|
Author
|
Message |
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2013
Posts: 14
Trade Rating: 0
Location: Cheltenham
|
 |
lol first of all I only have an xsi because its my first car and the fastest car car I could insure, but make no mistakes as soon as I turn 19 in september Ill be upgrading to something else. But seeing as you want to compare, the gti 138 is hardly faster, not enough to boast about. You're claiming a 0-60 of 8.9 secs well the xsi does it in 9.2 and mines a 1.6 "mate".
there's no doubt that upgradings fun but I highly doubt you'd even remember you ever owned a 206 if you got into something like a 911, even a civic type r lol.
| |  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:07 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 03, 2010
Posts: 979
Trade Rating: +6
Location: Biggleswade
|
|
It was pretty close, I have a In car recording and a phone as my dad recorded from the side, I'll upload it when I'm back from Spain, the part about a Scoob doing 0-60 in that time is easy, an impreza only running 300 hp prodrive claim 4.6 seconds, when I was running 375 with my twin plate exedy clutch doing a launch In that time is easy, I'm due another run soon this time I'm running more power with launch control and antilag so will be interested to see what it does!
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
You kids really need to read these entrys more closely...if u did u will see that i was trying to create some intetest in starting a fast car timeing league of sorts...so my title claiming and my begging was all words d to encourage people to post up there best times...as was my entry for my own time...just rated to encourage some interest and see what people are running at...
As for the koeninzegg why should i tell you?got £350.000 lyeing round???i doubt it...
At the end of the day im not arsed about petty arguments...im on here to talk 206's and have the odd chuckle because you just cant take life too seriously..which is why im a 206 driver i guess..
The little pug puts a smile on my face,its not too dear to run,it looks good,the interior is among the best(look at fords 1998-2006 or citroens 1996-2007 or saabs or renaults etc.etc.)thetes plenty of kit available,its fast enuf and handles pretty well,and most importantly i still look for reasons so i can drive her because i enjoy driving her unlike many cars ive driven in the past...ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY 206...
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:38 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Posts: 6526
Trade Rating: +10
Location: Westhoughton, Lancashire
|
|
Can I ask all members to refresh their memories and read our Guidelines here
| Website Guidelines wrote: |
206Info Guidelines
SPEEDING
The posting or boasting of speeds reached will not and cannot be tolerated. This includes anyone who owns a private road, test track or airfield. As with all post's that are deemed unacceptable they will be removed without warning. |
Any further posts relating to excessive speeds may result in the thread being locked.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 11, 2010
Posts: 127
Trade Rating: 0
Location: Luton, Beds
|
|
| eddie206 wrote: |
BUMP MAN!!!!!!
Fight your corner man..comon t_18sty 206...
Heres your chance...you cant make these claims then fail to even put a time up...
This could be the start of somthing gettin everyone to post there times at 0-60 on a track is best and we can find the fastest 206 on the road???
I know its a title i would be interested in...
Unfortunately mines only the 138bhp so it will get wiped by the 180 boys but as for fastest 138 mine will do 0-60in 8.87secs(low miles.well looked after i guess)...Any challengers then...at least i can say im the 138champ for now....bring it on........and dont forget to do this its wise to do it on a track and keep safe.....ok.thanks.. |
Not been on here for ages as I now try to stay away from forums because they're full of know it all's that always find something to criticize. Any way based on the following video that was run in road legal form (tyres etc) the 0-60 is approx 4.5 - 5 secs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhU33bEztc
Car is now for sale btw
www.pistonheads.com/cl...ar/1459334
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:13 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
Well there it is...in black and white..
there's no way of knowing what the porsche driver was upto tho...he could have been hanging back to get you going and push you on..however..he could have been thrashing the puddings off his porsche with a boot er bonnet full of slabs and a dodgy turbo...however it could be legit and the porsches arent that special afterall..
One thing that is proven is that the video shows the truth..
Only if it can do 0-110 in 13 secs how does that translate into a 0-60 time??bearing in mind the first 0-60 will be slower than a second 0-60 or both expressed as 0-55mph to simplify things so its easily halved..so the first 0-55will be slower than the second 0-55because the first is from a standing start and the second is already at speed with the engine around full speed..
Now if someone is a REAL mathematician they may be able to prove me wrong but as far as i can see,with the time simplyfied to 0-55 from 0-60(which is as near as damn it)It seems to be sensible that if it does 0-110 in 13 secs it will do 0-55 in 6.5 secs BUT if it does the last 0-55 faster than the first 0-55 then tje time will be longer so if this is true it will take the car OVER 6.5secs to get to 0-55mph..
If anyone can translate these figures better than i have please do..but it seems right to me that the car is doing a 0-60 in approximately 7seconds???
And the last 60-110mph in approx. 6seconds???
But maybe the distance which is a quarter mile may need consideration when doung the maths.. but only a REAL mathematician can sort this one out??
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:19 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2010
Posts: 4014
Trade Rating: +2
|
|
So by your theory this 290BHP turbo'd car does 0-55 slower than a GTi 180 can get to 60?
0-60 times mean jack s**t, the cars obviously going to be rapid regardless.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:24 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
The numbers are there to see..
But i agree it does seem wrong that this tuned motor should do a slow time like that??
And its certainly gonna be fast..and faster than a bog 180gti..and plenty fast to ensure some clenching i dare say.
As i said maybe a REAL mathematician can make sense of this because im retiring my abacus after this...ha!
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:25 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
Well there it is...in black and white..
there's no way of knowing what the porsche driver was upto tho...he could have been hanging back to get you going and push you on..however..he could have been thrashing the puddings off his porsche with a boot er bonnet full of slabs and a dodgy turbo...however it could be legit and the porsches arent that special afterall..
One thing that is proven is that the video shows the truth..
Only if it can do 0-110 in 13 secs how does that translate into a 0-60 time??bearing in mind the first 0-60 will be slower than a second 0-60 or both expressed as 0-55mph to simplify things so its easily halved..so the first 0-55will be slower than the second 0-55because the first is from a standing start and the second is already at speed with the engine around full speed..
Now if someone is a REAL mathematician they may be able to prove me wrong but as far as i can see,with the time simplyfied to 0-55 from 0-60(which is as near as damn it)It seems to be sensible that if it does 0-110 in 13 secs it will do 0-55 in 6.5 secs BUT if it does the last 0-55 faster than the first 0-55 then tje time will be longer so if this is true it will take the car OVER 6.5secs to get to 0-55mph..
If anyone can translate these figures better than i have please do..but it seems right to me that the car is doing a 0-60 in approximately 7seconds???
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:26 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 10, 2010
Posts: 4014
Trade Rating: +2
|
|
| eddie206 wrote: |
The numbers are there to see..
But i agree it does seem wrong that this tuned motor should do a slow time like that??
And its certainly gonna be fast..and faster than a bog 180gti..and plenty fast to ensure some clenching i dare say.
As i said maybe a REAL mathematician can make sense of this because im retiring my abacus after this...ha! |
No you're dodgy maths is their to see 
Its great that someone has actually created this car..there are so many people who come on here saying they will do it and never do so its good to see one.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:52 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Posts: 6526
Trade Rating: +10
Location: Westhoughton, Lancashire
|
|
| eddie206 wrote: |
Well there it is...in black and white..
there's no way of knowing what the porsche driver was upto tho...he could have been hanging back to get you going and push you on..however..he could have been thrashing the puddings off his porsche with a boot er bonnet full of slabs and a dodgy turbo...however it could be legit and the porsches arent that special afterall..
One thing that is proven is that the video shows the truth..
Only if it can do 0-110 in 13 secs how does that translate into a 0-60 time??bearing in mind the first 0-60 will be slower than a second 0-60 or both expressed as 0-55mph to simplify things so its easily halved..so the first 0-55will be slower than the second 0-55because the first is from a standing start and the second is already at speed with the engine around full speed..
Now if someone is a REAL mathematician they may be able to prove me wrong but as far as i can see,with the time simplyfied to 0-55 from 0-60(which is as near as damn it)It seems to be sensible that if it does 0-110 in 13 secs it will do 0-55 in 6.5 secs BUT if it does the last 0-55 faster than the first 0-55 then tje time will be longer so if this is true it will take the car OVER 6.5secs to get to 0-55mph..
If anyone can translate these figures better than i have please do..but it seems right to me that the car is doing a 0-60 in approximately 7seconds??? |
I'm confused with all the 0-55s.
Do you mean 0-55 and 55-110?
This is from Porsche for a 911 Carerra
Acceleration from 0 - 100 km/h (0 - 62 mph) 4.8 secs
Acceleration from 0 - 160 km/h (0 - 99 mph) 10,4 secs
On their figures 62-99 takes 5.6 seconds which makes the second part of acceleration slower.
But as these figures are manufactured in controlled circumstances, they actually equate to jack when under normal conditions.
If you can find some data for the actual car, then you will be very close to getting the answer you so obviously desire.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:55 am |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
Im not even bothered mate...i just read the whole thread and at the start a lot of people were very bothered..maybe thats where youve missed the point to my choice to find a result here...
I can drop it and probly will but just before i do you are suggesting above that it takes the porsche 5.6seconds to accelerate 37mph between 62 to 99 mph...doesnt that seem slow considerin it only took 4.8seconds to go from 0-62 mph.......and the 206 went all the way to 110 mph....interesting but annoying so im signing off this thread until a REAL MATHEMATICIAN can work these figures iut properly..
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 13, 2012
Posts: 321
Trade Rating: +3
Location: North West
|
|
Eddie you seem clueless
With the exception of a select few supercars, it is common knowledge that it takes longer to go from 60-100 than it does from 0-60, even when it's only an extra 40mph instead of the 60. This is because of the power the car has to develop to propel it through higher speeds. I'm sure you've witnessed it yourself that when you accelerate from 10 to 30 it is much quicker than accelerating from 60 to 80 despite both being 20mph increases. It's the same across wider scales. Intense power is needed to make a car accelerate rapidly through high speeds.
There is no mathematician required. Just that you need to understand cars do not accelerate at exactly the same rate during different speeds I.e they don't complete 50-70 the same as they would 10-30. This is the reason for gearing. Vehicles have different gear ratios in order to provide power at certain points where the car can accelerate faster. This is why, as you go up the gears, acceleration is slower.
| | |
|
|
|
|
 | |  |
| Own a Blue Peugeot 206 GTI 180. | |
 | |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 07, 2010
Posts: 4455
Trade Rating: +1
Location: Essex
|
|
| lee1985 wrote: |
| Intense power is needed to make a car accelerate rapidly through high speeds. |
That'll be down to the inverse square law.
Basically the faster a car goes the more friction builds up due to air residence, so the more power is needed to overcome it.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
Posts: 244
Trade Rating: 0
|
|
Sorry but at the example speeds you mention this is simply not true..try it for yourself..i know my car will go from 50-70 in almost no time at all and its because of the benefit of momentum and inertia that cars increase speeds at higher speeds a lot easier than at lower speeds when the full weight of the car is against itself low speed acceleration is much harder on the engine than acceleration at higher speeds needing much greater torque levels and to further prove my point just look at the fuel consumption levels between the low acceleration and the high speed acceleration..the low speed acceleration using far greater levels of fuel to perform the same 20mph increase as the higher speeds increase..fact.
You must see now mate how i am right and that you are the clueless one as you say..but i will not rub it in further but you must see the truth now...try it for yourself dude..its a fact.....
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Membership:
Latest: 
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 17126
Online Now [72]:
Visitors: 71
Members: 0
Staff Online Now:
Page Views:
General
Forums Home
Forum FAQ
Search
