Jump to content
SAU Community

0 - 100kph Times


09GTR
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

wow, quicker than both Motor and Wheels who couldn't crack 4.0 secs. Why are they so slow, when EVERY single acceleration test around the world regularly yields 0-60 mp/h times in around 3.3 sec and 0-100 km/h between 3.5-3.7 secs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

Wow! Will be interesting to see the future results!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nissan dealer told me if i used the LC for twice or more, it will damage the transmission/clutch, which will cost big bucks to replace.

but it seems like everyone here is not too concern about it and keep using the LC.

any feedback????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the nissan dealer told me if i used the LC for twice or more, it will damage the transmission/clutch, which will cost big bucks to replace.

but it seems like everyone here is not too concern about it and keep using the LC.

any feedback????

I think you'll find that's scare tactics. My dealer has been quite reasonable about it. Unlike LC1, LC2 seems to be reasonably easy on the car - that said I've only done it twice, and wont be using it at all with the modifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

I have not timed mine yet using GTech or equivalent but had a few races against my brother's 997 911Turbo, Auto, (the faster one), with overboost engaged. (680Nm instead of 620Nm for 10 seconds). Carried out on a closed track. Using walkie talkies to countdown to the start made for a very unscientific starting process and each of us would win the start on different occasions making for some varying results.

1) 911 stalled to approx 2000 with gentle throttle and GT-R stalled to 2500 with partial throttle. 911 won start by a car length, (due to me napping at the get go), GTR had passed it by 100 KPH and was a car length ahead at 150 KPH.

2) Same conditions GTR won start and pulled ahead by 2-3 car lengths at 150 KPH.

3) Both cars launched with no brakes whatsoever, just floor the accelerator. GT-R leapt ahead by 2-3 car lengths and pulled away steadily.

4) 911 stalled to 2100 RPM with throttle floored. His boost rose to 9 PSI before we even started moving... GT-R again stalled "gently" to 2500 RPM so no "pre" boost to speak of there. I napped again at the start, or perhaps he cheated!! Lost start by 2 car lengths and maintained gap to him to around 100 KPH but did not reel him in at all.

I had 1850 kms on the clock, his car 10,000 kms. All my tests were done with VDC set to race and Suspension to comfort, in Auto with trans set to race. I didnt disengage VDC and it still allows the revs to rise to over 3000 RPM so why bother disengaging it? VDC in race mode does not cull engine power if traction is lost. I didnt have the fortitude to do a 3000+ RPM launch with both pedals floored......yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happen to the 3.3 sec?

Maybe the 3.3 sec time was for 0 - 60 mph rather that 0 - 100 kph, or LC1 might be faster. Anway, I reckon the HKS kit will see a time well under 3.3 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recorded the following 0 - 100kph times using a GTech pro RR device (settings RRR):

Automatic mode with launch control 3.764 seconds -flat surface

Automatic mode with no launch control 3.900 - flat surface

Manual Mode with launch control 3.820 -flat surface

Manual mode without launch 4.064 - uphill

This is for an ADM, premium, 22 degrees.

Tests were conducted at the track.

When the HKS 570 kit and Cobb custom tune (Croydon racing developments) are installed next week, I will post the enhanced 0- 100kph numbers for comparison purposes.

With just 1150km on the odometer and K&N filters installed, my GTech Pro RR results were not as good as yours:

All 3 settings on R, no launch control, stall to 2500RPM (electronically limited!), floor the gas and step off the brake: 4 runs:

0-20m 2.552 sec, 0-100kph 4.344sec

2.575 4.377

2.542 4.316

2.560 4.351

The first second and a half after launch it feels like stretching an elastic band as the boost builds up and then all hell breaks loose. I am wondering if the brand new clutches need to bed in more because it feels very laggy from a dig, until a second or two after launch when it goes berserk. I never got a hint of a wheel spin on smooth new asphalt. Also, the engine may still be a bit tight?

This car is definitely a rolling start king but from a dig, without launch control, it's not setting the world on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard so much inconsistency with pricing in Australia for this new GTR, and there has been some discussion over another forum about ...

_______________________________________________________________________________

Acne Adult Medicine Cure

wheelchair lift

And how is the pricing policy going to improve the 0-100kph times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With just 1150km on the odometer and K&N filters installed, my GTech Pro RR results were not as good as yours:

All 3 settings on R, no launch control, stall to 2500RPM (electronically limited!), floor the gas and step off the brake: 4 runs:

0-20m 2.552 sec, 0-100kph 4.344sec

2.575 4.377

2.542 4.316

2.560 4.351

The first second and a half after launch it feels like stretching an elastic band as the boost builds up and then all hell breaks loose. I am wondering if the brand new clutches need to bed in more because it feels very laggy from a dig, until a second or two after launch when it goes berserk. I never got a hint of a wheel spin on smooth new asphalt. Also, the engine may still be a bit tight?

This car is definitely a rolling start king but from a dig, without launch control, it's not setting the world on fire.

I've been told the standard airbox is better than the aftermarket job, I certainly had this problem with my EvoIX, it went faster with the std airbox.

Interestingly my 0 - 20m times were similar to yours. I had 2600 kms on the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told the standard airbox is better than the aftermarket job, I certainly had this problem with my EvoIX, it went faster with the std airbox.

Interestingly my 0 - 20m times were similar to yours. I had 2600 kms on the car.

Thanks for the tip. The thought crossed my mind!

It appears that both cars have the same turbo lag down low, hence similar sluggish 20m, but yours has a better top end which could be due to the air box.

I will swap back to stock air filters and give it another shot at 2000km.

What was your max HP reading? Mine was only 265kW with 1830kg gross weight input.

Good luck with the HKS! :action-smiley-069:

Edited by GT-Ricer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.3sec-4.4sec 0-100km/h.

Seriously fellas, 370Z with a few mods would probably do that, or very, very close to that. For sure I know that an EVo-X would do 3.5sec 0-100km/h in FQ-400 guise. If my car is 30% slower than what Nissan advertised in 2007 and 2008, 3.3sec, then I would be seriously pissed of with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.3sec-4.4sec 0-100km/h.

Seriously fellas, 370Z with a few mods would probably do that, or very, very close to that. For sure I know that an EVo-X would do 3.5sec 0-100km/h in FQ-400 guise. If my car is 30% slower than what Nissan advertised in 2007 and 2008, 3.3sec, then I would be seriously pissed of with them.

I suspect the 4.3 - 4.4 second car is an exception. I was getting 3.7 easy, in fact each run was getting quicker. The journos managed 4.0 flat (without LC).

The 4.4 second car had an aftermarket airbox in it which probably slowed it down.

The JDM cars are getting 3.3 seconds because they are running 15 psi compared to the ADM 12 psi. And as you would know, that is very easy to fix. My gut feel is that these cars (even in JDM spec) are going to be easy to tune to big power without too many risks, which is no different to most turbo cars these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as comparison my gtst with 190rwkw and typical mods, 4.88 - 0 to 100km/h with apexi RSM and g sensor correction

hahaha :) to all you r35 owners!

...and good steering Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I suspect the 4.3 - 4.4 second car is an exception. I was getting 3.7 easy, in fact each run was getting quicker. The journos managed 4.0 flat (without LC).

The 4.4 second car had an aftermarket airbox in it which probably slowed it down.

The JDM cars are getting 3.3 seconds because they are running 15 psi compared to the ADM 12 psi. And as you would know, that is very easy to fix. My gut feel is that these cars (even in JDM spec) are going to be easy to tune to big power without too many risks, which is no different to most turbo cars these days.

Today I re-tested my car’s acceleration times over 5 runs after 1800km, with stock air filters in place for the past 500km.

My 0-100kph times ranged from 4.37ces to 4.55 sec. I tried everything and every combination: stall against the brake to 2400RPM (limit) ; step of the brake and hit the gas. No real difference.

My car engages quite well and after 10-20m or so it bogs down for about 1 sec before taking off again with real momentum.

It refuses to accelerate from a dig in a linear fashion.

This bog-down happens in first gear so it has nothing to do with a gear change.

It seems that after the initial launch something in the ECU shuts down or retards the timing, before it resumes on its ballistic trajectory.

I spoke to Mathew at Col Crawford who will be doing my first service next Wed-Thurs. We will go for a test drive and also compare with the demonstrator car.

It’s a real disappointment so far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As another comparison I measured 3.7 seconds 0-100 also with an apexi RSM in my r34.. At the time it had a t04z running 19psi and was in dire need of new tires, with all tests conducted on a nice backroad :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I re-tested my car's acceleration times over 5 runs after 1800km, with stock air filters in place for the past 500km.

My 0-100kph times ranged from 4.37ces to 4.55 sec. I tried everything and every combination: stall against the brake to 2400RPM (limit) ; step of the brake and hit the gas. No real difference.

My car engages quite well and after 10-20m or so it bogs down for about 1 sec before taking off again with real momentum.

It refuses to accelerate from a dig in a linear fashion.

This bog-down happens in first gear so it has nothing to do with a gear change.

It seems that after the initial launch something in the ECU shuts down or retards the timing, before it resumes on its ballistic trajectory.

I spoke to Mathew at Col Crawford who will be doing my first service next Wed-Thurs. We will go for a test drive and also compare with the demonstrator car.

It's a real disappointment so far!

I hear you.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
    • https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2021-nissan-skyline-400r-auto-rv37/SSE-AD-17857548/ Well there you go 
    • Chris won't reply. He doesn't visit the forum much anymore. You can try these guys https://www.facebook.com/autotainment/ They did mine many years ago
×
×
  • Create New...