Sorry I meant speedo error + human timing error + video.

 

Well the speedo error i agree, but timing of the video can be accurate on the computer by using various programs.

 

Video/Human error is significant. I tried to measure acceleration using a video of my speedo, and it was nearly impossible to do so accurately.

Craig

 

SCM3
BTDT, just plug an AX22 and check it out

 

In the video you posted that's exactly how long it took. If I were you, I definitely wouldn't call that funny. I *think* I still have the video on my home computer. If I still have it, I'd be glad to post it again so everyone can see exactly how long it took.

You're missing the point. If you compare your car...which has a 8-10% innate speedo error from 60-130...to another car that has no speedo error....the comparison will be flawed by a significant margin.

So what I'm saying is; if you want an *accurate* comparison, either compare your car's acceleration using a AX22 to another car that's also using a AX22....or take it to the track and get a trap speed and compare that. But if you want a *innacurate* comparison...continue doing what you currently doing. It's totally up to you.

 

"Poor" man's accurate 60 to 130 test (only works for analog speedos, unless your digital speedo updates fast enough):

1. Get a cheap GPS receiver that reads speed ($100)
2. Find out what your speedo reads at the GPS 60 and 130 marks. ($0 + applicable legal fees)
3. Mount a camera and point at your speedo and accelerate past the real 60 and 130. ($100 + applicable legal fees).
4. Capture the video and time inside a video editing program that reads to a fraction of a second. If it reads in frames, be sure to convert that to seconds. ($100 if you have a computer).
5. Post you video so we can see if anything weird is happening, like tire spin.

Total = $300.

Of course the AX22 is better, but this is not bad.

 

I just realized what you did. Early in the video Before I hit it... I down shift into third. You must have started your timing then. That is 11 sec. From the time I get the car to a steady 60......I hammer it, and it 7.1 seconds.

watch it again. Or, I'll email it to you...

 

With regard to your M5 doing doing 7s 60-130mph. All I can say is thank god there's AX22.

 

Ah man.......you guys are crazy. Whether or not the speedo is correct... The video is being verified for uploading. I will post it for your viewing pleasure. I know its not the fastest car, but you be the judge on the speed.
Hopefully Google will host it pretty soon.
I don't know why my car catches so much critisism. I have owned a stage 2 TT at the same time. They have been raced, and my M5....in a straight line... was faster. Like 4-5 cars faster from 60-130-140 ish. Im also not trying to gas up my car and make it seem faster than it is. It just blows me away that people on message boards don't believe the footage theve seen.. (racing the 11.8xx sec. eclispe) or the speedo footage.
The video will be up sometime today, I hope.

In the mean time, here is the video racing the eclispe. We started at 60, and I down shift first. I wait untill I hear him "hit it".. then Im gone. Granted he has some turbo lag..I shut it down at 160.
Sorry the video quality is terrible...His car is at 20psi, fully built head, and a few other things.

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=m5vsecls

 

Craig

 

Everybody know M5 is one of the fastest luxury sedan.
May be you can justify your claim of being as fast as the Enzo by telling us what mods you have on your car.

 

60-130MPH is a good way to show the car's power.

Too bad it isn't comparable to 100km/h-200km/h here in Europe. That's like 62-125MPH.
Manthey did 5.4 seconds with their GT2 (685hp crank) and 5.5 seconds with their Turbo (claimed 550hp but I'm pretty sure it was more powerful kit like 700hp )...both times are from years ago from a magazine test.
(it was Autobild magazine in Germany...and now Manthey claims better times).

 

your car will trap around 120, far cry from an enzo. I would guess your corect 60-130 times should be around 9.3 sec.

 

Guys, this is a great thread, and I agree 60-130 is a better gauge of real world performance than 0-60. One thing to remember that is vital to accurate measurements is to assure the road is level. Even roads that look level may not be. Run in both directions to determine accuracy of data.

If this was covered in a previous thread, my apologies, I don't have time this morning to read all of them.

Gary

 

So, is it generally agreed then that 60-130 should be measured PASSING 60 at WOT? NOT starting WOT at 60? Or like Craig said, going WOT at 45 or so?