noby76

Snow? Its All Over

Recommended Posts

Oh, that's a new one from you. So, a 200bhp car, weighing in at say, 1500kg is faster than a 300bhp car, weighing the same 1500kg? How's that work? Because 200bhp in a 1500kg car is a power to weight ratio of about 133bhp per tonne. But a 300bhp 1500kg car has a power to weight ratio of 200bhp per tonne?

Must be the magic Knobby's car has, that it defies the laws of physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Nobby left his car in a substation over night, like they did in the Blues Brothers and now both he and the car have super powers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! get that rear window cleared..... So you can see Nobby sliding into your back end... :oops:

you dirty man Transpoter :msn-oh: ... dont worry Ray will go nice and easy behind you with those slipprey rubbers on!! oops i meant will drive sensibly and keep my distance with my summer tyres in the snow...

Nonsense! He has the fastest car in the world and has super "Nobby" powers..... :nuke:

Is IS300 a fast car for what it is?? Yes it is fast...its not exotic car ferrari, Lambo fast nor is it V8 400+ bhp fast but it can comfortably keep up and most times outrun most 200 to 300 bhp both naturally aspirated and Turbo charged petrol and Diesel cars around its weight capacity.. and 200 - 300bhp cars are what we normally see on UK roads and are driven by majority of people as anything past 300bhp is too expensive to run and one wont have enough road in UK to max them out anyway. :winky:

200-300 BHP cars the same weight as a IS? not sure what you meant when you say weight capacity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Nissan GTR has an official bhp of 550 bhp with a weight of 1740kg power to weight ratio will be 316 bhp per ton. An Enzo Ferrari with carbon fibre body shell and F1 technology from top to bottom has an official bhp figure of 650bhp with a weight of just 1365kg power to weight ratio will be 476 bhp per ton.

In 2012, the GTR lapped the Nurburgring in an official time of 7 minutes and 19secs.

In 2008 the Enzo Ferrari lapped the ring in an official time of 7 minutes and 25 secs.

Now the Enzo has a whopping 160bhp advantage over the GTR with regards to their power to weight figures so why was the Enzo not able to defy laws of physics based on its figures and weight?? There are other factors which resulted in the bloated GTR lapping a faster time than the Enzo.

  1. Could be the GTR’s gear ratios, final drive and torque curve delivery.
  2. Could be drive loss percentage compared to the Enzo.

Lets say the GTR’s mechanical parts like gearbox, alternator etc are very efficient which results in a 10% drive loss,… stay with me on this one!!

This results in a rear wheel horse power of only 284bhp per ton when 10% is calculated against the original power to weight figure of 316bhp.

Lets say the Enzo’s mechanical parts are not too effiecient which results in a 20% drive loss, This results in a rear wheel horse power of 380bhp per ton when 20% is caluculated against the original power to weight figure of 476bhp.

This has now brought the original 160bhp power to weight advantage the Enzo had down to only 96bhp per ton(380bhp-284bhp). Now lets say the GTR was geared better and has more mechanical grip, better engine mapping, better cams, better exhaust system, better drag coefficient the 96bhp advantage the Enzo has, has now thrown out of the window by the GTR rendering the original Enzo’s 650bhp figure and weight of 1365kg useless around the Nurburgring.

What am I saying here? All am saying is fact that an Imprezza GB270 with 270 bhp and weight of 1425kg and power to weight of 190bhp per tonne does not mean it can pull faster or rev faster in each gear compared to an IS300 with 140bhp per ton to its name. Because by the time you dissect that the imprezza has more drive loss due to its 4WD system, has a drag co efficient of 0.33 compared to IS300’s 0.29 (lower number means car flows better at high speeds), plus who knows? I might be running better fuel(high octane), better tyre pressure, better engine oil, similar gear ratios in 3rd, 4th and 5th and similar sport Cams compared to the GB270, the driver will find it difficult to pull away from the IS300 in a straight line if we both floored it in 3rd from say 80mph to150mph even though it has 50 bhp power to weight advantage over the IS300 and has been geared to hit 0-60mph in only 5.2secs in 1st and 2nd. And scenario was in real life. Take off from 3rd to 5th the IS300 matches the GB270 in a straight line.

So yes matt there are other factors which can cause the IS300 to defy laws of physics when compared to slightly more powerful cars. Its no magic and the GTR has proved it round the Nurburging against the Enzo Ferrari. I have proved it with the GB270 and countless other performance petrol and diesel cars within 200 to 300bhp mark.

Off topic but Lexus LFA Nurburgring Package went one better and lapped it in 7minutes 14 secs beating both GTR’s and Enzo’s time. With 560bhp and a weight of 1480kg when compared to the Enzo’s 650bhp and 1365kg weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yawn.gif

Sorry.... The IS is not a fast car unless turbo'd, supercharged etc.

Nobby, get yourself a V8 or V12 car bought and then return to the dinky L6 and you'll see the difference..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yawn.gif

.

Sorry.... The IS is not a fast car unless turbo'd, supercharged etc.

Nobby, get yourself a V8 or V12 car bought and then return to the dinky L6 and you'll see the difference..

dinky L6? dont make me laugh Ray i regard a car capable of 150mph fast and i have had it at 147mph with it sitting at 5500rpm so the extra 3mph can easilty be achieved if i didnt back out ...0-60mph does not mean fast it means fast from 0-60 and i think thats where most people go wrong. they forget all about in gear accleration. and Transpoter i have had my share of dates thank you.. not sure what this has to with this thread but hey....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that it's a dinky either 2 or 3 litre 6-pot lump that isn't overly impressive in it's current form.

My 525 diesel isn't much slower than this and is auto (read turbo lag and auto lag)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt overly impressive?? it actaully depends on what you want to compare it against here Ray like i said previously.. when compared against a high peformance V8, V10 or V12 it has no chance but lets come out into the real world where V8's,V10's, V12's are not driven by majority and compare the IS300 to majority of affordable performance cars when i say affordable i dont mean £50k..affordable 200 to 300bhp cars either Naturally aspirated, Turbo charged petrol or Turbo diesels which are driven by majority of people on UK roads, the IS300 is as fast as if not faster than most in the category and I have had a lot of challengers with cars of those bhp's. IS300 punches above its weight performance wise, it's a 150mph car so i dont know what you regard as fast if 150mph is not fast in your books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobby, the Lexus IS300 only produces 211 bhp. In today's money that is not very much for a 3 litre car. Very little in fact.

As for 150mph. When Car and Driver tested it they couldn't get it any higher than the official top speed claimed by Lexus to be 144mph, so where 147mph @ 5500 rpm comes from I have no idea.

This video shows a Lexus IS300 at the Bonneville Salt Flats doing 140mph. There wasn't much left in that engine for going any harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clocked 147mph in mine with more room left for 150mph... top speed or how quickly a car maxes out also depends on ones engine and transmision health mainly engine oil and oil type, engine oil condition, spark plug condition, transmission oil teperature, type of tyre being used , tyre size being used tyre pressure setting and how well an engine has broken in... so if the guy in your video above has his tyres under inflated by say 5psi and other factors like oil type , oil condition or spark plugs are not in good condtioin the cars ECU will automatically retard some performance to compensate for this. and i beleive salt flats is not the same as normall tarmac road with regards to recording land speed. dont know why people cannot beleive or are finding ways not to accept an IS300 is fast and capable of 150mph... IS250's are down at 140mph aswell but there are lots of videos of them clocking 150 to 160mph and they got there quickly aswell.. does 0-60 qualify the IS250 as a slow car on paper yes. does it qualify as a fast(160mph) car from 3rd, 4th and 5th compared to most high performance Porche's?? Yes

260kph is 160mph

if this same 204bhp car should floor it behind say a 3.2 BMW M3, he would happily keep up to 160mph..see why a 0-60mph figure is not always important and doesnt always mean that 5 sec car is faster from take off from 3rd gear compared to an 8.2sec car which floors it in the same 3rd gear ?? a car with good higher gear ratios mainly 3rd, 4th, 5th can keep up.. dont miss the rpm the car was spining at! at 260kph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive never based a cars fastness on its 0-60 and i hate ppl who do. so many other factors involved. I also personally dont consider a 3.0L 6 cyclinder to be a big engine, but thats only because i spend alot of time in america where in their real world it is small/average and would even be considered a gas saver. but in the UK's pathetic world, it is big unfortunately. And its also common knowledge that any 4 pot will run out of puff at high speeds whatever BHP its got. I.e a Impreza. btw noby i wasnt disagreeing with you, i simply didnt understand what you meant by weight capacity in your original post, you didnt really make it clear which is prob why you got challenged lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I wouldnt compare american engine sizes as an example. For the most part they get very little BHP for the engine sizes they use. They usually just increase engine size to gain power rather than increase there engineering skills lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

clocked 147mph in mine with more room left for 150mph...

I take it this was done on your private runway/circuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I wouldnt compare american engine sizes as an example. For the most part they get very little BHP for the engine sizes they use. They usually just increase engine size to gain power rather than increase there engineering skills lol.

im not comparing british cars with american cars, im comparing the markets. If you go to america you'll find prob half of americans dont even drive american cars, in fact they have much more choice than we do. Im saying i can justify saying a 3.0L is small because in america the same cars we have have much bigger engines and is the norm. And the cars your talking about with big V8 lumps arent designed for speed, there designed for maximum reliability and long distance cruzing, much like the IS200 in fact, on a larger scale of course, well the only difference being those V8s are very tunable indeed with twice the output being produced happily. In fact most american cars are way up there in the competition with there engineering skills, and have prooved that in the UK with the current ford, vauxhall lineup too. You can tell im a bit of a american car buff so sorry if i got a LITTLE defensive :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats ok it wasnt an attacking statement anyway ;-) just saying. Lets be fair tho the americans do go abit overboard with there engine sizes. New Viper for example, 8.4 litres? I know its about 640bhp but do u really need 8.4 litres? Lol. Obviously ur prob on about much lower spec cars but most other markets dont really resort to such large engine sizes. Dont get me wrong tho i do like muscle cars ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scanned Knobby's post and yawned over the plethora of figures (he does live figures!) until I got to the (quote) "The IS300 does defy the laws of physics" and LOL'd and LOL'd and LOL'd

Knobby, what do you do for a living?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give it a break matt...everything about cars is based on figures from thier 0-60 times, to thier weights, to thier power to weights, to thier tyre sizes, to top speeds, to gear ratios, to cam profile sizes, to piston size, to cylinder bore size, to connecting rod size, to valve lift distance, to cubic capacity, to exhaust bore size and the list goes on....these parts are all based on figures. figures is what physicist (which in a cars case will be engineers) use to build cars for what ever purpose. be it if they want to build for performance, speed or for economy. figures and calculations will give them all the answer and predictions they need. so yes figures are really important and shouldnt be overlooked. what i do for a living is not the main topic of this thread nor would it bring any benefit to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I scanned Knobby's post and yawned over the plethora of figures (he does live figures!) until I got to the (quote) "The IS300 does defy the laws of physics" and LOL'd and LOL'd and LOL'd

Knobby, what do you do for a living?

Chasing Gobbo & Sly Matt.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

noby76 lets be fair tho comparing the power to weight ratios of those cars (GTR, Enzo, LFA) and there laps times around 'the ring' is abit pointless. The GTR handles like a housefly and from the times u posted suggests that the LFA does too. To say that track has a few corners would be a massive understatement so obviously handling is a major factor. A much smaller track wud be better for that argument but ultimately those figures are best used for straight line performance purposes really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

give it a break matt...everything about cars is based on figures from thier 0-60 times, to thier weights, to thier power to weights, to thier tyre sizes, to top speeds, to gear ratios, to cam profile sizes, to piston size, to cylinder bore size, to connecting rod size, to valve lift distance, to cubic capacity, to exhaust bore size and the list goes on....these parts are all based on figures. figures is what physicist (which in a cars case will be engineers) use to build cars for what ever purpose. be it if they want to build for performance, speed or for economy. figures and calculations will give them all the answer and predictions they need. so yes figures are really important and shouldnt be overlooked. what i do for a living is not the main topic of this thread nor would it bring any benefit to it.

So what does 0-60, top speed, engine size, nurburgring lap times, Enzo's, Skylines, and all the other non-relevant spiel you've spouted have to do with Snow and winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to back track a few pages to remember how it started lol. The Transporter made the mistake of mocking noby's "worlds fastest IS300" and so began the onslaught of figures on the 300 and anything even slightly revelant to his argument lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.