Nissan 240SX Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Cheapist, fastest car in the U.S.

Jump to Latest
Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
#102 ·
InsanityInc said:
Right, so they upped the displacement for kicks and giggles? Fraid not.
Click to expand...
HMMM So the SRT and S2000 weigh within a 100 lbs of each other. The SRT makes 10 more WHP and 100 more lb-ft. How much did the S2000 cost again? Oh and throw $1000 in mods to the S2000 and pick up what an extra 10-15 WHP. Throw $50 and make 30 more WHP and 50 more lb-ft.
 
Save
Like Like
#103 ·
InsanityInc said:
Does racing against one at a drag strip count? It was an 02, I think. Had an exhaust and ran 14.541. I'd say it's a reasonable guess that totally stock ones run 14.7-15.0 or so.
Click to expand...
hey Einstein..the first year for the SRT was 2003. :smacked49
 
#104 ·
slow4dr said:
HMMM So the SRT and S2000 weigh within a 100 lbs of each other. The SRT makes 10 more WHP and 100 more lb-ft. How much did the S2000 cost again? Oh and throw $1000 in mods to the S2000 and pick up what an extra 10-15 WHP. Throw $50 and make 30 more WHP and 50 more lb-ft.
Click to expand...
Eh? I wasn't comparing the s2000 for price/performance, I was comparing it by saying here's a car that should be faster, that you're saying runs slower times : BS. The s2000 is ridiculously overpriced, considering it has performance on par with the 350. Also, the SRT doesn't have 10 more HP, it has 10 less bhp, and roughly equal whp.
 
#105 ·
InsanityInc said:
Oh, and also, 221 FWHP is pretty damn close to translating into 230bhp, not sure why you're trying to use that as a counter-argument for the 230 horsepower figure.
Click to expand...
Actually, 260BHP with a 15% reduction would = to 221WHP
With a 12% reduction would still be 250BHP.
 
Save
Like Like
#107 ·
InsanityInc said:
Eh? I wasn't comparing the s2000 for price/performance, I was comparing it by saying here's a car that should be faster, that you're saying runs slower times : BS. The s2000 is ridiculously overpriced, considering it has performance on par with the 350. Also, the SRT doesn't have 10 more HP, it has 10 less bhp, and roughly equal whp.
Click to expand...

What dream world are you living in? The 04 SRT4 will put down 230+ WHP.
 
Save
Like Like
#108 ·
InsanityInc said:
Wow, because that really matters. Sorry I don't keep track of the production years for every car on the planet.
Click to expand...
You're the one quoating all the numbers..just thought you would want to get it straight but being almost right some of the time is good enough for you. :1bowdown
 
#109 ·
slow4dr said:
Actually, 260BHP with a 15% reduction would = to 221WHP
With a 12% reduction would still be 250BHP.
Click to expand...
Too bad any % figure to try and estimate bhp from whp or vise-versa is going to be wrong. I actually addressed this in another thread recently. If my engine is turning 70 pounds of material before it moves the car, that 70 lbs of material always takes the same amount of force to move (lets say 10 ft/lbs, I have no idea what it actually is), so if you make 700 ft lbs, you have a 1.5% drivetrain loss(for torque), yet if you make 100, you have a 10% torque loss. The horsepower loss becomes even more sketchy, because you technically don't lose any horsepower, horsepower is just a number representing torque over time, so something like an s2000 is going to exhibit more horsepower loss from the drivetrain than something peaking at 4000 rpms, but the torque loss will be the same (assuming the driveline weighs the same amount).
 
#110 ·
slow4dr said:
What dream world are you living in? The 04 SRT4 will put down 230+ WHP.
Click to expand...

Considering you quoted your own as putting down 221 whp stock, I guess I'm living in yours.

You're the one quoating all the numbers..just thought you would want to get it straight but being almost right some of the time is good enough for you.
Click to expand...
My point is that the production year starting in 03 has absolutely dick to do with the performance of the car, so it's completely irrelevant.
 
#111 ·
InsanityInc said:
Too bad any % figure to try and estimate bhp from whp or vise-versa is going to be wrong. I actually addressed this in another thread recently. If my engine is turning 70 pounds of material before it moves the car, that 70 lbs of material always takes the same amount of power to move (lets say 10 ft/lbs, I have no idea what it actually is), so if you make 700 ft lbs, you have a 1.5% drivetrain loss(for torque), yet if you make 100, you have a 10% torque loss. The horsepower loss becomes even more sketchy, because you technically don't lose any horsepower, horsepower is just a number representing torque over time, so something like an s2000 is going to exhibit more horsepower loss from the drivetrain than something peaking at 4000 rpms, but the torque loss will be the same (assuming the driveline weighs the same amount).
Click to expand...
All I read was blah blah blah. So where did all the S2000's torque go? Out the heavy wheels?
 
Save
Like Like
#114 ·
InsanityInc said:
Considering you quoted your own as putting down 221 whp stock, I guess I'm living in yours..
Click to expand...
Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. My car is an 03 which has less WHP than the 04's. The 04's have a different ECU, bigger injectors as well as an LSD.
 
Save
Like Like
101 - 116 of 116 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
115 Replies
23 Participants
Last post:
esco
Nissan 240SX Forums
posts
1.6M
members
94K
Since
2002
A forum community dedicated to Nissan 240SX owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, engine swaps, turbos, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
S13 240SX (89-94) New Member Introductions General Tech S14 240SX (95-98) KA24DE & KA24E