acceleration comparison 1988 911 and Elise - Page 2 - LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community
 1Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 05:48 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARRY
Plenty of torque in the Elise. More than remarkable .... amazing!
I often found it very amazing that minivans could pull on me when I punched it at 3,000 RPM in 3rd gear. The car has no torque. It is o.k. to acknowledge this. Everything else about the car was great.

2016 BMW M3
2012 Golf R
2011 Exige S260 - sold
2007 Exige S - sold
2005 Elise FF Turbo - sold
deddie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 05:49 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
wantanelise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 1,392
thanks for all the info everyone, I have a pretty good idea of what I was looking for now. cant wait until next summer!
wantanelise is offline  
post #23 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 06:08 PM
Registered User
 
MitchT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: boca raton
Posts: 786
I currently own a 87 3.2 g50 carrera and an elise, the elise will pull the 911 till 50 mph then the 911 is faster, the elise is not a true sub 5 second car, it is if you abuse the car to the extent that is will break. It is a 5.5 to 5.3 second car just like the 911 unless you side step the clutch at 6k plus rpm.
It is just not a drag type car. But the 911 will never have the balance or temperment of the elise. I like both for what they are.
MitchT is offline  
 
post #24 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 06:26 PM
Registered User
 
Bavarian Motorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New Yawrk City
Posts: 11,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstevens
The magazine 0-60 times are with the A048 tires with a 8000 rpm launch. My stock 05 with the AD07 tires and 3000 launch was 0-60 in 5.6s, 0-100 in 13.8s and the 1/4 in 14.2 @ 102 mph. Significantly slower than both Lotus and the magazines, but more real world, and no burnt clutch. Yes, above 110 mph the acceleration is somewhat pedestrian. It depends what you are used to.

How are your driving skills? I would think it can be a tad faster than that even without the 8k launch and sticky tires.



14.2 @ 102mph is about what my Boxster will do.

Be an alpha male. Drive a Lotus.

Best Auto Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Bavarian Motorist is offline  
post #25 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 07:56 PM
Inactive
 
dstevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist
How are your driving skills? I would think it can be a tad faster than that even without the 8k launch and sticky tires.
That's a tricky question to answer. It was tested with a GPS datalogger, not a passenger with stopwatch or g-meter device. Tires were worn out, but I doubt that matters at 3000 rpm. I shifted the car as quickly as the clutch and gearbox would let me.

I feel it is more about the level of abuse than the driving skill. After all, there is no clutch or throttle modulation involved, and the only variables are shift points and gear changes. I wanted performance figures from a launch rpm that would not hurt the drivetrain and was achievable from a stop without calling undue attention to the car, so I picked 3000 rpm for my testing. Even 4000 rpm is a lot faster than 3000 rpm, but I don't feel that gains was worth the wear and tear on the drivetrain. If I was a magazine tester, then I'd quite happily take it to redline and no lift on the shifts to get a good number. The 1/4 mile mph tells it all - within 1 mph of the magazine test, so the difference is all in the launch rpm.
dstevens is offline  
post #26 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 08:12 PM
Registered User
 
Bavarian Motorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New Yawrk City
Posts: 11,221
What RPM would you shift at? 8000 or 8500?

Be an alpha male. Drive a Lotus.

Best Auto Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Bavarian Motorist is offline  
post #27 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 09:17 PM
Inactive
 
dstevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 831
The tach is hard to see. I took it to rev limit in 1st and 2nd to get a feel for the delay from shift light to rev limit, then shortened the count a little for qubsequent runs. So, something a little short of the rev limiter. I'll video the next test I do.
dstevens is offline  
post #28 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 09:21 PM
Registered User
 
Allan Gibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Back in Gilbert, AZ(formerly Montrose, CA)
Posts: 7,610
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist
What RPM would you shift at? 8000 or 8500?
From first to second, I have a hard time staying on the 2nd cam if I shift before 8,500. So usually, I'll need to use the 1.5 second or so of over-rev and then shift - whichi is way the lower cam ECU is such a good thing.

2005 Lotus Elise- SOLD 6/9/07
2011 Lotus Evora - SOLD 4/18/13
2011 Lotus Evora S - SOLD - 10/7/14
2014 Lotus Evora S IPS - SOLD 2/13/16
2016 Something else in red
Allan Gibbs is offline  
post #29 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-15-2007, 09:53 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7
My '87 carrerra 0-60 is 5.7 according to Porsche, which is always conservative. The porsche's torque pulls strong to 150 mph. On the track I the elise feels faster to 120 mph, but does not have the torque feel of the 911. The Porsche feels heavy, which is why I'm in the market for an elise...handling is better than raw horsepower.
realinvestments is offline  
post #30 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 05:51 AM
Registered User
 
Vampyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 1,964
Smaller cars always feel faster, like traveling by boat seems fast, even thought most are not.

Ever drive a go kart?
Vampyre is offline  
post #31 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 06:12 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: austin texas
Posts: 1,152
The following link to dragtmes.com has actual runs on tracks and the Elise ranges from 13.013 to 14.18. I had a variety of non turbo 911s in the 80s and the Elise is definitely faster. An Elise costs the price of a non S Cayman and is faster. The Exige S is similarly priced with a Cayman S and it is faster. From reading ET, a reader would get the opinion that the Elise/Exige is a dog and it's not unless you are racing over 120 IMO.

http://www.dragtimes.com/Lotus--Elise-Drag-Racing.html
texige is offline  
post #32 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 06:31 AM
Registered User
 
RaceCarDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bergen County, NEW JERSEY
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex
For what its worth, Road & Track 0-60 and 1/4 mile:
Elise - 4.7 13.4
'84 Carrera - 6.2 14.6
The Elise is definitely faster. I have an 02 911 C4S and ahve driven the Elise. I would say that they about the same, but the Lotus feels faster (roof is off, engine screaming, etc).

The Elise is definitely faster than an 88 911. If you think the 911 is fast, drive the Elise.

Current Rides:
2016 BMW M2 Long Beach Blue 6 speed - delivery 5/6/16
1996 Porsche 993 Turbo
2005 Acura NSX - Long Beach Blue
2011 BMW 1M - Valencia Orange
2001 BMW M Coupe (S54)
2015 GLA 45 AMG

Previous Cars:
2007 Lotus Exige S - Lazer Blue
2008 Porsche Cayman S
2008 M3 sedan Interlagos Blue (sold 10/11/13)
2002 Porsche 996 C4S
2003 BMW M3 (stolen 8/7/03)
2002 Corvette Z06

Follow Me on YouTube: Glenns Car Collection
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWT...iVSFmK7nz6Q5_w
RaceCarDriver is offline  
post #33 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 06:44 AM
Registered User
 
Bavarian Motorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New Yawrk City
Posts: 11,221
I don't think it's faster than your C4S at any speed. You under-estimate it

Be an alpha male. Drive a Lotus.

Best Auto Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
Bavarian Motorist is offline  
post #34 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 07:16 AM
Registered User
 
Conan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,379
I know this thread is about Elise vs 911, but I just want to illustrate with this image how real world situations differ from those magazine listings.

This is a g-plot showing acceleration forces between my Elise and my ex-350Z at Mid America Motorplex. Notice the Elise is only pulling about 0.25g on average in straight line acceleration while the 350Z is pulling an average of around 0.4g. That clearly shows the 350Z will out accelerate the Elise. Yet the magazines list 0-60 times of 4.9 seconds for the Elise and 5.4 seconds for the 350Z.
Attached Images
 

Fast in, fast out.
2013 Mini Cooper S, 2007 Honda Odyssey (the wife's), gone: 2006 Elise
Conan is offline  
post #35 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 02:06 PM
bic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Beach
Posts: 42
I have a 1990 911 Carrera 2 Cabriolet Tiptronic (3.6L 247hp) and took an Elise for a test drive once a few months back, so I'll throw in my two cents. The Lotus felt very quick but not much quicker than the 911. The Elise gave a greater impression of speed but didn't pin me against the seat much more than the 911 does. I didn't get to take the Elise past 80mph so I can't speak much about its high-speed performance but I can say that the 911's torque can pull at all speeds. I got it up to 141mph once and I could tell that it still had a lot more power in it but unfortunately I ran out of road to verify. I was actually very surprised by the fact that as far as ride harshness goes, the two cars were very similar. From everything I read on here prior to driving the Lotus, I expected the Elise to be much rougher. So overall, I would recommend to not go into the Lotus drive expecting a drastic difference in straight line performance. You might be pleasantly surprised but at least you won't be let down.
bic is offline  
post #36 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 02:34 PM
Registered User
 
ExPorscheDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 209
There is a big difference in an 88 3.2L and a 90 3.6L Trip, Completely different engines and transmisions. I can't comment on the Triptronic portion because I have never driven one with that option.

ExPorscheDude.....

'05 SY, SP, Touring, TurboXS Intake, Micro and Multivex Mirrors, Odyssey Battery, Candlepower, Rear Badge
ExPorscheDude is offline  
post #37 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 02:56 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExPorscheDude
There is a big difference in an 88 3.2L and a 90 3.6L Trip, Completely different engines and transmisions. I can't comment on the Triptronic portion because I have never driven one with that option.
Yep, huge difference if talking manuals in both. I have owned just about every 911 model including an 88 3.2 and a 90 3.6. My 90 3.6 was built out to 3.8, had a Lenz stand alone fuel management, titanium everything, cat bypass and primary bypass and was a beast. Even before I dumped $ 25,000 into the engine, the 90 was much quicker than my 3.2. The 3.2 is not a sprinter by any means and lacks a lot in the low end and lower revs, even more so than the Elise. The Elise is a much quicker car than a 3.2 and about the same as a stock 964 3.6 manual.

PCA Certified National Instructor
PBOC Racing Organization Instructor
BMW Club Instructor

Nightfall Blue, Tan interior, Lexan Front Windscreen, 4Tress Harness bar, Blue Scroth Profi II Harnesses, Lotus Stage II, Fujita Intake, Rear Panel and heat shield delete, sticky pod, CRD camera mount, SSR Comps, Ohlins, R6s, Portfield R4, tow hook, micro mirror, visor delete, windshield wiper delete, and Braille Battery.
Doug H is offline  
post #38 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 04:24 PM
Registered User
 
XPcarguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The tirewall.
Posts: 1,079
The 88 911 is much slower than an Elise. I don't remember the exact numbers but I do remember this...

The year was 2000 and I had just received my 2000 Boxster S. I was curious about how the magazine's report times of 14.0 at 101mph compared to other cars. In particular, I wanted to see how many 911s it could outrun in the quarter. (I never look at 0-60 - a ridiculous stat) Anyway, 14.0 at 101mph was faster than all 911 Cabs up to 1997 I think and faster than 911 coupes up to 1994ish. The 993 (95-98) was faster but the 964 (?? - 94) was slower even in coupe form.

So supposing the 88 911 was actually as fast as the 2000 Boxster S (it wasn't) -- it would still be substantially slower than the 13.4ish that the Elise gets. I'm thinking that car is probably a 14.2 sec car and almost a full second (about 4 5 lengths I think) slower in the quarter.

Notes: The 2000 Boxster S had 250bhp and gets to the quarter much slower than the Elise but with a nearly identical trap speed. This indicates that it has much better pull at the finish and anything beyond. Not so important but worth mentioning, the new Boxster S has 295bhp and is as fast as the Elise at low speeds while expanding the advantage at 100mph+.

Fine. I'll go build my own car... with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the car and the blackjack. Ahh, screw the whole thing.
XPcarguy is offline  
post #39 of 42 (permalink) Old 05-16-2007, 06:16 PM
bic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Beach
Posts: 42
Oh I agree that you can't compare the 3.2 to the 3.6 911 but I figured since mine was a Tip, the performance gap would be smaller. I believe the 0-60 times for the 964 are about 5.7 for a manual and 5.9-6.0 for an auto. On the topic of Boxsters, I have a 2001 Boxster S (250hp) in stick and it doesn't feel as fast as the 964 up to highway speeds. It just seems to be lacking in the low end torque department. I can't vouch for its top end performance as I haven't taken it past 110mph or so [yet].

Although I haven't driven an '88 911, given my experience with the aforementioned Porsche's, I would guess that the 3.2L 911 will feel slower than the Elise.
bic is offline  
post #40 of 42 (permalink) Old 06-14-2016, 12:48 PM
6i9
Registered User
 
6i9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,867
Warning: Thread revival

What about brake feel between 3.2 Carreras and the Elise? They didnt have power assisted brakes right on those years until the 964 I believe.

I drove an 87 3.2 Carrera last year and it had terrible brake feel. I had to really mash the pedal hard to get it to slow down. Not sure if it was a hydraulic leak but it didn't inspire confidence.

2005 Magnetic Blue Lotus Exige
Drivetrain: Honda K20A Type R | Innovative Kit | Arqray Ti | SCM Intake/Header | Hondata | proRAD | Setrab | KTuned | V2 Fuel Tank | BOE Swirl
Aero: Exige Clams | Reverie | TWRD GT | Craftsquare | IMRP | BSK | Voltex
Suspension: Penske SA | V2arms | RTDbrace | CE28N | R888 | BOE Floating | Pagid RS14
Interior: Recaro SPG | Willans | WorksBell | Sparco
6i9 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community > Community > Other Cars and Comparisons

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome