60 MPH in 2nd

[Lantanafrs2]

As long as its quicker than a miata

[Lantanafrs2]

Put a beer can under the gas pedal and it will take 4 shifts. Much more involved driving experience

[ZDan]

Gotta take radial tire squish into account when calculating speed from rpm and gear ratios! Or go by revs per mile. Usually ends up being ~3% squish.

[LLYNCES]

What I don't really understand is why they claimed the old cars went 0-60 in over 7? I was hitting a mid 6 second 0-60 time in the manual GT86. I know the two AT's I owned were definitely above 7 though.

I'm sure under perfect conditions on the right surface a time in the high 5's will be do-able if the car can really hit 60mph in 2nd. That being said; still relatively slow straight line speed-wise compared to what is on the market now.

Not really what this car is about though......

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by LLYNCES

What I don't really understand is why they claimed the old cars went 0-60 in over 7? I was hitting a mid 6 second 0-60 time in the manual GT86...... still relatively slow straight line speed-wise compared to what is on the market now.

Not really what this car is about though......

Perhaps because they were soft off the line and used slow shifts? Massive difference between a 4,500 rpm launch with clutch slip (never letting the rpm fall below 4,500 rpm) and a 2,000 rpm launch with no slip.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...l-test-review/

According to the 2017 C&D test above, 0-60 with an abusive launch was 6.2s. The “soft-launch” 5-60 time was 7.2s.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ru-brz-review/

In an older C&D road test (above), they reported a 0-60 time of 6.3s and a 5-60 time of 8.0s. However, it had the same 95 mph trap speed. Big difference between a hard and soft launch in this car.

When applying those numbers to real life driving, know that magazines also DA adjust their times. I believe C&D adjusts to a lower ambient temp than R&T or MT. That is often why their cars seems quicker.

In the end, my favorite metric is quarter mile trap speed. I think that number provides the best reflection of on-the-road power. And yes, this car is not about brutal power. It's about driving. We all know Colin McRae's quote, "Straight roads are for fast cars, turns are for fast drivers."
This car is for fast drivers.

[Blighty]

Originally Posted by bcj

A lot of the European and Asian reviews are all in Kph.

100 Kph = 62.1371 Mph

So there's that too.
Straight line bench racing applied to a vehicle tuned for corner performance.

Obviously Needs More Power!

European reviews???

Where are these!

[cjd]

Originally Posted by LLYNCES

What I don't really understand is why they claimed the old cars went 0-60 in over 7? I was hitting a mid 6 second 0-60 time in the manual GT86. I know the two AT's I owned were definitely above 7 though.

I'm sure under perfect conditions on the right surface a time in the high 5's will be do-able if the car can really hit 60mph in 2nd. That being said; still relatively slow straight line speed-wise compared to what is on the market now.

Not really what this car is about though......

Eh. Granny shifting?
The last car I had was rated at a 16.1sec 1/4mile according to the magizines, if memory serves. Stock trim and all. I've been to a drag strip once in my life with that car. I found a 15.4 - stock trim. Now... I admit I had adjusted the shocks and maybe the magazine didn't, but that's a huge difference. My car also put nearly as much HP to the wheels as it was rated at the crank from the factory... also stock except an aftermarket air filter. So maybe I lucked out with an anomaly. Or maybe the official numbers weren't given much of a try. I don't know.
Regardless... I stopped caring about factory numbers because they were likely worst case scenarios and who knows... Also they don't help me enjoy the drive...