Hi guys.
I found a neat little calc. online for 0-60mph times.
Seems pretty accurate.

http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/sixty.shtml

You can also check out this other one. You input a 0-60mph time and it will tell you what the car should run in the 1/4 mile.

http://www.tweak3d.net/videos/calcs/et.shtml


Perfect tools for bench racing.

 

Nice I love these...

 

what's the expected 0-60 for a stageII?

 

These conversions are not particularly accurate when dealing with turbo cars, lag and traction issues.

Craig

 

Craig,

Do you think a turbo car would be slower than these calculators show? Interesting point.


Sharky, do you have any times you can post?

 

High 3 ~ Low 4

 

Interesting...

I ran a legit 7.952 @ 90.25 mph for the 1/8th at the track. It said that my 0-60 was 3.51 sec.

Now, if I put my 3.51 sec into the 1/4 calculator, I get an 11.34 sec 1/4 mile. That is off by a large margin. The actual 1/4 mile that I ran with a 7.952 1/8th was 12.29 secs, not 11.34 sec.

The 0-60 calculation is flawed while the 1/4 mile calculator is rather accurate. A 4.1-4.2 0-60 time will give you a 12.2-12.4sec 1/4 mile time. Right on for a stock 996 turbo.

 

stock turbo is low 4.

 

I don't know how accurate those calculators really are. Says my old Talon should have done a 2.7 second to 60. It was fast (11.3@126), but I don't think it was that fast.

 

Sure thing man...

I have done 10.97 @ 126 and 11.1 @ 128mph so I figure 0- 60 is....

CJV said his car did a 0-60 in 1.9 seconds but using these calcs that means he should run a 7.8 1/4mile?!?!?!?!?

 

I personally would expect a turbo car to produce faster 1/4 mile times than that reflected by its 0-60 foot time because turbo lag and traction problems occur during the first 60 feet. That being said, Im no expert on this issue and others posts seem to suggest otherwise.

Craig

 

Ruiner,

A 3.51 0-60 foot time usually correlates to a 1/4 mile time much faster than 12.29. Porsche rates the stock 996TT at a 12.1 1/4 mile, with a 4.2 0-60. Drop the 0-60 by more than half a second and you should be well into the 11s. I don't understand why your ET was not faster.

Craig

 

Craig, I think that you misread what I said. I was trying to explain that the 0-60mph calculator was highly inaccurate. I did this by putting my actual track times into the equation.

0-60mph time, not 60ft time. BIG difference between the two. Personally, I ran a 1.79 60ft time.

I am no stranger to the 1/4 mile track. I have been doing 1/4 mile runs for the past 5 years or so. What I was saying is that the calculator is wrong for the 0-60 time, wayyyyy wrong. It said that my 0-60 (the calculator) was 3.51 seconds. I do not believe that to be correct; especially since I only have exhaust + 19" HREs (the wheels cancel out the gains from my exhaust because of rotational mass). I then plugged in that 3.51 sec (what the calculator said) into the other calculator and it said that my 1/4 mile was supposed to be in the low 11s which is completely wrong.

Actually, Porsche rates the 1/4 mile time higher than 12.1 sec. It rates higher than what mags are presenting. Typically (in real life), the 996 turbo runs 3.9-4.1 seconds in the 0-60 sprint and 12.2-12.4 in the 1/4 mile; stock that is. I ran a 12.29 in real life and that is rather dead-on with where I should be.

 

I thought you posted that your actual 0-60 was 3.51, with a final ET of 12.29. According to the above quoted post, the 3.51 0-60 time was produced by the calculator. I obviously misunderstood. That explains it. As you observed, a 12.29 for a car with an exhaust and 19in wheels is right on, and the 3.51 0-60 foot time generated by the calculator is off. BTW, a 1.79 60 ft is excellent for a stock 996TT (yes, I am WELL aware of the differences between 60ft times and 0-60 mph times).

Craig

 

There really is no eway to even guess what the 1/4 mile time will be based on ANY other time, whether it be 0 - 60 feet, 0- 60 MPH, 0- 100, etc. I have raced various cars since 1974 and I have had cars that get a bad 0 - 60 time, but beat a car that has a better 0 - 60 times. There are just too many variables, including gearing, power band and wind resistance. The only way that the calculation could even be close to being accurate would be that the final gear ratios to be the same in all gears.