Drag Race: Supercharged V8 T4R vs. FX35

[Weedo]

So you all probably read the post about Todd's '03 V8 4 Runner (4x4) smoking my '04 V8 stock (4x2) 4 Runner. We did a few runs 0-60 and he'd pull me by a good 2 car lenghts, and continue to pull hard from there.

My wife and I just traded in her Sequoia for an '04 Infiniti FX35 so Todd and I went out and ran them. Keep in mind the FX35 comes with the 3.5 V6 with 280hp (same motor but different tune used in the 350Z, G36, Maxima, Altima, Murano, etc...)

We ran quite a few 0-80ish runs. Both were very even until about 60mph where the FX35 started to pull away at a noticeable pace. Yes, we were BOTH shocked! I'd say the blown T4R may have had a slight advantage in the 0-30 range from the big torque.

One run he got the jump and stayed ahead until about 60 where the FX35 would catch up around 70mph. One run I got the jump, stayed ahead, and just kept pulling until about 80mph where the FX35 was maybe 1.5 cars ahead.

Runs from a roll would heavily favor the FX35. This is one quick little car, or SUV, or Crossover, or Wagon, orrrr whatever the heck you want to call it! (Hey, as long as the wife is happy!) Weight is 4100lbs (2-wheel drive).

Anyway, just wanted to post as I'm always interested in this stuff, I figure others are as well!!

Next run will be my '96 Bronco against his '99 Chrysler Van (kidding, kidding!!)

 

[Guest]

Wait, so his supercharged V8 4Runner only took your non-supercharged V8 4Runner by 2 car lengths at 60MPH? Has he ever ran at the track to see what the difference was in the 1/4-mile before and after supercharging?

I'm surprised to say the least that the FX35 took him out unless he's running very low boost. I would expect a non-S/C 4Runner to run even with the FX to about 40-50 MPH and after that the FX to pull decently quick all the way to the end of the 1/4-mile, but I would have expected a S/C V8 4Runner to take out the FX35 and maybe even run pretty close to the FX45.

Hmmm... wonder what my VVT-i '05 4Runner would run compared to his S/C? I mean realistically his S/C non-VVT-i motor should still blow mine away, but if he's only getting a couple of car lengths, I'm wondering how much boost/power he's really gaining from that S/C?

 

[Creams0da]

was that S/C'd 4R a 4wd or a 2wd, cause that will make a difference in times.

Just something else to consiter.

 

[Biff]

On the street I took an FX35 a while back with no problem.

 

[chiefiji]

was that S/C'd 4R a 4wd or a 2wd, cause that will make a difference in times.

Just something else to consiter.

i was thinking along the same lines but in terms of the weight advantage the fx has. not sure if the 100~200 extra pounds the 4runner has will make a difference.

 

[Weedo]

On the street I took an FX35 a while back with no problem.

Sure, I've taken cars and been taken by cars that I should have beat or should have beaten me. Take that with a grain of salt, but we tested over and over and over again with the same results. Not just a one time thing.

Creams0da & chiefiji:
Read the post again, slowly, it's all in there...

Threxx
"Wait, so his supercharged V8 4Runner only took your non-supercharged V8 4Runner by 2 car lengths at 60MPH?"
ONLY, ONLY?? You're kidding right? 2 car lenghts to 60mph is HUUUUGE! And yes, his was 4x4 and mine 4x2 (both V8 4 Runners). The 4x4 T4R weighs (according to Toyota) about 4500lbs. The 2 wheel drive is around 4250. An FX35 is around 4100.

His 4 Runner ran a 14.9 at the 1/4 track here at our crappy, slow tracks (hi heat) in Phoenix AZ.

Anyway, just stating what happened...

 

[jj8111]

I don't see how a vehicle with 350hp (SC 4runner V8) loses to a 280hp vehicle even with the weight difference.

 

[Guest]

Sure, I've taken cars and been taken by cars that I should have beat or should have beaten me. Take that with a grain of salt, but we tested over and over and over again with the same results. Not just a one time thing.

Creams0da & chiefiji:
Read the post again, slowly, it's all in there...

Threxx
"Wait, so his supercharged V8 4Runner only took your non-supercharged V8 4Runner by 2 car lengths at 60MPH?"
ONLY, ONLY?? You're kidding right? 2 car lenghts to 60mph is HUUUUGE! And yes, his was 4x4 and mine 4x2 (both V8 4 Runners). The 4x4 T4R weighs (according to Toyota) about 4500lbs. The 2 wheel drive is around 4250. An FX35 is around 4100.

His 4 Runner ran a 14.9 at the 1/4 track here at our crappy, slow tracks (hi heat) in Phoenix AZ.

Anyway, just stating what happened...

Yes, two car lengths at 60 MPH is not that great for a supercharger. But then again I guess the weight difference might have had a considerable factor there, too... like as in maybe an extra car length with all other things being equal.

My GS400 has run a best of only 14.7 @ 98 MPH in completely stock form. First time at the track, extremely humid, not too high temps (80 deg or so). Then again you'd be astounded at how bad our track sucks for one reason or another.... who knows. But I see 98+ LS1 Camaro Z28s and Trans Ams running anywhere from high 13s to as terrible as 15 flat all the time. True the occasional one will post a low 13, but you can tell its pretty well modded and very well driven. Those cars are supposed to be capable of very high 12s with a good track, great conditions, and killer driver in completely stock form. So yeah... a car that can be run under perfect cirmstances at 12.85 yet is run at 15.1 at my local track without even missing gear. yeah... that's a bad track.

 

[Mark86]

It is funny that this topic was brought up. This past Friday, I pulled up to a brand new FX35 at a traffic light. It was a young girl and she kept edging and edging. I knew she wanted to show off her brand new Infiniti, so when the light turned green, I showed her what my 4Runner had. I got it up to around 60 (speed limit) because I didn't want to get stopped, and she was at least a car length behind me. I was shocked and excited that my 4Runner was able to beat her FX35 from 0-60. I am sure she would have pulled ahead if it was a 1/4 mile race, but not bad for a 0-60. I knew she was pushing it because I heard her engine reving loudly. I was about 3/4 of the way down on the gas.

 

[Weedo]

Yes, two car lengths at 60 MPH is not that great for a supercharger. But then again I guess the weight difference might have had a considerable factor there, too... like as in maybe an extra car length with all other things being equal.

My GS400 has run a best of only 14.7 @ 98 MPH in completely stock form. First time at the track, extremely humid, not too high temps (80 deg or so). Then again you'd be astounded at how bad our track sucks for one reason or another.... who knows. But I see 98+ LS1 Camaro Z28s and Trans Ams running anywhere from high 13s to as terrible as 15 flat all the time. True the occasional one will post a low 13, but you can tell its pretty well modded and very well driven. Those cars are supposed to be capable of very high 12s with a good track, great conditions, and killer driver in completely stock form. So yeah... a car that can be run under perfect cirmstances at 12.85 yet is run at 15.1 at my local track without even missing gear. yeah... that's a bad track.

A couple of things.... 2 car lengths to 60 could be 6 at the end of the quarter. That would show "60 more RWHP". Take into account 4x4 drive loss and it could be 7-8 car lengths, or 70-80RWHP. That's about right on for a 110 "crank" HP supercharger. Right on or not, numbers don't lie.

I got you beat on the bad track (unfortunately). 14.7@98 in your GS400 is better than my best 15.2 in my wifes old '99 GS400 at our track. I see yours is a 400 too, not a 430 so considering we're equal drivers (I've been running at the 1/4 track for years and run my Z06 now) your track is .5 better than our track here.

jj8111
"I don't see how a vehicle with 350hp (SC 4runner V8) loses to a 280hp vehicle even with the weight difference."

I'll give you a few reasons:
1. 4x4 drive train loss
2. Roughly 400lbs heavier
3. His tires are upsized on size
4. Manufacturers claimed HP is crank, RWHP or AWHP is an entirely different ball game. C&D or Motor Trend got a 7.1 0-60 in the FX35 and stated "this thing seems to put all of its 280hp at the wheels." I'm sure it doesn't but you get the point...
5. Todd's truck dynod at 225rwhp and 295rwtq on an all-wheel dyno here in Phoenix. Lets say the FX35 actually puts down 220rwhp and 230rwtq, it's still enough with the aerodynamic and weight difference to pull ahead, especially in upper speeds (60mph on).

 

[Faeylyn]

I'd be more interested in seeing a 4th-gen superchared 4runner v8 4x4 run against a non-supercharged runner of the exact same year, same model, same options, same tires, etc. Anything else doesn't really give much of an indication as to whether it's worth it to buy a supercharger. So the supercharged 4x4 against the non-supercharged 4x2 comparison is, imho, worthless.

This may have already been mentioned elsewhere, and I haven't searched for it. Being as you can't buy a supercharger right now, there's not much point.

BTW, as the post above mentions, aerodynamics at higher speeds should have a lot to do with the results of this race. The 4Runner has a significantly higher profile.

 

[Weedo]

As fast as his supercharged 4x4 4 Runner was compared to my 4x2 4 Runner, I'd say it's definitely worth having the supercharger, comparing stock to supercharged. Comparing to other cars is hard to do which is why we have done so many races agains each other (for fun and for comparison).

In our 4 Runners he pulled me from the start and it just kept pulling ahead at a pretty hard rate. I think the comparison is VERY relavent. You can imagine how much worse it would have been with stock sized tires on his and a 4x2.
It was bad enough as is...

 

[Biff]

I agree, the SC is most defiently worth it. I have more that gotten my worth of fun, and performance out of my supercharger.

 

[Bluto]

I don't see how a vehicle with 350hp (SC 4runner V8) loses to a 280hp vehicle even with the weight difference.

4WD drivetrain loss. A dyno of what each vehicle puts to the ground would help.

Engine characteristics. Truck engine vs. car engine.


The FX is probably making max power, in the higher RPMs, where as the 4Runner is more low & mid-range. Shifting at redline, the 4Runner is probably not at it's max power.

The 4Runner has the traction and low range power to get the jump to 60.

The FX has the top end.

An AWD FX would be a more fair comparison.

 

[Kanab]

Damn, I'm getting old. when I read this thread all I was thinking was why would someone care how fast a 4500 lb SUV would run 0-60 or in the 1/4 mile? Of course I want power when I need it but running SUV's is kind of like going to pig races versus horse races.

 

[00void]

I kinda look at the FX35/45 as cars, more than 'trucks'… i mean, i stand to be corrected, but they're based on the Altima platform, so i'm sure that won't hold up well, if at all, offroad.

i love having the V8 '04 and there are times i wish it were faster, but you have to think that it is a 'truck'/ suv/ whatever… you give up some car like qualities for the offroad prowess where not many cars can accel at.

i know if i wanted a truck based race car, i would have purchased a Dodge Ram SRT-10, Ford Lightening or a Cayenne Turbo (not that i could afford it, haha)… they have plenty of speed and utility as well, but i know because of their suspensions they suffer some payload loss, etc.

 

[Guest]

A couple of things.... 2 car lengths to 60 could be 6 at the end of the quarter. That would show "60 more RWHP". Take into account 4x4 drive loss and it could be 7-8 car lengths, or 70-80RWHP. That's about right on for a 110 "crank" HP supercharger. Right on or not, numbers don't lie.

I got you beat on the bad track (unfortunately). 14.7@98 in your GS400 is better than my best 15.2 in my wifes old '99 GS400 at our track. I see yours is a 400 too, not a 430 so considering we're equal drivers (I've been running at the 1/4 track for years and run my Z06 now) your track is .5 better than our track here.

jj8111
"I don't see how a vehicle with 350hp (SC 4runner V8) loses to a 280hp vehicle even with the weight difference."

I'll give you a few reasons:
1. 4x4 drive train loss
2. Roughly 400lbs heavier
3. His tires are upsized on size
4. Manufacturers claimed HP is crank, RWHP or AWHP is an entirely different ball game. C&D or Motor Trend got a 7.1 0-60 in the FX35 and stated "this thing seems to put all of its 280hp at the wheels." I'm sure it doesn't but you get the point...
5. Todd's truck dynod at 225rwhp and 295rwtq on an all-wheel dyno here in Phoenix. Lets say the FX35 actually puts down 220rwhp and 230rwtq, it's still enough with the aerodynamic and weight difference to pull ahead, especially in upper speeds (60mph on).

I'm not arguing with you, nor do I desire to. Just a couple of personal observations.

Point taken about the difference in 4WD vs 2WD. I don't think 4WDs have more parasitic loss when in 2WD mode, but I could be wrong. They are definitely heavier, though.

2 lengths at 60 does not equal 8 lengths in the 1/4-mile in my personal experience unless there's a significant difference in the powerband of the two cars.

I did not realize that his tires are oversized... that's certainly another disadvantage for him.

70-80 RWHP is doubtfully 110 flywheel horsepower unless you have some terrible drivetrain loss (you're talking as much as over 35%!) Then again for a 4500 pound vehicle with oversized tires, it probably takes a little more than 70-80 RWHP to get 7-8 lenghts at the 1/4-mile. That 10 RWHP:.1 second rule is more of a rule of thumb for RWD sports cars weighing at least a thousand pounds less.

My GS400's time was crap. It's among the worst times listed at clublexus.com , and our track is crap. Most LS1 f-bodies here seem to run somewhere in the 14s, with the modded ones with excellent drivers running like maybe mid 13s. All sorts of 03+ Cobras running all over the 13s, and I've yet to see a single 100% stock Z06 do any better than a 13 flat. You could attribute that to bad drivers and such, but you can't just have 100s of bad drivers like that every single night for no reason. It had to be the track.

Heck... I was spaking Neon SRT-4s all night long by a couple of lengths except for one of the Stage 2 versions (with OEM bumped turbo pressure and other stuff) which ran a best of 14.2

It was my first time to the track ever. Which is ironic because I've owned a couple of real muscle cars in the past (Z28, Cobra) and I guess since I was younger, I was always more into the street racing scene. I know better now.

 

[Weedo]

I'm not arguing with you, nor do I desire to. Just a couple of personal observations.

Point taken about the difference in 4WD vs 2WD. I don't think 4WDs have more parasitic loss when in 2WD mode, but I could be wrong. They are definitely heavier, though.

2 lengths at 60 does not equal 8 lengths in the 1/4-mile in my personal experience unless there's a significant difference in the powerband of the two cars.

I did not realize that his tires are oversized... that's certainly another disadvantage for him.

70-80 RWHP is doubtfully 110 flywheel horsepower unless you have some terrible drivetrain loss (you're talking as much as over 35%!) Then again for a 4500 pound vehicle with oversized tires, it probably takes a little more than 70-80 RWHP to get 7-8 lenghts at the 1/4-mile. That 10 RWHP:.1 second rule is more of a rule of thumb for RWD sports cars weighing at least a thousand pounds less.

My GS400's time was crap. It's among the worst times listed at clublexus.com , and our track is crap. Most LS1 f-bodies here seem to run somewhere in the 14s, with the modded ones with excellent drivers running like maybe mid 13s. All sorts of 03+ Cobras running all over the 13s, and I've yet to see a single 100% stock Z06 do any better than a 13 flat. You could attribute that to bad drivers and such, but you can't just have 100s of bad drivers like that every single night for no reason. It had to be the track.

Heck... I was spaking Neon SRT-4s all night long by a couple of lengths except for one of the Stage 2 versions (with OEM bumped turbo pressure and other stuff) which ran a best of 14.2

It was my first time to the track ever. Which is ironic because I've owned a couple of real muscle cars in the past (Z28, Cobra) and I guess since I was younger, I was always more into the street racing scene. I know better now.

- I stated that 2 car lengths at 60 "could" be 6-7 at the end of the quarter, not 8. And yes, depends on the power band.

- 70-80 certainly would be 110 at the motor in 4wd. Believe me, I've had WAAYYY too many cars on the dyno. He put down 225HP at the wheels. Toyota claims 353 at the motor, you do the math for that HP/Drive Train loss...

- Areed, not arguing, just discussing!

00void -
I agree, the FX is more of a car and is based on the G35 chasis (rear wheel drive, not front like the Altima). Also correct in that it's not an off-road vehicle by any means.

I'm really not trying to compare the two in any way as they're totally apples/oranges vehicles. Just really wanted to show a "real world" example of multiple races to show what the comparison is. Not a one off race where there are so many variables.

Mark86 -
Congrats on beating the girl in her FX35! :
You must have one special 4 Runner! The numbers on the FX35 are 7.1 & 7.3 to 60 (C&D, Road and Track). That should put you at about 6.5 to 60!!

 

[00void]

00void -
I agree, the FX is more of a car and is based on the G35 chasis (rear wheel drive, not front like the Altima). Also correct in that it's not an off-road vehicle by any means.

I'm really not trying to compare the two in any way as they're totally apples/oranges vehicles. Just really wanted to show a "real world" example of multiple races to show what the comparison is. Not a one off race where there are so many variables.

i totally agree w/ the 'apples + oranges' thing. two dif. cars/ trucks for dif. purposes. it was cool to see/ read the comparo though! i was just pointing out to others some other differences not brought up as to why the FX would be quicker than the 4R…

also, if the 6cyl FX does 0-60 in 7.1, i can only imagine what the V8 pushes!

 

[Guest]

- I stated that 2 car lengths at 60 "could" be 6-7 at the end of the quarter, not 8. And yes, depends on the power band.

Oh, OK I see where you said that now.

I was going off of when you said

A couple of things.... 2 car lengths to 60 could be 6 at the end of the quarter. That would show "60 more RWHP". Take into account 4x4 drive loss and it could be 7-8 car lengths, or 70-80RWHP.

Anyhow... 35% is crazy drivetrain loss unless you were racing and dyno testing in 4WD mode. If so, why would you do that? I'm not critisizing, as I don't know all that much about 4WD. But I do know that with a RWD automatic, anything over 20% or so is pretty bad, and with a RWD manual, anything over 16% is pretty bad. So 35% just seems outlandish unless, again, you were using an AWD dyno with the truck in 4WD mode?