0-60 mph
#1
03-10-2005, 12:53 PM
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 32 
0-60 mph
Hi guys.
I found a neat little calc. online for 0-60mph times.
Seems pretty accurate.
http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/sixty.shtml
You can also check out this other one. You input a 0-60mph time and it will tell you what the car should run in the 1/4 mile.
http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/et.shtml
Perfect tools for bench racing.
I found a neat little calc. online for 0-60mph times.
Seems pretty accurate.
http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/sixty.shtml
You can also check out this other one. You input a 0-60mph time and it will tell you what the car should run in the 1/4 mile.
http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/et.shtml
Perfect tools for bench racing.
#5
03-10-2005, 03:13 PM
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bay Area, CA
Age: 50
Posts: 118
Rep Power: 32
Originally posted by Craig
These conversions are not particularly accurate when dealing with turbo cars, lag and traction issues.
Craig
These conversions are not particularly accurate when dealing with turbo cars, lag and traction issues.
Craig
Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.
Sharky, do you have any times you can post?
#7
03-10-2005, 04:05 PM
Interesting...
I ran a legit 7.952 @ 90.25 mph for the 1/8th at the track. It said that my 0-60 was 3.51 sec.
Now, if I put my 3.51 sec into the 1/4 calculator, I get an 11.34 sec 1/4 mile. That is off by a large margin. The actual 1/4 mile that I ran with a 7.952 1/8th was 12.29 secs, not 11.34 sec.
The 0-60 calculation is flawed while the 1/4 mile calculator is rather accurate. A 4.1-4.2 0-60 time will give you a 12.2-12.4sec 1/4 mile time. Right on for a stock 996 turbo.
I ran a legit 7.952 @ 90.25 mph for the 1/8th at the track. It said that my 0-60 was 3.51 sec.
Now, if I put my 3.51 sec into the 1/4 calculator, I get an 11.34 sec 1/4 mile. That is off by a large margin. The actual 1/4 mile that I ran with a 7.952 1/8th was 12.29 secs, not 11.34 sec.
The 0-60 calculation is flawed while the 1/4 mile calculator is rather accurate. A 4.1-4.2 0-60 time will give you a 12.2-12.4sec 1/4 mile time. Right on for a stock 996 turbo.
Trending Topics
#9
03-10-2005, 04:12 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario
Age: 40
Posts: 214
Rep Power: 29
I don't know how accurate those calculators really are. Says my old Talon should have done a 2.7 second to 60. It was fast (11.3@126), but I don't think it was that fast.
#10
03-10-2005, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Red C5
Craig,
Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.
Sharky, do you have any times you can post?
Craig,
Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.
Sharky, do you have any times you can post?
I have done 10.97 @ 126 and 11.1 @ 128mph so I figure 0- 60 is....
CJV said his car did a 0-60 in 1.9 seconds but using these calcs that means he should run a 7.8 1/4mile?!?!?!?!?
#11
03-10-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Red C5
Craig,
Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.
Craig,
Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.
Craig
#12
03-10-2005, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Ruiner
Interesting...
I ran a legit 7.952 @ 90.25 mph for the 1/8th at the track. It said that my 0-60 was 3.51 sec.
Now, if I put my 3.51 sec into the 1/4 calculator, I get an 11.34 sec 1/4 mile. That is off by a large margin. The actual 1/4 mile that I ran with a 7.952 1/8th was 12.29 secs, not 11.34 sec.
The 0-60 calculation is flawed while the 1/4 mile calculator is rather accurate. A 4.1-4.2 0-60 time will give you a 12.2-12.4sec 1/4 mile time. Right on for a stock 996 turbo.
Interesting...
I ran a legit 7.952 @ 90.25 mph for the 1/8th at the track. It said that my 0-60 was 3.51 sec.
Now, if I put my 3.51 sec into the 1/4 calculator, I get an 11.34 sec 1/4 mile. That is off by a large margin. The actual 1/4 mile that I ran with a 7.952 1/8th was 12.29 secs, not 11.34 sec.
The 0-60 calculation is flawed while the 1/4 mile calculator is rather accurate. A 4.1-4.2 0-60 time will give you a 12.2-12.4sec 1/4 mile time. Right on for a stock 996 turbo.
A 3.51 0-60 foot time usually correlates to a 1/4 mile time much faster than 12.29. Porsche rates the stock 996TT at a 12.1 1/4 mile, with a 4.2 0-60. Drop the 0-60 by more than half a second and you should be well into the 11s. I don't understand why your ET was not faster.
Craig
#13
03-10-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Craig
Ruiner,
A 3.51 0-60 foot time usually correlates to a 1/4 mile time much faster than 12.29. Porsche rates the stock 996TT at a 12.1 1/4 mile, with a 4.2 0-60. Drop the 0-60 by more than half a second and you should be well into the 11s. I don't understand why your ET was not faster.
Craig
Ruiner,
A 3.51 0-60 foot time usually correlates to a 1/4 mile time much faster than 12.29. Porsche rates the stock 996TT at a 12.1 1/4 mile, with a 4.2 0-60. Drop the 0-60 by more than half a second and you should be well into the 11s. I don't understand why your ET was not faster.
Craig
0-60mph time, not 60ft time. BIG difference between the two. Personally, I ran a 1.79 60ft time.
I am no stranger to the 1/4 mile track. I have been doing 1/4 mile runs for the past 5 years or so. What I was saying is that the calculator is wrong for the 0-60 time, wayyyyy wrong. It said that my 0-60 (the calculator) was 3.51 seconds. I do not believe that to be correct; especially since I only have exhaust + 19" HREs (the wheels cancel out the gains from my exhaust because of rotational mass). I then plugged in that 3.51 sec (what the calculator said) into the other calculator and it said that my 1/4 mile was supposed to be in the low 11s which is completely wrong.
Actually, Porsche rates the 1/4 mile time higher than 12.1 sec. It rates higher than what mags are presenting. Typically (in real life), the 996 turbo runs 3.9-4.1 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 12.2-12.4 in the 1/4 mile; stock that is. I ran a 12.29 in real life and that is rather dead-on with where I should be.
Last edited by Ruiner; 03-10-2005 at 05:21 PM.
#14
03-10-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Ruiner
0-60mph time, not 60ft time. BIG difference between the two. Personally, I ran a 1.79 60ft time.
I am no stranger to the 1/4 mile track. I have been doing 1/4 mile runs for the past 5 years or so. What I was saying is that the calculator is wrong for the 0-60 time, wayyyyy wrong. It said that my 0-60 (the calculator) was 3.51 seconds. I do not believe that to be correct; especially since I only have exhaust + 19" HREs (the wheels cancel out the gains from my exhaust because of rotational mass).
Actually, Porsche rates the 1/4 mile time higher than 12.1 sec. It rates higher than what mags are presenting. Typically (in real life), the 996 turbo runs 3.9-4.1 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 12.2-12.4 in the 1/4 mile; stock that is. I ran a 12.29 in real life and that is rather dead-on with where I should be.
0-60mph time, not 60ft time. BIG difference between the two. Personally, I ran a 1.79 60ft time.
I am no stranger to the 1/4 mile track. I have been doing 1/4 mile runs for the past 5 years or so. What I was saying is that the calculator is wrong for the 0-60 time, wayyyyy wrong. It said that my 0-60 (the calculator) was 3.51 seconds. I do not believe that to be correct; especially since I only have exhaust + 19" HREs (the wheels cancel out the gains from my exhaust because of rotational mass).
Actually, Porsche rates the 1/4 mile time higher than 12.1 sec. It rates higher than what mags are presenting. Typically (in real life), the 996 turbo runs 3.9-4.1 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 12.2-12.4 in the 1/4 mile; stock that is. I ran a 12.29 in real life and that is rather dead-on with where I should be.
Craig
#15
03-10-2005, 05:29 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,134
Rep Power: 122
There really is no eway to even guess what the 1/4 mile time will be based on ANY other time, whether it be 0 - 60 feet, 0- 60 MPH, 0- 100, etc. I have raced various cars since 1974 and I have had cars that get a bad 0 - 60 time, but beat a car that has a better 0 - 60 times. There are just too many variables, including gearing, power band and wind resistance. The only way that the calculation could even be close to being accurate would be that the final gear ratios to be the same in all gears.