Well fake times or not both roadandtrack and caranddriver posted the exact same trap speed. 102mph for their 1/4 mile tests.
It was a respectable loss... Now that I look at a few things I can dyno 242whp but still take a loss to that accord why? Thier MAX torque is at 5000 RPM, ours is at 4400 so when I shift and land at 5200 RPM so does he but he's got a hell of alot more torque putting him ahead of me slightly.
We kept going and after 110mph he stopped pulling altogether. That engine is tuned for top end, VQ is more for around-town torque. If someone pulls on you in a 1/4 mile drag thats not power, its torque.
If we take 239whp and divide by .86 (14% drivetrain loss) we get 278 so thats how much those accords really make at the crank. Now the 5-speed AUTO accords make more like the 268 they advertise (271 and 254 lb-ft for 09 models) since that has the VCM and makes way less power than the 6M's
With the whp / .86 formula u can get your crank hp.
jkg with 242whp you're making 281BHP
After its all said and done their gas mileage is still terrible though, 17/25 for the 6-speed. But as for performance you can't sleep on them. VQ might have some trouble keeping the Ward crown now.
Well fake times or not both roadandtrack and caranddriver posted the exact same trap speed. 102mph for their 1/4 mile tests.
It was a respectable loss... Now that I look at a few things I can dyno 242whp but still take a loss to that accord why? Thier MAX torque is at 5000 RPM, ours is at 4400 so when I shift and land at 5200 RPM so does he but he's got a hell of alot more torque putting him ahead of me slightly.
We kept going and after 110mph he stopped pulling altogether. That engine is tuned for top end, VQ is more for around-town torque. If someone pulls on you in a 1/4 mile drag thats not power, its torque.
If we take 239whp and divide by .86 (14% drivetrain loss) we get 278 so thats how much those accords really make at the crank. Now the 5-speed AUTO accords make more like the 268 they advertise (271 and 254 lb-ft for 09 models) since that has the VCM and makes way less power than the 6M's
With the whp / .86 formula u can get your crank hp.
jkg with 242whp you're making 281BHP
After its all said and done their gas mileage is still terrible though, 17/25 for the 6-speed. But as for performance you can't sleep on them. VQ might have some trouble keeping the Ward crown now.
Not every car dynos the same, thats why everyone should get their cars dynoed if there interested in how much power they are making. Like I said earlier, my horsepower numbers at SAE is 250 WHP. That could explain me beating both the Accord 6 mt and the TL-S, G35 (HR) and slightly losing to the G37 because of traction lol.
__________________
2007 Altima 3.5 SE 6MT Bone Stock! 14.180@100.16 MPH (70F)
^Well then you must have a factory freak to have 291BHP from just an intake, like I said earlier its not really even the power you have to worry about its their 254lb-ft torque at 5000 RPM's that you've got to worry about.
Well I just got a job at a Nissan dealership so I'll be sellin plenty of Nissan's and soon I'll have some money to throw away for a dyno
Well I raced him again tonight after I put my stock air duct on, and boy did that make a difference.
We did it from a 10mph roll. This time we pulled about even, he was inching past me though, at 110mph he was 3/4 a car ahead.
I still lost but I doubt I'd win anyways. Perhaps jkgultimate has a factory freak, or maybe this black accord is a factory freak. In any case I'll get my car dyno'd and track it as soon as I am able.
If there's something wrong with my engine I have no clue what it would be.
It makes sense to me now, there's probably nothing at all wrong with my engine.
Seeing as that Accord put down 102mph in the quarter and I was barely a car behind I will probably do 100-101mph in the quarter with the intake.
Great run again. Nice to see you made up some ground over last time.
There is nothing wrong with your engine. It is also possible that the accord owner you raced runs premium fuel which will give the accord a few extra ponies to work with. The accord that JKgultimate raced was probobly using unleaded fuel and thats probobly why he pulled on it. All in all its a drivers race between the two cars and I am glad to see how closely they are matched even with the accord weighing 150lbs more.
Did you have a passenger this time? Maybe it wasn't your WAI slowing you down earlier.
No passenger but remember I lost by over 2 cars (I was ahead after the launch). I went from that to losing by only 1 at the end of the quarter mile pass and after that he stopped pulling altogether.
The passenger I had with me before was a skinny paperweight he probably weighed 150lbs.
What slowed me down was probably half TCS and no air duct. Without that air duct the car can't get a good feed of air from outside the car, its relying on the air moving inside the engine bay.
But notice after 110mph he stopped pulling, thats because he can't get a good pull off torque anymore after that point. If the VQ had its torque peak at 5000 RPM's that race would have been very different. I am actually starting to wonder if its even worth it to rev past 6200 RPM's or so since 6000-6900 is completely flat. If I shift earlier I get more torque on the shift. I need torque to win drags, I can let it rev to 6800 RPM's on those 4th gear + runs where there's enough road.
Another thing to note those accords have pretty much a stock cold air intake, if you look they get air right behind the lower grille.
No passenger but remember I lost by over 2 cars (I was ahead after the launch). I went from that to losing by only 1 at the end of the quarter mile pass and after that he stopped pulling altogether.
The passenger I had with me before was a skinny paperweight he probably weighed 150lbs.
What slowed me down was probably half TCS and no air duct. Without that air duct the car can't get a good feed of air from outside the car, its relying on the air moving inside the engine bay.
But notice after 110mph he stopped pulling, thats because he can't get a good pull off torque anymore after that point. If the VQ had its torque peak at 5000 RPM's that race would have been very different. I am actually starting to wonder if its even worth it to rev past 6200 RPM's or so since 6000-6900 is completely flat. If I shift earlier I get more torque on the shift. I need torque to win drags, I can let it rev to 6800 RPM's on those 4th gear + runs where there's enough road.
Another thing to note those accords have pretty much a stock cold air intake, if you look they get air right behind the lower grille.
Rule of thumb is you loose .1 on your 1/4 mile time for every 100lbs.. now if your passenger was 150lbs you will have some loss.. that could make the difference between a carlength and dead even.
now you said on the second run you guys went from 10mph roll.. you shouldve gone from another dig like last time and out-launched him which wouldve had a different outcome..
regadless.. good runs and props for maning up to a loss..
__________________
02 Alti 3.5 5mt
Mods:every bolt on expect for cams and SSIM.
I asked the dyno owners if it was corrected, he said "NO", he actually told me it it shows LOWER numbers then the average dynojets in our area (10% lower) to proove this he dynoed his turbo integra on a different dyno and then his, there was a 10% drop in power.
So don't assume anything before you get the full story.
The new Accord V6 is DESIGNED to run on 87 octane. It is RECOMMENDED. Putting in premium most likely won't do anything (sometimes it hinders performance if your not using the proper fuel).
The Altima uses PREMIUM because it is RECOMMMENDED.
The Accord engine management is TUNED to run on 87 octane for optimal performance where the Altima's is NOT.
I even went on the Honda Accord forums and said the same crap as me. They all were like there was no gain, it was a waste of money. One dude said, I think it helped my top end, but that could have been the weather.
One guy said thats a NO NO.
Now if the Accord dude I raced put the NON recommended fuel and lost, alright thats something else. If the Accord put the RECOMMENDED fuel for that car and lost, well he lost.
You of all people should have known this, I guess you haven't done your research and are ASSUMING again.
Dynos are inaccurate as is, especially when comparing to some joe-schmo 1,000 miles away on another dyno. Only reason I have EVER dyno'd is to show gains in between modifications and that's all they SHOULD be used for. So jkgu, quit with all this "Oh my SAE Geographically altitude anally modified numbers are.. blah blah blah." You dyno'd 242 and that's all. You don't know what you would dyno on a dynojet since you haven't run on one.
Dynos are inaccurate as is, especially when comparing to some joe-schmo 1,000 miles away on another dyno. Only reason I have EVER dyno'd is to show gains in between modifications and that's all they SHOULD be used for. So jkgu, quit with all this "Oh my SAE Geographically altitude anally modified numbers are.. blah blah blah." You dyno'd 242 and that's all. You don't know what you would dyno on a dynojet since you haven't run on one.
**** it, going back over to Maxima.org
SAE is to bring the rating comparable no matter where you are.
Go back to the Maxima forums.
"Hey everyone, I took off my 3.5 badging and put on the WAY better 2.5 stuff. Hell, I even took off one of the mufflers to make it look like a 2.5! You know whats the best part, I EVEN TOOK OFF MY REAR bumper and "UPGRADED" it to the 2.5! I am SooOo cool tricking people".
"Not to mention, I am going to run a 13 second run"!
2 weeks later...
"Guys....I ran a 14.3@99 MPH....."
"I knew I could run 13's, but I can't drive because I should have ran a 13 flat according to my calculations".
"My car is way faster than yours JKGultimate!"
JKG says "Not according to your 1/4 mile times".
Leathe says "My car has so much potential, if I stuck my cock in the gas cap, it would have raised the octane level, but it wouldn't reach man".
I guess that got you riled up. Haha, the truth hurts, huh?
I guess I'll play along and dissect your attempts at insulting me.
Quote:
"Hey everyone, I took off my 3.5 badging and put on the WAY better 2.5 stuff. Hell, I even took off one of the mufflers to make it look like a 2.5! You know whats the best part, I EVEN TOOK OFF MY REAR bumper and "UPGRADED" it to the 2.5! I am SooOo cool tricking people".
I'll explain this one last time. You make the car look slower so that "faster" cars will underestimate you even more so. So imagine that you've lured one of these cars in for a race and they lose. Now sure if the car was badged a 3.5 they wouldn't be too worried. It's a big V6, probably had a TON of modifications to be able to beat him. But not this time. The dude looks back and all he sees is a 2.5S badge. Now he has NO excuses. Sure he could say the 2.5 has a lot more done, but it's still a 4-cylinder. I didn't do it for image or to look cool, I did it to **** with people. And by the way you're reacting, I've succeeded.
Quote:
"Not to mention, I am going to run a 13 second run"!
2 weeks later...
"Guys....I ran a 14.3@99 MPH....."
"I knew I could run 13's, but I can't drive because I should have ran a 13 flat according to my calculations".
Oh, hahaha! This again!
1. 2.5 60'
2. Second run EVER at the track, not enough seat time.
3. You've even said that the launch and shifts affect MPH.
Can you just drop that? It's getting old having to explain it to you over and over. Reminds me of my 6 year old nephew. Lol
Quote:
"My car is way faster than yours JKGultimate!"
JKG says "Not according to your 1/4 mile times".
Haha! Don't you see the stupidity in that? You're comparing numbers to justify your car is faster. By your logic, both our cars runs the same 1/4 mile times stock according to the Magazines. Numbers are just that, numbers. Too many variables to do ANY sort of comparison. So just drop the ricer calculator.
Quote:
Leathe says "My car has so much potential, if I stuck my cock in the gas cap, it would have raised the octane level, but it wouldn't reach man".
That's because I'm a little too thick for the gas neck nozzle.
So, what's your opinion on methanol/alky injection on an N/A Altima?
Last edited by Leathe of Heaven : 08-23-2008 at 07:29 AM.
I asked the dyno owners if it was corrected, he said "NO", he actually told me it it shows LOWER numbers then the average dynojets in our area (10% lower) to proove this he dynoed his turbo integra on a different dyno and then his, there was a 10% drop in power.
So don't assume anything before you get the full story.
The new Accord V6 is DESIGNED to run on 87 octane. It is RECOMMENDED. Putting in premium most likely won't do anything (sometimes it hinders performance if your not using the proper fuel).
The Altima uses PREMIUM because it is RECOMMMENDED.
The Accord engine management is TUNED to run on 87 octane for optimal performance where the Altima's is NOT.
I even went on the Honda Accord forums and said the same crap as me. They all were like there was no gain, it was a waste of money. One dude said, I think it helped my top end, but that could have been the weather.
One guy said thats a NO NO.
Now if the Accord dude I raced put the NON recommended fuel and lost, alright thats something else. If the Accord put the RECOMMENDED fuel for that car and lost, well he lost.
You of all people should have known this, I guess you haven't done your research and are ASSUMING again.
I am not assuming anything. There is a correction factor that is used and the person running the dyno puts information into the computer based on conditions. One of those conditions is elevation. There is a correction factor for that. I have had my car dynoed here in Tucson at 3075ft and my buddy ran the dyno. I asked him about elevation and if it would show a lower number on the dyno since we are at a higher elevation. He said no because the dyno has a correction factor for that.
The new accord is designed to run on regular unleaded or premium. The Accords ECU automatically adjusts to the higher octane! The only reason Honda recommends Regular unleaded is for the people who don't want to spend the extra money on fuel. When they see PREMIUM FUEL RECOMMENDED it scares the potential buyers away.
The ECU adjusts to the higher octane number and produces more power. Its been dyno proven already at VTEC.net with a 08 Accord V6 Auto. Its also been dyno proven with the 03-07 Accord V6 both 6MT and 5AT. Honda also stated on its website Hondanews that the 7th gen accord gains 10hp and 10tq with premium fuel. The Accord has a knock sensor and when 87 Octane is used more knocking occurs. The ECU retards the timing hence killing power! With 91+ octane this does not occur since it has a higher resistance to engine knocking. Premium fuel does not benefit the 98-02 Accord V6. That car does not have a knock sensor and the ECU does not adjust to the higher octane rating and actually loses about 7whp and 5wtq with 91 octane.(Car and Driver did that test) The 6th gen is designed to run on Regular only but not the 7th or 8th gen. They can run on both but they will perform better with premium. You can even run a Altima 3.5L on 87 octane. However the knock sensor will retard the timing hence loss in power. Same with the accord. If Honda wanted to they could say that the Accord recommends premium fuel just like the Altima. They don't becuase most people who buy these cars don't want to spend the extra 3-4 dollars per fill up.
You need to go to V6performance.net and get informed before you talk without knowing what you are talking about.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Sure he could say the 2.5 has a lot more done, but it's still a 4-cylinder. 
Linear Mode
