Kenny, if you really want to pee the CTR drivers off then do 60-100mph in top gear, if they get under 20 secs ill be amazed
This is a better test of a performance car rather than 60-100 though the gears (around 8 secs but no stopwatch or accurate reading instrumentation, around 12 for top gear 60-100 but also no accurate readings etc).

Tony

 

There's more to a performance car than a torquey engine.Well spaced gear ratios are just as important I reckon and if the CTR benefits from that then fair enough.I personally think potential topspeeds of 160+mph are a waste as you are unlikely to see them and lose out on potential midrange acceleration as a result.On many dedicated sports cars this is an important selling factor though.



You're right though Tony,it would p**s 'em off.

 

So how do you work that out? 60-100mph in top is a good test of torque + gearing but does that make a performance car?

 

Actually it's well under 20 seconds even using a watch to time it.

What a load of horse-poo!

All this proves is torque and so is only relevant to engines with good mid-range. The CTR is mainly top-end (although the iVTEC guarantees around 80% across the range). What this actually proves is that you don't understand the difference between engine types. This is not a test of a performance car at all, it's just something you made up to ensure that the Scooby looks best still.

Laurence
PS TB feel free to respond
PPS All others - remember I'm a Scooby fan, I just don't like inaccuracies

 

Agree with LPitt, all the doubters note that the CTR produces one of the highest torque figures for a 2ltr n/a production car, not only that but as already said it has a very flat curve.

I would be interested to see some official timings between standard WRX and CTR for Tony's so say performance car test.

 

Invite the diesels if you are going to do top gear tests

My best 50-70 in 5th from datalogs was 5 seconds, now it is about 9. Wonder where my torque went? (up the rev range and now it is a different animal entirely )

 

Have to say I'd never driven one of the new breed 'performance diesels' until recently. Talk about impressed!

My last experience of a diesel (apart from a loaner TDI130 Golf for a morning) was a Peugeot 405 diesel which was slower than the ice age. The 'german-non-BMW' diesel I recently drove was incredible!

Ok, so it's nowhere near as 'quick' as my CTR but for torque it's brilliant. You just never seemed to need to drop out of 6th at any time.

Sorry it's OT but just needed to get that off my chest, and no I'm not cosidering a change of car

Laurence

 

Excellent! A stat I can beat you at! I got something in the region of 5-6 seconds when I recently tested 50-70 using the tacho Of course you could just drop a cog

 

Moose,
dont agree with you that the CTR has a very good torque ratio for the engine (cars like the 172 have more torque for a 2ltr N/A engine) and along with cars before that (the 306 gti-6 for instance that provided 142lbs of torque of which 80% was actually available from just over 2000rpm )
Laurence, ingear flexability is acutally about performance, if you have a car that provides all its power at the top end then its not flexable and really badly designed.
You cannot have a "real" performance car without torque, as you have to remember what torque is as on its own, bhp is nothing.
So in the end, what time did you get 60-100mph in 6th then?

Tony

 

wrong, the 172 does not have more torque than the CTR. Go away, do some research and see what 2.0 n/a cars have more than the CTR. I did and its an interesting exercise

once again, the gti-6 (great cars as it is) produces less torque than the CTR, FYI, the torque spread on a CTR is 90% available from 3k onwards.


No idea, I don't own one

 

You need an RA gearbox for 50-70 runs, 2,500rpm in 5th at 2,500 just coming onto turbo. About 2-3seconds in the RA .

 

Moose,
the clio 172 does actually produce more torque than a CTR (196nm of torque in the civic to 200nm of torque in the 172).
Now i could go back to the 80's here and just bring up a 20+ year old engine that produced the same ammout of torque as the ctr (it was a vauxhall unit btw ) so 145lbs isnt actually anything special

Tony

 

yep, missed that one! The clio produces 148lb and the CTR 144. My dodgy mistake aside there are really very few cars in it's class that beat it.

To compare it against cars from previous generations is unfair - emissions testing etc.

If you are saying that 144lb is poor, then you are automatically saying that all bar around 8 n/a 2.0's are poor

 

oh and the ITR results are in!

Finally got around to timing the ITR. From a constant 65 my times to 105 were mid (once) to high (mostly) nines.

Done very scientifically with my stopwatch, have had a big lunch and no number 2's since last night


Oh and Tony, the 60-100 in top was less than 20secs.

 

2,500 rpm (50) to 3,500rpm (70) in 5th

Just had a look at my RR graph (obviously in 4th but has a bit more boost in 5th ) but it looks like 130 lb/ft at 2,500 and 210lb/ft at 3500rpm.

 

Moose,
im not saying that 145lbs of torque is poor but considering that this is what you need to pull in gear then i dont think that there is any chance of many serious performance cars being bothered about the ctr as once in top gear this is all that is going to keep it going
So what time did you get in an ITR then moose?

Tony

 

Actually, I think Tony will generally say that anything on the road is fairly poor unless it's a Scooby or a Peugeot GTi-6

 

I'd love to say 12secs, but I'd be lying

Seemed to vary (me and/or my timing I'm sure) betwen high 18's and low 19's.

Respectable given it's 'old skool' vtec - none of this i-vtec whatever that is. Much easier just to change down 1 or 2 gears though.

 

News just in:

The Leon 1.8T can't keep up 60-100 with my car These high powered FWD's aren't to be underestimated as it would have done reasonable againts a standard scooby. He started off with half his car in front and only ended up about 1.5 car lengths behind between said speeds.

 

a 180hp hatch weighing 1350kg can't keep up with your Scoob?

Wow, that's a shocker

 

Fair point Craig but they would match/beat a standard UK WRX from 60-100. There has also been posts of peeps struggling against them so I was quite chuffed that it presented no significant problem Mrs Moneypenny

 

I tried this out using some data equipment in my 1.6 JDM CTR, but got the speeds all wrong, I measured 55 to 110mph, which was 9.5, not bad as I have to go 2nd to 3rd to 4th.

Will try 60 to 100 sometime this week.

 

I dont see the point about the top gear timing. I agree with lpitt, people here (Tony etc) are missing the point about VTEC engines in that they have to be revved. Ok so you drop a couple of gears and rev the nuts of it, why does that make it less a performance car ? To try and imply it isn't a serious performance car when it is over a second and half faster than a Impreza WRX to 100 is 'plain dumb', who gives a $hit about on paper torque figures ? I'd rather just look at the timings to 100 through the gears, thats wot you do when your on the road trying to get ahead, you don't change into 6th at 50 mph and then try to get to 100 you go through the box revving hard to get ahead.

 

Dugge4,
The point that im trying to make is that its not just about though the gear power that makes a performance car, if you have good in gear power you dont need to down it a gear thus making your life somewhat easier and less tiring (as i get tired of downing the mondeo's gears to get any sort of power out of it but then again i didnt buy it because of its performance )
A demonstration is needed i think
As Kenny pointed out, he had a blast against a SEAT leon 1.8t, ive had a blast against one of these, the difference was i was in 5th from 70mph to virtually out of the gearing in 4th and this guy was going THROUGH the gears and only just caught me! (3/4/5 and possably 6th compared to 5th all the way )
A performance car isnt just rated on how quickly it can get to 100mph, and as for you saying that the WRX is slower than a civic type r.... i think a few owners will disagree with you there (as these cars are capable of reaching 100mph in under 16 secs when run in, in standard form )
If you have to rag your car to get the best from it then well.... and if you have to go down into 3rd gear on a motorway at 70mph then well......
You now know why ive "out grown" hot hatches now

Tony

 

My standard (only exhaust mods) WRX does 100 in 12 way quicker than any CTR .

 

look guys just drop it.

No-one is gonna touch SB's time cos he's the best and his car is the fastest. No matter how quick you go his car will always out perform you and he will out drive you.

Its true, my Mom said so.

Manual timing of these tests is complete tosh. Hardly even gives you a guide!

 

Well there are 8 pages of people that were interested enough in using these 'rough' guides and you'll also note if you take the time to read them that my car is nowhere near the fastest

 

What I'm saying is that your estimated, self-timed, with very unaccurate means 7.5 seconds could very easily be 8.5 or 9 seconds real-time.

Saying things like 'try to run both ways to reduce margin of error' is pointless cos the margin of error on your speedo and of you watching the second hand tick round on your wristwatch are going to be greater. These figures are 100% unreliable

Get it timed properly then you can say 'I'm quicker than x, y and z'.


For starters, your speedo is mechanical I expect. Its not gonna be out by a static 5mph all the way to the top. It doesn't read 5mph when stood still?? Chances are its around 10% out, so to do a slightly more accurate test you need to be 'measuring' 66-110 mph. Agreed? Thats an extra 0.5s straight away for ya, and thats generous as its the top end thats been extended and thats where you're gonna be losing time as theres that old 90mph brick wall I seem to remember hearing of?

Sorry if I'm being an **** but you did say remove as much error as possible

[Edited by juan - 1/20/2003 6:15:18 PM]

 

deadduck, you wouldn't be the grey S2000 around Livingston that failed to pull out any sort of gap from my CTR from 40-120 would you?

On the Livingston private test track of course...

 

Juan I did remove as much error as possible. First of all I didn't use the speedo but rather the rev counter which whilst not fool proof should be more accurate than the speedo. I've got the gear ratio spread sheet if your interested

I activated the stop watch just prior to first measure point and just after the last measure point - thus my time is likely in the region of 59-101mph. I've made several attempts in serval different conditions and roads and my car average around 7.5 seconds. I'd say that taking account of all this its a fairly accurate indication of my cars potential. I'd be very suprised if accurate timing produced a time that was any more than +/- .5 of a second.