http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11383

 

another one (this one tested the car at 4.0 0-60)
http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11591

 

hmmm... i was expecting slightly better numbers :shrug: oh well, nice job FF :bow:

 

I believe it was Compact Tuner, or some of those magazines. Either way, i was checking out the article, and it had it against (comparing) the Evo MR. Well, after reading the entire review i feel confused and would like to know if this numbers are accurate.

0-60 : 4.4
1/4 mile: 12.5

Thats all i can remember about the stats. Of course the lateral g and such were good as always, considering the elise's handling capabilities. But concerning the acceleration numbers, i would've thought the 0-60 and 1/4 mile would've been better. Could it be that the people who tested it sucked at driving?

It takes huge increases in horsepower and torque to bring 0-60 times into
the sub 4 second range and 1/4 mile times into the 11's. I think it would be more instructive to run a comparison between a FF car and a stock car on a relatively large track, one with at least 1200 foot straights. I think the FF setup looks pretty compelling and isn't outrageously priced, I'm definately interested in seeing how the FF cars fare over time.

 

I believe it was Compact Tuner, or some of those magazines. Either way, i was checking out the article, and it had it against (comparing) the Evo MR. Well, after reading the entire review i feel confused and would like to know if this numbers are accurate.

0-60 : 4.4
1/4 mile: 12.5

Thats all i can remember about the stats. Of course the lateral g and such were good as always, considering the elise's handling capabilities. But concerning the acceleration numbers, i would've thought the 0-60 and 1/4 mile would've been better. Could it be that the people who tested it sucked at driving?

Same day, same track the stock car did a 13.7@100mph and 5.1 seconds 0-60mph. Draw your own conclusions from that.

 

We used to get the same over here with modded cars - 200-300bhp Elises and people would say 'oh it only knocks that off the 0-60' etc ....the big problem with the Elise is getting the power down through the rear 225 tyres. Ive driven a couple of 300bhp Elises and its very difficult...of course once you are rolling, then they disappear into the distance ...the 0-100 time is more of an indication on how fast the FF turbo Elise is .

The big thing about the Forcefed conversion for me, would be the torque its adding - the headline power figures are not what you want, but the difference in how the car drives will be huge.

 

ForceFed, pretty soon my Elise will be arriving, and im very interested in your kit. How much is the price on it with installation?

 

ForceFed, pretty soon my Elise will be arriving, and im very interested in your kit. How much is the price on it with installation?

Give me a call at the shop at 925.371.2288 to discuss your options. Thanks!

 

Yes. Keep in mind (for comparison sake) a C5 Z06 vs a C6 Z06.

A hundred more HP only nets a few tenths of a second off the 0-60 time (i.e. 4.1 vs 3.8)

But the actual performance difference is huge.

Also, as Brett pointed out, the delta between the two cars being tested is a much more accurate comparison.

-Jim

 

-Jim

I like your avatar

 

Same day, same track the stock car did a 13.7@100mph and 5.1 seconds 0-60mph. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Stock car did not have LSS, correct? Some of that difference can be attributed to the rubber.

'Greg

 

Stock car did not have LSS, correct? Some of that difference can be attributed to the rubber.

'Greg

Stock car that was tested had the Sport set up with Advan 048's and sport suspension.

 

i'd like to know if this was done at a real 1/4 track, or if it was done with accelerometors and "g-tech" style measurements

obviously car mags have more advanced versions than the simple g-tech and is more accurate, but i'd like to know the 60's and 1/8 mile data to go along with a standard 1/4 figure.

also I'd like to know who was driving the stock car and forcedfeds turboed elise, was it the same driver for all the cars in the comparo? If so when was that driver shifting at in the stock car 8K when the shift light came on or 8500 at just before the limiter?

I only say this because the difference from a 2002 year celica with the 7800rpm limiter and a 2000-2001 year celica with the 8350 fuel cut, is about 3.5 tenths at the 1/8 and 3mph in traps, thats pretty significant just from shifting 500 rpms later and staying in lift permenantly

I know this because I used to have the stock 02 limiter, swaped it out for the 00 limiter & knock sensor, then later switched to pfc. my best time on the 02 limiter was 9.695 @ 74.09 1/8 mile, and the 00 limiter best 1/8 was 9.314 @ 77.48. both runs for the comparo were on the same set up on street tires. 60's for the two were 2.251 and 2.202

 

i'd like to know if this was done at a real 1/4 track, or if it was done with accelerometors and "g-tech" style measurements

obviously car mags have more advanced versions than the simple g-tech and is more accurate, but i'd like to know the 60's and 1/8 mile data to go along with a standard 1/4 figure.

also I'd like to know who was driving the stock car and forcedfeds turboed elise, was it the same driver for all the cars in the comparo? If so when was that driver shifting at in the stock car 8K when the shift light came on or 8500 at just before the limiter?

I only say this because the difference from a 2002 year celica with the 7800rpm limiter and a 2000-2001 year celica with the 8350 fuel cut, is about 3.5 tenths at the 1/8 and 3mph in traps, thats pretty significant just from shifting 500 rpms later and staying in lift permenantly

I know this because I used to have the stock 02 limiter, swaped it out for the 00 limiter & knock sensor, then later switched to pfc. my best time on the 02 limiter was 9.695 @ 74.09 1/8 mile, and the 00 limiter best 1/8 was 9.314 @ 77.48. both runs for the comparo were on the same set up on street tires. 60's for the two were 2.251 and 2.202

Same driver, same day, same track (parking lot asphalt), same shift points (8400rpm) using a radar based system. Apples to apples.

 

5.0 sec vs 4.0 sec and is also the difference between a 911 carrera and a 911 carrera turbo, to put it into perspective. That 1 second makes all the difference in the world.

 

5.0 sec vs 4.0 sec and is also the difference between a 911 carrera and a 911 carrera turbo, to put it into perspective. That 1 second makes all the difference in the world.

That is exactly how we equate our Sport 275 edition over the stock car. It is as though you picked the 911 turbo instead of the base Carrera offering. The difference in performance with the two Porsche's is very similar to our 275 package and the stock Elise. We drop around 1 second to 60mph, 1.1 seconds in the 1/4 mile and trap at approx 10mph faster than the stock Elise. That is a good comparasion! :up:

 

indeed