-
Welcome to N-cars.net - the largest Hyundai N car forum. Check out the model specific sections below and scroll down for country specific forums. Scroll down for i30 N, Ioniq 5 N, i20 N, Veloster N and Kona N forums! Check out the i30 N Bible Here!
Acceleration times
- Thread starter Scottukl
- Start date
Yeah absolutely! Already fast enough for me. I don't use the LC... just lift the clutch without spinning the wheels at all.
All stock?
In fairness Mat Watson launches even the savage FK8 Type R badly!! From memory he couldn't get under 6s, so I wouldn't take too much from that one
In both the original Carwow hatchback review and the Evo review it does 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, I'm guessing they both change into 3rd! Not sure how accurate the on board timer is?
Anyway 0-60 times are largely pointless, at no point have i ever accelerated to 60 in a 30 zone or stopped accelerating at 60 on the motorway!
Anyway 0-60 times are largely pointless, at no point have i ever accelerated to 60 in a 30 zone or stopped accelerating at 60 on the motorway!
Your right, 0 to 30 or 40 is a more real world acceleration figure, especially from the lights!In both the original Carwow hatchback review and the Evo review it does 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, I'm guessing they both change into 3rd! Not sure how accurate the on board timer is?
Anyway 0-60 times are largely pointless, at no point have i ever accelerated to 60 in a 30 zone or stopped accelerating at 60 on the motorway!
If it's a stock car You either have a software problem or an eyesight problem! Or a steep hill... That is just not technically possible...My best time is 4.40
Some nice down hill runs there ;-)
I used to get zero to 180 km/h (on the speedo) in about 5 seconds by standing on both pedals at once in my old V8 street/drag car. And that's only moving from the water trap to the staging beams after releasing the brakes. Pretty sure I could get the same or better from the N driving on ice, lol.
The stock Performance Package Veloster N, tested at 5.6 seconds from 0-60 by Car and Driver and 5.9 seconds by Motor Trend. Both with professional drivers and from a standing start without LC. 6.05 with a modified i30N, is just not that quick.My best time is 4.40
Depending upon the modifications you've installed;
the car should be capable of mid to low five second runs constantly. The only drawback will be, driver consistency to launch the car correctly. Times will gradually degrade between each run, primarily due to heat soak, loss of whp, tire grip and clutch slip.
You're i30N is not going to get into the low four second range from 0-60, with the modifications you listed alone. I can assure you. Maybe, the mid-low fives second range consistently. With 4.40/ 0-60 mph times mathematically speaking, your i30N would be running mid to low 11 second quarter miles. The engine is not producing the required amount of whp needed, with these modifications to eclipse such times quarter miles times, let alone low mid to low four second 0-62 times.
Also, what rpm did you launch the car at?
Lets see the dyno chart for the remap, with the modifications. To be realistic, the dyno chart will confirm what I already know to be true. The math, doesn't lie mate. What you're commenting to, doesn't jive with the math either.
Last edited:
Guys,
I know that this is a good time and yes maybe it is not 100% correct with our performance meter that is built in our N cars (it is not a VBOX), but that where the numbers I had twice on a flat surface in two different places. The map is attached below. It was 3 days of tuning to make a map that is a perfect match for me till next year. Next year I think I will be ready for more emotions and changes.
I know that this is a good time and yes maybe it is not 100% correct with our performance meter that is built in our N cars (it is not a VBOX), but that where the numbers I had twice on a flat surface in two different places. The map is attached below. It was 3 days of tuning to make a map that is a perfect match for me till next year. Next year I think I will be ready for more emotions and changes.
Based upon this dyno chart, you're not producing near enough whp to push the car into the 4 seconds 0-60 range. You need to be pushing 315+ whp, you're nowhere near that @ 304.5 BHP. The dyno charts you have provided are measured at the flywheel, not at the wheels.
So realistically, you're making around 243-244 whp & 340.754 ft lbs or torque ideally, which is not enough to push the combined weight of yourself, the weight of rolling mass, into the mid to low 4 second range. This particular formula doesn't take in account, driver response and friction loss or many other specific factors. With this formula the best you'd be able to eclipse if everything was ideal is; 5.00 seconds and this is without; your weight, fuel weight and traction loss.
Mathematically speaking; Adding in your weigh say 160 ( average male), fuel weight @ 6 lbs per gallon, with 8 gallons in the tank, it's closer to 0-60 mph 5.30 seconds ideally. Of course this is taking in account, ideal ambient conditions, and precise driver response. Less than this, will produce much slower times, due to loss of horsepower from heat soak. loss of traction and less than ideal air density.
To give you an example; a tenth of a second is less than a blink of the eye. 1000 times faster than a human breath. So any hesitation by you or the car to responded according, will add to the overall time. Keeping in mind no one is perfect and it doesn't exist on this world. Ideal is as close to perfect, as you're going to get.
Of course, I haven't added in altitude, along with a slew of other factors, which must also be considered. This will reduce the available horsepower and torque. Al, l will accumulate additional time. So in reality, the 6.05 to 7:01 second range you posted is about right and the best you can expect.
This ^ is the actual math, nothing more or less and it doesn't perceive anything different. There are particular formulas, which will predetermine applicable performance from cars. These are based upon particular specifications; power to weight ratios are very important. Even if you shed 500 lbs from the i30N, you still won't be able to eclipse mid to low four second 0-60 times or mid eleven second quarter mile times.
@TarmoT & @Dan_bush27 YES! With you're specific modifications, NO and you're nowhere near either of what they've accomplished! Mathematically speaking, TarmoT and Dan_Bush 27 are smack dab in the 4.40 0-60/low -mid 11 second quarter mile range.
So realistically, you're making around 243-244 whp & 340.754 ft lbs or torque ideally, which is not enough to push the combined weight of yourself, the weight of rolling mass, into the mid to low 4 second range. This particular formula doesn't take in account, driver response and friction loss or many other specific factors. With this formula the best you'd be able to eclipse if everything was ideal is; 5.00 seconds and this is without; your weight, fuel weight and traction loss.
Mathematically speaking; Adding in your weigh say 160 ( average male), fuel weight @ 6 lbs per gallon, with 8 gallons in the tank, it's closer to 0-60 mph 5.30 seconds ideally. Of course this is taking in account, ideal ambient conditions, and precise driver response. Less than this, will produce much slower times, due to loss of horsepower from heat soak. loss of traction and less than ideal air density.
To give you an example; a tenth of a second is less than a blink of the eye. 1000 times faster than a human breath. So any hesitation by you or the car to responded according, will add to the overall time. Keeping in mind no one is perfect and it doesn't exist on this world. Ideal is as close to perfect, as you're going to get.
Of course, I haven't added in altitude, along with a slew of other factors, which must also be considered. This will reduce the available horsepower and torque. Al, l will accumulate additional time. So in reality, the 6.05 to 7:01 second range you posted is about right and the best you can expect.
This ^ is the actual math, nothing more or less and it doesn't perceive anything different. There are particular formulas, which will predetermine applicable performance from cars. These are based upon particular specifications; power to weight ratios are very important. Even if you shed 500 lbs from the i30N, you still won't be able to eclipse mid to low four second 0-60 times or mid eleven second quarter mile times.
@TarmoT & @Dan_bush27 YES! With you're specific modifications, NO and you're nowhere near either of what they've accomplished! Mathematically speaking, TarmoT and Dan_Bush 27 are smack dab in the 4.40 0-60/low -mid 11 second quarter mile range.
Last edited:
Based upon this dyno chart, you're not producing near enough whp to push the car into the 4 seconds 0-60 range. You need to be pushing 315+ whp you're nowhere near that let alone 304.5 BHP The dyno charts you have provided are measured at the flywheel, not at the wheels.
So realistically, you're making around 243-244 whp & 340.754 ft lbs or torque ideally, which is not enough to push the combined weight of yourself, the weight of rolling mass, into the mid to low 4 second range. This particular formula doesn't take in account, driver response and friction loss,. With this formula the best you'd be able to eclipse if everything was ideal is; 5.00 seconds and this is without, your weight, fuel weight and traction loss.
Mathematically speaking; Adding in your weigh say 160 ( average male), fuel weight @ 6 lbs per gallon, with 8 gallons in the tank, it's closer to 0-60 mph 5.30 seconds ideally. Of course this is taking in account, ideal ambient conditions, and precise driver response. Less than this, will produce much slower times, due to loss of horsepower from heat soak and and less than ideal air density.
To give you an example; a tenth of a second is less than a blink of the eye. 1000 times faster than a human breath. So any hesitation by you or the car to responded according, will add to the overall time. Keeping in mind no one is perfect, it doesn't exist on this world. Ideal is as close to perfect as you're going to get.
Of course, I haven't added in altitude, along with a slew of other factors which also need to be considered. This will drop ideal horsepower and torque. All will accumulate additional time. So in reality, the 6.05 to 7:01 second range you posted is about right and the best you can expect.
This ^ is the actual math nothing more or less and it doesn't perceive anything different. There are particular formulas, which will predetermine applicable performance from cars. Based upon particular specifications; power to weight ratios are very important. Even if you shed 500 lbs from the i30N, you still won't be able to eclipse mid to low four second 0-60 times or mid eleven second quarter mile times.
@TarmoT & @Dan_bush27 YES! With you're specific modifications, NO and you're nowhere near either! Mathematically speaking, TarmoT and Dan_Bush 27 are smack dab in the 4.40 0-60/low -mid 11 second quarter mile range.
Good reading! No way in h..ll our car will do low/mid 11 on 1/4 dragrace. This is big boy territory for street cars (even modified ones) Our i30N ain’t there...
Waiting for TarmoT to join the discussion
<eating popcorn>.
If there is any math than please share your calculation. That would be interesting since I know that having only this numbers it would be 'not so easy' to calculate. For now I can see only what the car have shown and your assumptions without any calculations. I can agree only on arguments not on assumptions
After all the meter in the car could be only a non acurate gadget since I have witness on my self that the NM levels on the graph are not as they should comparing to the dyno.
But I cant wait to see a calculation that can actually proove it. Please provide one
After all the meter in the car could be only a non acurate gadget since I have witness on my self that the NM levels on the graph are not as they should comparing to the dyno.
But I cant wait to see a calculation that can actually proove it. Please provide one