False 0-60 times?

>>17555991
are you a fat ass?

must be a shit driver

>>17555991
If it's a torque converter auto, you probably haven't been launching it correctly.

>>17556001
Ding ding

>>17556001
>>17556026
I wonder how fat one would have to be to slow the car down by .7-.9 seconds.

>>17556001
I'm a 77kg weightlifter. That's not very heavy.

>>17556014
I looked this up last week. My fastest time was holding the brake with the engine idling and flooring the throttle while simultaneously releasing the brake. 6.2 seconds with traction control on. 6.3 seconds with it off.

I tried the same, but holding the brake and revving to 1500 and 2200rpm, releasing the brake and flooring the throttle. With with and without traction control. All 4 of those runs were slower than 6.2 seconds. TC was always faster.

What am I doing wrong?

>>17556071
Ok. Two theories.

1. You listed your weight in kg. I've heard something about Euro mustangs being less powerful than their American counterparts. I don't know if this would be true in your case.

2. The testers are beating the living shit out of the cars. They only have to do a few 0-60 runs and thus treat the cars more harshly (revving to a higher rpm while holding the brakes).

>>17555991

Elevation can take a toll on times as well as them testing cars in the absolute perfect environments

its probably those cheap ass nankangs you put on it and then wonder about acceleration

or your engine is beat to shit already thank ford reliability

>>17556123
I used kilos because that's the sport's unit of measurement. I'm American.

If case #2 is true, that will be a bummer. I certainly didn't buy the car for its unremarkable 0-60, but if there's that much deviation in published 0-60 times, that's a problem.

>>17555991
Tires, road surface, hell even humidity and outside temperature can affect this.

You ain't far off, and yeah weight could be a factor too.

>>17556145
My elavation is 17 feet.

>>17556150
They come from the factory with Eagle F1 all seasons.

>>17556165
Hmm. Are you doing these runs on a full tank of gas? They could be getting these numbers with a very light fuel load.

>>17556165
ok so, whats on the car now?
are they worn?

>>17556163
I've tried all different kinds of roads. Cruddy country roads, freshly cured black asphalt, all times were the same. All less than a 0.1 second deviation. I can't speak to humidity and temperature on my most recent times.

What I can say is that on my Blizzak WS80 winters, I ran a 7.3 second 0-60. On dry, cold roads.

Mash the brake and keep the revs as high as they'll go, release the brake. Are you getting wheelspin? Were those 0-60 times on a road or a drag strip? A normal road is like driving on show compared to a prepped drag strip.

>>17556177
I've tried literally fresh out of the gas station and with 20km estimated range in the tank. Tge difference was 6.3 to 6.2, if my memory is correct.

>>17556190
Same tires. They haven't seen a full season yet. They have about 5000km on them.

>>17556194
How are you timing? Stop watch and throttle isn't accurate.

Whats the temperature like where you live? if it's quite cold that could be a grip factor too. cold tires don't grip as well.

>>17556213
were the tires nice and hot when you did the run?

>>17556206
I haven't tried going over 2200rpm, so I could try that. I don't know what the engine will limit itself to, or where it starts breaking free.

Without TC, I was getting some wheel spin. Apparently 0.1 seconds more than with TC. With TC on, I do believe I still had wheel spin. I'd have to try it again and pay attention to that specifically.

These were on roads, not a drag strip. Several different roads, from crappy to brand spaking new, but no drag strip.

>>17556247
You probably got to go way higher than 2200. Drag cars have TC's with high ass stall speeds for a reason. Were the 0-60 times in the reviews on a strip though? That could be the second difference.

>>17556224
My car has "Track Apps". It has a 0-30/60/100 timer built into the trip computer. On the day of the 6.2 run, it was 21-26 celsius out.

>>17556232
I honestly don't know how to measure that. I know some tires need heat in them, depending on the compounds used. I did drive until my oil reached operating temperature, and hooned around a bit. But I didn't do anything to specifically heat up or measure the temperature of the tires.

That's fairly off. I mean near a whole second slow. It has to be some kind of combination of factors.

What kind of fuel do you use? I mean brand as well as octane. Do you, or gave you added any kind if fuel or oil conditioners, stabilizers, boosters, fuel injector cleaner, ECT to the engine, fuel, oil systems? Have you had any electronic tuning done? Have you modified the car in anyway? I mean it might be something insignificant. Did you change the air filter or the air filter box assembly to something other than stock? Have you changed it modified the exhaust system in any way? Have you made any aerodynamic changes tithe vehicle? Do you keep extra equipment or just tons of random shit in your trunk?

Really think about the small stuff.

Is it a completely stock vehicle with manufacturers oil and recommend gas and tires and zero changes from factory? Or are there little things here ir there than might be adding up?

these 0-60 numbers are done on a well prepped track for maximum traction

>>17556273
Drag cars do a bit of a burn out before a run. Road cars often aren't powerful enough for that, nor are they sitting on the right tires. You gotta burn some rubber, either from hard cornering or several hard launches with lots of wheel spin.

I think your issues are tire related. People vastly underestimate how much of a difference the right tires make on car performance. If you can get some real aggressive ones next time. If you got a Costco membership they do killer deals on Bridgestone tires sometimes. Free install+ $70 off the set. Get some RE71rs. All season tires will murder a quick.cars launches.

>>17556271
I'll certainly try launching at a higher rpm. I don't know for certain if the published times were recorded at a drag strip. The ones I saw didn't actually specify, but all the times I saw fell between 5.3 and 5.5. So I suppose I only need to find one source that says drag strip and we could probably assume they were all recorded at a drag strip. I had assumed a 0.3 second margin of error between my time and theirs, assuming they used rollout, but I can now see how that logic is flawed.

>>17556279
Bone stock. From factory. 10,000km on the clock. Hasn't even had its first oil change. So it would still have its break in additives. 87 regular pump gas. In the car I keep the wheel key, my papers and a funnel in the trunk. That can't even be more than 2 pounds. The only thing I can think of is my tire pressure. It's supposed to be 32 psi, cold. My tires range from 30-32. I could correct this.

>>17556345
>Drag cars do a bit of a burn out before a run. Road cars often aren't powerful enough for that
maybe in sub 1-liter euroland, but a mustang can do a burnout on slicks with no problem

>>17555991
As a Door to Door dildo salesman, I would recommend making sure you don't have anything in the trunk. It all adds up. Those demonstration samples of the double headed Diablo dildo weigh a ton. Heck, the box of Mandingo Black Mamba XXL Timbuktu Tummy Ticklers weighs more than a full tank of gas.

>ever trusting ferd

>>17556345
I'm definitely thinking about getting summers after my factory all seasons are shot. Issue is, I live in an area that gets real winters. It will make tire swappung difficult to time. I may just have to end up driving on winters early and keeping them on late.

However, I do know that the 5.5 published time was recorded on the factory tires.

>>17556310
/thread

>>17556310
I could live with this. I'd just have to take my car to a drag strip and give it a run to see if the numbers add up.

>>17556360
I'm very American. No your stock mustang can't do proper burn outs. No white smoke, not a burn out.

>>17556381
You won't die on summers in snow. Just gotta drive like a grandma. Frustrating, not usually threatening.

>>17556422
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJqCNNmp8zI

have you even attempted to do a burnout? the car even has a button for it lmfao

>>17555991

Those are professionals BEST times. People who its their job to push cars and get those numbers. They know exactly how to launch and have no concerns about blowing up the car they are launching. Someone at my work used to work at GMs proving grounds. Those cars are ragged on til they explode. They give 0 fucks if after 2 launches the trannys gonna explode.

>>17556451
>>Car has a button for it

Point proven.

File: 20031962_1238586859606271_7877847018476264278_n.jpg (87KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x960px

Fuel type and low rear tyre presssure and drag strip tarmac and correct wind direction and performance engine oil and no spare tyre + skinny driver

It all adds up

>>17556473
so it is not a proper burnout unless you are ruining your rear brakes? I thought you said that loads of white smoke is what makes for a "real" burnout

here is a video of a mustang without the burnout button doing a burnout
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxrhjRRNiPI

just admit you're wrong and stop having a meltdown

>>17555991
Same here actually but in a Celica actually and my times are around 3 seconds off which is weird as hell because I'm skinny, and the car's engine is definitely clean and well.

File: IMG_9779.jpg (345KB, 460x594px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 460x594px

>>17555991

0-60 times that are quoted are quoted with a roll out.

>>17556422
https://youtu.be/WGZB4qe4d-M
38 seconds in, then get back to me.