WTH is a Spec-V?

[notfred]

I know it's a Nissan of some sort, but what is it? the top of the line Maxima or something?

 

[tontod]

It's a Nissan Sentra.

 

[N8Magic]

Review with pics, yada yada yada.

Awesome car!

 

[Kelvrick]

Don't make Rallispec get Nissan on yo ass!

Don't worry, spork gotcha back.

 

[b0mbrman]

Errr...Sentra is a type of Nissan
SE-R is a type of Sentra
Spec V is a type of SE-R

Flowcharts to follow

 

[Rallispec]

i refuse to respond to this thread.

 

[Koing]

<< Don't make Rallispec get Nissan on yo ass!

Don't worry, spork gotcha back. >>



lol

I was going to mention just ask Rallispec about it!

 

[notfred]

<< Review with pics, yada yada yada.

Awesome car! >>



uh, from that article:



<< The above is an insightful bit of wisdom from our favorite professor. What Dr. Korpi was saying, of course, is if something has to be changed, it sure as hell better be different and better when you're finished. Nissan could learn a thing or two from Dr. Korpi.

During the last five months, we've driven five examples of the new Sentra SE-R Spec V. That's right, five. We've performed our full gamut of instrumented tests on one car, re-tested the acceleration performance of another and had three on the dyno. Why so many? Because all five failed to accelerate quicker than the lowly Sentra SE we tested in the April '01 issue.

Oh yeah, it's an interesting tale. Read on.
In the October 2001 issue, we reviewed the driving characteristics of the much-anticipated, 180-hp Sentra SE-R Spec V. If you remember, we said the car was eager and may be more confidence-inspiring than the famed Acura Integra Type R. What the story lacked, however, were the oh-so-important test numbers by which a performance car lives or dies.
Why was that? Well, because we thought the numbers we ran in the car, which was a very early prototype, were bogus. Honestly, we figured the car we had was horribly out of spec, and the last thing we want to do is report suspicious test numbers. If you haven't noticed, we take testing cars very seriously around here.

Anyway, the car we tested, felt strong on the road. Its torquey engine and exceptionally short, close gears fooled our backsides. Then we took the car to the track. Unbelievably, it was slower than the last SR20DE-powered Sentra we tested. That car hit 60 mph in 7.8 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 15.7
What's more, on our in-house Dynojet chassis dyno the SE-R made only 142 hp and 153 lb-ft of torque. Drivetrain losses aside, any engine rated at 180 hp and 180 lb-ft of torque, which Nissan was claiming for the car at the time, should make more than 142 hp on the chassis dyno. Case in point: The 2001 Acura Integra GS-R carried a factory claim of 170 hp and turned 150 hp on our dyno.

This, of course, sent Nissan's engineers into a head-rolling quest for horsepower and put Nissan's PR department at DEFCON 1. They said we would have a production-ready model to test in a few weeks.
Meanwhile, the first car started consuming large amounts of oil and producing clouds of blue smoke from the tailpipe during hard acceleration (see sidebar). Thinking the first car may have been sick from the get go, we told Nissan of the problems as we returned the car and asked for another car to confirm our dyno numbers. Nope, the second car turned the rollers to exactly the same numbers.

A month later, our "production ready" test car showed and we immediately went to the test track. We couldn't believe it. The car was only an eyelash quicker than the prototype. It ran from 0 to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds and covered the quarter mile in 15.7 seconds at 87.4 mph.

Then it produced the most inconsistent dyno numbers we've ever seen from a stock car with a normally aspirated engine, with its peak horsepower and torque figures varying as much as 3.3 hp and 6.9 lb-ft between runs. Because of this sporadic behavior, we took an average of all the runs we recorded. The production engine produces 141 hp and 150 lb-ft of torque. That's 1 hp and 3 lb-ft less than the prototype.

Nissan's revised power claim of 175 hp at 6000 rpm is more realistic than the original 180-hp claim, but is still a long way from the 141 hp produced on the dyno. Our experience with the drivetrain loss varies greatly (see "Technobabble," page 22), but it seems unlikely any front-drive transaxle could make 34 hp evaporate into thin air. >>




It sounds like a peice of crap....

 

[b0mbrman]

What the heck? It seemed so quick when I test drove it...stupid placebo effect

 

[Rallispec]

<< What the heck? It seemed so quick when I test drove it...stupid placebo effect >>



it is quick....
and that article is partially wrong, or the driver sucks..
I have seen first hand, a STOCK spec v run 1/4 @ 15.1 - 90mph and 0-60 in 6.5 sec.

ask notfred how much lighter the spec is compared to his mustang... or pretty much any other car for that matter.. especially any other 4-dr car. its an extremely quick car.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< What the heck? It seemed so quick when I test drove it...stupid placebo effect >>



it is quick....
and that article is partially wrong, or the driver sucks..
I have seen first hand, a STOCK spec v run 1/4 @ 15.1 - 90mph and 0-60 in 6.5 sec.

ask notfred how much lighter the spec is compared to his mustang... or pretty much any other car for that matter.. especially any other 4-dr car. its an extremely quick car. >>


0-60 in 7.8 seconds?? Buahaha The fastest I've seen is MT test one at 7.2 seconds (C&D did 7.4 secs). I SERIOUSLY doubt that NE1 could get much faster than that in a stock Spec-V unless they were dumping the clutch.

Anyway, the Spec-V is aight. I'd take the Matrix XRS for the same 0-60 time (7.2 seconds), same 1/4 mile time, faster slalom, higher road-handling, better fuel economy, and tons more cargo space

 

[notfred]

<< ask notfred how much lighter the spec is compared to his mustang... >>



About 300 lbs.

 

[N8Magic]

<< Anyway, the Spec-V is aight. I'd take the Matrix XRS for the same 0-60 time (7.2 seconds), same 1/4 mile time, faster slalom, higher road-handling, better fuel economy, and tons more cargo space >>



AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHAH!!!

I can't believe you just said that. I test drove both cars when looking for my new car, and the XRS is a DOG. Not to mention that it is a minivan and costs $5,000CDN more than the Spec-V.

 

[Rallispec]

<<

<< ask notfred how much lighter the spec is compared to his mustang... >>



About 300 lbs. >>



yeah, forgot how much lighter the older body styles were.. close to 8-900 pounds less than a newer one though.

 

[Rallispec]

<< I can't believe you just said that. I test drove both cars when looking for my new car, and the XRS is a DOG. Not to mention that it is a minivan and costs $5,000CDN more than the Spec-V. >>




i was gonna say the same thing but decided to keep my mouth shut.. thank you n8.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< Anyway, the Spec-V is aight. I'd take the Matrix XRS for the same 0-60 time (7.2 seconds), same 1/4 mile time, faster slalom, higher road-handling, better fuel economy, and tons more cargo space >>



AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHAH!!!

I can't believe you just said that. I test drove both cars when looking for my new car, and the XRS is a DOG. Not to mention that it is a minivan and costs $5,000CDN more than the Spec-V. >>


Damn Canadians always getting screwed

Matrix XRS is about $21,500 here loaded complete with GPS. Can't get that on the Spec-V

Seriously though, styling is a matter of preference. Dynamically, you can't argue with the Matrix XRS's numbers. I personally think that the Impreza looks like sh!t, but I can't argue with its performance which is outstanding.

 

[Rallispec]

with the 3k i saved buying my spec v instead of a matrix, i could buy a GPS unit, and enough mods to make it a lot faster than the matrix, and a trailer for all my capicitance needs.

 

[NFS4]

<< with the 3k i saved buying my spec v instead of a matrix, i could buy a GPS unit, and enough mods to make it a lot faster than the matrix, and a trailer for all my capicitance needs. >>


LOL, I bet the girls love you in your Spec-V + trailer

Anyway, you guys take this mess too seriously...lighten up

 

[N8Magic]

<< Seriously though, styling is a matter of preference. Dynamically, you can't argue with the Matrix XRS's numbers. >>



Yes I can. To get those numbers you have to completely thrash the sh!t out of the XRS. Until 5,000RPM it accelerates pretty normally... it's not until after that number that the fun begins.

Most people could appreciate the fat/linear powerband of the Spec-V as opposed to the smallish one of the XRS. Not everyone wants to rev their brand new car up to 8,900RPM.

BTW, may I see a link as to these slalom and road holding numbers? The XRS seems too tall to perform better than the Spec-V.

 

[vi edit]

Matrix XRS - 120 some odd pounds of torque at 4000 + RPM's weeeeeeee!

Bleh.

That and it takes premium fuel too.

Gimme a GTi w/ the new VR6 and I'll whoop both 'jo asses

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< Seriously though, styling is a matter of preference. Dynamically, you can't argue with the Matrix XRS's numbers. >>



Yes I can. To get those numbers you have to completely thrash the sh!t out of the XRS. Until 5,000RPM it accelerates pretty normally... it's not until after that number that the fun begins.

Most people could appreciate the fat/linear powerband of the Spec-V as opposed to the smallish one of the XRS. Not everyone wants to rev their brand new car up to 8,900RPM.

BTW, may I see a link as to these slalom and road holding numbers? The XRS seems too tall to perform better than the Spec-V. >>



Check the latest MT

Slalom = 66.9/66.0 (XRS/Spec-V)

XRS was also faster than the WRX Wagon in the slalom

 

[Rallispec]

<< Matrix XRS - 120 some odd pounds of torque at 4000 + RPM's weeeeeeee!
Bleh.
>>



hahaha. although, the V recomends premium too..

weeee

 

[Mookow]

<< with the 3k i saved buying my spec v instead of a matrix, i could buy a GPS unit, and enough mods to make it a lot faster than the matrix, and a trailer for all my capicitance needs. >>



Why would you need a trailer for capacitors? j/k.

 

[Rallispec]

<< Check the latest MT

Slalom = 66.9/66.0 (XRS/Spec-V)

XRS was also faster than the WRX Wagon in the slalom >>



i would like to find this driver and punch him in the face. i know the V can do better than that.

 

[gogeeta13]

<<

<< with the 3k i saved buying my spec v instead of a matrix, i could buy a GPS unit, and enough mods to make it a lot faster than the matrix, and a trailer for all my capicitance needs. >>


LOL, I bet the girls love you in your Spec-V + trailer

Anyway, you guys take this mess too seriously...lighten up >>



yeah!

kia's and hyundais for everyone!