0-62mph - personal vs manufacturer time differences
Discussion
After picking up the new car today I ended up playing through the menus as any man should.
I stumbled across the 0-62 and 1/4 mile timer and gave it a go
The car on book is 6.0sec yet I managed 5.7 on my first try! (Megane RS 250)
The mrs then tried it in her car and achieved 15.2sec opposed to the 18 odd seconds on the book (2013 corsa 1.0)
So this is were my questions stem from.
What have you got compared to the book figure?
Plus, Why are manufacturers so conservative knowing that acceleration is a selling point?
I stumbled across the 0-62 and 1/4 mile timer and gave it a go
The car on book is 6.0sec yet I managed 5.7 on my first try! (Megane RS 250)
The mrs then tried it in her car and achieved 15.2sec opposed to the 18 odd seconds on the book (2013 corsa 1.0)
So this is were my questions stem from.
What have you got compared to the book figure?
Plus, Why are manufacturers so conservative knowing that acceleration is a selling point?
I've done this with my 335d BMW claim 4.9 to 62 best time I've logged is 4.5 BUT that was with 1/4 tank was the BMW figure with a full tank was the road perfectly flat, is the M laptimer app I used accurate etc....
Autocar are pretty tough on 0-62 times they do them 2 up and a 2 way average with a full tank, American testers tend to have a 3ft roll out, run on fumes, one up so tend to be better than most factory claims.
Good fun though....
Autocar are pretty tough on 0-62 times they do them 2 up and a 2 way average with a full tank, American testers tend to have a 3ft roll out, run on fumes, one up so tend to be better than most factory claims.
Good fun though....
Surely it is best to measure speed with something other than the reading the speedo shows? For example in my GT86 indicating 60, it is actually about 55.
Official time is 7.4 or something like that, best so far has been 6.5 all stock. I reckon some better tyres may improve that slightly as the car has grip issues setting off.
Official time is 7.4 or something like that, best so far has been 6.5 all stock. I reckon some better tyres may improve that slightly as the car has grip issues setting off.
I can just about match the Elise's book time, but not without being rather more brutal with the clutch than I'd be happy repeating too many times. You're slipping the clutch for most of the run to get the best out of it.
I suspect someone with better clutch control than me could beat the book time by a couple of tenths.
I suspect someone with better clutch control than me could beat the book time by a couple of tenths.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 9th October 21:36
Alpaca said:
A Seat Leon with the 1.4 TSi 140bhp engine put in a time under the claimed figures when in the hands of one car magazine. There have been many claims about VW being conservative about the figures of their turbo'd engines.
No doubt some power/acceleration figures based on running on a strangely wet 50 degrees C day, on cat piss with a full compliment of lard lads & luggage. However, equally, there are some interesting road test figures for some cars.I wonder if it is probably best to treat rather like official fuel consumption figures - far too many variables to be genuinely meaningful.
Of the cars I've tried it in (usually tying to use something more accurate than the speedo to measure 60), my Mondeo ST was 0.5 quicker than claimed (I matched the claimed time on a damp road), my 1.8 Mondeo shed was bang on it's claimed time, the 991 C4S was exactly on it's claimed time and my Impreza was neither quicker or slower than it's claimed time as I could never actually find a claimed time for it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff