NZV8's 2011/12 - Page 39

Goat Boy · 15 Mar 2012, 05:57 (Ref:3041299)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDM

Not sure if this thread is a discussion on NZV8's or just schoolgirl's squabbling, but back on topic....

I think that its more likely to be the NZV8's rather than V8ST's to be the first to have another manufacturer purely because of the strong ties to Toyota of the two mentioned above....

Possibly, but Roger made a good point about development costs and audience size earlier, so we shall see. Talk is of a third in ST's next season too. Only about 10 months to go (or 8 months for NZV8's)!

promax · 15 Mar 2012, 06:41 (Ref:3041307)

weren't st talking it up (before their cars were even completed) about having more manufacturers in their series than V8SC?

promax · 15 Mar 2012, 06:58 (Ref:3041312)

wonder which one the NZV8 will use...

Mr Revhead · 15 Mar 2012, 07:06 (Ref:3041314)

Hmmm Probably the UZ actually. Lots more development done on that. Bugger all done on the UR so far.

Goat Boy · 15 Mar 2012, 07:07 (Ref:3041315)

Quote:

Originally Posted by promax

weren't st talking it up (before their cars were even completed) about having more manufacturers in their series than V8SC?

Well if that's true then all they would have needed to do was add one, wouldn't they? It would have been said before the recent V8SC announcement of Nissan coming in, so apart from having your usual dig I'm not sure what the point of that post was...

Goat Boy · 15 Mar 2012, 07:10 (Ref:3041318)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

Hmmm Probably the UZ actually. Lots more development done on that. Bugger all done on the UR so far.

The 4.7l version? Would still be the smallest out there by some margin, so will have a different performance curve. We get back to the issue of just how much you can control the torque curve with electronics alone...

Mr Revhead · 15 Mar 2012, 07:13 (Ref:3041321)

1uz. 4 ltr revving to 9500 rpm

In reality I think it will depend on if Toyota themselves decide to put money into it. Personally I wouldn't be putting money on it

RogerH · 15 Mar 2012, 10:15 (Ref:3041384)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDM

I think that its more likely to be the NZV8's rather than V8ST's to be the first to have another manufacturer purely because of the strong ties to Toyota of the two mentioned above....

Although there are some dealer relationships with Toyota in the NZV8s (McKenzie and Richards), it is a big step to get all the panels made up, moulds to make the composite components and take what is basically a production engine and engineer it into a race engine that meets the parity criteria. To do this without the approval and assistance from Toyota is a very big ask.

I understand in ST, McIntyre is effectively a Ford NZ entry and Murphy a Holden NZ entry as they have significant backing from the respective "factories". I don't know if these "factory" relationships exist in either NZV8 or the revamped NZV8.

If this is correct then it appears that Ford NZ and Holden NZ have backed ST instead of the revamped NZV8 and that may be a disincentive for Toyota NZ getting involved?

The cost of Holden and Ford's backing would be much less than Toyotas as they didn't need to develop an engine or underwrite the cost of panels etc. Therefore it is a much bigger commitment required from any new manufacturer like Toyota.

DX20VT · 15 Mar 2012, 10:45 (Ref:3041401)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerH

The cost of Holden and Ford's backing would be much less than Toyotas as they didn't need to develop an engine or underwrite the cost of panels etc. Therefore it is a much bigger commitment required from any new manufacturer like Toyota.

There is probably no reason that they can't fit the Toyota panels to the new NZV8 and still use one either the ford or holden engine though.
Just dont promote the engine type and dont open the bonnet for when on show?

brown dog · 15 Mar 2012, 19:24 (Ref:3041745)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerH

If this is correct then it appears that Ford NZ and Holden NZ have backed ST instead of the revamped NZV8 and that may be a disincentive for Toyota NZ getting involved?

The cost of Holden and Ford's backing would be much less than Toyotas as they didn't need to develop an engine or underwrite the cost of panels etc. Therefore it is a much bigger commitment required from any new manufacturer like Toyota.

Agreed, and I think if Toyota NZ were going to become involved in developing "their" version of the car, it would make sense that they would want to develop a current engine, such as the UR, rather than the UZ which is now basically obsolete. It gives them the option of running a 5.0 or 5.7 litre engine too. (although the long stroke of the 5.7 might not be that suitable, it is basically a "truck" engine)

Goat Boy · 15 Mar 2012, 20:36 (Ref:3041794)

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown dog

Agreed, and I think if Toyota NZ were going to become involved in developing "their" version of the car, it would make sense that they would want to develop a current engine, such as the UR, rather than the UZ which is now basically obsolete. It gives them the option of running a 5.0 or 5.7 litre engine too. (although the long stroke of the 5.7 might not be that suitable, it is basically a "truck" engine)

Truck engine works alright in a Dodge Viper though...

promax · 15 Mar 2012, 21:47 (Ref:3041826)

oh just get one of these off Brennan

it's close enough

well sort of

Mr Revhead · 16 Mar 2012, 03:00 (Ref:3041981)

I reckon the STs will be well off the SC lap times. They are heavier and 200 odd hp down

Goat Boy · 16 Mar 2012, 03:50 (Ref:3041988)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

I reckon the STs will be well off the SC lap times. They are heavier and 200 odd hp down

What, 575 compared to 630?? That's 55 HP by my reckoning - anyway they actually have more torque than the SC's, and we worked out earlier that their torque-to-weight ratio is better than a SC, which means on a tighter track they'd have the advantage. Pukekohe? Maybe not but at somewhere like HD I reckon there wouldn't be a lot in it...

Just checked the kerb weights too, V8SC 1355kg without driver, V8ST 1300 kg including driver...

Mr Revhead · 16 Mar 2012, 03:56 (Ref:3041990)

Oh ok I thought it was 500 vs 700

When did the SC drop under 700??

Goat Boy · 16 Mar 2012, 04:15 (Ref:3041996)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

Oh ok I thought it was 500 vs 700

When did the SC drop under 700??

The SC has never been anywhere near 700, apparently the very best now may get 650 but that's as good as it's ever been to my knowledge. My recollections when they first came about was that they developed about 600 compared to an NZV8's 400-430.

Wonder what the new NZV8 donks will be allowed to develop?

Mr Revhead · 16 Mar 2012, 04:41 (Ref:3042000)

Hmm seems I could be out of date with my figures. I also thought the SCs were 1250.
Still, given the level of developmet and tech in them, I'd be surprised if the STs are as fast.

Can one of the ST teams please test at Puke?

brown dog · 16 Mar 2012, 04:56 (Ref:3042003)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Revhead

Oh ok I thought it was 500 vs 700

When did the SC drop under 700??

the Fords and Holdens were just over 700hp before the major rule changes about 6 or 7 years ago when the Holdens switched from the Chev engine to the Aurora engine.Lots of other rules at the same time such as restricted choice of camshafts, limited valve lift, minimum components weight etc. When Murph did his "lap of the gods" it was with the old spec. Chev engine, which might go some way to explain why it has taken so long to get back to that lap time around the Mountain. The ST has been tested around Puke, albeit the prototype car. I believe the times were comparable to a V8SC, even in this early stage.

promax · 16 Mar 2012, 09:00 (Ref:3042071)

now this car is V8SC approved

yeah baby!

**Woolley** · 16 Mar 2012, 16:57 (Ref:3042297)

I've just had to waste a bunch of my time deleting pathetic bickering and one or two fankly libelous posts. I'd be very grateful if a few of you would just grow some and grow up, and stick to the topic while you're at it. Thank you.

Sidewayz · 16 Mar 2012, 19:11 (Ref:3042351)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woolley

I've just had to waste a bunch of my time deleting pathetic bickering and one or two fankly libelous posts. I'd be very grateful if a few of you would just grow some and grow up, and stick to the topic while you're at it. Thank you.

Agreed, it's been a pain in the ass to read through that BS to get to the actual NZV8 post.

Goat Boy. I think you power to weight on the ST may be a little off, considering they had a min weight of 1390 at HD.

Bring on the future of NZV8 exciting times ahead.

peckstar · 16 Mar 2012, 20:58 (Ref:3042456)

Estimated 635+ bhp limited to maximum 7,500 RPM

Fairlane GTA · 16 Mar 2012, 21:33 (Ref:3042469)

Quote:

Originally Posted by brown dog

the Fords and Holdens were just over 700hp before the major rule changes about 6 or 7 years ago when the Holdens switched from the Chev engine to the Aurora engine.

As far as I know the very best of the old spec 18 degree Chev engines would have maybe got to 600hp with a tailwind. Most would have been mid to late 500's.

The Aurora was introduced for parity reasons, same deck height, conrod length etc as the Ford engine, and a special small port version of an existing Chev canted valve head. The Aurora was introduced in 2003, but the tightening of engine regs, re camshafts and such didn't come in till later, maybe 07/08 ish.

Goat Boy · 17 Mar 2012, 00:51 (Ref:3042525)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidewayz

Agreed, it's been a pain in the ass to read through that BS to get to the actual NZV8 post.

Goat Boy. I think you power to weight on the ST may be a little off, considering they had a min weight of 1390 at HD.

Bring on the future of NZV8 exciting times ahead.

Yeah I took that from the early press release, but Mark Petch informed me it was 1390 at HD compared to 1455 for a V8SC.

BlueBlood · 17 Mar 2012, 05:40 (Ref:3042566)

J Mac confirmed 1390 kg was the figure used last meeting, as those with light cars had to match the heaviest car in the field. For Jmr their only option was to run more fuel which did not help the handling.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IRISH CSHIP 2011/12	Ramah	Rallying & Rallycross	13	12 Oct 2011 11:14
2011 Bathurst 12 Hour	Belly13	Australasian Touring Cars.	773	28 Feb 2011 07:19
Bathurst 12 Hour Race 2011	Acid09	Sportscar & GT Racing	19	6 Feb 2011 09:31