Top speed from YOUR saxo (vid from tooobe included) - Page 7 - Saxperience

wolf_gsxr · 14th October 2010, 13:47

how can a sat nav be wrong when its gps? Also on the 328i it is limited to 155 like most high end german cars. My dad used to have a white on that was mapped with the limiter removed and it was capable of 160+ easy. An m5 is limited to 155. But its a 190-200 mile an hour car.

MiDnighTcLuB · 14th October 2010, 14:58

GPS isn't 100% accurate.. depending on the angle of the satelites and how many of them are changes the speed massively, the faster you go the more inaccurate the clocks/gps will be !

150 mph in a saxo would be hilarious yet ridiculously scary, the body panels would probably start peeling off leaving it looking like a 1.1 flat arch lol

Proffitt · 14th October 2010, 15:42

You end up like this:

NOTE: Fisher, this is no way a bad comment to your car. I

you car 4eva.

Steve · 14th October 2010, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDnighTcLuB

Unless someone can actually PROVE with a picture of a proven method of top speed then i reckon it's all bull and placebo tbh, i could say right now i got my306 to do 160mph and gps proves it... doesn't mean it happened tho ?

no because instantly we all know that is bullshit.

Who actually said they were doing 144mph anyway?
Iirc on 195/45/15 tyres at 7250rpm with the standard gearbox a VTS will only do 142mph at the limiter.

took longer than normal for someone to come in and start saying your talking shit pics or it didnt happen lol

Am only bantering btw, couldn't really care what top speed people get in there saxo.

Just posting beause am bored

axsaxoman · 14th October 2010, 16:29

If you want to troll old posts on the SSC there was vid of a bike behind a s/c saxo fitted with a vtr box and it shows 162mph --steady
work out the gearing that is spot on using a vtr box and pulling 7400 in5th gear.
I t may have been removed by now but it was there for a long time.
If you have 250@wheels then 160 is no problem in a saxo+ correct gearing

MiDnighTcLuB · 14th October 2010, 16:37

If it takes 250 @ the wheels for 160 then do you really think 120bhp at the fly is going to produce 144 ? or even 135 ?

Steve · 14th October 2010, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDnighTcLuB

If it takes 250 @ the wheels for 160 then do you really think 120bhp at the fly is going to produce 144 ? or even 135 ?

after certain speed you need more power to counter the areodynamic drawbacks.

Mochachino · 14th October 2010, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDnighTcLuB

If it takes 250 @ the wheels for 160 then do you really think 120bhp at the fly is going to produce 144 ? or even 135 ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

after certain speed you need more power to counter the areodynamic drawbacks.

Hense why when you get to the higher speeds your accelaration rate is slower. Take your wheels off jack the car up and you can hit the limiter in 5th after like 20 seconds if thats the sort of life you'd like to lead.

Proffitt · 14th October 2010, 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDnighTcLuB

If it takes 250 @ the wheels for 160 then do you really think 120bhp at the fly is going to produce 144 ? or even 135 ?

Yes.

Take the Bugatti for example (shit example compared to a saxo but eh...)
It only needs about 300bhp (out of its 1000bhp) to get to 150mhp BUT to reach its max speed (250mhp) it NEEDS the other 700bhp.

As you get faster....the more mother nature is pulling you back.

Understand?

Im not making them figures up either ^^

EDIT: Was too slow

lol

MiDnighTcLuB · 14th October 2010, 17:05

i understand that but it's only really after 200mph that the air going past the car is physically stronger than the power pushing it forward, you wouldn't need another 100 bhp atw on a saxo to do 16mph more than standard..

Mochachino · 14th October 2010, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiDnighTcLuB

i understand that but it's only really after 200mph that the air going past the car is physically stronger than the power pushing it forward, you wouldn't need another 100 bhp atw on a saxo to do 16mph more than standard..

So what would you explanation be for the reason of how easily any engine can hit the limiter in 5th when its jacked up with no wheels, but struggles to go past 120mph on the roads. Not having a go just asking a question to see what you think?

chinkostu · 14th October 2010, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proffitt

Hahaha

Aren't the 1.1 boxes sh!t? Everyone seems to have them and think they are amazing

like a 1.4xsi box accelleration wise. got one on my vtr, great for pulling away, shit after 100

MiDnighTcLuB · 14th October 2010, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by db_sax

So what would you explanation be for the reason of how easily any engine can hit the limiter in 5th when its jacked up with no wheels, but struggles to go past 120mph on the roads. Not having a go just asking a question to see what you think?

Because there is no weight on the wheels and 0% laboring on the engine also 0% friction on the tyres

SAXO8VYO · 14th October 2010, 18:40

tbh this thread is just a bit of banter for lads on here no need to get to serious about it but like someone was saying about the new bugatti supersport can do 250mph easy using 990bhp (saw it on a car programme on descovery channel talking to vw/bugatti bosses so is true) so basicly to do the top speed of 268mph which is only 18mph more it needs the rest of the power which is like 310bhp so basicly a vtr say can do 120mph but then for a s/c saxo with vtr box to get 160mph which is only 40 more it needs the extra 150bhp as a saxo isnt saxo a slim line race car more like a edged/slightly curved bar of soap lol anyway my 1.4 furio mk2 has got me to 116mph this was clock 4 different times by 4 different sat navs 2 different models of tomtom and a navman one and some other make all give differnt readings 1. tomtom newest model 115mph 2.bit older tomtom 116mph 3.navman newest one 116mph and 4.the other unknown make 115mph but probs was a couple out anyway so realisticly was 114mph

luthor1 · 14th October 2010, 18:47

wind resistance rises with the SQUARE of the speed. This means that 70mph needs nearly DOUBLE the power that 50needs. Since 50 squared is 2500 and 70 squared is 4900 (nearly 5000,which is double).

That's why your fuel is SO much better at 50 than 70mph.

If you want to go 10% fater, then you need 33% more power (roughly) so go figure!!

Andy

MiDnighTcLuB · 14th October 2010, 19:07

^ you see that makes sense. i thought it was around 25% extra power so i wasn't too far out if 33% is your guess

luthor1 · 14th October 2010, 19:53

33% more power to go 10% faster is not a *guess* !!!

What it means is that if you take a 120bhp saxo and increase it by 33% to 160bhp then it's top speed will rise from 127mph to 139.7mph.

That's very simple physics really!

Andy

admansaxo · 14th October 2010, 21:07

that makes alot of sence

hard_corejoeboy · 14th October 2010, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthor1

33% more power to go 10% faster is not a *guess* !!!

What it means is that if you take a 120bhp saxo and increase it by 33% to 160bhp then it's top speed will rise from 127mph to 139.7mph.

That's very simple physics really!

Andy

My man!

Or you can recruit the M25 and a steep hill and a 7800 RPM limit lol ;p

H-Unwin · 14th October 2010, 22:16

On average the clocks and dials are 10% out, that's why when speeding you are sometimes given a 10% difference as the clocks aren't fully correct. So if citroen say it does 127 and someone else is saying it does 144 144 divided by 10 = 130 with a few modifications = pretty much correct. Citroen and other manufacturers will test cars with a speed calibrated ACCURATE gun.