32
Hi Sterodude,
Here are the numbers that I used:
Diameter of 225/50VR17 RE92 = 26" (as measured on the new mounted tires in my basement at 32 psi & 0 mph)
I assumed that the diameter would increase by 3-4% if the tires were inflated to 44psi (to reduce rolling losses) and spinning at close to 1900 rpm (I know they are not drag slicks but there should be some increase). This gives a final circumference of around 84" or 754 rev/mile.
5800 rpm/3.81/0.809 = 1881.7 rpm @ wheels
Divide by 754 and multiply by 60 to get miles per hour. I get 149.9 mph and 154.9 at 6000 rpm.
Here are the numbers that I used:
Diameter of 225/50VR17 RE92 = 26" (as measured on the new mounted tires in my basement at 32 psi & 0 mph)
I assumed that the diameter would increase by 3-4% if the tires were inflated to 44psi (to reduce rolling losses) and spinning at close to 1900 rpm (I know they are not drag slicks but there should be some increase). This gives a final circumference of around 84" or 754 rev/mile.
5800 rpm/3.81/0.809 = 1881.7 rpm @ wheels
Divide by 754 and multiply by 60 to get miles per hour. I get 149.9 mph and 154.9 at 6000 rpm.
#33
Originally posted by maxed
Hi Sterodude,
Here are the numbers that I used:
Diameter of 225/50VR17 RE92 = 26" (as measured on the new mounted tires in my basement at 32 psi & 0 mph)
I assumed that the diameter would increase by 3-4% if the tires were inflated to 44psi (to reduce rolling losses) and spinning at close to 1900 rpm (I know they are not drag slicks but there should be some increase). This gives a final circumference of around 84" or 754 rev/mile.
5800 rpm/3.81/0.809 = 1881.7 rpm @ wheels
Divide by 754 and multiply by 60 to get miles per hour. I get 149.9 mph and 154.9 at 6000 rpm.
Hi Sterodude,
Here are the numbers that I used:
Diameter of 225/50VR17 RE92 = 26" (as measured on the new mounted tires in my basement at 32 psi & 0 mph)
I assumed that the diameter would increase by 3-4% if the tires were inflated to 44psi (to reduce rolling losses) and spinning at close to 1900 rpm (I know they are not drag slicks but there should be some increase). This gives a final circumference of around 84" or 754 rev/mile.
5800 rpm/3.81/0.809 = 1881.7 rpm @ wheels
Divide by 754 and multiply by 60 to get miles per hour. I get 149.9 mph and 154.9 at 6000 rpm.
Stereodude
#34
Originally posted by Stereodude
I used real world data to back out the number of revs per mile. It should be 780 like my #'s show, but I used user reported numbers to try to correct for the deflection in the tires. Supposedly the Car and Driver 00 SE Maxima went 140 at 5900 RPM so that suggests 800 revs per mile.
Stereodude
I used real world data to back out the number of revs per mile. It should be 780 like my #'s show, but I used user reported numbers to try to correct for the deflection in the tires. Supposedly the Car and Driver 00 SE Maxima went 140 at 5900 RPM so that suggests 800 revs per mile.
Stereodude
#36
Originally posted by irvine78
are you saying you 'want' to hit 155 or you did?
i hit 153 with my 5 speed...so you should be able to go little bit higher..
are you saying you 'want' to hit 155 or you did?
i hit 153 with my 5 speed...so you should be able to go little bit higher..
Stereodude
#38
Originally posted by 2001SE
did you use a GPS, or the spedo meter?
did you use a GPS, or the spedo meter?
Stereodude
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TallTom
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
50
07-08-2022 09:54 AM
sx7r
General Maxima Discussion
25
02-25-2001 12:17 PM