Guest ON3GO Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 1989 ZR1 w/ exhaust + headers = 342rwhp and 330lbs 199? Porsche 944 S with exhaust and intake = 191rwhp and 226lbs 1977 Datsun 280Z L28ET @ 5psi = 179rwhp and 215lbs 1999 Z28 with long tube headers and no exhaust = 298rwhp & 287lbs 1970 Camaro 350 = 178rwhp and 198lbs (he thought he would beat me) and there were a few others like Z71 trucks and a probe and some hondas and crap. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john kosmatka Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 nice pretty soon youll beat the porsche and then you can set your sights on that zr-1 . John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 well i raced the porsche after that.. won by a good amount too.. i even had the teacher in my car, he loved it! mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleMX Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 What type of dyno was it? (brand) portable? Dale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akeizm Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Was it an automatic porsche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plainswolf Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 The 944, though it may have had slightly more hp/tq, it was a heavier car than the 280 even with a passenger in the Zcar... One of the greatest features about a Z car is it's LOW WEIGHT.. Power to weight ratio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 My ex-boss had a 944S. Damn fine track car. 928 brakes, tranny cooler, etc. Can't remember who made the chip, but my boss chipped his and and it came with a restriced orifice that tricked it into boosting 1 bar and supposedly was good for 285 horses after that. Plus my boss said the Porsche computer isn't going strictly off a map, so if you put 110 octane in it the thing will keep boosting. It was pretty fast! They are kinda heavy though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 no it was a 5-speed. it was a dynojet dyno. and my Z is pretty heavy.. im guessing near 3000lbs mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 One of the greatest features about a Z car is it's LOW WEIGHT.. Power to weight ratio! You aint kiddin brother... I dynoed 226hp to the wheels on my last test, about 265hp at the flywheel figuring 15% driveline losses. Car weighs about 2400lbs.... power to weight ratio of 9lbs per 1 hp, 9:1. By comparison: Corvette Z06 (2002), about 8:1 Regular Corvette (2002), 9.2:1 Porsche 911 Turbo (2000), 8.4:1 Viper SRT-10 (2003), 6.8:1 Viper RT/10 (1996), 8:1 Mustang Cobra (2001), 9.2:1 Mustang GT (1999), 12.3:1 Skyline GT-R (1999), 12.5:1 350Z (2003), 11.5:1 Supra TT (1994), 11:1 BMW M3 (2001), 10.2:1 Ferrari 360 Modena (1999), 7.4:1 (wish I knew the Enzo's stats!) And the list goes on and on... As you can see my relatively mild Z (many guys with much more power than I'm putting down) outclasses a lot of the fastest factory cars on the road when it comes to power-to-weight ratio. Maybe not the end-all be-all of judging which cars are faster than which, but definately a good indicator. Doesnt take much power in a lightweight Z to have a better ratio than just about anything on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Bastaad, The weight ratio on a regularC5 is off. Should be ONLY 90# difference between it and a Z06. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrus Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 there is no such thing as a 89 ZR-1. just letting you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 then its a 90.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Bastaad' date=' The weight ratio on a regularC5 is off. Should be ONLY 90# difference between it and a Z06. Mike [/quote'] Actually, the database I'm looking at has the regular C5 listed at 3110lbs, for the hardtop, and 3118 for the Z06, 8lbs difference. So for the regular C5: 3110lbs / 345hp = 9lbs, or 9:1 For the Z06: 3118 / 405 = 7.69lbs, or 7.7:1 (I rounded off and said about 8:1, but then was being more exact later on in the list). A '91 ZR1 weighs 3435lbs, and has 375hp 3435 / 375 = 9.16 or 9.2:1 On3go's flywheel hp should be about 210 or so, and he's estimating weight at 3000lbs (I'm figuring he is a bit over on that, but we'll go with his number). 3000 / 215 = 13.95 slooooow Only stats I could find for the 944 were for a '91 944 S2, 208hp and 2950lbs, very close to ON3GO's #'s, you can see the Porsche that dynoed was a little up on power though and Mike mentions it had exhaust and intake. Adding in drivetrain losses he's at about 225hp. 2950 / 225 = 13.1 Mike you are a better driver than he heheh no but really though I think your Z must weigh a lot less than you think. You should go weigh it and be sure. I'm betting it's more like 2800lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 reg C5 vette is alot heavier then that. like 3300 or so. the Z06 was 3111lbs for my dads Z06. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 The claimed numbers on both models are all wrong on the C5 and the Z06. My car weighes 3216# with a full tank. I don't have the factory mufflers which weigh a lot. A friend of mine weighed his with a full tank and it came in at 3156#. These are used with a VDOT truck scale. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bastaad525 Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 *shrug* blame it on Cartest 2000 then, not me, that's where I get all my car numbers from, which, in turn, got all it's numbers from published magazine articles. You also have to take into account different years, different body styles (coupe, hardtop, convertible, I dunno), was it auto or manual, and I have NO idea if this is with a full tank of gas or what, but so far all the numbers you guys posted are not far from what I posted, around 3100lbs, full tank is how many gallons? 7lbs per gallon I believe, so that puts your cars dry weight closer to 3100lbs as well. Even if the numbers are off ~50lbs it doesn't change the power to weight ratio a whole lot. 3118 / 405 (numbers from cartest) = 7.7 3216 / 405 = 7.9 For 100lbs difference... so no biggie if my 'source' if off a few lbs... sheesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 the porsche guy ran his car at the track. 14.2's... and he can drive. hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Magazines are funny in that they NEVER get the details right... But the makers are just as guilty! Chevy had FOUR different numbers for the 6 speed coups... That led me to weigh mine. Gas weighs 6.2# per gallon. The Vettes all hold 18 gallons. In the end, none of it matters if you can't hussle it down the road, right? Mike 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phailure Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 the porsche guy ran his car at the track. 14.2's... and he can drive.hahaha I hear thats the typical performance for a stock 944 S (low 14 secs). I rode in a 944 S with a bigger I/C and raised boost. I don't think it had a larger turbo, but that car felt ridiculously fast. It was pitifully slow under 4k rpm but above that, it was crazy. The acceleration above 4k rpm definitely felt faster than my dad's C5 vette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 well guys did some research.. they also made 944 S's that wernt turbo, which is what he has. the turbo ones should be good for a low 13 and with some mods dip into the 12's with a good driver and rasied boost. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.