Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

There seems to be a lot of threads lot on what would win stock for stock for 0-400m and 0-100kmph. So I decided to make this list as a bit of a guide. Sources vary but I tried to take the manufactures claimed times were possible.

I will update it from time to time.

0-100kmph 0-400m

NISSAN

R34 GTT 6.2 14.2

R33 GTS25T 6.18 14.4

R32 GTST 6.5 14.8

GTR

R32 4.7 13

R33 4.9 13.2

R34 4.9 13.1

300ZX Z32 TT 2Seater 5.6 14.2

Silvia S13/180sx

CA18DET 6.9 15

SR20DET 6.2 14.5

S15 Jap spec 5.5 13.8

TOYOTA

MR2 GT 6.12 14.37

Soarer SC400 2.5TT 7 15.1

Soarer SC400 V8 8.9 16.5

Supra RZ 5.92 13.93

Supra SZ 6.6 14.9

Mazda RX7

86-88 Turbo 6.8 14.4

89-91 Turbo 6.5 14.4

95 Twin Turbo 5.2 14.0

Mitsubishi

99 magna V6 8.2 16.2

Holden

VN V6 man 7.9 15.68

VP V6 man 8 15.5

VR V6 auto 9.3 16.8

VN SS 7.4 15.24

VS SS 7.34 15.27

VT SS Gen3 6.4 14.4

VX SS 6.23 14.35

VY SS S1 5.8 14.24

VY SS S2 5.8 13.94

VZ SS 5.82 13.99

HSV

VP GTS 7.2 15.2

VR GTS 6.6 14.8

VX clubsport 5.7 13.9

VX GTS 300 5.1 13.3

VY Clubsport S2 5.3 13.5

Subaru

99 WRX 5.91 14.12

03 WRX 5.8 14

03 STI 5.43 13.62

Ford

EB2 6 9.3 16.8

EL 6 8.9 16.8

AU 6 8.8 16.3

EL XR8 7.5 15.5

BA XR8 6.1 14.1

BA XR6T 5.9 14.1

FPV

Typhoon F6 5.7 14.0

GT 5.9 14.2

Edited by Munna
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/80479-0-100-and-0-400m-times/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No mate. Drag is just dull unless the topfuel/doorslammer cars are running. I CBF hurting my car that way.

RWD's, I know of a slicked up GTSt that runs 10's so it would take me to 100 :P but most of the guys out there are running Jap suspension that just won't grip for the quarter. Even mine is too hard for the launch but good for circuit. Low to mid fives on street rubber is the best I'd expect from a T that is really well sorted as they have to balance revs/boost and wheelspin is just too easy to get.

0-100 4.5 damn best I can manage is 5.2.
It was in the cheater GTR though. Pretty stock but 260rwkw due to boost and fuel reg. Pretty easy to do and not hard on the gear. I use 5500rpm and feed throttle while I slip the clutch. Was a real buzz.

5.2 is good for rwd. I find the more power, the harder to stop wheelspin in the GTSt

It was in the cheater GTR though. Pretty stock but 260rwkw due to boost and fuel reg. Pretty easy to do and not hard on the gear. I use 5500rpm and feed throttle while I slip the clutch. Was a real buzz.

 

5.2 is good for rwd. I find the more power, the harder to stop wheelspin in the GTSt

Ahh cheeter 4wd wish I had one. Id find it very hard to do 5.2's consistantly with my rwd

Does anyone rate the Gtech for 0-100/0-400 times? I know they can't be exact - but are the newer versions pretty close to the money?

I do... MY 0-100 time on the g-tech was 4.8 seconds....

My 1/4 mile time was 13.3 seconds...

First time at willowbank raceway i got 13.7 and by the third run i had 13.23 @101

So i reckon the g-tech is pretty acurate (not as good as the real thing of course but its a great indication....

I do... MY 0-100 time on the g-tech was 4.8 seconds....

My 1/4 mile time was 13.3 seconds...

First time at willowbank raceway i got 13.7 and by the third run i had 13.23 @101

So i reckon the g-tech is pretty acurate (not as good as the real thing of course but its a great indication....

just brought one off ebay for $45 the early gtech pro model so when I get it I will let who all know how I go. I will lend it to a few of my mates with quick cars to and compare and list the results.

Nice effort Munna.

Where's my car? :O

I think the Gtech is quite accurrate however some runs may be questionable.

I did a few runs a couple weeks ago. Most were flat 5 but managed one of 4.57 so I doubted it a bit. Haven't taken car out again to confirm.

When it was stock the gtech did produce times which were similar to manufacturer times so I wouldn't say it's impossible to achieve the same results.

Gtech's are great if you want to see if your mods make much difference to the car. My times didn't change after getting the CAT back so it was useless besides the sound, however after getting a tune it gave me a smile.

  • 2 weeks later...
I think your wrong on the r32 gtst 6.9 claim.

In the japanese import buyers guide, the test results of 0-100 times for even an AUTO r32 gts t was 6.89 seconds, and if this was manual the tester expected low 6 second times.

Yep thanks mate did some more research and the time I had was probably for an auto. Found a couple of sites which claim around 6.5 and 14.8.

cheers

  • 3 weeks later...
5.2 is good for rwd. I find the more power, the harder to stop wheelspin in the GTSt

Best I managed in the R32 with the Rb20DET was 5.2, it was consistent and easy to launch.

The RB30DET.. :P Initially I lost 1 whole sec, 6.2, zero traction in first, second is fine providing the change is smooth.

I've since managed to get it down to 5.9secs, the trick was not to over-rev it, change at 5100rpm and its fine. lol, damn small turbo. :huh:

6.9 0-100 for the R32 I think is on the money. Mine was damn slow when 100% stock and making 115rwkw. :blink:

Edited by Cubes

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...