Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

My 9.4 second time is pretty close.

Indeed. Either you have a very accurate speedo, a speedo with uncharacteristically little damping of the indication, an accurate stopwatch, an uncanny ability to multi-task and lightning quick reactions - or you were lucky.

I'll let you decide which.

I used an AC22 which is supposedly accurate to within 3%........or less than 1% if calibrated at Santa Pod or the like.

[Kevin Wood]

My 9.4 second time is pretty close.

Indeed. Either you have a very accurate speedo, a speedo with uncharacteristically little damping of the indication, an accurate stopwatch, an uncanny ability to multi-task and lightning quick reactions - or you were lucky.

I'll let you decide which.

I used an AC22 which is supposedly accurate to within 3%........or less than 1% if calibrated at Santa Pod or the like.

Ahh, well, that is probably the only way to get a believable figure.

[cem_devecioglu]

Hi guys, thinking out loud again

I've tried to do a 0-60 test to prove my car is running at its original 0-60 time (thus proving its not down on power.

Have you ever tried doing this? its impossible lol

Is there  any other way to prove if your engines down on power or not?

anything more than 3 secs is down on power..

The fact that we have a spread from 12 to "a bit under 8" for the same car, with a book figure of 9.5, shows how reliable an indicator a self-timed 0-60 is.

not worth even talking about

but seriously type of tranny and differential ratios make some drastical changes

[Webby the Bear]

I'm not sure that it's not worth talking about. Like Kev says, it's never going to be accurate cos of the amount of variables. But getting a bang-on figure wasn't what I was looking at; it was to do a poor-man's performance test and to clue you in to whether there, potentially, is a problem with a lack of power output.

If it took me 15 secs. to get to 60 on a straight, flat road using a stopwatch that started the moment I floored it and stopped at the moment I hit 60 then I (personally) would be thinking I've got an issue.

Just m.o. of course 

[cem_devecioglu]

I'm not sure that it's not worth talking about. Like Kev says, it's never going to be accurate cos of the amount of variables. But getting a bang-on figure wasn't what I was looking at; it was to do a poor-man's performance test and to clue you in to whether there, potentially, is a problem with a lack of power output.

If it took me 15 secs. to get to 60 on a straight, flat road using a stopwatch that started the moment I floored it and stopped at the moment I hit 60 then I (personally) would be thinking I've got an issue.

Just m.o. of course 

Webby trying to measure the 0-60 for performance comparison with other cars may not worth the hassle..  but comparing to your cars previous performance may be useful ..  but in any case the car will give lots of other hints..  starting with rough idle, black smoke, hesitation, stopping etc etc..  however, on the other side for small power losses I still carry the opinion that, on an auto it will be harder to understand and measure as the tranny trashes quite amount of power already..


although expensive, best way is to use the same dyno assuming they dont play with its parameters daily..

[Webby the Bear]

Completely agree mate 

What if those signs you mention don't exist. Yeah, you could start off by breaking out the compression tester but its quite hard on the V6. I think it's a good way of cluing you in.

[cem_devecioglu]

Completely agree mate 

What if those signs you mention don't exist. Yeah, you could start off by breaking out the compression tester but its quite hard on the V6. I think it's a good way of cluing you in.

although most of the times we neglect athmospheric  temp changes, I think it will also effect engines power output.. 

[zirk]

I'm not sure that it's not worth talking about. Like Kev says, it's never going to be accurate cos of the amount of variables. But getting a bang-on figure wasn't what I was looking at; it was to do a poor-man's performance test and to clue you in to whether there, potentially, is a problem with a lack of power output.

If it took me 15 secs. to get to 60 on a straight, flat road using a stopwatch that started the moment I floored it and stopped at the moment I hit 60 then I (personally) would be thinking I've got an issue.

Just m.o. of course 

Your need to hit around 63 mph on the Migs, to get nearer a true 60 mph, 

[TheBoy]

I'm not sure that it's not worth talking about. Like Kev says, it's never going to be accurate cos of the amount of variables. But getting a bang-on figure wasn't what I was looking at; it was to do a poor-man's performance test and to clue you in to whether there, potentially, is a problem with a lack of power output.

If it took me 15 secs. to get to 60 on a straight, flat road using a stopwatch that started the moment I floored it and stopped at the moment I hit 60 then I (personally) would be thinking I've got an issue.

Just m.o. of course 

Your need to hit around 63 mph on the Migs, to get nearer a true 60 mph, 

Due to a slight lag on speedo, probably not...

[TheBoy]

Although everything is measured 0-62mph now anyway, to keep the euros happy

[zirk]

When I got bored on the Motorways in the past, I did some Speed vs Revs test on Calibrated Plods (had a few now) and Standard Migs with the same Engine / Diff Ratios, it became a fairly consistent that, working the figures backwards that a typical 3.0 / 3.2 standard Speedo at 70 mph as pretty much bang on 66.5 mph on the Calibrated Plods, so standard seems to read about 3.5 mph high at 70.

so guessing 63 wouln't be that far out for a true 60, if all that makes sense.   

[TheBoy]

When I got bored on the Motorways in the past, I did some Speed vs Revs test on Calibrated Plods (had a few now) and Standard Migs with the same Engine / Diff Ratios, it became a fairly consistent that, working the figures backwards that a typical 3.0 / 3.2 standard Speedo at 70 mph as pretty much bang on 66.5 mph on the Calibrated Plod, so standard seems to read about 3.5 mph high at 70.

so guessing 63 wouln't be that far out for a true 60, if all that makes sense. 

Yeah, but when accelerating (certainly the non calibrated) are slightly damped, if that makes sense?

[zirk]

When I got bored on the Motorways in the past, I did some Speed vs Revs test on Calibrated Plods (had a few now) and Standard Migs with the same Engine / Diff Ratios, it became a fairly consistent that, working the figures backwards that a typical 3.0 / 3.2 standard Speedo at 70 mph as pretty much bang on 66.5 mph on the Calibrated Plod, so standard seems to read about 3.5 mph high at 70.

so guessing 63 wouln't be that far out for a true 60, if all that makes sense. 

Yeah, but when accelerating (certainly the non calibrated) are slightly damped, if that makes sense?

Yea, it does, suppose I could always tow Webby with a Bungee Rope behind a 3.2 Manual and see how long it takes him to hit me in the rear at 60. 

[TheBoy]

When I got bored on the Motorways in the past, I did some Speed vs Revs test on Calibrated Plods (had a few now) and Standard Migs with the same Engine / Diff Ratios, it became a fairly consistent that, working the figures backwards that a typical 3.0 / 3.2 standard Speedo at 70 mph as pretty much bang on 66.5 mph on the Calibrated Plod, so standard seems to read about 3.5 mph high at 70.

so guessing 63 wouln't be that far out for a true 60, if all that makes sense. 

Yeah, but when accelerating (certainly the non calibrated) are slightly damped, if that makes sense?

Yea, it does, suppose I could always tow Webby with a Bungee Rope behind a 3.2 Manual and see how long it takes him to hit me in the rear at 60. 

Webby doesn't do 60, bit too scary

[05omegav6]

Bless