0-100 Times for DC5 R and S?

[Waggy]

Does anyone know the 0-100km/h times for these two DC5 models? I've searched everywhere and I can't find anything. Any help appreciated. :thumbsup:

[Louis - Type S]

from what i can remember both are around the 6.5 second time.

[TypeR Lover]

Well that's wat the stats saids for the AUDM DC5 R.

[Waggy]

Anyone got any actual website or fact sheets?

[Hullabaloo]

I thought the times (very similar for both cars) are around 7 seconds depending on conditions/track/driver. I think some magazines have reported times in the high sixes to mid 7's.

[Shraka]

I thought the times (very similar for both cars) are around 7 seconds depending on conditions/track/driver. I think some magazines have reported times in the high sixes to mid 7's.

What, really? My DC2 VTiR does it in the low 7s. :S Strange. I guess it depends on how you test it.

[TeMp]

The offical 0 - 100 time from Honda for the AUDM DC5R is 6.8

Not sure about the S.

[T-onedc2]

I remember reading in a magazine (possibly Motor) a test between DC2R, DC5R & DC5S they were all getting 0-100 in about 6.9 sec although each had quite different characteristics while getting there, was a good read.

[yfin]

I remember reading in a magazine (possibly Motor) a test between DC2R, DC5R & DC5S they were all getting 0-100 in about 6.9 sec although each had quite different characteristics while getting there, was a good read.

that was a downhill straight and they said it was not an accurate 0-100 time because of that - I have actually never seen a sub 7 second time for a dc2 or dc5 tested by an australian magazine. Mid to low 7s is what you normally will see

[T-onedc2]

I stand updated...lol :o

[TECBOY]

^agreed

low 7's that is it

any1 who says otherwise is silly

[DiMmY]

I recall the Evo (UK) magazine test of the DC2R, they said with a crazy, clutch burning start, they managed 6.2 seconds.

[coladuna]

I recall the Evo (UK) magazine test of the DC2R, they said with a crazy, clutch burning start, they managed 6.2 seconds.

I doubt it very much.

[m0nty ITR]

I recall the Evo (UK) magazine test of the DC2R, they said with a crazy, clutch burning start, they managed 6.2 seconds.

That seems a bit far fetched. I wouldn't expect that from a breather modded DC5.

We can debate it until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is that results will vary every single time. Tests have so many different variables such as drivers, air temp and the car itself. I've never seen 0-100s as anything more than penis measuring comps. Lap times are a far better measure of your cars performance. At the end of the day you don't buy a Honda for 0-100. It's the overall package and for me it's handling prowess. No other FWD comes close to the Integra.

If you want quick 0-100s get a WRX.

[Shraka]

That seems a bit far fetched. I wouldn't expect that from a breather modded DC5.
The DC5 is heavier than the DC2.

On paper:
JDM '95 DC2 Type R: 138kw/ton, 170nm/ton
JDM '01 DC5 Type R: 136kw/ton, 173nm/ton

I wouldn't expect them to be that different in a 0-100km/h race. The only real advantage to the DC5 would be because the engine will be a bit fresher.

Although I think you're right, low 6s are probably unattainable with either car, unless you jigga the way you time it.


If you want quick 0-100s get a WRX.
Err, or not. WRXs have problems with lift in straight line launching (hence the anti lift kit). Also, the AWD system makes it much more difficult to launch hard as spinning the wheels is far harder (and is really hard on the drivetrain). Of course, on anything other than tarmac that AWD that was a bit of a liability becomes an advantage, but I'm talking dry tarmac runs. For fast launches, and quick 0-100s I'd get something like an s15, or perhaps a Supra or GT-R Skyline.

[coladuna]

:(
Err, or not. WRXs have problems with lift in straight line launching (hence the anti lift kit). Also, the AWD system makes it much more difficult to launch hard as spinning the wheels is far harder (and is really hard on the drivetrain). Of course, on anything other than tarmac that AWD that was a bit of a liability becomes an advantage, but I'm talking dry tarmac runs. For fast launches, and quick 0-100s I'd get something like an s15, or perhaps a Supra or GT-R Skyline.

It's not very hard. all you have to do is hold the revs at 4000rpm and feather the clutch. Let's just say I was faster than a V8 BMW X5 and the official time for X5 is low 6 sec.

[m0nty ITR]

:(

It's not very hard. all you have to do is hold the revs at 4000rpm and feather the clutch. Let's just say I was faster than a V8 BMW X5 and the official time for X5 is low 6 sec.

Official time? The R50 has a quoted 0-100 of 6.2 seconds. It's a 258kW 850nm V10 TDI. I'd rate it over the BMW V8 anyday.

[Svelte']

To the original poster and the subsequent few who are following up on this thread, I came across this:

http://k20a.free.fr/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=53

I hope this helps as far as factsheets are concerned. Although it's in French, you can easily run a [mental] translation. They don't have a 0-100 estimate per se (they do have 0-96 km/h : post mph conversion) but again, you can easily approximate this. Navigate through the 'Articles' panel (top, left) and you can sift through the other models. One downside is that they're most probably USDM but o well.

[Shraka]

:(

It's not very hard. all you have to do is hold the revs at 4000rpm and feather the clutch. Let's just say I was faster than a V8 BMW X5 and the official time for X5 is low 6 sec.

That's... ahh... that's crap though. Supra RZ, stock form does a low 5 second pass. I would expect a WRX to be in the high 5s if launched properly... but if you launch them properly you blow up the gearboxes pretty quick.

[coladuna]

Official time? The R50 has a quoted 0-100 of 6.2 seconds. It's a 258kW 850nm V10 TDI. I'd rate it over the BMW V8 anyday.

What point are you trying to make? :confused:
Did anyone ask about this?
Did I say I'm in love with BMW V8?
what are you smoking?

[coladuna]

That's... ahh... that's crap though. Supra RZ, stock form does a low 5 second pass. I would expect a WRX to be in the high 5s if launched properly... but if you launch them properly you blow up the gearboxes pretty quick.

Subaru quotes 5.9sec for WRX.
You think a vehicle weighing more than 2tonne doing 0-100km/h in 6.1 sec is crap? bwahahha
Why would you blow up the gearbox if you are launching "properly"?
Obiously you are not launching properly if you are blowing the gearbox.

[m0nty ITR]

What point are you trying to make? :confused:
Did anyone ask about this?
Did I say I'm in love with BMW V8?
what are you smoking?

You made the claim of a low 6 for the X5. I just asked where you got it from since the Cayenne Turbo and R50 would both be faster. The CT does a 5.8 0-100 and the R50 is 6.2.

Over react much?

[coladuna]

You made the claim of a low 6 for the X5. I just asked where you got it from since the Cayenne Turbo and R50 would both be faster. The CT does a 5.8 0-100 and the R50 is 6.2.

Over react much?

Can't do a simple search online?
6.1 sec for top of the range sports model with 4.8L V8 engine.
It's not a claim. So what if Cayenne Turbo and R50 are faster? You are not making any sense?

[Shraka]

Subaru quotes 5.9sec for WRX.
You think a vehicle weighing more than 2tonne doing 0-100km/h in 6.1 sec is crap? bwahahha
Why would you blow up the gearbox if you are launching "properly"?
Obiously you are not launching properly if you are blowing the gearbox.

More than two tons? What the hell car are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing the Subaru Impreza WRX...

1996 WRX - 1,250 kg
1998 WRX - 1,270 kg
2000 WRX - 1,340 kg
2001 WRX - 1,350 kg
2001 WRX STi - 1,430 kg
2002 WRX - 1,360 kg
2002 WRX STi - 1,350 kg
2003 WRX - 1,360 kg
2003 WRX STi - 1,440 kg
2004 WRX STi - 1,496 kg (USDM)
2005 WRX - 1,360 kg
2005 WRX STi - 1,460 kg
2007 WRX STi - 1,480 kg

I don't see that ever being anywhere near 2 tonne. The most recent models are closer to the weight of a 1993 Supra, which gets a low 5 second 0-100 in stock form, which I don't know if you can tell, but that's less than 6.1.

And if we're talking about the latest WRX (Which only comes in STi trim, and is closest to this '2 tonne' figure of yours) it's quoted 0-100 time is actually 5.4 seconds, not 5.9. That's far more impressive, but still slower than a 14 year old RZ Supra.

As for blowing gearboxes up, I know plenty of mechanics and WRX owners who have complained about the AWD system being a bit delicate when breaking traction on tarmac. There's just too much grip, and nowhere for the slip to safely happen on launch. So you either burn the clutch, risk sheering the gearbox in half, or just launch a bit slowly and catch up later on.

Anyway, my point was there are better cars for doing quick 0-100 times in than a WRX, such as a Toyota Supra RZ, or a Nissan Skyline GT-R. Both of which will spank the pants off your 6.1 second time if they have a half decent driver, and are both around the same price as a WRX these days.

Hell you could even get a Silvia and fix it up a bit to pull low 5 second passes pretty easily. I love the WRX, but it's champion stat is it's grip, not it's 0-100 time. Just like most Hondas champion stat is their handling and throttle response, not power or 0-100 times.

[coladuna]

More than two tons? What the hell car are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing the Subaru Impreza WRX...


Why did you waste time posting all that information on WRX?
He was talking about X5. haha
Sorry you wasted your precious time.



I don't see that ever being anywhere near 2 tonne.


No one's dumb enough to think that WRX weighs near 2 tonne.



And if we're talking about the latest WRX (Which only comes in STi trim, and is closest to this '2 tonne' figure of yours) it's quoted 0-100 time is actually 5.4 seconds, not 5.9. That's far more impressive, but still slower than a 14 year old RZ Supra.


What non-sense are you speaking? WRX is still being offered as well as the STi. Please stop mentioning "2 tonne" because you are the one who can't read. On a side note, so what if Supra is faster? It's twin turbo charged.



Anyway, my point was there are better cars for doing quick 0-100 times in than a WRX, such as a Toyota Supra RZ, or a Nissan Skyline GT-R. Both of which will spank the pants off your 6.1 second time if they have a half decent driver, and are both around the same price as a WRX these days.


what a useless point to make. There are always better cars with quicker 0-100km/h time. Supra? Why not mention something faster? Yea, Ferrari will also spank the pants off Supra's time? Is that worth mentioning? haha. can't believe the uselessness of that comment.

You disputed m0nty ITR's comment to get a WRX if you want a quick 0-100 time and I merely stated that WRX can be fast. Did I say it's faster than a much more expensive Supra RZ? No. Save the useless post.


Hell you could even get a Silvia and fix it up a bit to pull low 5 second passes pretty easily. I love the WRX, but it's champion stat is it's grip, not it's 0-100 time. Just like most Hondas champion stat is their handling and throttle response, not power or 0-100 times.

Why mention that POS silvia? Any car can be done up to be fast. Another useless comment. So you think a car that does 0-100km/h in 5.9sec and only costs a mere $40K is not fast? Oh well, most people I know they WRXs are fast.

[Shraka]

1. You're the one who needs to read better. I never said 6 seconds is crap for a 4WD. To be honest I'm wondering why you're so chuffed you beat an overweight peice of junk like the X5. I was talking about 6 seconds being slow for a modern turbocharged sports car, not an X5. I thought that was pretty obvious in my post, which is why I had no idea where this 2 tonne figure came from.

2. Some people are pretty dumb.

3. I got that info from the Subaru website, I just re-checked and found the WRX, my bad.

4. My point was in reply to m0nty ITR's point that if you want quick 0-100s, get a WRX. My point was, why get a WRX when you can get something faster for the same money if all you want is 0-100 times. Now you're making stupid points. A Ferrari is nowhere near the same price as a WRX. That was such a dumb comment to make. And you're totally wrong. You can easily get a good Supra RZ for $40K or less. A Supra is not "Much more expensive" than a WRX.

5. I mention the Silvia because it is not a POS. They are cheap and powerfull. If you don't agree then there's something wrong with you. Yes their build quality isn't great, and they're not as refined as most Hondas or perhaps Subaru's, but they're fast and RWD which is good for launching hard.

You think your $40K for 5.9 seconds is good, how about $25K for a Supra RZ that does 0-100 in low 5 seconds?

Just so we're clear, I don't hate WRXs. Like I said, they're great for rally or any time you need grip. Great road cars as the tail isn't a bit slip happy like a Supra and they have more predictable understeer. But they just aren't as fast as a Supra RZ or GT-R Skyline in a line, both of which you can get for about the same price.

But this is degenerating into flaming bullshit, and is way off topic. If you still think a WRX is just the better car for 0-100 runs, then whatever. I think you're wrong but I don't wanna drag this thread any further off topic.

So to bring things back to the topic a bit:

I think you're better off comparing how a Type S vs. Type R feel around a track, and their lap times. That's what they're designed for. They aren't 0-100 monsters, or they'd have a turbocharger and probably be RWD for the extra grip and launch.

We should get some DC5Rs and DC5Ss down to the Friday night drags and get some timeslips though to really see if there's any difference.

[coladuna]

Now you're making stupid points. A Ferrari is nowhere near the same price as a WRX. That was such a dumb comment to make. And you're totally wrong. You can easily get a good Supra RZ for $40K or less. A Supra is not "Much more expensive" than a WRX.


How old is that $40K supra you are talking about? lol
95? something along that line? WRX is $40K brand new if you haven't noticed this obvious fact. Therefore, Supra is hell of a lot more expensive than a WRX. They cost more than $100K when it was brand new.



5. I mention the Silvia because it is not a POS. They are cheap and powerfull. If you don't agree then there's something wrong with you. Yes their build quality isn't great, and they're not as refined as most Hondas or perhaps Subaru's, but they're fast and RWD which is good for launching hard.


Oh well. You are free to think they are not a POS. I beg to differ. They are loud, sound horrible, terrible build quality, ugly and old. It has to be one of the most feral looking cars on the road.



You think your $40K for 5.9 seconds is good, how about $25K for a Supra RZ that does 0-100 in low 5 seconds?


Why keep comparing old car price to a brand new car price? Even an idiot would make a better comparison.



Just so we're clear, I don't hate WRXs. Like I said, they're great for rally or any time you need grip. Great road cars as the tail isn't a bit slip happy like a Supra and they have more predictable understeer. But they just aren't as fast as a Supra RZ or GT-R Skyline in a line, both of which you can get for about the same price.


Fair enough Supra RZ or GT-R skyline are faster. I don't intend to dispute such an obvious fact. However, I'm a little over you making ridiculous comparison over and over again. $25K? Why not mention 20 year old Commodore that costs less than $20K but bloody fast?
When you are comparing second hand cars against a new car, the whole argument falls apart.

[turbo convert]

Originally Posted by Shraka
5. I mention the Silvia because it is not a POS. They are cheap and powerfull. If you don't agree then there's something wrong with you. Yes their build quality isn't great, and they're not as refined as most Hondas or perhaps Subaru's, but they're fast and RWD which is good for launching hard.

i have been reading through this thread its quite funny how off the topic it has got.
Now as for your RWD s15 great to launch, vs Wrx and wrx is only good for off road comments........well i have driven my friends s15 and you cant get good launch off the line thats the whole reason i braught a WRX for 0-100 its an unfair advantage however its good for me 0-100 is the only good thing about a wrx!

even when i had a 225rwkw r32gts-t my friend in his 160kwatw 99wrx would beat me cause launch and he was gone!!!
Also gearbox has been improved in the rex since the 00 +

anyways hope the topic goes back to its original purpose:wave:

[T-onedc2]

Does anyone know the 0-100km/h times for these two DC5 models? I've searched everywhere and I can't find anything. Any help appreciated. :thumbsup:

^^^As I recall this was the question asked^^^

Constructive contribution would be appreciated by all I am sure, so to keep this thread open, play nice, the last two pages have been an utter waste of space.:)

[markasia]

was reading the last 2 pages, and its quite funny about whats been said, but anyway, was trying to find some info on times between the type s & type r, but couldnt find anything, very interested to know still.

[StrawberryFace]

As was said before in the magazine a Evo magazine recorded a 0-62mph time of 6.2 seconds for a DC2R.

[Svelte']

was reading the last 2 pages, and its quite funny about whats been said, but anyway, was trying to find some info on times between the type s & type r, but couldnt find anything, very interested to know still.

Post #18 for link.