Turbo CL-S vs. 350Z TT
07-02-2004, 06:01 AM
#121
Parting out 02 Type S :(
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LA,CA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
our cars really arent that bad. but i think what most people mean (or should mention), is that we have a heavy front end. g's dont have much on us, but they have better balance. still, with suspension we can hide the heavy front end to a great extent.
07-02-2004, 06:07 AM
#122
Parting out 02 Type S :(
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LA,CA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he actually ran a 13.2, then i see no reason allmotor could take him. allmotors last setup got him a 12.9
This is with traction problems which if resolved would net at least a 1/10th off. With the new setup which is more efficient and has a really good turbine, i see no reason why he couldnt pull on this guy the way he did. That z needs more tuning though and i see no reason why it couldnt change the outcome. What does a Greddy tt z usually track?
This is with traction problems which if resolved would net at least a 1/10th off. With the new setup which is more efficient and has a really good turbine, i see no reason why he couldnt pull on this guy the way he did. That z needs more tuning though and i see no reason why it couldnt change the outcome. What does a Greddy tt z usually track?
Originally Posted by av6ent
Good kill allmotor 
and would love to see your dyno whenever you got a chance.
As far as Cheston's times.
His setup at that time 5/27 was: 7.5psi. 19x10.5 rear TE37s with Toyo T1S @ 30.0 psi, spare in the trunk, stock LSD. stock clutch...pretty much my typical street setup- but the TEIN EDFC setup for 7 front, 0 rear. With 7.5 psi he was less then 400whp.
His time actually equals 13.2 @ 108 corrected from 13.6 at 2700 ft. and 60' was 2.1 so he was spinning. Anyway, he has the power but needs to learn how to utilize it.
and would love to see your dyno whenever you got a chance.As far as Cheston's times.
His setup at that time 5/27 was: 7.5psi. 19x10.5 rear TE37s with Toyo T1S @ 30.0 psi, spare in the trunk, stock LSD. stock clutch...pretty much my typical street setup- but the TEIN EDFC setup for 7 front, 0 rear. With 7.5 psi he was less then 400whp.
His time actually equals 13.2 @ 108 corrected from 13.6 at 2700 ft. and 60' was 2.1 so he was spinning. Anyway, he has the power but needs to learn how to utilize it.
07-02-2004, 07:05 AM
#123
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jtkz13
I dont know everyone says its so heavy, to be honest. Its not that much heavier than the Accord V6 coupe and its only what, 100lbs more than the G35? 3,450lbs isnt heavy compared to ALOT of other supposedly "sports" or sporty cars. I think the fact that it comes with a pretty mild suspension setup and absolutely horrible tires stock is why people get turned off from tracking it.
IMO, I could see it fairing fairly well on a wide open road course. Or at least better than on a short auto-x. That is with it set up decently.
07-02-2004, 07:48 AM
#124
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by scalbert
However, I will say that this is the best handling FWD vehicle I have owned. But there are lighter, more nibble FWD cars out there.
07-02-2004, 04:31 PM
#126
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
I can't think of much else out there (FWD) that would out-handle the CL-S. Honda Prelude SH, Acura RSX, Mini Cooper S. Other than that?
There are plenty of FWD cars handle much better than the CL-S. I wouldn't really consider the CL-S that great of a "handling" car.
07-02-2004, 05:07 PM
#127
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000
Why don't you go dyno your car... cuz the last dyno I saw was 248 or something, correct?
I mean... dude... all the power for you to hit 13.2 or 13.0 or whatever. It will be nice to see what a CL-S can do - just that its hard man... its hard to get quicker and quicker without doing drastic things. The first 1/2-second is easy... the last 1/8s is very difficult!!
Also... I made 271whp with pretty much all the mods you PLAN on having in addition to the Comptech clutch/flywheel. Now.. the 3.5 doesn't make much more horsepower.. although torque is good as well! You have to look at the hp/torque curve from 5.5K to redline... that's all that matters for your E.T & mph (given stock gearing and redline).
When I had my NA Civic... I spent $2K to go from 14.5 to 13.0 and then $5K from 13.0 to 12.5 and then another $7K from 12.5 to 12.1'ish - its tough!!
I mean... dude... all the power for you to hit 13.2 or 13.0 or whatever. It will be nice to see what a CL-S can do - just that its hard man... its hard to get quicker and quicker without doing drastic things. The first 1/2-second is easy... the last 1/8s is very difficult!!
Also... I made 271whp with pretty much all the mods you PLAN on having in addition to the Comptech clutch/flywheel. Now.. the 3.5 doesn't make much more horsepower.. although torque is good as well! You have to look at the hp/torque curve from 5.5K to redline... that's all that matters for your E.T & mph (given stock gearing and redline).
When I had my NA Civic... I spent $2K to go from 14.5 to 13.0 and then $5K from 13.0 to 12.5 and then another $7K from 12.5 to 12.1'ish - its tough!!
07-02-2004, 05:14 PM
#128
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by TypeSKiller
Pretty much any of the Mazdas...the ITR, Focus SVT, Neon SRT-4. Need I continue?
There are plenty of FWD cars handle much better than the CL-S. I wouldn't really consider the CL-S that great of a "handling" car.
There are plenty of FWD cars handle much better than the CL-S. I wouldn't really consider the CL-S that great of a "handling" car.
This is true. Although, like the cars I mentioned, none of these cars are in the same "near luxury" category that the CL-S falls into. If the CL-S weighed less (read lost many of it's luxury features) I think it would do pretty well on a road course. If it was a road course with long sweeping corners I think the CL-S would do okay for a car its size/weight/class.
07-02-2004, 06:32 PM
#129
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by typeR
im just not too interested in a dyno...dont get me wrong i will,but, it's track times that speak to me. and understand as im trapping higher and higher each gain is going to be compounded by the fact that it moves me higher into my power band where my 3rd gear goes to 113 ...what im trying to say is a 30hp increase might have me making 50 more as i cross the line
Just my $.02 worth... take it for what it is.
07-02-2004, 06:50 PM
#130
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000
Valid point, but in the end its your powerband that's going to get your E.T's to drop... you can have peak horsepower or whatever, but it can be tuned to help you down the 1/4-mile - and a dyno is the only way to do that.
Just my $.02 worth... take it for what it is.
Just my $.02 worth... take it for what it is.
.'s really been no tuning available... we shall see
07-02-2004, 06:54 PM
#131
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by typeR
i hear ya there...but up until this uni chip ,there
.'s really been no tuning available... we shall see
.'s really been no tuning available... we shall see
(1) MAP voltage
(2) TP voltage/settings
(3) Adjustable cam sprockets
(4) Intake pipe design (yes, it matters!)
(5) Engine operating temp changes
(6) Intake air-temp values
(7) Wheel/tire diameter
I can make a bet that (1) through (7) have more of an effect than the Unichip!
07-02-2004, 11:43 PM
#133
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by MQMH_07
how much boost can you run on your turbo? by the way mad props on the Z kill...that car the (TT Z) is no joke!
The Z wasn't a 'kill'... it was a like Cheston said.. a 'show of force' for about 5 mins on the freeway.
07-03-2004, 03:40 AM
#134
Safety Car
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Somewhere in Denver, CO
Age: 39
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
wow, it's nice to see you got this going so well. I'd love to get a custom turbo for myfirst gen, but I'm pprobably going to have to go with a custom SC as teh CT SC has terrible power gains for how much it sots... even WITH the hgh boost pully. Of course now I jsut need to find some axles that won't twist when I have that kind of power.
Do you plan on increasing the boost Psi to 7 psi for normal driving, or will you only do that for dyno/track type things?
Do you plan on increasing the boost Psi to 7 psi for normal driving, or will you only do that for dyno/track type things?
07-03-2004, 04:01 PM
#137
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turns out the Z was short shifting @ 5700rpms (versus usual 7K) due to detonation up top. You guys should hook up and run again when cheston gets his car running right. 
07-03-2004, 08:12 PM
#139
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TX
Age: 49
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I would put a post up. Vortech Supercharged G35s.
http://forums.ownersclubusa.com/ubbt...&o=&fpart=1#81
The automatic with Borla exhaust registered 386.85HP and 314.73 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_fuller.jpg
The 6M with Borla exhaust registered 403.93HP and 323.76 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_jones.jpg
Both vehicles are equipped with a Vortech supercharger with 9 pound pulley.
I can't seem the find the post right now but the 6mt ran a 12.2 at 120+ mph with a bad 60 ft since he was still on his stock tires.
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
http://forums.ownersclubusa.com/ubbt...&o=&fpart=1#81
The automatic with Borla exhaust registered 386.85HP and 314.73 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_fuller.jpg
The 6M with Borla exhaust registered 403.93HP and 323.76 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_jones.jpg
Both vehicles are equipped with a Vortech supercharger with 9 pound pulley.
I can't seem the find the post right now but the 6mt ran a 12.2 at 120+ mph with a bad 60 ft since he was still on his stock tires.
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
07-03-2004, 08:15 PM
#140
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TX
Age: 49
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by power3dfx
since when do Z's rev to 7k rpm?
is there a chip that allows for this?
is there a chip that allows for this?
http://www.audioenvy.com/DownHill.wmv
07-03-2004, 08:24 PM
#141
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by G_Killer
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
I think the 409whp is easily achieved in a CL-S, IMHO.
07-03-2004, 08:36 PM
#142
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally Posted by G_Killer
Thought I would put a post up. Vortech Supercharged G35s.
http://forums.ownersclubusa.com/ubbt...&o=&fpart=1#81
The automatic with Borla exhaust registered 386.85HP and 314.73 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_fuller.jpg
The 6M with Borla exhaust registered 403.93HP and 323.76 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_jones.jpg
Both vehicles are equipped with a Vortech supercharger with 9 pound pulley.
I can't seem the find the post right now but the 6mt ran a 12.2 at 120+ mph with a bad 60 ft since he was still on his stock tires.
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
http://forums.ownersclubusa.com/ubbt...&o=&fpart=1#81
The automatic with Borla exhaust registered 386.85HP and 314.73 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_fuller.jpg
The 6M with Borla exhaust registered 403.93HP and 323.76 max torque. View Printout http://secure.grubbs.com/dyno_jones.jpg
Both vehicles are equipped with a Vortech supercharger with 9 pound pulley.
I can't seem the find the post right now but the 6mt ran a 12.2 at 120+ mph with a bad 60 ft since he was still on his stock tires.
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
oh boy here we go...........
07-03-2004, 09:18 PM
#143
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by G_Killer
But overall, the Z/G35 is faster period than the CL boosted. It is painfully obvious since that car that ran a 12.2 is a easy 11 sec car.
Everyone here is giving the Z his props and you gotta turn around bash the CL-S. And as allmotor said, there isn't a car for comparison as of yet... I believe soon we will have numbers from 3 CL-S's that are above 400 whp (2 turbo's and scalberts intercoolered CL)
07-04-2004, 02:35 AM
#145
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
westwood to SCV aye? That explains the sonic boom the other day in the high desert. 
The air up here in SCV is a whole lot less dense than the air in say Irvine which is near sea level.
Good run.
The air up here in SCV is a whole lot less dense than the air in say Irvine which is near sea level.
Good run.
07-07-2004, 09:12 PM
#146
Parting out 02 Type S :(
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LA,CA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G_Killer
im interested in the G and Z cars. they are definately excellent cars, and though i feel that the j32 is much smoother and refined, the vq is very powerful and i wouldnt mind driving one at all!
there will always be a car faster than another. saying that G's will always be faster boosted is not a proper statement. however, given stock internals on both cars, i would estimate the G to usually have more power boosted. Hp and tq mean nothing, its all about the driver. ive learned this after loosing to a stock Z because i spun the tires all the way up to 50 mph!!! then i ran him again from a roll so there wasnt any wheelspin, took him by 3-4 cars in a short period of time.
07-07-2004, 09:56 PM
#147
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TX
Age: 49
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by power3dfx
that was a hell of quick car. but i am doubting that he was able to just bolt on a blower and chip the car to turn to 7200 without running into any problems. is there any internal work done on the engine? maybe if you can give a more complete list of mods this guy has?
im interested in the G and Z cars. they are definately excellent cars, and though i feel that the j32 is much smoother and refined, the vq is very powerful and i wouldnt mind driving one at all!
there will always be a car faster than another. saying that G's will always be faster boosted is not a proper statement. however, given stock internals on both cars, i would estimate the G to usually have more power boosted. Hp and tq mean nothing, its all about the driver. ive learned this after loosing to a stock Z because i spun the tires all the way up to 50 mph!!! then i ran him again from a roll so there wasnt any wheelspin, took him by 3-4 cars in a short period of time.
im interested in the G and Z cars. they are definately excellent cars, and though i feel that the j32 is much smoother and refined, the vq is very powerful and i wouldnt mind driving one at all!
there will always be a car faster than another. saying that G's will always be faster boosted is not a proper statement. however, given stock internals on both cars, i would estimate the G to usually have more power boosted. Hp and tq mean nothing, its all about the driver. ive learned this after loosing to a stock Z because i spun the tires all the way up to 50 mph!!! then i ran him again from a roll so there wasnt any wheelspin, took him by 3-4 cars in a short period of time.
The ECU is all it needed and the VQ is a strong engine.
07-08-2004, 01:05 AM
#148
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by power3dfx
that was a hell of quick car. but i am doubting that he was able to just bolt on a blower and chip the car to turn to 7200 without running into any problems. is there any internal work done on the engine? maybe if you can give a more complete list of mods this guy has?
im interested in the G and Z cars. they are definately excellent cars, and though i feel that the j32 is much smoother and refined, the vq is very powerful and i wouldnt mind driving one at all!
there will always be a car faster than another. saying that G's will always be faster boosted is not a proper statement. however, given stock internals on both cars, i would estimate the G to usually have more power boosted. Hp and tq mean nothing, its all about the driver. ive learned this after loosing to a stock Z because i spun the tires all the way up to 50 mph!!! then i ran him again from a roll so there wasnt any wheelspin, took him by 3-4 cars in a short period of time.
im interested in the G and Z cars. they are definately excellent cars, and though i feel that the j32 is much smoother and refined, the vq is very powerful and i wouldnt mind driving one at all!
there will always be a car faster than another. saying that G's will always be faster boosted is not a proper statement. however, given stock internals on both cars, i would estimate the G to usually have more power boosted. Hp and tq mean nothing, its all about the driver. ive learned this after loosing to a stock Z because i spun the tires all the way up to 50 mph!!! then i ran him again from a roll so there wasnt any wheelspin, took him by 3-4 cars in a short period of time.
Bolting on a blower and chipping the car is all it takes to make 400whp and turn 7200rpms.
07-08-2004, 06:55 AM
#149
Parting out 02 Type S :(
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LA,CA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds good to me! i am liking the vq engine more and more. the 2dr g's are really powerful, i ran one tonight and he was doing pretty well, though it wasnt stock.
gkiller, i would be interested to see how this holds up. 7+k revs and boost, im sure the car can handle it but we will know more in the long term.
i wish we could turn the revs up too. but ive brought this up with allmotor and it seems that it wouldnt be reasonable. are there any socal G's heading to the track soon, i wouldnt mind joining in on that! then we can see what a boosted tl can do vs. several g's and z's with various mods.
gkiller, i would be interested to see how this holds up. 7+k revs and boost, im sure the car can handle it but we will know more in the long term.
i wish we could turn the revs up too. but ive brought this up with allmotor and it seems that it wouldnt be reasonable. are there any socal G's heading to the track soon, i wouldnt mind joining in on that! then we can see what a boosted tl can do vs. several g's and z's with various mods.
07-08-2004, 10:59 PM
#150
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by TypeSKiller
My buddy owns the quickest all motor 4th gen maxima out there with the VQ30DE motor...he regularly revs to 7200rpms without any problems and his motor has over 150,000 miles on it.
Bolting on a blower and chipping the car is all it takes to make 400whp and turn 7200rpms.
Bolting on a blower and chipping the car is all it takes to make 400whp and turn 7200rpms.
07-09-2004, 12:33 AM
#151
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000
What kind of power did he make and what did he run?
Only mods are intake, intake manifold, chip and full exhaust.
I have his 13.4 run on video.
07-09-2004, 12:37 AM
#152
Senior Moderator
what about weight reduction? he must have some of that.
07-09-2004, 12:43 AM
#153
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattg
what about weight reduction? he must have some of that.
Maybe drops 50lbs.
07-09-2004, 03:51 AM
#154
Safety Car
Thread Starter
No way he ran a 13.2 @ 102 with 190whp?!? That car weighs at most about 200 lbs less than the CL-S. I made 271whp and managed a 103mph.... massive weight reduction or something else!
07-09-2004, 04:27 AM
#155
Senior Moderator
looks like a '96 max weighs in at 3010lbs stock. so a cl-6 is over 400lbs heavier.
07-09-2004, 07:32 AM
#156
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by allmotor_2000
No way he ran a 13.2 @ 102 with 190whp?!? That car weighs at most about 200 lbs less than the CL-S. I made 271whp and managed a 103mph.... massive weight reduction or something else!
He ran it, I saw him run it....I have it on video and there's tons of documentation on his car and his runs. If you'd like, I can supply links.
Just for reference...my Z ran 13.6@103mph with 243rwhp weighing just under 3200lbs.
and it was 13.4...not 13.2.
07-09-2004, 08:28 AM
#158
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The City of Syrup Screwston, Texas
Posts: 14,078
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by TypeSKiller
he has a 96 GXE which is light to begin with. All he does it take out the spare, jack and rear seat.
Maybe drops 50lbs.
Maybe drops 50lbs.
07-09-2004, 06:04 PM
#159
Official BS Sniffer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black CL-S 4-Life
Aren't you the same guy who called BS on my E.T. and trap in my stock Z until I provided timeslips, video and witnesses??