Speed Figures. Surprised if true answer is known

[kwakdonut]

Many Thanks

You learn something new every day - even on a Sunday!!!

 

[Howard]

Well, how very nice for you! I hope your ring isn't too big.....lol

WTF , where did the quote in your post come from ?

 

[timskemp]

WTF , where did the quote in your post come from ?

some spammer, mods have zapped them I think.

 

[cjab98]

I can believe it, like manufacturer's fuel consumption figures which are always a load of ********.

The consumption figures may be a load of, but they have a standard drive cycle that all manufacturers adhere to, so at least it gives you comparable figures when looking at two different cars. Fuel consumption varies so much from one driver to another that you cant give realistic figures for everyone, the importance of having a standard test is for customers to be able to compare different cars. Adjust your driving style if you wish to save fuel, you will gain a lot more doing that rather than buing a car that officially does 0.5mpg better while keeping the same driving style.

As far as I know, the 0-60 times aren't a standard controlled test, so manufacturers can quote whatever they like as they arent legally required to show where the data came from.

 

[maddog]

If you have an i-phone you can download some decent software to work out the vehicles power and acceleration

http://r3gister.org/2008/09/04/apple-iphone-the-ultimate-petrolhead-device-with-dynolicious/

From my calculations using a stopwatch and gps my 320cdi seemed a little better than some figures i've seen.

I've read 0-60's from 8.5 to 7.8 i'm not sure what the quoted figure actually was but 7.8-7.9 seemed repeatable in my experience on all but the hottest of summer days

 

[gaz_l]

You are correct about the lack of sympathy when testing, they just push the car as hard as possible to get the best run.

I remember a reader writing in to ask Steve Sutcliffe, I think it was, "What's the best way to get a good 0-60 time?"

His reply was simple: "Give your car to a motoring journalist". They don't have to pay for the new clutch when it pops..

Cheers,

Gaz

 

[flango]

Confused



I am a little confused what we are comparing here? is it

1. A 1999 3.0 V6 petrol Omega Vs A 2002 E320 cdi Estate or
2. A 1999 3.0 Diesel Omaga Vs A 2002 E320 cdi Estate

I didn't think they fitted a 3.0 diesel in the Omega of that year thought it was the 2.5 TD engine only that was sourced from BMW and also fitted in the Range Rover.

I can answer the question on speed and performance testing though as I have tested cars for Performance Car and several other magazines.

Performance tests are done with only one on board and a host of automatic test equipment, auto timing device, g meters etc, the final figure is usually an average of 10 runs 5 in either direction usually on an airfield test facility.

As quite rightly pointed out the object of the exercise is to get the fastest 0-60 time so anything goes, high revs, holding the brakes to get a launch effect, these times will always be quicker than the manufacturers 0-60 time.

Manufacturers are required under EU law to show where every statement of data comes from, this includes the 0-60 time which although is not a standard test and does vary from manufacturer to manufacturer most be shown to be representative of the road vehicle to which it applies.

If we can clear up which cars we are comparing I can probably comment further as I have quite a bit of experience with the bigger Vauxhalls that were used by most Police forces in the 90's

 

[ringway]

I am a little confused what we are comparing here? is it

1. A 1999 3.0 V6 petrol Omega Vs A 2002 E320 cdi Estate or
2. A 1999 3.0 Diesel Omaga Vs A 2002 E320 cdi Estate

I didn't think they fitted a 3.0 diesel in the Omega of that year thought it was the 2.5 TD engine only that was sourced from BMW and also fitted in the Range Rover.

I can answer the question on speed and performance testing though as I have tested cars for Performance Car and several other magazines.

Performance tests are done with only one on board and a host of automatic test equipment, auto timing device, g meters etc, the final figure is usually an average of 10 runs 5 in either direction usually on an airfield test facility.

As quite rightly pointed out the object of the exercise is to get the fastest 0-60 time so anything goes, high revs, holding the brakes to get a launch effect, these times will always be quicker than the manufacturers 0-60 time.

Manufacturers are required under EU law to show where every statement of data comes from, this includes the 0-60 time which although is not a standard test and does vary from manufacturer to manufacturer most be shown to be representative of the road vehicle to which it applies.

If we can clear up which cars we are comparing I can probably comment further as I have quite a bit of experience with the bigger Vauxhalls that were used by most Police forces in the 90's

Comparing:

1999 T Reg. Omega 3.0 litre V6 24valve Petrol Elite Estate Auto 96k miles.
2002 02 Reg. E320 CDI Estate 135k miles.

Thanks for the info. I'd be interested in any further comments.

 

[crockers]

Coming back to the OP question - I don't think it makes any difference if you are in normal mode or sport mode if you bury your foot to the floor it will not change up any differently......

Or am I wrong.....

 

[Dieselman]

Or am I wrong.....

Don't think so. It will hit kickdown and rev to the red..

 

[flango]

Coming back to the OP question - I don't think it makes any difference if you are in normal mode or sport mode if you bury your foot to the floor it will not change up any differently......

Or am I wrong.....

Normal mode will give a higher 0-60 time than sport mode, in sport mode the gearshifts are made earlier and the rev limiter range extended to allow for more spirited driving, hence fast 0-60 mph

 

[ringway]

Normal mode will give a higher 0-60 time than sport mode, in sport mode the gearshifts are made earlier and the rev limiter range extended to allow for more spirited driving, hence fast 0-60 mph

Tis indeed a fair bit quicker in sport mode

 

[flango]

Back to the OP and just been looking through my database I think we are comparing the following, although I must admit I don't really know too much about the E320 estate so stand to be corrected and it is not a car I have ever tested so the data for this comes from various sources on the net which seem to agree.

E320 CDi 2002 (assuming its not the new shape)

346 lb/ft torque @2200 rpm
195 bhp
0-60 mph = 8.8 secs
Max Speed 141 mph
Weight 1760 Kg

Omega 3.0 24v Auto Estate ( Manufactures data)

199 lb/ft torque @ 2200 rpm
210 bhp
0-60 mph = 9.5 secs
Max Speed 143 mph
Weight 1725 Kg

Vauxhall Omega 3.0 24v Auto Estate (Performance tested for Police)

212 lb/ft torque@ 3475 rpm
218 bhp
0-60 mph = 8.85 secs
Max Speed 147 mph

As you can see the performance test data is always a lot better than the manufacturers claim. looking at these 2 cars I would expect the E320 to be the faster 0-60 mph but would expect the Omega to have the legs on the 0-100 mph run. I also think the Omega has the sharper handling of the two but my drives in E Class estates have been limited

One thing that did suprise me looking at this data is that when we tested the Omega the braking distance from 50 mph on a dry road with New Tyres was 21.7 metres which is excellent, I have been looking on the net for info on the Merc and the concensus seems to be a stopping distance of around 29 metres which is about 30% worse than the Vauxhall, now I'm not 100% sure I have the correct Merc but a 30% difference would suggest the Merc was possibly running rear drum brakes? as opposed to the Omega's all round disc. Is this the case, or have I got the wrong Merc or is the brake performance really that bad ? I am now intrigued so if anyone knows the 2002 E320 cdi estate intimately I would be grateful if they could fill in the gaps in my knowledge

with thanks
Ian

 

[ringway]

Back to the OP and just been looking through my database I think we are comparing the following, although I must admit I don't really know too much about the E320 estate so stand to be corrected and it is not a car I have ever tested so the data for this comes from various sources on the net which seem to agree.

E320 CDi 2002 (assuming its not the new shape)

346 lb/ft torque @2200 rpm
195 bhp
0-60 mph = 8.8 secs
Max Speed 141 mph
Weight 1760 Kg

Omega 3.0 24v Auto Estate ( Manufactures data)

199 lb/ft torque @ 2200 rpm
210 bhp
0-60 mph = 9.5 secs
Max Speed 143 mph
Weight 1725 Kg

Vauxhall Omega 3.0 24v Auto Estate (Performance tested for Police)

212 lb/ft torque@ 3475 rpm
218 bhp
0-60 mph = 8.85 secs
Max Speed 147 mph

As you can see the performance test data is always a lot better than the manufacturers claim. looking at these 2 cars I would expect the E320 to be the faster 0-60 mph but would expect the Omega to have the legs on the 0-100 mph run. I also think the Omega has the sharper handling of the two but my drives in E Class estates have been limited

One thing that did suprise me looking at this data is that when we tested the Omega the braking distance from 50 mph on a dry road with New Tyres was 21.7 metres which is excellent, I have been looking on the net for info on the Merc and the concensus seems to be a stopping distance of around 29 metres which is about 30% worse than the Vauxhall, now I'm not 100% sure I have the correct Merc but a 30% difference would suggest the Merc was possibly running rear drum brakes? as opposed to the Omega's all round disc. Is this the case, or have I got the wrong Merc or is the brake performance really that bad ? I am now intrigued so if anyone knows the 2002 E320 cdi estate intimately I would be grateful if they could fill in the gaps in my knowledge

with thanks
Ian

The 320cdi I have is discs all round.
I would have to say though that the brakes on the Omega a very very good.

 

[ringway]

This is why I started the thread!

The 320cdi I have is discs all round.
I would have to say though that the brakes on the Omega a very very good.

The figures you quote above are the reason I started the thread.

They show that the 320cdi is quicker than the Omega and that is not true.

Also the figures for the Omega are miles out. I reckon around 7 - 7.5 secs for the Omega in sport mode.

Can anyone really see the police running around in a car that does 0.60 in 9.5 seconds and burning huge amounts of gas at the same time?
I don't think so. This is why I started the thread in the first place.
Those are the fugures quoted pretty much everywhere, and they are not accurate.

 

[flango]

The figures you quote above are the reason I started the thread.

They show that the 320cdi is quicker than the Omega and that is not true.

Also the figures for the Omega are miles out. I reckon around 7 - 7.5 secs for the Omega in sport mode.

Can anyone really see the police running around in a car that does 0.60 in 9.5 seconds and burning huge amounts of gas at the same time?
I don't think so. This is why I started the thread in the first place.
Those are the fugures quoted pretty much everywhere, and they are not accurate.

I would agree with you there if you look at the 3.0 24v Omega Saloon which we also tested book figure 0-60 mph = 8 secs our test figure 6.9 secs, I would say Vauxhall data always errs on the side of caution and they never overstate their data, same is true of Ford but to be fair they probably don't launch their car of the line as most performance testers do.

Still intrigued why the massive difference in 50-0 mph time of the cars though, thought that in 2002 Merc would surely not be fitting drums, but the performance is miles down compared to the Omega

 

[ringway]

I would agree with you there if you look at the 3.0 24v Omega Saloon which we also tested book figure 0-60 mph = 8 secs our test figure 6.9 secs, I would say Vauxhall data always errs on the side of caution and they never overstate their data, same is true of Ford but to be fair they probably don't launch their car of the line as most performance testers do.

Still intrigued why the massive difference in 50-0 mph time of the cars though, thought that in 2002 Merc would surely not be fitting drums, but the performance is miles down compared to the Omega

Maybe there was a halfway point in the spec and my model got the discs all round.

I hope that the 50-0 figure isn't for my disc all round model!

 

[flango]

I hope that the 50-0 figure isn't for my disc all round model!

I wouldn't have thought so, would expect it to be <25m for all round discs + ABS at around 1750 Kg

 

[219]

All Mercedes-Benz cars have had all-round discs since the late 1960's , although a drum parking brake has been retained in addition to disc service brakes .

Also , with Mercedes-Benz automatics , as long as the accelerator is held in kickdown position , you will achieve maximum revs in each gear and it will make no difference to acceleration time whether the switch is in 'S' (standard) mode or 'E' ( economy ) . The switch only affects part throttle gear changes which will occur earlier in 'E' mode .

If you do wish to get away a little quicker from standstill in your Merc without using full throttle , just select 'L' (low) or '2' at standstill : this causes the car to select the normally unused first gear and makes a big difference to the step off - let it get past the first gearchange into second before changing up on the selector and it will do quite nicely .

 

[timskemp]

Also the figures for the Omega are miles out. I reckon around 7 - 7.5 secs for the Omega in sport mode.

Can anyone really see the police running around in a car that does 0.60 in 9.5 seconds and burning huge amounts of gas at the same time?
I don't think so. This is why I started the thread in the first place.
Those are the fugures quoted pretty much everywhere, and they are not accurate.

IIRC the omega is a 4 speed and has a tall first gear, it's not fast off the line (I remember you couldn't get the rear wheels to spin on the 2.6 on dry tarmac)

As for the police - they're more interested in being able to keep up in a motorway chase, standing starts are not a priority. And remember who pays for their fuel. In fact having owned a turbo Volvo I think you'll find fuel economy at 150mph is kind of an irrelevance...