hey y'all,

i've been doing some research and i am surprised to see that my old rusty 1992 Sentra SE-R (about 2400 pounds, dep. who ya ask) --132 hp/140 tq-- is pretty much the pinnacle of the bone-stock torque to weight ratio, as far as small, affordable cars go.

i *Literally* ask to be proven wrong : ) please!... i am curious.

newer cars are either heavy or astronomically expensive --and usually obvious cop-magnets to boot, not sleepers like the Sentra--, while many cars of equal age, weight, & price are low on torque.

what gives? i bought this car because my old honda died. i didn't realize i had bought the best sleeper in existence...

There are a ton of cars with better torque/weight than that, but they are all pretty expensive. The SE-R is indeed a great sleeper :)

As for which one is the king...1996 Dodge Viper GTS coupe. 490 ft-lbs of torque, 3375 lbs of weight. :)

Well the first thing that comes off the top of my head would be the Pontiac Fiero. 2.8L V6 with I believe around 165ft lbs of torque weighting in at around 2500. I'm sure their are others, but nothing else seems to be floating in my head at the moment.

Psht, MR2 Turbo = Fiero in weight and had 200ft/lb of Tq

Viper still wins tho

thanks Kman, for your kind words about my humble car.

yes, you're all correct about those other cars; they're certainly faster than mine, but are there any other inexpensive sleepers out there to challenge me?

isn't anyone going to stand up for Preludes or maybe some old Volvo...?

come on, there HAS to be more competition for the SE-R out there amongst the unheraled sleepers of the early 90's, in the days before every (secretly) cool car gained weight and got married : D

well, i dunno wut exactly ur lookin for but if ur lookin just for the best ratio an old mustang has a better ratio (its heavier but has more than double the torque) and my 87 ranger gt weighs 2586 lbs and has 170 tq.

i *have* been tempted by mustangs, don't get me wrong! : )

BUT, i am looking for a sleeper, and Mustangs are cop-magnets, as cool as they are.

also, to be honest, i am looking for something with Japanese handling characteristics. PLEASE note that i did NOT say "better" handling! i don't want to start the old American vs. Japan flame war again!

let it be known i own a '65 chevy (327 impala) if my love for old school american muscle cars be doubted
: )

One of the best sleepers of the early and mid 1990's is really the Taurus SHO. It has a revvy 220HP/200tq 3.0L v6 and a 5speed stick. It doesn't handle as well as a compact, but it doesn't attract cops as much either. 0-60 around low 7s and 1/4 mile in low 15s stock... very respectable for something made more than 15 years ago.

One of the best sleepers of the early and mid 1990's is really the Taurus SHO. It has a revvy 220HP/200tq 3.0L v6 and a 5speed stick. It doesn't handle as well as a compact, but it doesn't attract cops as much either. 0-60 around low 7s and 1/4 mile in low 15s stock... very respectable for something made more than 15 years ago.

This is a good suggestion and as far as handling there is a reason these are Auto-X favorites.

The only problem with the Taurus SHO is that it is a well-known fact that reliability is a very dark spot for them, and good luck finding parts for that Yamaha-built V8.

also, to be honest, i am looking for something with Japanese handling characteristics.


and those characteristics would be.......?

i *Literally* ask to be proven wrong : ) please!... i am curious
ask, and you shall recieve...

1995 nissan maxima, 190hp 205 ft/lbs of tq and 2895 lb curb wieght. it's 14 lbs of body weight per ft/lb tq, compared to an se-r's 18.2 lbs per ft/lb. good for low 15's-mid 14's stock 5 speed, even better in some cases.

This is the motor trend review of the maxima the year it was introduced:

Motor Trend, Road Test, June 1994
"Our tester, a five-speed SE version of this fourth generation of Maxima, produced a blazing 6.6-second 0-60-mph time, and a 15.2-second, 92.4-mph quarter-mile run. Ask us,
and we'll tell you how the Maxima SE will whip the Integra GS-R, and Taurus SHO;
the new Maxima also shows no mercy on its Nissan stablemates: It'll stomp the normally aspirated 300ZX, and drivers of automatic-transmissioned 300ZX Turbos best not be snoozing when the light goes green.
This demure-looking family car is the quickest Japanese sedan available in the States."

Yeah, the 1995-1999 Maxima is a nice car. Everytime I see one, I wish I could go back in time to 1996 and tell my dad to buy a Maxima SE instead of a Camry V6 LE, because I'd be driving it right now. :)

I got rid of my loaded 95 5 speed Maxima with stillen cat-back, downpipe, and intake for a measley $3K on a trade in for this maxima. i've been kicking myself in the ass for it ever since. One day i'll come across another and scoop it up for a project.

V6 Camry's from that era are very similar to the Maxima, same hp and torque i believe, they're just a couple hundred lbs. heavier, and don't have much of an aftermarket. They're not bad cars at all.


and WayOutCat, you have your figures backwards. for an SE-R it's 140 hp and 132 tq, not the other way.

oops! ; )

thanks. i went and checked out a few sites, and what you say is true; the Maxima seemed to have gone the opposite of the usual and actually lost weight from 90 to 95.

(Neutrino: good question! i wish i could put it into words... other than "FUN" : D : )

However, i still stand by my opinion that a smaller, lighter car somehow *feels* faster despite the fact that BP2K2Max is quite correct that the Maxima outdoes the Sentra's weight/torque ratio. The Maxima is just a bit too heavy for my tastes.

i have driven a maxima, but not one that was aftermarket modded for speed. i should still have a go at one that is tricked out. But, that said, i have driven quite a few heavy cars which have incredible power to weight ratios on paper, but which don't "feel" as fast as a smaller car which may look underpowered going entirely "by the numbers."

Does anybody know *why* a small car "feels" faster even though it may not be? Clearly this is why so many sports cars are tiny.

is it entirely psychological? or there some "real" physics behind this?

i have already considered a theory that the sensation of speed is deeply connected to how close you are to the ground, but you are not ALWAYS lower in smaller cars, so that doesn't entirely explain it.

any other theories?

V6 Camry's from that era are very similar to the Maxima, same hp and torque i believe, they're just a couple hundred lbs. heavier, and don't have much of an aftermarket. They're not bad cars at all.

My main complaint is a lack of a 5-speed transmission with the V6 motor. Other than that, it's a great car, and virtually indestructible.

i had a 5 speed, 96 200sx se-R which came with an Sr20de, before i had my 95 maxima, your sentra is faster without question, smaller and lighter, and from what i've heard it's slightly stronger than the SR20 i had. they're quick lil bastards, no doubt, but when the funds come around, I'd rather have the maxima again, it really doesn't feel like a big, boaty car, especially once you drop it down about an inch and a half and add a front strut bar and such. and the VQ series of motors are getting as much hype as the SR's nowadays. If you liked a 3.0 Liter Max, check out one with a 3.5, it's like night and day. However, i can see where you're comin' from prefering a quick nimble little car like the sentra's.

i hear ya bro. Your Max was 3000 pound even, right? that's a lot less than some cars... same as my old 1970 mustang was!! : D

my wife's '97 Bonneville SSE is 3500 pounds, same hp as the Maxima, and it hauls. BUT it's definitely too heavy for me... makes you feel so disconnected from the experience, all that weight and size, ya know?

even some cars i've driven around 3200 pounds feel too heavy.


so where is that perfect size range????

i know i like the 2300 pound sentra.

i drove a 2700-ish pound car at *some* dealership --this was in a haze of new-car testing, and i forgot even what make/model it was...-- and i was WAY unimpressed, but it was pathetically underpowered. i think it was a honda civic.

it is possible that some 3000 pound cars that are engineered well have that small car "feel" ; ) thanks for opening my eyes to the maxima.

which years have the 3.5? are they getting affordable yet?

Peak Torque Means Shit :)

Look under the curve.

The only problem with the Taurus SHO is that it is a well-known fact that reliability is a very dark spot for them, and good luck finding parts for that Yamaha-built V8.

It's well-know that they have bad reliability because what is well-know isn't often the truth.

So let's start getting to some truth. Yamaha never built a V8 SHO they built V6 motors for SHO from 89-95. Ford built 3.4L V8 SHO motors from 96-98. Maybe you made a typo but I'll still correct it.

Relaibility is not a problem on the V6 SHO's if you do the reccomended maintenance on these cars you will have no problems. The problem is people have these cars for 100K+ miles and have never done the 60K maintenance let alone the 30K.

It's funny but 3 SHO's that have all had the reccomended maintenance done within 5K of when it was suppose to have all made it over 200K(mine 290K, and I beat it like a rented mule)) with no major parts failing and still on the original water pump, alt etc.., So maybe I'm just lucky or it's I understand the car and do proper upkeep on it cause it matters.

And as far as parts what would you like... OEM? Aftermarket? cause there out there to be had no problem.

i hear ya bro. Your Max was 3000 pound even, right? that's a lot less than some cars... same as my old 1970 mustang was!! : D,
the registration of the car had it listed at 2895 lbs, but everywhere else has it listed at 3000 lbs. and 3100 with an auto tranny. but that's where options come in to play, leather, sunroof, power seats etc, all effect the car's weight.



which years have the 3.5? are they getting affordable yet?
2k2-3 are my body style with the 3.5L, 255 hp, 246 ft/lbs of tq. the 04+ is the new body style, also with a 3.5, the 2k4's are almost 3500 lbs, so they really have a boaty feel, it's argued that the 2k2-3's are actually faster, despite being down 10 hp due to the extra fat. you can get a nicely loaded 2k2-2k3 6 speed for around $15K-$18K.

BP2K2Max, why is it so hard to find 95-99 Maximas with a manual tranny? I saw about 20 of them on AutoTrader, and every single one of them had an auto tranny.

It's well-know that they have bad reliability because what is well-know isn't often the truth.

So let's start getting to some truth. Yamaha never built a V8 SHO they built V6 motors for SHO from 89-95. Ford built 3.4L V8 SHO motors from 96-98. Maybe you made a typo but I'll still correct it.


actually Yamaha built the V8's too, Ford designed them though.

BP2K2Max, why is it so hard to find 95-99 Maximas with a manual tranny? I saw about 20 of them on AutoTrader, and every single one of them had an auto tranny.
i don't know for sure, but i think it's cuz a lot of people consider them old man's cars. Older people are usually the ones putting down $25K-$30K on a new car and i guess the average person just bought it to be a grocery getter. Both of my maxima's were manual but i had to drive about 100 miles to get each one of them, they're out there, you just gotta look.

so let me get that straight-- you're saying that the '03 and earlier Maximas are 3000 pounds?

No, but the 95-96 models are.

narrow window of opportunity! : )

how rare *are* the manual trans 5 spd 95 & 95 3.5 liter Maximas?

what are they going for? 3K-ish?

(hits his head)

doh!

maybe i make another mistake. duh. perhaps the 3.5 does not even exist in 95 & 96 maximas....

too tired/lazy to do google search again...

95-99 Max: VQ30DE-190 hp, 205 tq, 2900lbs(3 Liter)
00-01 Max: VQ30de-K-227hp 217 tq, ~3200 lbs(3 Liter)
02-03 Max: VQ35DE :ylsuper: -255 hp 246 tq, 3200lbs(3.5 Liter)
04+ Max: VQ35 265 hp, 255 tq, 3400-3500 lbs(3.5 Liter)

the 95-96's are going for around $4-$6K now, possibly cheaper. the 5 speeds are hard to find, especially on SE(sportier) models, GLE models don't even have an option for a 5 speed cuz they're the luxury edition of maxima. GXE's(base models) are probably more likely to have a 5 speed cuz they're the economical version. some places will actually charge more for the car simply because it's manual.

thanks!

Well, here are a few more for you. Chrysler made a lot of cars from the early eighties to the mid nineties that had a good amount of torque, they were inexpensive, and besides the Daytona most of them made great sleepers. Also, they had a very fat power band and made great use of their horsepower and torque. Most of them weigh under 2,800 pounds except for the vans. I might have forgotten a few cars in each engine category.

There was a load of cars in the 90s with a better power to weight ratio than the Sentra SE-R.

Turbo I: 150HP/210 ft/lbs:

Chrysler:

Fifth Avenue
Laser
LeBaron
New Yorker
Town & Country

Dodge:
600
Aries
Caravan
Charger
Daytona Turbo Z
Lancer
Omni GLH
Rampage
Shadow
Spirit

Plymouth:
Acclaim
Reliant
Voyager

Turbo II: 174HP/200-210 ft/lbs:

Chrysler:
LeBaron GTC/GTS (89)

Dodge:
Daytona Turbo Z
Omni GLHS

Turbo III: 224HP/218 ft/lbs:

Chrysler:
Phantom R/T

Dodge:
Daytona Iroc R/T
Spirit R/T

Turbo IV: 174HP/200 ft/lbs:

Chrysler:
LeBaron GTC (90)

Dodge:
Daytona Turbo Z
Shadow CSX

thanks.

The 1998 Camaro SS has to be near the top, 3360lbs, to 345lb-ft. That's 9.7lbs per lb-ft.

The 1998 Camaro SS has to be near the top, 3360lbs, to 345lb-ft. That's 9.7lbs per lb-ft.

Hmm, I thought those weighed more towards the 3,800-pound mark. All I know is they were heavy.

Nope, they weighed about 3400 lbs.

a '92 ZR1 'vette's gotta be pretty close to tops with 9.3 lbs per ft-lb.

looking for slightly more light, nimble cars here...

Not that I'm recommending a ZR-1 'Vette, but it's only 3200 lbs. and a HELL of a lot nimbler than your SE-R. So please, give us a more detailed response.

i'm sorry... if i forgot to mention i was thinking about affordable cars, and certainly cars under 3000 pounds, way under if possible. the "small car feel" starts to go away somewhere around 2500-2700 pounds

Yeah, but you said you wanted something nimbler than your SE-R, which the ZR-1 'Vette definitely is. You're right about the weight and cost, though.

well, it *does* sound like a great corvette. : )

although i have always been fond of the mid-60's stingrays, personally.

i suppose we should kill this thread. it doesn't look like anybody's going to join us with any new ideas.

thanks for all your thoughts and time, everyone! : )

Actually, everytime anyone suggested something, you rejected it. It seems like your SE-R is all that you want, and you made this post to try and prove that it is better than all other cars.

True that ^

Get this straight man, you can have a shitload of torque on a light car and still be slower than cars with a lot less torque.

Once again.

Peak Torque Means SHIT.
Look under the curve :)

First off, coming from a 2.2L loving family (dad owned GLH's and little brother owns a 600ES convertible) Polygon is right on the money proposing the meanest little SOHC to ever rev. The performance K cars have good handling (and in fact awesome handling when it comes to the Shelby Chargers, IROC Daytona Z's, CSX's, and GLH Omnis), are light as spit, and have tons of torque down low thanks to that big-stick 2.2L engine.

And yes, 2.2L SOHC turbo = more torque than 2.0L DOHC N/A.

Besides, you guys have all skill-fully ignored the real torque king of the 90's, and in fact perhaps of all time.

http://www.fast-autos.net/bentley/continentalt2.jpg

Bentley Continental T
420bhp
650lb ft of torque.
6.75L OHV V8, single turbocharger.

True that ^

Get this straight man, you can have a shitload of torque on a light car and still be slower than cars with a lot less torque.

Once again.

Peak Torque Means SHIT.
Look under the curve :)

No comment! :smokin:

http://www.e31.net/pics/TorqueDiabloGT.jpg

http://www.e31.net/pics/Torque996Turbo.jpg

http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/leifiphysik/web_ph09/umwelt_technik/08vergleich_o_d/leist_dreh_otto.gif

http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/leifiphysik/web_ph09/umwelt_technik/08vergleich_o_d/leist_dreh_dies.gif

http://www.kfztech.de/kfztechnik/motor/steuerung/panther1.jpg

http://www.kfztech.de/kfztechnik/motor/steuerung/bueffel1.jpg

sorry if it seemed i was dismissing ideas, kaman. that was not my intention. i apologise for any misunderstandings. i honestly want your opinions.

it just seemed like people kept posting heavy, non-japanese cars...

just looking for a quick, light car that has the feel i want, man. i ain't hatin' ; ) i'm not trying to prove anything.

if anything i want to proven wrong, but every time someone thought they were doing that, they were suggesting either an expensive car, a heavy car, or one with styling i'm not partial to.

i think you all posted with the best intentions.

this is my fault for not specifying that i am looking primarily at light japanese cars. i will start a new thread.

and thanks, really!, for all the advice. if i find a friend with one of the cars you guys have suggested, i will give it a test drive with an open mind.

after all, some heavy cars, American cars, etc, DO handle quite well.

no hard feelings from my end. i hope you guys aren't holding onto any either.

No comment! :smokin:

http://www.e31.net/pics/TorqueDiabloGT.jpg

http://www.e31.net/pics/Torque996Turbo.jpg

http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/leifiphysik/web_ph09/umwelt_technik/08vergleich_o_d/leist_dreh_otto.gif

http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/leifiphysik/web_ph09/umwelt_technik/08vergleich_o_d/leist_dreh_dies.gif

http://www.kfztech.de/kfztechnik/motor/steuerung/panther1.jpg

http://www.kfztech.de/kfztechnik/motor/steuerung/bueffel1.jpg


WTF :smokin:

word.