I was reading about the Suzuki Escudo pikes peak car on another websight where it says the Escudo with 985 HP and 4WD had the quickest Acceleration from 0 to 60 and 0 to 100 mph for any race car. They claim the Escudo could go from 0 to 60 mph in 2.2 seconds and 0 to 100 mph in less than 4 seconds. Could any F1 car past or present beat the Escudo in straight line Acceleration ?
Suzuki Escudo pikes peak car vs F1
Started by
McLaren M20
, Mar 31 2003 00:12
20 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Greg Locock
-
- 6,492 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 31 March 2003 - 02:34
2.2 is a bit slow
http://www.fast-autos.net/0to60.html
As to whether an F1 could match it - depends on the downforce settings, and the tires, and the diff ratio.
That's only 1.5 g, so sticky tires could manage that, with no downforce, assuming you can get enough weight on the rear wheels.
Incidentally 4wd may not be quite the advantage you'd expect, the rotational inertia of the extra components, and the losses in the Xfer box, may count against it.
http://www.fast-autos.net/0to60.html
As to whether an F1 could match it - depends on the downforce settings, and the tires, and the diff ratio.
That's only 1.5 g, so sticky tires could manage that, with no downforce, assuming you can get enough weight on the rear wheels.
Incidentally 4wd may not be quite the advantage you'd expect, the rotational inertia of the extra components, and the losses in the Xfer box, may count against it.
#3
schuy
-
- 1,980 posts
- Joined: September 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2003 - 15:24
The Lingenfelter Corvette, 240mph...Blimey 
#4
benrapp
-
- 1,559 posts
- Joined: April 01
Member
Posted 31 March 2003 - 22:16
What a steaming pile of horseshit that site is. Full of imaginary figures from "tuners" mixed up with performance data for concept cars (Dodge Tomahawk Concept 300mph+ ha! On what tyres, exactly?), cars that haven't been released yet (e.g. Veyron, which no-one has actually timed to 60 or done a VMax run in, and which is allegedly struggling to deliver the claimed performance to the extent that VW have delayed production), and race cars that no-one ever did figures for as far as I know, e.g. 0-60 time for a 917-30. Can-Am had rolling starts, IIRC.Originally posted by Greg Locock
2.2 is a bit slow
http://www.fast-autos.net/0to60.html
#5
Greg Locock
-
- 6,492 posts
- Joined: March 03
Member
Posted 01 April 2003 - 00:21
Yeah, 1.2 seconds does seem a little optimistic.
#6
JForce
-
- 13,847 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 01 April 2003 - 04:02
That site is definately a crock...I have a video of a Corrivett (sp?) verified 391km/h in a McLaren F1.....
#7
alan_owens
-
- 269 posts
- Joined: January 03
Member
Posted 01 April 2003 - 15:56
Would a top fuel dragster qualify as a "race car"? I'm pretty sure it's 0-330mph in 4.5 seconds trumps anything else out there. 
#8
YKTS
-
- 19 posts
- Joined: November 02
New Member
Posted 01 April 2003 - 17:46
Originally posted by alan_owens
Would a top fuel dragster qualify as a "race car"? I'm pretty sure it's 0-330mph in 4.5 seconds trumps anything else out there.
haha!!!
i know a while ago in the uk, a top fuel funny car set out to establish an all time low and did something like 0.6 sec, 0-60!!!!! and i believe its in the guiness book
#9
AndreasNystrom
-
- 785 posts
- Joined: December 01
Member
Posted 01 April 2003 - 20:40
Porsche Dauer 962, roadcar could get up to 100 in 2.6secs, and up to 200 in 7.3secs.. not too shabby for a roadlegal car 
#10
int2str
-
- 501 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
#11
Scoots
-
- 1,645 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 02 April 2003 - 00:32
If they are going to include drag cars, I've seen a long list of cars do 10s in the 1/4, but they don't list them. Drag cars don't belong on the list.
#12
Pioneer
-
- 1,627 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 08 April 2003 - 02:18
What was the Escudo's weight?
#13
McLaren M20
-
- 11 posts
- Joined: February 03
New Member
Posted 08 April 2003 - 03:33
The Escudo`s dry weight is 1770 lbs accourding the websight. On the McLaren Websight they claim the McLaren can accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 3.6 seconds. That is for the 1999 McLaren so I am sure the current F1 cars are even quicker. The question is could the Escudo with 987 hp a dry weight of 1770 lbs and 4wd Accelerate even quicker from 0 to 100 mph ?
#14
Pioneer
-
- 1,627 posts
- Joined: January 01
Member
Posted 08 April 2003 - 06:55
I don't see how it could possibly be so... assuming they use similar gearings, tires, and wing settings. The Escudo has a bit of horsepower on an F1 car, but it weighs 1770 pounds while an F1 car weighs only 600kg which is 1322 pounds.
Thats 33% more. Traction and gearing being the same, it should be noticeably slower to accelerate even given its horsepower advantage.
Thats 33% more. Traction and gearing being the same, it should be noticeably slower to accelerate even given its horsepower advantage.
#15
Wuzak
-
- 9,076 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 09 April 2003 - 00:38
I have seen a time of 2.5 for 0-100km/h (0-62mph) for the 1988 McLaren MP4/4, using a Correivit mounted on the side pod.
It went on to crack 200km/h (124mph) in 4.9s.
They didn't have enough road to do a standing 1/4 mile time.
The testing was done in Japan, after the Japanese Grand Prix, with the car using wing settings and gearing for Suzuka.
It went on to crack 200km/h (124mph) in 4.9s.
They didn't have enough road to do a standing 1/4 mile time.
The testing was done in Japan, after the Japanese Grand Prix, with the car using wing settings and gearing for Suzuka.
#16
JForce
-
- 13,847 posts
- Joined: March 01
Member
Posted 09 April 2003 - 02:57
Originally posted by Wuzak
I have seen a time of 2.5 for 0-100km/h (0-62mph) for the 1988 McLaren MP4/4, using a Correivit mounted on the side pod.
It went on to crack 200km/h (124mph) in 4.9s.
They didn't have enough road to do a standing 1/4 mile time.
The testing was done in Japan, after the Japanese Grand Prix, with the car using wing settings and gearing for Suzuka.
Links to this info?
#17
Scoots
-
- 1,645 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 09 April 2003 - 17:46
Originally posted by McLaren M20
The Escudo`s dry weight is 1770 lbs accourding the websight. On the McLaren Websight they claim the McLaren can accelerate from 0 to 100 mph in 3.6 seconds. That is for the 1999 McLaren so I am sure the current F1 cars are even quicker. The question is could the Escudo with 987 hp a dry weight of 1770 lbs and 4wd Accelerate even quicker from 0 to 100 mph ?
Not expressing an opinion, but 4wd vs. 2wd would help the Escudo put the power to the ground.
On a stupid note, there is a bug in GT3 that let's me get the Escudo up over 800mph top speed.
#18
GasPed
-
- 1,016 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 09 April 2003 - 17:52
Is it hard to keep it on the track at that speed? You know with the sonic boom and all?Originally posted by Scoots
On a stupid note, there is a bug in GT3 that let's me get the Escudo up over 800mph top speed.
#19
Scoots
-
- 1,645 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 09 April 2003 - 19:09
Originally posted by GasPed
Is it hard to keep it on the track at that speed? You know with the sonic boom and all?
It's impossible to keep it on track, can't even see the track.
Advertisement
#20
Wuzak
-
- 9,076 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 10 April 2003 - 12:49
Originally posted by JForce
Links to this info?
Wheels magazine (Australian magazine), from late 1988, early 1989.
I think I still have it somewhere. I'll scan it and send it to you if I can find it.
#21
Wuzak
-
- 9,076 posts
- Joined: September 00
Member
Posted 12 April 2003 - 12:49
The information I gave was slightly out. 0-100km/h for the McLaren Honda MP4/4 was 2.8s, 0-200km/h in 5.6s. The test was reported in the April 1989 issue of wheels magazine, in the article "The Last Turbo-Charge", by Mike Doodson.
The performance figures were run at Suzuka in cool, overcast conditions.
Standing Start Distance elapsed time
km/h m (s)
0-10 0.7m 0.5s
0-20 2.3m 0.8s
0-30 4.1m 1.0s
0-40 6.6m 1.3s
0-50 10.0m 1.5s
0-60 14.3m 1.8s
0-70 19.5m 2.0s
0-80 25.3m 2.3s
0-90 31.5m 2.6s
0-100 38.9m 2.8s
0-120 52.6m 3.3s
0-140 77.7m 3.9s
0-150 86.4m 4.2s
0-160 98.8m 4.4s
0-180 125.2m 5.0s
0-200 159.4m 5.6s
Second Gear
60-70 11.4m 0.6s
60-80 25.9m 1.2s
60-90 35.6m 1.7s
60-100 46.8m 2.1s
60-120 64.6m 2.7s
60-140 85.3m 3.2s
60-150 95.5m 3.5s
60-160 105.6m 3.6s
60-180 160.1m 4.8s
60-200 200.4m 5.7s
Thrid Gear
80-90 18.1m 0.8s
80-100 34.2m 1.4s
80-120 66.1m 2.4s
80-140 88.6m 3.0s
80-150 99.2m 3.3s
80-160 189.6m 3.5s
80-180 135.1m 4.0s
80-200 167.1m 4.6s
Fourth Gear
100-110 21.2m 0.7s
100-120 39.2m 1.3s
100-130 55.6m 1.7s
100-140 70.0m 2.1s
100-150 83.2m 2.4s
100-160 95.5m 2.7s
100-170 106.9m 3.0s
100-180 123.5m 3.3s
100-190 148.7m 3.6s
100-200 158.3m 3.9s
100-210 175.4m 4.2s
100-220 196.9m 4.6s
The performance figures were run at Suzuka in cool, overcast conditions.
Standing Start Distance elapsed time
km/h m (s)
0-10 0.7m 0.5s
0-20 2.3m 0.8s
0-30 4.1m 1.0s
0-40 6.6m 1.3s
0-50 10.0m 1.5s
0-60 14.3m 1.8s
0-70 19.5m 2.0s
0-80 25.3m 2.3s
0-90 31.5m 2.6s
0-100 38.9m 2.8s
0-120 52.6m 3.3s
0-140 77.7m 3.9s
0-150 86.4m 4.2s
0-160 98.8m 4.4s
0-180 125.2m 5.0s
0-200 159.4m 5.6s
Second Gear
60-70 11.4m 0.6s
60-80 25.9m 1.2s
60-90 35.6m 1.7s
60-100 46.8m 2.1s
60-120 64.6m 2.7s
60-140 85.3m 3.2s
60-150 95.5m 3.5s
60-160 105.6m 3.6s
60-180 160.1m 4.8s
60-200 200.4m 5.7s
Thrid Gear
80-90 18.1m 0.8s
80-100 34.2m 1.4s
80-120 66.1m 2.4s
80-140 88.6m 3.0s
80-150 99.2m 3.3s
80-160 189.6m 3.5s
80-180 135.1m 4.0s
80-200 167.1m 4.6s
Fourth Gear
100-110 21.2m 0.7s
100-120 39.2m 1.3s
100-130 55.6m 1.7s
100-140 70.0m 2.1s
100-150 83.2m 2.4s
100-160 95.5m 2.7s
100-170 106.9m 3.0s
100-180 123.5m 3.3s
100-190 148.7m 3.6s
100-200 158.3m 3.9s
100-210 175.4m 4.2s
100-220 196.9m 4.6s
