Performace figures R500, Duratec
Discussion
Just wondering if anyone (with the aid of a black box measuring device of course) has achieved the claimed the 2.8 second 0-60 on the road?
A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
PHOENIXUK said:
Just wondering if anyone (with the aid of a black box measuring device of course) has achieved the claimed the 2.8 second 0-60 on the road?
A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
It requires real skill to get near quoted 0-60 times w/o either bogging down or spinning up. I wouldn't want to try it in my car, as it's fairly brutal w/o electronic clutches, etc to take some of the mechanical abuse out of the equation. A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
I would think most (even partially competant) people could get a sub 4 out of the same car though w/o too much effort.
fergus said:
PHOENIXUK said:
Just wondering if anyone (with the aid of a black box measuring device of course) has achieved the claimed the 2.8 second 0-60 on the road?
A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
It requires real skill to get near quoted 0-60 times w/o either bogging down or spinning up. I wouldn't want to try it in my car, as it's fairly brutal w/o electronic clutches, etc to take some of the mechanical abuse out of the equation. A friend loaned me one of said boxes before I sold my R500, so I tried it out on the Caterham and a couple of other performance cars, anyone managed it?
I would think most (even partially competant) people could get a sub 4 out of the same car though w/o too much effort.
framerateuk said:
I would imagine you'd need some good quality tarmac to get it down to that sort of time.
I have no idea how fast my Roadsport 140 gets to 60 (I'd imagine just under 5 seconds with the 6 speed box), but it feels bloody fast! It's not something I'd want to do very often though!
I know I am gonna get some grief here but your comment of, 'it feels bloody fast' is exactly what I thought about my R5OO and was really surprised at my meagre ability results and compared to the other 2 cars I tried, it actually wasnt.. I have no idea how fast my Roadsport 140 gets to 60 (I'd imagine just under 5 seconds with the 6 speed box), but it feels bloody fast! It's not something I'd want to do very often though!
I haven't got any measuring equipment, but without a good start using a pretty basic 'black box' thingy someone else had, I managed sub 4 seconds quite easily (and that was with instruction not to cause any 'excessive' tyre squeal due to noise restriction concerns).
As I recall, the original 2.88 was set using launch control (which I didn't really see the point of when I spec'd my car), and I remember an article in one of the motoring magazines where repeated sub 3 second runs were demonstrated to the journo whilst they were testing the launch control.
What did you actually manage, and what timing equipment were you using? Were the other performance cars close to their claimed maximums, and did they have any form of launch control or other electronic aids?
I should imagine getting sub 3 seconds manually would be quite difficult without a good surface and lots of attempts. If I had easy access to some properly calibrated timing equipment, and somewhere to try repeated runs, then I could be tempted to try and get close, but frankly I've never really been concerned about the car being slow
.
As I recall, the original 2.88 was set using launch control (which I didn't really see the point of when I spec'd my car), and I remember an article in one of the motoring magazines where repeated sub 3 second runs were demonstrated to the journo whilst they were testing the launch control.
What did you actually manage, and what timing equipment were you using? Were the other performance cars close to their claimed maximums, and did they have any form of launch control or other electronic aids?
I should imagine getting sub 3 seconds manually would be quite difficult without a good surface and lots of attempts. If I had easy access to some properly calibrated timing equipment, and somewhere to try repeated runs, then I could be tempted to try and get close, but frankly I've never really been concerned about the car being slow
.I agree with Fergus..it's not something I'd like to put my own car through.
To get to the "magazine" or quoted figures the car has many attempts at it........usually with a very experienced driver. Makes me cringe when I once watched it live.
It's very rare to hear of someone actually matching the claims of their cars potency.
To get to the "magazine" or quoted figures the car has many attempts at it........usually with a very experienced driver. Makes me cringe when I once watched it live.
It's very rare to hear of someone actually matching the claims of their cars potency.
mattmurdock said:
I haven't got any measuring equipment, but without a good start using a pretty basic 'black box' thingy someone else had, I managed sub 4 seconds quite easily (and that was with instruction not to cause any 'excessive' tyre squeal due to noise restriction concerns).
As I recall, the original 2.88 was set using launch control (which I didn't really see the point of when I spec'd my car), and I remember an article in one of the motoring magazines where repeated sub 3 second runs were demonstrated to the journo whilst they were testing the launch control.
What did you actually manage, and what timing equipment were you using? Where the other performance cars close to their claimed maximums, and did they have any form of launch control or other electronic aids?
I should imagine getting sub 3 seconds manually would be quite difficult without a good surface and lots of attempts. If I had easy access to some properly calibrated timing equipment, and somewhere to try repeated runs, then I could be tempted to try and get close, but frankly I've never really been concerned about the car being slow.
Nope I never thought the car was slow either on the contrary it felt quicker than it proved to be (on track always felt and with lap time proved to be as fast as I expected) on a normal (unused) road. Anyways best I got was 3.85. Ferrari managed 3.45 with launch contol and the GT2 3.6 R500 felt quicker than both though....As I recall, the original 2.88 was set using launch control (which I didn't really see the point of when I spec'd my car), and I remember an article in one of the motoring magazines where repeated sub 3 second runs were demonstrated to the journo whilst they were testing the launch control.
What did you actually manage, and what timing equipment were you using? Where the other performance cars close to their claimed maximums, and did they have any form of launch control or other electronic aids?
I should imagine getting sub 3 seconds manually would be quite difficult without a good surface and lots of attempts. If I had easy access to some properly calibrated timing equipment, and somewhere to try repeated runs, then I could be tempted to try and get close, but frankly I've never really been concerned about the car being slow
.kenny.R400 said:
I agree with Fergus..it's not something I'd like to put my own car through.
To get to the "magazine" or quoted figures the car has many attempts at it........usually with a very experienced driver. Makes me cringe when I once watched it live.
It's very rare to hear of someone actually matching the claims of their cars potency.
It was the ease at which the Ferrari managed to get close to its claim that prompted my question, I am aware the Ferrari does it all for you so I did it without launch control @ 3.7. To get to the "magazine" or quoted figures the car has many attempts at it........usually with a very experienced driver. Makes me cringe when I once watched it live.
It's very rare to hear of someone actually matching the claims of their cars potency.
Edited by PHOENIXUK on Wednesday 5th June 16:07
I spent some time with a performance box trying to get some figures. I was surprised how 'slow' my R400 was. If you do a bit of digging it becomes apparent that once you're over the 300BHP/tonne mark it is all really a bit academic. To get the figure quoted you need to add a heavy passenger and a full tank of fuel, have no mechanical sympathy whatsoever, hot tyres, and ideally a spare car standing by! A sub 4 seconds is really the best you can achieve in a road car.
PHOENIXUK said:
I know I am gonna get some grief here but your comment of, 'it feels bloody fast' is exactly what I thought about my R5OO and was really surprised at my meagre ability results and compared to the other 2 cars I tried, it actually wasnt..
Ah of course, everything is magnified in the Seven - especially the feeling of speed.Compared to what may I ask? I can see you have quite a garage, but I don't think there's much this side of £100k that could touch an R500 on a track.
My Megane could probably get around most tracks in a similar time to my Caterham. However, in that I feel I could probably be sipping tea while driving; in the Caterham I feel like I'm in a race car and I need to be much more aware of the correct lines and braking distances. I've learnt more in two trackdays in a Seven than I did in two years worth in the Megane. I'm a better driver as a result, and I have no doubt my laptimes will improve each trackday.
framerateuk said:
PHOENIXUK said:
I know I am gonna get some grief here but your comment of, 'it feels bloody fast' is exactly what I thought about my R5OO and was really surprised at my meagre ability results and compared to the other 2 cars I tried, it actually wasnt..
Ah of course, everything is magnified in the Seven - especially the feeling of speed.Compared to what may I ask? I can see you have quite a garage, but I don't think there's much this side of £100k that could touch an R500 on a track.
My Megane could probably get around most tracks in a similar time to my Caterham. However, in that I feel I could probably be sipping tea while driving; in the Caterham I feel like I'm in a race car and I need to be much more aware of the correct lines and braking distances. I've learnt more in two trackdays in a Seven than I did in two years worth in the Megane. I'm a better driver as a result, and I have no doubt my laptimes will improve each trackday.
PHOENIXUK said:
It was the ease at which the Ferrari managed to get close to its claim that prompted my question, I am aware the Ferrari does it all for you so I did it without launch control @ 3.7.
Yep, chalk and cheese. I was fortunate enough to have a go in an MP4 last summer and I swear my granny would have got close to claimed figures in full auto mode...........sensational.With the 7 I reckon it's an art............which I also think would take many,many attempts in the right surroundings and also some repair work.
I don't think your figures on the 500 are too shabby in all honesty......and I bet it still felt like you were giving it grief!!
kenny.R400 said:
Yep, chalk and cheese. I was fortunate enough to have a go in an MP4 last summer and I swear my granny would have got close to claimed figures in full auto mode...........sensational.
With the 7 I reckon it's an art............which I also think would take many,many attempts in the right surroundings and also some repair work.
I don't think your figures on the 500 are too shabby in all honesty......and I bet it still felt like you were giving it grief!!
Felt the quickest no doubt about it, Ferrari sounded best, once the power was down the Porsche would have gone on to eat both for breakfast, but didn't want to break the speed limit.. With the 7 I reckon it's an art............which I also think would take many,many attempts in the right surroundings and also some repair work.
I don't think your figures on the 500 are too shabby in all honesty......and I bet it still felt like you were giving it grief!!
To get 2.88 0-60 requires the car to reach 60 in 1st gear. If they tweaked the rev limit slightly it would do it - according to gearcalc 1st gear would get to 59mph @ 8600 rpm with 215/55 tyres (assuming they fitted Avon ZZRs) so 8750rpm would give 60mph.
It is very hard to get the perfect start. I regularly get sub 2.2 64 foot times (2.0s would be pulling 1G) when sprinting/hillclimbing but according to my data logger the 0-60 is about 4.3 seconds which seems a bit disappointing
I have a 3.92 diff so need 2nd gear to reach 60mph - the 1st to 2nd gear change costs 0.34 seconds. I am brutal with the launch and run super-soft Kumho V70a tyres - very few cars on road legal tyres are quicker off the line.
If I had a 3.62 diff like the R500 and the tweaked rev limit I reckon I could do regular 3.6s 0-60 times but can't see it getting much better than that. With the perfect surface, launch control, hot tyres and lots of practice you might get closer to 3.0s.
My car is a 258bhp Duratec so very similar to R500 power.
The basic/cheap black boxes flatter as they have a poor resolution and the car will have moved a fair bit before the GPS registers the movement.
The best practice is to do a RWYB day at a dragstrip
It is very hard to get the perfect start. I regularly get sub 2.2 64 foot times (2.0s would be pulling 1G) when sprinting/hillclimbing but according to my data logger the 0-60 is about 4.3 seconds which seems a bit disappointing
I have a 3.92 diff so need 2nd gear to reach 60mph - the 1st to 2nd gear change costs 0.34 seconds. I am brutal with the launch and run super-soft Kumho V70a tyres - very few cars on road legal tyres are quicker off the line.
If I had a 3.62 diff like the R500 and the tweaked rev limit I reckon I could do regular 3.6s 0-60 times but can't see it getting much better than that. With the perfect surface, launch control, hot tyres and lots of practice you might get closer to 3.0s.
My car is a 258bhp Duratec so very similar to R500 power.
The basic/cheap black boxes flatter as they have a poor resolution and the car will have moved a fair bit before the GPS registers the movement.
The best practice is to do a RWYB day at a dragstrip
Do you think the 1st in a 6 speed box is quite short with a sensible ratio'd road diff?
I used to be able to hit 60 in first in another 7 fitted with a 5 speed quaife and 2.04 first............but jeez it would bog down on the start and you had to tease the revs in at sprints
It's all trial and error but that costs money
I used to be able to hit 60 in first in another 7 fitted with a 5 speed quaife and 2.04 first............but jeez it would bog down on the start and you had to tease the revs in at sprints
It's all trial and error but that costs money
kenny.R400 said:
What point do you reckon the GT2 would have past the 7 out of interest?.....after 60,after 80 etc?...or sooner.
Only ask as I was out in a GT2 a couple of weeks back. It's for sale at Ron Hodgson Car sales...........friends of mine.
Gt2 was was quicker to 60 than the R500, 3.6 V 3.85.Only ask as I was out in a GT2 a couple of weeks back. It's for sale at Ron Hodgson Car sales...........friends of mine.
ShaunE
The 'black box' was £350 second hand so not sure if its a cheap flattering version or not.
Forums | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff