0-100km/h specs provided accurate?

[Cerano]

icic...haha, i don't have much knowledge bout merc engines... maybe will do some reading up..

 

no la

 

only the poor man's entry level engine is turbo/supercharged (:

[Pisces69]

hi all, would like to ask does the specfication of the 0-100km/h timings provided by manufacturers accurate?

==============

 

Take it with a pinch of salt.

 

Most of their timings r very hard to duplicate by the average driver.

 

Even long ago those big car manufacturers overstated their HP ratings simply cos nobody really checked them anyway.

 

It was a good way to impress the buyers & also for the buyers to impress their frens.

[Atonchia]

probably that's why u hear ppl saying car feeling breathless when driving up? haha could be part of reason la since atmospheric pressure is lower.

 

The first turbo and supercharged engines were lupped on aeroplanes to allow higher flying level particularly more than 10,000 ft but pilots can get hypoxic when they go higher so the development of compressed cabin as the turbo or supercharged engines have allow the aircraft to 'breath' better with greater compression.

[Krado]

hi all, would like to ask does the specfication of the 0-100km/h timings provided by manufacturers accurate?

 

Definitely not.

 

Manufacturers always claim super fast times done by a professional test driver on a straight road

 

The same car in your hands on our roads with our traffic will do 0-60-40-50-40-80-100 in 20 minutes.

 

 

[SimonTan]

I think the published time are accurate!

If not those car magazine or enthusiasts will surely complain!

 

 

[Cerano]

it may be slower or faster!

like the C63 can run 4.5 on paper but i believe dragtimes? tested it and it did 4.3

[Pocus]

==============

 

Take it with a pinch of salt.

 

Most of their timings r very hard to duplicate by the average driver.

 

Even long ago those big car manufacturers overstated their HP ratings simply cos nobody really checked them anyway.

 

It was a good way to impress the buyers & also for the buyers to impress their frens.

 

I agree....That's why some Manufacturers stop giving 0-100km/h timing in their specs. In fact most 0-100km/h timing are tested by magazines themselves.

 

Some local dealers are even lazy and given inaccurate specs.

 

eg,

Swift Sport 1.6 Auto and Swift 1.5 Auto. In a popular local Magazine, both 1.6A Sport and 1.5A have the same 0-100 timing or 11.3sec. While test drives have proven that the 1.6A Sport is indeed faster than the 1.5A.

 

How come? Cos Suzuki didn't release the 0-100km/h timing for the 1.6A Swift Sport, and the Magazine just lazily take the timing from the 1.5A.

[Thaiyotakamli]

depends on manufacturer to manufacturer.

 

bmw, mercedes tend to underestimate their own vehicle specs

 

that mean my E250 can hit 6 sec for 0-100??

[Pisces69]

I think the published time are accurate!

If not those car magazine or enthusiasts will surely complain!

===================

 

Complain to who???

 

[Pisces69]

I agree....That's why some Manufacturers stop giving 0-100km/h timing in their specs. In fact most 0-100km/h timing are tested by magazines themselves.

 

Some local dealers are even lazy and given inaccurate specs.

 

eg,

Swift Sport 1.6 Auto and Swift 1.5 Auto. In a popular local Magazine, both 1.6A Sport and 1.5A have the same 0-100 timing or 11.3sec. While test drives have proven that the 1.6A Sport is indeed faster than the 1.5A.

 

How come? Cos Suzuki didn't release the 0-100km/h timing for the 1.6A Swift Sport, and the Magazine just lazily take the timing from the 1.5A.

===============

 

Ya I guess some of those inaccurate details r due to ignorance or laziness.

 

But sometimes they r given to try to impress gundu buyers.

 

Just like those NCAP Stars published by local dealers. Most r not accurate cos those ratings given r for those Europe & US models with much more safety features than what is given in SG models.

 

It can also b considered as misleading the consumers but so far, no action taken.

 

[Pisces69]

that mean my E250 can hit 6 sec for 0-100??

============

 

I think your E250 can do it in only 5.3 sces.

[Ghostrider]

Japan tend to over estimate...the most famous one is the Lancer MR...touted to be a Civic SiR direct competitor...and they quote 0-100 timing....then pple buy liao realised that the actual timing for the car was WAY OFF.

 

So MR end up with unglam names like Millennium Rubbish OR Mechanically Retarded

 

Anyway....just add 1-2 sec to the listed timing....should be ok.

 

But I won't buy a car based on specs....need to test drive lah. Actual feel good more important than spec good.

[Rb26dett]

you can lump a turbo in it to get all the air u want.... think like that would't lose much power

 

 

 

Zzzz... when driving up genting .... you feel your ride struggling with turbo..especially the bigger the worst..

[Zangetsu77]

it may be slower or faster!

like the C63 can run 4.5 on paper but i believe dragtimes? tested it and it did 4.3

 

Yes you are right there. I notice that typically performance cars quote faster 0-100 figures, which are typically achievable with various forms of "launching" only, whereas non-performance models may quote more conservative figures.

 

For example, the Evo X SST has a commonly claimed 0-100 in 4.8s. However, given the turbo-charged nature of the 4B11T engine, there is still turbo-lag btw 1-3K RPM, and practically the 0-100 feels more in the high 5s region at a traffic light with throttle flooring. However, 4.8s is probably achievable if the car can be started with the turbo spooled. I've tried multiple variations in the stock car but never really achieved this reliably due to ECU over-riding and transmission overheating issues. When i was driving the stock car, had difficulty fending off some CTRs, Euro Rs, 335s esp the tuned ones. Tuning did address 90% of the imperfections.

 

In contrast, the V6 SLK350 claims comparable power and torque figures, with a lighter car and traditional automatic transmission, reputed to do 0-100 in 5.4s in the pre-facelift version. Flooring the throttle in the 3.5L V6 gives an instantaneous surge which is not achievable with a turbo-charged 2.0L engine, and honestly this feels like a 0-100 in 5.2s w/o any extra-ordinary efforts like braking and accelerating whilst maintaining revs at 3k rpm and awaiting the traffic light to change color. Nevertheless, the spooled Evo X turbo does provide more surge than the NA 3.5L V6 at higher rpms, once i dragged (for fun) a 500HP STI, and once his revs went up, he pulled away by 5 car lengths within a blink of an eye.

 

To date, GTR is truly the only car that matches the claimed performance figures in the 0-100s, and feels equally fast in real world driving.

 

 

[Kiadaw]

Never ashame to advertise your beloved GT-R Zangetsu? Hehe

 

Anyway, 0-100km/h, or 0-60mph are not really critical unless you intend to launch your car. Most timing are done with launching, & is not very good for your car transmission. The rolling acceleration is more important, as its more "real" world.

 

Also important is not just the power & acceleration, but how it is delivered, when it is delivered. Cars with big turbo tends to lack, & not as responsive as a big cc car, but the pull back effect bigger & more sudden, & some people like this, so don't. Some cars also required high rev to get max torque. SO if you don't floor your pedal, you get nothing. But if you like to rev high, then you may like it.

 

 

[Cerano]

that mean my E250 can hit 6 sec for 0-100??

 

nah cant.

 

probably 0.1 or 0.2 sec diff

[Smartmax85]

I agree....That's why some Manufacturers stop giving 0-100km/h timing in their specs. In fact most 0-100km/h timing are tested by magazines themselves.

 

Some local dealers are even lazy and given inaccurate specs.

 

eg,

Swift Sport 1.6 Auto and Swift 1.5 Auto. In a popular local Magazine, both 1.6A Sport and 1.5A have the same 0-100 timing or 11.3sec. While test drives have proven that the 1.6A Sport is indeed faster than the 1.5A.

 

How come? Cos Suzuki didn't release the 0-100km/h timing for the 1.6A Swift Sport, and the Magazine just lazily take the timing from the 1.5A.

 

 

guess we can never tell for sure. always seen questions on bhp and torque, but not yet on the 0-100 timings. so wondering can ti be replicated even with a professional on a family sedan.

[Zangetsu77]

Haha no la... Just saying the GTR was as fast as claimed. Evo X SST felt slower, and SLK felt faster, and especially in real world driving. Turbo-charged cars requires one to catch the correct revs to draw out the full potential.