[ds968]

I had some time to waste last evening so I got online and searched 0-60 and Q-mile calculator sites to see what they came up with for my car. Of course they all have "disclaimers" indicating these are only estimates, because of so many variables that affect results, yada, yada.. but just for kicks I thought I'd check them out. What drove me nuts is that out of a half dozen different sites, not a single one asks for the torque, just the HP and weight. Doesn't torque make a significant difference in these runs, or do they assume the torque to HP ratio is pretty much the same in every make and model ?

Some of the sites also asked if the car is RWD, FWD or AWD, and if it's manual or automatic.



Anyway, I plugged in my numbers ( I estimated the car's weight reduction because I don't have the spare tire, and also the catback is a lot lighter than the oem unit ). And I used the published stage 3 SC for the HP figure to plug in ( insofar as I have a rebuilt head and this engine has always been among the tightest of any 968, not just MO, but every other 968 owner that drove it, so I assumed it produces all that the stage 3 can put out )



Here's the interesting part: almost all the calculators resulted in a 4.61 or 4.62 0-60 , but the Q-mile times varied in a huge range: 12.4 to 13.3 So I went back and plugged in the stock numbers and weight for a 968 to see what each site comes up with - two of them came in the closest ( within 1/10 or 2/10 sec in the Q mile ) off the published stats for the car. Used those two again and plugged in my numbers, and they produced 4.6 and 12.9 .



Assuming the multiple variables at play that can affect these times by as much as .3 sec in 0-60 and .4 sec in the Q-mile ( according to one site's disclaimer section ) is it safe to assume that this car can attain the above results, with that delta ON EITHER SIDE of the numbers ?!



' Cause I tell you, if it's on the lower side and my car can pull a 4.31 0-60 and a12.5 Q-mile, I'm going to give Flash the bear hig of his life , LOL. And if it's on the other side, with 4.9 and 13.3 I'll still be content with that, but only a brief hug and pat on the back :-) :-)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Wow, that's one optimistic prediction! I'd be shocked if even a supercharged 968 with a tight engine could do 0-60 in much below 6.0 seconds. Assuming maybe 285 hp at the flywheel, that's still a weight:power ratio of well over 10:1. Yes, there are a lot of other factors, and I'm really just guessing here, but I think you generally need to be down around 8:1 or lower to have a prayer at achieving a sub-5.0 sec 0-60 time, just based on years of reading car magazines. But again, that's just a guess.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[DaveN]

I can tell you that 0-100 with stage 3 is definitely under 6 seconds with an analogue watch. Hard to check accurately unless you have someone in the passenger seat, which of course, ruins the time with all that rubbish extra weight saying "Go".

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

yeah - i got my car down under 6 naturally aspirated without too much trouble. it's well down below that now.



you can pick up dynolicious for the iphone. it has all that stuff built in and you can test for yourself.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[DaveN]

That app is pretty neat but do you have some of the obscure data like roll, pitch, frontal area, rolling resistance etc. data?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Stage 3 has 310 HP at the flywheel ( IIRC, as listed on the chart that was put up on one of the SC threads and had stages 1 2 3 , the stock, and a 2013 911 numbers comparisons ), My estimated curb weight is approx 3025 lbs, or probably even a bit less ( with the spare tire and the OE catback both out of there ) so that's what I plugged in and those were the numbers they came up with. Certainly seemed extremely optimistic to me as well, so maybe the calculations assume ALL the variables being at their absolute full advantage, but as I said, plugging in the stock numbers for the 968 coupe produced results which were almost identical to what we have, so I had to give the calculator model some credibility...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

This stuff always gets complicated and convoluted, and I haven't driven a supercharged 968, but one decent point of comparison is footage that was posted on this site about a year ago of a race in which a 968 and a Mazda RX7 turbo were going head-to-head. From the appearance ofthe cars, it looked like a very stock racing class, but that's just an assumption. The RX7 was rated at 255 hp, and weighed 2790 lbs (I used to own one - a total blast of a car - so these numbers are etched into my brain). The magazines rated its 0-60 time at 5.7 sec (also etched in my brain). Watching the footage, the two cars were pretty well matched in the turns, but the RX7 consistently and steadily (though I wouldn't say overwhelmingly) pulled away from the 968 on the straights, and the commentators repeatedly commented on the difficulty the 968 driver was having trying to keep up with the RX7 on the straights. From this, a 0-60 time for a new, stock 968 of about 6.2 - 6.5 sec seems believable. Flash's ability to get it an NA 968 touch below 6.0 sec with the mods he perfromed seems consistent with this. I could see the supercharger bringing the 968's times (assuming it can maintain traction) comfortably into the low-to-mid 5's. But 4.6 sec seems optimistic to me. Could be wrong, though.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

there are articles out there with stock 0-60 times of below 6. i think the best was 5.6



i was able to get well below 6 naturally aspirated. i posted a shot of the worst time of the day of 5.65 on my g-tech.



supercharged at stage 1, i posted a chart showing acceleration times, in segments and gear by gear, in the announcement of the stage 1 kit. i was well below 6 at under 5.4. i never actually tested how much better with stage 3, but the extra 40 lb/ft is certain to improve things. i'm sure somebody out there has a g-tech or dynolicious



now, at stage 3+ i am likely near 5 flat. i just haven't gone out to test it yet. i doubt 4.6 can be achieved though. that would take a LOT of torque, and it would have to come on very low. wheel spin is a real problem. i have to launch a lot lower in rpm now than i did before

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Eric_Oz_S2]

More comparable is 0-100mph. I have measured at 12.0 with a logger. 0-60 mph is about 5.2 iirc. This is with a supercharged s2. The times are similar to a 987 boxster s.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

0-60 is subject to the biggest variation in a manual, because of launch ( the driver factor ) .That's why the Q-mile is widely believed to be a better measure, and in my opinion even more so is a rolling 20 mph start to 100mph, or 120mph or whatever. All I can tell you is that I outran, and rather handily so, a WRX STI over a quarter mile + distance', from a rolling start of about 20 mph, and since those have an alleged 12.8 to 13.1 Q mile time ( depending on model year ) . Of course no idea how tight his engine may have been, yada, yada. Nonetheless, I'm guessing that with a better driver than me at launch this car probably runs the Q-mile in the mid-high 12s. I'd be surprised if it did that but not shocked.

My boss , a " car guy " ( and we're pretty good friends also ) is buying a 2013 Maserati Granturismo this weekend, and I told him I want to compare our respective cars' acceleration one of these upcoming weekends. Since his is a brand new car it should be right at tne 4.6 and 13.2 stats. We'll do a rolling 20mph onward, and I'll see how the 968 does by the end of a roughly Q mile. That's going to be a better measure than " calculators formulas " IMO .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Looking forward to your "grudge match" against a brand new Maserati. But are you sure you want to do this? Imagine how peeved your boss will be if his brand new 6-figure Italian gem gets dusted by a car worth maybe a tenth of what his is. No bonus for Dan this year!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Lol, no kidding . But lucky for me he's a pretty relaxed guy, does not take himself all that seriously and in spite of being uber-bright he's genuinely one of the nicest people I ever met ( a rarity for CFOs , in my experience anyway. ) so I feel completely at ease embarrassing him, LOL, IF that'll indeed be the outcome, because one never knows.. But oh man, the sound of that car's exhaust.. I'd sell a kidney ( no, not MY kidney, I'm not crazy ..I said A kidney ) is pure symphony on wheels ! My favorite is probably still the DB9 exhaust note, but the GT Maserati icomes in a close second. Not a fan of the Ferrari tune, to much of a high pitch rattle to my ears. But I' off topic now, gone from numbers to subjective impressions.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Yeah, nothing quite like a flat-plane crank V8 for sheer automotive audio pleasure.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='Cloud9...68' timestamp='1376169374' post='147004']Yeah, nothing quite like a flat-plane crank V8 for sheer automotive audio pleasure.[/quote]



Yeah, I think there're something magical about that number of cylinders that strikes the optimum balance of driving sensation and exhaust note it can produce. I've driven V10s and V12s, and , to my seat of my pants anyway, they did not feel as " right " as the many 8s I have driven. Nor did the 10 and 12 sound as good as the 8s,..again, to my ears.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

My boss picked up his car yesterday and sent me an email this morning which reads : way too much fun to step on it when the light turns green, you just blink, and then see the cars which were next to you still pretty much at that light, while you're already 300 feet away :-) . yup, I guess that's what 450 hp and 380 ft-lbs with paddle shift will do for you, even when your car weighs a hefty 4,200 lbs. ! The cab version can get as heavy as 4500 lbs... And they're still high 4s 0-60 and high 13s Q-mile.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

it's good to be the boss...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

And his boss, our CEO drives a ( now used ) Vanquish . Even though based on options cash out over the last five years he can buy a little over fifty Bugatti Veyrons.!! ( public info, so his wealth is not something he can hide, LOL ) . Must have bought the Vaquish with petty cash he found stuck between his car seats :-). Frugal guy though..with his own money, and unfortunatley with our salaries also, but I guess that's why the company is doing so damn well. Yeah, good to be the king , errr, I mean boss....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Which company Dan?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Avago Technologies .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.