Your 0-60 times

Author
Discussion

sday12

5,053 posts

212 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
12.2 you say?

damci

963 posts

219 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
3.41 for the bike and 7.9 for the Almera

Jasandjules

70,009 posts

230 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Well, I'd never do that to my car so there is no way I got 4.4 seconds timed by the OH (so plus or minus 10 seconds on the start/stop). And I've certainly never blatted to 100.........

Sir Bagalot

6,514 posts

182 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Seat Leon 3.7 seconds.

This was no ordinary Seat Leon...... It was a Hertz Seat Leon biggrin

hyperblue

2,803 posts

181 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
It's very difficult to get a decent launch on the road, most cars will never get near their quoted 0-60 mph time. I know my car does 0-102 in 14.0 seconds at Santa Pod, but on the road you'd never get near that, you might lose a second in the first 60ft.

CraigVmax

12,248 posts

283 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
monthefish said:
wackojacko said:
CraigVmax said:
I think a lot of people would be surprised how much slower their car is than quoted or they think it is.
I think that depends on the car I question but as a rule of thumb not many cars can achieve the quoted 0-60 say of a set of traffic lights.
..and not many owners would want to, myself included. (Too mechanically sympathetic to subject my p&j to the kind of abuse required to achieve the ultimate '0-60' time)

Yup same here, done it full bore once at vmax200, was astonished how violent it was but it's just not needed or appropriate day to day

Jasandjules

70,009 posts

230 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Sir Bagalot said:
Seat Leon 3.7 seconds.

This was no ordinary Seat Leon...... It was a Hertz Seat Leon biggrin
I laughed out loud and now have to explain why I am giggling like a loon to my OH.....

jmcc500

645 posts

219 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Bolognese said:
4.9 seconds. Verified on a dyno.
Ummm... You can't measure acceleration rates on a dyno...

Wrt modern cars and repeated standing starts, was most impressed that the MP4-12C could do LC start after LC start ad infinitum with no issues. Unlike a Nissan GTR smile

Will borrow the Vbox from work and measure my mighty BX Turbo Diesel and come back with a REAL figure. Probably north of 15s...

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

256 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Vitara... Couldn't tell you. The tax would probably run out before it hit 60.

Rawwr

22,722 posts

235 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all

mattmoxon

5,026 posts

219 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
My 2006 Ford Mustang GT officaly timed at 5.61 seconds.

Though for propper bragging rights it is the 1/4 mile times you want.

Eighteeteewhy

Original Poster:

7,259 posts

169 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Rawwr said:
Number of standing starts, 31

Did it get you home? hehe

jmcc500

645 posts

219 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Eighteeteewhy said:
Number of standing starts, 31

Did it get you home? hehe
More to the point - that's mighty impressive for a Ka..?

CraigVmax

12,248 posts

283 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Yeah, brilliant!

iiyama

2,201 posts

202 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Sam_68 said:
iiyama said:
On a good day, with heat in the tyre's, dry road and a perfect launch...3ish secs. Engine is making 189bhp, (verified not a guestimate!), car weighs 580Kg's with a full tank and me in it and the final drive is a little on the low side hence the acceleration. Top end is lowish though, bounces off the limiter in 6th at 130mph. Gearbox is sequential and there is electronic gizmos to give clutchless up and down shifts.

Should be enough information there! wink
Have you actually had it accurately timed though?

Mine for comparison:

Engine making 204bhp, car weighs 429kg with fuel (but excluding driver - say 500-510kg with driver?), similarly low final drive giving 136mph at the limiter, sticky 'track day' tyres (A048's).

Lotus' computers say 3.1 seconds....

Autocar Magazine's timing gear says 3.6 seconds is the best they can manage in practice....

I'm with CraigVmax: everyone who owns a 'Seven' (especially the BEC ones, apparently) can do 3-second 0-60 times... until you actually put them up against accurate timing gear. wink
I didn't say 3 seconds.....I said 3ish. Big difference. Huge in fact! This should also indicate the fact that it hasn't been accurately timed, otherwise I would have said 2.9! biggrin

AMD87

2,004 posts

203 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
evo 7
Speed(mph) Time
0.00 0
10.00 0.38
20.00 0.85
30.00 1.36
40.00 2.07
50.00 2.56
60.00 3.04
70.00 3.82
80.00 4.47
90.00 5.24
100.00 6.45

iggysport

463 posts

148 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Suzuki Ignis Sport: 8.9 to 62 and requires a gear change after 60 to get to 62 so i'm gonna say around 8 seconds to 60 considering that and upgraded filter and some weight reduction.

Major Fallout

5,278 posts

232 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
It is the beauty of driving an automatic car you don't actually like with a full warranty.

Push the accelerator into the engine bay and away you go! Only tyres to worry about, admittedly they do cost a bit (about £350 each last time). But its cheaper than a new clutch!


But after all that, I have more fun hanging back and watching people smoke their clutch alongside me, thinking I'm going to boot it.

mikearwas

1,112 posts

160 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
Recorded a 5.5 second run in my 130i.

Hasbeen

2,073 posts

222 months

Thursday 9th February 2012
quotequote all
My Ozzie Ford Capri 1600cc auto 2+2 convertible, about 16 seconds.

But who the hell cares when you're cruising down the esplanade on the Gold Coast, with the surf on your left, on a hot sunny day, with a gorgeous lady beside you?