Jump to content
SAU Community

0 - 100kph Times


09GTR
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is truly fantastic! Congratulations.

How exactly does your engine make use of all this extra HKS "plumbing" to achieve these numbers without a new map? Or did I miss something and there is an HKS tune in the package?

What do you expect Cobb AP will do? :P

HKS system is a complete kit, comes with little piggy back setup and hi flow cats. I'm running very conservative boost level. Jap cars run 15 pounds. I'm running 14 most of the time. I used 16 pound setting to get that time time. Cobb system should give another 30 or so at wheel kilowatts. Makes you wonder how the Jap cars did 3.3 seconds stock, doesnt it? I've got 355 kw at the wheels, JDMs have around 310. That Launch control feature on the Jap cars must've been baaaaad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The HKS GT570 kit comes with a piggy back job, problem fixed, 16 pounds no problem, 355 kilowatts and 840 newton metres at the wheels...

Your car is truly impressive and goes like...a stock JDM car, just kidding.

Looking at CRD dyno graphs I doubt that your car is getting 840Nm at the wheels. The torque graph shows uncorrected 8300 N after and 7200 N before, which is +15.3% gain.

If the GTR comes from the factory with 588Nm torque, you add 15.3% and get 678Nm at the crank less 17.1% loss = 562Nm at the wheels, not 840Nm.

Power gain: graph shows 354.5kW after vs. 295kW before= +20% kW gain.

Starting with stock 357kW, add 20% and you get 428kW at the crank vs. 354.5 at the wheels = (-17.1%) loss thus confirmed.

But don't be disappointed by these numbers, you still have the fastest and loudest GT-R in Sydney and we are all jealous as hell! :P

Edited by GT-Ricer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.3sec-4.4sec 0-100km/h.

Seriously fellas, 370Z with a few mods would probably do that, or very, very close to that. For sure I know that an EVo-X would do 3.5sec 0-100km/h in FQ-400 guise. If my car is 30% slower than what Nissan advertised in 2007 and 2008, 3.3sec, then I would be seriously pissed of with them.

could be wrong but i think nissans quoted number was 3.5 - 3.6 ??? 3.3 is just what some independent testers found when they actually drove it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if I have asked the wrong questions at the wrong forum.

I live in Melbourne and have had my R35 for 3 weeks and it has travelled 1536km.

It seems from this forum that BP98 is a better fuel for R35 and should avoid Caltex at all cost. What about Shell V Power? How does it compare to other? I have had 3 refuels with Shell V Power. Should I switch to BP98?

On other note, a friend checked the engine oil for me yesterday and noted that it is darker in color than his Nissan Maxima (has travelled 370,000km) which filled with Penzoil 0-50w fully synthetic engine oil at last oil change nearly 10,000km ago.

What is the best engine oil for R35? How much does it cost? Where do I buy them? Do I void my warranty by using engine oil, transmission oil and differential fluid other than those specified by Nissan? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Guys, I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if I have asked the wrong questions at the wrong forum.

I live in Melbourne and have had my R35 for 3 weeks and it has travelled 1536km.

It seems from this forum that BP98 is a better fuel for R35 and should avoid Caltex at all cost. What about Shell V Power? How does it compare to other? I have had 3 refuels with Shell V Power. Should I switch to BP98?

On other note, a friend checked the engine oil for me yesterday and noted that it is darker in color than his Nissan Maxima (has travelled 370,000km) which filled with Penzoil 0-50w fully synthetic engine oil at last oil change nearly 10,000km ago.

What is the best engine oil for R35? How much does it cost? Where do I buy them? Do I void my warranty by using engine oil, transmission oil and differential fluid other than those specified by Nissan? Thanks.

I dont know about avoiding Caltex 98 "at all costs" - that's a tad alarmist i reckon. I've been using it for months and never had an issue. I'm not suggesting all 98's are exactly the same, but i would think they are more likely similar vs being vastly different. With oils, your user manual lists all those "ordained" (eg. mobil 1 for engine). Are you getting the car serviced by Nissan? If so, i would hazard a guess you dont have much choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question for the guys that are measuring their 0-100 time with the performance box, drift box or similar. How far out are you finding your speedo. I invested in a performance box on Friday and have done a range of checks. I am finding my speedo is out by about 5km/h from about 57km/h on the speedo. Eg at 62km/h on the speedo I am doing 57km/h on the performance box. What are you guys finding? This is going to effect 0-100 times and also other "quoted" performance. I am running cmpletely stock setup with the Bridgestones.

I look forward to the feedback.

Edited by Gibbo_R35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question for the guys that are measuring their 0-100 time with the performance box, drift box or similar. How far out are you finding your speedo. I invested in a performance box on Friday and have done a range of checks. I am finding my speedo is out by about 5km/h from about 57km/h on the speedo. Eg at 62km/h on the speedo I am doing 57km/h on the performance box. What are you guys finding? This is going to effect 0-100 times and also other "quoted" performance. I am running cmpletely stock setup with the Bridgestones.

I look forward to the feedback.

Using a "very sophisticated" GPS SPEED-O-METER App. on my iPhone, I noticed the same 5kph difference. GT-R over-reads the speed to compensate for not getting there fast enough...LOL

Edited by GT-Ricer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from everything i've personally seen the original hard core launch on the JDM cars is quicker. I know they quoted quciker times from the version 2 cars but I have a suspicion that was just to tame peoples dissapointment at having the nice 4800rpm LC removed. on the JDM cars I've done it on they all launched very smoothly with some wheel spin and all pulled between 0.9-1.1G on launch according to the dash. no times from me but they were all insanley fast and smooth. I could be completely wrong though as the official word is the ADM cars have better launch, more power etc etc but the small amount of evidence i've seen seems to suggest otherwise.

as for speedo difference. every type of car i've tested with a factory calibrated speedo was between 5km and 10km out at 80kp/h. so it's pretty normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know about avoiding Caltex 98 "at all costs" - that's a tad alarmist i reckon. I've been using it for months and never had an issue. I'm not suggesting all 98's are exactly the same, but i would think they are more likely similar vs being vastly different. With oils, your user manual lists all those "ordained" (eg. mobil 1 for engine). Are you getting the car serviced by Nissan? If so, i would hazard a guess you dont have much choice.

I once dynoed a WRX STI with Caltex Vortex 98 and it was 30 kw down on power compared to a run with the same car on the same day with Shell Optimax. I've never touched the stuff since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys after the most recent track day and then some 0-100 test I have found that since my car went into Nissan for the 2000km "tune" it seems to run slower. Main straight at the Creek I was struggling for speeds above 233km/h, before the 2000km service I was consistently seeing 237, up to 241.

0 -100 times are all around 4.4 second, I have got a 4.2 but I am getting the bog down off the line (hesitation). This was not there before the 2k service.

I am wondering if the Nissan guys have put a new tune through the car during this service...I will be hitting them up today on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question for the guys that are measuring their 0-100 time with the performance box, drift box or similar. How far out are you finding your speedo. I invested in a performance box on Friday and have done a range of checks. I am finding my speedo is out by about 5km/h from about 57km/h on the speedo. Eg at 62km/h on the speedo I am doing 57km/h on the performance box. What are you guys finding? This is going to effect 0-100 times and also other "quoted" performance. I am running cmpletely stock setup with the Bridgestones.

I look forward to the feedback.

I had a TomTom satnav in the car the other day, and i noticed the car speedo read 5 to 6 km/hr higher than the GPS unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could be wrong but i think nissans quoted number was 3.5 - 3.6 ??? 3.3 is just what some independent testers found when they actually drove it

3.3 secs is the 0-60 mp/h time acheived, not 0-100 km/h. 0-60 mp/h = 96.5 km/h. Nissan Aus. initially quoted 3.5 sec 0-100km/h. They don't quote an official time from what I can see now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys after the most recent track day and then some 0-100 test I have found that since my car went into Nissan for the 2000km "tune" it seems to run slower. Main straight at the Creek I was struggling for speeds above 233km/h, before the 2000km service I was consistently seeing 237, up to 241.

0 -100 times are all around 4.4 second, I have got a 4.2 but I am getting the bog down off the line (hesitation). This was not there before the 2k service.

I am wondering if the Nissan guys have put a new tune through the car during this service...I will be hitting them up today on this.

Are you using the same wheels/tyres? Also are you reading the speed from the speedo or drftbox? Could the difference we've seen with GPS units vs car speedo account for the top speed variance? Doesnt explain the 0~100 thing i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys after the most recent track day and then some 0-100 test I have found that since my car went into Nissan for the 2000km "tune" it seems to run slower. Main straight at the Creek I was struggling for speeds above 233km/h, before the 2000km service I was consistently seeing 237, up to 241.

0 -100 times are all around 4.4 second, I have got a 4.2 but I am getting the bog down off the line (hesitation). This was not there before the 2k service.

I am wondering if the Nissan guys have put a new tune through the car during this service...I will be hitting them up today on this.

Gibbo, this is strange. I doubt very much that Nissan have done anything untoward. They can adjust the clutch settings which will have an impact on take-off. I know GT-Ricer has had the same problem, and Nissan adjusted the clutch system in his car. All my 0 - 100 times were post the 2000 service. A mate of mine cracked a 3.8 out of the box in the wet the other night. That said, I have heard that these cars all perform a little differently. What were your times before the service?

ps. once the Cobb tune is in I am aiming for a sub 3 second 0-100 with my GT 570 kit. I'll take it to Eastern Creek to see if I can crack a ten second pass. Should be fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibbo, this is strange. I doubt very much that Nissan have done anything untoward. They can adjust the clutch settings which will have an impact on take-off. I know GT-Ricer has had the same problem, and Nissan adjusted the clutch system in his car. All my 0 - 100 times were post the 2000 service. A mate of mine cracked a 3.8 out of the box in the wet the other night. That said, I have heard that these cars all perform a little differently. What were your times before the service?

ps. once the Cobb tune is in I am aiming for a sub 3 second 0-100 with my GT 570 kit. I'll take it to Eastern Creek to see if I can crack a ten second pass. Should be fun!

I still have the same problem with take off. After my clutch adjustment I did 5 runs, all 4.11-4.14 sec, like clockwork, same hesitation followed by a surge.

I got my clutch reset back to factory after a few days. just not worth it. It was too creepy at slow speed, like parking against the back wall of my garage (scary!) and did not allow the car to rev past 1200rpm against the brake. Then I came home and strted experimenting with my stalling technique.

I can finally stomp on the gas really fast and get it to 3000rpm with my left foot hard on the brakes. So far I did it only in my driveway and I am yet to do another 0-100 run with this technique,

which I learned from you last week. Thanks.

Sub 3 sec, eh? Since you have already done 3.22 sec with the HKS piggy back ECU, why do you think the COBB AP can improve on what HKS did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have the same problem with take off. After my clutch adjustment I did 5 runs, all 4.11-4.14 sec, like clockwork, same hesitation followed by a surge.

I got my clutch reset back to factory after a few days. just not worth it. It was too creepy at slow speed, like parking against the back wall of my garage (scary!) and did not allow the car to rev past 1200rpm against the brake. Then I came home and strted experimenting with my stalling technique.

I can finally stomp on the gas really fast and get it to 3000rpm with my left foot hard on the brakes. So far I did it only in my driveway and I am yet to do another 0-100 run with this technique,

which I learned from you last week. Thanks.

Sub 3 sec, eh? Since you have already done 3.22 sec with the HKS piggy back ECU, why do you think the COBB AP can improve on what HKS did?

The HKS piggy back is just a boost over-run device with a boost controller. The Cobb custom tune will sort out fuel maps etc. I'm expecting 380kw plus at the wheels with the Cobb plus T1Sparrow rear pipe. This is similar to what the car is doing with similar mos in the states. Anyway, time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

Victory at last!

I managed to launch twice cleanly without LC by stabbing the gas very quickly, revs shot up to 2850RPM and 2950RPM, let go of the brakes and got 3.9 sec both times! 0-20 m 2.254 and 100m 5.278 sec.

I then managed to rev to 3000RPM, let go of the brakes, revs shot up to 3200RPM and got a neat 4.0 sec. Lastly, stalled at 2500RPM and it went back to 4.4 sec.

So it seems that the launch "sweet spot" is somewhere between 2850 and 2950RPM.

Auto trans with 3 "R" settings. Shell-V-Power and K & N Filter back in.

If the revs don't go up to 2900-3000RPM immediately, there is no point waiting : the clutches just start slipping as the revs try to slowly creep up from 2000RPM.

Disengage back to neutral and try again by stomping on the gas very quickly.

Thanks for the advice mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
×
×
  • Create New...