bump glws
bump glws
/sig
All of this is pointless... Considering I have another gear.Originally Posted by David88vert
Not that long at all? Considering I have done it, I would say from 80mph it took me maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of a mile.
And the car is an 81 2+2, besides an 82-83 turbo that came with the B&W T5 my car has the best drive train for any L powered car.
Can you not read?
You have a 5 spd. I was quoting 5 spd transmission ratios. You do not have a 6th gear.
Let me make this simple.
You have an 81 2+2, then your rear end is a 3.9 stock, which is the best you could have for acceleration, but hurts your top end.
The T-5 only came in the turbos, the non-turbo were not T-5.
If you have the stock transmission, your gears are:
1 3.062
2 1.858
3 1.308
4 1.000
5 0.745
If you changed the transmission to a T-5 out of the turbo, your gears would be:
1 3.500
2 2.144
3 1.375
4 1.000
5 0.780
Either way, you have the same ratio for 4th, and 5th is a minute difference. Your top speed is governed by your gear ratio. You can calculate what your car can and cannot do with this data, and at a given rpm. Your valves float above 6500rpm, correct? So we can calulate the maximum speed that you can do in each gear as well.
You are not doing 130 mph at 5K rpm even in 5th gear - physical max is 119.3 - and I'm giving you every benefit of the doubt. You physically do not have the gears to do it below 5500rpm. The only way to do it would to be put on taller tires, so that you change your gear ratio. For this, you would need to make more power also, as OD is a very weak gear and will not pull well. 1/2 mile is a long way to have to go to creep up 10 mph.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
So your whole argument is based around 4th gear...?
I have been in 5th gear and pulled to right at 130mph and held it for while, long enough for my friend to pull up next to me and verify I was doing 130, im pretty damn sure I was at 5k rpm too, not 6k.
http://zdriver.com/forums/showthread...ight=top+speed
aint 130 slow?
Mathematical facts > a thread full of biased car owners.
What part of "You are not doing 130 mph at 5K rpm even in 5th gear - physical max is 119.3" do you not understand? You claimed 130 at 5000 rpm - which is not physically a possibility. 5500 rpm is the minimum physical engine speed to reach 130 mph vehicle speed - and that is not calculating for road resistance, wind resistance, and coefficient of drag.
I am not saying that your car cannot do 130mph, just that it is not doing it at only 5K rpm, as you stated earlier.
Last edited by David88vert; 12-14-2010 at 01:50 PM.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Some more education for you - not your specific 280 though:
The calculated maximum acceleration speed vs. time for a 100hp U.S. passenger car - not your specific car. It includes air drag and tire rolling resistance, the two biggest power losses. The air drag force is proportional to velocity squared, while the tire rolling resistance force is a constant.
M=1500 Kg
Frontal area = 3 m2
Air density = 1.2 Kg/m3
Air drag coefficient Cp = 0.32
Tire rolling resistance coefficient = 0.01
Horsepower (traction at axle) = 100 HP, (watts = 74,600)
Net power (HP) = traction power – air drag power – tire rolling resistance power
The acceleration rate = net power /(M•v)
At 30 mph, air drag power = 1,388 watts, tire rolling resistance power = 1,972 watts, net HP = 71,240 watts (95.5 HP), acceleration = 3.54 m/s2, elapsed time = 1.94 s.
At 60 mph; air drag power = 11,107 watts, tire rolling resistance power = 3,946 watts , net HP = 59550 watts (79.8 HP), acceleration = 1.48 m/s2, elapsed time = 8.10 s.
At 90 mph; air drag power = 37,490 watts, tire rolling resistance power = 5,920 watts, net HP (watts) = 31,190 watts (41.8 HP), acceleration = 0.52 m/s2, elapsed time = 23.20 s.
Note that at 90 mph, over half the traction HP is being lost in air drag and tire rolling resistance.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Gotta judge cars in context. There's something enjoyable about driving a vintage car. Theyre obviously not gonna perform up today's standards in most cases, but that isnt what its about.
Id much rather drive something that was in style 30 years ago.
Than something that was never in style.
Your link failed. Looks like it is for an RX2 though. I am an old school rotary guy myself.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
dammit... anyways, heres another one.
Fucking hot.dammit... anyways, heres another one.
If you're saying that looks better than a Neon, no SHIT, lol Neons are ugly as fuck nobody ever said they look good.
280z on its best day looks 100x better than a neon on its best day.
ole buddy at ISD had a blue one like this and that bitch was badass.dammit... anyways, heres another one.
Just sayin, youre rippin a guy for basically being in the same boat as you. You want to race, so you got a "race car" in your budget. He wants a vintage car, so he got on in his budget. Theyre both executed to same extent. You have a beater race car, he has a beater vintage car. You cant judge a quarterback by his on base percentage.
You're right, a 280Z does, a 280ZX is ugly though. Big difference.280z on its best day looks 100x better than a neon on its best day.
I'm "rippin" a guy for entirely attacking people on the internet he knows nothing about, I didn't even begin bashing his car until later, maybe you should read the thread. The only negative to my car is the body has dents from racing, it's far from a beater as results will show. Why are you even bringing this back up it hasn't been discussed in like 20 pages.
HE DOES NOT OWN A 280Z GOD DAMNIT. lol
280Z = HOT.
280ZX = No.
http://webspace.webring.com/people/cz/z_design_studio/
5 speed with R200
205/70/14 tire
Not possible eh?
id drive it.
Holy shit is it that important to prove your car can go to a lousy 130mph? My mother's Accord will do that and get there quicker than your car.
Well that's your OPINION, in my opinion that's one ugly car. Uglier than a Neon.id drive it.
ahem.... Neon dipped in gold looks like shit compared to this.
Why is it so difficult for you all to see I don't like the 280ZX? I PERSONALLY think a Neon looks better, is a Neon good looking? No, it looks like a clown car, find where I've EVER said it looks good. You can't change my mind by posting a bunch of shitty looking 280ZXs even ones obviously worth much more than my car. It doesn't matter to me!
Well when you grow up those allegorical calculations won't seem so difficult, probably once you get out of the 7th grade.
Z cars are historical. When your neon is 30 years old, it will be a stud in the wall of someone's storage building.
You're right, the Zs are historical, the ZX in my opinion holds no value. If I wanted a car to hold historical value or be worth something I would of kept my 914 or something. I didn't buy a Neon to be cool, to look cool, to show off, or to have in 30 years. The ACR already has more historical value than a 280ZX. Until you grasp what I'm saying about anything, just leave.
Neon's legacy will be that it was one of the shit cars that ultimately led to Chrysler going out of business.
LOL....Right.
That's why the Neon probably kept Chrysler afloat? Do some research, then get back. I'm not saying the Neon is a special car or anything great, but that's like saying the Civic killed Honda. The ACR and Chrysler backed series also really helped the company out with advertising. Do you not remember how large the advertising campaign was for the Neon?
If you don't know about it, then why even argue?
The first generation Neon earned a "Poor" rating in an offset frontal Crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. This was the same rating as the Chevrolet Cavalier, Mitsubishi Mirage, and the larger Ford Contour, but lower than some cars introduced after 1995. The second generation Neon earned a higher "Marginal" rating. The second generation were rated as "Poor" in the side impact crash test[5] (IIHS Safety ratings go from "Poor", to "Marginal", "Acceptable" and "Good"). Only the Chevrolet Cavalier performed worse in the small car category in 2005, the Neon's final year.[6] Other cars made from 2000 to 2005 which were rated "Poor" when tested without optional side airbags included the Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Prius, Mitsubishi Lancer, and Chevrolet Cobalt. No small car made in this period, tested without side airbags, achieved better than a "Poor."[7]
In 2005, the Institute carried out side impact tests on 14 small car models, simulating an impact with an SUV. Among these, the Neon performed the worst. IIHS stated that the Neon had “...major problems beginning with its structure. This car is a disaster...The structure is poor...If this had been a real driver in a real crash, it’s likely it wouldn’t have been survivable...if safety is a priority, the Neon is a small car to be avoided.”[8]
Second generation headrests were rated as "Poor".[9]
Driver deaths fatality risks statistics — published by the IIHS — rated the Neon and 15 other vehicles among the "Highest rates of driver deaths.", The Neon had 161 driver deaths per million registered vehicle deaths, while the average for the Neon class (4-door small) was 103. Other small cars on the list included the Acura RSX (202), Kia Spectra hatchback (191), Pontiac Sunfire (179), Mitsubishi Eclipse (169), and the Chevrolet Cavalier 4dr (150).[10]
Dodge and Plymouth Neons are everywhere on used car lots, and usually offered for a low price. However, despite the "bargain" that they seem to be, potential buyers beware! The 1996 Neon is nothing short of a
nightmare on wheels.
What is that certain indefinable something that makes a car desirable? Is it a cool, stylish body design? An interior that looks respectable and professional? Maybe a powerful, beastly engine? Whatever that something is, one thing is for sure, the Plymouth Neon doesn't have it. A "Plymouth" Neon, you may ask? Of course, during the run of the traditional neon, it was manufactured by Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler, all roughly producing the same car, the only difference being in what manufacturer took credit in producing the thing.
Of course, despite the warnings that may have come from concerned friends and family, the Neon certainly does look like a formidable choice on the used car lot. The usually appear shiny, compact, a little sporty, an interior with a little flair, and a very good price tag. However, no matter how attractive or how good of a deal the Neon may seem, it is a horrible choice, and much better cars can be found with only a little more money. What exactly makes the Neon so horrible? The list is a long one.
Perhaps the best place to start though, is the outside. The Plymouth Neon seems to be one of the only cars ever made that paint refuses to stay on. A quick look at almost any Neon on the road will reveal numerous places where the paint has simply flaked off, leaving an ugly, untreated metal rust behind. Couple that with the fact that car's body design is something like a poorly grown banana, and that the tiny, tiny headlights will fog over in a matter of days, even after replacing the entire assembly, and you have a car that is simply unforgiving and unattractive when it comes to exterior care.
http://www.samaroc.com/youtube/chrys...mnm8OJwuU.html
Let me summarize all this for you. Neon was one of the poorest cars tested year in and year out. Even called "worst car in the world" by topgear.
I stand corrected...... Neon's legacy will be its streak of making car and driver's 10 worst.
Things you can do in a 280zx.
Drag race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVgoWanENc
Drift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQlWwEYC6c
Road race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuNiKQUM0Sw
Hell you can even hang out with the hellaflush morons.
In a neon you can.... Ummm... Eventually upgrade to a better car?
None of that proves anything except as said they're unsafe and shitty typical plastic American economy cars. I also see nothing about the ACR, which was highly praised and still is by most performance magazines.
If you really want to bring out what Top Gear bashes then add almost every Porsche and Ferrari to that list except for the high up models. lol
That's autocross dip shit not road racing.Things you can do in a 280zx.
Drag race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVgoWanENc
Drift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQlWwEYC6c
Road race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuNiKQUM0Sw
Hell you can even hang out with the hellaflush morons.
In a neon you can.... Ummm... Eventually upgrade to a better car?
Things you can do in a Neon ACR: road race and win in your class while spending next to nothing. Sounds pretty sweet to me.
When do you ever see a 280ZX even on a road course? Never. Why? They don't do shit.
It's a pretty common and widely accepted opinion that a Neon is a piece of shit.
Well then I guess you don't read much.
The Neon is a piece of shit, yes, it's plastic, cheap, ugly, cheap interior, etc.
The actual car however is good. It's a decent chassis, engines are good, ACR suspension is fantastic stock, etc.
So depending on your opinion what shit is I guess we agree. Like I said though, research, then talk shit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
