Club-S12 International S12OC United Kingdom ClubS12 France S12Silvia Australia S12.org.ua Eastern Europe S12 of Sweden S12 Japan BBS
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: VS. the underdogs.  (Read 2048 times)

Offline fyneyoungstunna

  • S12 Guru
  • *****
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Posts: 3,475
  • Vehicle: 1984 Nissan S12
VS. the underdogs.
« on: 09:27:30 PM / 17-Sep-12 »
I don't really know where I'm going with this or exactly how to say/ask, but:

 In car history , why does it seem like some of the positions got flipped around?

for instance:  z32 vs supra(the iconic one) vs 3000gtvr4. All very capable cars. but I still think the z32 pound for pound is just as great of a car if not better than the supra. The vg30dett has just as much potential as the 2jz. I think engine wise the z32 got written of because of all the lore spread around about working on the engine. The 3kgtvr4 is right up there with both of them as well. stock for stock I think the later two even beat the Icon in more than one test/way.
  In the same sentence, from Nissan, the skyline is the Icon, but the TT Zed whoops on it in stock form. But you ask most car people which one is the greats and for no reason they know themselves, most of them will say the skyline.

then we have the corolla vs supra vs s12 vs mr2.  Corolla get so much fame just for looks and being know outright. but the other cars are soooo much more capable in stock and in upgraded form.

Just making conversation I guess. The lounge has been pretty dead for "thinking" topics lately.

Facebook Share    

If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

Offline JuneBug

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Posts: 675
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #1 on: 09:50:15 PM / 17-Sep-12 »
I like where you are going with this.  A lot of cars have built up hype since they've been around, but when they were new the playing field was more even.

Say the year was 1985 and you were looking to buy a new car.  You wanted it to be sporty, decent on gas, look good enough to maybe get you laid, and still seat 4 people.

Choices would have been Nissan 200sx(s12), Toyota Celica(non supra), Toyota Corolla GT-S, Subaru XT, Honda Prelude, Ford Mustang(4cyl or v6), or Chevy Camaro(4cyl or V6)

The Corolla GT-S stands out as the modern day over-hyped car on this list, but back in 85 I don't think many of us would have chose.  I like the S12 because it strikes a happy median between all the competition.

So what would you have chosen in 1985?

Offline JonB

  • CONTRIBUTING MEMBER
  • S12 Guru
  • *****
  • Location: SW Pennsylvania
  • Posts: 2,622
    • http://
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #2 on: 10:47:04 PM / 17-Sep-12 »
To op;I don't know really. I'd have to dig deeper on this to tell you the whole answer. In I'm interested in hearing some responses.

Sometimes, often actually, a car gets a rep for its track victories as well as its ability to be built. I'd say that the 300zx has a pretty good high-end track rep here in the us. But is that really how it went down on the track in cars closer to stock?

Here's my thoughts;

The 3000 doesnt seem to stand much of a chance due to its drive train mass and heavier weight, but on the other hand, the 2jz is almost a response to the Nissan rb, and that car was awd, But also that gt-r was laid out in a more conventional manner, where the 3000 was transverse. I for one don't prefer transverse do to packaging constraints and the tendency of the engine to be forward of the centerline of the front wheels. Combine with the v6, I think this would creat some problems;

first is the weight distribution of the car - the motor is to far forward.

Two, the transverse drive train favors more power going to the front wheels, though the weight is up there, which makes it good in the dirt and snow during initial launch, the weight transfers rearward as the car moves. Furthermore the front tires have other work to do - they have to steer; read circle of traction. And the fwd/transverse typically doesn't deliver more power to the rear, at best usually 50/50 with a spool.

These are some of the reasons I think, the 3000 just isn't as much as a winner as the supra nor the 300zx.

Now the other two; basically the I vs the V sixes; though the v sports lower crank weight and a more compact lentgh. The v6 sports two rods on every length of journal. With this, either the crank isn't as strong, or they increase the journal diameter, which then needs higher op demands. And I think the biggest factor why the I6 have a "rep" as winners is the freedom of intake and exhaust design. With the I there's more space for the designs to permit better flow, usually in race mode, the I will usually breathe better than the v.

Anyhow, those three are all good cars, and you'll seldom needs the kinda power they're serving on the street. Just play the hand your delt, and build whichever one you want.

Offline Jay

  • Now v3.0.14 rev. C... Cowbell included!
  • Moderators
  • S12 Guru
  • *****
  • Location: Calumet, Mi
  • Posts: 5,543
  • Vehicle: 1989 BMW 3 Series
  • ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้༼ ຈل͜ຈ༽ส็็็็็็à¹â€
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #3 on: 12:18:06 AM / 18-Sep-12 »

So what would you have chosen in 1985?

85 MB 190e 2.3 16v Cosworth
« Last Edit: 12:23:35 AM / 18-Sep-12 by Jay »

Quote from: David B
i like gay porn. but i dont post that in my sig links.

Offline SchizophrenicMC

  • Resident Resident
  • Moderators
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Location: DFW, Texas
  • Posts: 2,387
  • Vehicle: 2000 BMW 5 Series
  • I Like Gay Girls
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #4 on: 12:36:08 AM / 18-Sep-12 »
The 3000GT VR4 is right out. Its AWD system is fairly simple and maxes out at 50/50 power distribution, it's got a heavy drivetrain, and it's transverse so its weight distribution isn't great. Like JonB said, its front end has to do a lot more work for less benefit. It makes 1 more hp and the same torque as the Supra, but its torque peak is much lower- 2500rpm vs 4000rpm- meaning all of its advantage is used up at launch. Once things pick up, it's in the dust with its weight at the wrong place and its torque declining.

Really the race is between the Supra and the 300ZX. The Supra is just a bit lighter than the 300ZX Twin Turbo 2+2, and it makes 20 more hp and about 30 more ftlb of torque. Also, the Supra has a sequential turbo setup, meaning it gets a double surge of power, across the rev-range. The 300ZX used parallel turbos, giving it a more traditional turbocharged power curve. Super HICAS 4-wheel-steering and an expensively developed suspension and chassis seem to give it an edge in cornering, but the Supra will take off on straights. Where the 300ZX looks like it will really lose out is brakes- the stock units are not enough to stop its nearly 2-ton mass quickly.

So the Supra takes it between those three. But what about versus the other super-sport of the early 90s: The RX-7 Twin Turbo?

The RX-7 Type R has about 60 less horsepower than the Supra and 100ftlb less torque, but it weighs a full 500 pounds less with the best suspension to come out of Japan in the 1990s. In a straight line, even the Mitsu will beat the RX-7, but take it into any corners, and that rotary will shine. It also has a twin sequential turbocharger setup meaning its power delivery is more constant, even at lower revs around a corner.

Moving on.

In a race between a Celica Supra, an MR2, a Corolla GT-S, and a 200SX, the Supra will take it. Although not quite as capable in the bends as the other 3, it has more power and torque, and a competent enough suspension (in a relatively-low speed race as it'd be in) to save time in the corners. The MR2 is easily the lightest of the three and slightly more powerful than the GT-S. The 200SX becomes the weakest link. It's the second-heaviest, with the weakest suspension, and the worst delivery of power. Unfortunately, Nissan didn't develop it to be a great racing car- they had the 300ZX for that. The S12 would be competition for the Corolla GT-S, but the MR2 and Celi-Supra would be running circles around it.

IvDave, I think if I was buying an entry-level sport coupe in 1985 (take the Mustang SVO off of there- it was more expensive than the GT) I'd probably end up in the 200SX. It's not the quickest-cornering or the most powerful, but it has a good balance I dig. It'd be that or the Corolla GT-S, which is lighter and more fuel efficient. Gas was disproportionately expensive in the mid-80s.
Nah, quoted for future use because not only is it lame and old, but it's a direct link to Schizo posting up homoerotic menswear fanfiction.
Quote
zololn: wheres the check engine light on the s12?

Offline silverton

Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #5 on: 01:40:58 AM / 18-Sep-12 »
stock for stock, an SE-V6 s12 will take a celica-supra.  I've owned both ;)  the supra had a 4.3 rear end with nearly the same transmission ratios.  It's hard to hook them up from a launch, first gear is essentially useless.  and then being geared so low, they run out of breathe quick.  and it's just a measly 12v inline six that makes 160hp and 160'ish torque.  Not sure at what RPM's.  but the SE-V6 weighs about the same (Z31's are far heavier than a MA61), but has more, usable, power.

Supra VS 300ZX has always been a big deal here in the states.  Z31 chassis ran from 84-89 or something like that?  MA61's were 82-85.  NA Z31 vs Celica-Supra, the Supra takes it.  the MA70 Supra ran 86.5-92.  the NA cars take the NA Z31 easily with its better flowing 24 valve I6, and turbo vs turbo, the Supra takes it again with more power and a better flowing engine.  So Nissan responded with the Z32 with the VG30DE(TT).  Toyota couldn't have that so they came back with the Supra we know today with the 2JZ.  They got pretty close to the same amount of power, so it pretty much all came down to brand loyalty and looks.  the Z32 gets my vote on looks, and I have no brand loyalty, I just like what I like.

the Corolla GT-S has such a following because of Initial D.  That's all there is to that.
-Dennis

BoostedVG (in regards to people hating on the VG) - Me thinks they were not the mechanic they thought and blamed it all on the engine.

Colonol Gustard - youre one of the few people that represent the s12 chassis like a boss!

Offline fyneyoungstunna

  • S12 Guru
  • *****
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Posts: 3,475
  • Vehicle: 1984 Nissan S12
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #6 on: 02:57:17 AM / 18-Sep-12 »
sadly enough my choice would have been the Camaro...or Mustang GT hands down. But, if I knew as much as I know about cars now, back then; deff s12.

I always hear a lot of negative about the 3000gt vr4, but weight and stuff was never bought up. Interesting perspective on it. People usually just say its "pig heavy" but so is the supra. I wonder what kind of power numbers the vr4 is capable of....

  as far as Z vs Supra. Schizo:
   I'm curious as to why you chose the 2+2 for the comparison?
     I would have went with, at least, the 2 seater TT. If I wanted to give the advantage to Nissan it would have been the 2+0 TT "slick top". both of those models weight less than the Supra.
  As for brakes: The brakes on the Zed are more than capable of stopping it, and stopping it well. Our brakes are almost the same as a skyline.
   There has only ever been one supra that I have liked. For some reason I just cant get into the looks of them. but thats a personal thing. I cannot discredit the supra as a car....at all.
You're right, I did leave out the rx7. There was no reason. I just kinda forgot. I do, however, think it is another Icon car. BUT, a different kind of Icon car.
  I hate that just like the Supras they are over priced for no "good" reason. But unlike the heavy clunky straight line supra, they are almost worth the price.
I hate seeing rx7 shells go for 8k+ plus though.

 I would love to see a lineup of comparisons between the juggernauts of each respective group. First a "Top Gear" style comparison between the supra, Z, 3kgt vr4, and rx7. Second a "Hot Version" touge style run between all. Then a good ol "NHRA" style drag...
 
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

Offline SchizophrenicMC

  • Resident Resident
  • Moderators
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Location: DFW, Texas
  • Posts: 2,387
  • Vehicle: 2000 BMW 5 Series
  • I Like Gay Girls
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #7 on: 09:03:58 AM / 18-Sep-12 »
stock for stock, an SE-V6 s12 will take a celica-supra.
The above race was set in 1985. There was no SEV6. It was the Celica Supra's final year of production and the other 3 were all a year old (with the Corolla GT-S set to end production in a year or so)

I chose the 2+2 because the longer wheelbase is noted for better handling than the 2-seater. That's the only place the Z is going to get an advantage. To balance the chassis stiffness issue, let's just say the Supra's a targa. ;)

As far as brakes, the stock brakes on the Supra have more stopping power than the ones in a Z32TT, at least according to what I've read. The big complaint I hear from Z32 guys (aside from the impossible engine bay) is the brakes don't stop you like they should on a car this fast.

At least RX7s are rare enough to solicit the kind of money people ask for them. They only got 3 years of production in the US (versus like 6 for the Supra and Z32 each) and a bunch of them got wrecked by people trying to be Keisuke Takahashi. Most of the remainder got raped with mods, and rotaries just blow a lot, so there's a number of shells that aren't complete cars. I'd definitely pay 15 g's for a running stock FD, and 10 for a mint stock Z32TT 2+2, but I'd never pay anywhere near what Supras go for. That's ridiculous.
Nah, quoted for future use because not only is it lame and old, but it's a direct link to Schizo posting up homoerotic menswear fanfiction.
Quote
zololn: wheres the check engine light on the s12?

Offline fyneyoungstunna

  • S12 Guru
  • *****
  • Location: Colorado Springs
  • Posts: 3,475
  • Vehicle: 1984 Nissan S12
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #8 on: 10:49:27 AM / 18-Sep-12 »
^ good. point on the 2+2, and well played dear sir!
  Ahh yes, the annoying ass brake fade.....That is a very concerning issue actually. A few Zeds have succumb to the calling of the junkyard before it was ever figured out. Most common in spirited driving and autocross......

I always seem to pass on the rx7 for some reason. I think mostly Its because I know if its anything like the Fd rx7 there is no hope of me ever fitting in one...
  and the rotary, for right now, seems like snake oil to me ( hahahah). Its ironic how this thread is about underdogs, but Mazda always seems to get passed over quick.


I also would like to add two cars to this thread now.  The Galant vr4 and the Eclipse gsx.  Now we know why the latter doesn't really see the light of day; its forever branded as a ricers car. But, I have to give testament: the gsx has gobs of potential. when my cousin lived in Cali with his Evo there were a group of gsx guys that would school him in every way. And my cousins evo is NO Slacker by any means. 650 awhp.
      Shameless Plug:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PjomKJ_o-qg
 The Galant I have no idea about. Not a lot of people even talk about it in any regards. I was gonna get one for a winter car our here in CO since I've been informed that black people don't drive Subaru's (news to me), but I might go with a gsx instead just for tuneability.
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.

Offline SchizophrenicMC

  • Resident Resident
  • Moderators
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Location: DFW, Texas
  • Posts: 2,387
  • Vehicle: 2000 BMW 5 Series
  • I Like Gay Girls
Re: VS. the underdogs.
« Reply #9 on: 07:13:07 PM / 18-Sep-12 »
My cousin used to own a GSX. The thing spent most of its time not working because shitty Mitsu. The only other Mitsu my family's ever owned was a 1987 Precis. That broke down more often than the GSX. And had 65hp when it was new. I can't say I'm too impressed with Mitsubishi. (My experience with 3000GTs is having a friend, George, who is an absolute fanatic. He just bought his 7th or 8th, including Stealth RTs. They don't last him long) So I won't comment on stuff that isn't the GTO.

And I think the rotary is just fine. Bear in mind the FD never got upped for the American market like the JZA80 and Z32. They stayed at 280hp with the rest of Japan. This was during the days of the 276hp gentlemen's agreement. Even the GT-R was artificially capped at 276. This really forced manufacturers (especially Mazda, who stayed committed to 280hp, despite the fact that the 13B-REW is capable of more) to focus on other ways to make a car faster. Light weight, suspension, brakes, that kind of thing. The RX-7 is probably the most refined of the Japanese super-sports of the early 90s, though it's debatable that the GT-R may be more so, with its ATTESA ET-S. Sequential turbos on a 1.3 rotary isn't the easiest thing to do, but the FD pulled it off well. (Though it suffered from apex seal trouble...) Rotaries work well and get good power-displacement ratios. They're just lacking in reliability- something Mazda has been working on. If as many companies spent as much money developing the wankel as the piston engine, it'd be better.
Nah, quoted for future use because not only is it lame and old, but it's a direct link to Schizo posting up homoerotic menswear fanfiction.
Quote
zololn: wheres the check engine light on the s12?