my fn2 is slow...im not trying to convince anyone it is fast..
i love it though...pretty economic on the fuel and is nippy enough to have go
when it needs to..
Printable View
my fn2 is slow...im not trying to convince anyone it is fast..
i love it though...pretty economic on the fuel and is nippy enough to have go
when it needs to..
i m not really convince anyone to believe
i post the video, so you can watch it, this guy could do such perfect launching
but i still feeling sceptical too, because i always comparing this car performance to xr6t, ford claimed xr6T close to the same figure,
so i believe now 0.2 0.3 0.4 s, make such big different
many people can call this car slow,
to me its got better performance as xr5T, dc5r, sportivo, liberty turbo, mr2, cx9, close to 350z and there are more
anyway, its all up to driver, road condition, weather etc etc
also, lets have conversation only, but please dont try this at home heheh
You will not find a more different car to the Civic Type R than the XR6T. The way they make their power is very different. Huge low down torque vs power at top of rev range. You can't really compare them - and I don't see how they are similar in performance numbers either.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaas
http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Mi...8&MiniSiteID=8
Where'd you get these 2 from? The CX9 is a 7 seater 4WD and the Z chomps an FN2.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaas
I agree. Some real testing facts. Wheels August 2007. Times tested with VBOX. Note the speed indicated at 100kph - so a CTR driver reading the speedo thinks they are going faster than the "actual" road speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by m0nty ITR
Track: Tooradin Airport
Temp: 8 degrees
Driver: Maurie Piatt
CTR
Speed at indicated 100kph: 92
0-60kph: 3.7
0-80kph: 5.3
0-100kph: 7.8
0-120kph: 10.3
0-140kph: 14.0
0-160kph: -
0-400m: 15.5 @ 148kph
80-120: 4.8 seconds
************
Another - Motor Magazine - September 2007.
0-100km in 7.7 sec
0-400m in 15.5 @ 148.4kph
0-1000m in 28.1 sec @ 189.7kph
80-120 (3rd) 4.8 sec
100km - 0 in 37.8 metres
Lap time 1:14.49 (Wakefield)
Apex speed 80.67km
i am talking about the previous model, ford claimed high 6sQuote:
Originally Posted by yfin
launching start for the first 0.1 secs before the VQ35HR rips your ass open lol
Previous XR6T was a had a real life 0-100km/h of 5.9 seconds thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by bodaas
Have you gone against a 350z? If the 350z launches like how you launch the FN2R, it will be ahead of you for quite a bit. If it didn't launch as hard, he'd be pulling you in as soon as you have to shift into 2nd gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaas
Rolling acceleration is where the Civic Type R is really hurt and that is where day to day driving is. eg 80-120 in 4.8 seconds is an example of the lack of torque. Lots of cars will thrash that and pass the Civic like it is standing still. And i am not saying that to be smart - it is just a weakness in the Civic that you need to work around. Even the base model "taxi" Falcon XT is 80-120 in 4.8 seconds so I personally don't see a contest between many of the cars you list "Xr6t, Xr5T, liberty turbo, 350z..."
The CTR will claw a lot back on the track though...
ford claimed previous xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:
you almost got that right, pretty closeQuote:
Originally Posted by aaronng
lol if that is the case then Ford is being very fair with its quoted 6.6 time on the old 240kw model.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodaas
Unlike the CTR, where the testers are struggling to achieve Honda's claimed 6.6 seconds. To achieve Honda's time the moon has to align with Uranus, the driver needs to weigh less than 55kg, temperature needs to be 2 degrees, and the launch blessed by the Pope.