Performance figures for your FD??

[kevint]

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

[John Yorke]

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!

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.

[anthony]

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

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 :=)

[Oedipus Rex]

man those new rs4 are mad powerful. 420bhp out of the factory and boy can they plant it.

[DC-TYPER]

man 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

[FDDreamer]

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...

[Oedipus Rex]

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.

[FDDreamer]

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!

[Adriansturgess]

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 :=)

Don\'t get confused between the S4 and the new RS4....The S4 is quick, the RS4 is seriously rapid.