Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Just saw ANOTHER official drag test on utube between a merc c63 and the vf GTS.
The GTS did a best of 4.6 0-100 again. Considering the roll out, the grip at a track,it's wide grippy tyres,it's new diff,launch control and that big fat supercharged engine(aswell as many other little things)......that seriously is not very fast in a straight line considering every ford turbo model and GT can do high 4s to low 5s on the street!

Be interesting to see more and more owners with stock VFs at the track over time to see how consistant these times really are. I mean the GTS has had DRAG STRIP times from 4.2 right up to 4.7. That's a huge difference!
Mind you I'm not sure how they get the numbers for 0-100 at the track if they're using the timing lights.

Even though the GTS has gone faster, 4.6 seconds 0-100 its still not a bad time for a stock car that would weigh almost 2000kg with driver. In saying that I think the GTS's speciality is more its braking and handling rather than straight line acceleration, even though obviously its not really lacking in that area

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by johnydep

I'd be happy with that time.

Out of interest; what was the drivers reaction time? What fuel did both vehicles use?

Sorry not sure....but yes it'd be great if they actually gave us more info then just two numbers when they did these tests. We are enthusiasts after all.

[zilo]

Was thinking of getting my next car as either the Nissan GTR or the Merc C63 but I guess I would be wasting my money cause I can get a stock FG turbo that does a 12 second 1/4 mile ......much quicker than both of those?

Cool.....

[Chopped]

Second hand XR6T would easily be the best bang for your buck.

It's the modern day VL turbo. Lets hope they don't end up as fully hectic/sic examples as we saw with the VL.

[2242100]

[QUOTE=1TUFFUTE;5089454]Just saw ANOTHER official drag test on utube between a merc c63 and the vf GTS.
The GTS did a best of 4.6 0-100 again. Considering the roll out, the grip at a track,it's wide grippy tyres,it's new diff,launch control and that big fat supercharged engine(aswell as many other little things)......that seriously is not very fast in a straight line considering every ford turbo model and GT can do high 4s to low 5s on the street!

Be interesting to see more and more owners with stock VFs at the track over time to see how consistant these times really are. I mean the GTS has had DRAG STRIP times from 4.2 right up to 4.7. That's a huge difference!
Mind you I'm not sure how they get the numbers for 0-100 at the track if they're using the timing lights.[/QUOTEe






At first I thought the 0- 100 time might have come from a quarter mile time count back (low 8 second) like I did in a couple of posts, but then I realised that you are probably talking about the Drive.com.au test. I believe they use GPS based timing equipment . So dragstrip rollout shouldn't be an issue. But on that subject, a car with say Commodore/Falcon sized wheels can start anywhere inside about a 15 inch zone, so there doesn't actually have to be rollout, although I think there would generally be some.
On the subject of how times can vary so much, you might find the following interesting.
MOTOR tested an FG F6 Auto at an airstrip and got a fairly ordinary 5.36 to 100 kph and a 13.37 sec 400 metre time . So that's 8.01 seconds from 100 kph to the end of the 400 metre run. They also published the distance that the car took to reach 100 kph and that data makes the following calculation possible.
My own cars best 0 - 70 time (high altitude, high grip, excellent launch with no wheelspin) plus a fast 70 to 100 kph low altitude time totals 4.47 seconds to 100 kph and adding the two distances together gives a total distance close to 4 metres shorter than Motors published zero to 100 kph distance at their test.
So the calculation is:-
Zero to 100 kph time of 4.47 seconds, plus .08 sec (for the extra 4 metres distance required to go from 100 kph to 400 metres) = 4.55 sec. Then add 8.01 sec (for the total time to 400 metres) = 12.56 sec. Then add .05 sec (for the additional distance from 400 metres to the 1/4 mile point) = 12.61 sec 1/4 mile time.
But that's not all, because if the car was shallow staged at the dragstrip as much as possible, there would be 0.25 sec rollout. So that's 12.61 less 0.25 = 12.36 second quarter mile.
So a 13.37 sec 400 metre Magazine test time reduces down to a possible 12.36 sec dragstrip timeslip, ie if the zero to 100 kph performance of an F6 only just equals the zero to 100 performance of a standard untuned XR6T.
A very significant 1.01 second difference.


To return to the HSV GTS subject, I've been told by EVO AUSTRALIA Magazine that they will be testing a manual car in the next month. Expect to see something on their website and possibly in the Magazine.

[1TUFFUTE]

[QUOTE=2242100;5090240]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Just saw ANOTHER official drag test on utube between a merc c63 and the vf GTS.
The GTS did a best of 4.6 0-100 again. Considering the roll out, the grip at a track,it's wide grippy tyres,it's new diff,launch control and that big fat supercharged engine(aswell as many other little things)......that seriously is not very fast in a straight line considering every ford turbo model and GT can do high 4s to low 5s on the street!

Be interesting to see more and more owners with stock VFs at the track over time to see how consistant these times really are. I mean the GTS has had DRAG STRIP times from 4.2 right up to 4.7. That's a huge difference!
Mind you I'm not sure how they get the numbers for 0-100 at the track if they're using the timing lights.[/QUOTEe






At first I thought the 0- 100 time might have come from a quarter mile time count back (low 8 second) like I did in a couple of posts, but then I realised that you are probably talking about the Drive.com.au test. I believe they use GPS based timing equipment . So dragstrip rollout shouldn't be an issue. But on that subject, a car with say Commodore/Falcon sized wheels can start anywhere inside about a 15 inch zone, so there doesn't actually have to be rollout, although I think there would generally be some.
On the subject of how times can vary so much, you might find the following interesting.
MOTOR tested an FG F6 Auto at an airstrip and got a fairly ordinary 5.36 to 100 kph and a 13.37 sec 400 metre time . So that's 8.01 seconds from 100 kph to the end of the 400 metre run. They also published the distance that the car took to reach 100 kph and that data makes the following calculation possible.
My own cars best 0 - 70 time (high altitude, high grip, excellent launch with no wheelspin) plus a fast 70 to 100 kph low altitude time totals 4.47 seconds to 100 kph and adding the two distances together gives a total distance close to 4 metres shorter than Motors published zero to 100 kph distance at their test.
So the calculation is:-
Zero to 100 kph time of 4.47 seconds, plus .08 sec (for the extra 4 metres distance required to go from 100 kph to 400 metres) = 4.55 sec. Then add 8.01 sec (for the total time to 400 metres) = 12.56 sec. Then add .05 sec (for the additional distance from 400 metres to the 1/4 mile point) = 12.61 sec 1/4 mile time.
But that's not all, because if the car was shallow staged at the dragstrip as much as possible, there would be 0.25 sec rollout. So that's 12.61 less 0.25 = 12.36 second quarter mile.
So a 13.37 sec 400 metre Magazine test time reduces down to a possible 12.36 sec dragstrip timeslip, ie if the zero to 100 kph performance of an F6 only just equals the zero to 100 performance of a standard untuned XR6T.
A very significant 1.01 second difference.


To return to the HSV GTS subject, I've been told by EVO AUSTRALIA Magazine that they will be testing a manual car in the next month. Expect to see something on their website and possibly in the Magazine.

I find your math and effort refreshing...but to throw a little spanner in the works....the latest video in question has them showing the drag times on the light boards(hinting that maybe they are using the dragstrip timing) or at least including rollout on the vbox timing units if that's what they use for the times other then the 1/4.
anyhow be good to see how EVO go with a manual.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by 2242100

MOTOR tested an FG F6 Auto at an airstrip and got a fairly ordinary 5.36 to 100 kph and a 13.37 sec 400 metre time . So that's 8.01 seconds from 100 kph to the end of the 400 metre run. They also published the distance that the car took to reach 100 kph and that data makes the following calculation possible.
My own cars best 0 - 70 time (high altitude, high grip, excellent launch with no wheelspin) plus a fast 70 to 100 kph low altitude time totals 4.47 seconds to 100 kph and adding the two distances together gives a total distance close to 4 metres shorter than Motors published zero to 100 kph distance at their test.
So the calculation is:-
Zero to 100 kph time of 4.47 seconds, plus .08 sec (for the extra 4 metres distance required to go from 100 kph to 400 metres) = 4.55 sec. Then add 8.01 sec (for the total time to 400 metres) = 12.56 sec. Then add .05 sec (for the additional distance from 400 metres to the 1/4 mile point) = 12.61 sec 1/4 mile time.
But that's not all, because if the car was shallow staged at the dragstrip as much as possible, there would be 0.25 sec rollout. So that's 12.61 less 0.25 = 12.36 second quarter mile.
So a 13.37 sec 400 metre Magazine test time reduces down to a possible 12.36 sec dragstrip timeslip, ie if the zero to 100 kph performance of an F6 only just equals the zero to 100 performance of a standard untuned XR6T.
A very significant 1.01 second difference.

That is one way to look at it - take a really good 0-70 time from a different model, and then add one of the better 70-100 times for that different model from a different run at a different location.

Thread title is Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times - your method removes all confusion and seems to be a much more accurate way of determining the 0-100 time of a vehicle, rather than the old way of timing how long it takes the actual vehicle to go from 0-100km/h.

No, seriously, I thought the idea was to remove confusion, not add to it. Can't we just time cars over a set distance or to a set speed. Why do we need to take snippets of different runs from different vehicles at different locations then apply correction factors?

That F6 ran 0-100 in 5.36. That is much slower than other F6's have run, but that is what that one ran that day in that single run. Does not mean they are all that slow, but the fastest time does not mean they are all that fast. All it means is that is what that one did in that single test on that day at that location with that driver. Just like some SS have run some good times, some have run some average times. I'm also tipping the manual GTS to be tested by EVO magazine will not match the times run by the auto GTS.

[muso]

Originally Posted by Chopped

Second hand XR6T would easily be the best bang for your buck.

It's the modern day VL turbo. Lets hope they don't end up as fully hectic/sic examples as we saw with the VL.

And the G6ET is the modern day VL Calais Turbo

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

That is one way to look at it - take a really good 0-70 time from a different model, and then add one of the better 70-100 times for that different model from a different run at a different location.

Thread title is Confusion over VF SS 0-100 times - your method removes all confusion and seems to be a much more accurate way of determining the 0-100 time of a vehicle, rather than the old way of timing how long it takes the actual vehicle to go from 0-100km/h.

No, seriously, I thought the idea was to remove confusion, not add to it. Can't we just time cars over a set distance or to a set speed. Why do we need to take snippets of different runs from different vehicles at different locations then apply correction factors?

That F6 ran 0-100 in 5.36. That is much slower than other F6's have run, but that is what that one ran that day in that single run. Does not mean they are all that slow, but the fastest time does not mean they are all that fast. All it means is that is what that one did in that single test on that day at that location with that driver. Just like some SS have run some good times, some have run some average times. I'm also tipping the manual GTS to be tested by EVO magazine will not match the times run by the auto GTS.

Killjoy much? Some people like looking at all the numbers...I know I do. Race cars and teams are well known for sector timing and extracting their best times to see the theoretical fastest time achieved. Nothing new there......no need to waste your breathe if your not interested! Others CLEARLY are.......

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Chopped

Second hand XR6T would easily be the best bang for your buck.

It's the modern day VL turbo. Lets hope they don't end up as fully hectic/sic examples as we saw with the VL.

Sadly I'm seeing some on here already. It goes with the audience.

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Killjoy much? Some people like looking at all the numbers...I know I do. Race cars and teams are well known for sector timing and extracting their best times to see the theoretical fastest time achieved. Nothing new there......no need to waste your breathe if your not interested! Others CLEARLY are.......

That's fair enough and I am not trying to be a killjoy - but I do doubt those racing teams calculate their theoretical fastest time using a car with different specs and an assumption at some stage during the run the car goes through some kind of stargate portal that delivers the car to a different time and location.

But back to the topic - does seem a really quick 0-100 time posted by the SS in that test...but theoretically I reckon it could go faster.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

That's fair enough and I am not trying to be a killjoy - but I do doubt those racing teams calculate their theoretical fastest time using a car with different specs and an assumption at some stage during the run the car goes through some kind of stargate portal that delivers the car to a different time and location.

But back to the topic - does seem a really quick 0-100 time posted by the SS in that test...but theoretically I reckon it could go faster.

I love stargate.......

[2242100]

Originally Posted by Iggle Piggle

That's fair enough and I am not trying to be a killjoy - but I do doubt those racing teams calculate their theoretical fastest time using a car with different specs and an assumption at some stage during the run the car goes through some kind of stargate portal that delivers the car to a different time and location.

But back to the topic - does seem a really quick 0-100 time posted by the SS in that test...but theoretically I reckon it could go faster.

I see where you're coming from, although my XR6T did actually achieve the 4.47 time over 2 runs and that's not applying a correction factor in my mind. It seems very logical to conclude that the car has at least the 4.47 capability at low altitude. But I do take your point about not confusing things any more.

So to simplify it, lets use the data from the cars 4.56 to 100 kph run. When I crunch the numbers using that data there is very little difference. It's 12.40 sec, a very small 4 hundredths of a second difference. Hardly worth comment.

True I am using data from an XR6T, but I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting that an XR6T would be significantly faster than an F6, don't most people expect it to be the other way around, and surely that would mean that the F6 should be capable of even better 1/4 times.

As you've indicated times vary and that's certainly true, but when it comes to the very big differences that we see in 0 - 100 kph and quarter mile times, the greatest part typically comes from what happens in the early part of the runs (launch). That's what badly skews 0 - 100 kph and 1/4 times.

I've got F6 Auto Motoring magazine test data from 8 magazine acceleration tests at 5 different locations (with distance data of 5 test runs) and the 1/4 calculations all come out in the 12.3 to 12.5 sec bracket when I apply my cars zero to 100 kph data.

So I guess you've raised the logical point that one test time doesn't mean that all cars will be the same, but surely we all know that. In my case, I've used accurate GPS data to try and give an idea of the true capabilities of the F6. I'm also trying to demonstrate just how easily the early part of a quarter run can make a fast car look either good or bad. You might say that's obvious, but people tend to hang on to the numbers that they see and make judgements without looking at rolling acceleration (unfortunately often not available).

On the SS 0 - 100 time, quite possibly it can go a bit faster, but I don't have any accurate GPS data that points one way or the other.

On the racing team analogy, I think any smart racing team will use any data that might be able to help them. I think I've done that.

[2242100]

[QUOTE=1TUFFUTE;5090255]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I find your math and effort refreshing...but to throw a little spanner in the works....the latest video in question has them showing the drag times on the light boards(hinting that maybe they are using the dragstrip timing) or at least including rollout on the vbox timing units if that's what they use for the times other then the 1/4.
anyhow be good to see how EVO go with a manual.

I assume you're talking about the shootout with the CLA 45 Merc, I hadn't seen that one.
I spoke to a journalist that I know at Drive yesterday after your post. The times that they list are from their GPS timing gear. I didn't think to ask if the rollout feature on their equipment had been enabled or not, but I feel quite sure that it wouldn't have been because of the zero to 60 kph times'

The Merc time was 2.12 sec and that's in line with what I've seen in WHEELS.
The HSV managed 2.26 sec which was almost lineball with my cars 2.24 sec time to 60 kph. The grip level was obviously very good.
I believe that so far HSV has only had the two press test cars, one manual and one auto in Australia, so on this occasion the Auto certainly went better than in the MOTOR test. I'm not just looking at 0 - 100 and 400 metre times, I also found the rolling acceleration to be impressive. 9.92 secs from 60 kph to the 190 kph 400 metre end speed was quite impressive.

[zilo]

I dunno where you guys pull these sub 5 sec 0-100 times from.

We have a newish auto XR6T at work, completely stock, I've tried and reliably get 6 secs to 100km/h and sometimes 5.6

Admittedly this is just using an OBD2 Bluetooth to iPhone adapter....

What are you doing pulling all the seats out etc?

4.5 ish seconds I cannot believe is stock....

[muso]

I think even stock FG Turbos are consistently quicker than 5.6 secs 0-100 as are lightly modded tuned BA/BF Turbos.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by zilo

I dunno where you guys pull these sub 5 sec 0-100 times from.

We have a newish auto XR6T at work, completely stock, I've tried and reliably get 6 secs to 100km/h and sometimes 5.6

Admittedly this is just using an OBD2 Bluetooth to iPhone adapter....

What are you doing pulling all the seats out etc?

4.5 ish seconds I cannot believe is stock....

I had fairly new Goodyear Directional F1 tyres, no wheelslip, there was a high grip surface involved.
All up load was the equivalent of a bit over a full fuel load, but the tank wasn't full, the extra weight was at the back of the boot.
There was a reasonably high torque up (see my post of 2/5/14 at 12.06 pm).
No abuse before the run and relatively cool underbonnet temperature. 14 degree day.
I do use fully synthetic oil and 98 fuel.
I must admit that I'd find it hard to believe too, if I didn't have the Racelogic test gear.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by 2242100

I had fairly new Goodyear Directional F1 tyres, no wheelslip, there was a high grip surface involved.
All up load was the equivalent of a bit over a full fuel load, but the tank wasn't full, the extra weight was at the back of the boot.
There was a reasonably high torque up (see my post of 2/5/14 at 12.06 pm).
No abuse before the run and relatively cool underbonnet temperature. 14 degree day.
I do use fully synthetic oil and 98 fuel.
I must admit that I'd find it hard to believe too, if I didn't have the Racelogic test gear.

I think your Racelogic gear is faulty then.

[2242100]

Originally Posted by zilo

I think your Racelogic gear is faulty then.

That thought has occurred to me too, but I covered that well in my post of 4/5/14 at 10:28.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by 2242100

That thought has occurred to me too, but I covered that well in my post of 4/5/14 at 10:28.

I am prepared to put a slab of beer on it....

The power/weight/time doesn't add up for 270 kw at the fly.

[dragons90]

Mags have gotten 4.9 in a g6et a few times.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by dragons90

Mags have gotten 4.9 in a g6et a few times.

4.9 or 4.98?

Still along way off 4.4....

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by zilo

I dunno where you guys pull these sub 5 sec 0-100 times from.

We have a newish auto XR6T at work, completely stock, I've tried and reliably get 6 secs to 100km/h and sometimes 5.6

Admittedly this is just using an OBD2 Bluetooth to iPhone adapter....

What are you doing pulling all the seats out etc?

4.5 ish seconds I cannot believe is stock....

Fair comment.

If the thread is going down the track of 'hypothetical', then this resource should be used -


0-100 km/h (s):5.3 http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php

0-100 km/h (s):5.2 http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php

0-100 km/h (s):4.1 http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_perf1.php

To me it's all a 'maybe'. I prefer the good old fashion way - down a drag strip.

[dragons90]

I'll try find it when I finish work.
It was from a few years ago when they uses to test with two people on a unprepared surface, just in drive no stalling it up. The G6et doesn't have LSD and I doubt it would of been 14 degrees when they tested, which makes a huge difference.
I'd believe a racelogic time before a iPhone app.

[Professor Farnsworth]

why are we still talking about this

they're both about the same speed to 100, the XR most times will be slightly quicker

/thread

[Chopped]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

why are we still talking about this

they're both about the same speed to 100, the XR most times will be slightly quicker

/thread

Yep, and both will be missed when production ends in a few years time. The end of an era...

[2242100]

Originally Posted by dragons90

I'll try find it when I finish work.
It was from a few years ago when they uses to test with two people on a unprepared surface, just in drive no stalling it up. The G6et doesn't have LSD and I doubt it would of been 14 degrees when they tested, which makes a huge difference.
I'd believe a racelogic time before a iPhone app.

I've found that different stall levels(on a high grip surface where there is enough grip for a no wheelslip launch) can effect times by as much as 0.48 sec.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by zilo

4.9 or 4.98?

Still along way off 4.4....

Dude comon not this again......the turbo times have been on low grip roads. It's only since the vf has been released that all of a sudden the drag strip is the method of choice. And the only recent ford test at a drag strip was the rspec.....IN THE RAIN
Tests not at the track have been anywhere as slow as 4.8 for the GTS

[muso]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

why are we still talking about this

they're both about the same speed to 100, the XR most times will be slightly quicker

/thread

I think the Professor has pretty much summed up the answer to this thread

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Dude comon not this again......the turbo times have been on low grip roads. It's only since the vf has been released that all of a sudden the drag strip is the method of choice. And the only recent ford test at a drag strip was the rspec.....IN THE RAIN
Tests not at the track have been anywhere as slow as 4.8 for the GTS

Someone tested an R Spec at a drag strip while it was raining? Non strip times for the GTS have also been as low as 4.1-4.2 is another way of looking at it too