I'm new to this forum and really know next to nothing about cars but I've recently wondered why the Nissan 350z's 0-60 time is 5.6s when the LG4 Trans Am's 0-60s are about 8 or 9 seconds.

The basis for my question is that the z makes about 260 ftlbs flywheel torque and the '87 LG4 Trans Am makes about 250 ftlbs flywheel at a lower rpm. I think the cars weigh about the same. I thought maybe aerodynamics might be a factor but could that really make a 3 second difference in 0-60 alone? maybe transmission...i'm lost.

for any help.

 

Sounds like gearing and horsepower to me. Just a guess though. Plus, if the Third gen is an Auto, I doubt that helps.

 

haha yeah the thirdgen is heavier and doesnt develop any hp.

the 350z has more hp and better gearin and lighter weight so its quick car

 

The lg4 is not a performance engine at all. Even though its a V8 it has restrictive exhaust/intake, a tiny peanut cam, and restrictive heads. That makes for a 150-165hp car which weighs in at around 3400 lbs. I am pretty sure those Z cars weigh around 3100-3300 lbs, and make 300 hp and 260 lb ft. That puts it in the high 13's. Just compare the power to weight ratios I would say. Also some lg4 cars got 2.73's. I think the Z's come with 3.4X.

 

it's more then just rated torque at the wheels. think of the F1 cars. think they put out a peak torque of maybe around 250lbs/ft also and they are not very aerodynamic either. but chances are with their measly torque they would put a hurt on most the cars here.

 

The difference lies in technology. Better IC engine analysis and technology (in heat and flow modeling) allow more power from less displacement. Other features such as fuel injection and tuning (more precise fuel metering) play an important role.

 

it comes down to the fact that the 350Z has twice as much HP as you, and weighs a little less too.

 

Auto or 6spd, the Z's have 3.35 gears. They could easily get away with 3.7x gears if manufacturers would make them cheap. Of course any owner who bought a Z can afford some nice gears anyway.

It might have a V8, but the hp of a newer 4clinder in a heavy car doesn't help anything. But Z's are overrated in the hp department. Nissan says 300, but dynos show more like 270. Not that it helps you, but rarely do the Z's break into the 13's like they "should".

 

We're not talking about a Ferrari here.

Ummm, sounds about right to me.

 

ive "heard" about them hitting 13s stock, but never seen anyone close to it at the track.

 

The best drag racer that I know (the MOST consistent times I've EVER seen) has a stock 350Z and I guarantee that NO ONE in the state has gone faster in a stock one than him. His fastest time is a 15.1 (could be lower, but I KNOW it's in the 15's) and our track is just over 6,000 ft above sea level, so we're talking at least 1 extra second in the quarter mile compared to sea level.

 

Your LG4 TA makes 250 lb. feet of torque at its peak. Which is like 2,700 rpm's, after that it basically falls flat on its face and barely revs out until it shifts around 4,500 rpm's or so. The Nissan makes 260 lb. feet of torque but that torque stays steady until the redline of about 6,000 rpm's without leveling off. It's not peak torque, but the average of torque through the rev range that makes high horsepower. AM I right guys???

 

[QUOTE=rx7speed]think of the F1 cars. think they put out a peak torque of maybe around 250lbs/ft also and they are not very aerodynamic either.QUOTE]


Your kidding right? I guess the tens of thousands of dollars they put into wind tunnel testing is to make them less aerodynamic huh? And i seriously doubt they're very quick off the line, those engines are built to sustain high rpm power, not rip off the line.

 

1) They are certainly built to stick to the ground.

2) They are a lot quicker off the line than you think. I think the average F1 car runs tens in the quarter mile. You can't be that slow off the line and still run tens.

 

[QUOTE=stroker_SS]

so let me get this right you think the 100,000 of of bucks if not millions (I doubt 10k is going to be enough for the work they do) is going to be for making that car cut through the air? maybe they spend that time in the wind tunnel instead to make the car stick to the ground. I'm sure they also spend time trying to gain as much as they can in reducing drag but I'm sure the HUGE wing in the back plus the good sized one front create quite a bit of drag. plus exposed tires don't help out any with aerodynamics.

or are you going to say the huge wings and open wheels make for less drag? if thats the case I'm buying one for my honda since it will make it go faster.

who said anything about off the line speed with those cars anyway?




stu I remember back in the day seeing a article on one of the F1 cars. ran a 10 in the 1/4 at something like 170+mph

 

I wouldn't believe that they create that much drag. Some, yes.

All I know is that they are fast!

 

I was watching the F1 race last weekend and there were vapor trails coming off of the corners of the wings.

Same thing with the Indies in NY a couple weeks ago. WOW!

 

most the information I find leads to a Cd of around .7ish to 1.2ish
most cars fall in the .35-45 range. a typical minivan might pull a .5

the lower the number the more aerodynamic the vehicle is.

those things are designed to put the car on the ground not cut through the air. that comes with it's price though

 

The way those guys take corners I can see that.

Perhaps that is why Indy cars have larger side pods. Most of there races are on oval tracks unlike the F1's all road course. Although the front wing on an Indy is larger than the F1.

 

Just so you know, F1 cars are limited to a minimum of 600kilograms including driver and fluids. That works out to a measly 1320lbs. Now power that with a 2.4L V8 making about 700HP at nearly 20,000 rpm (last years 3.0L V10s made closer to 900HP at 19,000 rpm) and you can't help but have a fast car. They can pull almost 5G in the corners and will stop faster than a 3rd gen driven into a brick wall. Nothing stops faster than an F1 car.

As for drag, the downforce generated by the wings is enough that if you could weigh an F1 car while it was doing close to 200mph it would seem to weigh almost 4000lbs. That means that you could, in theory, drive one on the ceiling and it would stick. And to put their overall performance in perspective, there is only one track that both Formula 1 and CART use during their respective seasons, and that's in Montreal, Canada. (no, they don't race each other, they use the track on different weekends in the summer). A couple of years ago the fastest F1 qualifier lapped in 1:12.275 and the slowest F1 car qualified at 1:17.064. The fastest CART qualifier only lapped in 1:19.897 - that's 2.8 seconds SLOWER than the slowest F1 car and 7.5 seconds slower than the F1 pole sitter. These numbers were taken from the official Formula 1 and CART websites 4 years ago. I'm an old F1 fan from way back and had to prove to a CART fanatic that F1 was overall a faster series. He was shocked, to say the least.

Thus ends our Formula 1 lesson for today.

 

[quote=Mike-in-Orange]
They can pull almost 5G in the corners and will stop faster than a 3rd gen driven into a brick wall. Nothing stops faster than an F1 car.

ROTFLMFAO!!! You are truely a poet! I almost fell out of my chair I laughed so hard!

 

[QUOTE=rx7speed]See their i go opening my mouth before i actually do some studying, but in my own defense i figured that 250lb ft of torque would make for a slow 1/4, however with a car that light i guess the 700 plus hp makes up for it huh. Thanks for correcting my stupidity

 

[QUOTE=stroker_SS]????

 

I hate to get to far off topic, but i was talking about the corrections people made on my F1 assumptions. If it's still not clear than nevermind, OK.

 

LG4's suck

 

an f1 car is like a supra. high et with a super hi mph. 10.xxx @ 17x mph :wow that is stright up moving.

 

just think what the car could do with a setup for drag racing rather then the turns. another thing to give food for thought. gotta love the low rpm range of these guys what is it something like 5000-800rpms? and talk about the mid range power from like 8000-14000 rpms.

 

It's not so much that they are set up for turns (they are, but that's not the point) it's more that they only start from a stop once in what, an hour long race? So the gearing to take off fast is extremely NOT important.

 

true. but also think of how much camber they have on the wheels limiting initial grip. the weight transfer to the rear eliminating grip asm uch as it could and so on as well. plus as you said with the gearing as well and their rpm range.

 

a 350Z has a 6-speed and makes 270 HP@6400 rpm or so (someone confirm this). An LG4 makes 160HP@4000 rpm. There is no powerband for the LG4. It's acceleration-challenged because it doesn't breathe, doesn't have any volumetric efficiency, lacks good gearing, and as a result can only beat civics. Now take the L69 car, underrated at 190 HP (most likely a WHP estimate), complete with 3.73 gears and a 5-speed, and you have a car that does 0-60 in a little under 6 seconds, only giving up top end to the 350Z which runs low 14s vs high 14s in the 1/4. If you are stuck on the idea that torque is the only thing that matters you need to stop talking to truckers and start talking to racers. Don't get me wrong, torque is very important, especially to get you going, but if you don't have any horsepower, you arent going to win the last 1/8 mile of the drag race. Gearing is also important for going fast, and 2.73s in a car that already has an anemic powerband doesn't help. An L98 makes a bit more torque than an LS1, stock for stock, and in a streetlight race where 60 MPH is about as fast as you'll go, the L98 and LS1 will look very evenly matched, go through a 1/4 and the LS1 will walk away from it

 

what makes the difference? 25 years of technology.

 

if the LG4 was a DOHC motor but still restricted and choked out like the OHV one, it'd still be slow. lol look at the early modular engines in the mustangs. they were barely faster than the V6 version

 

I just watched 2 350Z's break 14's at Edgewater Sports Park in Ohio, one was a Fairlady Z with mods it ran a 14.6 the other one was my friends 06 that he had had for 3 days, with 20psi in the tires it ran a 14.5, I believe these cars have variable valve timing or something, they pull extremely smooth throughout the power band.

 

stu there is a cliip on stupid videos that I should find to show you. they tried to set the world record for the fastest speed ever achieved indoors. first car was some european chevy plane jane car I think it was putting out around 160-180hp going 71mph. then they tested a F1 car it only did 81mph in the same place. everytime the guy in the f1 car hit the gas the tires just sat there and spun the whole trip. kinda funny though that it almost lost to a plane jane car

 

They only start from a standstill once, that's true, but 200mph straights that dump into 40mph corners are pretty common, and they'll stand on it out of the turn and run up to 170-190 all over again. Acceleration is therefore EXTREMELY important. Sure you can make a car pick up speed faster than an F1 car (just ask John Force), but to get the balance of acceleration, braking and cornering.....well, there is not a single form of road course racing that laps a track anywhere near as fast as an F1 car. There are a few tracks that are used by F1 one weekend and MotoGP superbikes later in the year. The F1 cars lap those tracks much faster than the bikes do. It is constant full throttle acceleration followed by 5g braking and 4-5g cornering. The dynamics are unlike anything short of a Space Shuttle trip. John Force picks up speed faster, but F1 guys do it over and over again in the course of a race. Plus they stop damn hard and turn left AND right.

 

whats right?

 

That indoor run of the Toyota F1 car was on the British TV show Top Gear. It only got going that fast (or slow, depending on your perspective) because the slippery cement floor in that arena wouldn't let it get any traction. Let's see how much faster John Force's funny car is than a V6 thirdgen when both are on a frozen lake.

Top Gear regularly takes whatever sports car they're reviewing and has their test driver set a time on their test track. The top 15 times are shown below (1:17.6 means one minute, 17.6 seconds):

01. 1:17.6 – Koenigsegg CCX (w/TG wing) (this is a $575,000 900HP Swedish beast!)
02. 1:18.4 – Pagani Zonda F
03. 1:18.9 – Maserati MC12
04. 1.19.0 – Ferrari Enzo Ferrari
05. 1:19.5 – Ariel Atom 2 300
06. 1:19.8 – Porsche Carrera GT
07. 1:20.4 – Koenigsegg CCX (Original) (same car as #1 above but without the rear wing)
08. 1:20.7 – Ascari KZ1
09. 1:20.9 – Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren
10. 1:21.9 – Ford GT
11. 1:22.3 – Ferrari 360 CS
12. 1:22.3 – Porsche 911 GT3 RS
13. 1:22.4 – Chevrolet Corvette Z06
14. 1:22.5 – Noble M15
15. 1:22.9 – Ferrari F430 F1

Just for fun, here are some other notable cars and their lap times.

26. 1:25.7 – Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder
29. 1:26.0 – BMW Z4 M Roadster
34. 1:26.8 – Chevrolet Corvette
47. 1:28.7 – Porsche Boxster S
49. 1:28.9 – Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII
50. 1:29.0 – Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG
55. 1:30.1 – Subaru Impreza WRX STi
56. 1:30.1 – Vauxhall Monaro VXR (Pontiac GTO)
58. 1:30.4 – Volkswagen Golf R32
63. 1:31.8 – BMW M3
65. 1:31.8 – Nissan 350Z
66. 1:31.8 – Mazda RX-8

And just to tie this all together with the performance of a modern Formula 1 car - the same test driver on the same track ran a Renault F1 car in 59 seconds flat. For reference, the almost 1.5 seconds between the Koenigsegg CCX and the Ferrari Enzo is pretty huge. So the almost 18 seconds between the F1 car and the Koenigsegg CCX is just amazing.