Hyundai Forums banner
1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So Motor Trend tested a 6 speed GLS and it went 15.80 in the 1/4 mile. They also tested an automatic SE and it went 16.2 @ 88mph. So just for giggles because my buddies were up there and they talked me into racing, i took a few passes.
1st run:
2.664 60 ft
11.19 @ 64.57mph 1/8 mile
17.22 @ 83.02mph 1/4 mile
2nd run:
2.743 60 ft
11.25 @ 64.97mph 1/8
17.26 @ 82.90mph 1/4
:crying:
This is pathetic. There was nothing i could do different, the car doesn't launch and it shifts on it's own. It's just SLOW!! My wheels are 80lbs heavier than stock, and it was about 99 degrees on the track but a 75 degree day wouldn't change that number much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
First, temperature will definitely make a difference in performance. The weight will make a difference too. It might not be a large difference, but it will make a difference.

Also, did you turn off the traction control? That too will slow your launch.

How full was your gas tank? A full tank can add almost 150 pounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Traction control was off. did not pull through the water, went around it. Had about 3/4 of a tank of gas. Maybe I'll go back when it's cooler some day just for fun. I do have a 100,000 mile warranty!! I havn't drag raced in about 3 years and I can still cut a good light!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
:3gears: :59:

jk, that sucks. Try it again with ur stock rims.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
630 Posts
honestly...how did you expect a 40mpg 4 cyl car to perform at the track? I certainly hope you weren't expecting EVO or STi figures.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
Think he was trying to get to the CORRECTED times that motor trend had. I put CORRECTED in caps due to the numbes you see are usually not real. They have been corrected to meet temp and elevation. Which at 99 degrees and in NC you where not at sea level you shoul dbe seeing high 16's and low 17's. I raced my 85 ford tempo for **** and giggles but never thought about how it matched up against motor trend. Oh and my tempo didn't have RWD 20" wheels.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
630 Posts
QUOTE (ssmuff @ Jul 8 2010, 09:28 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339783
I raced my 85 ford tempo for **** and giggles but never thought about how it matched up against motor trend. Oh and my tempo didn't have RWD 20" wheels.
OT but were you ever on tempo-topaz.com?? :laughing: :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Can you tell us about what you did. Did you powerbrake the car? How high would it stall? Any wheel spin off the line? Those times are pathetic. I have a 6sp Manual Sonata and I ran door to door with my friend's 99 Civic Si with Intake. That car is rated at 15.7 just like mine. You 60ft times are pathetic. 2.6-2.7 is VERY slow, you should at least be able to get to the 2.4 range... Maybe even a 2.3.

It could be that your rims are heavier and preventing a good launch which is hurting your time, that combined with the fuel and excess weight in general...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
QUOTE (hqen2000 @ Jul 8 2010, 11:16 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339840
Can you tell us about what you did. Did you powerbrake the car? How high would it stall? Any wheel spin off the line? Those times are pathetic. I have a 6sp Manual Sonata and I ran door to door with my friend's 99 Civic Si with Intake. That car is rated at 15.7 just like mine. You 60ft times are pathetic. 2.6-2.7 is VERY slow, you should at least be able to get to the 2.4 range... Maybe even a 2.3.

It could be that your rims are heavier and preventing a good launch which is hurting your time, that combined with the fuel and excess weight in general...
I was torque braking it, and had it in autostick mode but let it shift itself. there was no wheel spin at all, tracks are way too sticky for that. There really is nothing you can do to that car to get it to accelerate any faster. It's just that slow. If it was a 6-speed you could blame me but it's isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QUOTE (NT2SHBBY @ Jul 8 2010, 07:46 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339772
honestly...how did you expect a 40mpg 4 cyl car to perform at the track? I certainly hope you weren't expecting EVO or STi figures.....
no no no, i wasn't expecting anything faster than about 16.5 or 16.6. I didn't expect to see 15's at all, but i wasn't out there to win money or bragging rights, i was just goofing around. I do wich i would have bought a 6-speed though....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
630 Posts
QUOTE (rcweimer @ Jul 8 2010, 03:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339917
no no no, i wasn't expecting anything faster than about 16.5 or 16.6. I didn't expect to see 15's at all, but i wasn't out there to win money or bragging rights, i was just goofing around. I do wich i would have bought a 6-speed though....
I'd like to see you dump those heavy **** 20's that aren't really designed for fwd fitment, and get some LIGHTWEIGHT volks, SSR's (if u can find a set), iForged, etc... and lets revisit the track again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
The rule of thumb is that each 10 lbs of unsprung weight you add is like adding 100 lbs of total weight to the car. If the wheels/tires you are using on your car are actually 80 lbs heavier than stock it is like you have added 800 lbs to the total weight of your car which will have the corresponding effect on the acceleration, braking and handling of your car.

This would show up in a dyno test of your car also. The engine has to work much harder just to turn the wheels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
QUOTE (rallyman @ Jul 8 2010, 03:58 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339931
The rule of thumb is that each 10 lbs of unsprung weight you add is like adding 100 lbs of total weight to the car. If the wheels/tires you are using on your car are actually 80 lbs heavier than stock it is like you have added 800 lbs to the total weight of your car which will have the corresponding effect on the acceleration, braking and handling of your car.

This would show up in a dyno test of your car also. The engine has to work much harder just to turn the wheels.
Where are you getting these number from? 80lbs = 80lbs. Going by loigic if the vehicles weight is 3000lbs adding 80lbs to it would make it 3080lbs not 3800lbs!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I'm never going back to the track. I don't want my car to be faster, niether does my insurance company. My only benefit from lighter wheels would be better gas mileage, but **** I love the way my wheels look!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
QUOTE (eyecue @ Jul 8 2010, 04:14 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=339939
Where are you getting these number from? 80lbs = 80lbs. Going by loigic if the vehicles weight is 3000lbs adding 80lbs to it would make it 3080lbs not 3800lbs!
There is a big difference in "un-sprung" or Rotational weight vs Static weight. The rotational weight drastically affects your acceleration. Going by your logic it's readily apparent that you haven't done a lot of racing. Not a big deal, but it helps if you know what you are speaking about. They don't make lightweight wheels just because they are pretty, they actually serve a purpose.
Here, I found this article to help you out. GrassRoots Motorsports has also done numerous articles and on this very subject.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4869599
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
854 Posts
QUOTE (bmidd @ Jul 8 2010, 08:50 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=340020
There is a big difference in "un-sprung" or Rotational weight vs Static weight. The rotational weight drastically affects your acceleration. Going by your logic it's readily apparent that you haven't done a lot of racing. Not a big deal, but it helps if you know what you are speaking about. They don't make lightweight wheels just because they are pretty, they actually serve a purpose.
Here, I found this article to help you out. GrassRoots Motorsports has also done numerous articles and on this very subject.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4869599

I didn't see anything in that article that backs your claim. 0.1 sec per inch is a drastic change in aceleration? Drastic to me is what op posted compared to motor trends numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
QUOTE (midas69 @ Jul 8 2010, 10:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=340058
Read this:

http://hondaswap.com/general-tech-articles...part-2-a-29058/

Not only does it talk about weight, it also talks about how the bigger tires impact acceleration.
Midas is correct that the weight of the rims do have a far greater impact than just adding static weight to the car. It requires additional torque to get them to spin resulting in slower acceleration. I'm sure the temp had some impact on the performance as well. Yet another reason why I should have gone with the Limited insstead of the SE (rotational mass of 17's is less than my 18's ).

From the article above: "A reduction in the weight of the rim/tire assembly of 5lbs x 4 (all around the car) is equivalent to a 200lb weight reduction in vehicle weight (thats worth 0.200 in the 1/4 mile)"
Given that the rims were 80 lbs heavier equates to about 0.8 in the 1/4 mile. Given that and the temp outside I would say he was on target to meet the R&T time of 16.2. Get lighter rims!
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top