0-100 Km/H Dash - Times (1 Viewer)

[williamc]

Na, that's total crap. It's an estimation. Most car manufacturers actually states that it's a computer generated estimation. That's why many magazines and TV shows try to prove the car manufacturers wrong by doing real life tests.

Well i know Holden didn't do it for their sport cars in the early 90's. I doubt many manufacturers would estimate for sport cars anyway.

 

[sk8ie_boi]

Well i know Holden didn't do it for their sport cars in the early 90's. I doubt many manufacturers would estimate for sport cars anyway.

Most modern car manufactures these days estimate it. I think, like you said ... in the 20th century, it was based on real life tests.

I was reading the facts saying a VT Ecotec does 0-100km/h in 9.1secs, surely that can't be right, because I do it under 9 most of the time and the car is stock.

 

[veterandoggy]

now, i dont know how correct this reading may be, but i tried dragging a VT off a light, and he had two passengers, and by 110 he still hadnt totally pulled away from me. i was still near his bumperbar. that is in a 0-100 @ 10 secs car.

have you opened up your engine? maybe that is why you do it quicker ("opening it up" in this context is referring to you flooring it so much that the computer finally understands that you want to redline it and not change at mid-high revs. dont go to your engine with a spanner >.>).

 

[wce06]

now, i dont know how correct this reading may be, but i tried dragging a VT off a light, and he had two passengers, and by 110 he still hadnt totally pulled away from me. i was still near his bumperbar. that is in a 0-100 @ 10 secs car.

Do you know whether or not this guy was going as hard as he could though?
I though VTs would have done 100 in about 8-9 seconds....maybe not though

 

[Jiga]

how is 10 secs for a lancer generous? by how much will it be off, 0.5 seconds?

i used to bag lancers. now i only bag the lancers that are totally riced.

I would expect 12s.... Ive driven a friends Lancer and is was slooooooow compared to my V6 Camry. So if that does it on avg around 9secs, then the Lancer certainly isnt just 1sec slower! And dont get me wrong, Im not saying your bullshyting, its just doing it with a stopwatch is inaccurate.

I was reading the facts saying a VT Ecotec does 0-100km/h in 9.1secs, surely that can't be right, because I do it under 9 most of the time and the car is stock.

Yeah I think they have a tendency to underestimate rather then overestimate times. But also like I mentioned above, stopwatch method isnt 100% accurate, very easy to be off by 1sec or so and then think your car is doing it in 8s when its 9s. I also think 9s is about right for the Ecotec and even Alloytech, although they have abit more power then previous models, like most cars they are also heavier these days with all the added features.

 

[sk8ie_boi]

Yeah I think they have a tendency to underestimate rather then overestimate times. But also like I mentioned above, stopwatch method isnt 100% accurate, very easy to be off by 1sec or so and then think your car is doing it in 8s when its 9s. I also think 9s is about right for the Ecotec and even Alloytech, although they have abit more power then previous models, like most cars they are also heavier these days with all the added features.

With the new Alloytech 195kw VZ SV6, it can go from 0-100km/h in 7.2 seconds (Auto) and (Manual) 6.9 seconds. Sometimes, kw doesn't matter that much as compared to a Aurion (204kw) but only do 0-100km/h in 7.4 seconds.

When I time it, I record it with my camera, and then while editing on computer, I calculate the time through the video editing software ... so it's milliseconds.

 

[Jiga]

^

http://www.redbookasiapacific.com/au/vehicle/comparespecs.php?key2=HOLD06HR&key=HOLD04IT

Not sure if the VZ had the Alloytech (judging by the engine code in the above link), eitherway it only had 190kw, but crucially it weighed like 150kgs less than the current SV6 which only got an extra 5kw and no extra torque to compensate for it. Still Im not even sure if it is as quick as you say, 150kgs is abit but I know that the VE SV6 is slower than the Aurion (Test between XR6, SX6 and SV6 "Both are significantly quicker than the Commodore" - http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=21521).

And my reference was to base model Commodores, they have consistently done the 100 in around 9s despite going from 130kw as far as I can remember to now 180kw (and prity much similar torque the whole time).

When I time it, I record it with my camera, and then while editing on computer, I calculate the time through the video editing software ... so it's milliseconds.

Yeah well that is more accurate then most BUT still other factors make it inaccurate, such as when you actually started to accelerate. Most if not all cars have a delay from when you floor it to when the car actually gets up and going, let alone registers on the speedo to a degree you can actually see in your footage, so you will be off here... and given we are talking about 0.5-1sec differences this makes alot of a difference!

 

[williamc]

^ The delay should be measured anyway, the measurements of 0-100km/h shoudl include the small "bog" because thats a 'real life' situation. Unless the car is EFI, it will bog momentarily when floored.

Speedometers are almost nearly always inaccurate. Just trust what the manufacturers say, they are going to be alot more accurate than any "home" testing.

 

[veterandoggy]

unless the car is measured on a dyno, at which point your argument wouldnt be as sound.

and schoolies, your mate's Lancer shouldnt have done it in 12s if it was in okay condition. actually, maybe it is 12s for a stock lancer, because my 10s is after the extractors/pod filter were put on, and you may have overcalculated by half a second and i may have undercalculated by half a second, which would make it a 1s difference. my lancer smokes. i have told it off for the two times it has spewed its ass off on takeoff, but like that isnt enough the engine is like someone has poured oil over it so it doesnt rust... (too busy with uni to get the time to actually clean it, but soon i will find out where the oil is coming from if any is dropping).

and i would have taken it to a dyno, but i'd rather save the $80 for the evo conversion i am saving to get (and hopefully before i total it XD).

 

[Jiga]

^

Yeah fair enough.... I think the previous poster got it 100% right though, the manufacters have the correct figures, its in their best interest to give the best figure possible so dont expect them to underestimate. They test it properly, without issues such has correct timing and speedo being off by abit coming into play.

 

[Serius]

I read in Zoom that manufacturers typically underestimate their figures by a little bit to give a slightly slower timing because that way they can take into account different conditions, and every car is alittle bit different, like if you treat it well, warm it up a few mins before driving and it was initially revved up alot when it was new, then it will have better accel than a car that is driven low rpm, owned by someone who knows nothing about cars etc. Even straight out of the factory every car is a little different, and legally its safer to underestimate than overestimate. I dont know that much about cars, but thats the way i read it and was explained to me later.

 

[Jiga]

Im not sure.... they tend to overestimate fuel efficiency, I see no reason why they souldnt do it for acceleration as well.

As for revving early on, Ive heard that also, but Im not sure about its credibility. ECU's even on most older cars can learn alittle (newer cars more so), and its not restricted to when you buy the car, by disconnecting your battery for a coupla minutes for eg it resets... then thrash it and supposedly the car will learn from that!! That would be a better way then thrashing it when the car is young, which is a good way to reduce engine life alot (as for the first 1000km or so they use really crappy oil to help the engine wear in)

 

[seremify007]

I remember some reviewers trying to reach Lexus quoted 0-100 sprints but couldn't get anywhere near it.

 

[Azamakumar]

Car: Manual VW 04 Beetle
0-100: 11+ WASSAP

I amz the tank

 

[sinist4]

Subaru Liberty 3.0R 2007
8.1 seconds 0-100ks
boxer-6, 180kW 297nM.
no mods.

GO the liberty's, SI powa , get the sti front lip

 

[FromDeeEast]

Car: Nissan Silvia S13 sr20de
0-100: 5.6secs
Mods: pod filter, CAI, extractors, up'ed ignition timing, 2.5' catback

 

[veterandoggy]

no turbo? wierd, not that i find it impossible, just hard

 

[seremify007]

I find it interesting to note that after we sink $20k+ into each of our cars (or more for the competition entries), our 0-100 times aren't that much faster than some of the ones posted here (e.g. our lightweight FairladyZ does 0-100 in 5)... but then apart from the drag car, we tend to tune for circuit usage but with a bit of practical driving on the side.

 

[FromDeeEast]

no turbo? wierd, not that i find it impossible, just hard

NA 4 LIFE

or til i get off my P's

 

[wce06]

GO the liberty's, SI powa , get the sti front lip

Haha absolutely! they're bloody good machines. really really want to drive GT spec.B ....