Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

thanks guys for all the tips....thanks heaps "gtst" give me a couple of weeks to budget all my money and i will definately get a new computer and fmic....i know i need it .... and yeah "jam*353" i do need to know how to launch on 1st gear coz all i do is wheel spin ....

thanks again guys....

  • 2 months later...

If the MX6 has even a half decent driver you won't beat him off the line, even with the MX6 being front wheel drive. With a boost controller and a $200 ECU mod that 5psi changes to 15psi and the car is completely different again.

But after that, if the MX6 is pretty stock you should run it down. But be aware there when you pull up against them lately as there is alot of these cars pushing over 220kW ATW.

:whip:

If the MX6 has even a half decent driver you won't beat him off the line, even with the MX6 being front wheel drive. With a boost controller and a $200 ECU mod that 5psi changes to 15psi and the car is completely different again. 

But after that, if the MX6 is pretty stock you should run it down. But be aware there when you pull up against them lately as there is alot of these cars pushing over 220kW ATW.

:whip:

The fact that a stock mx6 makes around 90kw@flywheel, to have 220kw@wheels would mean a heap of $$ would have to be spend on them. There would be bugger all of them running anywhere near that power level

They're rated at 108kW @ fw actually, I have a few friends that are MX6 nuts :D They're a ridiculously torquey motor though, peak power isn't the full story.

The fact that a stock mx6 makes around 90kw@flywheel, to have 220kw@wheels would mean a heap of $$ would have to be spend on them. There would be bugger all of them running anywhere near that power level

There is 3 of them within 15mins drive of where I live.... And money wise, if you where to do it on the cheap, it would cost around $5k - $6k depending on how much work you did yourself. So, on top of a purchase price of $6k, that is a pretty quick car for only $11k. On that topic, 2 of those 3 cars are for sale if anyone wants one ;)

i thought i'd throw this in here as my friend from work as a tx5 turbo. same engine, right?

he has a full 3" exhaust, pod, and cai and made 118kw@front wheels

then ported the head and turned the wick up tyo 10psi so should be making at least 130kw at the wheels...

from 0 - 160ish i beat him by 4-5 car lengths... my cars mods are: 3" turbo back except cat (2.5"), FMIC, 12psi, re-chip ECU, rb26 cams

so yes they (and the mx-5) do make some nice power when modded and i have seen him beat an sr20 180sx as well as numerous commonwhores

Waz.

So you recon $6,000 and you can turn a stock 90fwkw mx6 to a 220rwkw?

Yea, there is a trick though... and it is an engine swap. It is a direct fit engine (so it's not cheating in my mind anyway :P), and is pretty much identical to the SR20 engine, except by what I've seen them do, they are probably stronger (I know you are thinking, no way... but you just have to see it to believe it).

Also, for the $6k you would have to install the engine, wire up the computer etc. yourself. That is my budget anyway, and I know of people who are getting close to 200kW while spending a fair bit less. (The engine sells for less than $1000). Oh, and I didn't count all the stuff I already have on the car, such as exhaust (but I'll still need new a dump pipe etc).

Also, for being pedantic, it won't be rwkw, as it is front wheel drive, so maybe a little more power due to their being less drivetrain loss on a front wheel drive. So, on another note, the power will be there, but traction won't.

As for TX5, yea, if it is between an 88-90 then it is the same engine as the MX6.

Well I can say that after owning a R33 GTS-T ( even before most of you had one - try december 1999) that in stock form they ain't great. But yes should run down a stock Mx-6 ?

But one thing to take note of is that unlike msot Skylines imported are Type M's

Not all Mx-6 are the same a 2WS bottom range will beat a top range 4WS version. about 1 second over the 1/4 mile in performance due to weight and a definate 1 second with manual to auto gearbox.

With a R32 - You no matter what gear beat one off the mark especially stalled up auto. Mine when it ran at the illigal runs Eat VN V8's for first 150meters. Stalled up rotor different story but still in most cases up front.

I had a Cefrino with RB20 RWD auto and if had 157Kw at rear wheels straight from Japan. And it only caught up especially with stalled Mx-6 at 95km/h by 120 in was just nudging ahead.

But to make your day die, the Mx-6 up against a Type R 1.8L eat it by 3 car lengths to 50 - by 100 1 by 120 Type R in front.

Same type R same drive would never be behind the Cefrino or R32 stock GTS-T which a friend owned with 3inch. All over M5 - M4 every highway in sydney only over 160km/h woudl the nissan beahead. mind a 200SX that was runing was gone way before us but runing 18psi?

Yeah it has alot to do with driver. But also Heaps on the state of tune.

Only one R32 GTS-T I have seen at eastern Creek before WSID gone better then 14seconds. not runing slicks. And I know it had full bottom end up rebuild with HKS GT turbo on it I think a 28series but it pooled it launched but it also didn't move off boost.

But revs are fun.

Mx-6 are not super quick cars, but not all skylines are either.

Friends 13seocnd flat V8 Monaro HQ has had every skyline owner go What does it run - Them all Saying I run 13's welll, He's go the papers in the box to prove it. And photo cover on Carguide section of Daily telegraph.

Mx-6s dont' go top end and neither do some others like GSR lancers etc ( unless wild modes) but they are pains in the arse in trafic for top end powered engines.

Torque is the Key to excelleration it's why a Sr20 is better then a Rb20 IMO

originally posted by 666DAN

haha I could take an MX-6 Turbo when my car was N/A!!! Get your car to a tuner quick smart..it sounds "not quite right"

sorry mate but that is the totally and utterly the biggest piece of s hit that i have ever heard, in the lower gears you will find that a mx6 @ 10psi will totally dominate the r32 with an rb20 at 10 or even 14psi! seen it doen may times before, even seen a 10psi mx6 with 3 biggish blokes in it (including me) beat a 158rwkw r32 gtst untill a lil bit into 4th. and the r32 only had a biggish driver and a featherweight chick. either your N/A r32 wass BLOODY fast, or the mx6 turbs u were racing had a grandma driving it!

When bone stock, my R33 was beaten by a mate's manual MX6 (exhaust with dump, 12psi, k&n panel). After I got an exhaust and a wastegate bleed, I kicked his butt everywhere, we tried rollons from 100km/h, 60km/h, up to the speed limiter, basically everything except a standing start (they're frowned upon on a circuit :() and the 33 would just walk away. In the end he had 135kw@w (but bucketloads of torque), and the 33 would still toast him unless we did 3rd at 60 or something, then he'd get a bit of a lead before the 33 got into its stride.

Limbo, Dan's talking about his NA R34, before he put the turbo on. They're a fair bit quicker than the NA R32's.

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


  • Latest Posts

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
×
×
  • Create New...