60 – 100 Mph

60-100 (maybe 110) is what is most useful in my world of interstate cruising.

 

Does anyone know the time for a 550?

Never drive less than 12 cylinders!

 

Yeah. Faster than anything around you on the freeway when you decide to go!

DL

 

True, for best 0-100 you'll have to shift at some speed and the choice would be maintain the low gear as long as possible. But for a best 60-100 time, you do have a choice of either not shifting and start in 3rd, or start in 2nd and see if the gain exceeds the time needed for shifting. Hving said that, the differences would be minimal indeed.

 

5.8 (R&T, 1/97)

550 Barchetta: 6.2 (1/02)
Testarossa: 6.6 (Ferrari Special Edition '91)
456 GTA: 7.6 (1/97)
250 GTO: 7.0 (mentioned in 1/90 issue, citing test by Petersen's Sports Cars of the World, 1971)

Looking forward to their test of the 612 Scaglietti. C&D and Autocar indicate 5.1-5.3 seconds.

 

Yup anything in the family sedan or station wagon class. 5.8 leaves a lot of room under the umbrella

 

Sweet! Lets meet next Sunday am on the I-16 straits. BTW, I have AC. U? Want to trade for the ride home??? I knew you would....

 

Lift your left foot when you say that next time.

DL

 

Rob posting under Emils name....

Darth your car is slow accept it. Want to drive somthing fastg go to a different marque or re-mortgage your house and get an f-40

 

Rob Again:

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140553

There's a video link in that thread of 550 racing a marginally fast stock car...

 

At the end of the top gear video of the f50,( must be from the mid late 90's) there is a race between the f50 and F1 car of the time. As the video trails off they post a printed comparison of the two cars 0-60 and 0-100. The f1 car was 3.4 to 60 and 3.8 to 100! So, unless this is a misprint of some kind, 60-100 takes.......
.4 seconds!!!!

 

are you sure it is not 60-100 is 3.8 seconds with a total time from 0-100 being 7.2 seconds.
James Lightning

 

Well, it says 0to 60 3.4
and 0 to 100 3.8
but you are right it could be 7.2 total. I don't know how fast f1 cars are at these speeds but someone posted f40 60 to 100 time as 3.7 and though f40 is a fast car, not in the same league as full f1 race car.
check it out, see what you think
http://www.paoloscars.com/Top_Gear_F-50.avi

 

F1 cars are indeed quicker from 60 to 100 than they are from 0-60 (mostly due to lack of grip, even despite fat sticky tires). But I think .4 second is an error. FWIW,

Benetton-BMW B186 (R&T, 3/87)
0-60: 3.0
0-100: 4.8

Jaguar R3 (Autocar, 9/02)
0-60: 2.71
0-100: 4.02

 

Well, that would be like 0-40 in .4 seconds. That would really flatten your eyeballs. Anyone wanna figure how many G's that would equal?

 

Having driven some on the tracks in the east, I think the idea of testing this range of speeds is fantastic. Another aspect of speed in the real world, is balance; how quickly can you transition from turn in and get the power down; how neutral, controllable and, if necessary, adjustable is the car mid-corner etc. The 360's I have rented have been brilliant at this, better than the viper, making for an interesting match up on tracks of different lenghts. For pure acceleration, I personally don't think there is any question but that the Viper is quicker in this speed range with great brakes but less finesse balance and ability to make rapid changes in direction.

 

40 MPH is about 18 m/s, a speed gained in 0.4 s, also 18 divided by 0.4 equals 45 m/s2. 1 G is about 10 m/s2, the acceleration is about 4.5 G. I think an F1 car can reach that kind of G's, but only when braking, from a high speed helped by downforce and air resistance.

 

Why was saab left out of this ? After all they did beat the Porsche in almost every aspect! My 06 2.8t aero has the same excelleration as the new and Ashton Martin o clock in from 40 to 105mph in 7 seconds which technically is faster than both of those cars and some others between 60 to 100mph! So I think there needs to be a correction to this post. Considering it has left out a car that's more than capable of holding its own against these cars within the 0 to 60 and 40 to 100 and 60 to 100mph.

 

Seems like a great set of stats. Some people unhappy because some cars that are fast 0-60 are not as fast as we woudl like to think 60-100. Easy to uderstand as manufacturers gear cars to make great 0-60.

More relevant would be 60-120 for a track situation, or 40-100.

I agree 0-60 somewhat irrelevant.

The F40 times are interesting because people say once its on boost its explosive. Also most older ferraris were never geared or built for 0-60 yet were subjectively fast, no surprise if you measure 60-100 or 60-120.

Even the slow old school BBI is explosive 80-120.

I would also like to see what cars do on track for 10 laps not, what their laptime is at lap 5 and lap 10 as well as the average. A single fastest lap tells practicaly nothing in terms of actual use especialy if the car, tires or brakes fade out by lap 3 which is the case with many...

As we are stuck with deriving data from R&^T I think this 60-100 is great, it eliminates launch control which is a gimick anyways, still 60-120 would be better.. Some of this is 60-100 is distorting though as we are talking about a 40 mph velocity gain, which may require no shifts in say a viper but 1 shift in 458 just because of where the gearing sits in a ferrari. Still even 60-100 is a big improvement and more relevant than 0-60

 

If one is accelerating from 0-to-100 MPH one might have a shift at <say> 65 MPH.
If one was getting ready to measure acceleration from 60-100 MPH, one would not be in the gear that requires a shift at 65 MPH, but the next one up.
So the difference is where shifts happen.

 

I agree the shifting makes a difference, but if acceleration is the goal, then the driver will be shifting around a specific rpm each time, despite whichever test they are completing. This means that the gear ratio is the true factor, not the actual act of shifting. Just my thoughts

 

One hell of a thread bump from 2004.