C&D 'street start' 5-60 MPH times worse than 0-60, Why?
C&D 'street start' 5-60 MPH times worse than 0-60, Why?
In every issue of Car & Driver, when they list performance numbers they have 0-60 time and also 'street start 5-60' time. The street start time is always .5 to 1 second higher than the 0-60 time. Would the 1/4 mile times be a lot worse also? I thought starting at a roll would be an advantage, why isn't it? Does this mean if you are at a stop light race you are better off sitting still until you can launch?
Re: C&D 'street start' 5-60 MPH times worse than 0-60, Why?
Originally posted by Anachronism
In every issue of Car & Driver, when they list performance numbers they have 0-60 time and also 'street start 5-60' time. The street start time is always .5 to 1 second higher than the 0-60 time. Would the 1/4 mile times be a lot worse also? I thought starting at a roll would be an advantage, why isn't it? Does this mean if you are at a stop light race you are better off sitting still until you can launch?
In every issue of Car & Driver, when they list performance numbers they have 0-60 time and also 'street start 5-60' time. The street start time is always .5 to 1 second higher than the 0-60 time. Would the 1/4 mile times be a lot worse also? I thought starting at a roll would be an advantage, why isn't it? Does this mean if you are at a stop light race you are better off sitting still until you can launch?
That's correct-->
Originally posted by StrongIsleMax
I think its because with A/T cars 5-60 mph they don't brake torque and with M/T cars the clutch is let out fully and there is no optimization of launch revs.
I think its because with A/T cars 5-60 mph they don't brake torque and with M/T cars the clutch is let out fully and there is no optimization of launch revs.
5-60 mph is more realistic for real world comparisons. How many races will you ever have on the street from a standing start with wheels/tires a blazin'. Most will be from a slow roll like when first pulling away from a light. 5-60 also puts more emphasis on the engines power delivery and not as much on driver skill.
I thought it might have something to do with a regular 0-60 being a high RPM clutch drop, still I thought rolling would be an advantage.
So I guess cars with more low end power or broader powerband would not suffer as badly on a street start? Just found the street start time for a 95 Max, 0-60 6.7, 5-60 7.2, the times are even better after 40,000 miles. Seems pretty good compared to the tests of sport compacts in the past two issues of C&D, most of those cars lost over 1/2 second in the street start. I like my chances in a stoplight race.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=44&page=3
So I guess cars with more low end power or broader powerband would not suffer as badly on a street start? Just found the street start time for a 95 Max, 0-60 6.7, 5-60 7.2, the times are even better after 40,000 miles. Seems pretty good compared to the tests of sport compacts in the past two issues of C&D, most of those cars lost over 1/2 second in the street start. I like my chances in a stoplight race.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=44&page=3
Re: That's correct-->
Originally posted by Jimbrowski
In a manual gearbox, the clutch is fully engaged, and there is no advantage that you'd gain from a higher-rpm clutch engagement.
In a manual gearbox, the clutch is fully engaged, and there is no advantage that you'd gain from a higher-rpm clutch engagement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hondarydr
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
5
Dec 30, 2024 06:15 PM
Finkle
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
13
Sep 27, 2015 09:53 PM
MaximaDrvr
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
Aug 19, 2015 08:20 PM




