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.
V6 Quarter Mile Times
- Thread starter wrx-172
- Start date
Ok...
http://www.supercarsite.net/clio_sport_v6.htmwww.supercarsite.net/clio_sport_v6.htm (mk1) 14.7
http://www.supercarsite.net/03_clio_sport_v6.htmwww.supercarsite.net/03_clio_sport_v6.htm (mk2) 14.3
Nippy white cup
Matt managed a 14.4 without nos iirc...
Chris
14.5 secs or there abouts to 1/4 mile is respectable for a standard car! As you can see theres only 4/10ths of sec between the mk1 and mk2 to 1/4 mile... no drastic improvements as many would believe, mainly the gearing on accelleration to 60 has been improved on the mk2, but its a bit heavier than the mk1 so the extra 25bhp is lost in the added weight.. ...and I dont feel the extra 10 grand at the moment warrants the purchase of the mk2. With a good launch I doubt there would be much between them over the finish line. Both stunning cars tho.
http://www.supercarsite.net/clio_sport_v6.htmwww.supercarsite.net/clio_sport_v6.htm (mk1) 14.7
http://www.supercarsite.net/03_clio_sport_v6.htmwww.supercarsite.net/03_clio_sport_v6.htm (mk2) 14.3
Quote: Originally posted by philis on 24 June 2004
http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htmhttp://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm
ohh.. thats a bit odd.. comparing the V6 and 172 (with the times on this link) the 172 is faster by 2 tenths on there to 1/4 mile? Must have been a learner driver.
Quote: Originally posted by Zonda on 24 June 2004
Quote: Originally posted by philis on 24 June 2004
http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htmhttp://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm
ohh.. thats a bit odd.. comparing the V6 and 172 (with the times on this link) the 172 is faster by 2 tenths on there to 1/4 mile? Must have been a learner driver.
Id take those times on that site with a pinch of salt because so many are wrong..
Simon.
Re the question of how a car can post a terminal speed in the 90s and yet take 2 or 3 seconds more to hit 100...pretty obvious really - the last bit of the quarter mile where the terminal speed is recorded is the hardest work for the engine. Youve got full traction, in probably 4th gear, foot flat on the floor, fighting against more drag in air and rolling resistance than on any other part of your run. Thats why it takes a few seconds to do the 90-100 stretch, whereas the 0-60 could be over in say 6 or 7 seconds.
To take mine as an example, mine does 0-100 in 14.2 sec. Itll quarter mile in 14.1 @ 99mph. Its doing 80mph in 9 seconds at the 1/8 mile mark. Therefore the extra 20mph in acceleration and 1/8 mile takes another 5 seconds or so. Even a simplistic division of that 20mph over 5 seconds (assuming a constant acceleration from 80-100) shows it takes 1 second for every extra 4mph. And thats my car that makes around 230bhp/ton and runs low 14s all day long. So with a car that quarter miles in mid-high 14s generally, as a lot of CTR, 172 etc do seem to, its not surprising that even if you cross the line at say 95, itll still be 16 or 17 seconds before you hit 100mph.
Rich-D
ClioSport Club Member
E90 LCI 330d
Yeah, I have the times for 0-30, 0-40, 0-50, etc... so I just looked at the time it took for them to do 90-100.
All those (bar the Cup) were from the April issue of Evo, so same day, same driver, etc... and as comaritive as you can get. The Cup time was from an issue of Evo last year.
Similar threads
