Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For anyone interested, the latest Motor mag has the annual BFYB article from Wakefield. They had 25 cars in tolal there, including the 350Z 35th Anniversary edition. Interstingly they did not better the lap-time that they set in 2003 using the regular 350Z Track. They were about 0.3sec off that time, which (IMHO) makes them prety much line ball considering that they did not test both Zeds on the same day/time.

They also have another article in the mag that many people may be interested in. They went to the Nurburgring with a 350Z and compared the experience/times with the PS2's GT4 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
yeah not sure whats going on with that yellow Ann. Nissan demo, we'll have a better judge of the Ann if/when they use a different car. It could be a bad example, or be killed from having every journo in the country thrash the bejesus out of it. Re the lap times, not sure how u can compare those given it was 2 years ago, and conditions could have varied greatly

i wonder if the STi would have lapped quickest if it wasnt running semi slicks

the Ring article was pretty cool
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
The only difference between the GT4 edition and the regular Track is the 400RPM / 15kW.

Wakefield's not really a "power" track, so such minor power gains wouldn't see that much gain in times.

Pull some weight out of the Z33, and put some nicer tyres, however......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re the lap times, not sure how u can compare those given it was 2 years ago, and conditions could have varied greatly

There are some cars that were used then and now that can be used as a benchmark. ie. the WRX as they had one in 2003 and again this year. Interestingly the laptimes this year are consistent with both 2003 and 2004. 1:12.8 in '03, 1:12.6 in '04 and 1:12.8 this year. So considering that the times for the WRX were consistent, one could pressume that it would be so for the other cars as well.

i wonder if the STi would have lapped quickest if it wasnt running semi slicks

From what I read and see, I'd say not. It looks like the new STi with RE070s is about 2sec quicker than the '04 model at Wakefield, and 2.5sec quicker at Winton. Motor seems to think that a lot of that gain is due to the tyres, but I'm sure that some of it must be due to the new diffs as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 10 2005, 04:51 PM
Re the lap times, not sure how u can compare those given it was 2 years ago, and conditions could have varied greatly

There are some cars that were used then and now that can be used as a benchmark. ie. the WRX as they had one in 2003 and again this year. Interestingly the laptimes this year are consistent with both 2003 and 2004. 1:12.8 in '03, 1:12.6 in '04 and 1:12.8 this year. So considering that the times for the WRX were consistent, one could pressume that it would be so for the other cars as well.



But the WRX gained power bw 03 and 05 didnt it, 03 was without vvt, or did the revisions come along in time for BFYB?

Are the stock Z tyres that bad? lol

Im just happy that the Z walked all the more powerful Aussies, well except the race prepped Clubsport :lmfao:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
But the WRX gained power bw 03 and 05 didnt it, 03 was without vvt, or did the revisions come along in time for BFYB?

I think it gained power for 2004. Still, it did not seem to make any real difference to the lap-times as the times seem ot be similar for 03, 04 and 05.

Now the Zed times are similar for 03 and 05.

Are the stock Z tyres that bad?

What do you mean? 1:12 is a very good time for the Zed ... should be impressed. The HSV was on R-spec tyres and the STI is on RE070s which are supposed to be close to R-spec also. Though, the Boxster and EVO8 are on road tyres very much comparable with the Zed's. Maybe if the Zed had tyres as wide as the Boxster S then it would cut another second of it's time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
I don't think a '03 and a '05 Zed can be that much difference with 15 engine KW more and a bit less torque on the '05... I think the '03 that you (Sam) test drove might have had some problems with the clutch compare to your brand new '05 anniversary edition...

Des test drove a '03 after he signed off the Anniversary and he did say that something's wrong with the test car because it has been abused by many other drivers, including the presses (the car he test drove was borrowed from Nissan Australia by our dealer and it might be your case too)... and that might be why you felt so much difference in terms of power.... Also I could tell my car lost tones of power when my 1st clutch was nearly dead after the engine conversion... :)

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
it wasnt so much a difference in power, more difference in power delivery

a peaky engine will always 'feel' quicker

what i preferred with the new engine was the smoothness at higher rpm and its willingness to rev right out, even though Bates still commented it sounds harsh lol

David re the tyres, every thread i read where the Z's tyres are mentioned, everyone cans them, so i just assumed they were crap
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Looks like the Motor mag has surprised me, as they did test most of the acceleration times for the cars at BFYB. Same venue, same time and same driver. The cars that they did not test on the same day were flagged and that is only 6 out of 25 ... so I'm very much pleasantly surprised. Not sure why not test the other 6 cars though?

These are the numbers that they got out of the 35th Anniv. Zed:
- 0-100kph = 6.30sec
- 400m = 14.54 @ 158kph
- Wakefield lap-time = 1:12.15
- Wakefield top-speed = 174.1kph

Only 5 cars there managed to lap Wakefield quicker, and 2 of them were on R-spec tyres. So that's not a bad effort at all. On the other hand there were 7 cars that reached higher top-speed.

Though, what surprised me is the relatively low trap-speed over 400m mark. It implies 0-160kph in just under 15sec (14.9?) ... which is not that great for the Zed. Most previous tests (in the dry) have the 206kW Zeds returning the 0-160kph in 14.0 - 14.3 sec. I clocked my car (with g'tech) in 13.2sec with the exhaust/filter. I would expect the 221kW Zed with it's 7000rpm redline to be returning sub 14sec 0-160kph times. That's a second test where the trap-speed for the 221kW Zed was not that crash hot.

I don't think a '03 and a '05 Zed can be that much difference with 15 engine KW more and a bit less torque on the '05.

I would think that there would be some improvement in terms of acceleration. I'd expect couple 10th over 400m ... not really because of the extra 15kW, but more so because of the extra 400rpm. Afterall, that allows it to keep each gear for about 6% longer and there is noticable difference in acceleration between each gear. Just being able to stay in 3rd while the 206kW models need 4th should make a difference.

David re the tyres, every thread i read where the Z's tyres are mentioned, everyone cans them, so i just assumed they were crap

When in reasonable conditoion they are not 'superb' but there is not much wrong with them in terms of grip. Though as they wear down they loose grip until they are like driving on ice. For instance my rears are worn almost to the indicators and tonight, in 5deg temperatures they would break in wheelspin anytime I punched the throttle while in 1st. It does not matter what speed I was rolling at, it would just spin the wheels and never regain the grip again ... and it's dry out there.

How do you find them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Like it has been said, 15kw whether at the wheels or at the fly would hardly make any difference to the cars times. The 35th anniversary zed had to have a 'power' increase (and subsequent models), that is progression and a way for the manufacturers to keep sales ticking over!

What I can't understand is that the 400m times recorded in 03 of between 14 -14.3 and the 05 time of 14.9 yet David recorded a 13.2 with filter and exhaust (which adds perhaps 10 kw). Either you are some **** of a driver, or the GTech time you have is very wrong?

A maximum of 1.9 seconds better than a stock car??? Were they testing in the rain? Perhaps your GTech is not calibrated correctly?

Anyways, as said before, a 15 kw difference in power is negligable, except to the car salesman trying to get another buyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,089 Posts
i dont understand the Ann figures either, the only way we can see if there is a difference is if we run the cars back to back. Im happy to represent the Ann minority, though not for a few weeks until i get my car back with more weight :doh:

It would be better to run the Ann against a similarly stock 206kw Z rather than an exhausted Z since 800 bucks at High Tech and worn tyres shaves 2 seconds off ur 1/4 :nana:

David re the tyres i find them noisy, especially on the rough country type roads in my area, they drone like crazy. I havent gone hard enough yet to see how well they grip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
What I can't understand is that the 400m times recorded in 03 of between 14 -14.3 and the 05 time of 14.9 yet David recorded a 13.2 with filter and exhaust (which adds perhaps 10 kw).

Those times I listed were for 0 to 160kph acceleration, not over 400m. Over 400m the best time I managed with (both) G'techs were 13.9sec ... which is only 0.1sec quicker than what I officialy managed at Calder.

So the 13.2sec is the best that I manged for the 0 to 160kph acceleration. That is my best result while the Motor mag's best result is 13.9sec (if I remember correctly). So there is really 0.7sec difference ... afterall, I have posted some other slower runs, just like Motor mag has but we're comparing the best results.

Either you are some **** of a driver, or the GTech time you have is very wrong?

I've tried a few g'techs now ... I would not take the g'tech runs as gospell as I'd much rather go via the results via a more accurate testing tool ... like the DL1 GPS data-logger that I had at Winton. Though, that data was also pointing to ~13.4sec 0 to 160kph time for me. Pain was I did not do any standing starts that day and had only data from about 60kph so I had to take the 0-60kph time from the mags and add it to my numbers.

As far as driver ability goes, I don't think that there is much I can offer over what the guys in the mags do. The launch is the trickiest part as that affects your 0-60kph time, but after that you just keep it floored and shift as quickly as you can. So not much to it.

Though, I might have been running less weight. ie. lighter exhaust, lighter driver and lighter fuel load ... all of that can add up to 50kg easily and that will make a few 10th difference. I'd expect the exhaust/filter to gain 1/2sec at most for the 0 to 160kph sprint ... certainly not more (and sometimes maybe even less).

... an exhausted Z since 800 bucks at High Tech...

$800? Try adding anouther $1000 to it ... I wish I could have bought it for $800.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
I was about to say...

a 13.2 quarter from an exhaust and tyres must mean that David got one of the best screwed-together VQ35DE's Nissan ever built. Either that or Nissan forgot to stick a couple of hundred kilo in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
And they printed my letter on cars vs bikes.

Yay :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Originally posted by scathing@Aug 11 2005, 11:28 AM
And they printed my letter on cars vs bikes.

Yay :)
[snapback]144596[/snapback]​

Well now I'll have to go and buy the mag :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
The only thing I've got to say for it is:

Pop a set of semi-slicks on the 996 Turbo, to be equivalent to the bike's standard rolling stock, and I'll bet the Porsche will find the 1.5 seconds it needs to keep up.

Of course, nothing will find the $270,000+ to make the car price equal to the bike.....

If you want to see Top Gear's look at it, check out their Porsche 911 C4 vs Yamaha R1 video. Both have professional operators, and the C4 isn't exactly the sharpest dry-weather tool in Porsche's arsenal.

Getting passed on the outside once is embarassing enough. Twice...?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Interesting comment that Motor made in the BFYB section about the 350Z that they had there. They said that this Zed had less understeer than the previous cars they tested, and also commented on the 'dormant' VDC function (ie. when the TC/VDC is off) being less intrusive than previously.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top