Ok, so has anyone seen the new SCC? The new Skyline GT-R will have either an NA V8 or a TT V6 (sooo gay, they need to keep the straight 6) and it'll be 4 wheel drive (which is good, like the old ones) it'll be stuffed in a G35 coupe body with round tailights. Up to now, it's not a Skyline, but it's still not bad, but what comes next is mind-blowingly shockingly gay, IT'S ONLY AUTOMATIC!!!!!!! They'll have an M5 style 7 speed pussy-matic tranny! Oh and since it's not a Skyline anymore, it won't be called that, it'll be the Infiniti GT-R....so lame...well maybe not, at least they don't ruin the Skyline name with this shitbox.

Which brings me to the part about the 240SX, does this mean the new 240SX will be nothing like the one we know and love now? Maybe they'll ruin it to! FWD, narrow and tall and short, only automatic, foor doors? Rich people are ruining cars, they want alot of power with minimal effort! They are shitting on legends, I mean the next Supra will have a mid-mounted V10, WTF????? At least Mitsu has it right, the EVO IX is just an update of the VIII, which was pretty sweet.

Anyways, DOWN WITH AUTOMATIC AND BIG ENGINES!!!!!! lol

Whats wrong with an MR v10?

I'll take that over an FR I6.

next thing you know there going to be redlining at 5500 like 350 small block...what a crock of shit

man....

i would take an M5 style 7 speed SMG over a standard transm. any day.

i think you havent read enough about the crazy tech of these things man.

do yourself a favor and read about it! its fucking cool!

i think his point is a larger displacement for something that was badass as a v6...and switching it to a mr instead of fr...thats wrong...unless its tucked way back in the front...wich they call mr sometimes too...but whatever

actually the supra is supposed to have a brand new 4.5L V8 or 3.5 V6..
http://www.discountpartcenter.com/photos/12-19-03-01-Toyota-Supra.jpg
http://www.autothing.com/images/Fun%20Things/Spy%20Shots/SS-2006/SS-2006-Toyota-Supra-1.jpg
but for the 240sx i don't know where they're gonna go with that.. they should definitely keep the style, not turn to the 350 or g35 style, rwd, optional advanced hicas, and something new that will appeal to today's market. who knows, maybe even a 2.4L turbo would get people to say "wow i want that".. since so many companies are going turbo now..

d@mn that supra looks nice i have always wanted a supra, but im to poor

Actually, SCC had a picture of an actual Supra at the test track with the V10 engine, not just a drawing, and it'll be a hybrid car with batteries and some Prius inspired bullshit. Oh and to the guy who likes automatics, that's nice, can you even drive standard? There's no reason to put an automatc in any car instead of a stick.

automatics are for old people who should not even be driving! get a stick and drive they way cars were meant to be

automatics are for old people who should not even be driving! get a stick and drive they way cars were meant to be

DAMN' FINALLY SOMEONE I AGREE WITHH 100%!!! All automatic cars should be electric slow cars or minivans/SUVs, there's no reason to have anything else with an auto.

there's no reason to have anything else with an auto.

yes there is... women

well i agree it should come with manual std, but have an auto option....

Thumbs down to this ricy B/S

Why have an automatic on anything remotely sporty or on anything that hints of performance? It shoul dbe outlawed, should be a sin.

Look.... I love manual tranny over auto, but auto has advanced allot. Manual tranny requires good driving skills to allow the full potential of the car. i.e. launching ...etc. + 80% of car out there have autos.


Don’t get me wrong, I love manual, but the cars have to evolve based on demand of the consumer, not the enthusiast. The GT-R infinity will not appeal to all if it was not high tech and luxurious. Remember the G35 GT-R is no 25Gs car like the Subaru. It will be expensive, and the buyer will consider other cars like the M3 etc. SO Nissan wants to be competitive and hence make the car electronically innovative and futuristic. Hence the drive-train, auto/treptronic combo.




Finally Times has changed; u can't expect everything to remain the same. (Stick is on its way out!)

Forgot To Say That I Love Manual Tranny!!!
Lol!

Stick is on it's way out because of stupid ass lazy rich people. Automatic cars are boring as fuck compared to standard. Fuck, this pisses me off because I'm only now entering the car world and stick is on it's way out, I wish I was 17 4-5 years ago!

orestes does have a point though. why do you think WRC cars dont use manual trannys anymore?

bro, its all about paddle shifters


i mean come on seriously i absolutely love paddle shifters
and yes i can drive a damn stick shift fool! i was just impressed with the M5, mostly by that F1 transmission and i think a 4WD car that will use that would be a cool car to drive. that is, if Nissan does decide to go that way.

why would you think i couldnt drive a stick?

No it won't be cool, skyline gt-r with automatic is just pure GAY!!! It's like putting a normal auto in the F1, it does not belong there. Automatics are for woman or old people.
Ohh and WRC and F1 have the most advanced tip-tonic tranies, they use them because at those speeds you need to concentrate and don't have time for anything else, plus you need to grip that steering wheel whith everything you have. If you race at speeds over 200mph then I understand you, if all you do is race for fun and just drive around you should not be permitted an automatic.

Why does everyone refer to race cars when it comes to automatics? THESE ARE STREET CARS!!!! 90% OF PEOPLE WHO BUY THEM WILL NEVER GO OVER THE SPEED LIMIT!!!! And it's not only the pussy-matic trannies, its all the electronic bullshit, people have no more control over the car anymore! There's like 12 different traction control things! WHY????

eeeeeeeasy now logik. we all understand your frustration but as long as women and old people are buying cars, there will be automatic. its a harsh reality we all have to deal with.

I don't mind automatic cars, what I hate is automatic performance/sports cars!!

true.. you know what i hate?? when its the winter. you know what i hate more?? when its -42°C outside with 2 feet of snow on the ground.

i've got a quick one for all you canadians..
whats long and hard on a canadian?

































the winter



HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

actually F1 uses the transmissions they do because thats what they have come up with after years of research and millions of dollars. its been proven...quicker shifts, more power to the wheels...those are all good things IMO...

and i would hope the skyline gt-r will turn out to be closer to a race car than just a lazy street car for cruising, but who knows. i know if i were to buy one i would drive the living shit out of it, stickshift or not.

and just to clarify, the M5 transmission, and what i would hope for in the skyline, is far far away from an automatic. i mean they have an auto mode (M5 actually has five auto modes), but it is not automatic transmission - they just dont have a clutch pedal. bottom line, the way the SMG shifts ends up doing it much better than a human can, and it is going to be faster, bottom line.

Dude, wake up! there's 2 kinds of trannies!! Tranny with clutch=manual Tranny without clutch=AUTOMATIC

And F1 cars have auto because they are more efficient, street cars have autos because their owners are to fucking lazy.

And yeah, winter sucks, I could start my car last night and I had to move it for the parking signs....thank god I got someone to boost me or I was getting a parking ticket.

Sequential Gearbox without a clutch is automatic?

Alright, buddy. Put it in sequential mode and not touch the shifter. See how fast you go. :rolleyes:

Chill out. Don't buy one.

Dude, soon, I won't have a choice, that's all there is going to be! And yes, anything with an automatic mode is, duh, automatic!

orestes does have a point though. why do you think WRC cars dont use manual trannys anymore?

Actually, it's a sequential manual transmission, like on a motorcycle. If you watch SPEED Channel, you will see that the drivers are still shifting like it's a manual tranny, but they only have to push the knob up or down.

Automatics are for woman or old people.




i dont get it with guys not all women are horrible drivers... haha at least i dont think i am

I dunno about him, but when I say "autos are for women" I mean soccer moms and men who can't drive stick.

wheres SR to come and regulate when hes needed?

No it won't be cool, skyline gt-r with automatic is just pure GAY!!! It's like putting a normal auto in the F1, it does not belong there. Automatics are for woman or old people.
Ohh and WRC and F1 have the most advanced tip-tonic tranies, they use them because at those speeds you need to concentrate and don't have time for anything else, plus you need to grip that steering wheel whith everything you have. If you race at speeds over 200mph then I understand you, if all you do is race for fun and just drive around you should not be permitted an automatic.


thats not true F1 uses that because it is faster, other open wheel racing sanctions still use regular clutch gearbox with shiftere.

Also anyway u cut it, a manual is not as fast as an automatic, seriously both from a stop all the advantages are in the automatics favor, and then factor in driver error. I can't wait to drive a 7 speed haha I drove a 5 speed jaguar 4.0... the tech on the extra gear is the overdrive band kicks in on the first gear making the ratio smaller slightly... point is 2nd gear pulls fucking strong and fast...

Word....

the skyline is a skyline. The infiniti g35 now is the exact same (except for obvious things like driver side and shit which is regulated by government) as the one in japan which is called a skyline. The engine we get over here is the best engine they get over there too. Go to nissan world headquarters man. Dont get your panties in a bunch my god. The next skyline will be the best skyline ever made trust me on that one. The designer of the skyline wont just all of the sudden make it a grocery getter, iv already read where he himself(some crazy japanese name that i dont remember or could spell) said that it will probably be the best model ever, and is supposed to run from porsche. Whats better for the car is better for the car, its a skyline there going to make it have all the best potential it could possibly have. So if this 7 speed "pussy matic" has the ability to be more efficient and faster on shifting i would take it. But i guess you wouldnt cuz well your not a pussy are you. Id take it and call me a pussy i dont care, i am what i eat, someday when you grow up you'll understand that comment. If its better its better, im sure a quicker shift would make you forget all about a stick. THink about it, the stick would in a way make you slower, which means you would be dissappointed and would then consider the faster so called "pussy matic".

Dude, of course it will be faster, handle better, all those things, all new cars are like that, look at the new M5, runs circles around the old one, but...I udnno, look it's hard to explain, it's just not the same, if you like it, good for you, but I don't.

Like J SPEC said a while back....
Fuck a v6

And now, Fuck a V10. And I don't care if a paddle-shift, playstation 2 controller, X Box live sequential shifter is faster, manual transmissions are more fun to drive. Rich people are ruining cars. The supra and the skyline deserve I6 engines just like they have always had.

yeah striaght sixes are way cooler than v6's. seriously... fuck a v6.

ok, wow, mad flaming of the auto, werd to those fellas. it is true that autos can be faster in a drag race, but forget it on a road course, and thats where real drivers accel.

secondly, the F1 transmissions aren't automatic, automatics have planetary gears and bands, f1 trannies are just solenoid operated manuals that shift in like .06 seconds.

next, all these new cars with "sport shift" and "slap stick" are automatic trannies that can be manually shifted, whoopdy frickin do.

thirdly, on the actual topic of this forum, the new 240sx (s16?) *was* slated to have 2 doors, and rear wheel drive. the engines were odd, however. recently, renault(owns nissan) said the engines were a vg20, vg23, and a vg23 sc. these are 2.0L v6, 2.3L v6, and a super-charged 2.3L v6, respectively. i hate blowers, they just kill the free reving. i dont like it very much, but who know what will actually come out. as good as they did wiht the new Z and G, i keep my hopes high for the rest of the line.

my $.02


oh yeah, and 1viadrift, good luck with the tt swap, i hear that is one of the hardest ones to do. why not just an rb?

cheers
cj

Finally some supporters!!!

lol logic.... i love manual. yeah as i said cars are not made for us, there made for the public.

Sequential > H-Pattern

If you're "road racing" and you miss a shift, you're fucked.

Who cares whats faster. H patterns are much more fun to drive and much less expensive.

Who cares whats faster. H patterns are much more fun to drive and much less expensive.

That's what I've been trying to say!!!

OK, V8 would stink. A twin-turbocharged V6 would be better IMO. I prefer smaller efficient engines to bigger less efficient engines assuming the same power output. Turbocharged cars generally have really nice torque curves (when done right with minimal lag). As soon at the turbo spools up, you should have a rather flat torque curve. A twin-turbo design is usually more efficient and less laggy. A flat-plane V8 wouldn't be too bad, I suppose. But I'm not sure if Nissan's V8s are flat-plane (like a Ferrari V8) or cross-plane (typical American V8). Flate-plane is a superior V8 design from a performance perspective.

I'll agree that that an inline 6 is superior to a V6 when just considering the engine. An I6 is naturally harmonically balanced; the only engine designs like that are an I6, V12, and a rotary. This reduces the weight of the internal components of the engine because balancer shafts are not required. V6s are not naturally harmonically balanced, but are still very well balanced. They require only one balancer shaft, and possibly none at all if the car is engineered so. The main problem from a V6 is that since their are two seperate banks of 3 cylinders, the valvetrains are also duplicated. This adds weight and robs power.

However, when you consider the entire car including the chassis, a V6 is better because it allows the engine to be placed in a better position for better balance for the whole car. And looking from a more practical perspective, a V6 or an I6 makes little difference if they both accelerate the car equally fast (which means equal power output), but it does make a difference if the V6 allows for noticably better handling because of better weight balancing.

And I'm not going to even go into detail about the superiority of a sequential gear box over a traditional stick shift. All I'll say is that a sequential gear box is a computer-controlled manual transmission, not an automatic. It uses clutchless (meaning no user controlled clutch) paddle shifting, which is easier to operate. True automatics weigh more and lose more power in the transmission.

A sequential gear box is superior in track racing because it allows for faster and easier shifting. Assuming that is what the new Skyline GT-R has (and idk why Nissan would put a real automatic std in a Skyline GT-R), then you have no reason to complain; Nissan is simply putting the best transmission from a performance perspective. A normal stick shift would be nice to reduce costs though, then the sequential gear box could be a performance option.

Edit: Wow; that was a big typo... I said I'd prefer a cross-plane V8, then went on to say flat-plane V8s were better performance-wise. Doh!

. The main problem from a V6 is that since their are two seperate banks of 3 cylinders, the camshafts and valves are also duplicated, making two seperate sets of valvetrains. This robs horsepower and adds weight.



how do you figure? in an I-6 the cams would be twice as long, still the same mass, you would still have the same amount of valves, rockers, springs, what have you valvetrain parts.... I would agree that the timing system is more complex

You can't put a big single turbo (well you can, but it's fucking hard) on a V6, it's easy on a I6. Manual means you do it yourself, automatic means it's done for you, in a standard tranny you do everything yourself, in any other tranny, it's done for you, by the computer, it's not manual, it's automatic.

how do you figure? in an I-6 the cams would be twice as long, still the same mass, you would still have the same amount of valves, rockers, springs, what have you valvetrain parts.... I would agree that the timing system is more complex

True. I guess I exaggerated the difference a little for emphasis... the mass of the valvetrain would not be much different because you have the same number of valves, rockers, and springs.

Edit pt. 1: And also, come to think of it, the part in italics is nearly a mute point...

However, despite being DOHC, a V6 actually has 4 cams. Think of the V6 as a whole unit, so it's 6 cylinders pushing 4 cams [assuming 4 valves per cylinder] operating 24 valves, where as an I6 is 6 cylinders pushing 2 cams operating 24 valves. That's why an I6 still ends up with a better valvetrain. However, that's all theory; the practical difference ends up being small if both engines output the same amount of power and weigh nearly the same.

Edit pt. 2: ...because the cams on the V6 would be shorter, because each cam operates 6 valves on a V6, on an I6, one cam operates 12 valves. It's 4x6 vs. 2x12, so having 4 cams on a V6 actaully means little. This leaves the only real advantages of the I6 in balancing and weight and less complexity of the valve train.

You can't put a big single turbo (well you can, but it's fucking hard) on a V6, it's easy on a I6.

A twin turbo setup is almost always more efficient than a single turbo setup, that's why the the top engine for the R32-R34 Skyline (like the ones from both Fast and the Furious movies) is a twin turbo I6.

Who cares whats faster. H patterns are much more fun to drive and much less expensive.

That's what I've been trying to say!!!

If you read what I said earlier, I mostly agree with you. "More fun" is a matter of pure opinion that can't be argued, but I already said that they would be cheaper...
A normal stick shift would be nice to reduce costs though, then the sequential gear box could be a performance option.

Manual means you do it yourself, automatic means it's done for you, in a standard tranny you do everything yourself, in any other tranny, it's done for you, by the computer, it's not manual, it's automatic.

About the transmissions, if your trying to say that a sequential gear box is not a manual transmission, I'm sorry, but your incorrect. Manual transmission means that the driver controls when the transmission shifts and what gear it shifts into. That makes a stick shift and a paddle-shift both a manual transmission.

Plus you don't seem to know that their is more difference between a manual transmission and an automatic than just if the driver has control over the shifting. A true manual transmission is lighter and transfers more power to the wheels because they transfer power from the engine more efficiently. I won't go into too much detail, but an automatic uses a different planetary-gear based system that weighs more and transfers power less efficiently from the engine because it uses a torque converter which uses hydraulic fluid. So the definition of a manual transmission and an automatic transmission is more than just how much control the driver has over gear shifting, they are fundamentally different designs.

Manual transmissions are, without a doubt, superior for performance, so I'll agree with you that an automatic Skyline GT-R would be horrible, but you shouldn't call a sequential gear box transmission an automatic; it's much more like a stick shift manual transmission then an automatic like most everyone's grandma drives.

Twins are not more efficient. They spool much faster than a single turbo. They are used on factory cars so you don't expirience much lag. Makes it feel more like a NA engine.lol Thats why a lot of your big-time supra and skyline tuners switch over to a single turbo. If I was rich, I would probably have a sequential shift car somewhere in my garage, but until then....

Pheonix Fire, I know about the trannies, how a manual puts down more power and how autos are smoother or whatnot, but thebottom line is, it's not a standard without the clutch, it might not be an automatic, but it's defenetely not a manual, it's in between, and you can't make 1000hp with a twin turbo setup on a 2JZ or RB26, but you can with a single turbo, that's why I brought it up, I know it's more efficient 2 have 2.

i like turbo lag then surge!!! feels great!

Her: when will go fast?
Me: wait............its not past 3500 yet...
Her: whatev OH SHIT!
Me: Oh yeah!
Car: VROOOOOOMMMM WHISSSHT

wait, wait, i dont think there is any way the auto is near as quick as manual on the luanch of a drag race. in the streets the luanch is the most important part of the race becuase once u hit the next light its done, like it or not

you don't know too much then....

automatics can have more launch consistency thereby allowing you to find the optimal launch technique for the fastest time.. if you have to manipulat the throttle and clutch pedal at the same time...no 2 launches will be the same, because you do not control when the power is put down to the ground in an auto, it is done for you.. you can change parts to get different launch rpm's; with the manual you can always mess up a launch if your feet do not work as planned.. hey it might seem easy to drive a manual on the street but do 100 drag races on the strip and you will see just how inconsistent it is... So at the very least the average times for an automatic will be higher...

Which brings me to the part about the 240SX, does this mean the new 240SX will be nothing like the one we know and love now? Maybe they'll ruin it to! FWD, narrow and tall and short, only automatic, foor doors?

Hold your horses there, buddy.

Nissan tales new look at 'pocket rocket' with Azeal

Nissan says the Azeal concept that will be at the Detroit auto show next month is a fresh look at the "pocket rocket" high-performance small car segment.

This sketch of the concept gives the impression that the Azeal could also be called the "Mini Z," with similarities in the roof line and fenders to Nissan's 350Z sports car.

The Azeal is the first concept created at the design studio in Nissan's technical center in Farmington Hills, Mich.

The automaker is searching for a successor to the Sentra that has more emotional appeal. The Sentra is scheduled to be redesigned for either the 2006 or 2007 model year.
http://www.autonews.com/images/random/122004/Azeal6873545430.jpg

We'll find out next month what this car is like. 'Til then, we'll just have to hope.

Ok, so has anyone seen the new SCC? The new Skyline GT-R will have either an NA V8 or a TT V6 (sooo gay, they need to keep the straight 6) and it'll be 4 wheel drive (which is good, like the old ones) it'll be stuffed in a G35 coupe body with round tailights. Up to now, it's not a Skyline

Have you seen the 'New GT-R' forum? You could have learned this stuff at least a month in advance. :lol: You'd also know that there is little to no chance of a V8 now, and how the wheelbase is more like that of the shorter Z than the G35 Coupe. In addition to using wider body panels, that's part of the reason the test mule(not the final production car) looks so funny.

The RB's been dead for over two years. Get over it already. The VQ can be stronger, will produce more torque, and be lighter, all while offering the lower emissions that the RB isn't capable of.

well said, you would think half the nissan followers think the rb is the only engine in the world capable of making over 600hp

the other half are smart

the rb was a cool engine, but its gone... its not the only engine you can make loads of power with. Id rather have a big block chevy 427 over a rb26dett.......also don't forget the vq35 only has .9 of a liter higher in displacement, that can make a big difference when talking modified engines.

and you can't make 1000hp with a twin turbo setup on a 2JZ or RB26, but you can with a single turbo

Actually you can make 1000hp on a twin turbo 2JZ-GTE....

http://turbomagazine.com/features/0112tur_supra02_zoom.jpg

When tuning is finished its said to have breached the 1000hp mark!! pretty awesome..

damn thats a nice engine bay

also don't forget the vq35 only has .9 of a liter higher in displacement, that can make a big difference when talking modified engines.

That higher displacement allows the VQ to make more torque, and/or make the same power as an RB while under less stress. Not only that, but the VQ can be expanded to larger displacements than the RB, as well. There are 3.8L, 4L(swap OEM parts with '05 Frontier/Pathfinder/XTerra), and 4.3L stroker kits for the VQ. The largest RB I've heard of is 'just' 3L.

Twins are not more efficient. They spool much faster than a single turbo. They are used on factory cars so you don't expirience much lag. Makes it feel more like a NA engine.lol Thats why a lot of your big-time supra and skyline tuners switch over to a single turbo. If I was rich, I would probably have a sequential shift car somewhere in my garage, but until then....

More turbo lag does not = more efficient. A turbo isn't more efficient just because it makes more power.

Although, yes, ultimately, most race cars end up with one large single turbo simply because it's not practical to keep the complexity and extra space required for a twin turbo setup of similar power (we're talking those huge 800+ HP cars). But it is possible; anything is with the right amount of $$$.

Pheonix Fire, I know about the trannies, how a manual puts down more power and how autos are smoother or whatnot, but thebottom line is, it's not a standard without the clutch, it might not be an automatic, but it's defenetely not a manual, it's in between, and you can't make 1000hp with a twin turbo setup on a 2JZ or RB26, but you can with a single turbo, that's why I brought it up, I know it's more efficient 2 have 2.

Ok, well then, we'll agree to disagree on matters of opinion. I prefer sequential, you still would rather be in control of the clutch. However, do bear in mind that a sequential gear box still has a clutch, but it's computer controlled; but I'm assuming you meant a human controlled clutch. As for the turbo set ups, just read my other post. Efficiency doesn't just = more peak horsepower.

I am fully aware that more lag doesn't equal more power. Ok heres the low down...


A twin setup will probably be a little more efficient on the low end, but the sinle is going to have a little more on the top.

The single will probably have lower boost down low.

The twins are going to be a little more tricky to maintain and install if you are installing or upgrading.

They really are not practical on small displacement or single cylinder bank engines with the wide array of turbochargers avaliable today.

If both turbos are at the same psi on the same engine and one makes less power, then yes the winner is more efficient. IF a turbo has low efficiency, that means its creating heat and less power in the process. And if it is less expensive to use a single, then why do twins in the first place?

Most average cars end up with singles because
it's not practical to keep the complexity and extra space required for a twin turbo setup of similar power

LAG IS SOOOOOO OVERRATED.

Look, they can put in a sequential paddle CVT-tronic whatever tranny in it, I don't care, but they should still have an option of a real manual! (Or manual standard and other trannies as options, whatever).

And anything is possible, so if someone says it's impossible, don't go and get the 1 time it's been done because it's a figure of speech, like saying to someone their gay, doesn't mean they like men, it's just a way of saying their stupid or whatever.

Wanna know why efficiency equals more power?

You take ideal change in temp T which is what kind of heat the turbo or supercharger would create if it were 100% efficient and divide it by the efficiency of the compressor.

Lets say T=150F
compressor1 efficiency=65%
compressor2 efficiency=70%

150/.65=230.77F
150/.70=214.29F

Engines don't really like hot air. You can have lots-o-fun with positive displacement chargers with thier 50% efficiency.

150/.50=300F wow

it's a figure of speech, like saying to someone their gay, doesn't mean they like men, it's just a way of saying their stupid or whatever.

I knew someone out there understood. Just like calling cars gay. I don't think they actually have a sexual preference, they are just gay. simple really?

The RB-series engine was an awesome engine... IMO, better than the VQ. The VQ is a better engine in many ways, especially emissions. But the RB was a raw performance engine... an inline 6, the best engine design (besides a V12) in theory... naturally harmonically balanced, requiring no balancing systems; an iron block and forged internals capable of handling well over 600HP (rumors say 1000HP, I can't find any hard facts though). The engines were the same as the engines used in Nissan's Japanese Group A racing cars. It's sad that the SR-series and the RB-series have left us... but truth is the RB design was getting old; although I doubt much redesiging could be done to it to make it a better performing engine... I blame it mostly on emissions regulations, the only thing these engines lacked in.

nissan u impress me sometime just cause whneever u get all tecky i dont understand it at all

http://www.upgrademotoring.com/jun_skyline.htm

There ya go. Its all I could find in 5 minutes.lol There are more out there. They need to design a new I-6 engine. Imagine what they could build with todays technology. Or imagine what they could mis-design. Scary...... Or they will foil and give it a V8. Face it. To the average douche bag thats out to buy a "fast" car, it isn't fast unless its a V-8.

And anything is possible, so if someone says it's impossible, don't go and get the 1 time it's been done because it's a figure of speech, like saying to someone their gay, doesn't mean they like men, it's just a way of saying their stupid or whatever.

i wasnt tryin to pick out that one time, it was kinda wierd i happened to have read the arcticle and then read your post...i just had to post the pic of the supra-7 though...PURE SEX!!!

You know, I agree that new cars are Gay. That is why I will probably never buy a new car. I just build the cars that I want. If I wanted a new Skyline with a RB26, then I would do like I saw in a magazine, a 350Z with an RB. The coolest thing about being in the car hobby is that there is truely no limit to what can be achieved. If we all wanted to just by a fast car new, we wouldnt be on this forum, we would be what I like to call "YUPPIE". My next car wont even be a production vehicle. I want to graduate to real car building and get a kit car. Then I dont have to worry about what engine, tranny, brakes, etc come with a car. I will have a car that is my own, 100% unique, well almost.

think about it though.....the s13 went to the s14. Im sure at the time many people thought the s14 was so gay compared to the sleek s13. Change happens for a reason. Yes i think the r34 looks way hotter and sexier than the new gt-r. But the car isnt out yet and hasn't been moded fully yet....so who the fuck knows what can be done. Quit jumping the gun and wait and see what happens.

I would have to disagree, some companies are looking at the older design of there cars to bring back older consumers who lived back in the day. Like take that new mustang, they used the design from the old one and mixed it with new technology along with sum ugly ass new age design they produced a piece of shyt. But the ideas still there. There for I think stick will only get more popular. But then again I could be wrong.( You would actually need something like popular concensus, or a poll) Woh what happened man I blacked out for a second.HAHAHAHHAHAHA :biggrin:

NEW cars design = GOOD
Old cars, old design = familiar hence good

look... the impreza wrx (old one) it look so bad when i saw it, till i got used to it.


i'm always an advocate of change and improvment, even it requires the built of a whole new consept. U can rebuilt and remodle thing for so long...TIME for a CHANGE.



ps: i never had or driven the old skylines, i sure want to own one in the future...

I don't rate cars on thier age, rather whether or not I like them. I love the new Evo VIII and the WRX STi. Sorry, but I really don't like the new mustang. I don't really like the 350Z either. We should be able to vote on new cars.

i never have liked mustangs, probably because i come from a big GM family that is anti ford and everything...the 350z also seemed like a big disapointment when it came out, i dont like it at all.

I like the 350Z and G35 coupe, I think they did a great job with both, the new Mustang could be nice, but why did they go to the Kia school of wheel design for those gay ass stock rims? And it's not as much the look of new cars I don't like, it's the fact that there is to much technology! Why can't we have just a hardcore drivers car anymore? You know where it's just you, the engine and 4 tires, no stability bullshit, no ABS, no electromagnetic tranny or whatever their called, just a harcore RWD drivers car.

Wanna know why efficiency equals more power?

You take ideal change in temp T which is what kind of heat the turbo or supercharger would create if it were 100% efficient and divide it by the efficiency of the compressor.

Lets say T=150F
compressor1 efficiency=65%
compressor2 efficiency=70%

150/.65=230.77F
150/.70=214.29F

Engines don't really like hot air. You can have lots-o-fun with positive displacement chargers with thier 50% efficiency.

150/.50=300F wow
is this your calculation, or did you find it somewhere?

i think these calculations are only good for an isobaric process.

i believe the efficiency they give for these types of turbines/compressors are thermal efficiencies. that would be the ratio of work out of the comp. and work into the comp. These work terms aren't just temperature related, they are based on enthalpys and mass flow. given that mass flow is constant, it cancels out, so the efficiency is a ratio of the specific enthalpys at the exit and the inlet of the compressor. These enthalpys are not solely temperature based, they're pressure based, and pressure is obviously not a constant, so i dont think you can make the direct temperature relations as said because i think there's more to it, but i guess you're just trying to make a point.

and i could be wrong.... its been a while since ive taken thermodynamics

btw, whats your edu?

Okay... I'm still trying to figure out why AT's suck other that they are 'gay'? Is that all you got guys?

That higher displacement allows the VQ to make more torque, and/or make the same power as an RB while under less stress. Not only that, but the VQ can be expanded to larger displacements than the RB, as well. There are 3.8L, 4L(swap OEM parts with '05 Frontier/Pathfinder/XTerra), and 4.3L stroker kits for the VQ. The largest RB I've heard of is 'just' 3L.

True, but displacement isn't everything. In fact, in turbocharged cars, it doesn't mean much at all. Turbochargers make engines capable of outputing more horsepower than an engine twice their own displacement.

Wanna know why efficiency equals more power?

OK, when people talk about how much power a car has, they often state peak horsepower. However, I'm talking about the total power... I'm saying overall turbo efficiency doesn't always = peak HP. You could have two 200 (peak) HP engines, but one could accelerate the same car faster because it makes more total HP (that's why engineers often want a flat torque curve, rather than a peaky one).

However, that doesn't have much to do with what we are currently talking about, turbo efficiency involving twin turbo systems vs. single turbo systems. I just felt compelled to clear that up.

You take ideal change in temp T which is what kind of heat the turbo or supercharger would create if it were 100% efficient and divide it by the efficiency of the compressor.

Lets say T=150F
compressor1 efficiency=65%
compressor2 efficiency=70%

150/.65=230.77F
150/.70=214.29F

Yes, that's just air temerature efficiency. However, there's more to turbocharger efficiency then just thermal efficiency. The Sport Compact Car issue on matching turbos that featured the famous Garrett GT28RS "Disco Potato" turbocharger talked in extreme detail about efficiency, air flow, and matching the proper turbo to your engine, primarily based on your engine's displacement. I've always read that a properly matched turbo will produce minimal lag but won't fall off at the top-end either. This says that the most efficient turbos had little lag and lots of high-end power. That comes from efficiency in air flow to the turbocharger.

Engines don't really like hot air. You can have lots-o-fun with positive displacement chargers with thier 50% efficiency.

150/.50=300F wow

I'm well aware that power efficiency has alot to do with temperature and that engines prefer cooler air... because cooler air is denser. Plus I figure it helps the engine cool a little bit better.

I am fully aware that more lag doesn't equal more power. Ok heres the low down...


A twin setup will probably be a little more efficient on the low end, but the sinle is going to have a little more on the top.

Umm... no, that's not always true. Possible (depending on the setup), but not typical. Typically, a twin turbo setup is more efficient in low-end power and at least equivalent in high-end (it often is more efficient in high-end) power then a single turbo setup with equivalent max. boost levels. Twin turbos setups are simply almost always more efficient with air flow.

The single will probably have lower boost down low.

Usually, yes; but modern single turbos are quite capable of having plently of low-end power too... the well-known "Disco Potato" Garrett GT28RS is a prime example. I'd like to see a twin turbo setup utilizing twin GT28RS turbos... lol, that would be like no lag.

The twins are going to be a little more tricky to maintain and install if you are installing or upgrading.

Definetly.

They really are not practical on small displacement or single cylinder bank engines with the wide array of turbochargers avaliable today.

On small displacement engines... yes, because the two turbos would have to be so minute that it would be far too impractical and costly. Hehe, I can see it now: Hey, I was replacing my turbochargers and I dropped one and now I can't find it. Can you help me? lol

Twin turbos on single bank engines can be more efficient, the sequential twin turbo system uses one smaller turbo that spools up faster and provides power in the low-end, while the larger turbo spools up slower but provides the system with full boost in the higher-end. It ends up with more power in the low-end than a single turbo. However, due to improvements in turbocharger technology, this may become unnecessary if we get more turbos like the GT28RS. So, sequential twin turbo systems are hardly worth the extra complexity in modern age cars with these high-tech turbochargers. The benefits would definetly not out weigh the extra cost in the majority of cars.

If both turbos are at the same psi on the same engine and one makes less power, then yes the winner is more efficient. IF a turbo has low efficiency, that means its creating heat and less power in the process. And if it is less expensive to use a single, then why do twins in the first place?

Because twin-turbo setups almost always result in more efficient use of air flow and less lag.

Most average cars end up with singles because
it's not practical to keep the complexity and extra space required for a twin turbo setup of similar power

LAG IS SOOOOOO OVERRATED.

By not practical, I meant cost-wise. Twin turbos are practical if you are willing to pay for them; they provide more power due to increased air flow efficiency. And you quoted me on a statement about 800+ HP race cars, which aren't your average car. For most cars, cost is a major concern, and a twin turbo system just isn't worth it. However, people willing to buy a Nissan Skyline would expect the very best, reguardless of cost. This includes the turbo system.

However, a Nissan Skyline would use a parallel twin turbo system (what you referred to as a twin turbo on an engine with two banks of cylinders). That is, by far (IMO), the best turbo setup overall. It uses two equally-sized turbos for greater efficiency in air flow. You can use a parallel twin-turbo system setup where one bank feeds it's turbo and then is boosted by it, or you can use a setup where one bank feeds the turbo and then it boosts the other bank. The latter setup results in better balance between the boost in the two cylinder banks.

Basically, your overall point isn't incorrect, but your taking about thermal efficiency, and I'm meaning primarily air flow efficiency.

The reason most turbocharged race cars that I know of use a large single turbo is because despite the huge amount of lag, the extremly large amount of peak HP more then makes up for it. I bet they don't have much air flow efficiency; although they likely have great thermal efficiency. They don't use a twin-turbo system because they are willing to settle with the lag for reduce complexity. Reduced complexity is a good thing in a race car, it reduces the costs, especially if something goses wrong, and it makes it less likely for something to go wrong in the first place.

Why can't we have just a hardcore drivers car anymore? You know where it's just you, the engine and 4 tires, no stability bullshit, no ABS, no electromagnetic tranny or whatever their called, just a harcore RWD drivers car.

Yes! I want to see another minimalistic raw RWD sports car, much like the 240SX. Although some of that fancy technology improves performance, save it for the Skyline, and save weight and $$$ on the new 240SX. That's the beauty of the 240SX: it's an affordable, yet no compromise RWD performance car. Ditch cruise control, don't use power windows or locks (they're worse off if they break anyway), make underdrive pulleys standard, make automatic transmissions not even an option, and have the option to even remove the A/C and the sound system. Keep things simple and minimalistic. Cut costs in accessories and not in the basics (drivetrain, suspension, etc.)

Okay... I'm still trying to figure out why AT's suck other that they are 'gay'? Is that all you got guys?

Well, take note as to what I said...

I won't go into too much detail, but an automatic uses a different planetary-gear based system that weighs more and transfers power less efficiently from the engine because it uses a torque converter which uses hydraulic fluid. A true manual transmission is lighter and transfers more power to the wheels because they transfer power from the engine more efficiently.

So, compared to a manual transmission, automatics are "gay". The only adv. an automatic has is that you don't have to do any work to shift gears, it was designed for lazy people. And it sells well too, since most people are naturally lazy.

Nissan tales new look at 'pocket rocket' with Azeal

Nissan says the Azeal concept that will be at the Detroit auto show next month is a fresh look at the "pocket rocket" high-performance small car segment.

This sketch of the concept gives the impression that the Azeal could also be called the "Mini Z," with similarities in the roof line and fenders to Nissan's 350Z sports car.

The Azeal is the first concept created at the design studio in Nissan's technical center in Farmington Hills, Mich.

The automaker is searching for a successor to the Sentra that has more emotional appeal. The Sentra is scheduled to be redesigned for either the 2006 or 2007 model year.

VQuick, where did you get this information? Do you have any links to this source or other sources? I'm highly interested in this; this could be the "answer to my prayers" that Nissan would come out with a new 240SX-like car in direct competition with (and thus similar or better performance than) the SRT-4.

phoenix_fire

^ So are you tellin' me my uncles daily-driven (almost) '65 Malibu with 500+HP w/o the 100shot of nitrous and AT is gay? While he is running 11's? Are you saying fully streetable Supra's and Z's with nearly 1000HP a pop and fully built street/race AT's are gay? C'mon! You say "gay and lazy", I say practical and they make perfect sense! Saying it's for lazy people is like saying you are lazy to drive a car rather than walking! Sure... MT is great and I give mad props for all the crazy guys barreling down mountain passes WRC style as they down shift and up shift. That takes skill! But if you think of it... MT is really a handicap and a step back in the evolution of automotive history! Hell even traditional AT is going the way of the dinosaur as this new "paddle-shifting" phenomenon takes place! I really don't see how you people can say "it's gay and only for lazy women!"... "look at me I'm cool because I drive stick and you don't!" Riiight... I learned with MT and have had many cars with MT and all I can say is AT makes sense since the shifting is no longer open to human error. You guys mentioned WRC and F1... perfect examples of this! Sure they are not AT... but it's not traditional MT when you got computers shifting for you! The best of both worlds! They may as well be automatic transmisions!

One Turbo or Two?

For racing only, there are super-large single turbo setups that can support over 1,500 hp, but they don't work well down low. Generally, when not restricted by sanctioning body rules, the usual crossover point between single and dual installations is in the 900-1,000hp range. Most under-900hp requirements can be met by one turbo, typically the universal TO4 or a custom derivative based on the TO4 frame. However, some claim that even in the under-900hp regime, two smaller turbos reduce lag over one big turbo; others counter that basic physical laws postulate that the reduction in inertia and flow caused by splitting the exhaust energy in half more than outweighs the supposed advantages of lighter, smaller components--or, in English, one big turbo housing is more efficient than two smaller housings.

But turbos must also be considered as part of the overall induction and exhaust system. There's no doubt that twin turbos have certain advantages on V-type engine layouts. The cross-tube on single-turbo V-8 installations can lose a lot of heat, and heat energy powers the turbine; two turbos permit a greater cross-sectional discharge pipe area, and dual wastegates are more efficient.

Like you were saying about the GT28, using a turbocharger with lighter materials, properly sized housings and wheel trims according to where you want to make power, and the advanced balancing and bearings of today can be much better than using a twin(sequential or parallel) setup. The larger GT series compressors are fully capable of supporting high HP levels as well as having little lag. Very efficient as well. If you are tuning a engine for power, you can't think you're going to make power everywhere in the rpm range. That kinda gets smaller with the higher amount of power you make. You were correct about twins in the upper HP areas though

You are absoulutely correct about air flow and matching the turbo to your engine. I know, I did it. That is what determines how efficient the turbocharger is going to be for your setup. You can go through and do all the math, but usually you can just "eyeball" it and say every 1lb/min=10hp.

Theres plenty more to read here:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201348

True, but displacement isn't everything. In fact, in turbocharged cars, it doesn't mean much at all. Turbochargers make engines capable of outputing more horsepower than an engine twice their own displacement.

Ordinarily, I'd say you're right, but the GT-R's VQ is going to be turbocharged, just like the smaller RBs. All else equal(including boost), the larger engine is still going to make more power. That's why you see people still stroking their turbocharged RBs, SRs, 4G63s, etc.

VQuick, where did you get this information? Do you have any links to this source or other sources? I'm highly interested in this; this could be the "answer to my prayers" that Nissan would come out with a new 240SX-like car in direct competition with (and thus similar or better performance than) the SRT-4.

I first saw it at Freshalloy. Just do a search for 'Nissan Azeal,' but I don't think there is any differing into. There probably won't be any additional information, especially since the concept will debut 'in the metal' at the Detroit Auto Show in a couple weeks. There probably won't be any more new info until after the show.

Vq32dett

Why can't we have just a hardcore drivers car anymore? You know where it's just you, the engine and 4 tires, no stability bullshit, no ABS, no electromagnetic tranny or whatever their called, just a harcore RWD drivers car.
wanta be a real man then try all your driving on chapman sturts then tell me how gay all this is

yea good tech sucks lets also just stop using chemo too right cause its not as hardcore as just dying :shakehead

there tons or REAL drivers cars out there stilll hell one of the nicest most fun cars i've driven EVER was the 05GT handled nice as hell fucking live axle w00T thats OG for you.

you sound like you also wanta kill ppl who say the earth is round come on man just think before you talk yours being silly really.

Ordinarily, I'd say you're right, but the GT-R's VQ is going to be turbocharged, just like the smaller RBs. All else equal(including boost), the larger engine is still going to make more power. That's why you see people still stroking their turbocharged RBs, SRs, 4G63s, etc.

True. Making an engine have more displacement still creates more power, turbocharged or not. I was just referring relatively to all engines (n/a or turboed).

phoenix_fire

^ So are you tellin' me my uncles daily-driven (almost) '65 Malibu with 500+HP w/o the 100shot of nitrous and AT is gay? While he is running 11's? Are you saying fully streetable Supra's and Z's with nearly 1000HP a pop and fully built street/race AT's are gay? C'mon! You say "gay and lazy", I say practical and they make perfect sense! Saying it's for lazy people is like saying you are lazy to drive a car rather than walking! Sure... MT is great and I give mad props for all the crazy guys barreling down mountain passes WRC style as they down shift and up shift. That takes skill! But if you think of it... MT is really a handicap and a step back in the evolution of automotive history! Hell even traditional AT is going the way of the dinosaur as this new "paddle-shifting" phenomenon takes place! I really don't see how you people can say "it's gay and only for lazy women!"... "look at me I'm cool because I drive stick and you don't!" Riiight... I learned with MT and have had many cars with MT and all I can say is AT makes sense since the shifting is no longer open to human error. You guys mentioned WRC and F1... perfect examples of this! Sure they are not AT... but it's not traditional MT when you got computers shifting for you! The best of both worlds! They may as well be automatic transmisions!

I've already explained the advantages of a manual transmission, if you still choose to like automatics, that's fine with you. If you would like to respond further in favor of automatic transmissions, please actually read read my initial responce to you and what I quoted myself as saying.

So are you tellin' me my uncles daily-driven (almost) '65 Malibu with 500+HP w/o the 100shot of nitrous and AT is gay? While he is running 11's? Are you saying fully streetable Supra's and Z's with nearly 1000HP a pop and fully built street/race AT's are gay?

No, I'm not saying they're gay, but I bet they'd be faster if they were manuals. At the least, they'd get more power to the ground.

Saying it's for lazy people is like saying you are lazy to drive a car rather than walking!

No, that's not a good analogy... there are plenty of things you can't do by running that you can do in a car. So people don't just drive cars because they're too lazy to walk. And enthusiasts like us drive cars so we can go 100 Mph on a race track or we can drift. You can't do those things on your feet, can you?

I didn't say everyone who uses an automatic is lazy, I was referring as to why they're so popular. Your typical car is an automatic because your typical person doesn't want to go through the effort to learn how to use a manual and also actually use the energy required to shift the car whenever necessary; which, in city driving, would be quite often.

But if you think of it... MT is really a handicap and a step back in the evolution of automotive history!

Umm.... I'm 99.9% sure that the manual transmission came first. And in no way is it a handicap.

And I called them "gay" (note the quotes) because that's the term you said people in this thread were using to refer to automatics; so I was essentially quoting you. Gay is not the word I would have used to describe them, and I don't think they're gay, although I don't like automatics and personally will never own an automatic if I can help it. I would call them inefficient, not "gay".

And using F1 cars as examples to support AT is a very bad argument my friend. You still have to shift the car, they simply make the clutch computer controlled. And, no, they may not as well be automatics; apparently you don't understand the mechanical differences between sequentia shift manuals and automatics, otherwise you probably wouldn't have said that.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of locating what just said to you in my first responce to you:
...an automatic uses a different planetary-gear based system that weighs more and transfers power less efficiently from the engine because it uses a torque converter which uses hydraulic fluid. A true manual transmission is lighter and transfers more power to the wheels because they transfer power from the engine more efficiently.

I'll also add that automatics are more prone to overheating, and usually have less gears than the manual transmissions available in the same car. And that sequential shift manuals are nearmy the same as a normal stick shift manual; the clutch is just computer controlled.

The only adv. of an automatic is the fact you don't have to shift, and in drag automatics, they will hold the car at the proper RPM for a good launch. This takes out most human error due to shifting, as you said.

However, I think it's more enjoyable to go through the process of learning how to shift and how to launch your car with a manual. Once you get the hang of it, errors aren't very common. And once you don't make errors very often, the manual will be well worth it for it's advantages.

If you still choose to prefer automatics, then, by all means, do. I'm not telling you what to think, but when you try to say manual transmissions are inferior, that's just ignorance.

i like my 240 "Sr20 powerd"... 5 speed yay!

i believe the efficiency they give for these types of turbines/compressors are thermal efficiencies. that would be the ratio of work out of the comp. and work into the comp. These work terms aren't just temperature related, they are based on enthalpys and mass flow. given that mass flow is constant, it cancels out, so the efficiency is a ratio of the specific enthalpys at the exit and the inlet of the compressor. These enthalpys are not solely temperature based, they're pressure based, and pressure is obviously not a constant, so i dont think you can make the direct temperature relations as said because i think there's more to it, but i guess you're just trying to make a point.

and i could be wrong.... its been a while since ive taken thermodynamics

btw, whats your edu?

P = Force X Area
W= Force/Distance
efficiency is based on Tangent Velocity in/out of the turbine (direction of velocity exit)

Cool?

is this your calculation, or did you find it somewhere?

i think these calculations are only good for an isobaric process.

i believe the efficiency they give for these types of turbines/compressors are thermal efficiencies. that would be the ratio of work out of the comp. and work into the comp. These work terms aren't just temperature related, they are based on enthalpys and mass flow. given that mass flow is constant, it cancels out, so the efficiency is a ratio of the specific enthalpys at the exit and the inlet of the compressor. These enthalpys are not solely temperature based, they're pressure based, and pressure is obviously not a constant, so i dont think you can make the direct temperature relations as said because i think there's more to it, but i guess you're just trying to make a point.

and i could be wrong.... its been a while since ive taken thermodynamics

btw, whats your edu?

They are calculations from Turbochargers by Hugh Macinnes. I plugged in the numbers, but I found the basic formula in the book. This is just one of many of the calculations used in sizing turbochargers in his book. They are really just based on heat created by compressing air, and nothing else. I'm not quite sure mass flow is the same though. As PSIG increases, so does the flow of the compressor until efficiency drops off. Thats where only the pressure ratio increases but no more air is flowing. Which is where IAT becomes a huge concern. IIRC some heat is passed over by exhaust heat but I'm not too sure if that is a large factor. You can factor in barometric pressure with the entire formula using the pressure ratio you have to find which is (PSIA+PSIG)/PSIA. So yes you could say the part I used is isobaric, but no the enitre formula is not isobaric. Yes it is just a ratio of the enthalpies. You are just using a simple forumla to figure out how much energy will be released when you compress air. I've never taken thermodynamics but if I see it on the list of courses given, I'll be sure and take it.

P = Force X Area
W= Force/Distance
efficiency is based on Tangent Velocity in/out of the turbine (direction of velocity exit)

Nice... I'll have to read up on that sometime. Freshen up on the ol' math skillz.

If you want an explanation in how the compressor actually increases the velocity of the incoming air(or whatever liquid or solid you're compressing), then http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VelocityVector.html (this) should help you out a little.

My education is only a high school level education, on paper anyways. But I guess thats what counts huh?

im sure some one probably brought this since im only going to read to the 2nd page right now .. but i read in a later issue or SCC that they are going to get rid of most manuals. So them making the new GTR an auto isn't too big of a surprise.

I also hate that they change the cars the way they do. I mean look at the new BMWs. Yeah they look pretty nice but i mean they don't hold any resemblence to the older models. Same with the newer generations of the eclipse and stuffs .. doesn't really hold any good traits. I also red that like .. toyota will be discontinuing the MR-2 and the Celica .. to be replaced by the Scions. Even though the Scions are nice .. i still liked the mr2 lol

To make sure no one will think im being off topic .. what im trying to say is that alot of companies are changing in ways that maybe we ( or you guys since i don't really know a whole lot .. yet haha ) wont like .. kinda sux sometimes though

Like you were saying about the GT28, using a turbocharger with lighter materials, properly sized housings and wheel trims according to where you want to make power, and the advanced balancing and bearings of today can be much better than using a twin(sequential or parallel) setup. The larger GT series compressors are fully capable of supporting high HP levels as well as having little lag. Very efficient as well. If you are tuning a engine for power, you can't think you're going to make power everywhere in the rpm range. That kinda gets smaller with the higher amount of power you make. You were correct about twins in the upper HP areas though

You are absoulutely correct about air flow and matching the turbo to your engine. I know, I did it. That is what determines how efficient the turbocharger is going to be for your setup. You can go through and do all the math, but usually you can just "eyeball" it and say every 1lb/min=10hp.

Theres plenty more to read here:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=201348

That's cool then. I'll take a look at that link. I still think a parallel twin turbo setup would be better, especially with modern turbos such as the GT28RS. But yeah, I see your point, and you seem to see mine, so it's cool.

wanta be a real man then try all your driving on chapman sturts then tell me how gay all this is

yea good tech sucks lets also just stop using chemo too right cause its not as hardcore as just dying :shakehead

there tons or REAL drivers cars out there stilll hell one of the nicest most fun cars i've driven EVER was the 05GT handled nice as hell fucking live axle w00T thats OG for you.

you sound like you also wanta kill ppl who say the earth is round come on man just think before you talk yours being silly really.


What the fuck are "chapman sturts"? If you wanna be hardcore, finish grade 2 english.

Seriously though, I'm not saying they should only have minimalist cars, I'm saying they should have them, along with new techno cars.

Oh, and yeah, because I hate automatics and stability control that means I hate all technology, yeah, I'll just come home with my manual car to my cave and light a fire and roast me some mammoth meat. Dude, you're fucking retarded.



I learned with MT and have had many cars with MT and all I can say is AT makes sense since the shifting is no longer open to human error. You guys mentioned WRC and F1... perfect examples of this! Sure they are not AT... but it's not traditional MT when you got computers shifting for you! The best of both worlds! They may as well be automatic transmisions!

Dude, if you take out full manual trannies to get rid of human error, you might as well not have drivers, what's the point, right? I mean let's have 100% computer controlled cars, cars that don't have drivers so that it's impossible to make a mistake, oh and let's have those car built by machines so you have 0% chance of human error......wait a minute, that's just stupid! Human error is part of auto racing, that's what makes it interesting, or else, why have drivers in the first place? Do you want racing to become like the WWE where the winner is known before the match (or race in this case) is even started?

whats the point of having the race if we know whos gonna win?..lol.. robot driven cars would suck without humen error.

autox, drifting, drag.. all auto sports will never die cause of guys like us, all tuners, everybody who loves cars these days will still be around when everything is controlled by computers..

P = Force X Area
W= Force/Distance
efficiency is based on Tangent Velocity in/out of the turbine (direction of velocity exit)

Cool?

alright, p is pressure. what exactly do you mean by W? work? power? work is force x distance, and power is work/time. please give definitions on the terms you use to avoid confusion. and what is cool? lol this is high school physics, its soo hard.... :banghead: :banghead:

yeah, where did the variables that he listed com from?? What formula is he talking bout? im confused...

alright, p is pressure. what exactly do you mean by W? work? power? work is force x distance, and power is work/time. please give definitions on the terms you use to avoid confusion. and what is cool? lol this is high school physics, its soo hard.... :banghead: :banghead:

OK OK

here its is (i used the / insed of X for the WORK formula)

Work = force X Distance
Pressure = force X Area

think about Tangent Velocity as

v(t) = r'(t) = d(x)/d(t) i + d(y)/d(t) j (basiclly the derivative)

where t is time

v (speed) = II v(t) II

bsiclly to calculat the V in a turbine (or anything for that matter u use data for a 2 demantional V as in the 1st example, and 3d V as in a turbine 2nd example)

1) u have a position vector at a point P given with some eq like :
r(t) = 2ti + 3t^2 j + t^3 K for 0<t<2 and u need to fined the Velocity and the Accel of P at a time t. (which is simple as taking the derevative of the eq)

2) u have a point P that is rotating about the x axis on a circle of radious K that lies in the plane z=h. (think of a yoyo that is spining in the air, P is the yoyo, K is the distance from the center of the circle formed by the yoyo to the point P) The vector W = w K directed alonge the z-axis and having magnitude w is the ANGULAR VELOCITY of P. the velocity of of v(t) of P is the cross product of W and direction vector r (t) for P.

r(t) = K cos wt i + K sin wt J + h K
using the cross product



wX r(t)=
I i J K I
I 0 0 w I
I kcos wt k sinwt h I
= - wk sin wt i + wk cos wt j = r' (t) = V(t)


ps: i don't have a way of writing Matrix i used the I as the lines...



finally, i don't know if i helped. i had a final on that stuff about 1week ago... (that stuff is so Fukn hard!)

...one of the nicest most fun cars i've driven EVER was the 05GT handled nice as hell fucking live axle w00T thats OG for you.

True, the '05 Mustang GT handles exceptionally well for a car with a live rear axle. But seriously, think about how much better the handling would be if it had a fully independant rear suspension like the 240SX has had since 1989. That's why I'm hoping Ford will come out with a Mercury version of the new Mustang, so they don't have to keep the live rear axle. Ford was seriously considering ditching the live rear axle for a modern independant rear suspension, but the Mustang enthusiasts demanded the live rear axle, so they got it.

I i j k I
I 0 0 0 I
I (k cos wt) (K sin wt) (h) I

is that better?

I believe we are not using the acronym KISS(Keep It Simple Stupid). Companies that make the compressors and turbines already give us maps telling us where the turbo performs most efficiently. But I like all the techy stuff. Makes me feel at home. BTW all that stuff sounds like a more complex way of explaining centrifugal force and the fact that the outside of a wheel is spinning faster than the inside. Nice post though AWDSR20.

As for human error, if all possibility of human error was taken away, sports would not exist. More possiblilty for human error makes a sport more competitive. It mean you have to be better at what you do in all aspects, not just turning the wheel.

tnxs!

Sorry I did not read fully through each post but from what I just found out sequential trannies do have a clutch, you can just shift without using it. And you also have a full controll of the vehicle this way.
I wouldn'y mind a nice expensive sequential tranny. But come to think about it Manual is just fun, and isn't that what car enthusiasts buy the cars in the first place? So I would prolly just get an old reliable 5 or 6 speed tranny with a clutch and have human errors.

Sorry I did not read fully through each post but from what I just found out sequential trannies do have a clutch, you can just shift without using it. And you also have a full controll of the vehicle this way.
I wouldn'y mind a nice expensive sequential tranny. But come to think about it Manual is just fun, and isn't that what car enthusiasts buy the cars in the first place? So I would prolly just get an old reliable 5 or 6 speed tranny with a clutch and have human errors.

Yeah, now your talking.