anybody knows how fast is 0-60 for fd

 

That depends on which article you are quoting. There are times listed from 4.9 to 5.4 from various articles.

 

4.9 seconds is what it is advertised in many places.

 

Motor Trend, w/ Peter Farrell driving, 4.9 seconds.

Real world: 5.2 and beyond

 

how about an fd w/basic mods? by that i mean dp, cb, intake, ecu.??

 

I'm not stating anything, but to my understanding, you won't shave any (significant) time off your 0-60 w/ mods, cuz a lot of it simply has to do w/ gear ratio etc... 1/4 mile or 0-100 is where things really change....

 

wow u guys r so nice when ppl on the probtalk.com website ask questions like that, the older ******** tell them to use the search feature :tup:

 

haha. don't worry you will get told that quite a bit around here too.

 

Everyone must be in a good mood right now

 

Of course, the guys just had their meals and might be watching the olympics knowing that later tonight they my score some nookie for a night tuck.

 

yeah. post the same question in the FC forum and see what kind of answers you get... I bet nobody will tell you the answer!

 

Nah, man. Mods make a big difference because you're pulling through more than one gear to get to 60. Suspension plays a role there too, since its a launching test. Since you're using those lower gears, if you were to drop your ratio, you might be going through gears faster than you want to and waste time on an extra shift which you shouldn't be doing in a 0-60. With bigger wheels/tires, you can really make a sick 0-60 with jumping the start. I'd like to get a meter to do some tests with after I get tuned. For a rough estimate, I'm sure moded cars get into the 4's easily and with sick launches on single turbos- high 3 second 0-60 times. For a reference, I was driving to the beach with a friend of mine who at the time had a stock ported motor with BNR stage III's, non-seqential with fuel support and a vmount. I was driving right at 80 when I was catching up to him after a toll booth- lucky fool has EZpass. He was waiting on the shoulder and jumped on it about 50 feet in front of me. I never caught up to him.

 

He's alive!! LOL. What's up man...long time. Where ya been?

Thanks for the info...guess I was wrong. I take it back haha. Oh and I know what friend you're talking about...I'm real curious what kinda pull his car makes now w/ the single and a tune...

 

i mean for just stock car.....nothing mod. i saw in the rx-7 legend, it's 4.9 but i am wondering

 

I'm not much into quarter mile times, but have been interested in 0-60 performance due to some of my autocross background. Here are my findings, which unfortunately, haven't been electronically timed, but are ballpark.

First, however, there is one issue that must be considered and that is horsepower. Yes, larger turbos will produce more H.P., but you've got to be able to spin that turbo up fast and get that power to the ground, quickly. While large turbos can generate high amounts of H.P., most don't seem to develop maximum torque until you reach high R.P.M. My thinking is what it is really important is an ability to develop torque, quickly, where your power band is hitting its stride lower than 5500 R.P.M. Sequential configuration of the stock turbo would be the way to go, if you want to develop torque fast and produce faster 0-60 times, in my opinion.

My car is no H.P. monster. I've got a custom airbox, K&N filter, downpipe, high performance clutch system and a profec B currently set to deliver an 11-8-11 boost pattern. The car will deliver a lot of torque, quickly, by slipping the clutch at 3000 R.P.M. On a recent back road trial I timed it somewhere below 5 seconds - 4.8 to 4.9 seconds. I used a stopwatch, not an electronic timer, so there is a margin of error, timing it myself. RX-7s can get up and move, contrary to popular belief. I think a lot of 0-60 best times should be credited to technique, however. I saw this autocrossing on a weekly basis in SCCA stock C class competition back in the day. There were sometimes as much as .5 -.75 second difference between drivers running early 1980 1Gs. Over most of the course, their performance was similar. However, the time difference was directly related to an ability to slip the clutch at just the right R.P.M with the correct rate of clutch slippage.

 

4.9 good driver but i see a lot done like 5.4 or even worse, if they were new that'd be different it's more then 10 years already you know.

 

My car is modified and I suck at launching. I have the power meter which does an accurate reading of 0-50 mph. (another of the great blitz decisions). I have only ever run the 0-50 twice. The best I got was 4.5 sec. I dont know how long that last 10mph would take but my guess is .4-.5. It is not a matter of power for me - but traction. There is no way I can get all of the power my car has to the road so I agree with the post above - suspension and tires are going to help you the most with this time.

I do think a competent driver who slips the clutch skillfully could shave a few tenths of a second off, but I cant bring myself to abuse my car that way for a meaningless 0-60 time. Maybe if someone would offer me a large amount of money to turn a sub 4.5 sec 0-60. Anyone???

 

https://www.rx7club.com/attachment.p...chmentid=68850

The chart shows MOTORTREND's comparison, which seems to be a pretty accurate depiction of the REAL world.

5.3 sec. 0 - 60, by the way.

 

A guy that I know has a program that, based on 60' times, 1/8 and 1/4 mile times and speeds, will give an estimated 0-60 time. At the drag strip (prepped track, but cheap kumho street tires) I ran approximately 4.6 0-60 on a 12.9 second, 113mph run. It dynoed around 280 at that time.

 

I pulled a 3.7 0-60 time in my t78 rx7. I used a g-tech to measure it. I dont feel like i got good enough traction though.

 

I think The 7 with a great driver and launch could easily obtain 4.8 secs.

 

Well....perhaps. BUT...Mazda itself in several publications at the time admitted that it "missed its goal of having a sub-5 second zero to sixty time in the production cars". I am sure that there are those units that were just a little better than the average that can and do indeed perform better than the accepted 5.5 second range, but they are likely the minority.
This in NO WAY impunges the car's reputation! That sort of performance is still rare TODAY, let alone 12 years ago.

 

Better get your G-Tech checked.

 

Well hell, why not 4.7? The drivers for magazine tests are very good and didn't manage it.

I love how people want to rewrite history on the 7... they take the best quarter mile, 0-60, and 60-0 figures they've ever heard of and suddenly all of them performed that well. **** the magazine tests.

 

Son-Of-A-Bishhhh!!! Now I'm gonna have to cancel my "Import Racer" subscription!!