Consult speed trials, what are the baseline numbers stock?

[qsiguy]

I remember reading Tech's posts about the speed trial results they shoot for when testing Q's but after 15 minutes of searching I can't find anything. I'm wanting to know the stock 0-60, 40-80, etc. numbers Tech talks about occasionally.

Can anyone remember the numbers or help me track down one of the threads they were posted in? I'm doing some tests and want to know how my car's doing. I'll post after I see what stock's supposed to be in case my numbers stink I don't want to be...embarrassed.

I think my 40-80 is really good. I'll just say that it's 2.17 sec faster than pre turbo. 0-60 is about the same but I'm getting some tire spin off the line and a little when boost kicks in while in 1st gear. I'll have to get a better 0-60 time after replacing the tires. I'm using Nissan Data Scan to check.

Anyway, anyone know what the typical numbers should be?

[Denver90Q]

5]q45tech 1994 models and above have different first and second gear ratios making them about 0.2 to 0.3 seconds slower than a 93 [part of transmission redesign to increase durability]. Stock 0-60 is around 7.2 seconds best case and 50-80 is also slower by about the same amount or 6.2 seconds. Also quarter mile is around 15.4 seconds.

[mine] takes 5.2 seconds 50-80 in 2nd at 70F and the 50 shift takes 0.8 secs or more, a 40-80 pull in 2nd would be best time @6.7-6.8 due to 2900 rpm start 6000 finish.

[maxnix]

Dennis once ran a 6.9 0-60 mph, but it is all so dependent on fuel, tires barometric pressure, temperature that comparisons are inevitable flawed.

Look for Rswicki posts from the strip in FL.

[mxr662]

I still have my stock ecu. I am going to do some baselines with Nissan Data scan. Maybe this week end if no rain.

[qsiguy]

Hmm, does that mean he's dropping it into 2nd and leaving it for the whole test? I was just doing it on 'D' starting at about 37-38 mph and flooring it.

Tonight I got 0-60 in 7.07 sec with tire slippage and 40-80 in 6.35 sec using 'D', not 2nd. Wonder if that would make much difference. You really feel the boost at about 50-55 mph from a 40 mph rolling start in 'D'. I still need to do more tuning, still need to install my new spark plugs, fuel filter, and knock sensors (one is bypassed). transmission was likely getting hot as well. Had a funny smell after that 40-80 run and did that run after a couple 0-60 trials.

Not feeling too impressed...Except that my pre turbo 40-80 was 8.52 sec. I think I have other issues that need to be addressed before I can extract the most from this turbo. Seems as tho the turbo has just got me back down to OEM speed. Time to get back to work on this beast. Not good enough!

[maxnix]

No, just 1st and holding in second for the quarter.

Dennis did post some baseline for the rolling acceleration times.

I'll search later and look at my archives.

[Q45tech]

Keep in mind, that torque causes acceleration and HP just confuses the issue [even though a rule of thumb says an extra 100 HP will decrease quarter mile by 1.0 seconds].

Remember HP goes up as torque goes down after the torque peak rpm and at 5252 rpm torque and HP are always equal.

We know that a proper ecu tune can remove enough safety to add say 30 lb/ft peak and 25 lb/ft from 4,000-6,500 rpm.

Ecu tune doesn't begin until say 3,000 rpm or 22-25 mph [depending on 1st gear ratio] so little if anything occurs prior to that speed.

If 30lb/ft reduces quarter time by 0.3 seconds it probably all occurs from 25-95-100 mph [where ever redline and fuel cut starts].

Backing this down to 50>80 mph occupies about half the quarter mile time so a 0.1-0.2 second improvement would be very good.

In cool weather a K&N cone and a very very loud cat back exhaust can gain another 10-12 HP/ Torque. The reason I added 0.2 secs instead of 0.15 secs.

For 90-93 the major time reduction comes from lengthening the time in 2nd gear [raising the redline] and avoiding a shift to 3rd.

[mxr662]

At 53 degrees, cloudy, 50-60% humidity (very damp). Full tank Shell gas. Driver only in car @ 160 lbs Not very much other weight in car. All tests done in drive. Although my numbers came out very consistent, some more practice could probably improve my accuracy. The stage II run is probably flawed. The big difference I get is not hitting the rev limiter before the 1-2 shift with stage II or III

All tests 0-60

stock ecu8.6, 8.8, 8.9

Stage II 8.6

Stage III7.6, 7.5, 7.8

[qsiguy]

Guess I'm doing decent. I had myself and my son in the car working the laptop (about 270 lbs combined). I also have a bunch of parts and junk in the car plus I have traction problems. Still managed a 7.07 sec time. I don't think I'll bother with any more tests until I get my plenum job done and a few more parts replaced.

[TBrack]

I'm sure you'll work out all the bugs soon enough, I don't think anyone here is going to hold it against you that you aren't running at least a 6.8 yet