Insane Polo!!!

[Sharkie]

For a point of reference, the APR golf with 223 kw atfw pulled a 13.8s quarter in the motor shootout.

The Evolve polo did 14.4 from memory with LSD, coilovers, FMIC, chip, full exhaust.

Buy the mag. It's a good read.

P.S. some of those numbers might be a bit off, I'm only going off memory

I have the magazine ..... agree with Jason, Motor's Dave Morley should spend some more time on dragstrip in a manual car ...... almost all the manuals posted really bad times ..... APRs Golf with 223kw atw, semi-slicks and lots of suspension work has done a 12.9 before ..... and Kai's Polo (also on semi-slicks) has done a 13.99 ......

My point is, unless you spend $50K on a Polo you will not see a 13s flat, and most definately not this Polo in question with almost no suspension work or tyres .... huge difference between 13.8 and 13.0 in a road car at the strip. You can spend lots of $$$$ and time to gain 0.5s.

I call BS on that bit of the article .... the power I can believe though .... point is also, that much power will make it even more difficult to achieve a decent time in the hands of an inexpierenced driver. (ie Motor's Dave Morley)

[break]

Car major car mags here have always been VERY random in their 0-100 figures.

I mean, my old car (MY05 WRX WRP10) was listed from the factory at 5.7s to 100km/h, and 13.7s down the 1/4 mile. Best MOTOR managed wasn't even in the 5s zone to 100, and wasn't in the 13s zone down the 1/4 when both listed factory times had been replicated by owners at dragstrips after a bit of practice.

I've long since stopped caring about magazine standing acceleration figures and accepeted the manufacturers figures as the definitive performance metric.

[Bboy_Sparx]

No doubt he'd be running flat 13s.

I retract this statement after remembering I've driven 200kw S15s which are RWD and only managed consistent 13.2s, 13.1 at best.

[mikepologti]

Car major car mags here have always been VERY random in their 0-100 figures.

I mean, my old car (MY05 WRX WRP10) was listed from the factory at 5.7s to 100km/h, and 13.7s down the 1/4 mile. Best MOTOR managed wasn't even in the 5s zone to 100, and wasn't in the 13s zone down the 1/4 when both listed factory times had been replicated by owners at dragstrips after a bit of practice.

I've long since stopped caring about magazine standing acceleration figures and accepeted the manufacturers figures as the definitive performance metric.

i agree with your statment though a few companies still dont rely on performance numbers and hence there a lil "lax" with performance figures. (vw/audi being the obvious) i guess in the end no one really knows till you get in the car yourself sadly enough. itd be nice if car magazines had a "stig" (to coin the term ) to properly test drive there cars, someone with experiance in racing.

[break]

That said, one thing I probably should point out... launching a car (particular AWD) for maximum acceleration compared to launching a car for maximum acceleration AND CARING ABOUT LONGEVITY OF COMPONENTS IN THAT CAR are very different.

I had to do some serious clutch slip in my WRX to launch fast without coughing out a gearbox, but I've seen people do redline launches sidestepping the clutch and go even faster to 100.

None of these magazines go specific enough to say how they acheive their times, but I suppose so long as the times are relative to other cars they test then it won't be a problem.

[Kai]

http://www.riceracing.com.au/water-injection.htm

Read that if you want a tiny bit better look on water injection.

[gregozedobe]

That said, one thing I probably should point out... launching a car (particular AWD) for maximum acceleration compared to launching a car for maximum acceleration AND CARING ABOUT LONGEVITY OF COMPONENTS IN THAT CAR are very different.

I had to do some serious clutch slip in my WRX to launch fast without coughing out a gearbox, but I've seen people do redline launches sidestepping the clutch and go even faster to 100.

None of these magazines go specific enough to say how they acheive their times, but I suppose so long as the times are relative to other cars they test then it won't be a problem.

I agree, so I tend to look at the terminal 400M speed to get an idea of overall power to weight, and 80-120 kmh for acceleration that isn't affected by track conditions, tyre choice, driver technique/skill and fwd/rwd/awd issues. Some magazines do a 5-100kmh or "street start" that can also be a useful indicator that is less affected by the above factors.

Some cars require a gear change into 3rd just before 100Kmh, but with others the gearing allows the car to get just over 100kmh before needing a gear change (or the tester can simply rev the engine into the redline if they lack mechanical sympathy and they want to get a better time).

Another issue is whether the car is tested with a near empty fuel tank and driver only, or full tank and two people on board (it makes a big difference, particularly for lighter cars).

[Stuwey]

Another issue is whether the car is tested with a near empty fuel tank and driver only, or full tank and two people on board (it makes a big difference, particularly for lighter cars).

MOTOR mag always test with half a tank or more, and two people on board.

[jasn78]

That said, one thing I probably should point out... launching a car (particular AWD) for maximum acceleration compared to launching a car for maximum acceleration AND CARING ABOUT LONGEVITY OF COMPONENTS IN THAT CAR are very different.

I had to do some serious clutch slip in my WRX to launch fast without coughing out a gearbox, but I've seen people do redline launches sidestepping the clutch and go even faster to 100.

None of these magazines go specific enough to say how they acheive their times, but I suppose so long as the times are relative to other cars they test then it won't be a problem.

sorry mate i disagree here with the journos, for instance even after the supposed abuse i give mine by going to the drags and getting better times im still on the stock clutch and have no slipping issues etc at all and im on 85000 kms

[break]

sorry mate i disagree here with the journos, for instance even after the supposed abuse i give mine by going to the drags and getting better times im still on the stock clutch and have no slipping issues etc at all and im on 85000 kms

In a manual FWD turbo, sure I wouldn't see any gearbox issues...

...in an manual AWD turbo, you'd be having gearbox problems by now if you launched that hard that often (particularly for a 5spd WRX).

[gregozedobe]

In a manual FWD turbo, sure I wouldn't see any gearbox issues...

...in an manual AWD turbo, you'd be having gearbox problems by now if you launched that hard that often (particularly for a 5spd WRX).

I agree. In a FWD (and RWD for that matter), if you try to launch too hard the wheels just spin, so reducing strain on all the drivetrain components.

In an AWD there is much more traction, so much more strain on everything (particularly if you do a max-attack takeoff by side-stepping the clutch in first gear at full revs).

When they started to put much more powerful engines in trucks some years ago (to haul heavy B-doubles), they realized they didn't need to keep upgrading the torque capacity of the propeller shafts, diffs and axles as they expected they would need to. Why ? Because there simply wasn't enough traction available to the drive wheels to break anything, the wheels would just spin instead.