CarTest2000 users: How the heck do you get it to model a stock 4th gen correctly
CarTest2000 users: How the heck do you get it to model a stock 4th gen correctly
I've been manipulating the figures to try and produce the average 14.9 @ 92.7 run that a well driven 4th gen 5spd can run stock. I've messed with weather conditions, weight (as my car is lighter than cartest defaults to) tire inflation, etc to try and get this thing to model my car when it was stock. I can get the ET correct using real world data but the trap speed is always showing to be a bit high, about 2mph. Has anyone been able to successfully model a stock 4th gen on there and have it run accurate times? None of this 15.4 @ 89mph business or 14.9 @ 95 business.
I think only a small percentage of 4th gen 5 speeds get into the 14's stock. Yes I know its possible but the AVERAGE is more like 15.1-15.2 at 92 or so, does that work better. I just read through the timeslips and alot of modded cars are in the 15's. Their are exceptions but I personally think 14's stock are rare.
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,064
Neal,
I was able to get a 14.9 @ 92.7 or something around there in one of the models that I created.
The biggest key is in the shift times. If you look in the General Model Parameters, you'll see that the standard shift times are VERY GRANNY by default...slower than the automagics. Change the shift time from 0.5s to 0.2s, and then set engage time to 0.1s. This is much more accurate for extremely fast performance shifting than the crap that's set in there by default.
Also be sure to have a stock 95-99 dyno plot set in there as well. You have to do that by creating car-specific model parameters. In the db that I emailed you, the ones with the "DYNO" suffix are already setup like this. If you don't want to do that, then set the horsepower/torque in the main screen to 3400rpm (torque) and 5200rpm (horsepower). That gives pretty accurate results too. It increases the low-end power (better ET), but takes some away from the top-end (reduces trap), and these are more accurate peak RPM figures for the 4th Gen.
After that, the 95-96's have slightly less rolling wheel/tire mass. The wheel weight algorithm in CarTest isn't accurate so you sorta have to go by the 8lb per 1lb of wheel/tire weight rule and adjust the curb weight. I think the 95/96 blade style 15's are slightly lighter than the 97-99 5-spoke 16's (2-3 lb), so subtract off about 64 - 96lb.
After all that, I think I finally got a 14.9 @ 92-ish.
One thing that CarTest has a lot of trouble with is the launching. Sometimes you have to make adjustments for the 60' times that it estimates as well. I don't think you got a 14.9 with a 2.3x 60' time did you? I think all the 4th Gen guys here that ran 14's stock got like 2.1-2.2 60's. So then a 15.1 w/2.3x 60' would become about a 14.9 with a better launch and no change in ET.
Ari (Nismo87SE) figured out how to get the launches more accurate by playing with the tire's coefficient of kinetic friction, but I haven't been able to match his results for some reason. But hopefully he'll see this thread and pitch in his $0.02
I was able to get a 14.9 @ 92.7 or something around there in one of the models that I created.
The biggest key is in the shift times. If you look in the General Model Parameters, you'll see that the standard shift times are VERY GRANNY by default...slower than the automagics. Change the shift time from 0.5s to 0.2s, and then set engage time to 0.1s. This is much more accurate for extremely fast performance shifting than the crap that's set in there by default.
Also be sure to have a stock 95-99 dyno plot set in there as well. You have to do that by creating car-specific model parameters. In the db that I emailed you, the ones with the "DYNO" suffix are already setup like this. If you don't want to do that, then set the horsepower/torque in the main screen to 3400rpm (torque) and 5200rpm (horsepower). That gives pretty accurate results too. It increases the low-end power (better ET), but takes some away from the top-end (reduces trap), and these are more accurate peak RPM figures for the 4th Gen.
After that, the 95-96's have slightly less rolling wheel/tire mass. The wheel weight algorithm in CarTest isn't accurate so you sorta have to go by the 8lb per 1lb of wheel/tire weight rule and adjust the curb weight. I think the 95/96 blade style 15's are slightly lighter than the 97-99 5-spoke 16's (2-3 lb), so subtract off about 64 - 96lb.
After all that, I think I finally got a 14.9 @ 92-ish.
One thing that CarTest has a lot of trouble with is the launching. Sometimes you have to make adjustments for the 60' times that it estimates as well. I don't think you got a 14.9 with a 2.3x 60' time did you? I think all the 4th Gen guys here that ran 14's stock got like 2.1-2.2 60's. So then a 15.1 w/2.3x 60' would become about a 14.9 with a better launch and no change in ET.
Ari (Nismo87SE) figured out how to get the launches more accurate by playing with the tire's coefficient of kinetic friction, but I haven't been able to match his results for some reason. But hopefully he'll see this thread and pitch in his $0.02
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
melteye
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
12
May 16, 2016 12:02 AM
Finkle
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
13
Sep 27, 2015 09:53 PM
MikesChevelle
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
4
Aug 6, 2015 11:36 AM