Speaking of 0-60...

Times are 0-60 and 1/4 mile for different cars I have owned,
from [url]http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.htm:[/url]


1973 Toyota Mark II 13.6 19.9

1974 Toyota Corolla 1200 16.1 19.9

1980 Toyota Corolla Sport Coupe 12.0 N/A

1983 Toyota Tercel 4WD Wagon 16.5 20.4

1985 Toyota Corolla GT-S 10.5 18.6

1984 Toyota Celica GT-S 11.8 18.3

1988 Toyota Supra 7.9 16.0

1995 Toyota Tercel DX 11.2 18.4

And the Scion tC, from
[url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]

0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)

So, it IS the fastest car I have owned!

They don't have my '87 4 door Corolla Wheezer, which could just about get
out of it's own way...

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...[color=blue]
> Times are 0-60 and 1/4 mile for different cars I have owned,
> from [url]http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.htm:[/url]
>
>
> 1973 Toyota Mark II 13.6 19.9
>
> 1974 Toyota Corolla 1200 16.1 19.9
>
> 1980 Toyota Corolla Sport Coupe 12.0 N/A
>
> 1983 Toyota Tercel 4WD Wagon 16.5 20.4
>
> 1985 Toyota Corolla GT-S 10.5 18.6
>
> 1984 Toyota Celica GT-S 11.8 18.3
>
> 1988 Toyota Supra 7.9 16.0
>
> 1995 Toyota Tercel DX 11.2 18.4
>
> And the Scion tC, from
> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>
> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>
> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned!
>
> They don't have my '87 4 door Corolla Wheezer, which could just about get
> out of it's own way...
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

With my 79 KE30 Corolla 4 speed, 0-60 wasn't a time it was a question. I
had a cop in Misery once tried to give me a ticket for going 81 in her. I
was never able to get her over 75 without a good stiff tail wind and a long
downhill slope. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg.

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
> Times are 0-60 and 1/4 mile for different cars I have owned,
> from [url]http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-quarter-mile-times.htm:[/url]
>[/color]

Toyotas book speeds are often a little on the conservative side too.
Book time for mine standard is 7.8 but in stock form i managed 6.5 with
ease. Buy a gtech pro unit ($80 ish) to be sure :)

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...[color=blue]
> And the Scion tC, from
> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>
> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>
> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned![/color]

Is your tC "a preproduction model that was modified with a polished AEM
cold-air intake and a TRD exhaust?" I don't read car magazines much anymore
(mostly because they have turned into infomercials) but in the old days it
was common for manufacturers (especially GM) to slip the magazines "special"
models so that the magazine would get really good performance numbers that
were not necessarily related to production models. The tC article you
referenced at least acknowledged that this was not a production model. Do
you feel your tC has this level of performance? The magazine article was
claiming that the acknowledged modifications added 10 hp (or at least 6%
more than the production version). When Consumer Reports tested a tC, their
0-60 was 8.8 sec. Their 1/4 mile time was 16.7 sec. Their 1/4 mile trap
speed was 85 mph. People often dislike CR's conclusions (I know I do), but
in general I think their performance tests are fair and consistent (except
for some of the stability tests) - since they buy standard production
vehicles and test them on their own track. Enthusiast magazines often get
cooked vehicles from the manufacturers and use a variety of test sites to
make the performance measurements. This makes vehicle to vehicle comparisons
unreliable even when the tests were supposedly done by the same magazine and
especially suspect when you are comparing vehicles across a number of
magazines.

Ed

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:24:18 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...[color=green]
>> And the Scion tC, from
>> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>>
>> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
>> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>>
>> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned![/color]
>
> Is your tC "a preproduction model that was modified with a polished AEM
> cold-air intake and a TRD exhaust?" I don't read car magazines much anymore
> (mostly because they have turned into infomercials) but in the old days it
> was common for manufacturers (especially GM) to slip the magazines "special"
> models so that the magazine would get really good performance numbers that
> were not necessarily related to production models. The tC article you
> referenced at least acknowledged that this was not a production model. Do
> you feel your tC has this level of performance? The magazine article was
> claiming that the acknowledged modifications added 10 hp (or at least 6%
> more than the production version). When Consumer Reports tested a tC, their
> 0-60 was 8.8 sec. Their 1/4 mile time was 16.7 sec. Their 1/4 mile trap
> speed was 85 mph. People often dislike CR's conclusions (I know I do), but
> in general I think their performance tests are fair and consistent (except
> for some of the stability tests) - since they buy standard production
> vehicles and test them on their own track. Enthusiast magazines often get
> cooked vehicles from the manufacturers and use a variety of test sites to
> make the performance measurements. This makes vehicle to vehicle comparisons
> unreliable even when the tests were supposedly done by the same magazine and
> especially suspect when you are comparing vehicles across a number of
> magazines.
>
> Ed[/color]


Thanks, Ed...burst my bubble...

(Um, it sure FEELS that fast!)
It is also as fast as my 240SX (tested without any mods...) and even
faster than the Supra (um, 18 years old!)

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:qWANg.3952$J_2.1908@trndny04...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:24:18 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>> news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...[color=darkred]
>>> And the Scion tC, from
>>> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>>>
>>> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
>>> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>>>
>>> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned![/color]
>>
>> Is your tC "a preproduction model that was modified with a polished AEM
>> cold-air intake and a TRD exhaust?" I don't read car magazines much
>> anymore
>> (mostly because they have turned into infomercials) but in the old days
>> it
>> was common for manufacturers (especially GM) to slip the magazines
>> "special"
>> models so that the magazine would get really good performance numbers
>> that
>> were not necessarily related to production models. The tC article you
>> referenced at least acknowledged that this was not a production model. Do
>> you feel your tC has this level of performance? The magazine article was
>> claiming that the acknowledged modifications added 10 hp (or at least 6%
>> more than the production version). When Consumer Reports tested a tC,
>> their
>> 0-60 was 8.8 sec. Their 1/4 mile time was 16.7 sec. Their 1/4 mile trap
>> speed was 85 mph. People often dislike CR's conclusions (I know I do),
>> but
>> in general I think their performance tests are fair and consistent
>> (except
>> for some of the stability tests) - since they buy standard production
>> vehicles and test them on their own track. Enthusiast magazines often get
>> cooked vehicles from the manufacturers and use a variety of test sites to
>> make the performance measurements. This makes vehicle to vehicle
>> comparisons
>> unreliable even when the tests were supposedly done by the same magazine
>> and
>> especially suspect when you are comparing vehicles across a number of
>> magazines.
>>
>> Ed[/color]
>
>
> Thanks, Ed...burst my bubble...
>
> (Um, it sure FEELS that fast!)
> It is also as fast as my 240SX (tested without any mods...) and even
> faster than the Supra (um, 18 years old!)[/color]

I did not mean to burst your bubble. Even the CR numbers are about as good
as anything I persoanlly have ever owned. CR also listed a 200HP
Supercharged engine as an option - is that true? I wish they had the numbers
for that. Can you put that much power through the front wheels of a
relatively light car and keep it a straight line?

Ed

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:00 +0000, C. E. White wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:qWANg.3952$J_2.1908@trndny04...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:24:18 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
>>> news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...
>>>> And the Scion tC, from
>>>> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>>>>
>>>> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
>>>> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>>>>
>>>> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned!
>>>
>>> Is your tC "a preproduction model that was modified with a polished AEM
>>> cold-air intake and a TRD exhaust?" I don't read car magazines much
>>> anymore
>>> (mostly because they have turned into infomercials) but in the old days
>>> it
>>> was common for manufacturers (especially GM) to slip the magazines
>>> "special"
>>> models so that the magazine would get really good performance numbers
>>> that
>>> were not necessarily related to production models. The tC article you
>>> referenced at least acknowledged that this was not a production model. Do
>>> you feel your tC has this level of performance? The magazine article was
>>> claiming that the acknowledged modifications added 10 hp (or at least 6%
>>> more than the production version). When Consumer Reports tested a tC,
>>> their
>>> 0-60 was 8.8 sec. Their 1/4 mile time was 16.7 sec. Their 1/4 mile trap
>>> speed was 85 mph. People often dislike CR's conclusions (I know I do),
>>> but
>>> in general I think their performance tests are fair and consistent
>>> (except
>>> for some of the stability tests) - since they buy standard production
>>> vehicles and test them on their own track. Enthusiast magazines often get
>>> cooked vehicles from the manufacturers and use a variety of test sites to
>>> make the performance measurements. This makes vehicle to vehicle
>>> comparisons
>>> unreliable even when the tests were supposedly done by the same magazine
>>> and
>>> especially suspect when you are comparing vehicles across a number of
>>> magazines.
>>>
>>> Ed[/color]
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Ed...burst my bubble...
>>
>> (Um, it sure FEELS that fast!)
>> It is also as fast as my 240SX (tested without any mods...) and even
>> faster than the Supra (um, 18 years old!)[/color]
>
> I did not mean to burst your bubble. Even the CR numbers are about as good
> as anything I persoanlly have ever owned. CR also listed a 200HP
> Supercharged engine as an option - is that true? I wish they had the numbers
> for that. Can you put that much power through the front wheels of a
> relatively light car and keep it a straight line?
>
> Ed[/color]


Missed qslim's post about how it throws the balance of the car off...

"Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
news:MyINg.274$c03.128@trndny05...
[color=blue]
> Missed qslim's post about how it throws the balance of the car off...[/color]

How much interior room is there in a tC?

And slightly off topic - my SO just put a deposit down on a new RAV4 -
anything to look for when we pick it up? I should have let her do my truck
shopping,. She got a better deal on the RAV4 in 3 days than I could get on a
Tacoma in two months (which explains why I am driving a Frontier).

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
Can you put that much power through the front wheels of a[color=blue]
> relatively light car and keep it a straight line?
>
> Ed[/color]

Friend of mine has a 300bhp (200lbft) front wheel drive that doesnt
suffer from torque steer - its designed with very similar-length front
shafts. It does suffer from just sitting on the spot and not being able
to get off the line if its even lightly damp outside :)

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4506b58d$1@kcnews01...[color=blue]
>
> "Hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.gts> wrote in message
> news:%hoNg.2463$rc3.68@trndny03...[color=green]
>> And the Scion tC, from
>> [url]http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0411scc_2005_scion_test/[/url]
>>
>> 0 to 60, which it manages in 7.8 seconds. (according to the article,
>> 0-100 is about 15.4 seconds...)
>>
>> So, it IS the fastest car I have owned![/color]
>
> Is your tC "a preproduction model that was modified with a polished AEM
> cold-air intake and a TRD exhaust?" I don't read car magazines much
> anymore (mostly because they have turned into infomercials) but in the old
> days it was common for manufacturers (especially GM) to slip the magazines
> "special" models so that the magazine would get really good performance
> numbers that were not necessarily related to production models. The tC
> article you referenced at least acknowledged that this was not a
> production model. Do you feel your tC has this level of performance? The
> magazine article was claiming that the acknowledged modifications added 10
> hp (or at least 6% more than the production version). When Consumer
> Reports tested a tC, their 0-60 was 8.8 sec. Their 1/4 mile time was 16.7
> sec. Their 1/4 mile trap speed was 85 mph. People often dislike CR's
> conclusions (I know I do), but in general I think their performance tests
> are fair and consistent (except for some of the stability tests) - since
> they buy standard production vehicles and test them on their own track[/color]

If I recall correctly, it was also their policy to drive it as if it were
their own car. For example, their tester lifts his right foot for a shift.
That's how I drive my car, even if I want "maximum" acceleration.
[color=blue]
> Enthusiast magazines often get cooked vehicles from the manufacturers and
> use a variety of test sites to make the performance measurements. This
> makes vehicle to vehicle comparisons unreliable even when the tests were
> supposedly done by the same magazine and especially suspect when you are
> comparing vehicles across a number of magazines.
>
> Ed
>[/color]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

DH wrote:[color=blue]
> If I recall correctly, it was also their policy to drive it as if it were
> their own car. For example, their tester lifts his right foot for a shift.
> That's how I drive my car, even if I want "maximum" acceleration.[/color]

I never find flat-shifting helps anyway - my clutch just slips like
hell.