0-60

[Shaunieboy]

Hey guys,

 

Has anyone done an accurate 0-60 using a GPS app? I was really surprised to get an 8.6 seconds on my remapped 1.6. Obviously is was always going to be quicker than standard (12.3 seconds), but by such a margin is quite a pleasant surprise. The road was pretty greasy too. À

 

Do skoda understate their 0-60 times? I notice even the standard 2.0 is 10+ seconds.

[Ootohere]

What was your 0-62 mpg time?

the 0-62 mph is the one that gets given for anyone that is interested in the 0-100 kmph time.

0-60 for when the performance is nothing special...

[Shaunieboy]

34 minutes ago, Roottootemoot said:

What was your 0-62 mpg time?

the 0-62 mph is the one that gets given for anyone that is interested in the 0-100 kmph time.

0-60 for when the performance is nothing special...

I don't have that figure but I would hazard a guess on a dry road with warm tyres and with some practice (this is literally the first 0-60 I've done in around a decade) it would be at worst the same but more likely less. Probably in first gear a little too long.

 

Its not something I want to necessarily do again or keep repeating as it's harsh on the drive train. I was more interested in peoples own experiences vs the manufacturers claims.

[olduns]

Manufactures figures..... 

Perfect conditions

Very low fuel

Spare out

Racing snake driver

 

Much the same as fuel figures, never to be replicated in the real world

[Shaunieboy]

Hand on heart, and I know I'm coming across as a bit of a 'big head' here, but with careful driving and a good level of anticipation, I've found it pretty easy to match the manufacturers figures.

 

Even taking into consideration the 'generous' mpg figures on the maxidot.

 

I know I'm not alone here too!

[Shaunieboy]

Also, my point was the exact opposite, I'm NOT a racing snake driver, the conditions were crap, fuel tank 3/4 full and still managed to rinse the manufacturers claimed time.

[penguin17]

18 minutes ago, olduns said:

Manufactures figures..... 

Perfect conditions

Very low fuel

Spare out

Racing snake driver

 

Much the same as fuel figures, never to be replicated in the real world

To play devils advocate, whilst the fuel figures are often very optimistic and will likely never be reproducible in real world conditions; the performance of most VW group cars is often down played.  Not just the 0-60, 30-50 etc times but the actual amount of power/torque the engines are producing.  I would surmise that they publish figures based on worst case scenario, e.g; at altitude, in heat, with poor quality fuel.  Cars that are at sea level, in a cool climate (particularly those with turbo's) and using better quality fuel, such as 99 Octane can and do produce better figures than the same car running in a hot climate, at altitude and with poor quality fuel.  So cars in the UK will likely be capable of the best possible numbers, +/- a few % to allow for manufacturing tolerances. 

 

 

Edited 18 December, 2019 by penguin17

[Ootohere]

^^^^ Exactly.

It is easy to see where VW's, Audi's, SEATS with the same drivetrain, so Engine / Gearbox, Max Power / Nm Torque but that are heavier than the Skoda model

get better 'Brochure figures'.

 

The PS / Nm figures which is what many people buy a car on really has to be the min possible in the worst of environmental condition as in the post above.

 

In the UK you will never drive at more than 3,500 ft above sea level or in ambient temps above 40*oC.

 

0-62 times are surface dependent, weather / temp dependent, tyres fitted dependent, weight of driver and stuff in car dependent, TC on or off etc.

 

I think the interesting 0-62 mph times is with 5 people in the car with their bags in the boot on the way to KFC after being at their Weight Watcher class.

Edited 18 December, 2019 by Roottootemoot

[TerryJP]

On the subject of fuel consumption, below are my figures, Brim to brim over almost 6 years , No complaints, no remaps just a bog standard 170 bhp L & K Estate

 

Miles/Day	Days	Total Miles	Litres	Cost	MPG	p/mile
60.09	2,168	130,285	12,669	£  15,086.46	46.69	£   0.1158
21,935	5.940	Years

[ozpara]

Having just rebuilt the (CDAA) engine, with about 50kms on the clock; 8.9s 0-100kph in Sports mode. According to the app, it was only pulling around 53kw during the test, but I need to retest with a more accurate weight setting.

[vborovic]

The best 0-100 km/h I got on mine using the Torque app was 6.7 secs ...

[Shaunieboy]

3 minutes ago, vborovic said:

The best 0-100 km/h I got on mine using the Torque app was 6.7 secs ...

I'll take a 1.9 second hit over your gas guzzling 6 pot 😉. Reckon I've got 8.3 or so with practise in the dry.

[vborovic]

Just now, Shaunieboy said:

I'll take a 1.9 second hit over your gas guzzling 6 pot 😉. Reckon I've got 8.3 or so with practise in the dry.

 

Fair enough, but the 200+ km/h is where you see the real difference, when the car still has extra horses to make that pull ... 😂

[Shaunieboy]

Our issue is we run out of revs to play with. That's what I miss about a petrol motor.

[ozpara]

7 hours ago, vborovic said:

The best 0-100 km/h I got on mine using the Torque app was 6.7 secs ...

 

That's the same app I used. Have you remapped for performance?
I'm wondering if Launch Control would make any difference - it is disabled in Australian models by default.