0 - 60 figures .
Discussion
If you try some of the many performance calculators about on the internet then a 500 chim/griff falls between 4.2 - 4.6 seconds for engine hp of 250-275bhp.
However, i dont believe that max bhp is a realistic figure to base such calculations. Some V8's produce more torque than others, and some have peaky cams giving them good max bhp, but poor power throughout the range. Also the weight of the car can vary, so a light one with above average bhp will be much quicker than a heavier one with below average bhp. Too much variation to put absolute figures down for a 400, 430, 450, and 500 engine size.
Besides, 0-100 is where it is at!
However, i dont believe that max bhp is a realistic figure to base such calculations. Some V8's produce more torque than others, and some have peaky cams giving them good max bhp, but poor power throughout the range. Also the weight of the car can vary, so a light one with above average bhp will be much quicker than a heavier one with below average bhp. Too much variation to put absolute figures down for a 400, 430, 450, and 500 engine size.
Besides, 0-100 is where it is at!
Been reading the tvr club griff forum about variation in bhp figures on these cars , basically there is a lot of variation ! Quoted bhp is a bit of a dream so 0 - 60 and 0 - 100 will be optimistic , same goes for other tvr models no doubt unless you get one with a proven bhp figure thats well up to spec , I wonder how many have found one like this ? Need to get my seac along to northants motorsport and be disapponted !
Edited by combine on Sunday 2nd November 16:47
Tvr I believe were just quoting Autocars figures....
So they are pretty reliable vs any other car tested by autocar..
Whether you or I would want to give our car the abuse typically given to cars to extract these figures is another question
mine made 276.8 bhp at the Griff Growl rolling road (not bad for a ten year old STANDARD car) which is pretty much what a good 500 would do (mines a 98 one supposedly detuned from 340 - 320 tvr figure)
B
So they are pretty reliable vs any other car tested by autocar..
Whether you or I would want to give our car the abuse typically given to cars to extract these figures is another question
mine made 276.8 bhp at the Griff Growl rolling road (not bad for a ten year old STANDARD car) which is pretty much what a good 500 would do (mines a 98 one supposedly detuned from 340 - 320 tvr figure)
B
Edited by BJWoods on Sunday 2nd November 17:53
SPEND !!!I think this is one of those questions that can never really be definitively answered.... bit like the whole 'Blue cars are faster than Green cars' argument.
I guess it's commonly believed that TVR over stated their BHP figures but it has also been mentioned on PH's in the past that other manufacturers do the same as HP/torque figures are more often than not, theoretical (best scenario) figures.
Steve Heath's bible lists Autocar and Performance Car 0-60 figures for a 500 as being 4.2(s) and 4.8(s) respectively... and for a 4.3 L car ... 4.7(s) and 4.8(s). As these are independant magazines I assume these are genuinely achieved figures, though I have read on here recently, (though I can't remember where?!?!) that press cars were often modified beyond standard ?! Also worth bearing in mind that the testers who get those kind of figures care little for the mechanical sympathy of the cars as they don't own them.
Still... there are unmodified cars that have achieved the factory standard figures... so I guess it comes down to the random nature of hand built cars !?!
I guess it's commonly believed that TVR over stated their BHP figures but it has also been mentioned on PH's in the past that other manufacturers do the same as HP/torque figures are more often than not, theoretical (best scenario) figures.
Steve Heath's bible lists Autocar and Performance Car 0-60 figures for a 500 as being 4.2(s) and 4.8(s) respectively... and for a 4.3 L car ... 4.7(s) and 4.8(s). As these are independant magazines I assume these are genuinely achieved figures, though I have read on here recently, (though I can't remember where?!?!) that press cars were often modified beyond standard ?! Also worth bearing in mind that the testers who get those kind of figures care little for the mechanical sympathy of the cars as they don't own them.
Still... there are unmodified cars that have achieved the factory standard figures... so I guess it comes down to the random nature of hand built cars !?!
steve-V8s said:
Mine recorded 301 bhp at the flywheel on the rolling road and with slicks on I can do o-64 feet in 1.23 seconds. Perhaps there is someone good at maths that can translate that acceleration to a 0-60 time
That is hard to believe unless you have got 4wd.2 seconds corresponds to exactly 1G (that's why that distance was chosen).
1.23 seconds corresponds to a constant 2.6G. I don't see how you'd manage that without rocket packs.
2.23 seconds corresponds to a more credible 0.7G which allowing for 60% weight on the driven wheels requires Mu of about 1.3. That's about what you'd expect from ordinary slicks. On ordinary road tyres I consider I'm doing well to get under 2.4 seconds (requires Mu of about 1.1).
Well spotted Peter that was a typo on the new ultra small keyboard. 2.23 not 1.23. In the dry at the local hill my typical launch time in with A6 compound Hoosier slicks is between 2.30 and 2.38. 2.23 is my quickest ever launch and was a result of getting red flagged and having an immediate re-run so rubber nice and warm.
My point really is that traction rather than power is the issue. I suspect that even 2.23 which is a fairly respectable launch time does not translate into 60 in 4.2 so would think it fairly difficult with road rubber.
My point really is that traction rather than power is the issue. I suspect that even 2.23 which is a fairly respectable launch time does not translate into 60 in 4.2 so would think it fairly difficult with road rubber.
steve-V8s said:
My point really is that traction rather than power is the issue. I suspect that even 2.23 which is a fairly respectable launch time does not translate into 60 in 4.2 so would think it fairly difficult with road rubber.
Your average acceleration over the 64' would be about 7.8 m/s/s. If you sustained that acceleration you'd hit 60 mph in about 3.4 seconds. That's assuming perfect throttle control, perfect traction and no gear changes. And about 500 bhp. A gear change would add at least half a second. So it might theoretically be possible to get sub 4 second 0-60 on slicks although I'd be surprised to see it in practice. On road tyres again assuming constant acceleration 6.8 m/s/s would take you to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds, allow half a second for a gear change would take you to 4.5 seconds. You'd need around 400 bhp/ton to achieve that and adding more power beyond that wouldn't help if you're traction limited. You can gain and lose tenths here and there so I wouldn't go so far as to say you'll *never* get 4.2 seconds to 60, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.
I think the actual on paper figures are a little academic really...it's the real road performance that counts and I think most Griffs in a good state of tune with decent suspension set up will compete very favourably with some high performance cars out there that supossedly hit 60 and 100 in similar times quoted by TVR and motoring press at the time the griff came out.
surely it depends on a number of factors over and above bhp/torque,firstly how much you are prepared to thrash your car to find that illusive figure.then you have suspension,suspensio set up,tyre make,age,temp and pressure and then size of fuel load and last but not least driver weight,for example i am 20 and a half stone and of course driver skill at using the power.i am sure that mine does a sub 4 to sixty and about 9 to 100,i will never test it for a number of the above reasons but if anyone asks those are my stats which is what was worked out on the computer at a rolling road !
spend said:
Cheers spend, informative as ever. 
GreenV8S said:
LordGrover said:
What's µ in this context?
That's the conventional term for the coefficient of friction.Maybe I should've listened to Mr Llewellyn all those years ago ...
Just checked actaul times taken from my data logger from this year. My most recent times from castle combe 2 weeks ago were:
0-60 4.92
0-100 9.82
This is running R888's on my 4.2 cerb. That is pretty average for the past year for standing starts. My average 0-64 ft time has been 2.7, my best was 2.47 after tyre warming
Interestingly matt in his 360bhp Griff has identical times to mine and Paul in his 380bhp T350 is fractionally faster. There is very little between the three cars
0-60 in 4.2 is almost impossible with anything other than very hot slicks or 4WD
0-60 4.92
0-100 9.82
This is running R888's on my 4.2 cerb. That is pretty average for the past year for standing starts. My average 0-64 ft time has been 2.7, my best was 2.47 after tyre warming
Interestingly matt in his 360bhp Griff has identical times to mine and Paul in his 380bhp T350 is fractionally faster. There is very little between the three cars
0-60 in 4.2 is almost impossible with anything other than very hot slicks or 4WD
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff