It's Official. Skyline GT-R coming to U.S. in late 2007.

audiobliss

ND13 wrote:

Bliss,

The best place to learn how to drive a rear wheel drive car thru turns, believe it or not, is out in the country on old dirt or gravel roads. That's where I learned how to drive, there and in go-carts. Go out and find you a safe area in the country with some windy gravel/dirt roads and start learning how to use oversteer to your advantage.

Hmm. That would be soooo much fun. However, I did that a bit in the gravel parking lot at my local community colloege (uh, yeah...I'm taking classes there...) Monday morning. I got a ticket. But it was only $5, so it wasn't too bad.



jstas - Awesome post. I'm sure I'll need to re-read it. Thanks for the info!

Jstas

Dude, go look it up. The magic number thing was tongue-in-cheek. If you actually looked at the equation and realized that an engine speed of 5252 divided by 5252 will give you a value of 1. Torque x 1 = Horsepower. It's not magic, just reality.

Engine RPM is a velocity.

ve·loc·i·ty n.
Rapidity or speed of motion; specifically, the distance traveled per unit time.

So if velocity is a distance traveled divided by time then it would follow that engine RPM is Revolutions (distance traveled) Per (divided by) Minute (time) and therefore is a calculated velocity. Your equation says the exact same thing as (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower

You can spin it any way you want. This is not a fuzzy science here. This is physics, it's finite. There are laws in physics that cannot be changed, no matter how badly you want to win an Internet argument.

My post stands. Backpedal and talk around it all you want. You can find everything in my post in any high school physics book.

Sami

Jstas wrote:

Your equation says the exact same thing as (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower

I never said it wasn't. How do you read ""Magic numbers" are only needed if you're working with ancient units..."? The smilie in the end should have given away that I was poking little for to the imperial unit users, tonque-in-cheek.

So you agree now that it is power that moves the car?

Jstas

No, I don't and I wrote a pretty long post as to why I don't agree.

Torque is a force. Forces do work. Power is a measurement of force over time. Measurements cannot do work. Power does not move a car, torque moves a car. Torque moves a car because it is a force and capable of doing work.

If you want me to see what you are trying to say, you need to share with us your definition of "power".

The definition of power that is currently being used in my posts is:

pow·er (pour) n.
The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower.

Given that definition, power cannot move a car because it is not defining a force to do the work. It is only describing the work done per unit of time.

The definition of a force being used in my posts is:

force (fôrs, frs) n.
A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.

Force produces motion. Force moves the car. Power doesn't do anything but describe work over time. It does not move the car. Period. It is not open for debate just like every other law of physics.

Driver

I've seen the croydon car in action, impressive, but glen doesnt race that any more, croydon pulled out from drag racing due to the cost of blowing expensive gear almost every time he went out to race, so he built his own and now has sponsorship from mag and turbo warehouse, the other skyline to look out for is the one of reece mcgregor, this guy has too much money, im sure he will go in to the 7's this season, but rear wheel drive is so much better for drag racing, i recon if these guys were racing rear wheelers they would be well in the 7's right now.

PolkThug

Jstas wrote:

Torque is a force. Forces do work. Power is a measurement of force over time.

Jstas shoots....


...he scores!

Sami

Jstas wrote:

No, I don't and I wrote a pretty long post as to why I don't agree.

Torque is part of the power equation but torque by itself doesn't move the car, you need the engine speed. If I told you a motor produces 10Nm, 20Nm and 30Nm of torque you wouldn't have any idea how that motor would move anything. If I told you it produces 10Nm at 10 r/s, 20Nm at 50 r/s and 30Nm at 100 r/s would you then have an idea? In the latter I told you power (and also a rough torque curve).

You said that torque curve doesn't tell power, how is it then that your power equation (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower is true? Torque on the other axis and engine speed on the other (Torque x Engine speed), now doesn't that tell you exactly power?

Sami

Jstas wrote:

Torque is a force.

Torque is force times distance of the force.

M = F * d

Sorry for the thread getting so OT.

PolknPepsi

Just sit back and floorboard it......let the force be with you.

PolkThug

In Sami's version of the Matrix "There is no torque."

Jstas

You know what? Think what you want Sami. You're wrong. I gave you definitions of everything, I explained the differences and I even tried to understand what you are trying to say. You still maintain that you have it all figured out and hundreds of years of research, study and proofing of physics is just flat out wrong. So go ahead and continue living in blissful ignorance. I'm not wasting my time any more.

Sami

Well, if things were put out differently would you then agree:

Force (not torque) is the creating factor in what moves the car, power is the determining factor in how fast a car accelerates and moves.

The original comment was made just in the debate over which is more important, torque or power. It is always power that matters as torque alone will not move the car.

Happy now? Don't come and tell me about ignorance when you think that torque curve doesn't tell you power.

PolkThug

This thread is officially retarded now.

P-Thuggy out

jdhdiggs

Edit: PT, you were right. This is dumb

Sami

jdhdiggs wrote:

Hmm, Macloud can probably generate close to 400 ft-lbs of torque

We can all create much more than that if needed. As torque is a measurement of force all you need to do is increase the distance. 200 pound person standing on iron bar (on open end) at 2ft is creating 400 ft-lbs of torque (at supported end.) Now if the objective is to turn an axle then an increase in radius (distance) is limiting the speed that you can turn it.

Sorry.

jdhdiggs wrote:

Sami is right (At least on page three)

Semantics error earlier on is what I think got it all started. Now lets get back to subject (if it isn't dead already).

jdhdiggs

Well, I was just using a persons legs as the lever arm and conservative estimates with a believable example. On a leg extension machine, I can generate close to 500 ft-lbs (250lbs of weight ~ 1ft lever arm, 1 leg) but it takes probably 1/2 second to raise it. a whole lot of torque, not much HP. And for some reason I can't out run a car over 50 yds... I just don't get it...

John, I hadn't read page two yet, your point on towing and engine design is right on, however, wasn't the discussion on racing, not towing?

Sami

jdhdiggs wrote:

Well, I was just using a persons legs as the lever arm and conservative estimates with a believable example. On a leg extension machine, I can generate close to 500 ft-lbs (250lbs of weight ~ 1ft lever arm, 1 leg) but it takes probably 1/2 second to raise it. a whole lot of torque, not much HP. And for some reason I can't out run a car over 50 yds... I just don't get it...

I know. I was just saying that we can generate all the torque we want by increasing the distance (up to a certain point of course). In cars we increase/decrease torque all the time by using this (gearbox).

PolkThug wrote:

This thread is officially retarded now.

Like always with internet forums, tongue-in-cheek. Don't take it too seriously...

PolkThug

Sami wrote:

Like always with internet forums, tongue-in-cheek. Don't take it too seriously...

OOOHhhh... Well, in that case, the reason my car kicks the **** out of "turbo rice" in a street race (ie 0-65mph) is that I'm already up to 300 rear wheel torque* at a mere 2500rpms. Twin-screwed beeeyatch!!!

"Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races."



*As measured by Dynojet using standard measurement procedures.

Sami

PolkThug wrote:

OOOHhhh... Well, in that case, the reason my car kicks the **** out of "turbo rice" in a street race (ie 0-65mph) is that I'm already up to 300 rear wheel torque* at a mere 2500rpms. Twin-screwed beeeyatch!!!

Aha, and what you just told me was horsepower. Remember, (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower.

PolkThug wrote:

"Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races."

That's the old misconception. You need to reformat it to say something like "Peak horsepower sells cars, torque curve (powerband) wins races."

PolkThug

Sami wrote:

You need to reformat it to say something like "Peak horsepower sells cars, torque curve (powerband) wins races."

I agree, but that's way too wordy to be a catch phrase!

Jstas

Wow.

Just....wow.


jdhdiggs, I know the original discussion was about racing. However, the discussion about racing and "power" was going in a direction that was not only inaccurate but mis-leading. I mentioned towing as a demonstration of the differences between the two engines I described in my example. I just used it as a way to illustrate teh concepts so that the non-science types could understand the idea without having to know the math. That's all it was. Not trying to change the subjects or anything. There was no other motive except to use it as a learning tool.


I'm with PolkThug's original idea. This is getting lame and sounds like a broken record now. I'll just say one more thing. Don't listen to everything everyone says on the internet. If there is something that intrigues you, go and look it up for yourself. Don't rely on what one person on a forum says. The Internet is an amazing tool. There is literally centuries worth of information avaiable to you at your fingertips. You just gotta look past your nose.

PolkThug

Sami wrote:

Aha, and what you just told me was horsepower. Remember, (Torque x Engine speed) / 5,252 = Horsepower.

Let's plug it in: 300*2500/5252 = 142.8 Pretty cool huh?



So... Torque is a force that can be measured. Horsepower is just a calculation.

Sami

PolkThug wrote:

So... Torque is a force that can be measured. Horsepower is just a calculation.

No, that's not correct. Torque is also a calculation, derived from force and moment arm of the force.

M(oment) = F(orce) * d

F = m(****) * a(cceleration)


http://guardian.curtin.edu.au/cga/teach-in/forces.html

jdhdiggs

LOL Anal retentive anyone?

audiobliss

Well...just to get this whole thread back on track....


The new Corvette Z06 walks all over the Viper!!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

shack

audiobliss wrote:

Well...just to get this whole thread back on track....


The new Corvette Z06 walks all over the Viper!!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

I'll just wait on this one....



2007 Ford Shelby Cobra GT500

475 hp for $40,000...

By then daughter #1 will be out of college and I can AFFORD one.

Sami

shack wrote:

475 hp for $40,000...

With that kind of price tag I doubt it much better than the Mustang GT, just more hp.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html

jdhdiggs

Add all this together and you start to understand why we have Lotus, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin. And they have the Ford F-150 Lightning pick-up truck: 0-60mph in a millionth of a second. Enough space in the back for a dead bear. And on a challenging road about as much fun as a wasabi ****.

Sorry John, that is funny!

shack

Sami wrote:

With that kind of price tag I doubt it much better than the Mustang GT, just more hp.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1794313,00.html

Wrong.....Excerpt from CAR and Driver

The heart of the GT500 is a supercharged 5.4-liter DOHC 32-valve V-8. If those specs sound familiar, it's because they're interchangeable with the description for the mid-engined Ford GT. But there are important distinctions. The GT V-8 is all aluminum with a dry-sump lubrication system, whereas the GT500 has an iron block and a wet sump. The GT engine is force-fed by a Lysholm screw-type supercharger; the GT500 will use an Eaton R122 Roots-type blower and an air-to-liquid intercooler, adding 10 psi to the intake system at peak boost.

The Lysholm unit is a little more expensive," he says, "but the big problem was supply. They can't make as many as we're going to need. There are performance differences, too. The Lysholm type gives you a little more top end, and the Roots type is a little fatter in the midrange. We think owners will be satisfied with this setup."

Power will be abundant, although O'Connell and his crew were still being cagey about specifics. Pressed on this issue, O'Connell said "between 450 and 500 horsepower—how's that?" Our tech staff warmed up the calculators and figured a forecast of 475 horsepower at 6000 rpm. We may be low.

Big power isn't much good unless it gets to the ground without excessive wheelspin, which is why the production GT500 will have a lot more rear tire than the New York show car, which hunkered over a set of 19-inch wheels wearing 255/45 tires. The initial production run of GT500s will roll on 9.5-by-18-inch wheels with sticky Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires—255/45 front, 285/40 rear.

"We just couldn't get the 255s to hook up," says O'Connell. "Almost every run was going up in smoke."

A pronounced forward weight bias—about 57/43, according to O'Connell—didn't help, either. Part of this is due to increased mass. The supercharged iron-block 5.4 weighs about 175 more pounds than the naturally aspirated 4.6 SOHC 24-valve aluminum V-8 in the Mustang GT. That factor, plus a bigger front-brake package, bigger wheels and tires, and other GT500 package elements, add up to a curb weight projected in the 3850-pound range versus 3575 pounds for the last Mustang GT we tested.

But with the fatter Goodyears managing power delivered by a Tremec six-speed manual transmission and limited-slip rear end, O'Connell is confident the GT500 will sprint to 60 mph in "less than 4.5 seconds," even with its tallish 3.31:1 rear-axle ratio. We expect that when we put the spurs to a test car early next year, a 0-to-60 number will come up in four seconds flat, and the quarter-mile will be 12.5 seconds at 116 mph. For perspective, those runs would be representative times for a C6 Corvette.

Other predictions: O'Connell forecasts a skidpad number of "0.91 or 0.92 g." We think that's a little conservative. Our last two C6 Corvette coupes [C/D, September and December 2004] produced identical 0.98 skidpad numbers. The GT500 will weigh in considerably higher, but it matches the Vette's rear rubber and has even more contact patch up front. Accordingly, we expect to see at least 0.94 g.

Braking: The GT500's 18-inch wheels will shelter huge 14.0-inch vented front rotors with four-piston calipers applying squeeze and 11.8-inch vented rear rotors. (The Mustang GT has 12.4-inch front rotors and 11.8-inch rears, all vented.) Given its Brembo braking system, bigger footprints, and stickier tires, we expect stops from 70 mph in less than 170 feet, which is, once again, Corvette territory. The front rotors on the GT500 show car were cross-drilled and vented. The production car's brakes will lack cross drilling, which looks sexy but tends to produce cracks in hard use.

Handling: The GT500 has hefty front and rear anti-roll bars—a tubular 1.4-inch bar up front and a solid 0.9-inch rear bar—and the spring rates and damping profiles have been adjusted to complement the massive power. There's more roll stiffness, but it's remarkable how supple the suspension manages to be, particularly with a live axle at the rear.

The extra $15,000 gets you more than just hp.

Sami

shack wrote:

Wrong.....Excerpt from CAR and Driver


The extra $15,000 gets you more than just hp.

Well, not much more. HP, brakes and wheels. No IRS? No suspension modifications? Much more weight!

What Jeremy wrote in the article would still hold truth to this Shelby Cobra. It's meant for a straight line.