Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
12-12-2007, 01:22 PM
#51
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Middleburg Hts. OH
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 85 T/A, 92 Rs
Engine: L98:D,L03:<
Transmission: 700r4x2
Axle/Gears: 3.23 bw, 2.73 10 bolt.
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
the 350 z is nothing next to a skyline, even an r33, it's a totally different flavor of car.
the reason pushrod v8's get better gas mileage is less cams? i'd like more proof on that one, you're still pushing a much more convoluted valvetrain, the real reason is the aforementioned poor head design limits the rpm's but the layout increases the ability to have cubic inches in a tight engine bay. a typical pushrod v8 is all torque and very little rpm compared to other layouts. As tpi owners know, low rpm and lots of torque is fun not fast, but relatively cheap on gas (as if that exists anymore bleh).
The r34 has been out of production since 2002 ish, lets go see what i can dig up on models that are availble to the public right now.
i'm finding other things as well but i thought this was a good place to start:
The Skyline GT-R soon earned the name Godzilla, for its track performance. The R32 GT-R dominated JTCC, winning 29 races from 29 starts, taking the series title every year from 1989-1993. It took 50 races from 50 starts from 1991-1997 (latterly R33) in the N1 Super Taikyu. The R32 GT-R was introduced in the Australian Bathurst 1000 touring-car race to compete against Holden and Ford V8 saloons, winning in 1991 & 1992. However, the GT-R's success sounded the death knell of Group A Touring Car racing; with the formula being scrapped soon after. JTCC was similarly blighted by the R32 GT-R, and splintered soon after, leading to the switch to the Supertouring category and also indirectly to the GT500 category of today.
WHOA apparently we are not the first forum to have this debate i googled r34 vspec2 nur vs c6 zo6 and this is a hot topic all over the automotive net because of the upcoming release of the r35 in america. Apparently chevy is putting it's eggs in a row to battle the r35 spec for spec but they are VERY close with people on both sides convinced their brand will dominate, it's a clash of titans,, er silverado's and titans...
I know i sounded a bit snively before but i'm having a hard time finding a true comparison between the two cars, their both wicked fast, i'd like to do a calm factual comparison in a new thread if anyone is interested and can keep it adult and calm, their both the pinnacle cars of the respective nations, who wants to do it??
the reason pushrod v8's get better gas mileage is less cams? i'd like more proof on that one, you're still pushing a much more convoluted valvetrain, the real reason is the aforementioned poor head design limits the rpm's but the layout increases the ability to have cubic inches in a tight engine bay. a typical pushrod v8 is all torque and very little rpm compared to other layouts. As tpi owners know, low rpm and lots of torque is fun not fast, but relatively cheap on gas (as if that exists anymore bleh).
The r34 has been out of production since 2002 ish, lets go see what i can dig up on models that are availble to the public right now.
i'm finding other things as well but i thought this was a good place to start:
The Skyline GT-R soon earned the name Godzilla, for its track performance. The R32 GT-R dominated JTCC, winning 29 races from 29 starts, taking the series title every year from 1989-1993. It took 50 races from 50 starts from 1991-1997 (latterly R33) in the N1 Super Taikyu. The R32 GT-R was introduced in the Australian Bathurst 1000 touring-car race to compete against Holden and Ford V8 saloons, winning in 1991 & 1992. However, the GT-R's success sounded the death knell of Group A Touring Car racing; with the formula being scrapped soon after. JTCC was similarly blighted by the R32 GT-R, and splintered soon after, leading to the switch to the Supertouring category and also indirectly to the GT500 category of today.
WHOA apparently we are not the first forum to have this debate i googled r34 vspec2 nur vs c6 zo6 and this is a hot topic all over the automotive net because of the upcoming release of the r35 in america. Apparently chevy is putting it's eggs in a row to battle the r35 spec for spec but they are VERY close with people on both sides convinced their brand will dominate, it's a clash of titans,, er silverado's and titans...
I know i sounded a bit snively before but i'm having a hard time finding a true comparison between the two cars, their both wicked fast, i'd like to do a calm factual comparison in a new thread if anyone is interested and can keep it adult and calm, their both the pinnacle cars of the respective nations, who wants to do it??
Last edited by rockit; 12-12-2007 at 01:43 PM.
01-04-2008, 01:03 AM
#52
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: califorina
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1989 i roc-z28
Engine: 350 tpi l98
Transmission: 700r4
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
these damm mk3 owners don't give up. i got a race with another on going down probably this up coming Thursday. this one isn't quite as beefy as the first one but im not going to use the bottle and i got some new mods.
my new mods are a eldlebrock torque arm and a accel base manifold port matched to my slp runners.
his car is a 87 toyota supra with a 7mge also with
turbo head and upper intake overhaul
turbo conversion with stock ct-26 under 6lb ( he claims 10)
turbo ecu
tein full coil over suspension
short shifter
Meagan racing strut bar
custom exhaust no cats or mufflers
stock turbo **** except he has hard inter cooler lines.
apparently since it was a stock 7mge the higher compression and boost is going to make it stupid fast according to him. also just to throw out there the motor has 204k miles on it and the oil rings are shot and according to the supra owner i was going to race first he turbo seals are also blown.
my new mods are a eldlebrock torque arm and a accel base manifold port matched to my slp runners.
his car is a 87 toyota supra with a 7mge also with
turbo head and upper intake overhaul
turbo conversion with stock ct-26 under 6lb ( he claims 10)
turbo ecu
tein full coil over suspension
short shifter
Meagan racing strut bar
custom exhaust no cats or mufflers
stock turbo **** except he has hard inter cooler lines.
apparently since it was a stock 7mge the higher compression and boost is going to make it stupid fast according to him. also just to throw out there the motor has 204k miles on it and the oil rings are shot and according to the supra owner i was going to race first he turbo seals are also blown.
01-04-2008, 08:20 AM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: toledo
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 Z28
Engine: LG4
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.23
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
these damm mk3 owners don't give up. i got a race with another on going down probably this up coming Thursday. this one isn't quite as beefy as the first one but im not going to use the bottle and i got some new mods.
my new mods are a eldlebrock torque arm and a accel base manifold port matched to my slp runners.
his car is a 87 toyota supra with a 7mge also with
turbo head and upper intake overhaul
turbo conversion with stock ct-26 under 6lb ( he claims 10)
turbo ecu
tein full coil over suspension
short shifter
Meagan racing strut bar
custom exhaust no cats or mufflers
stock turbo **** except he has hard inter cooler lines.
apparently since it was a stock 7mge the higher compression and boost is going to make it stupid fast according to him. also just to throw out there the motor has 204k miles on it and the oil rings are shot and according to the supra owner i was going to race first he turbo seals are also blown.
my new mods are a eldlebrock torque arm and a accel base manifold port matched to my slp runners.
his car is a 87 toyota supra with a 7mge also with
turbo head and upper intake overhaul
turbo conversion with stock ct-26 under 6lb ( he claims 10)
turbo ecu
tein full coil over suspension
short shifter
Meagan racing strut bar
custom exhaust no cats or mufflers
stock turbo **** except he has hard inter cooler lines.
apparently since it was a stock 7mge the higher compression and boost is going to make it stupid fast according to him. also just to throw out there the motor has 204k miles on it and the oil rings are shot and according to the supra owner i was going to race first he turbo seals are also blown.
Im glad i dont have to worry about turbo seals and things like that now lol.
01-11-2008, 05:49 AM
#54
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
It isn't that pushrod motors get better gas mileage, it's that they get better gas mileage per horsepower. OHC motors will have better volumetric efficiency no doubt, more horsepower per liter, but it comes at the cost of efficiency per unit of fuel used.
However, here's some cherry-picked research I did into it a while back while arguing with some *****s on a local board about OHCs:
Consider that the Ferrari V12 used in the F50 weighed 437 lbs and made 513hp. The LS7 weighs 458 lbs and makes 505 hp. Now keep in mind how much cheaper the LS7/Z06 was compared to the F50 which is truly a supercar when you compare them. They have roughly similar numbers, the difference is that the Ferrari was 4.7 liters and the LS7 is 7.0 liters. But since they weigh almost the same and the power output is almost the same... does it really matter what the displacement is? If you can get 2 more liters out of an engine and make up for the weight and power disadvantage of a DOHC motor... why not? It's just a different way of accomplishing the same thing, and you pick one or the other depending on the limitations given to you.
Back to BSFC, for those that dont know, that's basically gas mileage per horsepower. Compare the DOHC BMW M5 V10, official numbers are 11 mpg city, 17 mpg highway. 505 hp, 5.0 liters. Lets compare to the Vette Z06 LS7. 7 Liters, 505 hp also, 14 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Rough numbers I can find put the V10 at 530 lbs. LS7 to the best of my knowledge and research weighs 450 lbs.
There's a lot of fudge factoring going on here, it's hard to find accurate numbers for this kind of thing. But to say that the pushrod engine has no place in a modern sports car is silly.
Looking at official figures for an 06 Mustang GT (4.6) compared to a '02 LS1 Camaro still gives the Camaro the nod for fuel economy (And it's 1.1 liters bigger) despite the LS1 being officially (and modestly) rated at 345 hp and the Mustang 4.6 rated at 300hp for 06. Perhaps that's also on the modest side, but I think the point stands.
Back to BSFC, for those that dont know, that's basically gas mileage per horsepower. Compare the DOHC BMW M5 V10, official numbers are 11 mpg city, 17 mpg highway. 505 hp, 5.0 liters. Lets compare to the Vette Z06 LS7. 7 Liters, 505 hp also, 14 mpg city, 24 mpg highway.
Rough numbers I can find put the V10 at 530 lbs. LS7 to the best of my knowledge and research weighs 450 lbs.
There's a lot of fudge factoring going on here, it's hard to find accurate numbers for this kind of thing. But to say that the pushrod engine has no place in a modern sports car is silly.
Looking at official figures for an 06 Mustang GT (4.6) compared to a '02 LS1 Camaro still gives the Camaro the nod for fuel economy (And it's 1.1 liters bigger) despite the LS1 being officially (and modestly) rated at 345 hp and the Mustang 4.6 rated at 300hp for 06. Perhaps that's also on the modest side, but I think the point stands.
Supercars:
Corvette Z06 2007 LS7:
7.0L 14/24 505hp
Pushrod
BMW M5 2007:
5.0L 11/17 505hp
DOHC
Regular cars:
Camaro Z28 2002:
5.7L 17/26 345hp
Pushrod
Ford Mustang GT 2007:
4.6L 15/23 300hp
DOHC
Acura NSX 2005
3.2L 16/22 292hp
DOHC
Chevrolet Camaro Z28 1992:
5.7L 15/23 245hp
Pushrod
Honda S2000 2007:
2.2L 18/24 240hp
DOHC
Be sure to take into account how old the tech for that L98 was and it was with an automatic.
You'll see a much clearer correlation between hp and gas mileage than displacement. To overcome the disadvantage of pushrods you need displacement, but the cool thing about pushrods is that you actually have room for it, and if you look, the extra displacement doesnt affect your gas mileage asm uch as you might think. Consider the LS1 makes more power AND gets better mileage than all those other motors below it (They're sorted by power output)
It's not the end all be all definitive, conclusive result of the BSFC debate, but it's interesting as far as anecdotal comparisons go. I got the fuel mileage numbers from fueleconomy.gov
01-16-2008, 06:05 PM
#55
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Middleburg Hts. OH
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 85 T/A, 92 Rs
Engine: L98:D,L03:<
Transmission: 700r4x2
Axle/Gears: 3.23 bw, 2.73 10 bolt.
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
to all that info though, i'd like to see average hp and tq, peak numbers don't tell the whole story by a long shot, i think turbo diesels would end up looking great the way you're comparing them. despite a terribly low redline they still develope tremedous torque and great mileage.
also, as you already know the gearing of said vehicles makes a huge difference as well, low end torque makes for long gears makes for better mileage, it's the original concept of TPI which gm has never really escaped ever since efi/dry flow has become normal. Another thing is that the ls1 is a VERY light engine for it's displacement, there are plenty of four bangers that weigh much more then the LS's.
also, as you already know the gearing of said vehicles makes a huge difference as well, low end torque makes for long gears makes for better mileage, it's the original concept of TPI which gm has never really escaped ever since efi/dry flow has become normal. Another thing is that the ls1 is a VERY light engine for it's displacement, there are plenty of four bangers that weigh much more then the LS's.
01-18-2008, 12:15 AM
#57
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: califorina
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1989 i roc-z28
Engine: 350 tpi l98
Transmission: 700r4
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
update
the 2nd supra i should be raced is having problems with his ingination. is it me or are those cars plagued with little problems. he did however race a s2000 and lost by 1/2 a car and i raced the same s2k and beat him by a car with no juice so this one should be in the bag. im thinking of spraying the 150 shot for ***** and grins now
the 2nd supra i should be raced is having problems with his ingination. is it me or are those cars plagued with little problems. he did however race a s2000 and lost by 1/2 a car and i raced the same s2k and beat him by a car with no juice so this one should be in the bag. im thinking of spraying the 150 shot for ***** and grins now
01-29-2008, 10:07 PM
#58
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Iroc-z vs Mk3 supra
to all that info though, i'd like to see average hp and tq, peak numbers don't tell the whole story by a long shot, i think turbo diesels would end up looking great the way you're comparing them. despite a terribly low redline they still develope tremedous torque and great mileage.
also, as you already know the gearing of said vehicles makes a huge difference as well, low end torque makes for long gears makes for better mileage, it's the original concept of TPI which gm has never really escaped ever since efi/dry flow has become normal. Another thing is that the ls1 is a VERY light engine for it's displacement, there are plenty of four bangers that weigh much more then the LS's.
also, as you already know the gearing of said vehicles makes a huge difference as well, low end torque makes for long gears makes for better mileage, it's the original concept of TPI which gm has never really escaped ever since efi/dry flow has become normal. Another thing is that the ls1 is a VERY light engine for it's displacement, there are plenty of four bangers that weigh much more then the LS's.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
