fn2R 0-100km/h 6.7s

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

28-09-2008, 11:06 AM
m0nty ITR

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfin

Unlike the CTR, where Honda 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.

I like those odds. :p

What's the roll down percentage on the speedo of the FN2? Most cars these days show 8% higher than actual speed.
28-09-2008, 11:07 AM
aaronng

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaas

ford claimed previous xr6t 6.6s from the review :confused:

Ford quoted 6.6s, but the car gets 5.9s. Honda quoted 6.6s, but the car can only do 6.7 if you follow the 100km/h number on the speedo, which actually means 0-92km/h in 6.7s, not 0-100,
28-09-2008, 11:19 AM
yfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0nty ITR

What's the roll down percentage on the speedo of the FN2? Most cars these days show 8% higher than actual speed.

I don't think 8% is the norm at all - I think it is ridiculously off for such a modern car.

So FN2R indicated 100kph = travelling at 92kph

Compared to cars I have had:

1991 Honda Civic indicted 100kph = travelling at 97kph
Accord Euro indicated 100kph = travelling at 96kph
Holden VE SS indicated 100kph = travelling at 97kph
Ford FG XR6 Turbo indicated 100kph = travelling at 99kph
28-09-2008, 11:21 AM
bodaas

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s
28-09-2008, 11:21 AM
m0nty ITR

On Volkswagen you can display actual via the climatronic unit. At 120km/h on the speedo this morning I was doing 108km/h on the climatronic unit. Makes a big difference between aruns when you travel the F3 every day.
28-09-2008, 11:26 AM
yfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaas

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

November 2002 was a long time ago, many revisions to the XR6T in that time - do you really want to compare your new car to something 6 years old? That test was even before the 6 speed manual gearbox! And even with the 5 speed manual in 2002 they say it was a gentle launch to get 6.6 seconds. And hand timing - old school unreliable test anyway.
Giving it just a gentle launch with two people onboard we hand-timed a 0 - 100 km/h sprint in 6.6-seconds. With a bit of practice, though, we reckon the XR could crack 6-seconds flat - seriously cookin'.
28-09-2008, 11:32 AM
yfin

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0nty ITR

On Volkswagen you can display actual via the climatronic unit. At 120km/h on the speedo this morning I was doing 108km/h on the climatronic unit. Makes a big difference between aruns when you travel the F3 every day.

how does it work out the actual? Is that via sat nav? GPS really is the best way.
28-09-2008, 11:38 AM
aaronng

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaas

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

With a "gentle launch" and 2 ppl. Imagine if it was the auto with a full bore launch. :)
28-09-2008, 08:00 PM
DreadAngel

Quote:

Originally Posted by bodaas

correction, this is from car test review

with 2 peoples on board, they claimed xr6t 0-100 6.6

from http://autospeed.com/cms/A_1613/article.html

maybe ford claimed it low 6s

Correction, thats only one of many publications...
28-09-2008, 08:01 PM
DreadAngel

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfin

lol if that is the case then Ford is being very fair with its quoted 6.6 time on the old 240kw model.

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.

In otherwords only the Vaticans have achieved this monumental achievement ;)
28-09-2008, 09:21 PM
fasthonda

Quote:

Originally Posted by yfin

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...

Not criticising the above comment, I feel that even if the JDM Type R was imported to Australia this is the type of comment that would surface time and time again.A Civic or even a Type R (JDM) Civic never has and probably will never match a turbo competitors in-gear acceleration.
So....I'm wondering....why all the disappointment with Honda not bringing in the FD2 if some of the comments clearly show that people are more interested in cars with "low down grunt"(turbos etc):confused:
28-09-2008, 09:46 PM
LD_Mart

Just thought id throw in some figures

CPL Racing UK

0-100kph - 7.2
0-160kph - 18.3
Quarter mile - 15.6 @ 149.3km/h
50-110kph - 7.3
110-190kph - 20.4

************

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

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page