So basically you just accelerate as fast as you can and just time your 100-200kmh or 62-124 mph? So even though you're doing a 'roll-on' race as it were, you still need to get off the mark very well. Like a misleading trap speed where one car is going faster in total speed but did the 1/4 slower than his opponent, but car 'A' would have a faster 100-200 time with this example?
Pretty hard to find somewhere to do 200k's on the roads and not feel like they will shoot you if they bust you.

 

It's super easy to do with a drift/performance box. Start the run below 100 and set the markers 100-200 in the log to get the time.
I'm sure you can find a strip of highway that's quite enough at night to do a sprint and then quickly brake down again

 

Just read this thread from the beginning. Wonder what happened to all the Swedes and others? I heard about a few of them but seemed like a Nordic forum back then.

 

hi after so many years working on Racing and very little free time I will write my first posting on rennlist and the 944 Turbo Forum. I see to much talking and it seems that the 100-200kmh numbers are too good. same as the Dyno HP numbers. here some data from the stock cars. do the math your self


100-200 kmh

951 86 no cat stock 20 sec
951 88 cat stock 21.1 sec
951 2.5L tuned with turbo Maf 1.1 bar boost etc 12 sec
951 3 l 1 bar boost 10 sec
959 88 no cat 9.6 sec (2.9L Bi- turbo engine) 1.1 bar boost
RUF CTR1 7.3 sec
968 21.4 sec
968 CS 19.8 sec
968 Turbo S 11.9-12,4 sec (tested 10 times)
993 Turbo stock 10,8-12.1 sec
996 gt3 360 hp 1391 kg 11.3 sec
996 gt3 cup 360 hp 1210 kg 9.5 sec
996 turbo 1570 kg 420 hp 10.4 sec
996 gt2 483 hp 8 sec
997 turbo 1581 kg 8.8 sec
997 gt2 1494 kg 7.4 sec

carrera gt 1473 kg 6,9 sec

all tests with 2 person in the car.


how the hell can a 2.5L turbo be so fast? some of the numbers are no right.
what a stock 951 can do , you can read here 20-21 sec

A tuned 2.5 951 is about 8 sec faster than the stock.
A 3 L another 2 sec faster. all these numbers with boost around 1-1.2 bar for the tuned 951 cars.
a 3 L 951 is almost double as fast than a 2.5 L 951 at same boost. I.e 10 sec instead 20 sec from 100-200 kmh
you see that similar engines have similar number 959 2.9L and 3L 951 with similar boost

Konstantin

 

I respect your experiences Konstantin, but with all due respect haven't nearly all of the 944/968 turbo cars you speak of been tuned Motronic cars?
I'm sure that many of those engines were built with a high mechanical standard but running some half generic tuning chipset and Motronic with stock ignition etc will never unlock the true potential.

My 2.5l did 100-150 km/h in 2.9 sec. And that was calculated from the engine speed from the EMS log file (accurate). I also did a 100-200 km/h sprint in 7.6 sec. That was with 1 gearshift 3-4. With only WOT in 3rd gear 100-181 km/h was managaed in 5.4 sec.
My car weighed around 1300 kg at the time + driver and fuel.

 

Wow, this thread goes way back.

I always thought these tests were done from holding the speed constant at 100km/h and then floor it and time. No??

 

That's what I was wondering. Maybe there's some sort of industry standard way of testing that 100-200 time? Such as driving to a constant eg 80 kmh and then flooring it. Or even starting from 100? I don't know.
On the other hand as Duke points out, the cars Konstantin are talking about are not Duke's let alone Corleone's at 1.4 bar E85 with highly modded components. So who knows....

 

As far as I know all published results from acceleration in intervals are based from single runs and not from stationary when starting the clock.
The Driftbox list from the modded 996/997 guys state the gears used.

There's a difference between really built/tuned engines and bolt-on engines with a tuning chip..

 

That's correct.

The standard from 60-130mph rolls is to be flat on the floor at speed when you hit 60. That's how all the 996/997 guys are doing them with driftbox, and that's how Racelogic and all of the magazines are doing the runs as well.

 

Which still means that launch is important from what I can figure?

 

Only if you're measuring an interval that starts with 0 km/h / mph.
If you're measureing 100-150 or 50-100 or 100-200 etc. the launch doesn't matter at all.

 

hmmm I'm guessing that the fastest 951 on Konstantine's list probably has better power to weight than the some most of the fast 911's but the torque talks and trumps the numbers ..

 

Perhaps I'm imagining too much here, but if 2 guys race a 1/4 mile. First guy wins with a 13 sec mark and an et of 110mph. 2nd guy does a 13.5 sec but traps at 118mph. Now if they kept accelerating through the 200kmh or 125 mph mark who would have the faster 100-200kmh time?

Think of it this way. How about you go and do a 100-200kmh pass. Say you just cruise off the start and semi gradually build up speed but are going flat out by 100kmh. Now if you did a drag start and really flew as hard as you could through the 100kmh mark, wouldn't you possibly get to 200kmh faster...or am I just losing what's left of my marbles.


OT. From what I read apparently if you are in a McLaren F1 car (the road version) and accelerate as fast as you can. Now you pass me sitting in my Veyron just idling away. As you pass me at 100mph I take off as hard as I can. I will get to 200mph before you. Pretty hard to believe when the F1 was THE Supercar of only a short time ago.

 

The second car is probably the faster car, the first car has the fastest launch.

You're absolutely right
But all interval tests are done with full acceleration in progress when you pass the first mark.
Also, don't need a drag start to have full acceleration at 100 km/h. Just start around 60-70 km/h. Best is to start in 3rd gear to avoid 2 gearshifts.

 

Haha, yes my 1st example was the opposite of what I was trying to suggest. Erg, stupid brain. I think you got what I meant to say and so long as we think the rate of acceleration can be the same from 60-70kmh then I'm satisfied. If I can find that lonely flat road I might just try it.