Spoke earlier to my mechanic, and he agrees with me that I would be better modding the 200SX and leave the 300ZX as stock for now. He is a sensible guy as he strongly recommends I get he suspension and brakes uprated first.

 

He has loads of experience modding 200SX's, and says I could easily take it from ~170BHP to ~250BHP. Happy days !!

 

Maybe I should start visiting a 200SX forum as well !!

Originally posted by SRRAE:

Yes thats the one Warren.

 

The 4.6 TVR won

Then the 3.6 Twin Turbo Porsche

Then the 2 tonne 6 litre Aston Martin

 

The Caterham was last but not far behind the 8litre Dodge.

 

Hear are some interesting facts I found.

 

200SX 93+

Power = 179bhp

Weight = 2734lb (1.22t)

CC = 1998

BHP per Tonne = 164.6

BHP per Litre = 89.5

 

200SX 89-93

Power = 178

Weight = 2703 (1.20t)

CC = 1809

BHP per Tonne = 147.5

BHP per Litre = 98.4

 

300ZX 90+

Power = 300bhp

Weight = 3485lb (1.55t)

CC = 2960

BHP per Tonne = 192.8

BHP per Litre = 101.3

 

 

 

Originally posted by dunk300zxtt:

Hold your self in Timmy I will get around to you after I finish with Warren and the hampster.

 

My god he is wellhung, could not get it all in my mouth in one go Mrs dunk300zxtt(MISS WHIPLASH)

 

ROFLMFAO

 

Yeah those Hammies can be quite a mouthfull! LOL

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Originally posted by Timmy_Turbo:

ROFLMFAO

 

Yeah those Hammies can be quite a mouthfull! LOL

 

I have also been told they can be inserted into your rectum via a plastic tube

 

 

 

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

KEEP IT SIDEWAYS!

Originally posted by Timmy_Turbo:

ROFLMFAO

 

Yeah those Hammies can be quite a mouthfull! LOL

 

ok now how do i read into that he he he

 

 

Originally posted by 300z:

ok genious , what is the power to weight of a nissan 300zx, and the power to weight of a nissan 200sx?

(please dont punch me for asking )

 

Obviously the 300 has a better ratio because it has a much more powerful engine and is 'only' a few 100kg heavier. Both are fairly heavy cars, but there are lighter 2-litre turbo's which will have better 0-60 times than a 300 will ever have , even modded to 1000BHP. The proportion of body weight to engine weight is greater in the 200SX, so this is a disadvantage. My point was that an ideal 2-litre turbo would always be faster accelerating at low speeds than a 3-litre turbo would. If a 200Sx was stripped down to be as light as possible, I reckon it would probably be faster at low speeds than a 300ZX, because the 300Zx is 'stuck' with a heavy engine.

 

F1 cars don't count because they are very light in comparison and have exceptionally light engines, so the rules change.

 

 

 

Originally posted by MAC 1:

Originally posted by Timmy_Turbo:

ROFLMFAO

 

Yeah those Hammies can be quite a mouthfull! LOL

 

I have also been told they can be inserted into your rectum via a plastic tube

 

Not mine LMAO unless your bumhole is the size of the grand canyon

Originally posted by MAC 1:

Originally posted by Timmy_Turbo:

ROFLMFAO

 

Yeah those Hammies can be quite a mouthfull! LOL

 

I have also been told they can be inserted into your rectum via a plastic tube

 

 

 

Now I know why he wanted those hard pipes! ROFLMFAO

 

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Warren don't read, lay back and enjoy.

 

And Mac I am sorry you were bought into this mad house.

 

Timmy your time is up.

 

Mrs dunk300zxtt(MISS WHIPLASH)

 

 

Originally posted by 300z:

but then youd be able to modify the toher cars no? this was about production cars, and that 7 was making 250bhp ?

 

 

I am not restricting the argument to 'production cars' - I only say F1 etc. are invalid because they use different materials/fancy engine designs etc.

 

 

LMFAO

 

 

GULP! Whip me baby! Arrggghhhhhh....not there FFS that's me sensitive area! "Eh?"

 

Wendy: "Take it baby!" Phhhhhhtushhhhhhh

 

Me: "Arggggghhh me left cheek!" LMFAO

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

 

For a given car weight (car minus engine) there will be an optimal engine size (or 2 if you count N/A vs. TT/single Turbo). If the car is to achieve a fastest 0-60, the lighter it can be , the better. The lighter it can be, the smaller will be the optimal engine size, because a smaller engine gives out more HP for it's MASS (greater power-to-weight ratio). But the power-to-weight ratio of the OVERALL car is the critical factor, so for a heavier car, a larger engine is required, even though it is less efficient than a smaller engine. There comes a point though when the extra mass from a larger engine is more of a disadvantage than the extra power is an advatage, so it's undesirable. BUT, because the overall power-to-weight ratio is inferior for the heavier car it will not be as fast as the smaller car. For high top speeds however, other things come into play like aerodynamics and a larger, more powerful engine ARE required to overcome drag. This is the role of a 300ZXTT for example. Comparing 'normal' cars with exotic F1/supercars like McClaren F1's is not a like-with-like comparison, so is invalid, as very expensive materials are used to lighten the engines, and expensive mods to raise engine power for a given CC.

 

This theory I have worked out myself by looking at all different cars and using logic - I don't know if it is common knowledge and guess it's not so easy to grasp the concept, BUT it does explain all the engine sizes use in standard cars, and many exotic cars too. Traction is another factor which comes into play wrt low speed acceleration.

 

Can we keep this to one topic please, one minute i get a twinge listening to Wendy teasing us, then want to punch some f**ker as Warren and Nelson start a fight. It`s just not fair!!!

Originally posted by dunk300zxtt:

Warren don't read, lay back and enjoy.

 

And Mac I am sorry you were bought into this mad house.

 

Mrs dunk300zxtt(MISS WHIPLASH)

 

 

No problem Wendy I got a drug war to fight on the other channel seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeya.

 

 

 

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

KEEP IT SIDEWAYS!

Originally posted by Bob:

Can we keep this to one topic please, one minute i get a twinge listening to Wendy teasing us, then want to punch some f**ker as Warren and Nelson start a fight. It`s just not fair!!!

 

LMFAO

 

Yep me too, can we stop all this fighting while me and Wendy get it on?

 

FFS!

 

LMFAO

 

You lot carry on about yer engine sizes and we'll get down to the real business! LOL

 

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Originally posted by Timmy_Turbo:

LMFAO

 

Yep me too, can we stop all this fighting while me and Wendy get it on?

 

FFS!

 

LMFAO

 

You lot carry on about yer engine sizes and we'll get down to the real business! LOL

 

 

 

Bigger engine = bigger dickk doesn't it ?!!!

Now then Dave...easy tiger...you know which side of the fence I'm on.

 

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Originally posted by SRRAE:

Yes thats the one Warren.

 

The 4.6 TVR won

Then the 3.6 Twin Turbo

Then the 2 tonne 6 litre Aston Martin

 

Hear are some interesting facts I found.

 

200SX 93+

Power = 179bhp

Weight = 2734lb (1.22t)

CC = 1998

BHP per Tonne = 164.6

BHP per Litre = 89.5

 

200SX 89-93

Power = 178

Weight = 2703 (1.20t)

CC = 1809

BHP per Tonne = 147.5

BHP per Litre = 98.4

 

300ZX 90+

Power = 300bhp

Weight = 3485lb (1.55t)

CC = 2960

BHP per Tonne = 192.8

BHP per Litre = 101.3

 

 

The crucial point here is that while the 300 has a (slightly) greater BHP/litre figure (it is a TWIN turbo!), the engine will weigh significantly more than ~30%[(3-2/3)*100] extra in mass, therefore it[the engine] has a poorer mass-to-weight ratio, although the 300 CAR has a better power-to-weight ratio of the OVERALL car.

 

HTH

WIBBLE

 

 

 

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

"Life sucks. Get a F**king helmet, okay?"

Denis Leary

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

The crucial point here is that while the 300 has a (slightly) greater BHP/litre figure (it is a TWIN turbo!), the engine will weigh significantly more than ~30%[(3-2/3)*100] extra in mass, therefore it[the engine] has a poorer mass-to-weight ratio, although the 300 CAR has a better power-to-weight ratio of the OVERALL car.

 

HTH

 

But the weight of the engine really has nothing to do with the power/weight only contribute to the weight of the car. It makes no difference whether the head of the engine is 70Kg or 2 tonnes. If the engine wasnt physically moving it makes no difference. The only parts that could contribute to the power are the moving parts such as pistons, rods, valves, etc where the kinetic energy of the conbustion will be wasted moving heavy parts.

For example.

If you have the 2 engines on a bench which was used to drive a huge water pump, the 300ZX engine will pump more water then the 200SX engine becuase it will drive the pump harder because the 300ZX engine is more powerful. Yes the engine is heavier, quite a bit heavier but its not effected the engines power.

If you put a 2liter 300bhp engine in a ZX shell and then added weights to make it the same weight as before the car would still perform the same.

 

Stuart

Originally posted by SRRAE:

But the weight of the engine really has nothing to do with the power/weight only contribute to the weight of the car. It makes no difference whether the head of the engine is 70Kg or 2 tonnes. If the engine wasnt physically moving it makes no difference. The only parts that could contribute to the power are the moving parts such as pistons, rods, valves, etc where the kinetic energy of the conbustion will be wasted moving heavy parts.

For example.

If you have the 2 engines on a bench which was used to drive a huge water pump, the 300ZX engine will pump more water then the 200SX engine becuase it will drive the pump harder because the 300ZX engine is more powerful. Yes the engine is heavier, quite a bit heavier but its not effected the engines power.

If you put a 2liter 300bhp engine in a ZX shell and then added weights to make it the same weight as before the car would still perform the same.

 

Stuart

 

? I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

Yes, a 300Zx is faster than a 200SX. But a lighter 2-litre turbocharged 200SX would have a better power to weight ratio than a lighter 300ZX because a lot of weight is in the engine which cannot be lost. The extra lightness of the 2-litre car would more than compensate for the reduced power compared to the 3-litre.

 

I am talking about comparing a hypothetical (but potentially real) 2-litre turbo vs. a 3-litre turbo. If the car is not designed for >140/160 mph, then it would be better off with a 2-litre turbo engine for greater power to weight ratio of overall car. This is not the case with the 200 vs. 300 argument because the 200SX is heavier than it need be.

 

A heavily modded 200Sx could use all it's modded power in real world performance, a 1000BHP 300ZX would only be useful for speed records; you could not use all that power on the roads without wearing tires.

 

The power-to-weight ratio of a 300ZX can never be optimised for record 0-60 times because, while it can develop extreme BHP's, there is just too much weight for the tires to be able to rapidly transfer the motion from the engine to the road. Not saying they have bad 0-60's but there will be better cars.

 

You cannot build a car which is good at everything. You can only optimise one performance aspect - eg. top speed, acceleration, handling, etc. The fastest top speed cars will never also hold the fastest 0-60 times and vice-versa. This is becasue certain required performance features and design considerations negatively impact on other aspects. eg. wide tyres for extra grip mean more wind resistance., bigger engine for speed records means too much weight for 0-60 times, 4WD for good handling mean exta transmission losses and extra weight etc. etc. The JUN record car doesn't need lights, air con, radio, HICAS, rear seats, spare tyre etc., so is optimised to be as light as possible. Safety tends to add weight to a car, Bigger air intakes on bigger engines means more drag. etc. etc. A 300ZX high speec car is wider and bigger than a 200SX, so has more drag (Cd times frontal area)

LMFAO this is great Can I quash all this fighting by just suggesting you fit a VG30DETT in your 200sx???

 

The extra weight of the 3litre lump over the 2litre lump is FAR outweighed by the extra power output. For example say the 300 engine was 200kg heavier. For those 200kg you get a full 100bhp extra. 200 as a % of 1300 (for arguements sake - this assumes the 300 weighs 1500 with engine) is 26%. However, the power increase is 50%. So while your weight increase is, say, a quarter, your power output is 1.5 times greater. Like I say, fit a VG30DETT in your 200 and see the difference

 

CheerZ,

 

Andy

Captain Caveman, DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FLAT6 AND A V6, obviously not by one of your other threads.

 

Do you realise you are so thick you even make 2 short planks look like a computer.

 

Mrs dunk300zxtt(Wendy)

 

[This message has been edited by dunk300zxtt (edited 30-09-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by dunk300zxtt (edited 30-09-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by dunk300zxtt (edited 30-09-2002).]

This place is shitt.

 

All I get is people not understanding what I am trying to say, and then insulting me, rather than discussing things in an intelligent, adult way.

 

Who thinks Warren is a nice person ? -let's watch all the sheep go quiet.

Either people recognise him as a nasty prick, or I'm gonna fook off out of this sad place. Seems this place is mostly full of sad fooks who get off on ripping other people apart (in cyberspace -how brave !!) and massaging their large egos. I've got better thigns to do. Most people in here know jack shitt about 300's - only when their engine has blown up do they learn something because they modded it without considering the bigger picture and whether all the engine subsytems/components were up to the job.

 

The Moderators go on about moderation, but simply let an **** like 300z say what the fook he wants !!

Hmmm I regard Warren as a good friend as do many others on here. Not everyone likes him - although I bet I have more enemies than him though My post wasn't a dig - anything but - it was a reasoned explanation.

 

CheerZ,

 

Andy

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella:

? I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

Yes, a 300Zx is faster than a 200SX. But a lighter 2-litre turbocharged 200SX would have a better power to weight ratio than a lighter 300ZX because a lot of weight is in the engine which cannot be lost. The extra lightness of the 2-litre car would more than compensate for the reduced power compared to the 3-litre.

 

I am talking about comparing a hypothetical (but potentially real) 2-litre turbo vs. a 3-litre turbo. If the car is not designed for >140/160 mph, then it would be better off with a 2-litre turbo engine for greater power to weight ratio of overall car. This is not the case with the 200 vs. 300 argument because the 200SX is heavier than it need be.

 

A heavily modded 200Sx could use all it's modded power in real world performance, a 1000BHP 300ZX would only be useful for speed records; you could not use all that power on the roads without wearing tires.

 

The power-to-weight ratio of a 300ZX can never be optimised for record 0-60 times because, while it can develop extreme BHP's, there is just too much weight for the tires to be able to rapidly transfer the motion from the engine to the road. Not saying they have bad 0-60's but there will be better cars.

 

You cannot build a car which is good at everything. You can only optimise one performance aspect - eg. top speed, acceleration, handling, etc. The fastest top speed cars will never also hold the fastest 0-60 times and vice-versa. This is becasue certain required performance features and design considerations negatively impact on other aspects. eg. wide tyres for extra grip mean more wind resistance., bigger engine for speed records means too much weight for 0-60 times, 4WD for good handling mean exta transmission losses and extra weight etc. etc. The JUN record car doesn't need lights, air con, radio, HICAS, rear seats, spare tyre etc., so is optimised to be as light as possible. Safety tends to add weight to a car, Bigger air intakes on bigger engines means more drag. etc. etc. A 300ZX high speec car is wider and bigger than a 200SX, so has more drag (Cd times frontal area)

 

Right was you are trying to say is that the engine of the ZX is heavier which is weight that can not be made up any where.

It didnt sound like that from your other posts.

 

But can I make another point.

If you mod a SX to upto 300bhp for example which would give a ZX a run for its money, will you be uprating the brakes. Really you should. The ZX brakes even though people call them are quite good and it one of the things point out when I take them for a spin.

A SX brakes system is made for 180bhp(ish) car and not a 300bhp car.

If you do uprate your brakes that would mean bigger wheels, new rubber, new callipers and new discs plus fitting. All of that could cost you between £1000-£2000 for a decent setup.

Another point, if you couls afford it would you not go for a SWB hard top Z which is much much lighter because there is less glass and no heavy T-Tops.

 

Stuart

 

Stuart