0-60 in 5.9 sec.?
 

According to this website.
I don't know how they got the number but it is significantly faster than what other magazines have been reporting. ie. "under 7 seconds".

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2...6954539112.jpg

That's very interesting...

Oh dear... reputable source there :thumbdown:

I'm going to pretend this is a 100% legit source and say.

"F*** YEAH!! That's a hell of a lot better than I was expecting!" But keep in mind I'm still pretending.

LOL! Pretending is fun.
Imagine when they do it with one that the engine is properly loosened up... need to update the thread to say 4.9! ;-)

Wikipedia was down today

Quarter mile is slower than tC with manual...

No it's not, tC is supposedly 6.8 and FRS is 5.9.

15.3 1/4 mile time? Pretty slow for a car that hits 60 in under 6 seconds. I think this car is still between 6.5-7 seconds to 60, but who cares. I'm buying this car for the driving experience, not for pure acceleration.

I think it's a typo. It's actually 6.9 judging by the 1/4 mile.

If u want a fast car on a drag strip why not go for a mustang boss or Dodge Charger

At least one car mag got a 2011 tC to 60 in the mid 6's if I recall correctly. That's a weaker car with several hundred more pounds on it.

The best 0-60 times on a RSX-S have been low 6's too, as well as some of the later Civic Si's, both again being heavier cars with nearly identical power.

With that said, if the BRZ/FR-S can't do it any faster than 6.5, then it is a piece of shit engine/transmission. It "has" to be at least as fast as the Civic/RSX.

This car is not slow...it will be very close to 6.0! It's going to depend on the gearing...and the final power to weight ratio...

^^ uh, the gearing is already here, and the power is already here...torque curve probably looks something like the 2GR-FSE. Gears are similar to the Hondas mentioned, I think.

I could see 5.9 happening with a clutch dump :iono:

Quarter mile...:slap:

I say it is wrong as it will be faster. 5,9 sec from 0 to 62 mph.

Interesting will be the acceleration from 60mph on because of the good drag coefficient.

It won't be that good because it is not a turbo, but not that bad because the car is light, rev-friendly and has good drag co. as ou say.

That quarter mile makes no sense with that 0-60 time. No way will a car who has a 0-60 in the 5's do a quarter mile in the 15's, it should be much quicker than that. I call B.S on that source, either the 0-60 is off or the quarter mile is off and I'm praying it's the latter.

You will be highly disappointed.

Most have said 0-60 in 6 flat or so. Im sure 5.9 will happen in super good conditions but mid 6s will be more common.

That quarter mile is very high though. Id say 14.6-15 on average. I know the last gen Si could pull off high 14s and it weighs more and has less torque. But we wont know till we get the car :)

and if the driver weight less than 150 lbs.

Even though i mostly do autocross and HPDE events im wondering how this cars 1/4 mile times are going to be effected by bolt ons and other goodies.

Im wondering what its going to take to get into the 13s minus a burnt clutch :)

Got to start that diet now...

I know we're talking FWD vs RWD, but as an RSX-S owner and forum member, I have seen plenty of people post slips near 14.0 and high 13s with just bolt-on and a tune, putting them around 200WHP.

RWD gets a launch advantage and this car has a slight weight advantage, there's no way this car is any slower in the 1/4 or to 60 than a stock RSX-S

It was the same for the 06-11 si's people were hitting low 14s, high 13s with I/H/E and a tune.

I used to own an RSX-S too, and those were my exact same thoughts. That quarter mile time sounds awfully slow, unless it has a really really low third gear (which I doubt). I'm thinking it'll be around 14.7-14.9 stock. I doubt this engine will respond to mods as well as the K20, so a 14.0 probably won't come about with breather mods and a tune. The RSX-S had slightly less torque output, but it also had lower drivetrain losses too.

Or an LS7 swap.

What?

If the FR-S weighed that much it would easily run into the low 14's.

Could just be the tires? Doesn't show the 60' time, so who knows.

I don't really think it's making so much gear-crushing torque that it's spinning the tires that hard off the line, but that's a good point. Those Prius tires can't really handle too much.

I'm leaning toward it being an estimate though. Regardless, this car is not designed to be a 1/4 mile machine.

I think it's a typo too. It's actually 14.3 judging by the 0-60 time.:laughabove:

Although at face value it looks like this car has more torque, it does NOT have variable lift, so there is likely a huge sag in torque between the range where the long duration intake cam is giving good VE and the rpm that port injection shuts off, and stops helping combustion efficiency. Not to mention that high EGR results when intake is advanced to improve VE at lower speeds, which kills power due to preventing knock and higher temperature.

Low CoG would result in slightly less weight transferred to the rear under acceleration as well by virtue of geometry, so it's hard to say. FWD cars get weight transferred to the rear, but they are nose heavy in the first place.

Personally I would rather have a RWD 6.9 sec coupe that gets 35mpg hwy than a 5.9 sec car that gets 30mpg.

This car also has an extremely high compression ratio - which is largely responsible for that torque figure.

I'm the opposite of you. I'd rather 30 mpg with more torque(200-220hp/180-190tq) to easily achieve the 5.9 seconds. Acceleration is part of the fun in owning a sports car IMHO.

And I'm the nerd who sits here with BSFC charts saying "why did they not go 4.1 f/d ratio standard, with a 0.56 6th gear like the Corvette? great acceleration in gears 1-5, and 50mpg cruising!"
Although unlike you SUB, I am not a believer in low end torque :P low end = fuel economy range, less torque is better, all else being equal. I think people will be extremely disappointed with the low end torque on this car as the torque peak is 6600. But this will do wonders for mpg, thanks to D4-S.

This car is going to be 2700-2768 lbs from the looks of it. Add the driver weight average of 170lbs you are looking at 2900-2950lbs. 200hp means on most calculators (we have nothing real world to go off of) will estimate it to run somewhere between 14.3 to 14.9 in the 1/4 mile.

For comparison purposes the 1999 Type R runs 14.7 or so stock with very similar specs.

Driver skill, tires, track conditions, how abusive you launch, track prep, how much above sea level the track is all will affect things.

I don't think this car will have any problems at all running 14s stock, 0-60 should be similar to it's competitors as well.

Lets not be too optimistic here either. The BMW E30 M3 has similar numbers and runs 15.6 1/4mi stock.