Why Is My Skyline So Slow

[gregor]

Would depend on Launches, Auto vs Manual etc.

0-100 350z 6.1 seconds, NA Supra 6.5

Could be reasonably close I reckon. Manufacturer figures arent always spot on as shown by fifth gear. I've seen a NA supra crush a mates R33 GTST and a F6 so I reckon its a possibility.

This is an old reply but anyway..

I drive a stock xr6 turbo, its an auto so its faster than a manual. I cleaned up a stock supra tt on his best run and I ran a 13.8. Without a lot of work i don't see an NA supra beating an F6 which should be faster. Even an manual should run a similar time to mine.

[mad082]

high 12's/low 13's for stock GTR

as for the xr6t, if it is a decent driver then the manual will be faster than the auto. if it's a crap driver then the auto will be faster.

[PM-R33]

Yeah no way a NA supra can beat a XR6T/PFV. I think he ment a modified one or something, i dunno.

[gregor]

actually manual xr6t's are consistently slower than the auto ones with equivalent power regardless of the driver, its common knowledge over on the xr forums. It takes a hell of a lot more power to get them down in the same time. Benefits including not dropping off boost, more favourable gear ratios, easier to launch all make them up to a full second ahead over an equivalent manual.

The cost to get a manual into the low 11s is waaaaaay more (5 figures territory) than getting a 6 speed auto to the same point which is relatively cheap. But thats a bit of a tangent from this topic anyway.

I'd love to do a high RPM awd launch like a GTR can

[mad082]

of course getting the auto into the 11's will be easier, but that is a far cry from a stock car. maybe all the manual drivers over on the xr forums think that you have to double clutch them or something. and if you compare the 6 speed auto to the 4 speed you will find the 4 speed much slower due to less favourable gear ratios.

[gregor]

This will be my last post on this cos I dont want to hijack the thread any more. Mod for mod the auto (either 4 or 6 speed) is significantly faster than the manual 5 or 6 speed boxes. With the amount of guys that have tried i highly doubt its because of the driver, but you're welcome to join the forums and try to tell the guys over there that if you think you are right.

The 6 speed auto is pretty tricky to get a higher stall converter working in so the 4 speed actually stacks up well with a high stall. From a roll the 6 speed stands out much more.

If you want to continue this via PM thts fine but i suggest you do a bit more reading on the fords before trying to correct someone who has done all the reading. I'm not on here trying to correct you about skyline performance.

[mad082]

and because we all know that every single ford owner is on the forum, and that everything that is posted on a forum is 100% true and correct.....

just to clarify, i'm not saying that when you really start piling on the mods that the manual will be quicker over the 1/4 mile because i know it won't, but for a stock or mildly stock the manual will be just as quick or quicker. but yes, we have gotten off topic

[Tony de Wonderful]

This will be my last post on this cos I dont want to hijack the thread any more. Mod for mod the auto (either 4 or 6 speed) is significantly faster than the manual 5 or 6 speed boxes. With the amount of guys that have tried i highly doubt its because of the driver, but you're welcome to join the forums and try to tell the guys over there that if you think you are right.

The 6 speed auto is pretty tricky to get a higher stall converter working in so the 4 speed actually stacks up well with a high stall. From a roll the 6 speed stands out much more.

If you want to continue this via PM thts fine but i suggest you do a bit more reading on the fords before trying to correct someone who has done all the reading. I'm not on here trying to correct you about skyline performance.

Is this not something to do with the final drive ratio? I don't see how a slush box can be faster than the manual with a good driver...all other things being equal.

[mad082]

with all the torque that the falcons have it is hard to get them off the line cleanly as it is very easy to fry the tyres in the manual. the automatics are much easier to get off the line cleanly. i can tell you that it is easier to get an auto xr6t off the line than it is to get a manual non turbo older model falcon with much less power. but if you do nail it in the manual it will be fast. also in any auto it is much easier to be consistent

[Tony de Wonderful]

with all the torque that the falcons have it is hard to get them off the line cleanly as it is very easy to fry the tyres in the manual. the automatics are much easier to get off the line cleanly. i can tell you that it is easier to get an auto xr6t off the line than it is to get a manual non turbo older model falcon with much less power. but if you do nail it in the manual it will be fast. also in any auto it is much easier to be consistent

I'd be interested to see the finishing speeds then as that may reveal that it is all in the launch.

[gregor]

tony - building boost off the line helps in an auto but the other factor is the box itself. The 6 speed auto is way ahead of the average auto 'slush box', I'm a big manual fan so for me to actually buy an auto it had to be damn good. I dont think its much of a call to say that its one of if not the best auto in a reasonably priced (under 90k) performance car.

The 4 speeds that run decent times have usually been rebuilt and had a different stall converter installed.

[Tony de Wonderful]

tony - building boost off the line helps in an auto but the other factor is the box itself.

Unless the car is a lag monster and you have slicks I am not sure that is going to make a difference?

I mean traction is the limiting factor for the launch on a regular street car right?

[Super Drager]

Guys what would a R33 GTS25 manual be comparable to performance wise, straight line performance that is. I've seen an auto one have trouble pulling away from a 1.8L Lancer.

[mad082]

tony - building boost off the line helps in an auto but the other factor is the box itself. The 6 speed auto is way ahead of the average auto 'slush box', I'm a big manual fan so for me to actually buy an auto it had to be damn good. I dont think its much of a call to say that its one of if not the best auto in a reasonably priced (under 90k) performance car.

The 4 speeds that run decent times have usually been rebuilt and had a different stall converter installed.

this can be done in a manual by stalling the car up on the handbrake

Guys what would a R33 GTS25 manual be comparable to performance wise, straight line performance that is. I've seen an auto one have trouble pulling away from a 1.8L Lancer.

um, i'm going to go with, SSS pulsar, manual v6 commodore (or straight 6 manual falcon) or maybe even a VRX lancer. now i know that a lot of people will post up saying how they can flog commodores, but most of them would be comparing a manual skyline to an auto commodore, which isn't really a fair fight.

[senilykSkylines]

Hey guys,

This may be useful:

I did a manual conversion in my R33 non turbo 2.5L and did some runs with my little bro sitting next to me with a stop watch.

I get 0-100 in about 9.4secs which I thought was slowish. (Though I was not launching properly, pretty much starting the car with no skidding and flooring it). I then realized that I could go faster skidding tyres to get off the mark, though I have not tried it as of yet.

All I had was a pod filter and heat shield with good platinum spark plugs. It has an RB30 box in there with worn bearings too.

0-65 in first and the rest in second...just hitting the red line in first so I thought that was rather high geared. Ratios would matter a lot also I would have thought.

Oh, and my engine has done about 230,000kms at the time so it is old but in good condition.

I think it needs a tune too? idling is a bit weird when warm. Rises to 2000 revs and then drops and sits at 1000-1100. I can even the the clutch out with no accelerator and it won't stall

Considering all, I think it didn't do too bad really.

P.S.

Here is a great sight and seems interesting.

http://www.letstorquebhp.com/calculator.asp

It says my skyline should be doing around 0-100 in 7.4secs and a quarter in 15.8. I recon driven properly and a newer engine it would get close to that. Still a bit of grunt in them I think

Note: An N/A Supra is only running about 6.6 for 0-100 according to that site. Skyline not too far behind especially for a 2.5L as opposed. to a 3L.

I get weights of cars and power stats from here http://www.cars-directory.net/

Love to get my N/A Skyline to beat a Supra N/A LOL.

cheers

P.S.

I hope to slowly get some decent power out of a 2.5 N/A, there is lots I can do slowly. Anyone know a forum or place that talks about my ECU. Should I stick with this one when doing upgrades and get it re-tuned or do I have to get a new chip that can be re-tuned to match my upgrades like my extractors etc? I hear rumours that gts25's can't be remapped/tuned?

As you can see, I don't know a lot.

Edited March 8, 2010 by senilykSkylines

[mad082]

0.8 of a second 0-100 is a fairly long time, and if you put the cars side by side you would see just how big of a difference it is

[Super Drager]

You'd need to do quite a lot of work to get an NA skyline even close to an NA supra.

[senilykSkylines]

Well, I suppose .8 could be a long time. Never really had much experience, but thanks guys.

For weight/power ratios of the similar car years are:

1994 SZ 3L Supra: 1420kg with 225 Hp

1993 2.5L Skyline R33 GTS25: 1360kg with 190hp.

Unless my maths is wrong or real life is completely different to stats (thus possibly admitting a Supra is far better than a skyline), I should have not much problem attaining 20- 35 hp more from an N/A to equal a Supra.

LOL.

http://www.cars-directory.net/specs/toyota...ra/1994_8/4528/

http://www.cars-directory.net/specs/nissan...e/1993_8/21710/

Edited March 9, 2010 by senilykSkylines

[Super Drager]

Well, I suppose .8 could be a long time. Never really had much experience, but thanks guys.

For weight/power ratios of the similar car years are:

1994 SZ 3L Supra: 1420kg with 225 Hp

1993 2.5L Skyline R33 GTS25: 1360kg with 190hp.

Unless my maths is wrong or real life is completely different to stats (thus possibly admitting a Supra is far better than a skyline), I should have not much problem attaining 20- 35 hp more from an N/A to equal a Supra.

LOL.

http://www.cars-directory.net/specs/toyota...ra/1994_8/4528/

http://www.cars-directory.net/specs/nissan...e/1993_8/21710/

Weight for the NA Supra is 1460kg with 220-225hp. What you need to realise is that power:weight ratio isnt everything. Torque, gearing and driver skill all play a VERY important role.

[scathing]

Weight for the NA Supra is 1460kg with 220-225hp. What you need to realise is that power:weight ratio isnt everything. Torque, gearing and driver skill all play a VERY important role.

Ignore driver skill, since we're comparing the cars as models (not two specific cars owned by two specific people). The rest I'd agree with, though.

Also, suspension design and weight distribution. Being able to get the car cleanly off the line can make up for minor power differences. As an example, all else being equal (e.g. power, torque, weight, tyres) a FI MR2 will run better 60' times than a FI Silvia and should therefore beat it to the trap.

NA, it might go the other way since a 2.0L would just bog in the MR car where the FR car would be able to get a little slip and keep the revs up.