General 0-60 time

DraigFlag87 · Nov 4, 2010

Been playing with the movie function on my camera again! Shame the roads were so wet otherwise i could have got better results, but there's still a 0-60 time on here of around 6.5 secs by my watch, not bad for a 1.4!

Anybody else timed the 0-60 time? In the same sense that stock power seems to be higher (140 to 150 BHP standard according to most people's figures) the same can be said by the "official" times in comparison to the "actual" times. EVO recorded a 0-60 time of 6.9 seconds for the SS, half a second quicker than that quoted. Mine has a tuning box fitted (TMC Motor sport) with approx 170 BHP so it's not unreasonable to expect a 0-60 time of less than 7 seconds too.

jimbro1000 · Nov 5, 2010

I get bored of saying this - hopefully it will be the last time for a while.

Power means nothing - it is torque that defines how fast your car is. Compared to a normally aspirated engine of the same peak power a turbo car will produce peak torque roughly 20-30% higher and that means it will be faster (traction allowing). So a NA car produces say 160bhp and roughly the same peak torque figure - 160lbft (not unusual). A Turbo car of the same peak power output would show peak torque of nearer 200lfbt. A NA car with the same peak torque would show a peak power figure of around 200bhp. Is this making sense?

You've already described the effect - now you just need to get your head around the fact that peak power is a load of tosh and means nothing in the real world. Even peak torque doesn't mean that much but it is more relevant - it is the spread of torque across the range that is most important and how the torque ramps up

There is also the fact that a turbo engine tends to produce more torque all across the range *but* is likely to run out of puff at the top end as the turbo starts to spin too fast and falls of the edge of its performance island. A 16v engine helps with this a bit but ultimately a really high revving NA engine with appropriate gearing can out perform a turbo engine of the same torque rating but these are specialist engines, expensive to buy and expensive to keep.

DraigFlag87 · Nov 5, 2010

Are you sure you posted that in the right topic? I'm not sure of it's relevance or relation to the 0-60 time video?

Thanks anyway i suppose

J333EVO · Nov 5, 2010

EVO mag quote Abarth 500 SS figures taken from issue number 129 as 0-60 7.2secs 0-100 20.4secs & iirc weighed in at 1105kgs making 158bhp@5750rpm & 170lb ft@3000rpm top speed 131mph.

It's to simplistic to take into account just power or torque as gearing and aerodynamic drag also take effect.

The peak power versus the front area & drag are how you mathematically calculate top speed hence why diesel cars often have lower top speeds as produce lower bhp, but bags more torque than petrol versions.

Take the Honda Integra Type R DC2 (issue 95 EVO) which weighs in at 1101kgs, so very similar, making 187bhp@8000rpm & only 131lb ft@7300rpn from its N/A 1.8L 16v engine, yet records 0-60 in 6.2secs & 0-100 in 17.9secs. & doesn't stop until 145mph.

Less torque, yet faster in all three areas. It makes power through engine speed, much like bike & F1 engines.

Something sort of in-between is my Clio Trophy, (issue 87 EVO) 2L 16v 1090kgs 180bhp@6500rpm 148lbft@5250rpm & recorded 0-60 6.6secs 0-100 17.3secs & 140mph highlighting the much better aerodynamic shape of the Honda coupe as hatchbacks are poor for airflow off the roof.

Once you reach about 75mph aero really plays a part hence why the blunt face 500 really pays the price and starts to slow ultimately running out of puff much sooner than similar on paper cars.

Your vid also shows that the car doesn't reach 60in second which hinders that time but doesn't make it up by 100. You really need to be timing to about 63-64 on the video for a true 60mph.

Still good fun blasting round Rockingham in one last week though trying out the AVO suspension!

DraigFlag87 · Nov 5, 2010

J333EVO said:
Still good fun blasting round Rockingham in one last week though trying out the AVO suspension!

That was Jon's I take it? He seems very pleased with the set up. Still considering a suspension upgrade myself, choice of Koni, AVO, Bilstein, GAZ etc...

Might just make do with what i've got, i'm so used the the way the car is set up as it is now.

J333EVO · Nov 5, 2010

Yes Jon's (Emmas dad) car. The suspension is excellent, the much tighter controlled damping really transforms the rear of the car into being not only more compliant, but also when setting up front geo can make rear end more mobile as Rockingham really highlighted the very prominent understeer these cars have.

Personally if I owned one I'd forget about upping power & concentrait on the suspension & brakes as ultimately it will make it a quicker, more rewarding car to drive. We didn't burn the paint off our calipers or suffer fade as other 500 owners did, one managed fade on sighting laps?????but the pedal was getting long and brakes didn't induce huge confidence. The 210bhp 500 couldn't keep up with me on track & I had no problems reeling in the 170bhp TMC box car & I account our much superior suspension as a big factor in that.

We managed approx 90miles round the 2.56mile long Rockingham International Long getting 11.4mpg.

DraigFlag87 · Nov 5, 2010

Reminds me of the Good olde days of Abarth, tiny 500 V's the big 5.0 litre mustangs etc, the 500's cornering ability made it a worthy competitor of cars tens times it's size in the day! Shame they didn't get it right this time though. Still, that's what modifying is for i guess.

Oakley28 · Nov 8, 2010

I love this thread.

Stuart J · Nov 11, 2010

J333EVO said:
Yes Jon's (Emmas dad) car. The suspension is excellent, the much tighter controlled damping really transforms the rear of the car into being not only more compliant, but also when setting up front geo can make rear end more mobile as Rockingham really highlighted the very prominent understeer these cars have.

Personally if I owned one I'd forget about upping power & concentrait on the suspension & brakes as ultimately it will make it a quicker, more rewarding car to drive. We didn't burn the paint off our calipers or suffer fade as other 500 owners did, one managed fade on sighting laps?????but the pedal was getting long and brakes didn't induce huge confidence. The 210bhp 500 couldn't keep up with me on track & I had no problems reeling in the 170bhp TMC box car & I account our much superior suspension as a big factor in that.

We managed approx 90miles round the 2.56mile long Rockingham International Long getting 11.4mpg.

As you have obviously experience of changing geo settings on the car what are your thoughts on the following.

The good ladies car is std + SS map shod with std Pirrellis.

The handling is pretty good but the rear end can get very loose when braking from 3 figures, it seems to follow any camber in the road & we had a massive scare in france during an emergency stop from around 120 when the car got very out of shape.

2 questions

Can the effect be reduced by fitting different tyres
Is there anything that can be done with a revised geo setting to help, my initial thoughts are dialing out the manufacturers understeer may make the rear worse

SeiSporting · Nov 11, 2010

Adjusting rear toe out should help with straight line stability , if it can be adjusted on standard suspension is a different matter though.

J333EVO · Nov 11, 2010

Stuart J said:
As you have obviously experience of changing geo settings on the car what are your thoughts on the following.

The good ladies car is std + SS map shod with std Pirrellis.

The handling is pretty good but the rear end can get very loose when braking from 3 figures, it seems to follow any camber in the road & we had a massive scare in france during an emergency stop from around 120 when the car got very out of shape.

2 questions

Can the effect be reduced by fitting different tyres
Is there anything that can be done with a revised geo setting to help, my initial thoughts are dialing out the manufacturers understeer may make the rear worse

Hi,

Yes on track under heavy breaking I found I could actually get the rear brakes to lock as the rear end went light, it was a little uncomfortable at times. No where near as stable as our FTO was around Silverstone which given it weighs in at about 1170kgs so about 65kgs heavier than an Abarth, & is an equally front heavy car running 324x32mm Nissan 350Z discs and Mitsubishi GTO 4 pot callipers on the front never once did this, and its brakes are mighty compared to Abarth brakes which feel strong on road but a bit weak on track.

To counter the understeer, we eventaully dialled in 10min total toe out at the front which is not far off the Trofeo cars. The one thing the Trofeo cars do have in 3mm (yes you read that right) 3mm each side of toe in on the rear to help stability and to stop the cars swapping ends, though they still do that rather alarmingly compared to other tin top race cars, this also helps the tyres heat up.

The rear can only be adjusted by way of shims, which unlike Clio's through Renaulsport UK or any number of retailers who have copied them, you can't buy from Abarth. If someone knew what they were doing it would be easy to just put washers in the rear to adjust things, in fact I know at least one Trofeo team did this to even out each side as the tolerance from factory is huge. I know someone is running parralel on the rear of his 500, but I thik this will make the back end more mobile which yes will reduce understeer, but also increase chances of swapping ends under heavy breaking. A little toe in which I think is factory anyway will help, and a little negative camber would to, I don't know off hand what it has on the rear, but for example my Clio from factory runs 1degree30mins negative on the rear with about 10mins toe in.

On a SS car, I would remove the bump stops to help rear end stability, and get a full geomotry check as from factory Fiats tolerances are too big and you can in fact get one wheel toeing out and one in and still be within linits.

Different tyres may help, Uniroyal Rainsport2 are very good, Michelin Pilot are good but PE2 and PS2 now discontinued and replaced with PS3, as are Godyear Eagle and new ContiSport 3 is meant to be excellent, never really had a great Pirelli on any car I've tried with them.

I have rambled on for a bit but hopefully some info hidden in there will help.

DraigFlag87 · Nov 11, 2010

I can't offer as comprehensive answer as the helpful chap above, but i can tell you that I've had the Pirellis twice now (8 total) and never felt very confident on them, whether i was braking or just cornering, wet or dry i never liked them at all. Got some BF Goodrich at the mo, very grippy once they're warmed up. Not had any scary moments whilst barking hard with them as yet. Maybe the tyres play a bigger part than you think?

Stuart J · Nov 12, 2010

J333EVO said:
Hi,

Yes on track under heavy breaking I found I could actually get the rear brakes to lock as the rear end went light, it was a little uncomfortable at times. No where near as stable as our FTO was around Silverstone which given it weighs in at about 1170kgs so about 65kgs heavier than an Abarth, & is an equally front heavy car running 324x32mm Nissan 350Z discs and Mitsubishi GTO 4 pot callipers on the front never once did this, and its brakes are mighty compared to Abarth brakes which feel strong on road but a bit weak on track.

To counter the understeer, we eventaully dialled in 10min total toe out at the front which is not far off the Trofeo cars. The one thing the Trofeo cars do have in 3mm (yes you read that right) 3mm each side of toe in on the rear to help stability and to stop the cars swapping ends, though they still do that rather alarmingly compared to other tin top race cars, this also helps the tyres heat up.

The rear can only be adjusted by way of shims, which unlike Clio's through Renaulsport UK or any number of retailers who have copied them, you can't buy from Abarth. If someone knew what they were doing it would be easy to just put washers in the rear to adjust things, in fact I know at least one Trofeo team did this to even out each side as the tolerance from factory is huge. I know someone is running parralel on the rear of his 500, but I thik this will make the back end more mobile which yes will reduce understeer, but also increase chances of swapping ends under heavy breaking. A little toe in which I think is factory anyway will help, and a little negative camber would to, I don't know off hand what it has on the rear, but for example my Clio from factory runs 1degree30mins negative on the rear with about 10mins toe in.

On a SS car, I would remove the bump stops to help rear end stability, and get a full geomotry check as from factory Fiats tolerances are too big and you can in fact get one wheel toeing out and one in and still be within linits.

Different tyres may help, Uniroyal Rainsport2 are very good, Michelin Pilot are good but PE2 and PS2 now discontinued and replaced with PS3, as are Godyear Eagle and new ContiSport 3 is meant to be excellent, never really had a great Pirelli on any car I've tried with them.

I have rambled on for a bit but hopefully some info hidden in there will help.

Ramble on sir, some useful stuff in there.

I feel a change of tyres will be in order, possibly try Toyos as I run them on other cars & find them grippy with "reosnable" wear rate. Also a Geo check will be an idea if they can be that far out, I think a trip to Powerstation in Cheltenham will be on the cards, theyve set a few cars up for me & always seem to get a good comprimise between handling & tyre wear.

306maxi · Dec 4, 2010

Draigflag, is there any particular reason you continue on with this? For a proper measurement the ground must be flat and you're really meant to measure both ways, plus the speedo isn't an absolute measurement as has been said. But still you continue on with this. Personally I'm more likely to trust Evo than some video which you've shot....

DraigFlag87 · Dec 4, 2010

306maxi said:
Draigflag, is there any particular reason you continue on with this? For a proper measurement the ground must be flat and you're really meant to measure both ways, plus the speedo isn't an absolute measurement as has been said. But still you continue on with this. Personally I'm more likely to trust Evo than some video which you've shot....

This was the flattest ground i could find, i can assure you it was VERY flat. Trust EVO if you like, they had similar results to me and are probably more accurate. I will have to borrow someones VIM which measures the 0-60 from the cars computer, it's highly accurate, then i will post my findings.

306maxi · Dec 4, 2010

DraigFlag87 said:
This was the flattest ground i could find, i can assure you it was VERY flat. Trust EVO if you like, they had similar results to me and are probably more accurate. I will have to borrow someones VIM which measures the 0-60 from the cars computer, it's highly accurate, then i will post my findings.

As pointed out the cars speedo is NOT accurate.

DraigFlag87 · Dec 4, 2010

306maxi said:
As pointed out the cars speedo is NOT accurate.

I appreciate that, but the device in question reads the digital reading from the computer rather than the analog speedo that the driver sees. Just don't ask how it works because i don't have a clue!

306maxi · Dec 4, 2010

DraigFlag87 said:
I appreciate that, but the device in question reads the digital reading from the computer rather than the analog speedo that the driver sees. Just don't ask how it works because i don't have a clue!

You'll forgive me if I ask again, WHY?

Getting the best 0-60 time out of a car requires the sort of driving which 99% of people just wouldn't do in their own car. It shortens the lifespan of everything in the drivetrain and wears your tyres far more quickly than is necessary.

I also just don't see the point. To compare it to other cars you'd have to have the same cars on the same road on the same day and measure things in the same way. And then once you've compared times, what? So yes the 400 horsepower somethign is quicker than the 300 horsepower whatever and so on.

DraigFlag87 · Dec 4, 2010

306maxi said:
You'll forgive me if I ask again, WHY?

Getting the best 0-60 time out of a car requires the sort of driving which 99% of people just wouldn't do in their own car. It shortens the lifespan of everything in the drivetrain and wears your tyres far more quickly than is necessary.

I also just don't see the point. To compare it to other cars you'd have to have the same cars on the same road on the same day and measure things in the same way. And then once you've compared times, what? So yes the 400 horsepower somethign is quicker than the 300 horsepower whatever and so on.

You are funny sometimes! In one thread you said "I'll do what any 12 year old would do and compare the 0-60 time" in this thread you've said comparing the 0-60 time is pointless?! And besides, I'm not even comparing it to any other cars, it's just my car? And given that fact, don't you think i have the right to drive the car that i own and paid for in the way i want to? There's nothing illegal in this video either. You complain about everything, must be a nightmare to live with!

306maxi · Dec 4, 2010

DraigFlag87 said:
You are funny sometimes! In one thread you said "I'll do what any 12 year old would do and compare the 0-60 time" in this thread you've said comparing the 0-60 time is pointless?! And besides, I'm not even comparing it to any other cars, it's just my car? And given that fact, don't you think i have the right to drive the car that i own and paid for in the way i want to? There's nothing illegal in this video either. You complain about everything, must be a nightmare to live with!

I'm talking about checking verified times in a magazine, not abusing my own car

General 0-60 time

Currently reading: General 0-60 time

Banned

Established member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Lowered.

Banned

Member

STOP! Hammer time!

Banned

STOP! Hammer time!

Banned

STOP! Hammer time!

Banned

STOP! Hammer time!

Similar threads

Currently reading:
General 0-60 time