nukblazi

Nothing wrong with a 4-banger smoking a 4-banger in my book. Cheers.

Well- don't really want to get too far into this but here it goes. I am not really sure why anyone would really striaght line this car. I mean it is fun light to light, but rolling races, cornering, are a hell of a lot more fun to me.

Altima V6 is a quick car. It is **** for putting it to the ground though. Beat a guy in one just cause he was an idiot. (Why he bought the car.) He had an auto an I think he tried shifting manually. Smoked up his tires, got squirely, then I think he lifted his foot, switched to second, and again, not traction.

I haven't seen but two RSX type S on the roads, one ate a corner trying to keep up with me through the S turn in seaside heights. I wasn't racing, he was trying to catch up. He gutting the underpinnings of his car on the median, then slammed into an off-duty cop's car with the temp tag in the back window. (no way he knew the car well enough to take that turn at that speed) The other I lost on the GSPW with some effort.

The are a lot of Celica's, and a few GTS's around, a lot in Seaside! A couple seem to handle well, but accelerate for crap. Might be all the BS additional weight that come with those ground effects and insane wings. Not to mention the 19" rims the idiots are trying to rotate. The only GTS to hang with me, (Rt. 571 and off shoots, out passes Jackson NJ near great adventure) was a chic in a respectfully modified GTS. No BS, just lite-wheels and lowered. (don't know how or with what)

I think the point, is that either the C230 is slightly under-rated stock, or every other driver out there has no idea how to take a turn, determine shift points, or brake efficiently, because no one here is fibbing when we say we are not losing to the people we are supposed to be losing to.

trench

Although, the power to weight ratios favor the CLK320 Cab slightly, you mentioned a load of 300 lbs, so it sounds like you had two guys in there, which probably makes it close to a C230K with only one guy. (MB claims 7.7 s 0-60 for the CLK320 Cab) However, the C230K's rear-end is a little better geared for acceleration.

Cheers, BT

autobarn

Whether or not the C230k is under-rated is not the point. The numbers compare (more accurately than someone's race story) the capabilities of the cars.

I'm not saying that anyone is fibbing. But it's conceivable that for every race story posted about how your C230k smoked an RSX through an S-turn or Celica you creamed, that there are the same # of owners of Ford Explorers, Toyota Corollas saying how they smoked a C230k (similar to the post X15 mentioned). Does this mean an Explorer is a faster vehicle? NO. Does this make a Corolla faster than a C230k? NO. So what could explain X15 getting smoked by these slower cars? I've gotten smoked by slower cars for the following reasons: Not paying attention, driving fast but not risking driving dangerously, having a passenger beg me to slow down and not race, mis-shifts, bogged launch, too much tire-spin launch, low on gas, just want to play around for a bit and back off before it gets too serious, getting stuck behind a slow car. You see, there are MANY reasons why a faster car loses to a slower car. But the thing about street-racing is that it's not really racing. You don't know the other driver's intention/situation/motive or how seriously they are into it, so how can you call it a valid measure of your car's performance over theirs??? With so many factors it doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of upsets in street racing. But the facts are the facts, and 'generally speaking, the c230k will get BEAT by those other cars.

nukblazi

Please note that I am not disagreeing with you.

I am aware of the many possibilities and the situations. I am refering to semi-organized meets where we know the roads, there is hardly a car on the road, there are no or few houses or business around and the intention is clear, follow the leader. Do not pass, do not risk your, or another's life. And I have been smoked by modified Neons. It happens. I still think the car is under rated, and I think it is sick that MB has no way of determining just how many cars were sold with the Cam issue. The intent of most people there are to demostrate their cars and their abilities. The only reason we are not at track is insurance.

The point of the thread was discussing x15's possible problems. Sounds like he has a slight problem. Realistically, it is not a backpressure issue as most forced induction motors respond well to free flow exhaust systems. Thank you Buell for verifying a gain with straight pipes .

Possibly his cam is 20 degrees off. One cam gear tooth, based on his description and the comparisions he is using.

More to our discussion, which was off-topic. You're right. I strayed off topic.

goodman888

The official figure is 8.1s

BlackC230Coupe

Its not that numbers dont lie, its just that its obvious to me that some numbers can only be acchieved in some magizines.

For instance. 2 of my friends have celicas, 1 has a 5 speed GT, and the other has a 6 speed GTS. they both are stock but both have a cold air intake. the GT ran a 15.3 in the 1/4 mile the other day. Which is faster than the GTS according to the numbers you gave. The one with the GTS runs a 14.8 in the 1/4.

One of their friends has an RSX Type-S and can run anything better than a 15.3. So the numbers are not always right. IF YOU GO BY MAGIZINES they differ alot.

x15jq

Just got my car back 2 weeks ago for a belt tensioner problem. The symptoms was squeaking and scrapping noise during hardcore acceleration.

Well, low and behold, its doing it again!

Last time it basically ate the belt, left with a 2cm belt when I got to teh dealer. Shreds all over.

I am really begining to wonder what the hell is up with my car. Also got an SRS lite that hasnt been fixed after 2 service visits.

That doesnt really bother me eventhough it shoudl work, but I just dont want the car breaking down. The performance is definately not correct for my car. It feels liek a dead pedal and is refusing to kick down if u floor it.

It used to be fine, and my clk has treated me perfectly, but I prefer not to use it this time of year..

nukblazi

Do they all have stock tires? Just curious. Magazines are supposed to test as delivered, or do.

BlackC230Coupe

Yes my friends all have stock wheels/tires. Pretty small to.

Outland

The sometimes outrageously fast times listed in a few magazines have more than a few caveats...some are obtained using conversion factors, which convert accelleration numbers taken at high altitudes, or in high temperatures and humidities into figures representative of sea level low temp runs. The only ones that matter to me, are the ones that are conducted during back to back testing...that way, all the cars are on the same page. The run under the same conditions, launch from the same road surface, etc....


In addition, these runs are made with high rpm launches, dumped clutches, etc... Its not the kind of time or preparation you'll duplicate at the local stoplight. Nailing the launch in a high powered FWD car, especially the ones that only make high end HP and have weak torque takes a lot of practice and some good luck. Street races are often determined more by who gets the jump on the other guy, or who has more torque.

The RSX-S is a quick car...if you drive it like you stole it. But just a normal launch...if the guy next to decides to go for it, the torque to just roll on isn't there. Ive driven both the Celica and the RSX, and the Celica gets my nod for much cooler looking car, but I don't know how that thing can beat anyone...the powerband is soooo narrow, and so peaky that unless your always waiting with 6500RPM on the tach, there's no one home in the engine room.

I'd sure like an extra 25-50HP in the C Coupe, but if that meant giving it a high reving torque poor motor like the Celica, I'd take a pass.

BlackC230Coupe

I agree, some of those cars are qucik, but i would never get a car with less than 200lbs of toqure.

nukblazi

Well, you can get that with a few well plannd engine mods. If you have a manual you can put 3.67:1 gears in the rear diff. to get better e.t. and more a more usable rev band. Randy has that mod and posted his opinions on it.

installing a pulley with make more horse off the same RPM
installing cams would help also, between the two plus and intercooler. You should get more consistancy out of the motor and the >25 more horsepower.

Outland

Exactly. That was in the plan when I bought the car. One of the reasons I did some scouring to find the 02 with options I wanted.

Quote:

If you have a manual you can put 3.67:1 gears in the rear diff. to get better e.t. and more a more usable rev band. Randy has that mod and posted his opinions on it

That's too low. The C230 has so much torque, some taller first and second cogs make more sense than lowering ALL the gears. A point that I forgot to make in the above C vs. Rice arguments, if the C230 didn't have to make that incredibly ill timed shift at 53mph, it would probably be right there with the RSX on 0-60 times. Its my biggest gripe with the car that you have to burn 3 gears to hit 60.

Quote:

installing a pulley with make more horse off the same RPM
installing cams would help also, between the two plus and intercooler. You should get more consistancy out of the motor and the >25 more horsepower.

I plan to...just want to get some miles on it before I go the Pulley route. A bigger intercooler is less of a problem for me...I don't live in heat soaked Socal.

x15jq

I too would like to go the pulley route, but will need to tell service about the possiblity of a cam timing issue.

What is the best way to suggest there is aproblem. All i ever hear is, "cant replicate problem" , no such problem. And my srs lite is on, the claimed to replace a whole bunch of crap last time, but that doesnt help.

Outland

Go in with a list of problems...and tell the guy that you won't be taking the car home unless all of them are fixed.

As far as the cam timing goes...I doubt the cam isn't timed...the motor would run noticeably rough. However, I did read hear about someone having a problem with the variable valve timing hardware, and the car being down on power. You might want to search for that thread, and see if you have the same symptoms. If nothing else, it should give you ideas to use when trying to point a tech in the right direction.

Buellwinkle

You can always go about it in a sneakier way. Disconnect the cam sensor on top of your motor towards the back and drive around for a while, that will throw some codes for them to look at. How do you know your cam timing is off? Did you dyno your car yet? Lets see the results? I've seen plenty for C-Coupe dynos, I can tell if yours is off or not. Just let me know if it's a load bearing dyno like Dynomax/Mustang or a Dynojet.

autobarn

That's a bit presumptious to say that the 3rd shift is preventing faster 0-60 times. Proper gearing isn't as simple as 1-2-3...especially with an auto tranny (which is the 7.5 figure I was quoting from) Also, this is exactly the reason why I tend to look at 1/4 mile times, which reveals more accurately how fast the car really is.

It was brought out earlier how some people in Celicas are beating mag times and RSX's are slower than magazine times. Magazine times are calculated and run through complex algorithims using average times (both directions) and thousand dollar equipment. So mag times will almost ALWAYS be different and more accurate than your 0-60 time your friend clocked with his seiko chrono on a slightly inclined/declined road.

Basically my point is that magazine times are to be used as a basis for general comparison. Real world times and racing victories obviously depend on a million other factors as my previous post mentioned. But I repeat again and again, numbers don't like and a C230k is not a faster car than a Celica GTS or an Acura RSX. If you want to continue arguing about under rated engines, monstrous torque beating the peaky 8000rpm engines, then fine. And don't get me wrong, I think it's great that your car that was measured to be slower can beat the RSX and Celica's sometimes in races. That's what street racing is all about...upsets and driver reaction. Just don't debate which CAR (not driver) is faster, because the answer is in print.

mdp c230k

This is a common misconception. 0 to 60 times are related to hp not to torque. The same car with two different engines will be faster with the engine that has more hp not more torque.

goodman888

then what is related to torque?

Brandon @ Kleemann

Hate to break it to you- but you have it backwards. There is a heavily sited PORSCHE story from the early 80's. At the time they were developing the 944 turbo engine they experimented with a positive displacement ROOTS sc. Both cars ran the same amount of total boost at .6 bar. The car 944 with the SC (which made boost at idle and loads more TQ in the lower 4K rpms) walked away from the turbo 0-60 everytime.

Roll on acceleration from 60 to 150, the turbo had the advantage.

HP is developed at nearly maximum engine speed, while peak torque is developed in the lower to mid range. TQ makes you accelerate, HP determines you top speed.

mdp c230k

This will explain the whole relationship better than I could:http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_744/article.html
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_755/article.html is even better for this topic

autobarn

Read the posted article (linked before) for this conclusion:

"So power is the critical determining factor for maximum acceleration, and torque is necessary for driveability. This can quite clearly be seen in looking at the types of engines used for certain applications. Trucks and industrial vehicles use engines with large amounts of torque with a fairly flat torque curve, but relatively little power. Racing and sporting vehicles use high revving engines, with high power and relatively little torque in comparison to their power outputs. That is why you have F1 having engines revving to over 18000 rpm. And there's no use doing that if to maximise acceleration all you needed to do was maximise the amount of torque you had!"

SO...Torque doesn't mean faster acceleration. It has a part in it of course, but horsepower is the more criticial factor in accelerating! You can alter your gearing in a higher HP engine to produce more torque but not vice-versa (read the article).

autobarn

with his statement that more HP usually means faster acceleration. NOT torque...though it does play a part.

Outland

You guys are killing me with this stuff. Do you really think your car makes two kinds of power? HP and torque are the same thing...HP is merely the rate that torque is applied. What do you guys think the dynos measure? To get HP, you multiply torque by rpm/5252.

Torque is what gets you off the line. Torque is what gets you to 60...its all torque fellas.

Outland

Its true. Think how long it takes you to make that extra shift, the time the car falls off the power, and how long it takes to go from 53-60. The C is actually quicker to 30 and 40 than the RSX...at 50 they are dead even. By sixty a rather large .8 second gap has arisen. A slighty taller 1st, and slightly taller second would bring the coupe to 60 with only two shifts...same as the RSX, the Cooper S and the Celica. I'd expect at least a half second better time- just because of the saved shift.

Don't go quoting the auto times, automatics do not behave the same way as manual transmission cars...its not an apples to apples comparison. Automatics are not manuals that shift themselves.

Quote:

Real world times and racing victories obviously depend on a million other factors as my previous post mentioned.

Something I also mentioned.

Quote:

But I repeat again and again, numbers don't like and a C230k is not a faster car than a Celica GTS or an Acura RSX. If you want to continue arguing about under rated engines, monstrous torque beating the peaky 8000rpm engines, then fine.

If you do an engine swap and trade the C-Coupes M111 for the high reving 200HP Honda mill, and vice versa, what do you think would happen? I'll bet that the RSX gets slightly faster, and the C-Coupe becomes slower. Only 8HP seperate them, but the M111's massive 208ft-lbs of torque come on sooooooo much lower than the RSX-S's rather weak 142ft-lbs. Look at the difference in the curb wieght! The C-Coupe is 400lbs heavier than the RSX...that's like racing in the RSX with two friends along!

Quote:

. Just don't debate which CAR (not driver) is faster, because the answer is in print.

Where? Did I say that?