what do i run?

[quiksilvia]

heres the deal-i beat a brand new celica gt-s the other night but i lose to gs-r s as soon as they hit the vtec range. so does anyone know what a gt-s and a gsr run at the track. thanks

[nlzmo400r]

SCC got the gt-s at 15.8 1/4 however have been known to run roughly 15flat with good driver (from what ive heard) and gs-r is a pretty 15.4 1/4 depending on driver, just make sure the ones ur running are stock tho man, haha, that could make a big difference

[quiksilvia]

the gsr s had cold air on both of them , but the gts ran a 15.8 huh

[S-14boy]

my buddy with a gsr runs 15.3 he has an AEM cold air, DC Sports headers and a weld on mufler.

[amaizenblue]

Out of curiousity, what is the "official" rated time for a stock '96 240SX quartermile? I've been looking all over for it, but find nothing. I want to compare how I did at the strip to it.

[nnkfws333]

Are you sure that GTS wasnt an automatic? Ive seen GTS's run low 15's and even high 14's. Thats just with intake and exhaust but its all about how they drive. Ive seen this guy drive his GTS and everytime he shifted he was always in the VVTLI powerband. Ive seen GSR's with just intake running 15.1's.

Stock 240's Ive seen run low 16's.

[quiksilvia]

it sounded pretty 6 speed ish. i was barely inching away though.

[91nis240]

my beleife is there is no "official" time for anything, there is so many different aspects that play into the speed of your car. My car (91 240sx) "offial time" ive been told is around a 16.0 (stock of course). and with I/h/e i hung not far at all behind my buddies stock integra type r. So go to the track, and/or just race other cars to see what your cars got, dont ever go by numbers givein from magazines and people.

[Big Red]

my beleife is there is no "official" time for anything, dont ever go by numbers givein from magazines and people.

Absolutely right!

The horsepower ratings from the manufacturers are total crap too!

My 2000 Camaro dyno'd at 335hp at the wheels "stock!"

My buddies 2000 Corvette dyno'd at 330hp at the wheels

Manufacturers ratings, Camaro: 305hp, Corvette: 350hp.

The reason for this is that Chevrolet did not want folks looking to buy a Vette to see that they could get the same power car for half the price, also a live axle will have a better contact patch on the drum than an IRS set up.

I'm sure that Japanese companies fudge the numbers too, Nissan vs Infiniti cars with the exact same engine ect...

Some more interesting numbers:

Mustang, rated 260hp, Dyno'd 220hpBMW M3, rated 333hp, Dyno'd 333hp!Viper, Rated 450hp, Dyno'd 455hp All of the import ratings I have seen have been about right (12-17% below rated power is pretty accurate).

As far as 1/4 miles times go Road & track tested the Camaro at 13.9.This is crap as I have seem stock Z28's pull low 13's and even a few 12.9's

[amaizenblue]

Yeah, I agreee with you all..That's why I put "official" in quotes. My opinion about those times is similar to yours. I was just wondering what the typical time in magazines is, out of curiosity, because I haven't been able to find it.

I did take it to the track last season, it was all stock; still is, so far. I ran a 15.6 @ 89 with a good launch and powershifting.

[apzak]

Quote »Mustang, rated 260hp, Dyno'd 220hp[/quote]

That's a preaty large gap. I know all cars are different, but do all mustangs show low dyno like that? Is their factory horsepower overrated like the supra n/a's, or was that car you mentioned the dyno numbers from possibly defected?

Edit: nevermind, those numbers look right if you think of the %15 drivetrain lose

[Nismo_Freak]

16.0@90 is what a mag claimed back in the day and its also what I've seen a bone stock 95 240 run.

[Big Red]

That's a preaty large gap. I know all cars are different, but do all mustangs show low dyno like that? Is their factory horsepower overrated like the supra n/a's, or was that car you mentioned the dyno numbers from possibly defected?

Edit: nevermind, those numbers look right if you think of the %15 drivetrain lose

Heres an even better one!

Either the '99 or '00 Mustang Cobra was recalled because the car was not making anywhere near the power that it was supposed to be.

It turned out that because of the new rear suspension they had crimped the exhaust so it would fit around the new components and in doing so had cut the engines output by 25 HP.

[S13Ka24e]

Heres an even better one!

Either the '99 or '00 Mustang Cobra was recalled because the car was not making anywhere near the power that it was supposed to be.

It turned out that because of the new rear suspension they had crimped the exhaust so it would fit around the new components and in doing so had cut the engines output by 25 HP.

It must have been the '99 because they never made a '00 cobra.

[nlzmo400r]

well my car is rated at 175hp, but SCC can only seem to get roughly 145hp out of it, but i guess thats not too bad, im working on more, and the 'OFFICIAL' numbers ive seen for the '96 24o are o-6o: 8.3 and 1/4 16.1, those numbers see to be very close to what everyone else is getting, so itd be safe to say a 16.o is an easy possiblity

[nlzmo400r]

well my car is rated at 175hp, but SCC can only seem to get roughly 145hp out of it, but i guess thats not too bad, im working on more, and the 'OFFICIAL' numbers ive seen for the '96 24o are o-6o: 8.3 and 1/4 16.1, those numbers see to be very close to what everyone else is getting, so itd be safe to say a 16.o is an easy possiblity

they did make an 'oo cobra, only it was known as the cobra R, and had the ford lighnings 5.4L instead of the 4.6L, and put out 385hp and 385ft lbs of tq, it was more of a track ready car than any other cobras, including the new ones, and the 55K price tag shows it

[Big Red]

they did make an 'oo cobra, only it was known as the cobra R, and had the ford lighnings 5.4L instead of the 4.6L, and put out 385hp and 385ft lbs of tq, it was more of a track ready car than any other cobras, including the new ones, and the 55K price tag shows it

Good luck trying to buy one for 55K, I read that the bidding rate was closer to 100K for the few that became available to the public.

Still it's kind of a kick to the balls to see a 2003 Cobra put out 390hp for 32K but I doubt anyone is driving the Cobra R on the streets, it's basically a factory ready track car.:ylsuper

[nlzmo400r]

well car and driver and auto week and ford say 55k retail, now yes all the 'oo models may be gone from showroom floors, and if someone wants one bad enoiugh, im sure they'll pay 1ooK, but sticker was 55k, anyway, i like the cobra Rs better because (more displacement) 5.4 as opposed to the 4.6, and i dont like the sound of the supercharger on the new ones, i always associated ford with doing it the hard way, making hp by making a bigger engine, not supercharging, especially on a mustang, but nice cars even still, jus not my style thats all

[Oatmealman]

they run like 15.8 or like 16 what one:help

[sethulrich]

actually the cobra R was a N/A 5.4, not supercharged, as the lightning. It was pretty much a stripped down factory race car. I agree with Big Red: I feel sorry for the Cobra R owners, now that the '03 Cobra has a supercharged 4.6, rated at 390 hp (which I've heard is conservative), with all the options, for a LOT less money!

[Big Red]

actually the cobra R was a N/A 5.4, not supercharged, as the lightning. It was pretty much a stripped down factory race car. I agree with Big Red: I feel sorry for the Cobra R owners, now that the '03 Cobra has a supercharged 4.6, rated at 390 hp (which I've heard is conservative), with all the options, for a LOT less money!

Your right, 390 is underrated as that is what these cars are putting down at the wheels so figure about 430 crank HP.

Finally Ford has something that will stomp a "stock" Camaro, Saleen has been doing this for a while with the S281

Mind you if you drop 5psi Vortech supercharger on a LS1 you end up with a 570HP car!!! only problem is that when you make that kind of power you start breaking rear ends and half shafts.

When you play, you pay

[nlzmo400r]

actually the cobra R was a N/A 5.4, not supercharged, as the lightning. It was pretty much a stripped down factory race car. I agree with Big Red: I feel sorry for the Cobra R owners, now that the '03 Cobra has a supercharged 4.6, rated at 390 hp (which I've heard is conservative), with all the options, for a LOT less money!

actually the lightning never was supercharged, it had an n/a 5.4liter, and even tho the new cobras are supercharged and are faster than the cobra R, the R would still stomp on a new cobra on a road course

[nlzmo400r]

they run like 15.8 or like 16 what one:help

man id love to answer ur question, but what the hell are u talking about, 15.8 or 16, im guessing these are 1/4 mile times ur talking about, but what cars are u talking about, if u could clear up this question a lil bit, id love to answer it for u

[Big Red]

The Cobra R and '03 Cobra should run 12.9s or better.

15.8 - 16 is Honda Civic stuff.

A Mustang GT should run high 14's

[sethulrich]

The Lightning, starting in 1999 was, and still is supercharged with an eaton roots type supercharger. The original Lightning (1993 or thereabouts) was not supercharged, but it had a 351, not a 5.4.

[sethulrich]

but hey.....let's not argue about Fords. We're Nissan guys, right?

[quiksilvia]

thank you sethulrich i was scrolling down past all this wasted typing on gay cars that handle lke a shopping cart thinking, this is nico right?.....

[Big Red]

Like your sig sethulrich!

[nlzmo400r]

The Lightning, starting in 1999 was, and still is supercharged with an eaton roots type supercharger. The original Lightning (1993 or thereabouts) was not supercharged, but it had a 351, not a 5.4.

i stand corrected man, i didnt know they had superchargers in em, i jus figured it was the same motor as the cobra R, but the lightning has 36ohp and 44oft lbs of tq, and the cobra R has 385hp and 385ft lbs of tq, wierd how they have the same block yet the lightning has 25hp less than the cobra R yet has a supercharger on top of hte 5.4L

[sethulrich]

Thanks Big Red.

The 2000 Cobra R engine is a DOHC 5.4L. It has 9.6:1 compression, comes with shorty headers, bassini x-pipe, and borla cat-back. It likes to rev, compared to the Lightning motor, which is SOHC, 2 valve/cyl. runs 8.4:1 compression to accomodate 8psi boost. The R peaks at 5700 and redlines at 6500. the lightning peaks at only 4750, redlines at 5250. Yep it's quite amazing how much difference you can get in 2 engines, based on the same block. Can you tell I use to be a huge ford guy, before my 240SX got me hooked on Nissan? woo hoo Nissan Forever!!! the lightning might stomp my car in a drag race, but I'd smoke it thru the curves, and use half as much gas to do it!