Road & Track EVO 8 test numbers
Feb 3, 2003, 04:37 PM
#16
Evolved Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 04:51 PM
#17
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
0-60 mph should be slightly quicker for the Evo8 if launched from a high rpm.
Does anyone have figures for the 350Z?
Feb 3, 2003, 05:11 PM
#19
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 05:12 PM
#20
Originally posted by RA29
I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z.
I think the performance figures for the Evo8 should be very similar to the 350Z.
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 
Feb 3, 2003, 05:15 PM
#21
Evolving Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 05:20 PM
#22
Evolved Member
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
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 07:03 PM
#23
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 07:21 PM
#24
Evolved Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 08:54 PM
#27
Evolved Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Score
A 68mph in the slalom? If I remember right, SCC tested 72odd mph in their slalom.
A 68mph in the slalom? If I remember right, SCC tested 72odd mph in their slalom.
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 09:04 PM
#28
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: summerland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Feb 3, 2003, 09:45 PM
#29
Originally posted by leonard_shelby
6000rpm clutch drop ? I was thinking 3K maybe 4500 if your really feeling frisky ...
6000rpm clutch drop ? I was thinking 3K maybe 4500 if your really feeling frisky ...
Feb 3, 2003, 09:50 PM
#30
Evolved Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: summerland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I've driven with some crazies that do the 6k clutch drop thing in an awd car, has never felt healthy to me.