Calculating 0-60 times from datalogs

[Agentlongwood]

Is it reasonably accurate when you calculate your 0-60 time from a datalog?  I did this on a couple logs and got 4.8 seconds consistently.  A friend asked about 0-60 on my car and this is the only way I have to answer, lol.  I don't have any instruments specifically for measuring 0-60.  Wanted to ask yall if this method if accurate before I get back to my buddy.  Thanks.

 

[SHOdded]

Using a tuning device, yes, should be consistent.  Using software like Torque Pro, not so much.  Aeroforce gauges are also very consistent with times.

 

[askoncemore]

But are they accurate?

 

[boostedflex]

I am not an expert but I would think so.  For what it is worth I used my data logging 0 to 60 as the number I quoted for my Flex.

 

[Brucelinc]

I can't really speak for datalogging but my Aeroforce gauge matches nearly identically to the 0-60 calculator here in this link.  Lots of other interesting calculations, too.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/0-60_equation.php

http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm

 

[Agentlongwood]

The way I did it, specifically, was to get a datalog using my SCT X4 at the track.  I then imported the log and read the columns for Time and Vehicle Speed, in Excel.  This gave me 4.808 to 4.835 seconds, depending on run. 

Bruce, if I use the calculator you linked, it gives me a 0-60 in an estimated 4.37 to 4.44 seconds. 

That seems like a non-negligible difference.  I'd love for the quicker one to be more accurate, but my gut always tells me the slower number is usually the accurate one when it comes to these things, lol.

 

[GT500R]

The answer is somewhat... I would say more accurate then an app in general.

My examples, I have a VBOX (look it up, it measures 0-60 at a 20mhz rate (maybe more?) and it extremely accurate (when I took it to the track it was within .05 ET and .5 mph from the actual track time.

When I was running a test for AJP, my Vbox showed for true 0-60 with no launch -
4.97 s
5.05 s
5.09 s

My logs showed
4.68 s
4.76 s
4.82 s

So somewhat accurate, but I do have winter wheels on so the speed would be a little off anyway (~+2 mph) and if I add those 2 mph my 0-60 is 5.07 per log vs. 5.09 per VBOX.

So as long as you have 100% accurate tire ratio for the speedometer and you are on a level ground, I would say its pretty accurate.

 

[Brucelinc]

Here are the Car & Driver acceleration times for a 2016 Mustang GT.  They list 0-60 in 4.3 and the quarter mile in 12.9.

A tuned SHO or MKS will beat a stock Mustang GT any day of the week especially from 0-60.  That is why I think the Wallace calculator and Aeroforce gauge are very accurate. 

 

[StealBlueSHO]

I have looked at 100's of datalogs between myself and users posted. I can that its "fairly" accurate HOWEVER, keep in mind that 0-60 performance does not equate to a clean 1/4 mile conversion..

Wallace calculated my 1/8 mile @ 7.94 second to a 3.86 second 0-60.. but I sure as heck didn't run an 11's at the full 1/4 track FWIW...

 

[GT500R]

Here are the Car & Driver acceleration times for a 2016 Mustang GT.  They list 0-60 in 4.3 and the quarter mile in 12.9.

A tuned SHO or MKS will beat a stock Mustang GT any day of the week especially from 0-60.  That is why I think the Wallace calculator and Aeroforce gauge are very accurate.

Wallace calculator is somewhat accurate also.  But you can't define the 0-60 as you would with an actual VBOX.

I agree a tuned SHO or MKS will beat a stock GT.

 

[Brucelinc]

Where our cars shine is from a dig up through the 1/8.  After that, the friction of AWD and boxy areodynamics hurt it.  For us, the calculator is not particularly accurate in predicting a quarter mile time from an 1/8 mile time or a 0-60 time.

With a good tune and a fairly aggressive launch, our cars will run 0-60 in 4 seconds flat.  With a good Ethanol based tune or meth, 3.7-3.9 is doable.  That doesn't necessarily mean a quarter mile in the 11s, though.

 

[f8tlSHO]

I use my logs for 0-60 with stock tire size, ran a 12.4  my 0-60 was 4.1 or 4.2 from this log... I think this method makes the most sense as long as the correct tires are on the car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macgyver]

Since we are extrapolating 0-60 from data logs and such. Working with a Tuned SHO. What does Two Octane points gain in performance on the same car. So 87, 89, 91, 93 octane. ( Pffft who needs 92 lol )

Anyway,

I know our small turbos run out of performance but I am talking about keeping them within their efficiency range using Say a numerous Datalog submitted 3 Bar Map tune.

Are the gains linear so that you could run an Excel chart and predict what gains you would get for the octane examples above ?

 

[StealBlueSHO]

Since we are extrapolating 0-60 from data logs and such. Working with a Tuned SHO. What does Two Octane points gain in performance on the same car. So 87, 89, 91, 93 octane. ( Pffft who needs 92 lol )

Anyway,

I know our small turbos run out of performance but I am talking about keeping them within their efficiency range using Say a numerous Datalog submitted 3 Bar Map tune.

Are the gains linear so that you could run an Excel chart and predict what gains you would get for the octane examples above ?

This is a hard question to answer.. every car is a bit different, and not everyones 93 octane suppresses knock as well either... but in general we are boost limited due to fuel pressure IMHO.. the extra octane allows for more timing to be added.  So I wouldn't go as far as to say its a linear progression in power.

 

[lnferno]

I'd highly recommend getting a Dragy device.  They are only $150.  They are extremely accurate - proven to be within hundredths from actual timeslips.  You can measure your 60', 0-60, 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile and a lot more.