these numbers were quoted from 4 corner scales at his shop.

With the car gutted these where the numbers:
LF= 962 RF= 946
LR= 586 RR= 546

Total= 3041

add driver which is around 240-250 and it comes to about 3300. These weights were done with over a half tank of gas also just for reference.

Do you happen to have any of your all motor dynojet runviewer files or know who does? I just want to see the difference in area under the curve which seems to be getting overlooked.

Matt

 

speaking of track times, when are you going to get your ass to the track :P

 

No war at all Keith. Just trying to understand the methods to which this is possible. We know the power but that alone did not support the trap. It appears through weight reduction and overall gearing changes, the vehicle was capable of putting up those numbers.

 

Nuff said. MAN!!! I wish would have bought the 6MT instead of the automatic.

 

thats cool I just would like for some of the local guys to come out and run with us just to make it easier to believe. I know how some would see this and throw up a BS flag right away without even knowing any facts.

 

Nope, just the plots on my site. I'm on vacation right now with my wife and daughters so I have limited access to all of my data.

I agree, area is often overlooked; but so is the area most often used. From the onset the VQ makes considerably more total power. But when the area used after the initial shift is highlighted this delta becomes minimal.

Let’s assume the two cars have very similar gearing, which they do. I'll use my last NA dyno and compare it to the one supplied here. However, I will only use numbers from 4400 and up as the car will always be in that range under WOT after the first 60 - 100 feet. I will use the torque values in 200 RPM steps to determine total power, or area under the curve.

My Old NA Dyno



And the data:

As shown above, from 4400 and up the J32A2 has more total power because it makes power longer. However, it is lower on torque which gives it a disadvantage off the line. But once moving the ability to make torque longer helps to limit its torque deficit. In addition, this would allow it to run more aggressive gearing negating the torque deficit.

 

Just as soon as you come by and baby sit the twins.

Seriously, pretty soon as I don't want to run in July or August. I have had quite a bit on my plate lately and there is no sign of it letting up with the recent plans I unveiled.

 

It's not the length of the modlist bro, it's the mods. All I see are basic NA mods and a few other NA mods that don't do a whole lot to add power. Without FI or cams I don't see how he could get any more than what he did.

Also this is an '02 Maxima which IIRC did not have the same output 3.5L V6 the '03s got.

 

any chance to do the numeral power numbers for HP like you did with the torque? The area under the curve torque is quite a bit different, I'd just like to see the HP differences b/t possibly your n/a dyno vs this 6 speed Maxima dyno. Thanks for the comparisions its always nice to see the differences in under the curve power vs just peak numbers.

 

6 Speed Maxima HP Calculations

4000 - 170.11
4200 - 186.34
4400 - 199.07
4600 - 211.03
4800 - 217.45
5000 - 224.85
5200 - 230.27
5400 - 235.78
5600 - 240.83
5800 - 246.16
6000 - 248.20
6200 - 247.37
6400 - 246.40
6600 - 247.32

This was done 100% accurate using dynojet runviewer to calculate the rpm rev points to get the exact numbers. I just started at 4000 and went to redline which shut off at 6582. Using SAE correction and smoothing factor of 5.

Matt

 

Hey Blu, arent our Maximas redlined at ~6200rpm (or pretty much right at the point on the dyno where the TQ spread=~0)??

I'd like to see HP numbers as well, in order to further quantify the acceleration on both.

 

The Automatics will shift at approx 6200 rpms if left in drive but they will rev out to 6600 if left in the certain drive gear you are pulling in. I have hit 6656 on the dyno with the stock ECU. I have posted the numbers for each rpm range as stated, just got to wait for a CL-S to compare to Im assuming using cartest as used in the previous post for torque.

Matt

 

As far as the 6MT, what's the optimal shift point for the quickest acceleration??

From what I've seen, Nissan's typically dont benefit (in acceleration) from +redline upshifts unlike Hondas, in which some motors have about 1k rpm headroom (read: B18C, B16A).

 

Definately redline for all Maximas besides the 95-99 with the USIM manifold that really falls off like a rock. The car might not be making peak power at redline but you need to keep the shift points as close to peak power as you can to keep the revs moving as quick as possible. I notice my best track times shifting right at redline even with my power not being as strong at redline.

 

There is no reason as HP is simply the rate at which torque is applied. In other words, the percenatge difference is the same. The plot may look different but the values are proportionally the same.

HP = RPM / 5252 * TQ

 

I ran through those number real quick and my calculation were actually more generous to the Maxima. All HP values were within one to two ponies in my simulation. Pretty darn close IMO.

 

This is what I came up with eyeballing scalberts dyno HP numbers

Maxima
4000 - 170.11
4200 - 186.34
4400 - 199.07
4600 - 211.03
4800 - 217.45
5000 - 224.85
5200 - 230.27
5400 - 235.78
5600 - 240.83
5800 - 246.16
6000 - 248.20
6200 - 247.37
6400 - 246.40
6600 - 247.32

CLS
4000 - 160
4200 - 170
4400 - 175
4600 - 178
4800 - 182
5000 - 198
5200 - 208
5400 - 212
5600 - 220
5800 - 230
6000 - 244
6200 - 245
6400 - 246
6600 - 242
6800 - 235
7000 - 235

I was just wanting to show the area under the curve difference to show why he is trapping quite a bit higher even though the peak numbers are almost identical. I was just wanting to see the graph for HP like you made the one for torque thats all.

Matt

 

Higher trap speed is normally indicative of good top end power. Obviously both cars have similar top end power with the J32A2 having a slight advantage in being able to make the power longer. Lower ETs are a good indication of torque and getting off the line well. Obviously the VQ35 has a significant advantage here.

But IMO and based on what I have heard, the high trap speed presented was not a result of power or torque per say. It was through weight reduction and overall gearing changes.

For the area under the curve for the above presented numbers; the J32A2 still has an advantage (no chart available as I didn't feel like uploading another, DU in this condo bites). But here is the side by side comparison with the sum of the values:

Nevertheless, that car is impressive and it is obvious the owner has put considerable thought into getting the ETs low.

 

What would the Max run with full interior and street tires then?

 

high 13's

 

Not sure can't make any guesses but with less power I have ran 13.70's@100 with a 2.11 60' on 18's in an Automatic. I'd say with a decent 60' 13.6's are there considering hes running 13.50's on street tires with high 2.2 60's. The reason he isn't really killing me at the track is b/c of his low end loss from the manifold mod but his top end is nuts now compared to mine.

 

what mods for you to run that time?

was it really cold out?

 

Yea trap speed is based on top end power but the area under the curve(4600-5800 20+hp differences) is a huge determining factor as well. Look at the top end IE: last 1000 rpms is almost identical. With a raised rev limit the Maxima would be right with the numbers of the CL for the last 400rpms. If the cars weighed exactly the same who would trap higher just based on the HP differences? Im just saying its not all weight reduction with full interior he would still trap 104-105 in decent conditions.

 

I haven't ran in the cold with my current setup but for the 13.72@99.97 mods were hacked stock airbox, UDP, B pipe, y pipe no interior in 45 degrees.

With the current setup with headers and same mods minus the y pipe which was replaced on the header setup my best with full interior in 75 degrees is 13.90@100.96 also on street tires. Same day I ran a 13.62@101.5 on the 22" slicks.

Matt

 

interesting.

the quickest i've run n/a is 14.16@99.11

intake
headers
pulleys
stock 17's w/ 235/40-17
full interior
50 degrees

no auto cl-s has broke into the 13's n/a. then again i've never gutted my car and tried.

 

If you totally gutted your car you'd be there no problem. I mean if we took out the passenger seat, rear seat, spare tire, jack, tools, stereo, speakers, interior trim panels, we'd lose close to 500lbs.

 

I'd say maybe 300lbs max...I don't know if your trying to be sarcastic or not but I removed 110lbs of interior (seats and spare/jack). From what I've seen every 100lbs = around a tenth in ET but what do I know

 

Have you guys ever tried to run at another track? The track you guys run at seems to be pretty quick.

 

he was just guessing. but yeah, it's definately closer to 300, if that.

 

Nah not trying to be sarcastic.

How much is the interior of the Max stripped? Are the speakers still in, sound deadening (sp?), trim panels, etc? I've seen some cars at the track REALLY stripped out.

 

Rockingham is actually a slower track than fayetteville but its a lot closer. Rockingham is 70 miles away where as Fayetteville is 130 miles. Everyone always says that about Rockingham but if you ask the other crowds Mustang, Camaro, etc they will tell you its no faster than another track close to sea level. Rockingham is 375' above sea level where as Fayetteville is 100' above sea level.

 

This car weighed in at 3222lbs with full interior on 4 corner scales. The only weight reduction was the headers which replaced the heavy ass cast iron manifolds with thin guage steel.

With the A/C, Seats(front/rear), spare/jack, floor mats and trunk carpet it weighed in at 3041.

So a weight savings of 181lbs removing whats listed. All the sound deading, door panels, speakers, radio etc was still in tact.

 

I presume you mean no 3.2L n/a auto has broken into the 13s.

Type-R's 3.2 with 3.5 block has gone into the 13s. No NOS, no S/C, no turbo, and no CH[size=1l]3[/size]NO2

 

The numbers dont add up IMO. The car is making ~50 less whp than a stock LS1 C5, but traps roughly the same, with similar weights.

 

he said 3025lbs in the other thread.


so the max weighs ~250lbs less from the start.

imo, the powerplants are equals, it's the weight difference that makes the difference at the track. that and more people are experimenting w/ the max. with the work scalbert is doing, that gap will start to close.

 

of course.



silly to leave that out, since the j35 is a better match to the vq35.


TypeR has run a 13.7, on street tires w/ full interior i believe.

 

similar weights? His Maxima 3300 MAX with him in it, LS1 weighs approx 3500lbs without the driver... Not even close unless my math is different than yours

 

I thought he ran on DR's? But I agree it is a good matchup and a good sleeper

 

Better do a little more research on how much a C5 weighs Hint, you are about 300 lbs off

 

We can't really compare his traps with others for a good indication unless he was running stock weight and tires. I suspect he would be in line with other cars and be in the 100 MPH range with that power, maybe a little higher. Nor can we hypothesize on what an extra 400 revs would do as the same has to be applied on the other side. I have a few ideas on how to increase top end air flow on the J32A2 and if we could get 500 more revs it could continue making power to 7500 revs.

If the cars weighed the same and were making the power shown here I suspect that it would be very close and both cars would trap within 1 MPH. The difference would probably be made in the launch at it does have an impact on terminal speed.

IMO, his high trap is not just from weight reduction but also from the overall gearing changes. I would like to see how much of an impact his slicks played in this. Do you know the diameter for the stock wheels/tires and for the slicks?? Also, what was run on the dyno??