30-70 thread

[TW]Fox said:
The Type R has a high peak power figure at a very high RPM - it does not pull close to this speed over the majority of its rev range.
Click to expand...

You have forgotten one thing with that comment Fox: Gearing :)

Having said that, I do agree with you, the real time is probably around 6 seconds. 5 seconds does seem optimistic.

[TW]Fox said:
Going by these figures for example, a Civic Type-R would murder Matteh's Clio 16v. In the real world, side by side, I bet it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? The CTR blatantly has more power, and isn't that much heavier. And again, the short gearing helps VTEC cars too. In a CTR vs Clio 16v drag race, my money would be on the CTR every time.
 
Last edited:
I've been digging around what I can find and Autocar have the EP3 Type-R down at 5.6 for 30-70.

Other people have "had theirs timed" at about 5.6 too.

If someone can instruct me on how to get a more accurate time with TomTom or another program that will utilise my phones GPS chip I would be more than happy to.

Not everyone has the luxuary but using relevant info sources combined with a video we can come to a happy medium at least. In a controlled lab, these tests wouldn't be 100% accurate and you could stil lget wild results using alsorts of expensive kit so no real need to be pedantic here. It's a bit of fun and education, or at least I would have though it was.

The CTR is a car to be driven by the right person, every little rpm counts and I'm not exactly the best person to demonstate that yet. It is a capable car but then again it's not one tenth off an Elise, that I am sure of.
 
Gibbo said:
Does Eidolon still have a Type-R? Maybe he could time both that and his Elise to see how they compare.
Click to expand...

Having driven the Elise and CTR back to back hundreds of times I can indeed confirm that the CTR is nowhere near as quick as the Elise in *any* situation, not just 30-70. There's a definitely noticable difference between the two 30-70 and I'm not talking .5 of a second or something.
 
Stellios said:
I didnt, its the way the camea was angled as i had to point it upwards. speedos nt 100% accurte anyways :)
Click to expand...

should've caned in the gear instead of changing to to just hit 70 :D

(thats what limiters are for) :o

Be interested to do this on my celica, popping down south today, so will get the missus to video it on GPS.

Hopefully can do it all in 2nd or third, tho suspect a change may be in order.
 
Last edited:
eidolon said:
Having driven the Elise and CTR back to back hundreds of times I can indeed confirm that the CTR is nowhere near as quick as the Elise in *any* situation, not just 30-70. There's a definitely noticable difference between the two 30-70 and I'm not talking .5 of a second or something.
Click to expand...

HI there

I am guessing its likely the autocar time for your car is maybe a little conservative or the person doing the testing did not push the car as hard as they could. If you look at these results all the magazines seem to get slightly different results, which could be down to whole host of reasons. Still one way to give us a better idea would be you timed your Elise and then the CTR. :)
 
Z4m Vid

Ok, here's a vid of the Z4M...

Z4M 30 to 70

From the stopwatch I get 4.579. That was with a passenger holding the phone to the speedo for me & counting up to 75/80.

Tried using my sat nav gps speedo, but the update was too slow. However, it showed the speedo was actaully only about 2mph out at 70...
 
Gibbo said:
I am guessing its likely the autocar time for your car is maybe a little conservative
Click to expand...

You don't think then that the time given for the Civic is perhaps more than a bit optimistic? Come on - it's blatantly obvious thats the situation here. That Civic is being over stated by perhaps up to 2 seconds which in acceleration figures is an absolute age :p
 
[TW]Fox said:
You don't think then that the time given for the Civic is perhaps more than a bit optimistic? Come on - it's blatantly obvious thats the situation here. That Civic is being over stated by perhaps up to 2 seconds which in acceleration figures is an absolute age :p
Click to expand...

I agree.

The Elise time was done with proper timing gear, the Civic time has been done with a speedo and a stopwatch, hardly accurate (same as a the majority of times here to be honest)

I can categorically say that the Civic is far slower than the Elise. You only have to look at the stats to figure that out, it's 400kg lighter and only 8BHP down on power. That sort of difference doesn't equate to 0.1sec.
 
Where is it rated at 5.6 seconds? I am having difficulty getting my head around a hotted up Civic being almost as quick as a 400bhp M5 in 30-70.
 
[TW]Fox said:
You don't think then that the time given for the Civic is perhaps more than a bit optimistic? Come on - it's blatantly obvious thats the situation here. That Civic is being over stated by perhaps up to 2 seconds which in acceleration figures is an absolute age :p
Click to expand...

I meant to also say that his 5s time is also no doubt a little optimistic, but I really doubt its miles out, no doubt really 5.8s region, maybe a tad slower or a tad quicker.

Fact is Autocar may have used proper timing gear, but they may have drove the Elise like a granny or had not the healthiest of examples if it had been abused by the press. In all honesty I'd expect the Elise 111R to be closer to the 4s mark, more than the 5s area suggested by Autocar.
 
Gibbo said:
Fact is Autocar may have used proper timing gear, but they may have drove the Elise like a granny
Click to expand...

What? Why would they do that?

'Come on lads, lets take this Elise to the Motor Industry Research Agency test centre, strap professional timing gear to it, and then drive it like a granny'?

Fact is Dup's stopwatch and speedo sucks, thats all there is too it :p
 
[TW]Fox said:
Where is it rated at 5.6 seconds? I am having difficulty getting my head around a hotted up Civic being almost as quick as a 400bhp M5 in 30-70.
Click to expand...

HI there

As already mentioned in this thread, gearing!

Just because the M5 has 400BHP, well they are actually only supposedly 380ish but thats another argument does not mean its gonna be quicker than every other car on the road with less than 400 horses.

The M5's gearing may hinder it on this particular test and then there is the fact it ways 1/2 a tonne more than a Civic.

Fact is the M5 past 100mph would leave the Civic for dust, but at lower speeds the Civic has a better chance due to things like weight, gearing etc.
 
It was rated in Autocar in 2003 against the Golf GTI etc.

To be honest I couldn't care less how it shapes up to others, its really not a big issue for me a tall. I thought this was meant to be a bit of fun and games but it seems not. I'm off to complian that they put too many peas on my dinner plate.
 
I seem to remember the same people rubbishing the 0-60 thread too, or any other thread of a similar nature...

Its a bit of fun, not an exact science, unless anyone has some proper timing gear that they are willing to travel the country with to use on all the posters cars (and obviously recalibrating it all to ensure its all fair) then some people on here are going to pick fault at it.
 
[TW]Fox said:
What? Why would they do that?

'Come on lads, lets take this Elise to the Motor Industry Research Agency test centre, strap professional timing gear to it, and then drive it like a granny'?

Fact is Dup's stopwatch and speedo sucks, thats all there is too it :p
Click to expand...

Hi there

Just quote part of what I said hey. :rolleyes:

Fact is some press drivers are far better than others. They obviously would not drive like grannies but some press drivers get better results than others, simple as that. Its also possible that some one who owns a specific vehicle knows exactly how to drive it to get the best results and as such an owner who can drive might achieve as good as and possibly better too.

There is nothing wrong with his stopwatch, they are accurate, what is causing the in-accuracies is his speedo not been accurate.

In the link posted above by the other guy that shows different results again, now the M5 is getting 4.8s which confirms my original case different press/reviews get different results even when using proper equipment.

A bad M5 running slightly under power might take 5.2s wheras a great example might produce a 4.7s time. Then different drivers might produce different results again.

You put someone in my Mustang and they will probably struggle to get under 3s simply because they are scared of the car and not used to. I've owned the car long enough, put enough miles on it to know exactly how to extract the best results from it. Only difference is my speedo is accurate, so its down to getting the stopwatch started and stopped at the right precise moments. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom