0 - 60

[andy_lang]

Got my stripped out Revo 2 LC 0-60 in 5.8 on the Liquid Gauge. Still working on my launches and stickier tyres, but im more of track driving than straight line.

My Traction control is permanately disabled. Far too interfering!!!

 

[mrdavies]

what do you think my 1.6s 10 years old would do in 0-60 say 3 seconds ? lololol

 

[Nautilus]

Warning:

After many months in different weather conditions, I can say sluggishness is just as well related to dirty sensors and/or boost leaks as it is related to poor quality of the fuel. In fact, with new Lambda sensor, clean IAT sensor, no boost leaks and perfect quality fuel, now it feels like another car altogether, both in 0-60 times and in-gear acceleration. In 3rd gear it pulls like a small locomotive.

To achieve the very best 0-60 times and in-gear acceleration, the sensors -that means 3 of the 43 (!) sensors of an 1.8T: Lambda, MAF and IAT- have to be in perfect condition and absolutely clean and fuel should be at least over RON 99 to avoid knocking and poor burning. In fact, the engine runs best with only two types of fuel, a RON 99 - RON 100 Euro 5 (MOL Evo) and another RON 100+ (Rompetrol Alto 101).

~Nautilus

 

[Nautilus]

Tested the 0-60 time today, after I have acquired a KAT Matrix accelerometer.

Temperature: 1°C
Tyres: Goodyear F1 Asymmetric, summer. Cold. Even after a few pulls, the tyres were cold to the touch. (Clutch had begun to heat itself to the point of giving up in the mean time.)

Best time: 6.32 seconds
Second best times: 6.57 and 6.58 seconds

Due to ripples in the tarmac and cold tyres, wheels hopped a lot in 1st gear above 5000rpm. There is some possibility to shave a tenth or two from the 0-60 time in summer conditions with warmer tyres.

~Nautilus

 

[Witalik]

I got a Stage 1 Remap at JD Engineering here in the netherlands, reasonably warm tyres, bad start and 2x12inch caliber boombox in the back with rockford punch woofers i managed to get on my dynolicious app for iphone :

5,78 secs from 0-100 km/h after 1/4mile 13,40sec @ 198.2 km/h

 

[Faisal]

All about the launch, if you can control the wheelspin you'll get good times.

mine was the 210 model, 7.1s standard, after the remap i got it down to about 6.3 (according to race chrono),

after much practice and better tyres I managed to get it down to just under 5.9s... A better driver could even get lower

the above times were with a passenger and a huge sub in the boot. Oh and I took out an integra type r doing so

 

[Nautilus]

Tested the 0-60 time again today, on the same KAT Matrix accelerometer.

Temperature: 16°C
Tyres: Goodyear F1 Asymmetric, summer. Rather cold. Clutch was going to give up before the tyres.

Best time: 6.33 seconds
Second best times: 6.48 and 6.53 seconds

So there is no significant difference between warm and cold weather in regards to 0-60 times.

~Nautilus

 

[ben450]

They are hard to launch in the wet much lower powered cars do you off the line. Once your rolling different story.

 

[aaron-gardner]

well if a less powered car is beating you off the line then you must be using too much lol. i have never been beaten off the lights by a 1.2 corsa lol

 

[aaron-gardner]

if the leon came with a lsd it would be a different animal. also a turbo on a car in the wet is just a recipe for wheelspin.

 

[Nautilus]

Tried to calculate 0-60 times with different online calculators, from weight (which should be, adding to the Leon basic weight, 7.5kg for 10 liters of fuel, about 12kg for the mods which may be conservative and 98kg for myself, somewhat like 1406kg, but not accounting for toolbox or other small things) and last time dynoed horsepower, to check the KAT Matrix measurement.

Interestingly, all of them estimated a 1406kg FWD car should need 232-238 peak hp to get a 0-60 time of 6.33 seconds.

Best dyno measurement has been 230.5 flywheel hp, not accounting for small tweaks added afterwards: Fluidampr, new piston rings (one had been broken), crank scraper, cleaning the throttle body etc

Cars with very efficient gearbox ratios and/or LSDs may have a small advantage in 0-60 time, yet the stock Leon gearbox ratios are inefficient: large gap from 1st to 2nd gear, significant gap from 2nd to 3rd. This is not close-ratio gearbox by any means.

So either the car got some 2-8 hp as a gift from Heaven, or I was very lucky.

5.8 seconds are tempting, but they would need almost 260 hp at the flywheel, as the program says, which easily fits a remapped LCR, but may break the turbo to shreds on a LC/LFR.

~Nautilus

 

[MR2 super GT]

Any mk1 fr tdi remap times?

 

[gdjohny]

Any mk1 fr tdi remap times?

need to check mine tonight .
Anyone know there 0-60 in the TDIs ?

 

[alias]

How can you possibly calculate 0-62 times on an online calculator?

Two cars both identical in weight, power, drag coefficient etc. may have different 0-62 times. Why? Gear ratios. Unless you can input the ratios into these calculators then their results are pointless.

My old C2 had to change into 3rd to reach 62 as 2nd maxed out at 57mph. A taller 2nd gear would have saved considerable time, regardless on how quick your footwork was.

To stick arbitrary values into a calculator and get a credible time is nonsense.

 

[Steely]

How can you possibly calculate 0-62 times on an online calculator?

Two cars both identical in weight, power, drag coefficient etc. may have different 0-62 times. Why? Gear ratios. Unless you can input the ratios into these calculators then their results are pointless.

My old C2 had to change into 3rd to reach 62 as 2nd maxed out at 57mph. A taller 2nd gear would have saved considerable time, regardless on how quick your footwork was.

To stick arbitrary values into a calculator and get a credible time is nonsense.

I would of thought the calculators work with a "Mean value ratio" , so its credible to a degree, but not bang on the money,

I will agree though that one reason why the lc/lcr is possible to hit these times is because 2nd is capable of hitting 60,

 

[MOROalTT]

0-62 ?? Why ??

many differences could be......

where weight is distributed , cars improvements in suspension, air dynamics, shift ratio's

off line jump, 2wd vs 4wd......

putting correct numbers in a machine is all good well help come up with a suppose to number

or 0 - 62 .. but there are all these possible differences..... engine run hotter then the other

engine. blah blah.........

 

[Nautilus]

How can you possibly calculate 0-62 times on an online calculator?

1. The time had been measured with a KAT Matrix accelerometer. Which gave 6.32 to 6.33 seconds.

2. The time measured by the accelerometer had been introduced in a few online calculators for comparison.

3. The driven axle (FWD), weight of the car with fuel, driver and mods had been taken into account.

4. The inefficiency of the 02M gearbox 2nd and 3rd ratios had not been taken into account.

5. Given the 0-60 measured time, the weight of the car and the driven axle in front, the online calculator estimated the car needed 232-238 peak hp to get the measured 0-60 time.

6. The dynoed peak hp had been previously 230.5 hp, before the piston rings were changed, and minor mods like the crank scraper (+1% hp on various engine configurations) and months later Fluidampr (+2.7% hp proven by dyno on other 1.8Ts) were added.

7. 230.5 x 1.01 x 1.027 = 239 peak hp, which is uncannily similar.

8. Even assuming a bit more conservative figures, a peak hp figure of 235hp is reasonable.

~Nautilus

 

[MOROalTT]

1. The time had been measured with a KAT Matrix accelerometer. Which gave 6.32 to 6.33 seconds.

2. The time measured by the accelerometer had been introduced in a few online calculators for comparison.

3. The driven axle (FWD), weight of the car with fuel, driver and mods had been taken into account.

4. The inefficiency of the 02M gearbox 2nd and 3rd ratios had not been taken into account.

5. Given the 0-60 measured time, the weight of the car and the driven axle in front, the online calculator estimated the car needed 232-238 peak hp to get the measured 0-60 time.

6. The dynoed peak hp had been previously 230.5 hp, before the piston rings were changed, and minor mods like the crank scraper (+1% hp on various engine configurations) and months later Fluidampr (+2.7% hp proven by dyno on other 1.8Ts) were added.

7. 230.5 x 1.01 x 1.027 = 239 peak hp, which is uncannily similar.

8. Even assuming a bit more conservative figures, a peak hp figure of 235hp is reasonable.

~Nautilus

that is great now how to account for the driver What you have done is awesome ...

but let us bring in the Holidays....

Ho Ho Ho...... Merry Christmas......

 

[Nautilus]

Had acquired an ELM 327 chip and Torque app in the meantime and tested the air gram/second figure.

Highest was 187.5 g/s (open road run in 3rd gear, a bit below 1.5 bar, around 5000 rpm, throttle not fully floored) which according to the 1.25 ratio translates to a peak slightly over 234 bhp. I had said 235 above

 

[Andrewwright]

Had acquired an ELM 327 chip and Torque app in the meantime and tested the air gram/second figure.

Highest was 187.5 g/s (open road run in 3rd gear, a bit below 1.5 bar, around 5000 rpm, throttle not fully floored) which according to the 1.25 ratio translates to a peak slightly over 234 bhp. I had said 235 above

Have you timed 40-120?
0-60 I think is just to hard on pretty much everything so I stick with the above. Never timed it but will tomorrow.

Edit:speed change.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk