Post your 0-60 Times!
Evolving Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
From: SL, UT
Staying with the spirit of the thread, I just datalogged a 4.15 s 0-60 using EvoScan. It's pretty accurate when you calculate it yourself and I did multiple runs with +/- 0.2 s consistency.
Mods are in my sig, runs done at 4500 ft elevation.
Mods are in my sig, runs done at 4500 ft elevation.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 1
From: Socal
Damn +1 for everyone in the low 4's!!!!
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: Area 51
I saving my $$$ so when 0% comes back I will be on it like white on rice. I also want navi/leather seats and SSS package w/o the wing!!!
I have seen stock Evo X get tuned and make almost the same power as my WRX I just like feedback on the car. My dad has a 1990 GSX that is gonna make around 450 whp off pump 91
I have seen stock Evo X get tuned and make almost the same power as my WRX I just like feedback on the car. My dad has a 1990 GSX that is gonna make around 450 whp off pump 91
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
From: IL
not only the speed but the handling of the EVO is FAR FAR superior to the subie..
Plus the reliability of the mitsu motor is undeneiably better than subie. I think all around, the X is going to give you a much stronger performance factor and will handle much better than the subie while being cheaper to mod....
just my two cent$
Plus the reliability of the mitsu motor is undeneiably better than subie. I think all around, the X is going to give you a much stronger performance factor and will handle much better than the subie while being cheaper to mod....
just my two cent$
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 1
From: Socal
not only the speed but the handling of the EVO is FAR FAR superior to the subie..
Plus the reliability of the mitsu motor is undeneiably better than subie. I think all around, the X is going to give you a much stronger performance factor and will handle much better than the subie while being cheaper to mod....
just my two cent$
Plus the reliability of the mitsu motor is undeneiably better than subie. I think all around, the X is going to give you a much stronger performance factor and will handle much better than the subie while being cheaper to mod....
just my two cent$
It's a humongous leap.
Seriously, go drive one. It's not the straight line speed, but the handling that will impress you most.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 1
From: Socal
The car also feels super smooth when accelerating. The clutch engaged soooo easily, same with the shifter I would like for it to be a little bit stiffer but I could get used to it or buy a ss
My only other gripe would be the interior fabric but I have asked my closes dealership and they can add leather
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO
I'm at a mile up in altitude, car is completely stock. Launched, I got 5 sec flat. Without launching, I got a 5.7. No tune, no bolt ons, 100% stock. (except for some lowering springs)
I was going to say that it's more like an elevator ride to the top of a skyscraper from the underground parking garage
I was going to say that it's more like an elevator ride to the top of a skyscraper from the underground parking garage
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 1
From: Socal
I'm at a mile up in altitude, car is completely stock. Launched, I got 5 sec flat. Without launching, I got a 5.7. No tune, no bolt ons, 100% stock. (except for some lowering springs)
I was going to say that it's more like an elevator ride to the top of a skyscraper from the underground parking garage
I was going to say that it's more like an elevator ride to the top of a skyscraper from the underground parking garage
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
http://www.060calculator.com/
Not saying it's going to be 100% accurate but according to this calculator I could manage a 3.2 sec 0-60 time @ 550 crank HP and 3.5 sec @ 500 crank HP.
This makes sense based on my 1.7x short time datalogs where I was running the 11.7x @ 118.x mph quarter mile passes (~500 crank HP) and they usually averaged between 3.5-3.6 seconds. Now with another ~50 crank HP on tap along with better low end torque I should be able to improve on that and shave a few tenths down to the 3.2-3.3 sec range. Much has to do with the launch and the driver to get the best times and I agree with others that 1/4 ET & trap speeds are better indicators than just 0-60 times.
Not saying it's going to be 100% accurate but according to this calculator I could manage a 3.2 sec 0-60 time @ 550 crank HP and 3.5 sec @ 500 crank HP.
This makes sense based on my 1.7x short time datalogs where I was running the 11.7x @ 118.x mph quarter mile passes (~500 crank HP) and they usually averaged between 3.5-3.6 seconds. Now with another ~50 crank HP on tap along with better low end torque I should be able to improve on that and shave a few tenths down to the 3.2-3.3 sec range. Much has to do with the launch and the driver to get the best times and I agree with others that 1/4 ET & trap speeds are better indicators than just 0-60 times.
Last edited by Hiboost; Dec 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM.