Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As I mentioned in another thread, yesterday I had a chance to play around with one of the new G'techs which data-logs all the data from the acceleration runs. The guy who owns this G'tech also has a '05 model WRX. So even though we did not line the cars up next to each other, what we did was do several runs (over ~400m) with each car and recorded the optimal acceleration data for the day/conditions. Considering that this g'tech records speed at any particular time, as well as distance, I figured that I'd be able to 'overlay' the best run from each car anyway I want. I thought that it would remove a lot of error and human-factor from the match-up, be a lot more scientific, and we'd see exactly what each car would do ... hard to argue against the data. One thing we did not do is any runs non-optimal gears, which is a shame as that would be good to see as well.

Interesting thing about the 'good' WRX runs was that they were all pretty consistant, but one of them was much quicker than the rest. The acceleration curve is a lot steeper/sharper so it just seemed like on that run the car (for some reason) just had a lot more power. Usually it was taking 15 - 15.5sec to reach 160kph, but on this one run it managed 14.1sec. Still, I took this best run and compared it to my best run from yesterday.

Bit of background on the '05 WRX first. It weights 1395kg and produces 168kW @ 6000rpm and 300Nm @ 3000rpm. The redline/cutout is at 7,200rpm. Also even though it has a 5-speed gear-box it has very short gearing in the first 3 gears ... it goes something like this - 58, 95, 135, 200kph, 280kph. The numbers that we managed out of it were impressive as well:
- 0-60kph = 2.54sec
- 0-100kph = 5.90sec
- 0-160kph = 14.06sec
- 400m = 13.9 @ 159kph

Though, as I said before, this run was unusualy quick with the other runs more like 6.3sec to 100kph, 15sec to 160kph and 14.2sec over 400m. Still, taking this best run and comparing it to my best run this is how things would go:

- Comparision #1: 0-160kph, agressive standing start:
This was an interesting comparision as even though the WRX does not have the same acceleration as the 350Z, it does have an awesome ability to launch. Rev it to 6000rpm or so, let the clutch go, and watch the car rockets off the line with almost no wheel-spin. The revs barely drop and within a second are clibming to 7000rpm. It feels like there's almost no time before you need to grab the 2nd gear. On the other-hand the cold conditions and my almost shot rear tyres saw way too much wheel-spin even if I dropped the clutch rom 1,500rpm. Bets launch I managed involved me slipping the clutch (ever so slighlty) from around 1,300rpm in order to limit the wheel-spin. The data showed that even off-idle, street start was not much forse for me. Still, that is how it was yesterday so that's what I'd have to expect in conditions like that.

Anyway, this superb launch ability of the WRX sees it shoot off the line and by the time the 350Z reaches the top of the 1st gear, the WRX is already 2.9 meters ahead. All this happens witin the first 3 seconds.

Through the 2nd gear the 350Z is accelerating a fraction harder, but it only serves to slow down the rate at which the WRX is pulling away as by the top of the 2nd gear the WRX stretches the lead to 6.9m (ie. about 1.5 car-lengths). Through the 3rd gear the 350Z finaly stops loosing ground and starts pulling some of it back. By the time the Zed is doing 130kph it has pulled back about 1.5m back as the gap is now 5.6m. Couple seconds later, towards the top of 3rd gear, the advantage of the Zed is noticable as by the time the Zed shifts to 4th gear, the gap is down to 4.0m. Still, even though the Zed is making the ground back in a hurry, it is still 2m behind when it hits 155kph, and only gets even with the WRX right around the 400m mark when the Zed is pulling ~165kph.

So by 160kph the best the 350Z could hope for is to get even on this day.

- Comparision #2: 40-160kph, rolling start:
Wondering what would happen if you took the WRXs launch advantage away, I matched up the the two cars from a 40kph roll ... both in 1st gear and data from their corresponding best runs.

Without the launch, the 350Z has the advantage from the word go. 1st gear is over almost immediately and within two seconds the 350Z is doing 80kph and is 0.9m ahead (ie. barelly a bonnet). By the time the Zed shifts to 3rd gear, the gap has grown to 3m (ie. 3/4 of a car-lenght). Still in 3rd gear and by 120kph the gap has grown to 6m.

By the time it's time to shift to 4th gear (ie. ~140kph), the gap is extended to 8m ... so almost 2 car-lengths. Then throught the 4th gear the Zed starts pulling away even more dramaticaly as by 150kph it has grown to over 12m (ie. almost 3 car-lengths), and by 160kph to 17m (ie. 4 car-lengths). So the gap is growing quickly as it is extended by another 2.5m in just the next 1 second (ie. by ~165kph).

Summary:
So a well-launched WRX is going to be hard to catch ... even if I looked at the slower (ie. more consistant) acceleration runs/curves, then it would still take the 4th gear in the Zed to get allong-side the WRX.

On the other hand from a roll the Zed should always have an advantage. The 1st and 2nd gear happens so quickly that it'd be barely noticable though. I'd even say that if the WRX jumps on power a fraction of a second earlier then it will pull away (or stay even) until you're in 3rd gear. Though, thought 3rd gear the Zed's advantage is noticable and it only gets worse for the WRX as the speeds increase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
interesting stuff

love the detail of ur runs Dave

I had a run with an 05 WRX on Sunday afternoon. We took off from standstill, he didnt drop the clutch from 6K, nor did i. We took off normally, then he decided to peg it, and so did i half way through first gear. He changed into 2nd before i did, so i got the jump. Through 2nd he was shifting while i was still passing 6K and i was a good car length in front and pulling. Into 3rd i braked at around 140kays and was a good car length in front

We really should run the 300hp against the 287hp. I think the higher rev limit would make it a bit quicker on a roll. Wont really be noticeable in 1st though, prob in 2nd and 3rd we'll see a difference, if any
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
I've always found the WRX sluggish compared to the Sti... Every time I drive them I am left wondering what the "hooha" is all about!

Step into an Sti and the car feels alive... Maybe you can find someone with a new Sti to test :)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I had a run with an 05 WRX on Sunday afternoon. We took off from standstill, he didnt drop the clutch from 6K, nor did i. We took off normally, then he decided to peg it, and so did i half way through first gear. ... Into 3rd i braked at around 140kays and was a good car length in front

Yeah, that is pretty's pretty much what I'd expect from the roll if you don't let the WRX get a jump on you. From a roll the 350Z has a big advatage that it does not really have any weak-spot in the rev-range. You can start from any revs and the car will still perfrorm close to it's best.

In the current climate (ie. cold) I'm finding that that even taking off from the lights with no revs has little handicap on my times. I found that with the g'tech last weekend as I could managed a 14.1sec 400m pass with no revs ... I'll have to hcompare that run to my best run/launch and see what the difference it made (besides the 400m ET).

We really should run the 300hp against the 287hp. I think the higher rev limit would make it a bit quicker on a roll. Wont really be noticeable in 1st though, prob in 2nd and 3rd we'll see a difference, if any

Yep, I'm all for it. Just let me know when you got some time and we'll do some comparisions and see where/what the differences are. I'm very interested to see what difference the Nissan changes to the engines made. Either on the weekend or any weeknight/evening is good for me.

ps. Here is the acceleration curve of the '05 WRX compared to my Zed. Notice how much of a jump it gets to ~55kph and then there's not much difference before 100kph:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
is that graph from the gtech meter?

Yep. Cool little gadget :)

Step into an Sti and the car feels alive... Maybe you can find someone with a new Sti to test

hehe, I did do a comparision with an '02 STi a little while ago, but it was not the best as we only did high-speed runs and the roads were still a bit damp so I had to be very carefull. Though, I don't think the new ones are much (if any) quicker in tems of acceleration ... or are they?

Also I wonder if you found the STi so much more 'alive' because of it's dramatic power curve ie. absolutely nothing before 4000rpm and then all the ****-brakes loose. That off/on transition makes the car feel quicker then probably anything else I can think off ... made my car feel slow in comparision even though in reality there was not much between them.

On the other hand there's no such dramatic power delivery in the new WRX ... the power curve is pretty smooth IMHO. Still, the STi will always be quicker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
the new STis in the hands of the average Joe not launching them from 7grand are as quick as a stock 05. I have a friend with a slightly tweaked 05 and he has a mate with an 05 STi with similar mods, exhaust, etc and they ran pretty much neck and neck on a roll. The Aus spec STi's have that horrible torque hole below 4 grand

the quickest STis were the old shape 4 doors that came in white and grey. They were the real deal with Jap spec engines making more than the claimed 206kw. The Aus spec new models are a triumph of marketing over substance, and nowhere near as flexible on the road as the stock with vct and new tech turbo

David that gtech pro must be the RR model. Ill definitely put it on the 'to buy' list. Would be a good tool to use to see what power new mods make as u fit them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
the new STis in the hands of the average Joe not launching them from 7grand are as quick as a stock 05. ... The Aus spec STi's have that horrible torque hole below 4 grand

I'm not sure if I understand whether you're saying that the '05 STi is as quick as a '05 WRX even without a launch or somehting else? I can't speak for the '05 STIs as I've never been in one, but the '02 STi has to be one of the slowest cars out there when bellow 4000rpm. Coming from an S2000 I thought that my S2000 was a torque monster compared to the STi with it's low-revs power and flexibility. Driving the STi I thought that I'm taking off in 2nd or 3rd gear 1/2 of the time and had to do a double-check to make sure that I was in 1st. Mind you once above 4000rpm they were flying and the off/on transition around 4000rpm made the car feel totaly balistic.

Here are my '02 STi vs 350Z comparisoons/impressions:

http://350z-tech.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=79&t=3599

I've read that they improved the newer STIs a little bit in this respect, but it did not sound like the imrovements were that huge or noticable. Still as I said, I've never been in an '05 STi.

I have a friend with a slightly tweaked 05 and he has a mate with an 05 STi with similar mods, exhaust, etc and they ran pretty much neck and neck on a roll.

So the 'tweaked' '05 WRX that your frield has is about as quick as the 'tweaked' '05 STI ... right? That's surprising as I would have expected the STi to be ahead with the same mods.

Though, I do know someone with a modified '05 WRX and that car run recently 12.9sec 400m pass. Looking at his acceleration curve he does 0-160kph in about 10.5sec ... that is a new 911 kind of acceleration. I have his 'acceleration' curve as well so I'll post it when I get a chance.

David is this the RS or the SS gtech?

I'm not really sure Yun ... what's the difference? This one can record (and hold) the data for multiple runs. The data is the moment-by-moment data from each acceleration run so you can see all kinds of things from the data like the accleration curve posted as well as time-to-distance curve. So you can read from each run all kinds of things like 60' time, 0-XXXm time, 0-XXXkph time, and also can toggle between metric and imperial display.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
Yun only the Gtech RR can be plugged into a computer, the SS can only show the graph on the unit itself

If you buy it off ebay from the US, ur better off going for the RR, its not that much more expensive than the SS

David i say tweaked not 'modified' because its only mufflers and air filters. They had a run from a roll and were neck and neck, so they say, i wasnt there. From standstill may be a different story. But i do know the 05 WRX gets the new Jap engine with more responsive turbo and variable timing, whereas the STi uses the old non vvt engine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
can it hold data for different car and Track time or curve data?

Yes, it can.

I sold my STI (2-door coupe0 for the Z - and I'd bet me duds that the STI would blow the doors off the z at any speed!

I'm sure it would, but that car had fairly decent modifications from what you mentioned. I know an '05 WRX with a fair few mods (about $10k worth) and that has around 70kW more than the factory car. He took it to the drag strip last weekend and returned 12.9sec pass at around 175kph. We strapped the g'tech on it and returned these numbers:
- 10kph = 0.35sec = 0.47m
- 20kph = 0.66sec = 1.77m
- 30kph = 0.99sec = 4.05m
- 40kph = 1.32sec = 7.26m
- 50kph = 1.66sec = 11.53m
- 60kph = 2.34sec = 23.52m
- 70kph = 3.09sec = 35.47m
- 80kph = 3.67sec = 47.38m
- 90kph = 4.26sec = 61.32m
- 100kph = 5.14sec = 84.62m
- 110kph = 6.01sec = 110.34m
- 120kph = 6.84sec = 136.48m
- 130kph = 7.69sec = 166.00m
- 140kph = 8.59sec = 199.78m
- 150kph = 9.95sec = 254.50m
- 160kph = 11.15sec = 306.16m
- 170kph = 12.36sec = 361.65m
- 180kph = 13.57sec = 420.50m

So 5.14sec to 100kph and 11.15sec to 160kph. That'd give the new 911s a decent chase.

Here's an interesting thread - 0-100 (60mph) comparisons for just about everything; http://www.car-videos.com/performance/spee...ed1=0&Speed2=60

Frosty, those numbers are all fake. None of them are achieved by driving any of those cars, but instead by punching the car's basic parameters into a program on a computer and that 'predicts' the acceleration times. So the times you're looking at at that site have very little to do with the cars' actual acceleration numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
Frosty:

The murano will be out soon... anytime now... my wife and me are thinking about going for a test drive to see how it performs!

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
I drove my mates 05 WRX yesterday and I thought that I'd share my impressions of his car.

Firstly, his WRX is modified to XA stage by MRT performance in Sydney. Basically, XA mods involve a new muffler, removal of the intake resonator and an ECUTEK reflash. This level of mods guarentees at least a 20wkW increase. My budies WRX recorded a peak power output of 160kW after the mods, which is the exact peak power of a standard STi.

I drove his WRX when it was in stock form and while it went well when the turbo was spooled, approx 3500rpm needed, it did not seem overly fast. That is, my stock 350Z felt quicker.

However, now that he is moded, he has a significantly better mid range, with the turbo now beginning to spool at 2500rpm. His WRX now feels fast. In fact, it feels faster than my Z.

We are yet to line them up for some rolling starts, but we probably will do so in the coming month, so I'll post the results at a later date.

If my mate was to line up against a stock STi from a 5km/h roll (without any brake boosting), then I'm positive my mates WRX would murder the STi to any speed, simply because his mid range would see him put carlengths on the STi, before the STi spooled up. Even when the STi spools up, it would only be making the same power as my mates moded WRX, so it would not catch him.

From a drivability point of view, the XA WRX is very driveable around town, with no massive torque holes as found in the STi's. I found that if I changed gears below 4000rpm, the next gear would produce a small amount of momentary lag before accelaration resumed at the hectic spoooled turbo rate. However, if the engine was wound out to 7000rpm, then the next gear falls in the fat of the turbo torque curve and acceleration was just continuous - very impressive.

I also noticed that I had to maintain a lower gear in the WRX to keep the revs at least above 2000rpm and closer to 2500rpm, if it was to be as responsive as the Z. I drive the Z quite sedately most of the time and I change to a higher gear at 2000 rpm and I find the Z can keep accelarting at the same rate in the higher gear. To get a similar feeling from the WRX, I had to change gear no sooner than 3500rpm. Note that the WRX is a 5 speed so the gear ratios are wider than the Z's 6 speed box. This I believe accounts for the Z's ability to change gears at lower revs, without slowing acceleration too dramatically in city driving.

Also, I found that the WRX lacks any response when the clutch is let out and the gas applied gently from a standstill. By this, I mean that the WRX bogs down significantly on take off. To overcome this, you need to use slightly more gas and slip the clutch - just a different driving style to the Z.

If you know of anyone with a stock WRX, tell them to get an XA mod. For just $1800, it will convert the WRX to a very drivable city car by filling the stock torque hole at low / mid rpms while also giving a great top end increase in power and torque. What a performance bargain!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top