Discussion in '1990 Nissan 300ZX Twin Turbo' started by SRRAE, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. I could not make it past page 2.

    1) The Mustang has always been one of the best bang for buck sports cars out there. They can handle. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a domestic hater. When they get a new chasis in 05, watch out, it will be amazing.

    2) The 300ZX vs the 96 Cobra is a decent contest, I will be on the 300ZX personaly, but its a close race anyway you cut it. No Stock 300ZX or any stock Z car for that matter can take the 03 Cobra. It handles well, it's got about 425 at the crank, never mind what Ford claims, and it puts it down effectively even with IRS. But there is no 03 300Z, so its not really a fair comparo.

    Those of you who judge cars based on what your freinds tell you and where the machine is from are fools.
  2. #52 Harada, Dec 19, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    How do you feel the Cobra would fair aginst a Vette pending on how you answer that question will answer this thread. Well here is an old mag article where Car and Driver Pitt the TTZ aginst the "KING OF THE ROAD" Z51 FX C4 vette. Who do you think won read it in AWE
  3. I'll make your day, you used to claim you had a 300ZX TT and tried to make fun of the corvettes, then Seansvette nailed your ass and used math to prove your car couldn't be making the claimed numbers, then I went back to the corvette forums and posted the bs numbers you put down under another name.

    I see a lot of bs going on in here, '90/'02 cobra? Couldn't of been that hard to beat seeing how they don't exist and all.

    Cobra R is not supercharged.

    I don't know where anyone found an '03 Cobra costing $55k.
  4. He was banned.
  5. Damn it, I really wanted to bust him wide open on this one.
  6. BTW: you cannot PROVE anything with math. the 5252 equasion does not always give an accurate HP to torque ratio. I take it that's the math you are talking about? If so there are far too many variables that come into play when testing power on a modded turbo car. You can gain 5-10 HP and lose 10-20 FT/LBS by tweaking A/F ratio or fuel dilivery. Also race gas enables you to run higher HP without changing torque hardly at all. Never jump to conclusions when you don't know much about tuning a turbo car.
  7. That wasn't me that used math, it was seansvette. And we hardly needed math to prove anything when he gives out different numbers. BTW - his numbers were off, way off. Like 70 ft/lbs off.
  8. why the #$%# is everybody bringing up the 03 Cobra and comparing it to this? if u stay in the same year...the 300ZX would whoop it. Especially in 93, the Cobra was pathetic, not getting under 6 seconds 0-60, and having like 15 quater mile. Besides, the Z is faster than said on here, and it looks way better. Id even take one of these, in good condition and everything, over a new cobra. but thats just me. Later
  9. 03 Cobras numbers are overstated. My friend who drives a stock TT Z only lost by half a car length from 40-90.
  10. I believe it was 26 HP off. I know because it's my car. I switched to bigger aquamist injectors to relieve detonation at high RPM's I lost some low end torque. After spending a whole day and $300 on a dyno I settled for more HP and less torque.
  11. Are you saying that you were FasterThenThou/Creamofthecrop?
  12. affirmitive. Kinda liek you just said you were a moron in not so many words.
  13. Hey, I'm not the one that lies about the capabilities of my car here.
  14. That was one worthless post if I've ever seen one. How much do you know about dyno correction numbers at high altitude? There was a guy who ran 360RWHP on nothing more than a beefed up JSPEC engine, exhaust and intake. Is that possible? not likely, but the correction numbers rarely lie.
  15. Really, why didn't you mention that before when Seansvette owned your ass? Because you figured a better way to cover your ass if someone called bullshit?

    Most retarded post would be the one you made right before this. You tried to jab in an insult and for some reason tried to compare me asking if you were someone you absolutely didn't act like you were to be being a moron? Nice job there Ace...
  16. Hey look, another worthless post. This one doesn't even make sense.
  17. Really, well I'm sorry I can't draw a picture, maybe you should learn to read.

    Whats going on in your head, you think that telling me my posts are worthless hurts my feelings and might make me go away? Think it gives you some kind of edge in an argument, please explain.
  18. Your stupidity gives me an edge in an argument. No need to explain, it's as simple as that.
  19. Really, why don't you go back to the Jap car forum and get owned some more? I'd like to see you explain why torque is over rated.

    And could you explain where this stupidity is shown? You seem to be skipping around the fact that you're a liar.
  20. Oh yeah, and I thought you were big on manners and respect?
  21. respect it given after it is shown.

    For a glance at my thoughts of torque.......

    Take a look at the S2K and lets compare it to the new mustang GT. The mustang has more HP and more torque. It is heavier by 400LBS over the S2K. The S2K has 20 less HP and even less torque, yet it is faster. So tell me how? it is lighter but also has less HP and much less torque. Is torque important to the S2K?
  22. Thats not right, respect should be mutual. If everyone waited to see respect before it is given then no one would ever see respect.

    The only reason the stang is slower is because of wheelspin, if both were equipt with slicks the mustang would win hands down. Torque pretty much means that you can ignore most track conditions. The more torque the less wind plays in your time. I'd like to see a test between the two with a 50 MPH headwind.

    If the s2000 had torque you wouldn't have to abuse the car to get a good launch. The S2000's near 9000 RPM drop vs. the Mustangs 2000 RPM drop.

    Whats the fastest the S2000 has run anyway? I know a GT that ran a 13.71.
  23. Wheelspin on a car is either a design flaw or a equipment/driver flaw. Not all races are won off the line, But I guess if your car redlines at 5500 you need all the help you can get. Comparing cars with slicks is lame and meaningless. They do not come stock with drag slicks thus comparing them with slicks is a futile attempt to sound smart. Torque means nothing when it comes to wind speed. The ability to move your car through the air as smooth as possible comes from drag coefficient. If a car shaped like a brick has a lot of torque it will still not move through the air as well as a less torquey car with a low drag coefficient. The S200 was designed to be a high reving track car. road race track, not drag strip. So comparing clutch drop RPM's is meaningless as well. Keep in mind the S2000 has 240HP and 153 pound feet of torque. comapred to the mustangs 260HP and 300 pound feet.
    I have seen a mustang GT run a 15.1 so what's your point? We use published sources here.

    according to a september 2001 C&d issue the mustang ran a 0-60 of 6.0 and a quarter mile time of 14.7.
    In a november 2001 issue they managed to pull a 5.6 second 0-60 times and a 14.6 second quarter mile. "with a fully broken in car" In the S2000.

    So there you go. I can give you numerous reasons why the honda is able to out accelerate the mustang even though is has less HP and half the torque. If you would like me to elaborate please feel free to PM me as this is a 300zx forum. Please keep the mustang talk to a min. in here.

    BTW: the mustang cobra (pre 2003) gets spanked by a TT 300zx. That's a fact. Even with it's wimply 283 pound feet of torque, 7000 RPM redline and 300HP twin turbocharged engine which pulls 5 flat 0-60 with a quarter mile time of 13.8
  24. #74 Will938, Jan 14, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    You said torque was overrated, if you can slap on a pair of ET streets and drop your times a half second then I don't see why. Usually when you go to the track you take every advantage you can get, and if you can take advantage of your torque to beat other cars then it can't be that overrated. Just because it won't do much for the S2000 is proof of why its nice to have torque. Just because not every driver knows how to feather the throttle very well doesn't mean its a bad thing.

    How about this, Impala SS vs. Merc. Maurader. Respectively 260 HP & 330 torque vs. 300 HP & I think 300 torque. Near equal cars in weight/aero and the merc. has better gears yet the SS beats it in the 1/4.

    BTW - Heres the link to the stock GT that ran a 13.7 driven by the mustang guru himself, same guy that pulled a 12.7 in a stock Z28.

    I'm PM from now on.
  25. MM&FF has always had off numbers because they have very good professional drivers. Just like some people think the supra can run 0-60 in 4.6 seconds according to Toyota and their professional drivers. C&D is the only true to life source. According to them it's 14.7 that's what Time I'm taking into consideration.

Share This Page