nuke61

0-60 mph, 1/4 mile ET, 1/4 mile mph, and lastly, the ratio of 0-60 time vs. 1/4 mile time. There doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between the two, but in general terms, it seems that you can multiply 0-60 time by 3 and get a ROUGH idea how a car will fare in the 1/4 mile.

Using data from the March 2005 Motor Trend:

[Code]
Car 0-60 ET mph ET/0-60
Acura TL 6.1 14.4 98.2 2.4
Audi S4 5.0 13.4 105.1 2.7
Bent. Cont. GT 4.5 12.9 109.7 2.9
BMW 645Ci Coupe 5.3 13.7 102.6 2.6
BMW Z4 3.0i 5.7 14.2 97.8 2.5
Cadillac CTV-V 4.7 13.1 109.8 2.8
Corvette Z06 4.3 12.4 117.0 2.9
'06 Vette Z51 4.4 12.6 113.2 2.9
300C SRT8 4.9 13.2 108.1 2.7
575M Maranello 4.2 12.3 118.6 2.9
Chall. Stradale 4.3 12.5 114.1 2.9
Enzo 3.4 11.0 133.9 3.2
Focus RS8 4.4 12.7 113.7 2.9
GT 3.7 11.2 131.2 3.0
Mustang GT 5.1 13.5 103.6 2.6
S2000 5.8 14.2 99.9 2.4
G35 6.2 14.7 94.0 2.4
Murcielago 3.5 11.7 122.6 3.3
LS 430 6.4 14.7 95.0 2.3
Elise Sport 4.8 13.3 102.9 2.8
RX-8 6.0 14.5 95.5 2.4
C55 AMG 4.9 13.2 107.3 2.7
CL65 AMG 3.8 11.8 120.9 3.1
Evo RS 4.4 13.2 99.8 3.0
350Z Track 5.3 13.8 100.9 2.6
Sentra SE-R 7.2 15.3 90.4 2.1
911 GT3 3.9 12.1 116.0 3.1
Carrera GT 3.6 11.1 133.4 3.1
WRX Sti 4.7 13.3 100.1 2.8
[/code]

SnakeSkinner28

A VERY ROUGH idea. There were only 6 cars out of the 29 on that list that came anywhere near your ridiculous formula, and by anywhere near i mean not off by well over half a second as everyother car other then these six were. Most were off by well over 1 second and some by up to as much as 6-7 seconds. And the only 6 that were close were all the EXOTICS that cost about $150,000-$600,000. What though process and number crunching led you do think up this stupid way of obtaining the 1/4 time. Thats just goddamn dumb.

stereomandan

Your last column is incorrect. It should read E.T./0-60

Interesting though.

Dan

Stephen 87 IROC

Hard to compare things like that. It really depends on gearing. MPH is an indication of HP but if 2 cars both have identical hp but one has 4.56 gears and crosses the finish line at or just before the shift point in high gear, it will have a lower mph than a car with 3.23 gears that barely gets into high gear as it crosses the finish line. The 3.23 geared car will also have a slower ET because of the poor gearing. Both have the same HP but both react differently.

Look at that Enzo at 133 mph but only an 11.0. With better gearing for hard accelleration, that should be in the low 10's but the car is made for high speed long runs not short bursts like in a drag race.

Weight is another issue. It takes less hp to move a light car compared to a heavy one. A high hp heavy car will run roughly the same as a lightweight low hp car. Even a mild SBC can push a dragster into the 9's while in a 3500+ pound door car it struggles in the 11's or 12's. A lightweight car will also accellerate quicker because there's less mass to get moving.

nuke61

Stereomandan, thanks.

A VERY ROUGH idea. There were only 6 cars out of the 29 on that list that came anywhere near your ridiculous formula, and by anywhere near i mean not off by well over half a second as everyother car other then these six were.

You're quite right, since the multiply by 3 idea seemed to only give a rough estimate of cars in the 12s or low 13s. The reason I included data was so that anyone with a modicum of brain activity could see that 2.9 applied to nearly every car that ran the 1/4 in the 12s. I think the only one that it didn't apply to was the GT3.

Cars in the 12s:
Bent. Cont. GT 4.5 12.9 109.7 2.9
Corvette Z06 4.3 12.4 117.0 2.9
'06 Vette Z51 4.4 12.6 113.2 2.9
575M Maranello 4.2 12.3 118.6 2.9
Chall. Stradale 4.3 12.5 114.1 2.9
Focus RS8 4.4 12.7 113.7 2.9
911 GT3 3.9 12.1 116.0 3.1 << exception

Cars in the 14s:
Acura TL 6.1 14.4 98.2 2.4
S2000 5.8 14.2 99.9 2.4
G35 6.2 14.7 94.0 2.4
LS 430 6.4 14.7 95.0 2.3
RX-8 6.0 14.5 95.5 2.4

Is the lightbulb starting to light?

What though process and number crunching led you do think up this stupid way of obtaining the 1/4 time. Thats just goddamn dumb.

I just wondered if there was a way to get rough 1/4 mile estimates based on 0-60 times. You're very free with the destructive criticism, but do you have any constructive criticism to offer? For instance, someone suggested looking at a relationship between log and linear scales for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times, taking into account the wheels driven and whether the motor is in the front or rear.

I think my quick lumping of cars in the 12s and 14s and showing you how they could be related could be understood, even by someone who is as quick as you seem to be, to engage mouth before brain. Now I need to figure out if there's a way to relate the drivetrain layout to the ratio.

andy katzelis

I don't have exact information about the 0-60' time correlation to 1/4 mile ET, but I do have a chart at home that very well outlines the relationship between 60', 330', 660', 990', and the 1/4 mile ET. It looks like it's printed in the 70s. The chart and the subsequently derrived "Pro Stock ET formulas" were used by NHRA and Dodge racing in the 60s. There are many sites including this one that host the formulas. Again, I don't think they involve 0-60 times. But they very well could, the formulas are based on actual performance, empirical data, from pure breed drag race vehicles (pro stocks). I'm sure one could figure in the relationship of 0-60 time. It's just math.

The limitation with the chart/formulas is that they are for naturally aspirated DRAG RACE only cars. Very specific race prepared "car" type vehicles (every part on the car matches to maximize 1/4 mile performance). I think you will have a great deal of difficulty correlating 0 to 60 ET with 1/4 mile ET for the cars shown in your list. Stephen87Iroc has already specifically outlined some reasons for the correlation difficulty, I prefer a much more general approach. My list would include the entire drivetrain. It's a system that must be "tuned" as a whole.

PS. I always use, and encourage everyone to use, the ET formula to make decisions about the 1/4 mile performance capability of a car. Even though the formula are "Pro Stock" in absolute terms they still apply, at a reduced "efficiency" as I like to call it to everyday cars.

The short version of the story is that for any given MPH there is a minimum ET that can be achieved. Once that level of performance, ET, is reached, one must add more MPH to run quicker. More MPH = the capability for yet another minimal ET. And so on, and so on.

nuke61

I agree that my proposition is very difficult to formalize, but I think that, realizing that there will be outliers as with any Bell curve problem, there can be a general formula for correlating 0-60 times to rough 1/4 mile times given drivetrain information.

97bowtie

Some form of regression is the only way you could come up with an even remotely close formula. Even then, there are plain and simple too many variables.

You might try looking at correlating the 0-60 times to the 1/4 MPH, not ET. You might then be able to develop a somewhat more accurate formula for figuring mph, which then could lead to a closer estimate of ET. The problem with this scenario is the fact that some cars might run a 13.0 @ 101 where others might run a 13.0 @ 112...very dependent on traction/setup.