S13 v. S14
12-07-2005 | 05:22 PM
#31
Originally posted by nsn240
I completely agree with the rest of the post... but, i gotta disagree with this. I think buying an s13 thats in good shape will eliminate some of those problems, an s13 is no an overly expensive car.
The only thing wrong with my 89 is that the tie rods are a little worn out, but nothing really bad. the the rear rotors replaced. If it wasnt so cheap/tuning friendly i probably wouldnt ave bought mine
I completely agree with the rest of the post... but, i gotta disagree with this. I think buying an s13 thats in good shape will eliminate some of those problems, an s13 is no an overly expensive car.
The only thing wrong with my 89 is that the tie rods are a little worn out, but nothing really bad. the the rear rotors replaced. If it wasnt so cheap/tuning friendly i probably wouldnt ave bought mine
Mine is a 91.
I do all the work so that is the only way I save.
So far I have replaced:
the rack and pinion
struts
brakes and rotors
timing chain assembly
(Not including the performance equipment that I have put $1300 into)
thats $1200 in parts, if a mechanic did it ( I am being realistic since the fact is most of you dont DIY) tack another $1200 to that cost.
I paid $2700 for a car that has 110,000 miles.
O.K so now add the total $1200+$1200+$2700= $5100 total.
That still doesn't include the tie rods and bushings that need replacement on my s13. I also need new mounts, and a transmission. Easily another $2000 in parts that I know I need soon. So now I have a grand total of $7100, if a mechanic does it the total will be $9000 flat (No way is a mechanic doing it on my car, but I am showing the relative cost for those that don't DIY).
Now for the cost I could of bought an s14 with less problems at half it's age at that first total I gave you. Age to a car does matter as much as it's mileage.
12-07-2005 | 11:51 PM
#33
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 142
From: Cerritos, CA
vinnie, Nissan really sold you on their "luxury story" about the s14. Just because the s14 was marketed as "more luxurious" than the s13 doesn't mean that the s13 coupe chassis was more stiff.
Every car manufacturer either makes their newest chassis stiffer than the previous model or at LEAST the same. Never less.
Too bad Nissan didn't release data about the harmonic frequencies of the s13 and s14. The s14 would be stiffer.
Every car manufacturer either makes their newest chassis stiffer than the previous model or at LEAST the same. Never less.
Too bad Nissan didn't release data about the harmonic frequencies of the s13 and s14. The s14 would be stiffer.
12-08-2005 | 12:10 AM
#34
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 142
From: Cerritos, CA
Originally posted by BigVinnie
O.K...
Mine is a 91.
I do all the work so that is the only way I save.
So far I have replaced:
the rack and pinion
struts
brakes and rotors
timing chain assembly
(Not including the performance equipment that I have put $1300 into)
thats $1200 in parts, if a mechanic did it ( I am being realistic since the fact is most of you dont DIY) tack another $1200 to that cost.
I paid $2700 for a car that has 110,000 miles.
O.K so now add the total $1200+$1200+$2700= $5100 total.
That still doesn't include the tie rods and bushings that need replacement on my s13. I also need new mounts, and a transmission. Easily another $2000 in parts that I know I need soon. So now I have a grand total of $7100, if a mechanic does it the total will be $9000 flat (No way is a mechanic doing it on my car, but I am showing the relative cost for those that don't DIY).
Now for the cost I could of bought an s14 with less problems at half it's age at that first total I gave you. Age to a car does matter as much as it's mileage.
O.K...
Mine is a 91.
I do all the work so that is the only way I save.
So far I have replaced:
the rack and pinion
struts
brakes and rotors
timing chain assembly
(Not including the performance equipment that I have put $1300 into)
thats $1200 in parts, if a mechanic did it ( I am being realistic since the fact is most of you dont DIY) tack another $1200 to that cost.
I paid $2700 for a car that has 110,000 miles.
O.K so now add the total $1200+$1200+$2700= $5100 total.
That still doesn't include the tie rods and bushings that need replacement on my s13. I also need new mounts, and a transmission. Easily another $2000 in parts that I know I need soon. So now I have a grand total of $7100, if a mechanic does it the total will be $9000 flat (No way is a mechanic doing it on my car, but I am showing the relative cost for those that don't DIY).
Now for the cost I could of bought an s14 with less problems at half it's age at that first total I gave you. Age to a car does matter as much as it's mileage.
12-08-2005 | 12:48 AM
#35
Originally posted by doriftomodachi
vinnie, Nissan really sold you on their "luxury story" about the s14. Just because the s14 was marketed as "more luxurious" than the s13 doesn't mean that the s13 coupe chassis was more stiff.
vinnie, Nissan really sold you on their "luxury story" about the s14. Just because the s14 was marketed as "more luxurious" than the s13 doesn't mean that the s13 coupe chassis was more stiff.
Originally posted by doriftomodachi
Every car manufacturer either makes their newest chassis stiffer than the previous model or at LEAST the same. Never less.
Every car manufacturer either makes their newest chassis stiffer than the previous model or at LEAST the same. Never less.
Originally posted by doriftomodachi
Too bad Nissan didn't release data about the harmonic frequencies of the s13 and s14. The s14 would be stiffer.
Too bad Nissan didn't release data about the harmonic frequencies of the s13 and s14. The s14 would be stiffer.
here we go now...........How about you break down the defenition of harmonic frequencies and how it applies to a heavier chassis. Better yet you would of sounded more educated if you just kept it simple, and left it to the facts like the s14 uses the same reinforced frame as the 300z/z32 platform.
For talking about harmonic frequencies you should present that to alot of the drag queens that drive s13coupes..........
Really you have brought no evidence to the table that represents any of your arguement, sorry to say, but it's true........
Originally posted by doriftomodachi
So...you should have bought a stiffer chassis s14
So...you should have bought a stiffer chassis s14
Last edited by BigVinnie; 12-08-2005 at 08:06 AM.
12-08-2005 | 11:29 AM
#36
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7
Originally posted by BigVinnie
Same concept between the s13 fast back, and the s13 coupe. Not only is the coupe lighter, but the body from the rear is more rigid only having a small lighter weight trunk lid, rather than the larger and heavier hatch back (which doesn't have any rigidity.)
Now take the s14 it's a HEAVIER car, and will deal with stronger lateral G's. Even though the subframe to the s14 was reinforced, the fact is, it's a heavier chassis.
Mostly what makes the strongest part of the chassis in the coupes is the wall that separates the trunk space from the passenger space. It's one feature that none of the fastbacks have. Overall the s13 coupe/silvia has the least amount of flex, lighter chassis weight, reinforcenment between the cab/trunk make it overall the better competitor with less flex. Regardless if the s14 subframe is reinforced it won't prevent chassis flex from high G forces and a heavy chassis weight.
I wasn't asking you to believe me, but rather research the truth for yourself. The question was proposed, so start seeking for relative answers.... Fact is Ive driven s12's, s13's and s14's. I own a s13 and drove my friends s14 every other night he was wasted to drive.
The s14 is a completly different design from the s13. It wasn't a matter of what is more or less stiff, it was just the design of having a more LUXURIOUS Sports coupe. It isn't a matter of what is less stiff both cars are very rigid, but the s14 is HEAVIER, it will flex as it pulls harder/faster Gforces (that is a fact).
I think you have it backwards. It isn't backwards engineering, it is completely different engineering.
Same concept between the s13 fast back, and the s13 coupe. Not only is the coupe lighter, but the body from the rear is more rigid only having a small lighter weight trunk lid, rather than the larger and heavier hatch back (which doesn't have any rigidity.)
Now take the s14 it's a HEAVIER car, and will deal with stronger lateral G's. Even though the subframe to the s14 was reinforced, the fact is, it's a heavier chassis.
Mostly what makes the strongest part of the chassis in the coupes is the wall that separates the trunk space from the passenger space. It's one feature that none of the fastbacks have. Overall the s13 coupe/silvia has the least amount of flex, lighter chassis weight, reinforcenment between the cab/trunk make it overall the better competitor with less flex. Regardless if the s14 subframe is reinforced it won't prevent chassis flex from high G forces and a heavy chassis weight.
I wasn't asking you to believe me, but rather research the truth for yourself. The question was proposed, so start seeking for relative answers.... Fact is Ive driven s12's, s13's and s14's. I own a s13 and drove my friends s14 every other night he was wasted to drive.
The s14 is a completly different design from the s13. It wasn't a matter of what is more or less stiff, it was just the design of having a more LUXURIOUS Sports coupe. It isn't a matter of what is less stiff both cars are very rigid, but the s14 is HEAVIER, it will flex as it pulls harder/faster Gforces (that is a fact).
I think you have it backwards. It isn't backwards engineering, it is completely different engineering.
Saying that the S13 coupe is stiffer than the S14 (which might be entirely possible, but seems unlikely to me) because the S14 is heavier would appear to be a logical fallacy of some sort, as the stiffness of a given monocoque depends on material, design and construction, and would not be a function of weight.
Last edited by aay; 12-08-2005 at 11:35 AM.
12-08-2005 | 04:51 PM
#37
Originally posted by aay
Saying that the S13 coupe is stiffer than the S14 (which might be entirely possible, but seems unlikely to me) because the S14 is heavier would appear to be a logical fallacy of some sort, as the stiffness of a given monocoque depends on material, design and construction, and would not be a function of weight.
Saying that the S13 coupe is stiffer than the S14 (which might be entirely possible, but seems unlikely to me) because the S14 is heavier would appear to be a logical fallacy of some sort, as the stiffness of a given monocoque depends on material, design and construction, and would not be a function of weight.
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/e...odyProject.htm
Originally posted by aay
I believe you are confusing a number of issues here. The [torsional] stiffness of a monocoque is measured on a jig by applying a torsional force to the monocoque and observing the amount of deflection in it. The weight of the car is not an issue in this measurement, only the resistance of the monocoque to twisting.
I believe you are confusing a number of issues here. The [torsional] stiffness of a monocoque is measured on a jig by applying a torsional force to the monocoque and observing the amount of deflection in it. The weight of the car is not an issue in this measurement, only the resistance of the monocoque to twisting.
Composite Monocoque chassis such as "porche" makes rigidity and stiffness using polymers.
Completley different chassis designs.
read it and understand, I am getting tired of this thread....
CURB WEIGHT NISSAN 240sx 1995-98: 2862 lbs (manual), 2920 lbs (automatic) ...
CURB WEIGHT NISSAN 240sx 1991-93: 2680 lbs (Manual Coupes),
2730 lbs (manual fast backs)
Last edited by BigVinnie; 12-08-2005 at 05:27 PM.
12-08-2005 | 05:41 PM
#38
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7
Originally posted by BigVinnie
All right it is time to edu- ma-cate( J/K educate). This is how the structral integrity of lighter weight chassis promote for the least chassis flex, to performance and design. The heavier s14 by these standards is not optimal to performance and chassis flex...
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/e...odyProject.htm
All right it is time to edu- ma-cate( J/K educate). This is how the structral integrity of lighter weight chassis promote for the least chassis flex, to performance and design. The heavier s14 by these standards is not optimal to performance and chassis flex...
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/e...odyProject.htm
Say I take an S14 and put on horribly bald all-season tyres and take the car to a wet skidpad. On another identical, but dry, skidpad I have an S13 with good slicks. On both cars I put strain gauges and linear potentiometers at strategic locations. From there I can get some sort of approximation of load and deflection of the car. My results would [erroneously] demonstrate that the S14 is very, very much stiffer than the S13. This is what you suggest by your seat-of-the-pants driving experiences. This is, however, not the correct way to measure the stiffness of a car.
This is an example of how the [torsional]stiffness of a chassis is measured.
Your fundamental error is using lateral loads on a driven car to calculate chassis stiffness. Why are you taking into account lateral loads when chassis stiffness is measured by applying torsional loads to the chassis?
First off the 240's are a unibody chassis designed of metal, lighter weight metals and structures, less resistance to the strut towers is the main concern, as stated in this lecture.....
Composite Monocoque chassis such as "porche" makes rigidity and stiffness using polymers.
Completley different chassis designs.
read it and understand, I am getting tired of this thread....
Composite Monocoque chassis such as "porche" makes rigidity and stiffness using polymers.
Completley different chassis designs.
read it and understand, I am getting tired of this thread....
12-08-2005 | 06:02 PM
#39
Originally posted by aay
Your fundamental error is using lateral loads on a driven car to calculate chassis stiffness. Why are you taking into account lateral loads when chassis stiffness is measured by applying torsional loads to the chassis?
Your fundamental error is using lateral loads on a driven car to calculate chassis stiffness. Why are you taking into account lateral loads when chassis stiffness is measured by applying torsional loads to the chassis?
My only point was lateral G's. Most people in Auto x and drifting are doing nothing more but lateral G's. Torsional stiffness deals more with drag cars more than anything and doesn't really apply. That would lead to why most people would chose an s13 over an s14 IMO.
Lateral and torsional stiffness both deal with chassis flex. So IYO what would you chose, both 240's show good advantages.
If you think that torsional stress is too much for an s13 (very unlikely) youcan weld a bar between the frame ( solve what ever problems you think you have)
12-08-2005 | 06:24 PM
#40
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7
Originally posted by BigVinnie
It wasn't an error it is all I have been stating since the beginning.
My only point was lateral G's. Most people in Auto x and drifting are doing nothing more but lateral G's. Torsional stiffness deals more with drag cars more than anything and doesn't really apply. That would lead to why most people would chose an s13 over an s14 IMO.
It wasn't an error it is all I have been stating since the beginning.
My only point was lateral G's. Most people in Auto x and drifting are doing nothing more but lateral G's. Torsional stiffness deals more with drag cars more than anything and doesn't really apply. That would lead to why most people would chose an s13 over an s14 IMO.
Do you really want to go around an autocross circuit with your camber and toe changing madly throughout a corner??? Just imagine how all your careful suspension tuning, expensive coilovers, PU bushes etc go completely to pot if the chassis is very flexible - if you're responsible for working out the kinematics of a car you need a stiff chassis to work with, or else the best suspension design is useless. In a road car design, accomodations are made for chassis flex and compliance in bushings, joints etc. but you are very much better off with a stiff chassis.
12-08-2005 | 06:33 PM
#41
Contributing Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,587
From: Socal, 909/626
CG review, circa 1995. I'll bold the important stuffs:
"...three-point belts and features an Emergency Locking Retractor-Automatic Locking Retractor for child safety seats. Other safety features cover a newly designed highly-rigid body structure for improved suspension control, side door beams, and front and rear crush zones. The optional anti-lock braking system includes a limited-slip differential...
...the new chassis of the 240SX does wonders for ride and handling. Utilizing one- piece body sides and extensive CAD modeling during the design phase, Nissan engineers gave the new 240SX a structurally stiffer chassis than the earlier model. This plus the all-independent suspension with stabilizer bars and rack and pinion power steering provide a smooth ride with excellent handling characteristics. Improved sound- proofing and new weather-stripping contribute to a quiet ride with little wind or road noise. Its new coupe-only styling allows great all-around..."
I skimmed through, didn't notice anyone talking about structural degredation... or to keep it simple - a 17 year old S13, lighter or not - will have seen more stress and road wear than a 11 year old S14.
No welded on bars or STBs or cages - stock for stock the S14 chassis is an evolved version of the S13 chassis - using similar design principals used in the classic Skyline GT-R for chassis rigidity and stiffness.
Or hell just use common sense - the technology available while designing the S14 in 1994 was improved over whatever was available in 1987. Also, the S13 was a practically new chassis design sharing little if any components with the previous S12 200SX chassis.
...so Nissan got the design right in 1987, then changed it to be a lesser design in 1994?
And yet there are people here saying an S13 is stiffer. C'mon now.
Enough already... stiffer or not, if you're actually going to drive somewhere in which chassis stiffness is something you're worrying about, then there's no point in this arguement because cages and bars will fix anything and make it stiff.
Eh... who cares keep talking LOL
EDIT to stay on topic and answer the OG post-
JOVAN:
- S13 is cheaper in the wallet for everyone jumping on the drift bandwagon. You can get a decent S13 for like $1000, to jump to S14 you'd need at least $2500
- S13 is more common on the tracks than S14 (see drift bandwagon reason)
- S13 redtop is cheaper than S14 blacktop (make up some drifting reason again LOL)
- S13 is somewhat easier to find in junkyards, etc. for parts
- S13 aftermarket parts are cheaper
- Sleepy eyes. LOL
No offense to S13 drivers, because I own an S14 but I like the S13 - but anyone trading in their S13 for an S14 is downgrading.
We're not talking 1980's Pinto/Mustangs trading in for a 67 GT350 here.
Bring it on. LOL
"...three-point belts and features an Emergency Locking Retractor-Automatic Locking Retractor for child safety seats. Other safety features cover a newly designed highly-rigid body structure for improved suspension control, side door beams, and front and rear crush zones. The optional anti-lock braking system includes a limited-slip differential...
...the new chassis of the 240SX does wonders for ride and handling. Utilizing one- piece body sides and extensive CAD modeling during the design phase, Nissan engineers gave the new 240SX a structurally stiffer chassis than the earlier model. This plus the all-independent suspension with stabilizer bars and rack and pinion power steering provide a smooth ride with excellent handling characteristics. Improved sound- proofing and new weather-stripping contribute to a quiet ride with little wind or road noise. Its new coupe-only styling allows great all-around..."
I skimmed through, didn't notice anyone talking about structural degredation... or to keep it simple - a 17 year old S13, lighter or not - will have seen more stress and road wear than a 11 year old S14.
No welded on bars or STBs or cages - stock for stock the S14 chassis is an evolved version of the S13 chassis - using similar design principals used in the classic Skyline GT-R for chassis rigidity and stiffness.
Or hell just use common sense - the technology available while designing the S14 in 1994 was improved over whatever was available in 1987. Also, the S13 was a practically new chassis design sharing little if any components with the previous S12 200SX chassis.
...so Nissan got the design right in 1987, then changed it to be a lesser design in 1994?
And yet there are people here saying an S13 is stiffer. C'mon now.
Enough already... stiffer or not, if you're actually going to drive somewhere in which chassis stiffness is something you're worrying about, then there's no point in this arguement because cages and bars will fix anything and make it stiff.
Eh... who cares keep talking LOL
EDIT to stay on topic and answer the OG post-
JOVAN:
- S13 is cheaper in the wallet for everyone jumping on the drift bandwagon. You can get a decent S13 for like $1000, to jump to S14 you'd need at least $2500
- S13 is more common on the tracks than S14 (see drift bandwagon reason)
- S13 redtop is cheaper than S14 blacktop (make up some drifting reason again LOL)
- S13 is somewhat easier to find in junkyards, etc. for parts
- S13 aftermarket parts are cheaper
- Sleepy eyes. LOL
No offense to S13 drivers, because I own an S14 but I like the S13 - but anyone trading in their S13 for an S14 is downgrading.
We're not talking 1980's Pinto/Mustangs trading in for a 67 GT350 here.
Bring it on. LOL
Last edited by l2aine; 12-09-2005 at 11:48 PM.
12-08-2005 | 07:59 PM
#42
What ever.... Atleast I'm not throwing a tempure tantrum....... I think I have seen the light.......J/K
Look how much was accomplished without my name calling and vicous attacks.....LOL
I will make a note though those front and rear crunch zones really fuc$ up the s14 in slow a$$ colisions.....
Look how much was accomplished without my name calling and vicous attacks.....LOL
I will make a note though those front and rear crunch zones really fuc$ up the s14 in slow a$$ colisions.....
12-08-2005 | 08:00 PM
#43
Contributing Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,703
From: MA
ok, maybe a little too much too fast? coupla typos...
and
l2aine constantly surprises me with points that are pretty much common sense, but not always thought of...
aay definitely gets an award for most knowledgeable new-person-to-the-forum (LoL) hope you stick around and preach on some more.
and um... Zenkis rule. yea, that's it.
*edit* Big V~ think of it as one more reason to join the Zenki club...
Originally posted by l2aine
No welded on bars or STBs or cages - stock for stock the S14 chassis is an evolved version of the S14 chassis - using similar design principals used in the classic Skyline GT-R for chassis rigidity and stiffness.
No welded on bars or STBs or cages - stock for stock the S14 chassis is an evolved version of the S14 chassis - using similar design principals used in the classic Skyline GT-R for chassis rigidity and stiffness.
Originally posted by l2aine
No offense to S13 drivers, because I own an S14 but I like the S13 - but anyone trading in their S13 for an S14 is downgrading.
No offense to S13 drivers, because I own an S14 but I like the S13 - but anyone trading in their S13 for an S14 is downgrading.
aay definitely gets an award for most knowledgeable new-person-to-the-forum (LoL) hope you stick around and preach on some more.
and um... Zenkis rule. yea, that's it.
*edit* Big V~ think of it as one more reason to join the Zenki club...
Last edited by CowboyTurbo; 12-08-2005 at 08:02 PM.
12-08-2005 | 10:27 PM
#45
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 45
From http://www.200sx.org/
"1.3 - History"
S15
Introduced January 16 1999.
Some suspension parts came from the S14a Silvia and R34 Skyline, some of which being aluminium, reduced the weight. Considerable effort was focussed on tightening up the body.
"1.3 - History"
S15
Introduced January 16 1999.
Some suspension parts came from the S14a Silvia and R34 Skyline, some of which being aluminium, reduced the weight. Considerable effort was focussed on tightening up the body.
edit: I see l2aine found the proof.
Last edited by Gnnr; 12-08-2005 at 10:35 PM.