0-60 for a 914/6 with 3.2? Options

[Tdskip]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

[SirAndy]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

I did some timed runs with my 3.6L and the biggest problem was getting the tires to hook and not spin.

I don't use 1st gear at all and take off in 2nd and if i'm not careful i can still lay down 10 yards of rubber. That might look cool but it doesn't do you any good in terms of actually moving forward.

The best time i got (that one time everything went perfect) was just under 4 seconds.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[Superhawk996]

The numbers are secondary to the driving experience of course, but just curious if anyone’s ever benchmark to their conversion against a stopwatch?

I did some timed runs with my 3.6L and the biggest problem was getting the tires to hook and not spin.

I don't use 1st gear at all and take off in 2nd and if i'm not careful i can still lay down 10 yards of rubber. That might look cool but it doesn't do you any good in terms of actually moving forward.

The best time i got (that one time everything went perfect) was just under 4 seconds.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

Don't get me wrong guys, but, the reality is EV's have changed the game. Any 16 year old driving a Tesla Model S P100D AWD can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds with absolutely zero drama and zero talent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) Zero to sixty probably isn't the reason to own a 914.

Just to be clear . . . no ill will meant for you guys with big engines. If I hit the lottery I just might build a 914 with a Singer engine but till then. The art of cornering is where the 914's strenth is at.

[jd74914]

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

I think you'd gain quite a bit with good traction control as well. Might as well maximize the area under the tractive force curve. I haven't seen anyone with any real traction control in a 914 yet. Should be interesting when that happens.

[Superhawk996]

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

I think you'd gain quite a bit with good traction control as well. Might as well maximize the area under the tractive force curve. I haven't seen anyone with any real traction control in a 914 yet. Should be interesting when that happens.

The problem with traction control is that it isn't very effective without full integration to the powertrain managment.

Early traction control systems were brake control only tied into the ABS pump. They weren't very good. Then traction control integration extended to include spark control (primarily control of spark retard) so able to dial back powertrain torque to a very limited extent.

It wasn't until OEM's went to throttle by wire that traction control was decent with direct CAN communicaiton between the chassis controls and powertrain controls so that each knows exactly what the other is doing and they can coordinate efforts.

I've been involved in the development of ABS/Traction Control/ESC systems since 2000. I briefly thought about doing ABS but then remembered why I wanted a 914 again in the 1st place. Simplicity. So I quickly put it out of my mind. So many variables involved that I personally don't deem it to be worth the effort but I'm sure someone out there will eventually do it but to do it right and to do it well, will involve some significant work!

[jd74914]

Not bad . . . but you need AWD! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) There is a reason the 959 had AWD.

Tractive effort quickly becomes the limitation unless you're willing to run 18" wide rear rubber and to deal with the issues rubber that wide brings with it.

I think you'd gain quite a bit with good traction control as well. Might as well maximize the area under the tractive force curve. I haven't seen anyone with any real traction control in a 914 yet. Should be interesting when that happens.

The problem with traction control is that it isn't very effective without full integration to the powertrain managment.

Early traction control systems were brake control only tied into the ABS pump. They weren't very good. Then traction control integration extended to include spark control (primarily control of spark retard) so able to dial back powertrain torque to a very limited extent.

It wasn't until OEM's went to throttle by wire that traction control was decent with direct CAN communicaiton between the chassis controls and powertrain controls so that each knows exactly what the other is doing and they can coordinate efforts.

I've been involved in the development of ABS/Traction Control/ESC systems since 2000. I briefly thought about doing ABS but then remembered why I wanted a 914 again in the 1st place. Simplicity. So I quickly put it out of my mind. So many variables involved that I personally don't deem it to be worth the effort but I'm sure someone out there will eventually do it but to do it right and to do it well, will involve some significant work!

Very cool!

I'm totally onboard with the first part-especially in terms of retarding spark, and the last part regarding the amount of work. Everything thinks pulling ignition timing is magic but you're really not modulating power well with that knob. Perhaps enough to calm a race engine's lopey idle. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) I'm not convinced you need to go to the OEM extent of integration with throttle controls given that we don't really care about emissions or efficiency. I've had pretty good experiences optimizing wheel slip with bike-engined cars with cable throttles. Admittedly it's been using high end ECU's (Life Racing, etc.) with high speed engine position tracking (FPGA-based to maybe 5 degrees), not the standard MS-maybe that's the difference? Dying to play with tuning on a DBW car-no one I know plays in that $$ range though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)