Nissan Forum banner

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
:) This is for all those who say the spec v and qr25 don't have it.
I was on my way home from my girls house on the 394 when a silver wrx came up behind me doing 85 or so. I down shifted gears and puuled up along side him, looked at him, I slammed it into 4th, he down shifted and hit, by the time I ran out 4th, around 100, I was car and a half lenght in front of him. From that time until I exitedd the interstate he stayed behind me in shame, poor little wrx, I wish him better luck next time, but he will need more than luck
 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Hmm... might have been an automatic or maybe the guy wasn't trying very hard. WRXs run solid mid 14s at 94-95 MPH stock. That's more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass, and all they have to do is a couple bolt on mods and they run 13s.

I'd say you were the lucky one this time.
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Zak91SE-R said:
Hmm... might have been an automatic or maybe the guy wasn't trying very hard. WRXs run solid mid 14s at 94-95 MPH stock. That's more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass, and all they have to do is a couple bolt on mods and they run 13s.

I'd say you were the lucky one this time.
Don't forget that this race wasn't from a stop. AWD loses its advantage. Bigger engines tend to win the highway races but I'm not sure how big of a factor is with a turbo 2.0 vs a 2.5.

I personally will NOT race a WRX on the streets until I get some boost of my own. But to act like a noob and post this quater mile ETA is BS especially when they're rolling on the highway going 60+ already. IMO
 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Trap speed says it all. Spec Vs trap at 89-90 MPH, WRXs trap at 94-95. Trap speeds are fairly traction-independant numbers, so the WRX haviing AWD is kind of irrelevant when talking about trap speeds.

So yes, even from a roll a WRX will waste a Spec V, stock to stock, unless something is wrong with the WRX or it's an automatic or something. The auto tranny in the WRX is really bad.

Oh, and my Sentra is living proof that bigger displacement engines do not tend to win against smaller displacement turbo cars... at least in my case.
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
That why I'd never race a WRX myself. Its bad enough that he has the traction advantage, but him having a pretty fast spooling turbo running 12+ psi stock is just not a fair comparison.

With that 6 grand that I saved from buying a Spec V over a WRX, I think I can use that money elsewhere or put it in the motor so you have a scubie kicking V.
 

·
Paging Mr. Herman
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
AWD will smoke you when racing from a stop but it is a whole different story if you are already rolling. The WRX has a serious loss of hp from the engine to the wheels (227 engine to 167 wheels) plus its tiny turbo is fully spooled at 4000 rpms. The lesson here is if you can somehow overcome the AWD from the start, you can easily smoke a WRX.

 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
No you can't. Like I said, trap speed tells the tale. If it's so easy to beat a WRX, how come nobody's able to pull 94-95 MPH trap speeds in their Spec Vs? Trap speed is an indication of power (or power-weight ratio), not traction. If somebody traps 5 MPH higher than you do, it's a safe bet that they will beat you from a roll. This is the case with the WRX and the Spec V as well.

For comparison, the V6 Altima traps around 94-95 MPH too - any of you guys think you can beat one of them? Trap speed says it all.
 

·
in^3,N20,RPM,PSI
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
zeno said:
AWD will smoke you when racing from a stop but it is a whole different story if you are already rolling. The WRX has a serious loss of hp from the engine to the wheels (227 engine to 167 wheels) plus its tiny turbo is fully spooled at 4000 rpms. The lesson here is if you can somehow overcome the AWD from the start, you can easily smoke a WRX.

no you can't
 

·
Nissan Fetish
Joined
·
150 Posts
Are you sure it was a WRX?

Are you sure it was a WRX? I mean did you just assume becuase it looked like one you thought it was? or was it a 2.5 RS? Just curious i mean sometimes I assume an integra is a gsr when they have gsr rims becuase with the rims they look like gsr's. Your not me, but it happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I am sure it was a WRX, I just left out some of my mods to my spec V
HS CIA, HS headers, grounded knock sensor, and NX 50 shot
The look on his face was priceless, he never he would be looking at my tail lights
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
FarmboySE-R said:
With that 6 grand that I saved from buying a Spec V over a WRX, I think I can use that money elsewhere or put it in the motor so you have a scubie kicking V.
I always hear people saying that (reguardless what car they are talking about). Bottom line you probably didn't have the extra 6K, and that is why you are driving a sentra and a N/A at that.

It's like me saying with the 100K+ I saved by buying my Sentra instead of a Porsche GT2 I can make my car faster then the porsche. It's sounds stupid, and everyone know I don't have the money to buy a porsche. Otherwise I would be driving a faster car (although I do love my sentra).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
MNspecV11 said:
I am sure it was a WRX, I just left out some of my mods to my spec V
HS CIA, HS headers, grounded knock sensor, and NX 50 shot
The look on his face was priceless, he never he would be looking at my tail lights
Did you use that 50 shot in the "Race"?
 
2

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
chart

look at the dyno chart...... awd is gear restricted at a certian mph wich we dont know.. who knows they could have hit that..... also when you talke about trap speeds or quarter mile et's traction is a huuuuuuge issue look at dsm cars gst vs gsx same power gsx has quicker trap speeds as well as a faster quarter mile et...
 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Traction is only a huge issue with ETs, not trap speed. It makes a small difference in trap speed but not enough. You can run a 15.0 @ 92 on street tires and then run a 14.6 @ 92 on slicks. Trap speed is an indication of power, not traction.

And I'll say it again, a WRX trapping in the 94-95 MPH range is more than enough to hand a Spec V its ass FROM A ROLL, not just from a stop.

If any of you would like to test this theory, get a big old pair of slicks for your Spec V and take it to the drag strip. Your ETs will go down but you won't trap at 95 MPH. Slicks don't make your car faster, they simply allow it to cross the line quicker. Once you're out of the hole the race is all about power, and the WRX has a better power to weight ratio than the Spec V does. To prove my point:

WRX: 3085 lbs, 227 HP
Spec V: 2708 lbs., 175 HP

Pounds Per Horsepower (lower number = faster)
WRX: 13.6
Spec V: 15.5

And obviously the trap speeds the WRXs and the Spec Vs are getting bears those numbers out. The WRX is faster guys, and not just from a stop either. If you beat a WRX in a Spec V, then you were either lucky or fairly heavily modded. Or the WRX driver just wasn't trying very hard.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Ok, let's get the record straight on this one. Acceleration numbers are a result of torque, not horsepower. Horsepower is a figure of sustained power, or what it takes for your car to maintain the speed that the torque got it to. That being said, let's reenter the numbers:
WRX- 217lb/ft @4000rpm
SpecV- 180lb/[email protected]

3085 lbs divided by 217lb/ft = 14.2 lbs per lb/ft of torque
2548 lbs divided by 180lb/ft = 14.1 lbs per lb/ft of torque

The specV actually weighs 2548 lbs, not 2708.
In the end, this means that in power numbers, the SpecV has the advantage by about 90 lbs overall. The actual final numbers on the torque to weight breakdown leave about .05 lbs per foot (14.21 versus 14.16). Again, that leaves them pretty evenly matched, with the specV taking the slight advantage.

Finally, we must consider torque curve. We must assume that at interstate speeds like the ones described here, both vehicles were roughly between 3000 and 4000 rpm. If you have ever seen dynoed torque curves for the two cars in question, you know that the specV has a marvellously flat one, meaning that it makes rather consistent power in this range and below it. The WRX, on the other hand, is a peaky motor, and so in this range, is still climbing dramatically as it comes on boost. As an experiment, run your SpecV against the Sooby up a hill at lower speeds and see what happens. The V has it every time.

The trap speeds, by the way, are rather misleading. Understand first that the WRX reaches 60 mph much faster, leaving it only looking for 34 or 35 mph for the last 8 or 9 seconds of the run. That, my friends, has everything to do with grip. The X launches a whole lot harder, so it has less work to do rowing the gears. It's a good thing, too, because it lacks the potential to do the work in second and third that the Nissan has.

Sorry for ranting. I just had to say it.
 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
The specV actually weighs 2548 lbs, not 2708.
Not according to Nissan, which is where I got 2708 from. If you want to argue with them about it, be my guest. :D

Furthermore, torque alone will not win races. If it did, then why don't we see more 200 HP/550 lb-ft turbo diesel trucks running low 13s? It doesn't work that way. I mean using your logic, turbo diesel trucks should be the fastest vehicles you can buy. I mean do you really think that if a car had 150 HP and 1000 lb-ft of torque it would be ridiculously fast?

As an experiment, run your SpecV against the Sooby up a hill at lower speeds and see what happens. The V has it every time.
No it doesn't. Unless you're assuming the WRX driver is leaving it in 5th gear to go up a hill at low speed or something... is there any reason why the WRX shouldn't be at its torque or power peak at low speed given the freedom to choose what gear you're in? No, of course not. the WRX makes more power and it's faster. Period.

because it lacks the potential to do the work in second and third that the Nissan has.
All right, that's just flat out stupid. Sorry.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
If you knew how power worked, this wouldn't be a conversation. If horsepower meant speed, we would actually be afraid of Hondas. Wouldn't that be a nightmare? The fact that horsepower numbers mean nothing to acceleration numbers is evident to anyone with knowledge of engineering. Do you know why semis are not the fastest vehicles on the road? Because of the weight and the fact that they are geared lower to haul that weight. If you dropped those engines (most of which are turbo diesels) into a lightweight vehicle (assuming you could actually balance the weight of the engine on any other frame) with gearing that made sense to acceleration, it would be beyond ridiculously fast.
The weight I quoted was that of many curb weight figures taken by reliable sources testing the vehicles. It's fine that Nissan says it weighs more, but if that's not the weight for it including all the options, I don't know what happened, because real world scale figures say otherwise. If you choose to hold as more reliable a brochure that specifically says it may be wrong in the print, then be my guest.
And, if you have never raced a more powerful vehicle in a well-laid out second gear and pulled on him, then you are either not driving a Nissan (they are notorious for having some of the best response in the middle gears) or you are not driving it right.
And the statement about the hill was assuming equal circumstances for both vehicles, that is, if your WRX was in 2nd, in the Sentra in @nd as well, and pulling up the hill at essentially the same work load, the V would have the slight advantage.
These statements are based on basic laws of engineering and physics. Who am I to question them?
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
cburwell said:
I always hear people saying that (reguardless what car they are talking about). Bottom line you probably didn't have the extra 6K, and that is why you are driving a sentra and a N/A at that.

It's like me saying with the 100K+ I saved by buying my Sentra instead of a Porsche GT2 I can make my car faster then the porsche. It's sounds stupid, and everyone know I don't have the money to buy a porsche. Otherwise I would be driving a faster car (although I do love my sentra).
Wrong buddy, I HAVE the money to buy a subbie, 2 things stopped me. Insurance, and look. That thing is plan ugly, and insurance is unusually high for this car. I chose the Spec V NOT because I can't afford the scubbie, but because I CHOSE to go the more rational route. Before you assume other people's financial problems, you ought to ask first.

Note: Spec V is on top of its class, EVO is going to eat those scubbies up. I'd take those EVO anyday.
 
Z

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
nowuzme said:
If you knew how power worked, this wouldn't be a conversation. If horsepower meant speed, we would actually be afraid of Hondas.
Riiiiight. So let's use actual examples, mmmkay? S2000: 153 lb-ft of torque, 240 HP, 1/4 mile in high 13s.

Sentra SE-R Spec V: 175 HP, 180 lb-ft of torque, 1/4 mile in the low-mid 15s.

Both cars have 6 speed manual transmissions, the Spec V weighs 2700 lbs and the S2000 weighs 2800 lbs, so it's a pretty good example.

Why isn't the Spec V faster? It's 100 lbs lighter and has 30 more lb-ft of torque. Why is the S2000 almost a full second faster in the 1/4 mile if torque is the only thing that matters?

Let's see if you can answer that one before we go any farther with this conversation.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top