0-60 in 5.1secs with 2002 SS A4???
 

I used EFI Live to time my 0-60 times and with 2 runs, I got 0-60 in 5.3 seconds and then 5.1 seconds another time.

Shouldn't I be faster than that? I have a Granatelli MAF, K&N filter, TSP lid, Borla Cat-back and Nitto DRs.

Thanks!

Not too sure. I don't think EFI Live taps into the odometer.

I just use the track and then I used a couple 0-60 calculators that base your probable 0-60..

Bone stock I am getting 4.2.. Which isnt far off... I am doing 8.6@85mph in the 1/8th.. 13.1@108 in the 1/4... with a 2.1 60'... so if I could launch harder (which I would of done if it werent for the clutch heating up) and pull a 1.9 I could in theory do a 3.9-4.0 0-60 and will have a 12.8x-12.9x bone stock Z28...

so adding 25 mph from 60 in 4 sec is more probably than in 3...

You're getting 0-60 in 4.2 bone stock? You can't tell me that having an M6 versus an A4 makes that big a difference? What else do you have done to your car?

Jim

sorry man, unless your car is seriously modded, there's no way it's making the 0-60 jaunt in 4.1 seconds, aint happenin. stock z's run around 5.3. jchrisos your times are right on.

ok.. so you are telling me that I am getting 25mph gain in 3 seconds? Fine. So I can gain 8+mph per sec.. Thats pretty neat..

I personally used two calculators:
simple web 0-60 calculator

and

this formula to cross reference: (found it off a google search)
But can you calculate 0-60 times based on horsepower and weight
Well, having decided that in theory it's not possible we're reminded of the engineer's adage - In theory, practice and theory are the same thing, but in practice they're not.

We analysed the manufacturer's 0-60 times for a range of popular sports cars and found that in practice the quoted 0-60 times are easily and quickly calculated to the nearest second by dividing the weight of the car in Kg (Kilogrammes) by the cars' maximum brake horse power. Further analysis revealed that the more precise formula for most cars is:-

weight of car in kilogrammes
0-60 time = ---------------------------
maximum bhp of car * 0.9
OK, it's not a precise science, but it does work (most of the time)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My formula looks like this 1646.54 /318*.9
Although I will add that I am getting another dyno soon as I am certain that the car is somewhere around the 324 range on rwhp.
There are no mods done to the car. I merely broke it in and have not abused it. I also spend more time driving and fixing anything wrong with my driving than I do worring about mods.. My car is quick and with me driving, I can give most a good run, even those with bolt ons.. On my next outing at the track, I will be trying for the 12's.. stock... Items I have changed on the car are:
Oil - the manual said to.. .I have changed it only when the light comes on and tells me to.. Have gotten as much as 9500 miles from 1 change.
Gas - This is a weekly occurance.. I add gas more than change it though.. Always either Exxon or Shell.
Air Filter - My employees bought one for me.. AC Delco replacement filter. At the time of the runs below I was still on the original stock filter with 36K+ miles on it.

So, on the first one I used my best run at the track. I entered the 1/8th mile info then the 1/4 mile info..
For the 1/8th I got a result of 4.29
For the 1/4 I got a result of 4.06
Using the equation and the weight of the car on that run I got:
4.66
My track times are:
60' - 2.104
330 - 5.693
1/8 - 8.601
MPH - 85.25
1000 - 11.085
1/4 - 13.174
MPH - 108.00
Car weight - 3630 (1646.54 Kilograms ) (full tank of gas, filled up 6 miles before track)

I'll also add that you cant always go off of magazines...

My 1995 LT1 with CAI, Y-pipe, Catback, pulley, LCA and airbags did a g-tech 0-60 reading of 4.6 then a 4.4 at the track.. And it was running 13.3's @ 105. So serious mods are not needed.. Driver is a huge mod people.. Learn to drive your cars better and you will get the car faster cheaper than modding it.. then you will also get more out of your mods..


Case in point..
17yr old gets a 2003 Mach1..
Doesnt know how to drive.. talks to me.
goes to track.. get 14.0's repeatedly.. then 1 13.5..
Goes back 2 weeks later and is now getting 13.5's repeatedly and 1 13.3... Goes back the following week but has bad weather. then 2 weeks later returns and pulls 13.1. No mods... Just learning to drive the car better by paying more attention to the car and what he is doing per run..

ok, you ran a 4.4 to 60 in 1 95 lt1? That must mena that you could run a stock ls1 vette to 60 in under 3 seconds? Even the all wheel drive (hard to screw up the freaking launch) wrx sti is limited to 4.6 to 4.7 to 60. That time would put your 95 lt1 in the super car class stock.

There's no way your car runs that. Have you ever tried the 1/4 mile calculators according to weight of the car and HP? They are multiple seconds off! The fact that you have an M6 makes it even more unbelievable since automatics do accelerate from 0-60 faster because the first gear is shorter.

actually my weight and horsepower = to 13.19 1/4 mile times.. So calculators are accurate to a point.. again, if you like to believe that you can make up 25mph in 3 seconds, fine by me! hehe

Oh, just for fun I thought I'd try to get similar numbers out of Cartest 2000.

I got a pretty nice match on the performance numbers (1/8 and 1/4) which should yield a decent curve.

It spit out,
60' 2.12 33.86mph
100ft 2.82 44.34mph
330ft 5.61 66.47mph
500ft 7.20 78.76
660ft 8.51 88.16
1000ft 10.96 99.05mph
1320ft 13.08 107.45mph

This works out to....
0-30mph 1.86s
0-40mph 2.53s
0-50mph 3.25s
0-60mph 4.78s
0-70mph 6.06s
0-80mph 7.37s
0-90mph 8.80s
0-100mph 11.26s

Take that all FWIW, simulations are fun to play with.

0-60mph is a lot about traction, and I don't really think that a 2.1 60' is good enough traction for a low 4 sec 0-60mph time.

If I fiddle with the traction so that you can get a 4.2 0-60mph time, it makes the same car have a 1.79sec 60' time.

Again, all things being equal, to have a 3.9 sec 0-60mph time on the same curve, you'd have to hit about a 1.59s 60'.

This is all just playing with better traction.

BTW, a 1.59 60' would drop your 1/8 to an estimated 7.76 and the 1320 to 12.31 according to Cartest.

BTW, anyone that just loves messing with this stuff and likes a full featured and well thought-out simulator might check out cartest 2000. Just google it, don't have the link handy. I actually bought it cus it is just fun to play with.

Oh heck, one more for fun.....

To get a 2.09 60' and a 4.19sec 0-60mph in a 3450lb car....

480hp @5600rpm and 480ftlb @ 3100rpm of torque.

{edit} grrr. I must have been looking at a different timeslip Psycho.... I just looked and my dern numbers were different than what you posted above.... I'll rerun if I get bored, but I think the point is still illustrated.

Post Whoring :)

Closer to Psycho's track numbers...

60' 2.12s 34.67mph
100' 2.80s 44.67mph
330' 5.61s 68.37mph
500' 7.20s 76.91mph
660' 8.54s 85.69mph
1000' 11.03s 99.92mph
1320' 13.15s 108.1mph

to mph:
30 1.81s
40 2.48s
50 3.66s
60 4.69s
70 5.80s
80 7.66s
90 9.24s
100 11.04s

3630lb simulated weight, so the curves should be similar based off the real life track numbers.

What's so hard to believe about that? IMO, the LS1s "sweet spot" would be in the 50-90mph range (2nd and 3rd gear for an M6).

Going by your "math" it takes you 4.2 sec to go from 0-60, 4.4 sec to go from 60-85 and 4.5 sec to go from 85-110 (108 is your trap so at the end of the 1/4 you'd probably be very close to 110).

So...again, going by your math, your car pulls just as hard from 60-85 (25mph increase) as it does from 85-110 (25mph increase)...and it's quicker 0-60 than it is from 60-85? :confused:

I dont consider 2-3 being the "sweet spot". I dont have the same peaky cam as the 98-00 cars.. The cam the 01-02 cars have is much smoother and delivers power all around.

Also its easier for a car to accellerate in the lower speeds to do less drag...

Bench racing? :confused:

;)

Thank you mPoRtSsUcK! That's more of what I was expecting to hear.


Jim

World Championships :)

considering that my times are actual track times its not bench racing as much as statistical analysis.

Psychocabbage, what would you say my 0-60 times are with your calculator? 12.57 @111mph 1.86 60' 3800 lbs approximately.

the calculators are there for you to try..

I weigh my car after every run.. each of my timeslips will have the time of day, date, who I raced against, and the weight of the car.

Here's how you calcualate 0-60. Find a cop with a stopwatch, tell him to time you from when you take off till his radar gun reads 60MPH, and then you can do the same thing for 70,80,90,100, 110,120, 130:D

Seriously, I think the car magazines use a radar gun to calculate 0-60 times.

car magazines use whats termed a "5th wheel".

It attaches to the rear of the car and will calculate this info.

They have recently started using more expensive accelerometers to record more data but what many people dont often account for is weather, elevation, driver and state of the car.. New cars rarely have the same performance once they are broken in.. LS1's in particular must be broken in to truely see their full potential.. way too often the car is modded before it is even broken in..

Using that calculator my old 95Z's 8.48 @ 85 MPH 1/8 time adds up to a 4.23 0-60 time. Not too shabby!

kewl.. now for sake of arguement.. would you say that your car felt faster going to 60 than it did going to 80 or even 100?

My LT1 was great to the 1/8th mile.. then dropped off as LS1s would then start to walk on me..

My LS1 is linear and seamlessly pulls but it sill gets to 60 faster than it does 60-100.. or even 60-85..

Well, considering it only pulled 105.5 in the 1/4 after 85 in the 1/8, I'd say the top end was terrible! Pretty much any other 4.2 0-60 car out there would hand me my ass if it was 0-120!

My current 98 Z M6 only pulls 82.XX in the 1/8 but 106+ in the 1/4.

Gotta love the LS1!

Another factor to remeber when reading magazine numbers is that the cars they get have been ragged out by other journalists, also hurting acceleration times. These are cars that might have been ragged on with 300 miles on the clock, definetly not good for the engine.

Ill finish off by stating that not only must the car accellerate about 8mph per sec but somewhere I have to shift right after 60!..

There is no way that a stock fbody can do 0 to 60 that fast. Since you are fond of calculators, have you plugged in your gearing/horse power to one to see what that type projects? I will tell you right now, if anyone but fbody guys read this they would crack up laughing. If this were possible, don't you think there woul be more guys saying they can do this? A car with that type of performance for the price would not have gone out of production!

not of gone out of production? hmm.. lemme see.. 427 Shelby Cobra comes to mind.. it didnt sell.. it went out of production..

so lets get this perfectly straight because somewhere you find it hard to believe..

you are stating that since magazines everywhere state that the stock fbods are only capable of 5 sec 0-60 times then I too must be in there.. so saying that and knowing my track times in the 1/8th mile we are going to feel fully comfortable with an fbod accellerating from 60mph-85.25mph in 3.6 sec with a shift in there..? (thats 8.6 @ 85.25mph) So that means that we can also state that the car somehow gains 7.01 miles per second average after 60...

So what sounds more believeable to you? 4.4 0-60 would leave me 4.2 seconds to get a shift in and accelerate 6.01 miles per second which sounds much more reasonable than 7 or even 8... with a shift mind you!

Now for more stats.. heheh this is too fun.. now keep in mind I am old and bored so I love over explaining this stuff to people..


A 1/4 mile calculator based off weight and hp

Aother based off weight and flywheel hp

this calculates flywheel and rear wheel hp.. pretty accurate if you ask me

Now if you happen to know of a calculator that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy post it up..

Till then know that my car is still bone stock save for the following:
*Oil has been changed like 4 times.. maybe 5.. 38k+ miles now..
*Front disc brake rotors changed yesterday 4/26/04 and new pads as well..
*Air filter replaced with AC Delco replacement air filter at 38K+ miles 04/02/04 for my birthday
*Gas .. added weekly!
*Tires.. changed the stock GSCs after driving 28K miles on them for Yokohama AVS ES100's.. Street tire with similar ratings..

Now do you really think I dont know what I am talking about?

Geesh...

[Jonny5 voice] Need Input! More Input! [/Jonny5 voice]

Shelby Cobra was a race car. The only reason they made street cars was to meet the race rules that said there must be a production variant.

Horsepower and weight are just parts of the formula. Torque and gearing are what really determine 0 to 60. I am nt saying that mags got the best time. They could be off by as half a second or so. Its widely accepted that a stock ls1 in amags do 5.3 to 5.5 seconds to 60. That means you are besting them by a whole second. At least if you were claiming slicks and not stock tires (I know, you upgraded at 28k)you might have some creadibility. Like I said, if that were posible, we would still buying them today. For gos sake, pro race drivers can only get a 3.9 out of a viper!! If I jumped on some other boards and linked to here, this would be the laughing stock of the internet.

you keep saying that.. but I do go to the track when time permits.. I have all my stats in order and what you are wanting to believe is that our cars are capable of accelerating 25mph in less than 4 seconds with a shift thrown in there.. as I stated before, if you would like to think my car just can whip up 7+miles per second increase in speed then fine.. but maybe you ought to consider the outside forces as well.. wind resistance??! Does it stay a constant or does it increase with speed?
Think about it..

as for people laughing.. I dont care what simple minds wish to laugh about.. Ill meet them at the track and run there..

I will also add that although I had a 2.1 short time there was no spin whatsoever.. None.. and I dropped the clutch at 2700... the following run I dropped at 3000 and the clutch overheated.. I ended up going from first to second (where it didnt catch and the rpms stayed at 6K) then to third. I still ran a 13.9 @ 99 on that run while missing an entire gear (second)..

My next run at the track will have me dropping at 3200 to see if I can bag my 12.9's stock.

Ill do this to alone to address the reason why the Fbod is no longer available..

when was the last time you saw a commercail for a camaro?
The trans am had 1 commercial where the car takes off from a light and blows up the light and whatnot...

but from 1995-2002 there were no commercials for camaros..

I can recall commercials for mustangs for almost every year..

Now I wonder why they out sold us.. all the fbods combined couldnt match up to the sales of the mustangs.. thats why there are no more..

Even to 60 you still have t shift from 1 st to second. You start to notice pattens with cars. 5 sec to 60 cars usually run 13's in the 1/4. High 4 second cars usually run high 12's. Low 4 second cars run low 12's to high 11's. Now with slicks, I have no doubt you could do high 4 seconds to 60, you might even convince me of a 4.4. On stock tires I just cannot make my head trust it. Stock vettes with the ls1 with less weight usually run 4.7 or 4.8 to 60 with good drivers, better tires, stiffer chasis and all the other goodies. Low 4's are the z06 vette territiory.

But you have no trouble believing that you car car can pick up an average of 14+mph per second in it's sprint to 60mph? And now after 60mph, it's picking up at less than half that rate?

You're even saying it yourself, bascially: acceleration slows down as speeds increase (that goes for pretty much any car, with the exception of some supercars)...so how can your 60-85mph be almost identical to your 85-110mph?

Lets play with the math then to show our work ok?
This is the 0-60 section:
I say that its in the 4.2-4.6 second range.. but others wish to belive it has to and can never be anthing less than 5 seconds (with some people thinking that it has to be 5.1-5.3 on average)..
60 / 4.4 = 13.636 mile per hour increase

60 / 5.2 = 11.538 mile per hour increase


This is the 60-85 section:
If 4.4 then:
8.601 - 4.4 = 4.2
This is the time it takes to get to 85 mph from 60 with 1 shift..
25.25 / 4.2=6.011 miles per second increase

If 5.2 then:
8.601 - 5.2 = 3.401
This would be the "accepted" norm for a car to get to 85mph from 60 with 1 shift
25.25 / 3.401 = 7.424 miles per second increase

This is the 1/8th to 1/4 mile section:
13.174(1/4 mile time)-8.601(1/8 mile time)=4.573 seconds
108mph(1/4 mile speed)-85.25mph(1/8 mile speed)=22.75mph
22.75/4.573=4.974 miles per second gained on average..
5 mps increase is very believeable compared to 8..


Lets not forget the gearing here as well..
M6 rear gear being a 3.42
1st Gear Ratio 2.66:1
2nd Gear Ratio 1.78:1
3rd Gear Ratio 1.30:1
4th Gear Ratio 1.00:1

So with the size of the first gear and the size of the gears from 2-4 doesnt it seem believeable..

Ohh well..

I feel like I'm in physics class doing a pointless problem like calculating the mass of a ball point pen on jupiter. :think: :barf: Who gives a rat's a@@.

I think 0-60 times are completey irrelevant because there is no way the average person can measure them, unlike 1/4 mile times. This thread is so lame:rolleyes:

Ok, you can believe whatever you want...which is fine with me, I just don't agree with you (nothing more, nothing less). Fact is though, you don't know what your 0-60 is...but then, neither do I.

hmm calculator shows my 0-60 as a 3.8 with a 2.1 60' :cool: