0-60?

[SimonsMerc]

What's the best way to measure "real world" 0-60 performance? With my new-found power (see other thread) I decided I wanted to know how fast this car can push itself to the magic 60mph - here is what we did:

- Carried out on a flat piece of empty 'A' road at 3am with no other cars around
- Two people in the car (my cousin and myself)
- Car had about half a tank of diesel, and no other loading
- Tomtom 3 was used to calibrate speedometer (cruise control set at an indicated 63mph is true 60mph on GPS)
- Passenger says "go" and starts stopwatch, driver floors the gas
- Driver says "stop" at indicated 63mph and passenger stops stopwatch

We did six runs, going back to the same start point each time to eliminate variables.

7.42 seconds - fastest time
7.73 seconds - slowest time

We also did six runs without the tuning box

8.32 seconds - fastest time
8.64 seconds - slowest time

Do these sound like realistic numbers? Ok I know it's not scientific, but it was fun to do Can the increase from 192 - 244bhp really have knocked about a second off the 0-60 time?

-simon

 

[GrahamC230K]

Sounds about right. A few of us did a similar (un)accurate test a while back.

I achieved a figure I was very happy with, but did have the ability to drop the clutch at 4000rpm as I have a manual, resulting in a start like you have just been shunted by a lorry

A quote from the original thread:

The things we do for Greg on a Sunday......


I think we all accept we are comapring by crude measurement (apart from Maff) but here goes.

I did one run. Full tank of fuel, road actually had slight incline (doh!), just me driving.

I figured if I dipped the clutch as I past approx 62 mph instead of changing to 3rd I could operate the stopwatch on my phone in my cradle. Worked easily really.

I dumped the clutch at 4000rpm (hence only one run!). The 245's did a good job and mostly held traction. Holding onto 2nd into my newly avilable rev range (from the remap) up to 6500rpm I stopped the clock as I passed 60 mph. Allowing for reaction and knowing by GPS I only over read by 3mph at 60mph, I think I timed to an actual 60mph as good as can be expected with such crude techniques!

The time: 6.8 secs.

You have more BHP for sure, a car which is a little heavier and an auto.

From your description, it sounds like you were just flooring the gas from idle, which easily accounts for the slower time.

If you were to hold the car on the brakes, raising the revs with your other foot to launch the car (very un-automatic friendly) I expect you would get a much better time.

Very well done though.

 

[R2D2]

Didnt we have a table of results for chipped and unchipped cars? I'll try and find it again.

 

[R2D2]

found it!
OK the brochure claims are in black with dynoed and modified cars in Red

C180 122bhp 12sec man/13/sec auto top speed 120mph

c220cdi 125bhp 10.5/10.8 auto top speed 123mph

c200 136bhp 11sec man/11.5sec auto top speed 124mph

C200 136bhp 10.4 sec Auto Pluggers

C200 with K &N 142bhp 9.9sec Pluggers with k&N

C200 chipped 95ron fuel 9.7sec

C200 chipped, k and N and 99ron fuel 150bhp 9.4sec auto Top Speed 137mph R2D2 (Best ever time was 8.4? (Fluke!)

c250td 150bhp 10.2/9.9auto topspeed 126mph

c240 170bhp 9.9auto top speed 135mph

c230k 193bhp 8.4sec man/8.4 sec auto top speed 143mph

C230k chipped 197bhp 6.8 manual top speed 146mph Graham230k

c280 197bhp 8.5 auto top speed 144mph

C55AMG Chipped 500bhp 4.8sec auto Top Speed 180mph

Edited. Updated figures.

 

[glojo]

GPS can surely only work out average speeds. Is it accurate enough for a 0 - 60mph calculation?

I would find out where your local authority has its calibrated mile measurement.

Cover the mile at an indicated speed of 60mph. Find out how long it took, there will be a difference. If it takes 63 seconds then you are really travelling at ABOUT 58mph so you will know that you need to time yourself until the speedometer actually shows at least 62mph.

These figures are approximate, but very relevant at higher speeds. Look at the difference between 0 - 60 and 0 - 62.5mph. They are significant.

Good luck,
John

P.S. Plodd might be able to help on measured times and distances

 

[jimmy]

As Graham has mentioned, the best start in terms of speed (but not gearbox!) for an auto is to switch off the ASR, left foot gently on the brakes and accellerate with the right foot, raise the revs until the rear wheels start spinning and the car is being held on the front brakes. Then release the brakes and floor it. Takes a bit of practice in balancing the brake effort against the power.

Results in a real fast getaway, plenty of tyre and exhaust smoke and lots of fun.

** WARNING ** Do this at your own risk, not too good for the gearbox, don't do it more than a couple of times without allowing the ATM fluid to cool.

Do you find the tuning box made it smoke more? When I fitted one I used to get plumes of smoke, now with the Superchip I hardly see any. Admittedly the peak power does not feel as high as with the tuning box but lower torque and drivability is better.

These are supposed to be good: Gtech Performance Meter

 

[Will]

GPS can surely only work out average speeds. Is it accurate enough for a 0 - 60mph calculation?

Hi John,

I think the idea was to use the GPS at a fixed speed (eg, 60MPH) to check the calibration of the vehicle's speedometer?

Will

 

[SimonsMerc]

GPS can surely only work out average speeds. Is it accurate enough for a 0 - 60mph calculation?

Hi Jon,

Actually I think what I did was pretty accurate. GPS shows you a speed over time. The way it calculates the speed is by the difference in location at a fixed time inteval (depending on the quality of the device this is measured in miliseconds). The more readings, the more accurate the figure. If the speed over time is constant (for instance, with cruise control turned on while on a flat road), the GPS recorded speed will be as close to dead on as you can get.

When I set my cruise control to 63mph and letting it run on a flat road, the GPS was showing me as moving exactly 60mph. I tapped the cruise control up by one, and the GPS shows 61mph. I tap it down again, and GPS goes down to 60mph. I'm happy enough that this was accurate - at least accurate enough for my purposes

-simon

 

[SimonsMerc]

Hi John,

I think the idea was to use the GPS at a fixed speed (eg, 60MPH) to check the calibration of the vehicle's speedometer?

Will

Doh! Yes, I misunderstood John's misunderstanding. What Will says here is exactly what I was doing - just calibrating the speedometer to make sure I don't do 0-57 or something ;-)

-simon

 

[SimonsMerc]

Do you find the tuning box made it smoke more? When I fitted one I used to get plumes of smoke, now with the Superchip I hardly see any. Admittedly the peak power does not feel as high as with the tuning box but lower torque and drivability is better.

Not in the slightest. The engine smokes just a little, mainly on powerful acceleration, like all diesels - but it's very similar with or without the box.

As for driveability - it's just point blank beautiful

-simon

 

[R2D2]

I've just redone mine without the k and n and with normal unleaded instead of super/optimax and got 9.7sec which I will add to the table.

Incidently I once did a 8.4sec with chip, k and n and Optimax, on a red hot bit of road in the middle of last summer. Perfect traction getting away.

I'm currently running a test at the moment, with Tescos 99 ron fuel because I happen to live near one of the few test garages selling the stuff.

BTW. Since running the car without the K and N, which I've sold, the fuel consumption has gone from 25mpg to 27-30mpg. The last tank on 95ron unleaded and a normal airfilter returned 30.5mpg which is excellent. My best on the post K and N test was 33.3mpg!

Edit: once Ive done a couple of tank fulls of Tescos 99ron fuel, I'll report the mpg and performance figures.

 

[glojo]

Hi Jon,

Actually I think what I did was pretty accurate. GPS shows you a speed over time. The way it calculates the speed is by the difference in location at a fixed time inteval (depending on the quality of the device this is measured in miliseconds). The more readings, the more accurate the figure. If the speed over time is constant (for instance, with cruise control turned on while on a flat road), the GPS recorded speed will be as close to dead on as you can get.

That sounds spot on.

Good luck and best wishes,
John

 

[R2D2]

Ive just realised that we have a set of exact dynoed figures for C200 autos with the different mods.

C200 Auto 136bhp MB official brouchure figure for 0-60 =11.5secs
C200 Auto (Pluggers car on Dyno) 136bhp =10.4secs
C200 Auto Pluggers with K and N =9.9secs
C200 Auto R2D2 with only Superchip =9.7secs
C200 Auto R2D2 with both chip and K and N =9.4secs

So chipping and a filter saves you 1 sec on 0-60 but it feels MUCH more drivable but because of all that extra throttle response fuel consumption goes down by at least 10% costing you £4.50 ish a tank of Petrol. So Chip and Filter cost about £350 to fit plus another £200 a year in Petrol (95ron) plus say £30 a year on extra insurance (for me anyway) I hope this helps someone!

 

[minyak]

Speaking of 0-60 times, I wonder if any of you noticed that figures in popular car mags such as autocar and whatcar can differ by 0.5s or more for same make or model...i wonder if these mags tests the car differently, and any of you know how close simon's measuring technique are to these car mags one..!!???

 

[rees_A]

anyone tried a 0-60 test in their C36 AMG??? I've read so many different numbers that I have no idea which one to believe/tell someone if they ask me

 

[R2D2]

I've just redone mine without the k and n and with normal unleaded instead of super/optimax and got 9.7sec which I will add to the table.

Incidently I once did a 8.4sec with chip, k and n and Optimax, on a red hot bit of road in the middle of last summer. Perfect traction getting away.

I'm currently running a test at the moment, with Tescos 99 ron fuel because I happen to live near one of the few test garages selling the stuff.

BTW. Since running the car without the K and N, which I've sold, the fuel consumption has gone from 25mpg to 27-30mpg. The last tank on 95ron unleaded and a normal airfilter returned 30.5mpg which is excellent. My best on the post K and N test was 33.3mpg!

Edit: once Ive done a couple of tank fulls of Tescos 99ron fuel, I'll report the mpg and performance figures.

I just done my first tank of Tescos 99 ron and the results were that the car felt smooth the same as it does with Optimax. Fuel consumption was 31.1mpg which for me is good and the 0-60 was 9.58sec! (slightly damp road)
Second tankful is in, so will report in due course.

 

[mickl]

anyone tried a 0-60 test in their C36 AMG??? I've read so many different numbers that I have no idea which one to believe/tell someone if they ask me

have faith and believe in the lowest

 

[Sp!ke]

I just done my first tank of Tescos 99 ron and the results were that the car felt smooth the same as it does with Optimax. Fuel consumption was 31.1mpg which for me is good and the 0-60 was 9.58sec! (slightly damp road)
Second tankful is in, so will report in due course.

LOL @ 9.58, I'm doing about 140 on my Busa

 

[R2D2]

It must be broken if it takes 140 seconds to get to 60mph. Maybe you ought to sell it and by a C class

 

[RichardM]

Speaking of 0-60 times, I wonder if any of you noticed that figures in popular car mags such as autocar and whatcar can differ by 0.5s or more for same make or model...i wonder if these mags tests the car differently, and any of you know how close simon's measuring technique are to these car mags one..!!???

Doesn't it also depend on whether they test 0-60mph or 0-100kph