Notices
944 Turbo and Turbo-S Forum 1982-1991
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: Clore Automotive

What does it take to... 0-60 times?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-07-2007 | 12:25 PM
  #31  
Cliff Ruckstuhl's Avatar
Cliff Ruckstuhl
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
From: I live in Findlay Ohio
Default

I'm really not going to get dragged into a pissing match here. I owned a 951 did allot of tweeking Ballistic now owns my car and he loves it. I loved my 951 it was fast and a wonderful car. The 951 is a great car and with the right mods and allot $$ it can be made to go sick fast. If you go over to the 928 list and look around there is a post by me asking about the 0-60 times on the 928 with a Super Charger. There are dyno sheets of Tim Murphy's car doing it in 3.79 seconds. Andrew Olson is doing it in 4.30. Allot of it has to do with the gearing of the auto. I can hold 2nd gear till about 70 mph. The auto is faster then the 5 speed on this dyno run and only comparing these 2 cars with these 2 dyno runs. The 5 speed is a more spirited car to drive no matter what car one is driving this is a given. The 928 Super Charged with the Auto might be a better mix then the 5 speed because the auto can handle a little more power. I am sure most all 928 drivers would love to have a 5 speed but Porsche only made 20% of the cars with 5 speeds. When looking for a 928 the 5 speed cars were either over 2000 miles away from me or were more than I wanted to spend. I could have kept my 951 it was fast and a 9 out of 10 but I was ready for something a little more comfortable then the 951 and the sound of the V 8 with the right exhaust is just WOW. Again not starting a Pissing match eveybody loves there cars and allot of us change cars or have more then one. At one time the 928 was the flag ship for Porsche and the 944 was the entry level car. Just like now the Boxster is the entry level car and the 911 is the flag ship for Porsche.

Cliff 88 951/87 928 S4
Old 03-07-2007 | 12:32 PM
  #32  
pozican's Avatar
pozican
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Not to start a pissing match (here we go again)

Aren't dyno 0-60 times significantly different than true 0-60 times?

IE - Dyno, has less resistance on the rollers + no air resistance
Old 03-07-2007 | 12:46 PM
  #33  
Cliff Ruckstuhl's Avatar
Cliff Ruckstuhl
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
From: I live in Findlay Ohio
Default

Aren't dyno 0-60 times significantly different than true 0-60 times?

Yes they are different and I really don't want to start a pissing war it does nothing for anybody.

Cliff
Old 03-07-2007 | 02:34 PM
  #34  
pozican's Avatar
pozican
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf Pack
Aren't dyno 0-60 times significantly different than true 0-60 times?

Yes they are different and I really don't want to start a pissing war it does nothing for anybody.

Cliff

Fair enough -- Just pointing out.

What does it take to slap an sc onto a 928?
Are the stock internals alright?
Old 03-07-2007 | 03:05 PM
  #35  
MPD47's Avatar
MPD47
The Carnage King
Rennlist Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,476
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by Wolf Pack
At one time the 928 was the attempted flag ship for Porsche and the 944 was the car that kept the company afloat.
Fixed it for you. You dont want a pissing match yet you quote dyno 0-60 numbers which mean about jack all as you dont have to nail a launch with the perfect amount of traction and wheel spin. Then you end your speech with a comment about how the 928 is superior? What did you expect?
Old 03-07-2007 | 03:15 PM
  #36  
Tms951's Avatar
Tms951
Pro
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
From: North East
Default

5 secs is not that fast, power is not the issue traction is.

I had a 300whp 3800lb car that ran very low 4sec 0-60times and consistant 1.7xsec 60foot times. It only had 225 tires all around. The thing is it was AWD. It was a 2000 Audi S4, 2.7L twin turbo.

I think with an LSD, drag radials (275), 300whp and a good driver sub 5 sed should not be hard.
Old 03-07-2007 | 03:27 PM
  #37  
toddk911's Avatar
toddk911
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
From: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Default

Originally Posted by Tms951
5 secs is not that fast, power is not the issue traction is.

I had a 300whp 3800lb car that ran very low 4sec 0-60times and consistant 1.7xsec 60foot times. It only had 225 tires all around. The thing is it was AWD. It was a 2000 Audi S4, 2.7L twin turbo.

I think with an LSD, drag radials (275), 300whp and a good driver sub 5 sed should not be hard.
wow, didn't realize they were that heavy. My wife's Pathfinder weighs 3,800.
Old 03-07-2007 | 03:29 PM
  #38  
toddk911's Avatar
toddk911
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
From: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Default

So what does all of this proove????

How insignificant 0-60 times are.

TOO MANY VARIABLES.

fyi see 60-100/60-130
Old 03-07-2007 | 04:59 PM
  #39  
AL951's Avatar
AL951
Racer
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: Central CA
Default

My car with 270 rwhp and good pratice got consistent 0-60 times of 4.8-4.9. All of this recorded by my trusty Gtech.

Regards,
AL
Old 03-07-2007 | 05:18 PM
  #40  
pozican's Avatar
pozican
Thread Starter
Racer
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Originally Posted by AL951
My car with 270 rwhp and good pratice got consistent 0-60 times of 4.8-4.9. All of this recorded by my trusty Gtech.

Regards,
AL

Good to know -- Exactly what I was looking for!
So lesson learned from this is, with perfect clutch slip / ease of launch, you can probably get to 4.5-4.7 with 350hp (estimation of ignorance )
Old 03-07-2007 | 05:36 PM
  #41  
toddk911's Avatar
toddk911
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
From: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Default

Originally Posted by pozican
Good to know -- Exactly what I was looking for!
So lesson learned from this is, with perfect clutch slip / ease of launch, you can probably get to 4.5-4.7 with 350hp (estimation of ignorance )
Spool up?

LSD?

Rear suspension set up?

Tire width?

Stock ride height?

Etc.

Not trying to make this more difficult than it is and from that post I am sure that is a pretty good ball park time and sounds like that is all you were looking for. But I am just trying to show that the above questions ALL affect one's 0-60 time. Possibly by a second or more.
Old 03-07-2007 | 05:50 PM
  #42  
AL951's Avatar
AL951
Racer
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: Central CA
Default

Originally Posted by toddk911
Spool up?

LSD?

Rear suspension set up?

Tire width?

Stock ride height?

Todd, you are right all of this has an effect on traction.

this time were done with stock suspension height,Koni shocks, open rear diff, and 255-45 r17 rear tires.

Regards,
AL
Old 03-07-2007 | 05:52 PM
  #43  
toddk911's Avatar
toddk911
Drive-by provocation guy
Rennlist Member
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 10,439
Likes: 0
From: NAS PAX River, by way of Orlando
Default

Wow!! must have been a sweeet launch.
Old 03-07-2007 | 06:16 PM
  #44  
AL951's Avatar
AL951
Racer
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: Central CA
Default

Well it wasn't just one. actually their were a couple. Like I said, with pratice, I got repeatable times on the highs 4's.

It should not be a big surprice, because the stock 86 turbos with about 195rwhp can do a 0-60 sprint in 5.8 sec. Someone said before and problably ST can confirm that the biggest issue is traction. and on a nice flat road is easier to get a good start.

Regards,
AL




All times are GMT -3. The time now is 05:46 PM.