I was just wondering if anyone has solid performance figures for their car? I\'ve read numerous threads about which cars a particular FD has beaten, or indeed been beaten by...but i was wondering if anyone has actually timed their car on a 0-100mph run, for example, or perhaps 40-120mph etc???
Be really interesting to see how modifications improve the time (and not just the power, as sometimes peak power isn\'t a brilliant measure of a car\'s flat-out potential) and also to compare an FD in various states of tune to contempory cars.
So come on guys, don\'t be shy!!! :wave
Cheers,
Adrian
80 MPH to 130 MPH 4th gear pull from the log i have is 5 seconds flat. I have no idea if this is good or bad but its good for a 12.4 1/4 mile
Scott
fd with all bolt ons stock twin seq
Awesome, thanks for that. I\'m interested as i\'ve recently acquired a 2-axis accelerometer and i\'ve been using it to time various cars in various states of tune, it\'s a great bit of kit as it\'s fully programmable to do runs from any speed to any speed (not just standing starts), and also measures G force whilst cornering. It\'s accurate to within 3% as it is, or 1% if configured correctly (to take aerodynamics, rolling resistance and squat etc into account).
So far my automotive guinea pigs have included a EP3 Civic type R, Impreza RB5 with light mods, Pug 106 Rallye with a 16v conversion and zero interior and a tuned Sapphire Cosworth. It\'s great practice for launching too, as you have hard data to compare.
All i need now is an FD or two to measure!!! :) Was thinking of bringing it along to a meet, as there\'s no installation whatsoever...but i\'m not sure if people would be interested?
Cheers,
Adrian
It would be interesting to see it strapped onto Martin Yates FD at the next Autosolo on 9th July. Lots of start, stop, & turn
Noyzboy
I\'d never heard of the Autosolo events! Just had a look on their website though, it looks great! The next one is at Bordon, is that right?
Do many members head over for these Autosolo events?
I guess I\'ll be doing it with Martin Yates.
Oldone, Robedwards99 & CosmoDude have shown interest in the past. Hope they show in July
A video taken from one of the faster cars, a Caterham Superlight is still up on Putfile. See :
http://media.putfile.com/Spring-Solo-Run-2006 (11MB - so may take a few mins to download)
Noyzboy
Bruntingthorp last year J Tuner day 0-60 4.7 0-100 10.3 that was on the old turbo and cr#p tyres unofficial times with new turbo and Yoko\'s 0-60 4.2, 0-100 8.5, 60 - 120+ dam sight quicker than an 03 Porker turbo :wave
It would be most accurate to log times at speed rather than from a standing start. A few rotary tuners use it and it is very reliable R & D. It removes the traction variable.
TBH if you have a power fc you could always get a datalogit kit which will let you log time against many other variables. The logs can also be viewed as a text file. I will attach one underneath if my none member status will let me.
Scott
Well i guess i cant then ... how pathetic......
Ah shame...that would have made interesting reading...nevermind.
John, that\'s an incredible amount of performance you have on tap there!! Nevermind faster than an 03 Turbo, that\'s probably quicker than the 06 GT3!!! I say probably as i haven\'t seen any tests of it yet but Porsche are claiming a 0-100 time of sub nine-seconds, although they\'re normally conservative.
Still, the old turbo hit 100 in about 10 seconds flat, and is still surely considered one of the fastest real world vehicles around. A real achievement owning an FD quicker than that. (And by some margin!)
I agree that ideally times should be measured rolling, 0-60 times are great for pub ammo but not really a true reflection of a RWD car\'s potential. The cossie i mentioned is very very quick from about 60 up, but struggles with wheelspin something rotten up to that point. But i suppose in fairness rolling starts would lean the bias to RWD as opposed to 4WD as the transmission losses would be less.
But, ultimately, if you were to have a tussle, it\'s performance from rolling that counts, and the same for track work (start apart!).
This is very intersting though. Scott and John, do you chaps know your car\'s current HP?
Sorry mate. According to my last time slip i go from standing to 90mph in 8 seconds.
i have no dyno results tho
Trying to upload the graph at the mo ....... 465.2atw, approx 550fwh
QuoteTrying to upload the graph at the mo ....... 465.2atw, approx 550fwh
:2eek Wow no wonder the Porker didn\'t see which way you went!! Assuming your car is relatively close to the stock weight (i\'m assuming you don\'t have scissor doors apparently made from lead on your FD? :) ) i think that would give you a power to weight ratio of about 430bhp/tonne! That is amazing, i\'m guessing there really isn\'t much on the road that will keep up??
QuoteSorry mate. According to my last time slip i go from standing to 90mph in 8 seconds.
Hey no worries! Considering you went from 80 to 130 in about 5 secs i\'d say you are probably looking at about 9 secs to 100! That\'s also amazing, considering the mods you have. I\'m guessing you\'ve got your launch technique down? :)
Probably not much help but when I got my car (stock ) with proven 265 bhp at WGT I ran a 14.2 sec 1/4 @ york raceway
Then with Apexi filters, downpipe decat cat back, an Power FC it dyno\'d at 309.4 bhp (both figures at the fly an on the same dyno pak - WGT) an I ran a 13.03 1/4 @107.4 mph the next day at Japshow - Santapod last year.
Mark
OK, thanks. That\'s interesting, i was watching a long video i found via a torrent site somewhere and the 280bhp later spec FDs were running 13.5 secs, which splits your two times in half, but that\'s as it should be considering the power differential.
I found an interesting formula which is proving reasonably accurate on some test calculations.
Potential 0-60 time = Weight of Vehicle/Max BHP (fly)*0.9
Of course this isn\'t definitive, or anything close, but it is reasonably telling. For example, your stock car would be running, at best, a 5.3 to 60. After your mods, this time dropped to about 4.7 secs. Looking at your results down the quarter, i\'d say that was feasible!
With very high power cars it looks a little optimistic (John\'s beast returned a predicted 2.6 to 60!!) but i think it is showing the car\'s potential, if every other factor (traction, elevation, driver skill, torque and power curve, gearing etc etc etc) is perfect. It seems for very powerful cars the multiplier needs to be reduced to 0.6 or so, but it\'s OK for a bit of fun! :)
This week\'s Autocar is quoting some 0-100mph times:
5.5 Bugatti Veyron
6.3 McLaren F1
7.4 Pagani Zonda C12 S
9.0 Lamborghini Gallardo
10.5 Audi RS4
11.5 Aston Martin V8 Vantage
12.0 Porsche Cayman S
16.8 Ford Focus ST
Kevin
Quote from: FDDreamerOK, thanks. That\'s interesting, i was watching a long video i found via a torrent site somewhere and the 280bhp later spec FDs were running 13.5 secs, which splits your two times in half, but that\'s as it should be considering the power differential.
I found an interesting formula which is proving reasonably accurate on some test calculations.
Potential 0-60 time = Weight of Vehicle/Max BHP (fly)*0.9
Of course this isn\'t definitive, or anything close, but it is reasonably telling. For example, your stock car would be running, at best, a 5.3 to 60. After your mods, this time dropped to about 4.7 secs. Looking at your results down the quarter, i\'d say that was feasible!
With very high power cars it looks a little optimistic (John\'s beast returned a predicted 2.6 to 60!!) but i think it is showing the car\'s potential, if every other factor (traction, elevation, driver skill, torque and power curve, gearing etc etc etc) is perfect. It seems for very powerful cars the multiplier needs to be reduced to 0.6 or so, but it\'s OK for a bit of fun! :)
Interesting, 2-3 years ago I did the ol\'0-60 at Trax broke the beam at 4.2 secs that was running 300atw, quite honestly I think it comes down to the driver and technique, if you are one of these \'rip the ar#e out of the car\' type drivers you could get mine into the 3sec bracket, but, I dont think the drive train would remain in tact for to long, once the car is rolling quite a different matter, not so much of a shock to the drive line then.
Quote from: KevintThis week\'s Autocar is quoting some 0-100mph times:
5.5 Bugatti Veyron
6.3 McLaren F1
7.4 Pagani Zonda C12 S
9.0 Lamborghini Gallardo
10.5 Audi RS4
11.5 Aston Martin V8 Vantage
12.0 Porsche Cayman S
16.8 Ford Focus ST
Kevin
i didnt realise those audi s4s were quite that powerful, i know its a v8, 0-60 in 5.5 or something but i was racing one up to 130 in my metro 173bhp gti (when i hit the limiter as ive only got 3.9 fd on that box)
was a nice car tho, maybe he was a bit upset, (like most people do) when a metro was keeping up with him from start till 130 lol
i just thought ah well, would of beaten him in the mazda :=)
man those new rs4 are mad powerful. 420bhp out of the factory and boy can they plant it.
Quote from: Oedipus Rexman those new rs4 are mad powerful. 420bhp out of the factory and boy can they plant it.
audi have always been about low end torque. you could have all the bhp in the world and go no where without it, brilliant engineering!!!:god
Yeah they\'re a nice package all round. Just a shame they\'re so damn heavy. But i suppose it\'s a sign of the times. That said not all sports cars are so heavy, i know that for safety reasons some extra weight is expected (compared to the age of the F1 etc) but it seems everyone is following the AMG way and adding more and more weight to their cars but giving them ridiculous engines so they still perform well.
Case in point - Anthony\'s Metro GTI. You don\'t need 400+bhp if your car is reasonably light. It\'s one reason among many why i love the FD so much, it\'s a great balance.
Seems like these \'sports cars\' are becoming nothing more than technological showcases and motorway munchers. The M6 is another example of an AMG chasing ideal. Glorious engine, but strapped into a car that weighs so much the CSL leaves it round a track, and even the AMV8 (which is hardly a lightweight) meets it\'s times head on. I can understand the M5 as it\'s built to a different, people carrying spec. But the ultimate, 2 seater sports coupes of today should be just that!!
Imagine that engine in a slightly re-designed CSL for example...
I think its a little unfair to compare an rs4 with a sports car, its designed as a high power saloon, not a sports car and it fulfils that purpose exceptionally well.
Yeah that\'s a fair comment. I suppose it\'s the comparisons to the M3 and 911 that put it as a sports car in my mind.
Which begs the question...when will Audi produce a true sports car for that segment of the market? The RS4 is very able as an all rounder, and quick in straight line, but so were the RS4 and RS6 (esp in Avant Plus guise) before it. I know it\'s an entirely different, normally aspirated, revvy lump unlike the old force induced models, but it fulfills a very similar brief.
They need that 4WD technology and engine/drivetrain in a proper sports car!! Would be fantastic. Bring back the old Quattro spirit from their looney rally cars!!! :)
Plus the marketing could cash in on the awesome success of their Le Mans cars, it\'s not like Audi aren\'t renowned for ultimate performance in motorsport. Just kinda wish they\'d take the leap!
Quote from: anthonyi didnt realise those audi s4s were quite that powerful, i know its a v8, 0-60 in 5.5 or something but i was racing one up to 130 in my metro 173bhp gti (when i hit the limiter as ive only got 3.9 fd on that box)
was a nice car tho, maybe he was a bit upset, (like most people do) when a metro was keeping up with him from start till 130 lol
i just thought ah well, would of beaten him in the mazda :=)
Don\'t get confused between the S4 and the new RS4....The S4 is quick, the RS4 is seriously rapid.