Midwest Classic Insurance

Visit our community sponsor

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 45

Thread: 818 performance comparison (by the numbers)

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826

    818 performance comparison (by the numbers)

    Guys,

    We know the Lotus Elise S is pretty close to what a good 818 will be in terms of power to weight ratio. So the performances of the small Lotus is a good indication.

    However that wasn't enough for me to picture the whole thing. lolll
    I have found another car (there certainly are plenty, but just came across one without looking for it and the results are very interesting) which is also pretty close to I think what can be a slightly supped up 818.

    http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/a-c...-05-2013-07-03

    This car has 400bhp per tonne (285bhp engine, so it weighs around 712.5kg).
    If we estimate the 818 to be 850kg (I am a little conservative here), it would require the car to have 340bhp in order to reach 400bhp per tonne. 340bhp is 289whp from the engine on the dyno at 15% loss.
    Now for the torque comparison, that weird car on the link has 310ft-pds or 435 per tonne.
    The 818 would have to have 370ft-pds to be equivalent (435tq per tonne), or 314.5wtq at 15% loss on dyno. Which is VERY easy to reach!

    Recap:
    818 with 340bhp/370tq (289whp/315wtq) = that above car with 285bhp/310tq.

    Now the figures on that weirdo:

    0-62 in 3.7 (0-60 probably in 3.5 or 3.6) and top speed of 152mph, but that's gearing anyway so let's not look at that.

    That being said, EVERYTHING else being equal an 818 with 289whp/315wtq may well crack 60mph in about 3.5sec.
    But the next 80mph must also come up quick!!!!

    Oh, that weird car above costs GBP70k. And I don't like it.
    The 818, USD$15-20k for many people. And I love it.

    So for some people (like me!!) who wanted some comparison and numbers, I am served well.
    Of course, that is with the assumption that EVERYTHING else being equal, the famous ceteris paribus in latin.
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  2. #2
    Match the 5spd + cusco 180c15 lsd with a stock opensource tuned v8 ej207 with 350whp and 325wtq with a 8600 refined redline and you have low, mid and high range powerband with a low 3 sec 0-60 and prob a 170+ top speed, oh wait that's my setup.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    900
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yeah... I read about the Vuhl on Jalopnik today. Similar specs to the 818, although a bit lighter with an Al monocoque, and built in Mexico... who knew!

    Once you get to these power to weight ratios, 0-60 is more about traction, so I don't pay too much attention to that metric, although it's impressive to the bench-racers.

    It's pretty easy to turn up the wick on a WRX to be comparable; from today's 818 email update from Dave:

    "Our 818R is getting a new turbo and being upgraded to 340 RWHP to go up against the fastest open track cars in the country at the "Ultimate Track Car Challenge" held on July 19th, at Virginia International Raceway!"

    Oh, yeah!!!!

  4. #4
    yea 0-60 is a terrible measure... 60-130 is much more telling!

  5. #5
    Senior Member Xusia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Posts
    2,340
    130? Where?... Jail? I have a motorcycle capable of over 180mph. I can't honestly say if it's ever actually gone that fast (I'm not the first owner), but EVERY TIME I stop I'm at 0mph, and when I take off it's seen 60mph more times than I can count! I like 0-60!

    BTW - I'm just being funny (I know what you were getting at). Pay no attention to me. And if I didn't say it already, WELCOME to the forum!

  6. #6
    Traction is important, 0- any speed is important,rolling start to 100 is important 0-100-0 is important, etc etc etc, they are all test of performance, traction is part of the performance of any car guys. 0-60 in this car is still a good measure because the 818r pulled off a 0-60 of 3.8 in 40 degree weather with r6 Hoosiers. It slipped the tires hard and was spinning a decent amount during the test. Of it had more grip at the time (warm weather) it would have gripped better, had a better 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 etc, so I don't see it as a bad measure.

  7. #7
    0-60 is so dependent on tires and surface it is not a very good indicator of power. sure it is important but as hp goes up 0-60 gets unpredictable and is a poor judge of a cars power. 60-130 is much more reliable and a better indicator to compare different cars. it takes some of the driver out of the equation as well. My vette puts down around 1k and i can tell you my 0-60 probably is around that 3.7 you are talking about but get above 80 where i can fully hook and well game over...

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Xusia View Post
    130? Where?... Jail? I have a motorcycle capable of over 180mph. I can't honestly say if it's ever actually gone that fast (I'm not the first owner), but EVERY TIME I stop I'm at 0mph, and when I take off it's seen 60mph more times than I can count! I like 0-60!

    BTW - I'm just being funny (I know what you were getting at). Pay no attention to me. And if I didn't say it already, WELCOME to the forum!
    Thanks!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    900
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by mobius View Post
    0-60 is so dependent on tires and surface it is not a very good indicator of power. sure it is important but as hp goes up 0-60 gets unpredictable and is a poor judge of a cars power. 60-130 is much more reliable and a better indicator to compare different cars. it takes some of the driver out of the equation as well. My vette puts down around 1k and i can tell you my 0-60 probably is around that 3.7 you are talking about but get above 80 where i can fully hook and well game over...
    That was my point exactly, once sub 4s 0-60 is achieved, it's not a great indicator of a car's acceleration... it just shows how well power can be put to the ground off the line. For example, an Audi TTRS can do 0-60 under 3s with an aggressive launch... but that's a product of AWD traction, launch control, and lots of immediate boost. On a road course, or if you're not willing to subject the drivetrain to this abuse, that eye-popping 0-60 number is completely meaningless.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Xusia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by mobius View Post
    0-60 is so dependent on tires and surface it is not a very good indicator of power. sure it is important but as hp goes up 0-60 gets unpredictable and is a poor judge of a cars power. 60-130 is much more reliable and a better indicator to compare different cars. it takes some of the driver out of the equation as well. My vette puts down around 1k and i can tell you my 0-60 probably is around that 3.7 you are talking about but get above 80 where i can fully hook and well game over...
    I guess it depends on what's important to a person. If all out power is most important, then 60-130 prob is a more important measure. However, at higher speed aerodynamics, or lack there of, plays a more and more significant role. So if one car is faster than another from 60-130, was it because of the faster car's engine put out more power, or was it because the fast car had better aerodynamics?

    I personally care the most about how all the different aspects of a car contribute to real world performance. For instance, one aspect of performance I care about is acceleration. Power, grip, and potentially aerodynamics (depending on the actual speed) all affect acceleration. No one metric is adequate, so I look at both 0-60 (mostly about power and grip), and 1/4 mile (which tells me about the car's ability to overcome wind resistance at speed). 60-130 could work for that too, but it just isn't used as often as 1/4 mile.

    Not saying your wrong! Just pointing out individuals care about different stuff and will use different measures.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mobius View Post
    0-60 is so dependent on tires and surface it is not a very good indicator of power. sure it is important but as hp goes up 0-60 gets unpredictable and is a poor judge of a cars power. 60-130 is much more reliable and a better indicator to compare different cars. it takes some of the driver out of the equation as well. My vette puts down around 1k and i can tell you my 0-60 probably is around that 3.7 you are talking about but get above 80 where i can fully hook and well game over...
    I here what your saying as an indicator of power, but as an indicator of performance it is important. As you must know with a 1k hp vette, u need to hook up to put power down. One can have boat loads of power, but with no ability to harness that force it almost useless. In the 818 traction should not be too much of an issue with stock- 350whp, especially with a LSD. The 818 will have little hp in the hp world, but some of the best performance numbers with that small power.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by metalmaker12 View Post
    Match the 5spd + cusco 180c15 lsd with a stock opensource tuned v8 ej207 with 350whp and 325wtq with a 8600 refined redline and you have low, mid and high range powerband with a low 3 sec 0-60 and prob a 170+ top speed, oh wait that's my setup.
    170 top with the OEM 5th gear?
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Xusia View Post
    130? Where?... Jail? I have a motorcycle capable of over 180mph. I can't honestly say if it's ever actually gone that fast (I'm not the first owner), but EVERY TIME I stop I'm at 0mph, and when I take off it's seen 60mph more times than I can count! I like 0-60!

    BTW - I'm just being funny (I know what you were getting at). Pay no attention to me. And if I didn't say it already, WELCOME to the forum!
    I haven't read any of what you wrote.
    lolllllll Just joking Xusia!!
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  14. #14
    Reading this thread reminds me that most performance numbers are compiled from straight line numbers, which are a small, relatively insignificant indicator of true performance (unless, of course, you are drag racing, which I don't believe anyone buying the 818 is planning ). I prefer to compare the power to weigh ratios, 0-60 times, and the skid pad results to indicate true performance in a car that is supposed to be a track car. Tons of horsepower isn't worth squat if you can't turn a corner with it and then launch at the apex without ending up in the grass. Of course, the ability to slow down aggressively is just as important and the 818 seems to have that in spades. I will be interested to see a real test with this new car to see if it has the overall acceleration, cornering, and braking required of a true track/performance car.

    A great example of this- watch any race with a Miata in the field. With a good driver, even a Miata with miniscule horsepower will stay with the big boys because they are so driver friendly. A car like the 818 should have enough power to keep up with just about any field short of the prototypes, and the handling (g force ) to accelerate quickly out of corners to stay in the hunt, or if boulevard cruising, enough power and handling to be fun to cruise the curvy roads and pretend you are Vettel, or Hamilton, or...... to me, this is where the 0-60 times are important and the 60-130 times are great for tracks with those long straights. Just my 2 cent's worth.

    I'll go get some popcorn now.....

    Bob
    Last edited by BS; 07-04-2013 at 12:25 PM.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    900
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BS View Post
    I will be interested to see a real test with this new car to see if it has the overall acceleration, cornering, and braking required of a true track/performance car. Bob
    Ummm... I think that's been verified!

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by wleehendrick View Post
    Ummm... I think that's been verified!
    I was referring to the Vuhl 05 the OP linked to in the original post. I can't seem to find any test results on his link.....

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by wleehendrick View Post
    For example, an Audi TTRS can do 0-60 under 3s with an aggressive launch...

    um.

    no.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank818 View Post
    170 top with the OEM 5th gear?
    I never said anything about Oem 5th, but with that high a rev 160mph is possible with the stock 5th
    Last edited by metalmaker12; 07-04-2013 at 03:31 PM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Owensboro, KY
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by wleehendrick View Post
    For example, an Audi TTRS can do 0-60 under 3s with an aggressive launch... but that's a product of AWD traction, launch control, and lots of immediate boost.
    The fastest I've ever heard of an Audi TT-RS was a 0-60 time of 3.6.
    FFR '33 #325 built with hazelwwp & FFR 818-S #11 Delivered on July 21, 2013
    Facebook 818-S/R Build Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Facto...78385198877613
    Forum 818-S/R Build Thread: http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/showt...-Build-Thread!
    FFR Project 818 Owner's Registry on Google Map

  20. #20
    I concur in stock trim the audi ttrs hit 3.6 to 60 with a rollout. This was accomplished by c/d in 2012. I don't think much faster in stock form can happen.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by metalmaker12 View Post
    I never said anything about Oem 5th, but with that high a rev 160mph is possible with the stock 5th
    That's precisely why I asked, cuz you didn't say anything about OEM 5th. lolll
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  22. #22
    These 0-60 and top speed numbers don't really interest me.

    The "big boys" play in 60-130 land and the Texas Mile competitions. I want to see how a 350whp 818 does in those competitions.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank818 View Post
    That's precisely why I asked, cuz you didn't say anything about OEM 5th. lolll
    The 2006-07 WRX has longer gearing, so 170 is very possible. I found this on NASIOC:

    Top Speed at 6500 RPM by gear
    06 WRX:
    1st = 35.9 mph
    2nd = 63.8 mph
    3rd = 90.9 mph
    4th = 127.7 mph
    5th = 168.2 mph

    So at 7000 rpm you are easily at 170.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by bnr32jason View Post
    The 2006-07 WRX has longer gearing, so 170 is very possible. I found this on NASIOC:

    Top Speed at 6500 RPM by gear
    06 WRX:
    1st = 35.9 mph
    2nd = 63.8 mph
    3rd = 90.9 mph
    4th = 127.7 mph
    5th = 168.2 mph

    So at 7000 rpm you are easily at 170.
    Thanks I did not feel like looking it up, I new it was in the 160-170 range stock, I am running different gears most likely anyway, but I figure 170plus with 8600 rev with my stock 02 tranny
    Last edited by metalmaker12; 07-04-2013 at 06:41 PM.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bnr32jason View Post
    The 2006-07 WRX has longer gearing, so 170 is very possible. I found this on NASIOC:

    Top Speed at 6500 RPM by gear
    06 WRX:
    1st = 35.9 mph
    2nd = 63.8 mph
    3rd = 90.9 mph
    4th = 127.7 mph
    5th = 168.2 mph

    So at 7000 rpm you are easily at 170.
    So that gearing on a EJ207 at 8500 and you're off quite fast.
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Encinitas, CA
    Posts
    900
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by timmy318 View Post
    The fastest I've ever heard of an Audi TT-RS was a 0-60 time of 3.6.
    I believe it was a European car test I read and I questioned it myself, being in Veyron territory; don't remember the source now. Either way, the reason I mentioned it as that a sub 4.0 0-60 time is much faster than it's power/weight ratio (~10 lbs/hp) would suggest, and that's due the factors I mentioned (AWD traction with launch control and a turbo that spools immediately) I'm just making the point that 0-60 is a good measure of acceleration for 'regular' cars, but once you get really fast, it's more dependent on how much power you can put down in first gear. People usually start talking 1/4 mile times at that point (which of course still depends on a decent launch) but is a better measure of acceleration, being integrated over 3-4 gears, instead of 1-2. In any case, the 818 is built for the twisties or a road course, and that's where it'll shine.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by bnr32jason View Post
    These 0-60 and top speed numbers don't really interest me.

    The "big boys" play in 60-130 land and the Texas Mile competitions. I want to see how a 350whp 818 does in those competitions.
    Well I totally agree, but after reading all the posts in this thread, I have to remind that I said "everything else being equal", so that means same traction, same gear ratios, same aero, etc. What I was looking for was not a precise number or something, but just a base of comparison. We got the Lotus on one end, I found this one on the other. 2 quite different cars with different power to weight ratios and we do see differences in numbers. Then I said "well it might be fair enough to "assume" that if the 818 has blahblahblah" and you get the rest in my OP.

    By no mean it guarantees us the 818 will be that quick (or that slow, depending on the real end result), it's just fun to make the comparison "by the numbers", on paper. I wanted a picture of what kind of performances the 818 is capable of, but looking at this 400bhp/tonne car, since I am targeting 400-450bhp/tonne on the 818, for me it's the closest so far to compare with.

    Absolutely nothing scientific here. lolll
    Just fun to play with numbers.
    And guys, if numbers are that fun to play with, imagine driving the 818!!! lolll
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  28. #28
    Senior Member Xusia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Posts
    2,340
    One thing to keep in mind is that the 818 was designed as a pocket rocket / track toy. I think the 818 will prove itself to VERY capable, despite it's design intentions, but I see it having trouble truly competing with what I would consider the "big boys." NOT saying that metric isn't valid - use it if that's what important to you!

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Well, here's something EXTREMELY close to the 818!

    http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/a...ride-201307-18

    835kg, that's 1837lbs! And the 818 hit what, 1826?
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  30. #30
    Junior Member wildbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank818 View Post
    Well, here's something EXTREMELY close to the 818!

    http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/a...ride-201307-18

    835kg, that's 1837lbs! And the 818 hit what, 1826?
    .......and it's only $75,000.00!!!!

  31. #31
    We will have all the comparison numbers that we will need tomorrow after the UTCC....

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank818 View Post
    Well, here's something EXTREMELY close to the 818!

    http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/a...ride-201307-18

    835kg, that's 1837lbs! And the 818 hit what, 1826?
    By the time I followed this link, 835 had been corrected to 895 kg, which is the official dry weight, without fluids, announced several months ago at Geneva. Like the 818-R that was recently tested by one of the magazines, the 4c will be heavier with fluids.

    Quote Originally Posted by 07FIREBLADE View Post
    We will have all the comparison numbers that we will need tomorrow after the UTCC....
    Exomotive's built-this-week Exocet should be an interesting yardstick. Less power, but also less weight, and perhaps even cheaper to build.

    Although it isn't remotely a similar type of car to the 818, I was looking forward to seeing how RCR's new LMP replica would run, but it looks like they've put racing on hiatus for a few months to catch up on customer work delayed by their factory move.

  33. #33
    I have been intrigued by the exocet. It has come along ways with engineering and an awesome build process. The body still leaves a lot to be desired but you can't argue that the miata is a great package to start with. I wish all of these kit car companies success. I love the idea of having choices. Good luck ffr. I know the 818 will put down some incredible lap times.

  34. #34
    fasterer and furiouser longislandwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,643
    Blog Entries
    6
    I think these top speeds are a little unrealistic, I think it may be drag limited to a much lower speed. It will be interesting to see what the CD numbers are from the tunnel testing

    I've done 160 in a Porsche 911 Cabriolet in the Oregon high desert and with an open top that feels stupid FAST.

    This isn't really a top speed car, ripping through 3rd and 4th however is going to be mind blowing though.
    A well stocked beverage fridge is the key to any successful project.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Near Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    1,826
    Hey that's true, they changed it to 895. Oh well, still it's not that far off...
    Frank
    Chassis #181 powered by a '93 VW VR6 GT3582R ~400whp/wtq+
    '05 Scoobie 2.5RS Wagon
    '12 KTM RC8R
    '04 Kawa ZZR600, slightly upgraded

  36. #36
    Administrator
    Wayne Presley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Enterprise Alabama
    Posts
    1,593
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank818 View Post
    Hey that's true, they changed it to 895. Oh well, still it's not that far off...

    132 lbs isn't that much? 7% more weight?...
    Wayne Presley www.verycoolparts.com
    Xterminator 705 RWHP supercharged 4.6 DOHC with twin turbos

  37. #37
    Senior Member Xusia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR, USA
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by longislandwrx View Post
    I think these top speeds are a little unrealistic, I think it may be drag limited to a much lower speed. It will be interesting to see what the CD numbers are from the tunnel testing

    I've done 160 in a Porsche 911 Cabriolet in the Oregon high desert and with an open top that feels stupid FAST.

    This isn't really a top speed car, ripping through 3rd and 4th however is going to be mind blowing though.
    Hwy 20 I presume?

  38. #38
    I agree it won't be a top speed car, but I bet it will hit 160 easy

  39. #39
    Administrator
    Wayne Presley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Enterprise Alabama
    Posts
    1,593
    Blog Entries
    3
    The lotus elise Turbo at Roebling Road was going 155ish into turn 1 with 338 RWHP and while still accelerating it was getting near terminal velocity. I'd say 165 mph would be it.
    Wayne Presley www.verycoolparts.com
    Xterminator 705 RWHP supercharged 4.6 DOHC with twin turbos

  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by wildbill View Post
    .......and it's only $75,000.00!!!!
    Where are you getting the price from? I have heard around $60k, which isn't too shabby for a cf chassis and solid fit and finish. Very interested to see how the 4C turns out.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Breeze

Visit our community sponsor