RangeRovers.net Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I took my 2010 RRSC out to some straight, flat road with my G-Tech pro, which has in the past always been quite accurate. I was only doing 0-60 runs, not full quarters.

Anyway, the first result was a 4.7, then a 4.8. That seems way too fast. So to eliminate wind and slope, I turned around and ran the same patch the other direction, and got a 4.8.

I still think that's way too fast. I would imagine the 5.9 that RR quotes is conservative, but not -that- conservative. These were best possible conditions: about 50F, almost empty of fuel, and no wheel spin. I'd be really curious to see what others with the 2010 RR SC come up with.

- Dave
 

·
LIFETIME CONTRIBUTOR
2006-2009 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
11,014 Posts
There is a video on Youtube about a 2010 RRS S/C - acceleration-wise the FFRR and RRS post virtually identical numbers - going from 0 to 60 in a lot less than 5.9 seconds (the speedo goes all the way to 100 and back to zero about 20 seconds into the video, but the digital readout on the TFT display helps timing the run to 60), on my watch it's closer to 5 seconds flat, give or take a couple of tenths... So your results may not be as far off the real world numbers as you think.

[youtube:1lpyly9e]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-TTrrYHU-U[/youtube:1lpyly9e]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
brad s1 said:
Your G-tech is inaccurate, I assure you you're not getting up to 60MPH in 4.8 seconds.
That's my presumption, but if you're going to *assure* it, throw out some supporting evidence. The G-Tech appears correct on my Z06 (3.6) and S8 (4.8 ).

Further, InsideLine tested the Sport at 5.2, and the Sport usually tests slower than the full RR: http://blogs.insideline.com/straightlin ... -x5-m.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
davepl said:
brad s1 said:
Your G-tech is inaccurate, I assure you you're not getting up to 60MPH in 4.8 seconds.
That's my presumption, but if you're going to *assure* it, throw out some supporting evidence. The G-Tech appears correct on my Z06 (3.6) and S8 (4.8 ).

Further, InsideLine tested the Sport at 5.2, and the Sport usually tests slower than the full RR: http://blogs.insideline.com/straightlin ... -x5-m.html
G-techs are not accurate. Then the power to weight ratio of the RR, and its brick shape have me thinking it's impossible in stock form. Generally 0-60 times are worthless and you shouldn't put any stock into them whatsoever.

I had a g-tech telling me my car was running 9 second quarter mile times on street tires... Its a worthless tool IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I've found them to be pretty predictable a tenth slower than, but a few MPH higher than, actual track times.

The first I attribute to no roll-out: at the track you get about a foot "head start" before breaking the start beam. And the track averages your speed over the last 60 (or so) feet. The G-Tech gives you your instanstaneous speed at the end of the 1/4, so it'll be a little higher. Still, I've always doubted an 11-second car accelerates 3 MPH in the last 60 feet, so never bought that explanation.

All that said, though, properly calibrated I've found them to be pretty close, within a tenth. When I run my tank back down below 1/8th again, I'll stop-watch it and see. That's probably only accurate within 2/10ths, I'd say, but if I get a 6.0 then we know it's a bogus result. If I get sub-5 with a stopwatch, then I'll accept the G-Tech result.

In the meantime, though, I will say its quick. And my slowest other car is a 450hp S8, so I'm used to fairly quick cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
davepl said:
I've found them to be pretty predictable a tenth slower than, but a few MPH higher than, actual track times.

The first I attribute to no roll-out: at the track you get about a foot "head start" before breaking the start beam. And the track averages your speed over the last 60 (or so) feet. The G-Tech gives you your instanstaneous speed at the end of the 1/4, so it'll be a little higher. Still, I've always doubted an 11-second car accelerates 3 MPH in the last 60 feet, so never bought that explanation.

All that said, though, properly calibrated I've found them to be pretty close, within a tenth. When I run my tank back down below 1/8th again, I'll stop-watch it and see. That's probably only accurate within 2/10ths, I'd say, but if I get a 6.0 then we know it's a bogus result. If I get sub-5 with a stopwatch, then I'll accept the G-Tech result.

In the meantime, though, I will say its quick. And my slowest other car is a 450hp S8, so I'm used to fairly quick cars.
Its bogus regardless, plus if you're not on a perfectly flat stretch of road it doesn't make calculations to correct going uphill or downhill. About as accurate as magazine times IMO.

I've literally scaled my car at the track, for weight, tuned the g-tech, made a pass, and it wasn't even close... Admittedly this was a ways back, perhaps they've improved them since then. Is yours a newer model?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
brad s1 said:
Its bogus regardless, plus if you're not on a perfectly flat stretch of road it doesn't make calculations to correct going uphill or downhill. About as accurate as magazine times IMO.

I've literally scaled my car at the track, for weight, tuned the g-tech, made a pass, and it wasn't even close... Admittedly this was a ways back, perhaps they've improved them since then. Is yours a newer model?
I've had both (the old LED one, but this was the new backlit LCD style). But you have to actually read my posts... as I said, I ran the same pass in both directions on the same piece of road. If it was uphill or downhill, it would have produced different results. Since it didn't, I conclude slope and wind were not factors.

Mathematically an AWD vehicle that weighs 6000lbs would need 550hp to run a 4.8 0-60. Is it impossible the engine is underrated by 40hp? Feels like it, but still unlikely.

I wonder if a video of the speedo at a known framerate would be conclusive; you could count frames. It would presume no lag in the digital speedo though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,465 Posts
davepl said:
brad s1 said:
Its bogus regardless, plus if you're not on a perfectly flat stretch of road it doesn't make calculations to correct going uphill or downhill. About as accurate as magazine times IMO.

I've literally scaled my car at the track, for weight, tuned the g-tech, made a pass, and it wasn't even close... Admittedly this was a ways back, perhaps they've improved them since then. Is yours a newer model?
I've had both (the old LED one, but this was the new backlit LCD style). But you have to actually read my posts... as I said, I ran the same pass in both directions on the same piece of road. If it was uphill or downhill, it would have produced different results. Since it didn't, I conclude slope and wind were not factors.

Mathematically an AWD vehicle that weighs 6000lbs would need 550hp to run a 4.8 0-60. Is it impossible the engine is underrated by 40hp? Feels like it, but still unlikely.

I wonder if a video of the speedo at a known framerate would be conclusive; you could count frames. It would presume no lag in the digital speedo though.
Its documented incline and decline throw its accuracy off. When you say 550hp, do you mean 550AWHP or 550BHP... 510 hp rrsc probably puts down closer to 450 at the wheels, if not less. Anyone actually have a dyno of a new rangie... or any rangie for that matter, I'd be curious to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The formula was for crank HP; but I think the new SAE (or IEEE, I forget) rating that they had to start using a couple of years ago is more conservative. For example, the 505hp Corvette is more like 550 under the old SAE NET method (and more like 675 in pre-1972 methods). So the current 510 rating is probably more like 550 for any formula more than 2 years old.

All this said, I still doubt it runs a 4.8, but I'd believe a low 5. If I had a safe and convenient location, I'd get my wife to race me in the S8 ;-)

There's actually an AWD Mustang dyno not far from my house, but they have a steep first-time setup fee. Still might do it, but then there's the question of what's a good correction factor for an automatic all wheel drive with transfer-case and three differentials? They used to say 15% for a stick car, 20% for an automatic, so what would be fair for this massive drivetrain? I could almost pick any number I care to hit by fudging and justifying my drivetrain loss factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
What was the temperature when you did the test? Superchargers love cold weather so it may have produced at peak performance when you tested you car. Used to love driving my E55 when it was cold!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
texas911 said:
What was the temperature when you did the test? Superchargers love cold weather so it may have produced at peak performance when you tested you car. Used to love driving my E55 when it was cold!
Like I said above, about 50F.

One thing I found odd about my 2006 RRSC, though I haven't checked the routing on the 2010, is that the intercooler used engine coolant, not a separate system. So very best case, it would bring the compressed air "down" to 200F or whatever temp the engine was at.

My CL600 BiTurbo, in contrast, had separate heat exchangers for the intercooler so could get closer to ambient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Have your wife race you to 60 in the S8. If you are anywhere close, forget about numbers. The Range is fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
davepl said:
texas911 said:
What was the temperature when you did the test? Superchargers love cold weather so it may have produced at peak performance when you tested you car. Used to love driving my E55 when it was cold!
Like I said above, about 50F.

One thing I found odd about my 2006 RRSC, though I haven't checked the routing on the 2010, is that the intercooler used engine coolant, not a separate system. So very best case, it would bring the compressed air "down" to 200F or whatever temp the engine was at.

My CL600 BiTurbo, in contrast, had separate heat exchangers for the intercooler so could get closer to ambient.
What's you best 0-60 for the Camaro?
 

·
LIFETIME CONTRIBUTOR
2006-2009 Range Rover Sport
Joined
·
11,014 Posts
davepl said:
One thing I found odd about my 2006 RRSC, though I haven't checked the routing on the 2010, is that the intercooler used engine coolant, not a separate system. So very best case, it would bring the compressed air "down" to 200F or whatever temp the engine was at.
It does share coolant with the engine, but it's a separate system... :lol: This is the 5-liter engine supercharger cooling system on the Sport, no different than the Range Rover's:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
2006-2009 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
64 Posts
Car and Driver clocked the 2010 Sport at 5.1 secs 0-60 so I suspect your numbers are correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
I've never clocked mine but I've driven just about every fast car worth driving, and in a straight line this thing is just blistering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
952 Posts
Tell you what I'll race it to from Calgary to Banff during a blizzard :)
 

·
Registered
2006-2009 Range Rover MkIII / L322
Joined
·
94 Posts
Hello

I seriously doubt thoses numbers, even though I did clock better times than the official 6.2s for the 0 to 100, the best I manage was 5.8 s (which is already very good btw !) - that is on a French specs L322 autobiography S/C december 2009 (2010 model year) -

Indeed, without a major upgrade and tune I doubt a stock L322 could manage this : think that the Jag does the time you mention and think about the size/shape/weight difference in betwen the 2 !...

Anyhow, have fun with it still !:dance:
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top