Car and Driver test of 78SC 0-60 in 5.8 secs?

I recall reading a old Car and Driver test of a 78 Sc with 0-60 times of 5.8secs , does anyone know why they acheived such a fast time?

In 79 the 0-60 time slowed a second or so what changed?


[This message has been edited by jryerson (edited 12-18-2000).]

I just read in the current Pano, or Excellence (can't remember where) that it was 5.5!

That's a step up from my 912E at like 13!

Happy holidays!

Dave

I haven't seen ANY figures like that. There were (if I'm not mistaken) some differences between the early Euro-spec SCs and those imported to the states. Possibly that could explain the difference. The best figure I've ever seen for an SC doing 0-60 in the U.S. is 7.0 seconds. Less than 6.0 seconds sounds like a figure more suited to one of the early turbo models.

Car and Driver is a magazine written, staffed, and edited by a bunch of muscle-car drag-racer wannabees.

if they got 5.8 seconds, then they probably filled the tank with nitromethane, then blew the rear end of that car apart at the end of the run.

or it's a typo

obin

In this month's Excellence magazine, there is a quote about C&D's 1978 test of 0-60 in 5.5 seconds on the way to a top speed of 136 mph.

C&D showed a second test of 0-60 in 6.0 seconds on the way to a top speed of 130 mph.

Peter Morgan's book the Original Porsche 911 states that the 0-60 times varied from magazine tests to Porsche factory tests. The factory was more conservative in rating 0-60 times.

On page 143 of Morgan's book, 911 years 1963 thru 1998, all 0-60 times are listed. U.S. spec 1978-79's are listed at 6.3 per Road and Track magazine. 1980 is listed at 7.0 per the factory. The 1981-83 model is listed at 5.7 but is not specific as to U.S. spec or Euro spec.

The caveat from the Morgan's book states "factory figures are the base model with no options, so they are not very realistic".

Regardless, the 911SC is still a lot of fun to drive despite differing tests in 0-60 speeds.

For the 82 US model The factory specs were 6.9 0-62 top end 139. The acceleration figures quoted by the factory tend to be conservative and the top end may have been optimistic in this case. Mine has done 120 with room to pull but I have never had the opprtunity to top it out. In any case, with the typical speedo error on our cars 60 mph comes quickly!!!!!!!!!!

I can get my car to 60 in the low sixes without blowing anything up. I would imagine an SC would be able to do nearly the same with only 20 less HP.

------------------
Mark Szabo
1986 911 Targa 3.2
1987 Escort 5-speed 1.9
The 911 Gallery

hmm,

ever watched "car and driver television" on TNN. every time they show their zero to sixty accelerations, they lay down enough rubber to make 300 pairs of sandals out of. big, smoky muscle-car burnouts. they do it a dozen times before they get a really low reading.

i guess it would be possible to get 5.8 seconds after a bunch of tries. i just would not want to buy that car after the test.

i feel sorry for some of the cars they test.

obin

They lay down lots of rubber in a burnout because rubber sticks best to....rubber. Those burnouts are done specifically to increase traction for the "real" launch. Those black stripes at the starting line significantly increase traction. Watch some drag racing sometime.

Well actually I've always heard that 'laying rubber' is bad for traction. Sure the drag racers do it to heat up the tires to proper operating temperature (i.e. glue), but regular street tires do nothing but become greasy and slick when they get heated. I personally never worry about 0-60. Who the heck actually drives like that? 1/4 mile times are a little more telling, but the real deal is the 1/4 mile MPH. If you screw up your launch, it won't impact your trap speed nearly as much as everything else. If you're wanting a good judge of power in comparing car x to car y, look at their 1/4 mile trap speeds.

Brad

I have no idea what an SC can really do 60 in, but I've driven other cars that do 60 supposedly in the 5s (300ZX twin turbo, BMW M3), and I can tell you that those cars will dust my stock SC fairly handily, in my opinion, in a 0-60 race.

In fact, I think that many current sedans feel at least as fast or faster than my SC. The BMW 330i comes to mind.

My guess for an SC would be about 6.5 or so to 60, based on power to weight ratio. It would seem difficult for 180 hp to move the 2700+ or so lbs an average US SC weighs to 60 in the 5 second range. But, that's just a guess.

My car weighs in at 2580 lbs, no occupants, 3/4 tank gas. I weight about 165. 1/4 tank of gas would weigh less than 3/4 tank. I must try the 0-60 thing, as I can not imagine being unable to beat 7 seconds. I just am very confident that 7 seconds is easy.

And no, test drivers are not nice to cars when they are testing limits. If they were, they wouldn't be testing limits. Here's a scare for some of you: You don't have to use the clutch to shift. Or you can push the clutch pedal down and slide your foot sideways instead of lifting your leg. Whether you like it or not, this is how you find how fast a car can go from 0 to 60.

I believe I can get under 7 seconds without using these tactics. But to find the fastest possible time, I will use them.

------------------
'83 SC



[This message has been edited by Superman (edited 12-19-2000).]

superman,

i had a friend a while ago that had a Nissan Sentra with a 5 speed box in it.

he was all excited one day and he said "hey, check this out, i can shift gears without the clutch". yes indeed, he shifted gears without the clutch. i asked:

"won't that bust something"
to which he replied:
"naah, truckers do it all the time"

well, a while later i found out that he blew the transmission on his Nissan. killed all the synchros. i was 16 a the time so i didn't know what that meant. but later on i remember asking him if stuff like that would be detrimental to a car.

i remember reading in a LOT of books, reviews, interviews that 911s (and other porsches) require a "pause" between shifts and if you try to "speed-shift" them then you will do nothing but end up blowing apart your transmission.

right now i can picture a ham-fisted Car and Driver magazine reviewer stepping out of his Pontiac GTO after going 100+mph in a straight line (and taking 900feet to slow down with those crappy drum brakes and 9 billion pounds of detroit iron supported by leaf springs). i can already see the 911 getting it's gears ground 5 times before they record a good zero to sixty time.

i agree, zero to sixty? what's that all about anyways? to me the most important spec is LAP TIMES!!!!



obin

[This message has been edited by Obin Robinson (edited 12-19-2000).]

With the short shifter, swepco, a properly adjusted clutch, and rebuilt tranny, I can shift plenty fast for excellent 0-60 times with no grinding.

------------------
Kurt B
1984 911 Carrera Cabriolet
75 914 1.8

I have an In-car performance meter from a company here in the UK. I have had it about 2 weeks and even with the crappy wet weather we have had over here I have managed to post a 0-60 in 6.41 secs in very wet conditions. The company that makes the meter has a web site at www.race-technology.com
The meter is called a ac-22, go and have a look, you will be impressed with what it can do

------------------
82sc

kurt b,

sweet setup! which short shifter do you have? i was looking into many different companies and their short shifters. i am going to hold off on one for my cars until i get some cockpit time in a car that has one installed.

do you heel-toe your downshifts also? if so does the short shifter help? after learning how to match teh revs on all the shifts, i found it to be very addicting. i heel-toe every shift in every car i drive. i find it much better to engine brake than hit that middle pedal especially when on ice and slush (like today).

i won't get into how boring it is to drive an automatic after you get used to heel-toe shifting.

obin

[This message has been edited by Obin Robinson (edited 12-19-2000).]

If you can't jam the gears in your 911 something is wrong with the tranny. People race these cars all the time. Do they pause between shift? I don't think so. Just remember the reach from 2-3 takes a little longer than 1-2 so watch the overrevs! Had a buddy blow out third gear twice because of this.

The IDIOTS at Motor Trend cited 'under 7 seconds' as their result of testing the '78 SC, in a special edition publication called Sports Car Graphic No. 2 ... a really big joke resulting from their purchase of a major 'thorn in their ribs' to eliminate serious competition! That they published a 'special' about sports cars without any significant test results should not be too surprising from the bunch that called the '70 Vega 'the best handling production car in the US' .... ARRRRGGGHHH!!!!

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa

I read that book by Vic Elford (?) about how to drive your 911. Evidently he advises "double clutching" and "pausing" between gears. I don't know how long that pause is tho. I used to ram the gears in my 68 RS SS Camaro & pull the wheels off the ground, but it broke. Didn't cost much to fix. One time I won a bet and jumped it from a standstill over a 6 oz coke bottle. Clutch went out after that, but I won enough to fix it. So there.

Someone explain heel-toe shifting...I'm at a loss for what exactly is being talked about!

Anyway, on the short shifter. Well, I only do 0 - 60, so I go from first, slam it in to 2nd, and take it to 6000 rpms, which is over 60 mph...the short shifter is great for that fast 1-2 slam.
3rd is definitely *****ier to find.

What I've found out in racing everyone I can find around here is this: Off the line, I'm always ahead. As first tops out, I'm ahead. When I shift from 1st to 2nd, Mustangs catch a bit...they can shift faster. The problem is, going from 2nd to 3rd is Always cause for them to get even closer. I'd say off hand, 5 feet closer!

That's it. Now someone explain these heel toe and odd stuff.

And warren, I don't understand your gripe...you suspect them of fraud in the numbers to sell a magazine?


------------------
Kurt B
1984 911 Carrera Cabriolet
75 914 1.8

[This message has been edited by Kurt B (edited 12-19-2000).]