2008 Lancer GTS CVT 0-60 time
Dec 25, 2007, 04:25 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Plainfield, IL.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 Lancer GTS CVT 0-60 time
I got a chance to test the acceleration of my GTS on the clock tonight. First time I've checked the 0-60 time since I made a few mods. I have the RRM short ram air intake, RRM axle back exhaust and the RRM light weight crank pulley.
The car had a full tank of gas but I had removed the spare tire and jack. The roads were dry and the air temperature was about 42 degrees. Everything else on the car is stock. I, however, weigh in at 225 lbs. I used a digital stopwatch for both tests.
The first test I did was with the CVT in auto mode. Holding the brake, I let the engine build some rpms. At roughly 4000 rpms I punched it while starting the timer. With very little wheelspin the tires made good traction. I stopped the timer at precisely 60mph. I was very surprised when I stopped the car and looked at the timer. 9.4 SECONDS! Terrible.
The second test was made using the paddle shifters on the same strip of road 1 minute later. Launching the car exactly the same way and shifting just slightly before the rev limiter would kick, I accelerated through the first two gears and part of 3rd gear perfectly. Even slower! 9.6 SECONDS!
My opinion now is: Paddle shifters are just a gimmick. They're only better than auto CVT if you're actually racing on a roadcourse. They only make you FEEL like you're going faster.
I'm also not saying that basic mods don't work. I'm just saying they don't work for me if the point of them is to make the car faster.
These results were hugely disappointing because when the car was COMPLETELY STOCK I recorded a 0-60 time of just over 9 seconds with another 275 lbs. dude in the car. Maybe the mods really do kill the torque of the engine like some dyno testing shows. I know the dyno tests of the GTS with mods and without were run on different dynos but I can't help but think they're close enough now. I've seen on here showing that were on different dynos but the're probably close enough.
I'm willing to bet the 5-speed is no faster than the CVT. I am not sorry I bought the CVT, I'm sorry I bought the Lancer. It's a really nice car if what you do is sit in rush hour traffic or if you like to impress people with looks. For speed's sake though, it was a very poor choice because I don't ever get to hot lap on roadcourses.
The only possible savior for this all show, no go car might be the turbo. But then I have to ask myself: Would it be worth the money and the wrench time to possibly be dissapointed again when there is new cars out there that are way faster straight from the factory? Not just cars either, trucks and freakin minivans! I've been spanked by both. Sad, sad, sad.
The car had a full tank of gas but I had removed the spare tire and jack. The roads were dry and the air temperature was about 42 degrees. Everything else on the car is stock. I, however, weigh in at 225 lbs. I used a digital stopwatch for both tests.
The first test I did was with the CVT in auto mode. Holding the brake, I let the engine build some rpms. At roughly 4000 rpms I punched it while starting the timer. With very little wheelspin the tires made good traction. I stopped the timer at precisely 60mph. I was very surprised when I stopped the car and looked at the timer. 9.4 SECONDS! Terrible.
The second test was made using the paddle shifters on the same strip of road 1 minute later. Launching the car exactly the same way and shifting just slightly before the rev limiter would kick, I accelerated through the first two gears and part of 3rd gear perfectly. Even slower! 9.6 SECONDS!
My opinion now is: Paddle shifters are just a gimmick. They're only better than auto CVT if you're actually racing on a roadcourse. They only make you FEEL like you're going faster.
I'm also not saying that basic mods don't work. I'm just saying they don't work for me if the point of them is to make the car faster.
These results were hugely disappointing because when the car was COMPLETELY STOCK I recorded a 0-60 time of just over 9 seconds with another 275 lbs. dude in the car. Maybe the mods really do kill the torque of the engine like some dyno testing shows. I know the dyno tests of the GTS with mods and without were run on different dynos but I can't help but think they're close enough now. I've seen on here showing that were on different dynos but the're probably close enough.
I'm willing to bet the 5-speed is no faster than the CVT. I am not sorry I bought the CVT, I'm sorry I bought the Lancer. It's a really nice car if what you do is sit in rush hour traffic or if you like to impress people with looks. For speed's sake though, it was a very poor choice because I don't ever get to hot lap on roadcourses.
The only possible savior for this all show, no go car might be the turbo. But then I have to ask myself: Would it be worth the money and the wrench time to possibly be dissapointed again when there is new cars out there that are way faster straight from the factory? Not just cars either, trucks and freakin minivans! I've been spanked by both. Sad, sad, sad.
Dec 25, 2007, 05:33 PM
#2
Evolved Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but hey, its better than a civic!
I'm thinking about getting a lancer. what i might do is get a lancer now, then in a few years when i grad. high school get a evoX... used of course. i mean I'm truly impressed with it compared to the lancer gts or the IX for that matter. and i just cant wait to see what AMS does with their X. which for me will actually determine weather i get an evo or a supra.
I'm thinking about getting a lancer. what i might do is get a lancer now, then in a few years when i grad. high school get a evoX... used of course. i mean I'm truly impressed with it compared to the lancer gts or the IX for that matter. and i just cant wait to see what AMS does with their X. which for me will actually determine weather i get an evo or a supra.
Dec 25, 2007, 05:36 PM
#3
I got a chance to test the acceleration of my GTS on the clock tonight. First time I've checked the 0-60 time since I made a few mods. I have the RRM short ram air intake, RRM axle back exhaust and the RRM light weight crank pulley.
The car had a full tank of gas but I had removed the spare tire and jack. The roads were dry and the air temperature was about 42 degrees. Everything else on the car is stock. I, however, weigh in at 225 lbs. I used a digital stopwatch for both tests.
The first test I did was with the CVT in auto mode. Holding the brake, I let the engine build some rpms. At roughly 4000 rpms I punched it while starting the timer. With very little wheelspin the tires made good traction. I stopped the timer at precisely 60mph. I was very surprised when I stopped the car and looked at the timer. 9.4 SECONDS! Terrible.
The second test was made using the paddle shifters on the same strip of road 1 minute later. Launching the car exactly the same way and shifting just slightly before the rev limiter would kick, I accelerated through the first two gears and part of 3rd gear perfectly. Even slower! 9.6 SECONDS!
My opinion now is: Paddle shifters are just a gimmick. They're only better than auto CVT if you're actually racing on a roadcourse. They only make you FEEL like you're going faster.
I'm also not saying that basic mods don't work. I'm just saying they don't work for me if the point of them is to make the car faster.
These results were hugely disappointing because when the car was COMPLETELY STOCK I recorded a 0-60 time of just over 9 seconds with another 275 lbs. dude in the car. Maybe the mods really do kill the torque of the engine like some dyno testing shows. I know the dyno tests of the GTS with mods and without were run on different dynos but I can't help but think they're close enough now. I've seen on here showing that were on different dynos but the're probably close enough.
I'm willing to bet the 5-speed is no faster than the CVT. I am not sorry I bought the CVT, I'm sorry I bought the Lancer. It's a really nice car if what you do is sit in rush hour traffic or if you like to impress people with looks. For speed's sake though, it was a very poor choice because I don't ever get to hot lap on roadcourses.
The only possible savior for this all show, no go car might be the turbo. But then I have to ask myself: Would it be worth the money and the wrench time to possibly be dissapointed again when there is new cars out there that are way faster straight from the factory? Not just cars either, trucks and freakin minivans! I've been spanked by both. Sad, sad, sad.
The car had a full tank of gas but I had removed the spare tire and jack. The roads were dry and the air temperature was about 42 degrees. Everything else on the car is stock. I, however, weigh in at 225 lbs. I used a digital stopwatch for both tests.
The first test I did was with the CVT in auto mode. Holding the brake, I let the engine build some rpms. At roughly 4000 rpms I punched it while starting the timer. With very little wheelspin the tires made good traction. I stopped the timer at precisely 60mph. I was very surprised when I stopped the car and looked at the timer. 9.4 SECONDS! Terrible.
The second test was made using the paddle shifters on the same strip of road 1 minute later. Launching the car exactly the same way and shifting just slightly before the rev limiter would kick, I accelerated through the first two gears and part of 3rd gear perfectly. Even slower! 9.6 SECONDS!
My opinion now is: Paddle shifters are just a gimmick. They're only better than auto CVT if you're actually racing on a roadcourse. They only make you FEEL like you're going faster.
I'm also not saying that basic mods don't work. I'm just saying they don't work for me if the point of them is to make the car faster.
These results were hugely disappointing because when the car was COMPLETELY STOCK I recorded a 0-60 time of just over 9 seconds with another 275 lbs. dude in the car. Maybe the mods really do kill the torque of the engine like some dyno testing shows. I know the dyno tests of the GTS with mods and without were run on different dynos but I can't help but think they're close enough now. I've seen on here showing that were on different dynos but the're probably close enough.
I'm willing to bet the 5-speed is no faster than the CVT. I am not sorry I bought the CVT, I'm sorry I bought the Lancer. It's a really nice car if what you do is sit in rush hour traffic or if you like to impress people with looks. For speed's sake though, it was a very poor choice because I don't ever get to hot lap on roadcourses.
The only possible savior for this all show, no go car might be the turbo. But then I have to ask myself: Would it be worth the money and the wrench time to possibly be dissapointed again when there is new cars out there that are way faster straight from the factory? Not just cars either, trucks and freakin minivans! I've been spanked by both. Sad, sad, sad.
Sorry you don't like the cars performance, but you have no right to complain as a test drive would've shown you that the car suffers from a lack of power, then you could've gone on to buy a car that's more up to your spec.
I'm behind you 100% that one of the mods is robbing the car of TQ, and I'm convinced it's the SRI. I switched from an SRI to the WORKS filter and I can honestly say that it's like driving a different car...throttle is more responsive and you can feel the car giving you all it has throughout the entire powerband. Night and day. I also have the RRM pulley & axelback...I love both of them but I definitely can't say the same for the SRI.
And if you are using the paddle shifters, don't wait to hit the rev limiter to shift because you lose too much power. Keeping the shifts between 4500 - 5500 has my eyes sucked to the back of my skull by 5th gear.
If you were to get a faster car straight from the factory, would that really make you happy, though? There's always somebody faster and being dissatisfied because there are cars on the road that are faster than you is plain silly.
And it could be worse...you could be driving an Aveo or a Prius...then you'd really have a reason to be upset
Dec 25, 2007, 05:40 PM
#4
but hey, its better than a civic!
I'm thinking about getting a lancer. what i might do is get a lancer now, then in a few years when i grad. high school get a evoX... used of course. i mean I'm truly impressed with it compared to the lancer gts or the IX for that matter. and i just cant wait to see what AMS does with their X. which for me will actually determine weather i get an evo or a supra.
I'm thinking about getting a lancer. what i might do is get a lancer now, then in a few years when i grad. high school get a evoX... used of course. i mean I'm truly impressed with it compared to the lancer gts or the IX for that matter. and i just cant wait to see what AMS does with their X. which for me will actually determine weather i get an evo or a supra.
The Evo X is obviously better than the GTS but weather or not it's going to be better than the IX is a matter of perspective. The X isn't going to give you the raw experience that the IX or VIII do.
Last edited by nj_08_gts; Dec 25, 2007 at 05:45 PM.
Dec 25, 2007, 06:07 PM
#5
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Plainfield, IL.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Jersey, if you really think it's the RRM SRI causing the loss in TQ, theni t's just laughable how the description of RRM's SRI says that I should expect to drop a full second in 0-60 times. My car should be able to accelerate 0-60 in the mid 8's without any of my other mods according to that product description. I've heard CAI is good, even best, but that SRI is best for bottom end power. I'm thinking about going back to the stock airbox and trying it with my other mods.
Also, I did test drive the car before I bought it. I drove the **** out of it in an overnight takehome and decide tomarrow testdrive. So much so I got a different car when I went back from a completely different dealership.
Trust, I've had this car for 3 months. The shifting was done dead on. I get lots of extra practice with the paddle shifters using the steering wheel for xbox! LOL.
Also, I did test drive the car before I bought it. I drove the **** out of it in an overnight takehome and decide tomarrow testdrive. So much so I got a different car when I went back from a completely different dealership.
Trust, I've had this car for 3 months. The shifting was done dead on. I get lots of extra practice with the paddle shifters using the steering wheel for xbox! LOL.
Dec 25, 2007, 07:34 PM
#7
Evolved Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buying an expensive car right out of high school will be the worst mistake of your life. Unless your parents are rich...in which case, go for it
The Evo X is obviously better than the GTS but weather or not it's going to be better than the IX is a matter of perspective. The X isn't going to give you the raw experience that the IX or VIII do.
The Evo X is obviously better than the GTS but weather or not it's going to be better than the IX is a matter of perspective. The X isn't going to give you the raw experience that the IX or VIII do.
Trending Topics
Dec 25, 2007, 11:03 PM
#9
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the land between lancer and evo
Posts: 2,362
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
i would re-do your test, i have got times down to the 8 second mark, when the weather improves i will conduct full throttle tests.
And thats from a dead stop no engine reving, you dont need to drop the car, beleive me.
And thats from a dead stop no engine reving, you dont need to drop the car, beleive me.
Dec 26, 2007, 10:58 AM
#11
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the land between lancer and evo
Posts: 2,362
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I agree, come to think of it, the CVT doesnt take to well dropping into D, I think it just waits lol if you drop it from too high, second, the N doesnt even let you continuously rev high in sucession.
I did this 0 to 60mph (non full throttle) just as a test for my exhaust internal cabin sound. But the time was done from a dead stup and even up a 5 or 8 degree incline as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX9u6sm8t2I
I suggest you do your time again and i am sure you will get a better result then 9 seconds +
I did this 0 to 60mph (non full throttle) just as a test for my exhaust internal cabin sound. But the time was done from a dead stup and even up a 5 or 8 degree incline as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX9u6sm8t2I
I suggest you do your time again and i am sure you will get a better result then 9 seconds +
Dec 26, 2007, 11:31 AM
#12
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PHX, AZ
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im not rich, but my dad is buying me a very nice car when i grad. college ish. so when i grad. college. i diddnt mean high school, my bad lol. its really temting to get a supra, but i do really like mitsu's... which ever will make me more power for the money spent. including car price... which in that case might just be a supra
Dec 26, 2007, 12:43 PM
#13
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weird, I got about 8.4~8.3 second 0-60 time using sport mode in my car which is completely stock, not to mention that i live in a really hot environment and i didnt use any launch technique, the car is much faster in D mode after second gear though..
I'm never getting an SRI for my car, its already a very hot environment in here therefore an SRI will suck up even more hot air, so the Injen CAI should be so much mroe helpful if its really power that you want andnot just noise ! just my opinion..
in the end, you havent bought a hot sedan, its just a cool sedan, and in its class i would say its the best, so muh better than normal civic/corolla/mazda 6/fous/
I'm never getting an SRI for my car, its already a very hot environment in here therefore an SRI will suck up even more hot air, so the Injen CAI should be so much mroe helpful if its really power that you want andnot just noise ! just my opinion..
in the end, you havent bought a hot sedan, its just a cool sedan, and in its class i would say its the best, so muh better than normal civic/corolla/mazda 6/fous/
Dec 26, 2007, 01:16 PM
#15
Evolved Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: IL
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
/OT
how much power can a lancer stock handle anyway? like say with a re tune, headers/exhaust, and an intake?