[nickbettschen]

So I didn't get my 2SS Vert till fall last year so never got to try out the on board 0 to 100 time trial thing in dash.

Question.... everywhere I read the 2020 SS should get a 4 second time but the best I can get is 5 Seconds. Am I doing something wrong?

I'm using everything stock and lunch control as well as line lock to hear up the tires before hand.

[Heat Magnet]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_to...h)%20is%20used.

This might give some insight as to why you're getting around 5 seconds instead of the published 4.

[2SS Capt]

Also the time published are for the Coupe, the Convertible is 240 lbs heavier than the coupe which will affect times as well... Plus 100 Kph is actually 62 Mph so that will add a couple tenths as well... I think the best I've done on my 2SS (0-60 mph) is 4.2 sec with stock tires and 35 psi and not really warm tires...

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Is your car auto or manual? That will make a huge difference. But as far as auto which is more consistent, other things to consider:

1) The times you see in the magazines like Car and Driver and MotorTrend utilize what's called the "one foot roll out". The time to go from a dead stop to the 1 ft mark usually takes about 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. That time should be added to the magazine times to get a true 0-60 mph. So if Car and Driver quotes 4.0 seconds, the actual time from a dead stop is about 4.3 seconds. I assume the onboard timer does not include a one foot roll out.
2) The times in the magazines are corrected for standard conditions. This usually results in a tenth or two faster than what was actually recorded unless the density altitude was really low. For example, the time for 0-60 (with one foot roll out) may have actually been 4.2 seconds, but if the DA was high, that will be corrected to 4.0 seconds. This gives consistency when comparing one car to the next under different conditions. It's good the magazines do this for consistency, but it makes people that do tests of 1/4 drag days with high DA think their car is slower.
3) Your convertible is heavier than a coupe, resulting in a tenth or so being added on.
4) As someone else said: in an SS it takes about 0.2 seconds to go from 60-62 mph.
5) You could be unknowingly driving against a slight head wind. The magazines do the tests in both directions and avg. the two runs so that the wind effect is negated.

So you can see how the above combined could easily be about 0.6 - 0.8 seconds with the exact same driver. If you spin too much on the launch, then there's the rest of your time.

More thought on the one foot roll out: Using this method, AWD cars have an advantage over RWD cars because they are traveling faster after 1 foot. So not only do they have the grip and usually gearing advantage because of the AWD, the times you see in the magazines are actually of the cars accelerating from about 5-60 mph, vs. a RWD car that might only get to 3 mph in the first foot, so the actual timed mph delta is different. If I recall, during one magazine test a Porsche 911 Turbo S was going something like 6 mph after the first foot, so with the one foot roll out, the measured time was only from 6-60 mph. That's about 3 mph less than a car like an SS will be timed for (~3-60 mph), making another advantage to the one foot roll out for powerful AWD cars. Same principle applies to the Teslas and other powerful electric cars. They're probably going 6-7 mph in that first foot, which means the speed that they are being timed is a smaller delta than RWD cars.

[Wyzz Kydd]

M6 vs A10 (or A8, shudder) the difference is about a tenth of a second. You’re only shifting once, 1st to 2nd.

[Pupilbone]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Is your car auto or manual? That will make a huge difference. But as far as auto which is more consistent, other things to consider:

1) The times you see in the magazines like Car and Driver and MotorTrend utilize what's called the "one foot roll out". The time to go from a dead stop to the 1 ft mark usually takes about 0.2 to 0.3 seconds. That time should be added to the magazine times to get a true 0-60 mph. So if Car and Driver quotes 4.0 seconds, the actual time from a dead stop is about 4.3 seconds. I assume the onboard timer does not include a one foot roll out.
2) The times in the magazines are corrected for standard conditions. This usually results in a tenth or two faster than what was actually recorded unless the density altitude was really low. For example, the time for 0-60 (with one foot roll out) may have actually been 4.2 seconds, but if the DA was high, that will be corrected to 4.0 seconds. This gives consistency when comparing one car to the next under different conditions. It's good the magazines do this for consistency, but it makes people that do tests of 1/4 drag days with high DA think their car is slower.
3) Your convertible is heavier than a coupe, resulting in a tenth or so being added on.
4) As someone else said: in an SS it takes about 0.2 seconds to go from 60-62 mph.
5) You could be unknowingly driving against a slight head wind. The magazines do the tests in both directions and avg. the two runs so that the wind effect is negated.

So you can see how the above combined could easily be about 0.6 - 0.8 seconds with the exact same driver. If you spin too much on the launch, then there's the rest of your time.

More thought on the one foot roll out: Using this method, AWD cars have an advantage over RWD cars because they are traveling faster after 1 foot. So not only do they have the grip and usually gearing advantage because of the AWD, the times you see in the magazines are actually of the cars accelerating from about 5-60 mph, vs. a RWD car that might only get to 3 mph in the first foot, so the actual timed mph delta is different. If I recall, during one magazine test a Porsche 911 Turbo S was going something like 6 mph after the first foot, so with the one foot roll out, the measured time was only from 6-60 mph. That's about 3 mph less than a car like an SS will be timed for (~3-60 mph), making another advantage to the one foot roll out for powerful AWD cars. Same principle applies to the Teslas and other powerful electric cars. They're probably going 6-7 mph in that first foot, which means the speed that they are being timed is a smaller delta than RWD cars.

Great read, appreciate that info.

[nickbettschen]

Totally makes sense. Just a lot of things adding up. As opposed to the reviews and etcs. They have all the right conditions going for them

[Paintslinger16]

Did you try it without the launch control? I am in Watertown on the south side of our shared Great Lake! We all miss going north.

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by nickbettschen

Totally makes sense. Just a lot of things adding up. As opposed to the reviews and etcs. They have all the right conditions going for them

Yes to things adding up. Although even the magazine testers may not always have the best conditions, but the testing regimen (two way run averages, corrected for density altitiude) plus the fact that the magazines testers do this for a living and thus have more experience than most, they are able to get pretty good times.

Motortrend, for example, usually tests their cars in California, which only has 91 octane. So often their times are a hair behind Car and Driver, who usually tests in Michigan with 93 Octane (or with whatever fuel octane the manufacturers recommend).

[nickbettschen]

Originally Posted by Paintslinger16

Did you try it without the launch control? I am in Watertown on the south side of our shared Great Lake! We all miss going north.

I know right, i usually made it down to Watertown or Syracuse couple times a year!