0-100 Times for DC5 R and S?

[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?
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?
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.