Notices
Evo General Discuss any generalized technical Evo related topics that may not fit into the other forums. Please do not post tech and rumor threads here.
Sponsored by: RavSpec - JDM Wheels Central

Road & Track EVO 8 test numbers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 04:37 PM
  #16  
trigeek37's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Minneapolis
If I recall correctly R&T timed the 02 Z06 at 13.1 (I don't have an issue in front of me - I'm at work) but I have seen stock Z06s run 12.5s on tracks hardly known for their speed. This leads me to believe low 13s in the Evo are very doable with an experienced driver.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 04:51 PM
  #17  
RA29's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
From: Seattle
I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z. They both have about the same power and same weight.
0-60 mph should be slightly quicker for the Evo8 if launched from a high rpm.

Does anyone have figures for the 350Z?
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 05:01 PM
  #18  
Daveyd's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
From: here
If Mitsus website says 0-60 in under 5 secs then dammit it is..period!!!
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 05:11 PM
  #19  
Turboniam's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Originally posted by RA29
I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z. They both have about the same power and same weight.
0-60 mph should be slightly quicker for the Evo8 if launched from a high rpm.

Does anyone have figures for the 350Z?
Which performance figures???

The 350Z IMO does NOT compare to the EVO for several reasons... but to answer the question here.

R&T lists 14.4 @ 99 on page 91 as the 1/4 time for the 350Z... in the back where they list all the cars they test, they have a 14.3 @ 100 listed...

However, 1/4 time, all of us who know AWD, know that a 101.5 trap is good for "at least" a mid 13, if not a low 13 in the hands of a competent AWD driver.

1/4, I don't see the 350Z anywhere near the EVO.... then mod for mod, dollar for dollar the 350Z gets blown out of the water even more!

AWD vs RWD street tire to street tire are totally different ball games. (comparing these specific two cars... I am refering to the relative closeness of the traps yet HUGE difference in 1/4 times!)

Last edited by Turboniam; Feb 3, 2003 at 05:20 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 05:12 PM
  #20  
gtr's Avatar
gtr
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,452
Likes: 1
Originally posted by RA29
I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z.
I dont think the 350z will ever see anywhere near .97g's stock. Just wait until motortrend takes a hit at the evo. Mid 13's would not surprise me. Remember the wrx pulls 14sec quarters with 227hp.

My question is that did road and track test drove it or they just took 's numbers? I'm surprised Road and track didnt' take any pictures
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 05:15 PM
  #21  
Turboniam's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
From: Texas
EVO vs 350Z
Weight: 3260 vs 3310
Skidpad(200ft): .97g vs .88g
1/4 time: 13.8@101.5 vs 14.3@100
Braking 60-0mph: 117ft vs 122ft
Price as tested: $30,600 vs $34,688
Acceleration(0-60): 5.1 vs 5.8

Last edited by Turboniam; Feb 3, 2003 at 05:21 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 05:20 PM
  #22  
MrAWD's Avatar
Evolved Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,760
Likes: 22
From: Reading, MA
Pretty nice numbers!!!
Compared to the previous R&T article with the EVO 7 they had following numbers then:
________EVO7________US EVO8________real EVO8
skidpad:_0.92_________0.97___________xxxxxx
slalom:__68.7 mph_____68.7 mph_______xxxxxx

Although, I have seen numbers for the EVO7 on the skidpad getting very close to the 1.00 and slaloms in the 72 mph range, but this is reliable enough, since the it came from the same source in this case!!

I am also happy with the 101.5 mph at the 1/4. The fastest I went with my car (several modifications ago) was 100.5 and time was 13.41s with very similar weights.

This leads to the conclusion that quicker times should be attainable. How much quicker, it will greatly depend on how strong that stock clutch is going to be!
Well soon, I guess!!!


Fedja

Last edited by MrAWD; Feb 3, 2003 at 05:28 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 07:03 PM
  #23  
rt turbo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
From: Mooresville, NC
this info is encouraging coming from a magazine like road and track... they seem to be more interested in what climate control, or navigation system a car somes with. not my type of car mag.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 07:21 PM
  #24  
trigeek37's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Minneapolis
Originally posted by rt turbo
this info is encouraging coming from a magazine like road and track... they seem to be more interested in what climate control, or navigation system a car somes with. not my type of car mag.
no kidding.. what happened to Road & Track? They used to be an excellent benchmark for car performance...
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 07:50 PM
  #25  
gtr's Avatar
gtr
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,452
Likes: 1
Road and track is ok. I'd like their great grip issue.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features...?articleID=220
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 08:43 PM
  #26  
Score's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: roseville, ca
A 68mph in the slalom? If I remember right, SCC tested 72odd mph in their slalom.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 08:54 PM
  #27  
trigeek37's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: Minneapolis
Originally posted by Score
A 68mph in the slalom? If I remember right, SCC tested 72odd mph in their slalom.
all slaloms are not created equal...
you can't take numbers from one testing source (mag in this case) and compare them. different tracks, drivers, and conditions can cause a great deal of difference in performance numbers.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 09:04 PM
  #28  
leonard_shelby's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
From: summerland
6000rpm clutch drop ? I was thinking 3K maybe 4500 if your really feeling frisky ... Maybe the test driver was shifting with a broken arm (hoping)

.:Monday morning at the gas station:. ... "can I have a pack of parliament lights.. and a clutch & pressure plate for me evo?"

Last edited by leonard_shelby; Feb 3, 2003 at 09:25 PM.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 09:45 PM
  #29  
gtr's Avatar
gtr
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,452
Likes: 1
Originally posted by leonard_shelby
6000rpm clutch drop ? I was thinking 3K maybe 4500 if your really feeling frisky ...
Ahh, haven't launched an awd car hung? 3k will bogg it down slower than not launching it.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2003 | 09:50 PM
  #30  
leonard_shelby's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
From: summerland
Hmmm ... I'm not a pro by any means .. but what I've found to work the best for my GSX is rev to 3K and let the clutch out evenly and at the same pace mat the gas, its not really slipping the clutch too badly but gives a nice launch without bog

I've driven with some crazies that do the 6k clutch drop thing in an awd car, has never felt healthy to me.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM.