West.

61 - 80 of 108 Posts

West.

Either you're completely insane, being sarcastic, or are driving in canada....beng said:The top engine speed for the 2001 Sentra SE is 146mph, cause I've done it, so I'm sure the Spec-V can do 160+ easy. My old 2.2L Turbo Audi's top speed was 180+, and that was only a 2.2L.

Joined

·
0 Posts

beng said:Is that a can of Whoop-***? That's funny!

Go to the pet shop ,you will find plenty of them !

Joined

·
402 Posts

Yah, that pic is funny, but I think you misread the posts (about 137 etc)blackserspecv said:That is the funniest thing I have seen on here yet. As far as 137 I don't know, maybe if it was 5 miles, and maybe I had a lot of wind, but I could only get 130 on mine.

Joined

·
402 Posts

Im a nut so don't go do what I did, but each to your own.

As far as the mitsubishi goes I think the power to weight ratio is a factor in your comparison as well as air density, the slip ratio of the cars, gear ratio and final drive, and on and on. You can do math all day but In reality there ar far to many variables! Just go out and have fun! I hope this helped.

ps- Love the can of bulshit!!!!!!!!!!! thats tooooooo funny!!!!!!!!!

I guss this all brings up a new Question! Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of speed limiter to prevent me from going so fast! I guss It failed? Any sugestions.

West

Joined

·
3,213 Posts

According to C&D, the SE is drag-limited to 127 in a dead calm on a closed course. Getting higher than that would take a severe downgrade, a tail wind, and a few mods.blackserspecv said:As far as 137 I don't know, maybe if it was 5 miles, and maybe I had a lot of wind, but I could only get 130 on mine.

Ah; time to pull out the above can. The gear ratios between the SE's five-speed and the first five gears of the Spec-V are within five hundredths of each other (that's 0.0You can't compare the 5 speed se to the close 6 of the spec v, they are made for different purposes.

* - Standard disclaimer assumed: I don't hate the Spec-V, it's a wonderful car, and a lot better than mine. It's just that even though the sum of it's parts is greater than the sum of my car's parts, the parts that make that sum aren't as vastly superior to the parts that make my sum as some would assume. It's still an economy car at heart, folks...

Joined

·
402 Posts

1) True, but more than likely pretty negligable difference. There's certainly no such thing as a "170 hp car" etc, they all differ.west said:Im sure one SER might be faster than the other.

As far as the mitsubishi goes I think the power to weight ratio is a factor in your comparison

2) Yah but at top speed, you're not accelerating, so it doesn't matter, there were a few notes about that in one of my posts, as well as someone waiting to flame the first person who said it I believe =)

3) 127 I could buy, the SE really isn't all that much slower than the se-r's so I figure they'd be in a similar range, but a tad higher.

Au contraire. Now I have been studying this for a while and I have never gotten any input from anyone other than what is written above.pditty said:

2) Yah but at top speed, you're not accelerating, so it doesn't matter, there were a few notes about that in one of my posts, as well as someone waiting to flame the first person who said it I believe =)

Aside from accelerating to the point of your top speed (so wieght is always a factor). One you reach top speed, the forces become equal.

A= F/M - drag - frictional losses. A=0, so F/M = drag+frictional losses. The way I see it, it is still a factor. Now, I'm just missing one peice of the puzzle and don't really feel liek tearing into my physics books, so if anyone can fill it in go ahead.

but even at 0.999999 of your top speed, weight is a factor. so a heavy car might be to heavy to get to the accelerate to the same point as a lighter car.

This makes my brain hurt.cwepruk said:

Au contraire. Aside from accelerating to the point of your top speed (so wieght is always a factor). One you reach top speed, the forces become equal.

A= F/M - drag - frictional losses. A=0, so F/M = drag+frictional losses. The way I see it, it is still a factor. Now, I'm just missing one peice of the puzzle and don't really feel liek tearing into my physics books, so if anyone can fill it in go ahead.

but even at 0.999999 of your top speed, weight is a factor. so a heavy car might be to heavy to get to the accelerate to the same point as a lighter car.

A does NOT equal F/M - drag - frictional losses

drag and frictional losses are FORCES, NOT accelerations, this is an abomonation of an equation.

Do a unit check.

Thats like saying that 3 lbs = 6 lbs - 3 miles/hour !

A = F/M

if A=0 then F/M=0, what combinations of F/M can equal 0? only

one. That is that F=0. This makes sense, Newton says that if the sum of the forces = 0, then there is no acceleration (the proof deals with that same equation actually). So now, for what masses does 0/M=0? I think you can answer that one yourself.

You are talking calculus here. The top speed is actually a limit that the car approaches, as I said, the lighter the car, the faster it will approach that limit... but it does not set that limit.

For all practical purposes, it might have a small effect on the top speed.

What he is saying is that they will never really get to top speed, which is true. but when you are looking at the speedometer and you think it has stopped (the slope is very very close to zero) then you are for all intents and purposes AT the top speed. Its not like you think the slope is zero and you are only at 50% of the top speed. That doesn't happen. The only place you think the slope is zero is when you are basically at the top speed.

Its not going to be noticable though, not even on an accurate speedometer.

draw a horizontal line on the graph (make it near the top, nothing will be over it) and label it top speed.

now draw a line that starts out at the origin pretty steep and slowly goes up to that line and levels out on top of the top speed line.

last thing is you need a second line that does the same thing, but not as steep.

so it curves onto the top line farther to the right. One heavy car, one light one

y is speed

x is time

it takes longer for the heavy one to get there, but it gets there.

The curve is speed / time

the slope of those lines is your acceleration.

What audi? cause the audi 100 2.2L turbo had a published top sped of 148.beng said:The top engine speed for the 2001 Sentra SE is 146mph, cause I've done it, so I'm sure the Spec-V can do 160+ easy. My old 2.2L Turbo Audi's top speed was 180+, and that was only a 2.2L.

POWER OUTPUT: 217 BHP @ 5,700 RPM

TORQUE: 228 LBS. FT. @ 1,950 RPM

REDLINE: 7,000 RPM

TRANSMISSION

FIVE-SPEED MANUAL

GEAR RATIO SPEED

1ST: 3.60 35

2ND: 2.13 59

3RD: 1.36 92

4TH: 0.97 129

5TH: 0.73 148 @ 6,000 RPM

PERFORMANCE

0-60 MPH: 6.13 SEC

0-100 MPH: 17.39 SEC

1/4 MILE: 14.78 SEC @ 90.6 MPH

TOP SPEED: 148 MPH @ 6,000 RPM

drag =0.30

LENGTH: 193.4 IN

WIDTH: 71.4 IN

HEIGHT: 56.1 IN

based again on calculations, to go 180 would require roughly 340 foot pounds of torque.

61 - 80 of 108 Posts

Join the discussion

B15 Sentra Forum

A forum community dedicated to Nissan B15 Sentra owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about troubleshooting, maintenance, reviews, modifications, classifieds, engine swaps, and more!

Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities

Join now to ask and comment!