0 to 60 times, kit car owner delusion??!

[jontysafe]

I always had too much mechanical sympathy to push for the absolute best 0-60 time. Having the old cossie T5 gearbox doesn`t make for the fastest shifts either. I think as with any very high powered light rwd car my 40-120 time (I don`t know it) would be very quick. I think I was circa 450bhp and 620kgs. Before that I have traction issues and after aero issues! I have no doubt that my 0-60 time would start with a 4.....just!

It`s not so quick this summer though as I melted a piston.

Jeffw what Quaife g/box are you running? A lot of my driving is done on the road so a sequential isn`t the answer for me. I`m changing the spec quite drastically for next Summer:

Modified 200 block, wire rung, nikasil lined, 6 long studs and modded oil galleys, dry sump and piston squirt jets.
Arrow crank, Carillo rods and forged 8.5:1 pistons.
May invest in a girdle as well.
BD16+ inlet and BD14exh cams on ported 4x4 head with 1000cc ASNU injectors all taken care of by a Motec M400 ecu.
Custom twin scroll manifold and down pipe with BW EFR7163 turbo running 1.8Bar. What we are hoping to do is bring the torque in fairly early and run quite high peak cylinder pressures. This is going to take some fancy intercooling so have options on air/air or air/water systems.

Even with all this I expect my 0-60 will still start with a 4 and I`m not bothered as I don`t launch the car.

[mikeveal]

FuryCossieSteve said:

Olivera said:

Low 3s? That's less than most bikes and you have double the weight?

Dunno about double the weight (A 2008~ Hayabusa is 265+kg wet weight, with 197bhp, power to weight 743/tonne!) but what I'd like to know is what car do you have that is 350kg?? Is it an Atom maybe? I know you said MOST bikes Olivera btw!

Not saying this applies to you mikeveal but that is another area I find kit owners get very wrong, the weight of their cars. It all seems to be in an attempt to kid themselves on their power to weight ratio it seems to me.

I've seen my car quoted at various times as either 320 or 330bhp and from 650 to 670kg. Well that varies the PTW ratio from 477bhp/tonne to 507/tonne. Methinks someone has been keen to break the magic 500 maybe? Later this year I will get both figures accurately done and put that one to bed for good! (in cold weather of course so I get a better bhp - it's a turbo!! hahahahaha!!)

350Kg is wet weight, as weighed when it was presented to VOSA for it's MSVA, it was actually 340-something, damned if I can remember the actual figure, easier to round up. It's R1 (2003) powered, so 150Bhp, minus a bit for the Quaife reverse, plus a bit for better breathing.
The donor bike was geared for 90mph-ish in first and weighed about 200Kg IIRC, I have 60mph in first and 350Kg. Both weights are without rider / pilot obviously.

So loss of acceleration due to weight gain is roughly cancelled by gearing down. But and this is my point, I can't get the power down. Never managed it. Perhaps if I deliberately warmed the tyres with wheelspin and then had a super sticky runway, maybe it'd happen. But in real life, it doesn't happen.

Low 3's - that's anything between 3.0 and 3.4999. I theory it should be around that figure, in practise it's traction limited.

I have a Skunk. There's a pic in my profile.

[alspeed]

Most of the 0-60 times quoted in forums are based on peoples distorted perception of how quick they are going or the results taken from a variety of mickey mouse timing methods.

I've done a few run what you brung events at York raceway, where they have had the 0-60 times recorded along side the normal drag times, reaction, 60ft 1/4 mile ET etc

Its a bit of an eye opener really, cars that you would naturally expect to do well simply dont

Not much road legal stuff drops below 4 seconds, 3 second cars are rare, the problem is not power or even power to weight ratio, its traction or rather lack of traction.

Think the best road going car I've seen at York was a twin engined 4 wheel drive golf which IIRC did a genuine 2.8 secs. It bloody looked fast too, simply hooking up and taking off the line with very little loss of

traction.

[FuryCossieSteve]

alspeed said:

Most of the 0-60 times quoted in forums are based on peoples distorted perception of how quick they are going or the results taken from a variety of mickey mouse timing methods.

I've done a few run what you brung events at York raceway, where they have had the 0-60 times recorded along side the normal drag times, reaction, 60ft 1/4 mile ET etc

Its a bit of an eye opener really, cars that you would naturally expect to do well simply dont

Not much road legal stuff drops below 4 seconds, 3 second cars are rare, the problem is not power or even power to weight ratio, its traction or rather lack of traction.

Think the best road going car I've seen at York was a twin engined 4 wheel drive golf which IIRC did a genuine 2.8 secs. It bloody looked fast too, simply hooking up and taking off the line with very little loss of

traction.

Yep, totally agree. Watch the really quick stuff off the line at the Goodwood hillclimb and the difference is very noticeable. A small squeak from the tyres and they are gone!

[jeffw]

Sorry, missed all the replies.

There are lots of videos on youtube of my car...dyno run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXN1vPWLs04

this one was from last years BST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hR2i8E0ng

This was pre-sequential and was actually 130mph at the line. Since then the car has a Quaife 60G helical 6 speed sequential with a Geartronics Easyshift which should reduce this somewhat (and I need to learn how to tyre warm !). I have a traction control system which I'm fitting and a paddleshift which is a winter upgrade.

[jeffw]

When I said 6 sec 0-100 I meant a 0-100 time that started with a 6....so 6.9sec would be fine. All of my times are on cold tyres as there is no tyre warming in most sprints.

Like I said I'm looking for 1/4mile time which starts with a 10.x at the Brighton Speed Trials this year.

640 BHP per ton and yes the car really weighs 620Kg with 1/2 tank of fuel (4 gallons) but without me.

[jeffw]

Just to mention the car is a 2lt Zetec (Heads/Cams/rods/pistons) with a TTS Supercharger Kit (1.4 bar boost on 11:1 compression ratio). Quaife 60G and Quaife ATB in a English Axle (!!!!!!).

Edited by jeffw on Wednesday 12th August 13:44

[FuryCossieSteve]

mikeveal - love that Skunk man! Mental bit of kit by the look of it!

jeffw - great action picture and sounds a properly sorted bit of kit you have there.

Just put my new r888's on the Fury today, hope to try and do a heat cycle 2moro if rain stays off. They have totally changed the look and 'stance' of the car especially at the rear. Let's hope they change the handling too!

[AntiLagGC8]

jeffw said:

When I said 6 sec 0-100 I meant a 0-100 time that started with a 6....so 6.9sec would be fine. All of my times are on cold tyres as there is no tyre warming in most sprints.

Like I said I'm looking for 1/4mile time which starts with a 10.x at the Brighton Speed Trials this year.

640 BHP per ton and yes the car really weighs 620Kg with 1/2 tank of fuel (4 gallons) but without me.

Jeff, I just watched one of your track day videos from the youtube link you posted and I adore the sound of your car

It also looks incredibly well sorted.

Are you happy with it now or is there more to come?

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

Sorry, missed all the replies.

There are lots of videos on youtube of my car...dyno run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXN1vPWLs04

this one was from last years BST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hR2i8E0ng

This was pre-sequential and was actually 130mph at the line. Since then the car has a Quaife 60G helical 6 speed sequential with a Geartronics Easyshift which should reduce this somewhat (and I need to learn how to tyre warm !). I have a traction control system which I'm fitting and a paddleshift which is a winter upgrade.

Yeah that is a PROPER bit of kit you have there! Nicely off the line too jeff. And your power/torque curves on the dyno screen look really good too!!!!

It revs really well doesnt it!

[jeffw]

Its had a lot of money spent on it.

Currently I have a set of double adjustable Protech shocks that I'm fitting, then the indycar anti-roll bar needs to go on. I've got to make a new splitter and sort the rear diffuser. Then figure out why the traction control system isn't playing. After that I need to buy some pneumatic bits so I can get my Xoomspeed paddleshift system working.

Then over the winter I probable need to change the flywheel from 215mm to 184mm with a two-plate clutch (lower interia) and get a roll-cage fitted for MSA regs

So....no, not finished just yet !

I was hankering after a Radical SR8 so if someone made me an offer which was in the mid-£20Ks I'd probable sell it, otherwise it gets upgraded every year

Edited by jeffw on Thursday 13th August 06:36

[RemaL]

Many owners are delusional on the BHP scale as well as times to 60. I had a mates performance 0-60 box a few years ago. I know My tiger will do it under 5 seconds but most of the time I would fk up a gear change or spin the wheels.

Also re the BHP. I have a mate who has just bought a lovely Westy, with 180BHP (unsure if at the wheels or crank) but I think it was sold as having 180RWD BHP.
WTF: It has the same 2ltr Zetec as mine, pretty much identical set up and ECU, but running twin 40's instead of my twin 45's

I've had my on a dyno a few times after mods etc... and have approx 145BHP at the rear wheels. So maybe 10-15BHP at the crank.

I wonder where they get another 35BHP from the same black top Zetec. No engine mods in both. maybe one of the Ebay BHP increasing fan belts, or Putting Super unleaded in

[RemaL]

Olivera said:

mikeveal said:

Theory says my car should be in the low 3s (150bhp, 350Kg, 60mph in 1st gear). In practice I don't drive well enough to accelerate hard in first, I just get a lot of wheel spin.

Low 3s? That's less than most bikes and you have double the weight?

My Fireblade weight around 200KG fully wet. Has at the rear wheel 165 Dynoed BHP. I have had 98MPH in first o the limiter.

Could i get it off the line in the 0-60 times it's recorded to do. Around 3 seconds more or less. Hell no.

One thing to remember is the car has much more grip off the line.

[FuryCossieSteve]

jeffw said:

Its had a lot of money spent on it.

Currently I have a set of double adjustable Protech shocks that I'm fitting, then the indycar anti-roll bar needs to go on. I've got to make a new splitter and sort the rear diffuser. Then figure out why the traction control system isn't playing. After that I need to buy some pneumatic bits so I can get my Xoomspeed paddleshift system working.

Then over the winter I probable need to change the flywheel from 215mm to 184mm with a two-plate clutch (lower interia) and get a roll-cage fitted for MSA regs

So....no, not finished just yet !

I was hankering after a Radical SR8 so if someone made me an offer which was in the mid-£20Ks I'd probable sell it, otherwise it gets upgraded every year

Edited by jeffw on Thursday 13th August 06:36

If I had that kinda dosh jeff I'd defo consider buying it but I wish I had the know-how (and space, tools etc) to do the kind of things you have done to it. I'd build my own I think.

[FuryCossieSteve]

RemaL said:

Many owners are delusional on the BHP scale as well as times to 60. I had a mates performance 0-60 box a few years ago. I know My tiger will do it under 5 seconds but most of the time I would fk up a gear change or spin the wheels.

Also re the BHP. I have a mate who has just bought a lovely Westy, with 180BHP (unsure if at the wheels or crank) but I think it was sold as having 180RWD BHP.
WTF: It has the same 2ltr Zetec as mine, pretty much identical set up and ECU, but running twin 40's instead of my twin 45's

I've had my on a dyno a few times after mods etc... and have approx 145BHP at the rear wheels. So maybe 10-15BHP at the crank.

I wonder where they get another 35BHP from the same black top Zetec. No engine mods in both. maybe one of the Ebay BHP increasing fan belts, or Putting Super unleaded in

Yeah that is true too! I've seen my car quoted anything between 300 and 330 bhp. I guess it can vary on air temp a little but I plan to get it dyno'd sometime so I know myself the true figure. I suspect it'll be closer to 300 than 330 tho!! I'm not sure on the torque so that will be interesting to know but it is quite high I think.

And that's another thing (that I am not going to start!!) bhp or torque, the old chestnut, which is more important/useful? Does anyone even really understand torque!! I read various threads on it a while back and I still didnt really get it! I do know more torque means you can pull more easily with less gear changes (if you need/want to) A lot of people bang on about BEC's having no torque but they still seem to flippin shift ok dont they!

[mikeveal]

RemaL said:

One thing to remember is the car has much more grip off the line.

Nope. I have a single R888 205/55/15 driven tyre, with about 100Kg sitting on it. The suspension geometry doesn't squat under power or wind up like a bike, but other than that it should be similar levels of grip.

[jeffw]

Power = Torque x RPM (in imperial units HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252 hence why torque and power cross at 5252 on all Dyno plots using BHP & lb ft)

So if you increase torque or RPM you gain power. In the case of a BEC it is primarily the RPM which makes the power compared with a CEC which has lower RPM but higher torque figures. So a BEC with 185 HP has 14K redline but low torque and a Zetec has 7K rpm and twice the torque (in simple terms)

[AdamR172]

Edit: two posts came in while I was typing mine!

Yup - that's because they have bhp instead (and low gearing, and low weight).

Someone once put it like this: torque is how hard you can punch someone, bhp is how quickly you can punch someone with that amount of force.

So you can either punch someone lots and lots with not a lot of force, or give them a couple of hard smashes - end result is the same, you've put the same amount of energy into the punches overall, just in a different way.


Having driven my XE Westfield last night (250bhp / 190ftlbs - ish) and comparing it with the R1 Fury I got recently (about 160bhp / 80ftlbs I think) they are both about as quick as each other but VERY different in the way they deliver power.

You have to use the revs in the bike engine to make progress - because of the lack of torque - but when it's on song it's a joy. The drop in revs between shifts is very small, so you keep on top of the bhp curve well.

The CEC has a huge slug of torque for about half of the rev range, so you can stick in one gear, using right down to ~4k rpm revs and keeping it in the same gear towards the limiter.

End result is about the same, just a different way of doing it...

Edited by AdamR172 on Thursday 13th August 14:20

[RemaL]

mikeveal said:

RemaL said:

One thing to remember is the car has much more grip off the line.

Nope. I have a single R888 205/55/15 driven tyre, with about 100Kg sitting on it. The suspension geometry doesn't squat under power or wind up like a bike, but other than that it should be similar levels of grip.

So as I was talking in general terms (which you may have missed). your not saying a car has less Grip that a bike?
I have only just seen you have a 3 wheeler.

Also your 205 rear profile tyre is flat. So has a much larger contact patch then a sports bike 190 rear tyre which is curved.

Bikes most of the time are quicker than a car. pound for pound, BHP per Kg etc...I'm just talking your normal car and even kit car. not Mega hyper car or F1 car either

[RemaL]

jeffw said:

Power = Torque x RPM (in imperial units HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252 hence why torque and power cross at 5252 on all Dyno plots using BHP & lb ft)

So if you increase torque or RPM you gain power. In the case of a BEC it is primarily the RPM which makes the power compared with a CEC which has lower RPM but higher torque figures. So a BEC with 185 HP has 14K redline but low torque and a Zetec has 7K rpm and twice the torque (in simple terms)

I always liked the simple term of BHP how quick you punch. Torque how hard you punch.

Hope I got that right.