New Performance Benchmark

[loopism]

  Kimberley Scott said:

I am with Macssxr6t, real world overtaking, comfort for the familty etc etc, hence why a perfectly good Ford Focus was traded in because it did not meet the above criteria. I know its not the fastest launching car, in fact in all my years of driving I have only once launched a car with more than a smidgon of revs, that ended in nothing but wheelspin. Its a skill I have never developed, or practiced.

As for the 5 to 60 test, what an absolute horses ass crock of bullsh*t, I cannot make it clear enough of what an absolute wank I think this is, Drags are not done rolling, vast majority of races are not started rolling, ans ven though people should approach traffic lights in a way that they do not stop, real life this does not occur, so 0 to 60 or what ever speed you want to test is the real world test.

Lets reinvent the wheel for f*cks sake.

Scotty

That's the whole idea Kimmy, it's not about drags. Launching a car properly requires a certain finesse, and it's bloody unlikely to be the same between a RWD and AWD, and certainly different to a FWD. Having a rolling start allows the average mug journo and/or punter to pretty much discount the actual launch from the equation. You also talk about never having launched a car with more than a handful of revs. A rolling start from 10km/h is just a smidgin in pretty much most vehicles! 80-120km/h tests would also be good to show the overtaking capabilities of a vehicle.

[Evil F6]

Magazines like Road and Track (USA) have been doing 5-60mph acceleration tests for donkey's years. Good measure of flexibility and low down torque.

I like to see 80-140 tests as I find overtaking I'm usually going much faster than 120 to complete and overtaking maneuver, especially in the foon when you can end up doing 170 very very easily.

[BALLBREAKER]

  SCRIBR said:

Such an auto driver comment

No its not because I own a auto.Its just the way it is, like it or not 0 to 100, my car is faster than yours from 5 to 100 geez.These are new ideas to make other car look better. As we talk about this subject it clear that its straight line pefomance that matters buy an auto,manuals not the way any more, on a turbo ford sh*t house in fact no boost in btween gear changes till a certen amount of revs. my stock f6 auto runs 0 to 100 in 5.1 sec, the best I did in my manual f6 was 5.5 ses.yes with the same g tec meter on both cars.

[Guest]

Good thread this, I feel both test should be done from now on. This will painting a clear picture of a cars true all round off the lights performance, 0-60mph for wanking over and 5-60mph for a real world will I buy one indicator.

Both tests are as valid as each other.

Wonder how a car like the Mazda 6 MPS would go in a 0-60 Vs 5-60 as its 1st gear is very short, at 5mph you'd be in 2nd.

[dule]

What are the rules of the 5-60 test?

Can you still use the clutch or does the car have to be in gear and you just flor it?

[Dillz]

Role on's kick arse, especially when there waiting at the lights and you slow a bit and then when it goes green you boot it and kick there arse.

But seriously Auto's will always be better for the 1/4 and Manuals for the Track.

[chipa_12]

Personally I think if you really want a true indication of a performance car, then you should have several tests for them. 0-100, 10-100, 60-80, 80-120, 1/4 mile, go to whoa, track times. Not necessarily all of them , but at least a few. Then people could decide what kind of car they want and buy appropiately. Eg if you care more about handling then you would look for something with a faster track time or if you wanted straight line speed, then you would look for something with a faster 0-100..

The problem is , like someone said, magazine write ups are usually biased in some way, and it would probably take too much time to run the cars through a few tests.

[BALLBREAKER]

  NOS XR said:

Good thread this, I feel both test should be done from now on. This will painting a clear picture of a cars true all round off the lights performance, 0-60mph for wanking over and 5-60mph for a real world will I buy one indicator.

Both tests are as valid as each other.

Wonder how a car like the Mazda 6 MPS would go in a 0-60 Vs 5-60 as its 1st gear is very short, at 5mph you'd be in 2nd.

In the real world it stop & go,not let sit on 5 ks waiting for a run that's A wank & a half,GEEZ 0 to 100 or 0 to 200.

[Mat]

  Venom XR6 said:

Can't say the same for the WRX, its gearboxes are made of glass.

Dude, have u actually ever owned a modded WRX. The 6speeds are fairly solid and if driven CORRECTLY the 5 speeds arent to bad. that's like saying the BA 5 speeds are a weak POS. If you understand a cars "weaknesses" you can still mod and drive it hard.

My WRX is now 10 years old has 175K kms and has been THRASHED. One WAW (Whoop Ass Wednesday drag night at motorplex if you arent aware) night it copped 7 or 8 good 5-6k launches.

Its recently had a full mechanical inspection and the results were unreal. Its been through a couple of clutches and the 3rd is a tad tired (what do u expect though) but the box is still great and I have no doubt it'll see 200K.

TBH I find these type of comparisons a load of rubbish. How you can compare an 05 STi with DCCD or EVO 8MR to a similiarly aged XR6T or 350z for example is beyond me. Surely you cant compare apples to oranges, especially when magazines are already biased.

If your performance benchmark is set by 0-100 or 5-100kms then you need to get out more. Plenty of other super important things like braking and suspension (NO point having a fast car if you cant stop and keep it on the road), reliabilty, modability (is that even a word??), build quality, 100kms-200kms time etc

Its like saying a highly modded F6 is quicker and makes more power than a decent ferrari. It might be but does that mean its better?

Edited 10/01/08 09:37 AM by Mat

[bonza]

It’s an interesting concept but I don’t believe in it.

It’s merely shifting the goalposts so bigger more powerful cars can brag about acceleration figures. Of course a 4wd Evo will beat a HSV by a country mile from a 0 – 60, but I’m sure a 5 – 60 would be a closer outcome. 0 to 60 is a measurement of time and time is always measured starting from zero, as too, should the starting speed be measured starting from zero. 5 – 60 is like saying, I’ll start work at 2pm because my day will go quicker. What’s the point?

With 5 – 60 all you’re doing is manipulating factors so the results are in favour. When is it going to stop? Next we’ll be measuring in 100 – 160 because u can make a twin turbocharged Nissan Patrol accelerate faster than a Lambo Murcielago if the test is conducted between 100 - 160! [enter youtube video here]

God forbid if this type of measurement ever become ratified and people honestly begun buying cars based on a 5 – 60 performance figure. You’d have car manufactures churning out drag-car type vehicles, featherweights with massively huge engines, stupidly geared ratios all in the name of a fast 5 – 60. Other motoring factors such as handling and stopping ability would be neglected. (Already sounds like most American car manufactures! Actually where did this 5 – 60 measuring originate? America? haha funny that!)

It’s a myth that measuring from 5 – 60 would level the playing field when measuring acceleration figures. You may think it rules out some of the anomalies that can affect the accuracy of times such as tyres, driveline loss/efficiency, awd/rwd, launching techniques etc. However it introduces just as many inconsistencies as it negates. Things like:

- What RPM the motor is operating at while the vehicle is traveling at 5mph? A car being closer to its power band while traveling 5mph is going to have an advantage over a car which comes onto its power band later in the rev range. This is where you can also argue that launch control and stalling cars up discredits fairly comparing acceleration figures across vehicles. If you were to conduct an acceleration test scientifically, you would measure both cars accelerating from zero revs from a standing start. This way both vehicles commence identically, with the same starting measurements. This way you can reliably compare one cars engineering and ability over another when both are starting equal. You can’t properly compare results unless some variables are equal.

- A vehicle’s mass (weight) is less of an issue in a rolling start race because the inertia has been broken and the vehicle has a momentum. This is where it starts to become unfair because a heavier vehicle has a greater momentum than that of a lighter vehicle while traveling at the same speed. (Example: I’d rather attempt to catch a cricket ball traveling 100kph than a bowling bowl traveling 100kph!) A 0 – 60 test is far fairer test as both vehicles have to break their own inertia which is relative to their own kerb weight. As soon as you have two vehicles of differing mass taking off on a rolling start, the heavier vehicle’s weight disadvantage is negated in some degree by the momentum it’s generating. This is an influential inconsistency if measuring from a rolling start.

We all bark up and down about acceleration figures but really, how accurate are they in the first place? You can’t properly compare results unless a majority of variables are equal. Apples with apples, oranges with oranges. I know it’s impossible for all elements between two vehicles to be identical, but for it to be a fair comparison a specified amount of variables need to be consistent. Perhaps it’s about time car manufacturers, magazines and reviewers ratify things like starting revs, tyre pressure, tyre condition, road surfaces, head wind, weather conditions and launching techniques when measuring and comparing acceleration figures? Or at least exercise some consistency.