0-60 times, stated and actual
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 536
Likes: 135
From: UK
SVR is fast, no doubt, F Type R not exactly slow either.
Despite your video I make two final points
2011 standard GT-R launched properly
will do 0 to 60 over 0.3 sec faster at 2.7secs
and 11,2 quarter mile.
These figures aren't for a tuned GT-R or even a current model but the model that was out seven years ago.
I only watched the video of your SVR vs your friends (filmed in GT-R), quite obviously he started his run from tickover, didn't use launch mode, probably going to knock 0.5 sec off 0 to 60. edit about 1 sec slower to 60 without launch control..
edit with launch control gtr (standard) can run 10.9 sec quarter
Plenty of videos of standard GT-R vs F Type, haven't seen any with GT-R beaten, questions about why your friend didn't launch and why his tuned GT-R is running worse times than standard 2011 with 530PS
Despite your video I make two final points
2011 standard GT-R launched properly
will do 0 to 60 over 0.3 sec faster at 2.7secs
and 11,2 quarter mile.
These figures aren't for a tuned GT-R or even a current model but the model that was out seven years ago.
I only watched the video of your SVR vs your friends (filmed in GT-R), quite obviously he started his run from tickover, didn't use launch mode, probably going to knock 0.5 sec off 0 to 60. edit about 1 sec slower to 60 without launch control..
edit with launch control gtr (standard) can run 10.9 sec quarter
Plenty of videos of standard GT-R vs F Type, haven't seen any with GT-R beaten, questions about why your friend didn't launch and why his tuned GT-R is running worse times than standard 2011 with 530PS
He does not use LC, neither does my other mate, they are both running 650-680PS depending on fuel, both are running 11.2-11.4 quarters without LC.
In the real world you can't use LC on a GTR, particular once tuned as they easily destroy their gearbox, infact the GTR in video just broken its gearbox even without using LC.
The SVR does not need LC, so much torque from idle and simple fact is in real world its as quick as a tuned GTR, of course from a roll from around 100mph a tuned GTR pulls away as the second video shows.
Also remember my 3.07s to 60mph was in those damp conditions, in the dry its running around 2.9s, but remember its 2.9s every single time, with no reliability issues and you don't sit their with engine going bah bah bah bah like you would with LC, you just bury gas pedal and your off.
On track days I muller that GTR, but that is maybe more the driver than the car as I also muller it in my 360PS M3 as well.
He does not use LC, neither does my other mate, they are both running 650-680PS depending on fuel, both are running 11.2-11.4 quarters without LC.
In the real world you can't use LC on a GTR, particular once tuned as they easily destroy their gearbox, infact the GTR in video just broken its gearbox even without using LC.
The SVR does not need LC, so much torque from idle and simple fact is in real world its as quick as a tuned GTR, of course from a roll from around 100mph a tuned GTR pulls away as the second video shows.
Also remember my 3.07s to 60mph was in those damp conditions, in the dry its running around 2.9s, but remember its 2.9s every single time, with no reliability issues and you don't sit their with engine going bah bah bah bah like you would with LC, you just bury gas pedal and your off.
On track days I muller that GTR, but that is maybe more the driver than the car as I also muller it in my 360PS M3 as well.
In the real world you can't use LC on a GTR, particular once tuned as they easily destroy their gearbox, infact the GTR in video just broken its gearbox even without using LC.
The SVR does not need LC, so much torque from idle and simple fact is in real world its as quick as a tuned GTR, of course from a roll from around 100mph a tuned GTR pulls away as the second video shows.
Also remember my 3.07s to 60mph was in those damp conditions, in the dry its running around 2.9s, but remember its 2.9s every single time, with no reliability issues and you don't sit their with engine going bah bah bah bah like you would with LC, you just bury gas pedal and your off.
On track days I muller that GTR, but that is maybe more the driver than the car as I also muller it in my 360PS M3 as well.
Most people on the forum are F Type owners or enthusiasts, don't think anyone thinks F Type is anything other than a fast car, equally no one who has expressed an opinion on relative performance of F Type (including SVR) and GT-R believe the F Type is faster, except you.
I don't believe your claims stand up to scrutiny
I don't believe any AWD vehicle driven in damp conditions is going to be 0.17 slower to 60mph in damp than dry.
I will believe your claims that your SVR does sub 3 sec to 60mph when you show Vbox results.
Regarding GT-R, I owned one for three years, drove over 60,000miles in several different GTR, used launch mode countless times in real world conditions (LC4 & LC5) without any gearbox issues. Still fail to understand how your mates GT-R with reportedly 100bhp above standard is running quarter mile time 0.3 to 0.5 secs slower than best time a standard GT'R can manage
Last edited by Paul_59; Aug 31, 2018 at 11:57 AM.
Member
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 85
Likes: 12
From: Central California
I think we can all agree that the GTR is a great car for what it is as is the Ftype. Back on track now...
Gibbo, if you have Vbox results or other data for those launches this would be a great place to put it up. I feel like any Ftype going under 3.0s to 60 from stock would be fantastic, so it would be good to see the data.
Interested in seeing the results other members might have on their cars, both modded and stock.
Gibbo, if you have Vbox results or other data for those launches this would be a great place to put it up. I feel like any Ftype going under 3.0s to 60 from stock would be fantastic, so it would be good to see the data.
Interested in seeing the results other members might have on their cars, both modded and stock.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 394
Likes: 102
From: Ruislip, London
I have a v box i also have a 630bhp rwd f type and i cant get anywhere near the stds car 0-60 (3.5-3.8) depending whom you believe.
What i can tell you is from 50+ there isn't a lot that could stay with me, not even Gibbo in his hyper f type lol
I have managed to equal the 0-100, i reckon a pro/better driver than me could knock maybe .5 secs off of the std times though.
What i can tell you is from 50+ there isn't a lot that could stay with me, not even Gibbo in his hyper f type lol
I have managed to equal the 0-100, i reckon a pro/better driver than me could knock maybe .5 secs off of the std times though.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 536
Likes: 135
From: UK
I have a v box i also have a 630bhp rwd f type and i cant get anywhere near the stds car 0-60 (3.5-3.8) depending whom you believe.
What i can tell you is from 50+ there isn't a lot that could stay with me, not even Gibbo in his hyper f type lol
I have managed to equal the 0-100, i reckon a pro/better driver than me could knock maybe .5 secs off of the std times though.
What i can tell you is from 50+ there isn't a lot that could stay with me, not even Gibbo in his hyper f type lol
I have managed to equal the 0-100, i reckon a pro/better driver than me could knock maybe .5 secs off of the std times though.
A V8S with 630HP once it has traction should fly, less weight, less transmission loss.
I'd still beat you in the quarter mile though.
PB so far 11.1@126mph.
P.S. Though my car did make 610HP before cone filters, probably 620HP now, of course dyno accuracy and all that, but its doing 125-127mph terminals so its clearly healthy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FS[Europe]: 4.2 Throttle body Bored out to 78mm
avos
PRIVATE For Sale / Trade or Buy Classifieds
1
Apr 12, 2016 05:01 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)