Toyota FT-HS Hybrid 0-60mph 4.0 sec
09-12-07, 08:18 PM
#31
Really, 400lbs? I've never once seen that much difference between say an '07 G35 5AT Coupe and the G37 Sport (the heavier listed). I have seen more in the range of like 150lbs, which in itself no doubt significant, but not 400lbs.
09-12-07, 08:51 PM
#33
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see why it wouldn't. An STi weighs 3200 lbs, has 293 hp and can reach 60 mph in 4.6 seconds. And it doesn't have instantaneous torque delievery. It also only gets about 18 mpg in city where a car like this should get 25ish I would say.
09-12-07, 09:23 PM
#34
My point is that it takes a lot more power (if weight is the same) to shave off time to an already fast time. Just like how you can line up a car that does 10.0 second on the 1/4th vs another car that run 11.0. The 10.0 car will put car lengths in between. Yet if you take a 16.0 sec vs a 17.0, the distance between those cars will be close.
The C5 z06 does low 4s, and these guys are dyno'ing about 350-360whp stock. If the engine truely made 405hp, I highly doubt the drivetrain loss is only ~11%. If anything, it should be around 430hp at the crank. ~130hp more hp than the Sti with comparable weight, yet it only shaves off a few tenths of a second.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
I feel that everyone is picking my post out of all other posts because I doubted the FT-HS' time. If the FT-HS can prove me wrong, great. I would love to see that happen. It can only mean we're getting more efficient in utilizing the car's power. Not a bad thing at all.
The C5 z06 does low 4s, and these guys are dyno'ing about 350-360whp stock. If the engine truely made 405hp, I highly doubt the drivetrain loss is only ~11%. If anything, it should be around 430hp at the crank. ~130hp more hp than the Sti with comparable weight, yet it only shaves off a few tenths of a second.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
I feel that everyone is picking my post out of all other posts because I doubted the FT-HS' time. If the FT-HS can prove me wrong, great. I would love to see that happen. It can only mean we're getting more efficient in utilizing the car's power. Not a bad thing at all.
09-13-07, 08:01 AM
#35
I can't seem to find any official release of a CVT for it. It has paddle shifters so it's not a straight forward CVT. And I still don't really understand Nissan's Xtronic CVT with manual shift. I'm guessing it's just a ratio change to imitate a shift point. I would assume a CVT for the FT-HS would be along the same lines.
09-13-07, 08:01 AM
#36
My point is that it takes a lot more power (if weight is the same) to shave off time to an already fast time. Just like how you can line up a car that does 10.0 second on the 1/4th vs another car that run 11.0. The 10.0 car will put car lengths in between. Yet if you take a 16.0 sec vs a 17.0, the distance between those cars will be close.
The C5 z06 does low 4s, and these guys are dyno'ing about 350-360whp stock. If the engine truely made 405hp, I highly doubt the drivetrain loss is only ~11%. If anything, it should be around 430hp at the crank. ~130hp more hp than the Sti with comparable weight, yet it only shaves off a few tenths of a second.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
I feel that everyone is picking my post out of all other posts because I doubted the FT-HS' time. If the FT-HS can prove me wrong, great. I would love to see that happen. It can only mean we're getting more efficient in utilizing the car's power. Not a bad thing at all.
The C5 z06 does low 4s, and these guys are dyno'ing about 350-360whp stock. If the engine truely made 405hp, I highly doubt the drivetrain loss is only ~11%. If anything, it should be around 430hp at the crank. ~130hp more hp than the Sti with comparable weight, yet it only shaves off a few tenths of a second.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
I feel that everyone is picking my post out of all other posts because I doubted the FT-HS' time. If the FT-HS can prove me wrong, great. I would love to see that happen. It can only mean we're getting more efficient in utilizing the car's power. Not a bad thing at all.
The darn car is not even on the streets lol. Heck, it may never make production.
09-13-07, 05:20 PM
#37
I can't seem to find any official release of a CVT for it. It has paddle shifters so it's not a straight forward CVT. And I still don't really understand Nissan's Xtronic CVT with manual shift. I'm guessing it's just a ratio change to imitate a shift point. I would assume a CVT for the FT-HS would be along the same lines.
09-13-07, 06:03 PM
#38
The C5 z06 does low 4s, and these guys are dyno'ing about 350-360whp stock. If the engine truely made 405hp, I highly doubt the drivetrain loss is only ~11%. If anything, it should be around 430hp at the crank. ~130hp more hp than the Sti with comparable weight, yet it only shaves off a few tenths of a second.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
Power vs. Time is not linear.
Yes you're right power vs time isnt linear, but your example of the STI vs Vette isnt a fair comparison. The STi also manages a much better launch than the Vette and most likely has a fatter powerband (relatively speaking here, not peak numbers).
60' is everything when it comes to 0-60. 4.0 and 5.0 second times are NOT fast. If you think so, I encourage you to learn to ride a bike and see the ridiculous 60's those things can rip on stock tires. You get better 60's by better launches. Better launches are had by: making more usable power, gearing changes, stickier tires, wider powerband, suspension changes, etc. A modern traction-control car with ~60% of its peak torque available at 0rpms with decent enough tires, and a CVT transmission will net a pretty nasty 60' time.
09-13-07, 07:23 PM
#40
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ca
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, I used to ride on old 600 cc sportbike and stock I was doing 3.5 second 0-60, sitting in a C5 at the time seemed SLOOOOOOOOW
09-13-07, 08:20 PM
#41
4.0 and 5.0 second times are NOT fast. If you think so, I encourage you to learn to ride a bike and see the ridiculous 60's those things can rip on stock tires. You get better 60's by better launches. Better launches are had by: making more usable power, gearing changes, stickier tires, wider powerband, suspension changes, etc.
For street cars, 4-5 seconds from 0-60 is pretty quick.
09-14-07, 01:43 AM
#45