Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 To some extend I agree that grip is the limiting factor when power gets higher (such as Brians and Justins car - who you refer to above). However they made a lot of changes that make them far removed from stock. If we're talking stock power here then grip is not such a factor. Sure you could stick some tall wrinkle walls on there like Justin did and get a better time, but then we're getting away from stock road perforance figures which is what the OP is asking about. Still interested in getting the right OEM figures though so if anyone has links to independant roads tests it would help with an FAQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Goughy Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Agreed with both, Grip is an imortant factor but the stock figures would be good to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoooby slayer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 my best so far on 1.6 bar although probably not great for 700 odd bhp but its only my 4th run so far on road tyres on a fully unprepped track, just normal old tarmac. i think i can get it in the 3s on road tyres on unprepped tarmac with some practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 You were doing 5mph at 0 seconds, cheat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathanc Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 my best so far on 1.6 bar although probably not great for 700 odd bhp but its only my 4th run so far on road tyres on a fully unprepped track, just normal old tarmac. http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/scooobyslayer/supra116.jpg i think i can get it in the 3s on road tyres on unprepped tarmac with some practice. wow ... those were some great times... My TTS was quoted 5.5s to 62 stock but with good conditions I managed 5.1s according to onboard lap timer. Now with Stage 1 mapping I've achieved 4.8s. I guess when it comes to milliseconds every other factor really counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 To some extend I agree that grip is the limiting factor when power gets higher (such as Brians and Justins car - who you refer to above). However they made a lot of changes that make them far removed from stock. If we're talking stock power here then grip is not such a factor. Sure you could stick some tall wrinkle walls on there like Justin did and get a better time, but then we're getting away from stock road perforance figures which is what the OP is asking about. Still interested in getting the right OEM figures though so if anyone has links to independant roads tests it would help with an FAQ. Ok, back to stock then. You can't redline a stock supra for a launch. You need to hold it just under the 4krpm mark to get a good launch. The difference between a couple of hundered rpm is the difference between bogging down and spinning up the rears on launch. Fine tuning the RPM that you launch at is obviously where the faster 0-60 times come from. Not telling you anything you don't know, just pointing out my thinking. Anyway, my point is that grip is still the limiting factor as with grippier tyres you can up the launch zone to say 5krpm to get a faster launch. This is my reason for saying grip is the limiting factor in the 0-60 times. Obviously the change into 2nd gear in a stock car won't get much slip so after that, IMO, the time is already set in stone. Now, bring that into the stock 0-60 time listed by toyota. You have managed a 5.5second 0-60 time on UK roads yet apparently Toyota couldn't manage that on their test track? The time from Toyota is a lie IMO and as they are 'official' times the real times will never be official. I firmly believe a stock TT in prime condition will manage a 0-60 time of 5 seconds in totally stock trim in the right conditions.... test conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsData/Toyota-Supra-6-sp/200081/ 5.1 in Autocar I'm guessing they ran the tests themselves as they have a LOT of data on the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Anyway, my point is that grip is still the limiting factor as with grippier tyres you can up the launch zone to say 5krpm to get a faster launch. This is my reason for saying grip is the limiting factor in the 0-60 times. Obviously the change into 2nd gear in a stock car won't get much slip so after that, IMO, the time is already set in stone. Now, bring that into the stock 0-60 time listed by toyota. You have managed a 5.5second 0-60 time on UK roads yet apparently Toyota couldn't manage that on their test track? The time from Toyota is a lie IMO and as they are 'official' times the real times will never be official. Yes, lets talk stock otherwise it's going off topic and we can't have that As mentioned earlier the 5.5 was not on a totally stock car, it had an aftermarket cat back so boost was a little higher at 0.8-0.85 bar. I supose that to answer the OP's orignal question is what is considered as a stock tyre as that seems the only bone of contention. I.e. would an R888 or Pilot Cup count as a valid stock 0-60? Mine was on Goodyear F1's, but again that's not what the car came with in the UK (or Japan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsData/Toyota-Supra-6-sp/200081/ 5.1 in Autocar I'm guessing they ran the tests themselves as they have a LOT of data on the car. Thanks, so that agrees with the OEM figures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Thanks, so that agrees with the OEM figures I'm disagreeing with the Jspec times, not the UKs Interestingly that review also says the wheels are cast? I was always led to believe they were forged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm disagreeing with the Jspec times, not the UKs That's what I thought, but there's no data on the jspec in the article, it only verifies that the UK spec data Toyota state matches the Autocar figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That's what I thought, but there's no data on the jspec in the article, it only verifies that the UK spec data Toyota state matches the Autocar figures. That's my point though, IMO there is no official data on the Jspec as Toyota lied about the performance attributes of it. If it is accepted that the Jspec has the same power as the UK spec then, IMO, it should also be accepted that the performance statistics would be the same or at least incredibly similar. Certainly not 0.6 of a second slower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Note to self (and info for others) - Toyota statement on US product handbook of 180mph unrestricted top speed for 6pd TT - Car and driver TT test 4.6s 0-60 TT 6spd, 6.8s 0-60 NA 5spd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Note to self (and info for others) - Toyota statement on US product handbook of 180mph unrestricted top speed for 6pd TT - Car and driver TT test 4.6s 0-60 TT 6spd, 6.8s 0-60 NA 5spd That's impressive. I'm surprised they managed a mid 4 stock. I've seen that N/A time quoted before, not seen a 4.6 quoted for TT though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 That's my point though, IMO there is no official data on the Jspec as Toyota lied about the performance attributes of it. If it is accepted that the Jspec has the same power as the UK spec then, IMO, it should also be accepted that the performance statistics would be the same or at least incredibly similar. Certainly not 0.6 of a second slower. Until someone can show data otherwise, that is only an opinion I do have some doubts to, but without data it's meaningless to post that in an FAQ. So far what we have found is the UK independant tests for those export models match Toyota figures, some US data is slightly improved. Edit - the 6.8 for the NA mentioned above matches Toyota figures, that's prob why you've seen it before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Until someone can show data otherwise, that is only an opinion I do have some doubts to, but without data it's meanless to post that in an FAQ. So far what we have found is the UK independant tests for those export models match Toyota figures, some US data is slightly improved. Fair enough I guess, putting in known wrong data to a FAQ seems just as meaningless to me though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noz Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I've seen people stating they had high 240's with head work, headers and a load of other shizz that wasn't worth the hassle. People with a healthy motor, double decats and exhaust have been mid 230's so its definitely possible consiering different sources state stock na from 220-225, just shed loads of pennies that could be spent on forced induction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I've seen people stating they had high 240's with head work, headers and a load of other shizz that wasn't worth the hassle. People with a healthy motor, double decats and exhaust have been mid 230's so its definitely possible consiering different sources state stock na from 220-225, just shed loads of pennies that could be spent on forced induction. You said earlier that most manage 250 at BPU levels? I must admit to seeing VERY few 230hp N/As and none of them have been at the Dyno's that we accept as a baseline figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I've seen people stating they had high 240's with head work, headers and a load of other shizz that wasn't worth the hassle. People with a healthy motor, double decats and exhaust have been mid 230's so its definitely possible consiering different sources state stock na from 220-225, just shed loads of pennies that could be spent on forced induction. Again, without data it's meanless, I've never seen an NA above 226bhp at the trusty SRR dyno and that was one with quite some work done to it. Most NA's there get between 205 and 215bhp at the flywheel when completely stock (loss is propably just wear and tear) The Toyota factory figure for the NA was 220bhp, that is one thing all OEM sources I've found are consistent on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 You were doing 5mph at 0 seconds, cheat I hardly think that's the main problem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noz Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 i had stock bhp and ive only a whifbitz exhaust and decat so im surprised, but true not to listen without proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 i had stock bhp and ive only a whifbitz exhaust and decat so im surprised, but true not to listen without proof The problem is that stock BHP on one dyno can equal -20hp on another dyno or even +20hp on another. This is the reason SRR is often mentioned. It's not to say it's spot on... it's just the bar that we use. The measuring stick if you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoooby slayer Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 You were doing 5mph at 0 seconds, cheat i have set up my g tech so as its accurate or showing slower speeds and times when compared to a santa pod time slip, which means i have to set up the gtech with a 12" rollout that showed a 12.4 1/4 mile at 121 mph when i actually done it in 12.29 at 122 mph, when i ran it at 0" rollout at santa pod my 12s 1/4s were recording as 13s on a time slip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kill1308 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I've seen varying 0-60's on documentation, the most common figures I've seen to 60mph are 4.7 and 4.9 for a TT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Supra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny g Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 The problem is that stock BHP on one dyno can equal -20hp on another dyno or even +20hp on another. This is the reason SRR is often mentioned. It's not to say it's spot on... it's just the bar that we use. The measuring stick if you will. And that people like Ryan who use chassis dyno's around the country say that it's the best setup/run one around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.