Consider the following...

 

Car Engine Engine power Mass of car Power-to-weight ratio of car

 

Tiger Super 6 Kit Car Tuned 1-litre N/A 100BHP 500kg 200

 

Tiger Super 6 Kit Car Tuned 2-litre N/A 200BHP

 

Tiger Super 6 Kit Car 3-litre Stock N/A Z engine 221BHP 1000kg 221

 

Tiger Super 6 Kit Car 3-litre Tuned N/A Z engine 300BHP 1000kg 300

 

 

Formula 1 car 3-litre N/A 800BHP 800kg 1000

 

 

Stock 300ZX TT 3-litre TT

 

280BHP 1570kg 178

 

Stock Impreza WRX 2-litre Turbo 230BHP 1250kg 184

 

 

For the the kit car, the 2-litre engine is optimal. An F1 car is 3-litre because the engine is lighter and the car needs the extra power for very high top speeds.

 

Extra power fom big-engined heavy cars with equivalent power-to-weight ratios of smaller cars, is not as easy to transfer to the car through the tyre/road interface, as greater friction is required, so this tends to give lighter cars an advantage. It is also possible to be too light.

 

For the type of car a 300ZXTT is, the 3-litre engine is probably optimal. But a lighter car is better off with a smaller, lighter engine, unless it's an F1 engine.

 

In the motorbike world, the 750cc is considered the optimal engine size in a similar way I believe.

 

Becuase the McLaren F1, Ferrari F40 F50 Jaguar 220 all have pipe aluminium or titanium chassis which resembles a tent frame and carbon fibre panels. The glass would be extra thin. Most of them dont even have electic windows because the motors would add on weight.

Look inside a F40 and the easts are expensive light weight racing ones. There are no carpets and the dash would remble a metro one with no nice plending with the rest of the car, its just a box with dials infront of you. It even got that nasty nylon carpet on it you find in places like schools.

I dont even think is has a radio.

The Z is a steel monocoque chassis. Which is one slab molded of metal which every thing statches to it. This is made for mass produced cars. The tubing chassis is a hell of a lot lighter and stronger, but they are usually made by hand, which means takes a long time to make are is very costly.

 

The other type of car to think about it the Vantage and Lamborghini. The have loads of power and large engines and both weigh more than a Z. The Lamborghini Murciélago weighs 3630lb and a Aston Martin Vantage nearly over 4000lb.

But you look inside them and they are the best leather, everything electrical looks better than most hotels and probably had double galzing This is where all the extra weight comes from.

You compare cars to one another, but you forget what they have been built for. McLaren F1 was built purly to have the worlds fastest car, and it only seats one.

F40 was built to show what Ferrari can do and to challenge the Porsche 959 which was the fastest road car.

Caterham, is a car made for fun, cheap and cost efficient It has no mod cons on the car in fact is has no roof

Then you have Vantage and Lamborghini, which are very fast cars with large powerful engines and are made for the speed and the luxury, no cost is spared making the ride as smooth, comfortable and enjoyable as possible.

 

The Z is, really, a cheap version of the Vantage/Lamborghini type of market. Its is fast, but they spent a lot of money making the car have all the mod cons, comfortable and nice to look at. We have T-Tops, Electric seat, electric mirrors and some heated, heated rear windscreen, air conditioning contoured interior, all these things are made for comfort. A F40, F1 dont have these because that is not what the car was made for.

 

Stuart

The record will be held by a dragster.

If you mean road car, I remember seeing an Audi Quattro being good, also one of those horrid Chrisler things with a non american engine in it saying it could do it in 2.2

 

 

Just found too on Supercars.net thier 0-60 section http://www.supercars.net/index-sixty.html

 

1st. 1994 Dauer 962 LeMans, 2.6, 2994cc

2nd. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 Concept 2.7, 9373cc

2nd. 2000 Dodge Hennessey Viper Venom 800TT 2.7, 7990cc

2nd. 1999 Leblanc Caroline, 2.7, 2000cc (1700lb)

5th. 1995 Renault Espace F1 Concept, 2.8, 3500cc

6th 1991 Audi Avus Quattro Concept, 2.9, 5998cc

6th. 1995 McLaren F1 LM, 2.9, 6064cc

8th. 1999 Ferrari Koenig F50, 3.0, 4700cc

8th. 1995 Jimenez Novia Concept, 3.0, 4118cc

8th. 1999 Nissan Blitz Skyline GT-R R348, 3.0, 2750cc

 

 

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

Also -isn't a 300ZXTT engine more than 50% heavier than a 200SX engine ? I still think a larger engine of the same design has to be proportionately heavier (but am prepeared to be persuaded otherwise by good argument!) - modding an existing engine is different.

 

BUT the VG30 isn't the same design as the CA18 or SR20 - the VG30 is a V configuration - the other 2 are straight fours. This is effectively a three cylinder engine with half a block (if that) welded on. Yes 2 heads but only half the crankshaft etc... So you can see where the weight loses come in with a larger engine. Put it another way - take say a 2 litre engine and add enough material to the block and rods to double its stroke. The crank will also be bigger too. This engine will now have a 4litre capacity. So long as it is running with the same efficiency as before, you will get twice the power out. However, you have not increased the size of everything, just the 'bit in the middle', so the weight will have gone up as a much smaller fraction of the original, say 10%.

 

I'm even having to convince myself now - shut up Nelson LMAO

 

CheerZ,

 

Andy

 

------------------

I notice the record holder is a 3-litre twin turbo !

but there is a Westfield there with a respectable 3.4 for a 2-litre engine.

 

You are right andy about the advantages of a bigger engine. Can't understand why I never looked at it that way !! I was thinking in a more abstract, scientific way - you can guess I'm no engineer !

 

Guess I've been talking a lot of crap - apologies. I'm human ! But mass is an important design consideration in the size of engine used, but so are many, many other factors.

 

When you consder those exotic supercars it makes you think the Z is pretty ordinary in comparison. :-( But everything's relative !

If this is too much of a tangent then ignor what I have to add.

 

To my mind a road car needs to be able to stop quickly, as well as accelerate quickly.

 

In order to stop you need to get rid of the kinetic energy = one half(mass * velocity squared).

 

So adding mass is going to directly increase the kinetic energy making stopping more difficult. Optimising the engine is a valid objective but optimising the car is a lot more difficult.

 

Zimon

Is very true - but you need to get up to speed before you want to stop

 

CheerZ,

 

Andy

Originally posted by SRRAE:

McLaren F1 was built purly to have the worlds fastest car, and it only seats one.

Stuart

 

McLaren F1 seats 3, driver sits in the middle, with a passenger either side of him just behind Stuart

 

 

Originally posted by SRRAE:

2nd. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 Concept 2.7, 9373cc

 

And there we have the 'make it go faster by dumping a giant engine in it' brigade

 

I mean.. holy crap.. nine litres?!

 

Puts our measly 3 litres to shame hey..

 

Oh just to add - if it was me with the choice of a 300 vs 200 to mod (going back a thread or two), I'd mod the 200.. Personal preference, I prefer chucking smaller cars around.. Actually I'd probably get another 5 Turbo really..

 

Anyway I'll run off now before I restart WWIII.

 

------------------

GZ.

Optimum engine size is dependent on so many varibles that you can't really be specific or make a valued choice without defining the parameters.

 

You can however deal with engine efficiency based on losses vs. output and this is fairly consistent.

 

The parameters run as follows;

 

For engines that are not highly stressed (mild tune) and are to fit a small light cr then 350cc per cylinder seems about the most efficient, with and oversquare engine if possible, that means the stroke (dim.) is gerater than the bore (dim.), because econmy is the goal here, 4 cylinders are enough, so 1400cc is good.

If we now look at a highly tuned car, you can increase the swept volume as this will in fact increase its efficiency, so the number goes up a bit, with 2 valves 400cc seems about right, 4 valves 450cc, now you can have 4 or 6 cylinders at this point, and you can increase the efficiency by making it 'square' or 'under-square', so max efficiency for NA engines by using this 'rule of thumb' should be an under-square 2.7 6 cylinder or 1800 4cylinder, each with 4 valves etc.

 

Turbos add to the overall efficiency but you actually detune them, thay have to run for a lot of their life as normally aspirated low compression units, and you have to remove a few CCs' to compensate.

 

All this is based on just an old engineers 'rule of thumb' and is really only that and barely that nowadays to be brutally honest.

 

TMS (Tokyo Motor Sciences) publiished a paper back in 1987, from it came the Skyline motor and that in my own car the 1JZ, the paper represented a design that could be regarded as 'state of the art' it found it true fulfilment in the RB25/26 and a more 'conservative' adoption in the Toyota, although the bore and stroke dimensions are exactly adopted on the 1JZ, (86×71.5)

 

Big bore + long connecting rods equals good torque generation, short stroke + short piston skirts equals fantastic turbine like acceleration of the main reciprocating parts.

 

Things move on all the time and there is no modern equivalent of a TMS design around, and although the latest generation Toyota 3.5 V6 and the 350Z V6 would seem to be similar they are very different in approach.

 

This hasn't really helped much but the subject is rather...broad.

 

 

i know its been mentioned on here before, but it always makes me laugh!!!!

 

Remember the guy who strapped a jato to his pickup:

 

>> The Arizona (U.S.) Highway Patrol came upon a pile of smoldering

>> metal imbedded into the side of a cliff rising above the road,

>> at the apex of a curve.

>>

>> The wreckage resembled the site of an airplane crash, but it was a

>> car. The type of car was unidentifiable at the scene.

>>

>> The boys in the lab finally figured out what it was, and what had

>> happened.

>>

>> It seems that a guy had somehow got hold of a JATO unit, (Jet

>> Assisted Take Off, actually a solid-fuel rocket) that is used to give

>> heavy military transport planes an extra 'push' for taking off from

>> short airfields. He had driven his Chevy Impala out into the desert,

>> and found a long, straight stretch of road. Then he attached the JATO

>> unit to his car, jumped in, got up some speed, and fired off the

>> JATO!!

>>

>> Best as they could determine, he was doing somewhere between 250 and

>> 300 mph (350-420kph) when he came to that curve....

>>

>> The brakes were completely burned away, apparently from trying to

>> slow the car.

>>

>> NOTE:

>> Solid-fuel rockets don't have an 'off'... once started, they burn at

>> full thrust 'till the fuel is all gone.

 

 

optimum size my ar$e!!!! the bigger & more powerful the better!!!!!!!!!!

 

more power arf arf arf!!

 

------------------

I feel the need, the need for speed!

 

Mr Devil that actually made sense to me.

Anyway lets face it, no-one on here is actually going to change there engine in their 300's to a different type.

Just slap bigger blowers to the c**t and let rip at 20 psi, before blowing up in a big heap.

Hee Hee

Time for my medication I think

Originally posted by greyzed:

And there we have the 'make it go faster by dumping a giant engine in it' brigade

 

I mean.. holy crap.. nine litres?!

 

Puts our measly 3 litres to shame hey..

 

Oh just to add - if it was me with the choice of a 300 vs 200 to mod (going back a thread or two), I'd mod the 200.. Personal preference, I prefer chucking smaller cars around.. Actually I'd probably get another 5 Turbo really..

 

Anyway I'll run off now before I restart WWIII.

 

 

Yes, being a lighter car, the 200sx can be 'thrown around' more and feels more urgent. I also like the non-progressive power steering which makes it really easy to steer.

 

From the enthusiast's companion - 'In cold terms you cannot say that the Nissan doesn't go, grip, handle and manoeuvre as well as the Porsche. The diference is that it doesn't tell you how cleverly it's doing it. There's simply not enough drama in it's excellence.'

 

There is more drama in driving a 200Sx fast imho and experience.

Can we see a pic of ur 200sx Nelson?

i remember a few years back will gollops( and it was either a pug205 or metro 6r4) rallycross car being in the guiness book for the fastest 0-60,

Originally posted by marczxt:

McLaren F1 seats 3, driver sits in the middle, with a passenger either side of him just behind Stuart

 

 

Errr. So it was yes.

That 1 more person than you can fit in a Z

Originally posted by marczxt:

Can we see a pic of ur 200sx Nelson?

 

Why ?!!

 

I would if I wasn't crap at working out how to do things on a computer.

 

Have you driven a 200SX ?