Jetpilot

Not at all, just from practical first hand experience and informative articles with back to back testing http://www.modified....aust-test-tech/

Its not that straightforward, 2.5 x 2 does not equal the same flow as a single 5". You need to use pye r squared formula. Or just look at link I posted Gains are minimal on a normally aspirated engine, so 2.5 inch is more than adequate, any larger and you would probably loose hp. A balance between flow and back pressure!

Me too, 46g on impact according to the telemetry!

A 3" exhaust on a turbocharged engine will be good for at least 750BHP, so its not likely to limit an N/A engine, An N/A engine needs an exhaust system that designed around the engines pulse characteristic's, whereas a turbocharged engines biggest restriction is the turbo it self, so anything you can do to make the exhaust after the turbo flow more freely will help power, so doing the same to a N/A engine will just result in disappointment. I personally wouldnt agree with that, i ran a 3" system on my Rx7, it was running 450bhp on low boost, over 500bhp on high boost, still only 1.1-1.2 bar, i swapped to a 3.5" system, the turbo spooled quicker and result in a few more bhp, had i gone to 4" i would have noticed similar improvement again http://www.exhaustvi...-pipe-diameter/ A 3" exhaust on a turbocharged engine will be good for at least 750BHP, so its not likely to limit an N/A engine, An N/A engine needs an exhaust system that designed around the engines pulse characteristic's, whereas a turbocharged engines biggest restriction is the turbo it self, so anything you can do to make the exhaust after the turbo flow more freely will help power, so doing the same to a N/A engine will just result in disappointment. I personally wouldnt agree with that, i ran a 3" system on my Rx7, it was running 450bhp on low boost, over 500bhp on high boost, still only 1.1-1.2 bar, i swapped to a 3.5" system, the turbo spooled quicker and result in a few more bhp, had i gone to 4" i would have noticed similar improvement again http://www.exhaustvi...-pipe-diameter/ +1 I ran a 4" system from turbo back on my rx7 helps the turbo spool faster. There are plenty of people that run 5" systems on turbo cars May apply to a rotary due to they need scavenging effect to work effectively, but in general a 3" exhaust will be fine for your std configuration turbocharged combustion engines, i ran 550BHP on my Supra with a 3" exhaust, and know plenty of others making far more power on a 3" exhaust, and others running in excess of 1000BHP on a 4". system. But in any case i think you guys have misunderstood my point, i was mealy saying that on a N/A engine a large exhaust was not necessary, and indeed contrary to making power, whereas a turbocharged engine needed a large sized exhaust. So the 750BHP was a genaralisation. No didnt misunderstand A car will happily run the figures you quoted on 3" exhausts, but you will get better gains from a larger exhaust as the chart suggests

A 3" exhaust on a turbocharged engine will be good for at least 750BHP, so its not likely to limit an N/A engine, An N/A engine needs an exhaust system that designed around the engines pulse characteristic's, whereas a turbocharged engines biggest restriction is the turbo it self, so anything you can do to make the exhaust after the turbo flow more freely will help power, so doing the same to a N/A engine will just result in disappointment. I personally wouldnt agree with that, i ran a 3" system on my Rx7, it was running 450bhp on low boost, over 500bhp on high boost, still only 1.1-1.2 bar, i swapped to a 3.5" system, the turbo spooled quicker and result in a few more bhp, had i gone to 4" i would have noticed similar improvement again http://www.exhaustvideos.com/faq/how-to-calculate-muffler-size-pipe-diameter/

I used to love getting me knee down, trouble is its addictive! A mate of mine never got his knee down, but he sure was difficult to keep up with

If you want mid level noise and no drone, decats is definitely not the way forward! Not seen many 3" systems, i would only say 3" would be worthwhile if you are fi.

They saved my bacon again this week, cant help but think i am lucky living just down the road

Not just Zeds, parked my daily in a supermarket car park the other day, it was early and there literally loads of free spaces, parked one space away from another car with free spaces to the other side, when i came back, a gurt van had squeezed in between me and the other car, rather than to the right of me where no other cars were parked! Human mentality to heard i guess!

From a purely aerodynamic prospective (not saying this actual spoiler does) it gives better downforce!

That was the first thing to come off, not my bag , proper bit of kit though, full carbon

About a year and half Slight delay at the bodyshop, wont be ready today, collecting Monday without fail though Cant wait

Reminds me of an interview with Carl Froch where he said his dad used to burst into his room with masks on and stuff when he was young!

I see a solution to your wheel fitment Are you in tomorrow Chris, i can drop the spacers back?

Only this forum and only when quoting someone, I on its own is fine, but just as I typed the s on is, it jumped up into the quote!

Pretty sure I remember reading It was based on the old Datsun 510

Your spot on and if thats your bag there are plenty of cars that fit the bill, Caterhams, Ariels, Bac Mono and lightweight specials, 360CS, Gt Rs's etc, but that point you would care little about the Gtr, yet it seems to bother you how much it weighs! In reality the members that are discussing its weight are only arguing with them selves and own sense of what makes a car fast! There is no denying loosing weight equates to quicker lap times (never said it has), but in this case, it literally makes zero sense that the Gtr is so quick when it weighs so much, but it is, why all the fuss about its weight?

Apart from matching leathers (sorry pet hate), looks awesome After quite a few track days many years back on a Zx7r, i was sorely tempted by a Rs250, came across a couple on track and the corner speed they could carry was astounding

I havent suggested anywhere the weight is necessary, just it doesnt matter, in this case! Its absolutely irrelevant what race teams do, this is a road car, not a race car! I am also not saying it wouldnt go faster without less weight, again, just saying when its that quick, what does how much it weighs matter? Why be so fixated with its weight when it is that fast, if it had put down a time similar to its rivals and needed to shed some pounds to be faster, great, but it doesnt, its leagues ahead! To be be brutally honest, there probably isnt one person on this forum who could get close to driving that car to its full capabilities anyway, so to be banging on about weight is just keyboard warriors trying to justify their own self induced, self importance (me included), massaging their own egos to what they think is right! Its ludicrously quick, its heavy, Nissan engineers obviously know better than any of us, end of

Obviously its not for the GTR, who cares that it weighs the same as a diesel luxobarge when it does what it does, why does it matter? Much more, because it should be capable of much more. In exactly the same way as I want Porsche to build a 918 special without the batteries, less weight can only ever be a good thing. If the GTR being heavy is done to improve performance, why does every single team racing one strip it out? However good Nissan's engineering team are, they're probably not quite good enough to break the laws of physics. Well they kind of have havent they? Your dream car garage 911 gt2 rs can only manage 7.24 lap time, 1370kg & 612bhp, so where is its lack of weight (a lot of weight) and slightly more hp helping there?? Its £125k and capable of way way more than comparable value cars and ones that cost more and weigh less! It would be a different story if the weight was an issue, its not, so why is it for people on here? It is what it is, does what it does, the weight is absolutely irrelevant when its throwing down times other manufacturers cant even get close too with their lighter cars

I am not sure even you can argue against Nissans engineering! How much more special than a just over 7 min lap do you want?

That is a touch on the heavy side, especially as you'd think that Nismo have tried to save a bit of weight here and there. You wonder how even more ridiculous it would be if they even got it down to 1500kg. Does anyone know what a stripped down one weighs? Cant argue its heavy, especially as some on here think the Zed is heavy, but I guess you could argue, whats the point in making it lighter when its that fast anyway? I guy I know used to race TVR Tuscans and still Instructs and does test days, when he first drove the gtr he didnt have a clue how much it weighed and couldnt believe it when he was told, he said you just dont feel the weight, how Nissan have done that I have no idea.

Not really much more to see

What is your name with all these promises of having these wheels on....Matt Grundy? No, at least spacers worked for me Just wanted to get the wheels rebuilt after refurb to see exactly what size i needed rather than take a punt/guess. I ended up effectively with a 9j minus 4 offset, just a roll needed although was prepared to be either ordering some wider wings (1") or slightly smaller outer lip A couple of before photos to get in the mood! The day i bought it

Very true, but if i owned something nice again, the temptation is always there and much as i love the concept of just cruising on a Harley/Buell/Chopper etc there seems even less point on our crappy roads and weather. A few mates green lane which i like the idea of, except you have to use roads and cant help but think i would probably get out like once a month at best. Thought about a track bike, but then think, need a van to transport it etc Sadly man maths actually steers me in the other direction and points me back to getting a jetski again, at least the water is a little softer if you come off and you getting wet so doesnt really matter about the weather