ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.

Hmm, 0-60....on a quick clio



  Fiat Coupe 20v turbo


Just noticed Nick Reads times on his profile - 5.57 0-60 and 14.05 1/4 mile....now knowing that 2live has run 14.07 with a better launch/ 60ft time than Nick but a slower terminal. This points to the 0-60 time on 2lives or indeed Adam_16vs motor being sub 5.57!!! Which seems feckin quick for a fwd! TimOs R-sported and stripped Cup runs similar/slightly quicker times as well....so what were people saying about Clios not being able to get sub 6sec 0-60 times?
 
  BMW 320d Sport


Hmmm, well not wanting to take anything away from my drag strip rivals, cos they are bloody great quarter mile times and wicked drivers, but quarters cant be taken as a direct comparison with 0-60s. There is a link, but not a direct one.

For example, scooters are sh*t, but theres one that does 13s every time at Santa Pod and it tops out at 70 or something. It seems weird but the ability to cover a fixed distance is not the same as acceleration capability. In actual fact the terminal speed of a car is a fairly good pointer as to how powerful it is, rather than the ET. Theres a big difference between crossing the line at 98 and crossing it at 102 because that last few mph is what is the hardest to achieve.

What you have to remember is that my quarter mile times - and my 0-60s -are done on everyday 205/40/17 low profile road tyres with stiff sidewalls. Running standard 15s with standard profile tyres makes an appreciable difference in launch because there is more give in them, and acceleration because you have lower gearing. Also since the Santa Pod times which were mailto:14.1@100mph">14.1@100mph, mine was remapped again but then by the time I was running at York the exhaust and turbo were blowing in at least two places and the boost had been turned down and it still crossed the line at 102mph. In fact one slip that I had was almost 104mph terminal speed. So, not wanting to claim something that wasnt true, but if everything had been running right, full boost available and mapped, all the joints tight and not losing pressure, and crucially, running on the stock 15s, I would have thought I would be in the mid 13s maybe up to 110mph...It had only been a couple of weeks before, with the boost turned down but no blowing from the turbo, that it ran the 5.57 at Donny South.

Anyway, if you want a much more direct comparison, what you need to compare is 0-60 and 0-100. There is a pretty clear correlation. Mine will do 0-100 in something like 13.8 seconds - on 17s. A tuned Williams wont. Its hard to time until you can actually achieve over 100mph at the line but at a guess if the Willys were talking about are hitting terminals of 97-98mph in the low 14s, then youd be looking at a minimum 0-100 into the 15s if not the 16s. Bear in mind the book figure on a Williams is something like 21 seconds.

The Willys were talking about have not had proper timed 0-60 runs so I guess until they do, we wont know. But I would expect something in the mid 6s to be honest. But one way or the other, they are damn quick, theres no denying that.

As far as Scoobies go, my actual target has always been to out-drag a Scooby whether on the road or on the track. I cant imagine it would be that hard.
 


Still astonished you havent put a 2.0 Willy lump in yet Nick!?

imo Adams and Jons cars should be running high 5.8 say or very low 6s to 60mph too

[Edited by TheJesus on 19 September 2004 at 1:51pm]
 
  172 Exclusive


But the N/A cars get better traction at the launch so it is possible for them to get a good 0-60 time they have not got the all out power to beat the turbos to 100 but then thats where driveability of the N/A cars comes into play when launching and cornering.

I can believe that there are a few n/A clios on here that will get sub 6 to 60
 


id find it hard to believe that a tuned willaims with the standard rev limiter will hit a sub 6 0-60. a chipped one i think will achieve that pretty easily. to be fair though an unchipped one is still going to be low 6s
 


Dean,the two cars in question are both runnin uprated ECUs and increased rev limits, 2 lives i know for sure revs higher.
 


got to be honest mate, having seen a few of em on the road, especially craigs i dont doubt they are posting ridiculously quick 0-60s for FWD cars lol. craigs is still standard limit of 6.5 and that flys off at silly speed lol. i know that witha mk1 172 thats slightly modded he sticks with it till 2nd gear(lol) then tares of. now if we say thats doing a 7 second 0-60 then he is going to be low 6s if not lower. All circumstantial i admit and i personally dont doubt for one minute the times these guys are saying.
 
  BMW 320d Sport


Well everyone can have their opinion on it but to be honest I just dont think a Williams will do 0-60 in under 6. You need to be running 200bhp plus to do that in a Clio.

If someone does a proper timed run in a Willy like the ones they did this year at Bruntingthorpe for FCS, at Donny South, or at Trax, and it comes out under 6 then Ill eat my words. BTW the reason I dont have a WIlly lump in mine is cos mine is a slightly overbored valver block with low compression pistons, so chucking that all away to put a Willy lump in would be a bit of a waste of time.

Snufty, its not the NA cars that can get good traction at the launch, its the cars on 15" wheels that can get good traction! It just happens that the Willys what we are talking about run 15s and the turbo Clio that we are talking about runs 17s.
 
  BMW 320d Sport


Another point is that 0-60 runs and front wheel drive are just not suited to each other. 0-60 is all about the launch and there comes a point where it doesnt matter how much power you have, you cannot get to 60 that much quicker. I honestly cant see how any fwd Clio could get into say, the 4s. Although Im gonna have a damn good try. Its just physics! Just when you want maximum traction off the line, the very action of moving forward takes weight off your front wheels and onto the back. The complete opposite of what you want! However over 0-100 that isnt so much of a problem because the actual launch is not such a great proportion of the entire run. Hence when they do ultimate performance testing 0-100-0 is the one, not 0-60-0.

Another interesting point is that whenever Ive raced against Jon (2 Live) side by side, so same conditions, same drag strip, whether or not Im in front of him at the line, my ETs are always a few tenths better and terminals a few mph higher and I dont even think Im as good a driver as him.
 
  BMW 320d Sport


No, much worse. Traction off the line on a fwd car is all about letting the tyres dig in and go. Low profile tyres with stiff sidewalls are just about the worst possible thing for that - you have to run relatively high pressures to keep the rims from rolling along the ground, there is very little squash or twist when you need to get off the line, instead you just get wheelspin. At a much smaller scale imagine a radio control car and how crap it would be off the line if you put hard, slippery rollerskate wheels on it instead of soft rubbery normal ones. IT would just spin up unless you were very careful with your throttle, which is exactly what mine does. However I had no difficulty launching a standardish 16v at Bruntingthorpe, just a chirp from the tyres and off it went.
 


You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!
 


Quote: Originally posted by ALLWOOD on 19 September 2004


You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!







how to make friends and influance people :D
 


Quote: Originally posted by ALLWOOD on 19 September 2004


You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!








Somebody actually signed up to post that lol sounds like theyve had a bad experience:D

but I totally agree theres more Williams around now than 5 years ago!
 
  BMW 320d Sport


LOL ALLWOOD no Willys might not be able to keep up with Porsches or TVRs, or even 172s or CTRs as standard. But tuned ones are quick, and theyre light as well. I wouldnt say they have a dated chassis at all. Theres a reason why people still drive 205 GTis and Willys and its because sometimes a manufacturer gets something just right, it makes no difference how old the car is, a Willy is still a great drive, whatever you try and kid yourself that its not. Yes it has poor aerodynamics by todays standards...but what exactly is the point of even saying that? Of course it has - because its an old car derrr. Its like saying that a R5 turbos old fashioned because it uses a carb and pushrods - yes it is, and so what? If you wanna drive around in a bubble car then thats your business.
 
  20VT Clio & 9-5 HOT


Quote: Originally posted by ALLWOOD on 19 September 2004<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=white size=2>You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!</SPAN>



Another anus on the boards (or someone who has registered az new name by the looks of it to hide their identity ;))!

as for porches! i had a blast with a carerra 4 a while back, i found out that a carerra 4 does the 1/4 in 13.9 and thats with rear wheel drive traction off the line! if i can do it in 14.1, then i think from a rolling start as the case was there shouldnt be a lot in it! is this not true?

Tuned willy lumps arent the fastest things on the roads, but they are bloody quick considering! At the moment i cant afford anything any quicker, more expensive so for now im happy having as much fun as possiblw tiht he clio :D
 


Quote: Originally posted by ALLWOOD on 19 September 2004


You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!


OK, what ever trev
 
  20VT Clio & 9-5 HOT


and as for 0-60, mines defo not under 6, especially with the 3 gear changes (altho thats soon to be sorted) but id say low to mid 6s best. it was timed at 6.8 when the engine was pretty much standard.
 


Quote: Originally posted by ALLWOOD on 19 September 2004


You williams lot are so up yourselfs you would have yourselves believing that you can keep up with the likes of porshes and tvrs when infact your dated cars cant realisically keep up with 172s and type rs standard! At the end of the day its a dated car with a dated chassy, engine and poor aerodymanics by 2days standards and above all they look more or less like the 1.8s and ther are sh*t loads of them rolling around!
dude, your so lame. a standard williams would eat a porka turbo. lol
 
  williams and trophy


lol............anyone remember the guy in the 968 at york??......he was pissed off he kept losin to me.......3 times..then took 1/2 his trim out n raced adi....he went home after that lol



cant beat porkas huh lol

as for 0-60s........well i had mine timed at 7.01 at brunters...but was 6.7 at york........both with std rev limit........now it hits 60 in 2nd gear.......i dunno...but low 6s at least i reckon now......altho mine does seem to have the ability to do nicks off the line n to the 1st 1/8 mile.....he catches me pretty quik in the last 1/8th........so if nick can do 5.8s or woteva it was........dont reckon me n craig will be far behind.....and tims cup....its the top end where nicks kicks its heels up.......60-100 would be a difrent story i reckon......1 to find out at a later date mate i think lol
 
  Fiat Coupe 20v turbo


Hmm, forgot about Adams_16vs extra gearchange but I reckon if you can crack 0-98 in low 14 secs at least 8.5 secs of that is gonna be taken getting from 60-98mph.Work it out... Well Im not fussed if they can crack 6 secs myself I just thought its damn quick especially for a FWD.
 
  Fiat Coupe 20v turbo


Judging by some of the other times Snufty, you would deffo of pulled a sub6 sec 0-60!!;) Zetec-S 7.1 secs WTF!?
 
  172 Exclusive


But saying that mate them zetec engines hav alot of potential.

Im not entirely sure if my rev limit allows me to hit 60 in 2nd gear or not cos its raised but right on the 60 mark on the speedo
 
  172 Exclusive


Thats the same as mine so i would think that its still just before 60 i will have to get it timed one day.
 


r5s may have pushrods and carbs,

hasnt stopped alot of them runnin very fast times, 13s, and now we have about 4-5 people who can run 12s

not bad for 1.4 ;)
 
  FN2 Type R +MK6 Golf


The z-tec in question could of been a puma conversion,we dont know...theres quite a few running about like that

ian
 
  Nippy white cup


I have a short vid of me doing a run at York. The car aint running right at the mo but the 0-80 seems ok...although I was only running 14.4s on the day, it was clearly running out of oomph higher up (which is were it usually really flies) I have it at home but Jon(jesus) has it..can you post it m8?

Chris
 


Chris, normally I would do pal, but I came home Friday only to switch on my PC and the HDD fail... wont even spin up to allow me to get the data off it... :(

on the bright side I now have two 250GB Hard disks on order :devilish:. Ill hit the old one with a hammer and see if it will spin long enough for me to get some stuff off it pal.
 


Quote: Originally posted by FlamingMonkey on 20 September 2004


Quote: Originally posted by TheJesus on 20 September 2004


Ill hit the old one with a hammer and see if it will spin long enough for me to get some stuff off it pal.
Jesus Saves !



it sometimes works... not had to do it on my own PC, but I have no problem hitting works HDDs with a hammer :D
 
1

172beast



Quote: Originally posted by DeanRSi on 19 September 2004
got to be honest mate, having seen a few of em on the road, especially craigs i dont doubt they are posting ridiculously quick 0-60s for FWD cars lol. craigs is still standard limit of 6.5 and that flys off at silly speed lol. i know that witha  mk1 172 thats slightly modded he sticks with it till 2nd gear(lol) then tares of. now if we say thats doing a 7 second 0-60 then he is going to be low 6s if not lower. All circumstantial i admit and i personally dont doubt for one minute the times these guys are saying.


Slighty modded lol Ive only got a panel filter! Not a lot in it till 60 though thats for sure then Svens Ambrosia takes off, seriously quick after 60.
 
  BMW 320d Sport


ralph - yeah thats what I mean, just cos an R5 runs an old fashioned engine design doesnt mean its sh*t, tuned 5s are still quicker than tuned Clios in general

Jon - you almost always get off the line quicker than me, and then I reel you in like a prize carp, sometimes I get over the finish in front, sometimes behind. So the bottom line is youre the better driver, and my Clios quicker. I keep thinking you cant get any faster but you seem to be able to every time you go quarter miling!

I think everyones being pretty realistic here, 6s is what a tuned Willy will achieve.
 


Top