Thought I would throw this out there for those who want to debate this. It was brought up on another thread so here is a dedicated thread. There seems to be this "love affair" with 60-130 MPH tests and that this is the best way to show the potential of a vehicles performance. I disagree with this being the “holy Grail” of performance tests and here are some of my reasons.
<O</O
Demonstrating the acceleration times of a car from 60-130 MPH is fine, but it does not tell the whole story in my opinion. 60-130 MPH is like a 4th gear dyno pull on a dyno, its OK, but only shows a small snapshot of a bigger picture. Making a car that will go 60-130 and perform flat out for 1-mile or 5 miles on the autobahn is another task all together. One critical problem with the test is the techniques involved in getting a good time. A lot of the cars use “brake boosting” to build boost pressure in order to get good initial acceleration. In reality, who is going to do a perfect brake boost in a real head to head race?

What is more interesting to me is taking the REAL 60-130 times from a NON dedicated "60-130" run during a 1 mile pass. During the 1 mile test you also can measure 1/4 mile time and speed, 0-186 MPH time (0-300 KM) as well as a 100-300 KM time as well. To me this tells more of the whole story as to the performance of a vehicle. Plus, it is much harder on the engine and components during the longer sustained loads. On a 60-130 run, the intercoolers will barely get hot and the rest of the engine components are not stressed as they would be during longer these tests. It would be interesting to see some of these cars pushed flat out for an extended period of time. Just my $.02
<O</O
<O</O
Flame on, should be an interesting debate <O</O

 

Hard to argue with that. In the scheme of things there's not much stress during a few 60-130 pulls. I could go out and run a phenomenal 60-130, once. I think part of the issue is accessability to a mile + shutdown. Its easy to pop on a p-box and go get a 60-130 and compare it to others (similar to a dyno) and get a general idea of performance in the heart of most people's envelope. Then again, if you only care about doing street pulls from 50-150, then it really doesn't matter if the car would explode trying to maintain 180+. Would I buy parts based on Mustang/Dynojet dyno numbers or 60-130 time? heck no, show me logs/data with the product under true stress. Comes down to what you want the car to do!

Edit: there was a thread on rennlist where some popular tunes were sujected to near 200mph pulls, they all did great 60-130, but the story changed dramatically at higher speeds. Again, depends on what the car will be used for.

 

First of all thank you so much for the great thread. I am big fan of the 60-130mph runs because there is less source of errors specially when it come to compare car to car (less shifting, almost no slipping, driver, tire brand, air drug...etc) and most important it is the range were most people race within and good reference as everyone can test his cars in public roads within this range.

I don't think this is the best technique to achieve good 60-130 timing. Most driver drive their car at 40mph in 3rd gear and push it all the way to reach 130 with mostly one shift to 4th gear or 2 max. .

totally agree with you. 1 mile rune or 0-300 run call tell all stories behind any engine.

I have tested more than 15 cars myself using Vbox ( most of them are 997TT ). It has been really interesting to see how different cars with different kits perform in different weather conditions.

Again thank you so much for the great thread and looking forward to other member experiences

Abdullah

 

This is going to be little bit here and there because I am writing this at work with some other projects going on.

I've always been the first to point out that 60-130 is just a number for people who can't drive their cars out of the hole. Brake boosting and stuff can help with that. Again proper gearing can help a LOT on this as well. If you have to shift 2 times to do it you are going to screwed by a car that never shifts. Extracting this from a 1/4 mile pass isn't as good either because when I drag race I shift 2 times during the 60-130 period but on the street I shift 1 time.

Now trying to say Mile is a good number to base performance numbers off of is dumb (in my opinion as well). Many factors in this such as the fact that most cars unless you have modified your transmission/rear gear you will be limited to a certain top speed. Esp when this is the Porsche forum we are limited to our close ratio gear boxes from the factory. I think stock with a stock rev limiter the car will not break 200mph no matter how much road you have ahead of you (talking from the 996 world here, I've never taken my brothers 997 ANYWHERE near that LOL). Even extending the rev limiter is not going to do much. You are still limited by gearing. Now when you start modifying that then you open up possibilities. Still in my opinion is not a good measurement for power.

Now you mention that you can get 1/4 mile numbers from a standing mile to base performance from, which is true. But seeing as you all have been to 3 or 4 Texas Mile events and have some drag racing experience as well. The Texas Mile rules state no slicks or front runners. When it comes to big HP cars why would you try to make a pass for a good number (to show performance) why would you throw a street tire on the car? If I remember correctly you all's 9.6 pass was done on a Bogart Wheel setup with drag radials on the car. Here are two videos of the shop that built my car and also held the Texas Mile record for a good amount of time.

Texas Mile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xr58...feature=relmfu

Drag Racing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR3vc...feature=relmfu

Notice a difference on power delivery? This is due to the fact the drag racing pass was done on slicks and was assisted by N2O. Try doing that at the Texas Mile even just to use the n2o into 4th. I wouldn't trust spraying that car at 150mph on the tires he uses for the Mile. They will NOT hold the power. So comparing power isn't possible.

At the end of the day the only equal medium to show a cars performance is 1/4 mile racing. Regardless of what way anyone tries to spin it. It's been done for 60+ years, has a HUGE following and sponsors that spend BIG BIG BIG money. I mean if it wasn't a big then the NHRA, IHRA, etc.. wouldn't be around. When you read Motor Trend, Road and Track, etc. you don't see them testing a stock car with standing mile times or 60-130 times. It's always 1/4 mile times.

Then again this is just my 2cents.

 

There's no single measure that works best, it's really a case of what you want your car to be and then use that measure.

60-130mph is a great measure of the range that most people are able to use their car at regularly on the road.

1/4 mile is a great overall measure, but depends so much on traction and skill and many people simply don't want to launch their cars (60-130 doesn't break axles and gearboxes, 1/4 miles do).

0-300kph is a great measure for the big power cars, but again it depends of launching hard.

Speed at a mile probably the best overall measure of power, assuming it's not gearing limited.

Of course none of these measures show you lag or driveability. Some mega-powerful cars will post amazing figures, but if you are caught off-boost or in the wrong gear then you might as well be driving an Amtrak for response.

 

Nice! I will go look at the other thread. It is not easy to go out and run the 1 mile. I wish we had one closer than TX to test at. This is why we make the haul twice a year so we can gather more data because the 60-130 times are not enough for us to go off of. Thanks for your input!

 

I also agree that best TEST is 0 to TOP END...0-200 mph or something like that...1 mile run but u csnt do this everytime yu test he car or then kit and 60-130 give u a idea of the car capability and performance plus you can test this almost anywhere and there is not excuss that you coudnt launch good soemthing is wrong woth throtle...

 

Don't lie you know you love coming to Texas.How else would you get to see all the smarta$$es on this forum.

 

When they come to MN.

 

AHHH good point Luis.

 

Under ideal and constant ambient weather conditions the 0-300 kph would be the best test, but there is so much variability due to wind and temp - above 200 kph the aerodynamic factors/wind resistance are huge and account for swings of 20mph or more in the speed results. Pulling off rearview mirrors, taping gaps and seams, etc can give an easy 3-5mph boost without any reflection on engine improvements.

Look at the numbers from the Tx Mile over the past 3 years and the headwind/tailwind runs are so variable as to be somewhat difficult to compare. The best would be a avg of a two direction pass, but the Tx Mile does not allow that.

 

Good point.

 

trap speed at the 1320..the best and only way

 

What is 60-130 of your EVT MONSTER ???

 

A good way, but definitely not the "best" and/or "only" way.

I know of many drag cars that are geared for the 1/4 mile specifically...that pass through the traps at pretty much their maximum terminal velocity. So their times don't mean much, other than they are really good in a 1/4 mile.

You also need to consider the traction required for good 1/4 mile traps as well. On street tires, 60-130 is a more accurate gauge when comparing AWD cars to front-engine RWD cars, to rear-engine RWD cars, to cars on street tires, removing the ability to heat the tires, etc. It sort of levels the field.

IMO, the 'best' way (that captures acceleration capabilities in the most common driving situations) is a combination of 1/4 mile trap speeds, 60-130 times, and dyno numbers. Obviously, standing mile or 0-300 kph runs are outstanding ways of validating overall power and the ability to maintain that power over a significant amount of time, but the inherent difficulties that come with running at those speeds and distances (locations, safety equipment required, events per year) make it a very difficult performance measure to use on a broad-basis.