Mazda MX-5 Miata banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Took a roof-down-blast out yesterday and on a qiet country road, I though I would act like a 17 year old and see what my 0-60 time was. About 8 seconds (using a camera focussed on the speedo) How does this compare with others? Hey - I also found out that there is a rev limiter when you hit 7000rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Interesting 0-60 time. Going to see what mine does, guessing around 13 sec...lol

Would also be interesting to know other peoples times for a bookmark
 

·
moon dragon
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
it was adverised as 7.9 i think and you have to get into 3rd unless you up the rev limit. well for the mk2 anyway.
 

·
Randomer
Joined
·
8,007 Posts
0-60 should be around 12 minutes
so plenty of time to make a brew.

iirc the rev limiter is around 7200rpm, most cars have them otherwise the engines would expire very quickly due to enthusiastic drivers.

sounds like you had fun thrashing the 5 though:thumb-up:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Trying to accurately reproduce original road test or the manufacturers figures is tricky unless you want to be hard on your clutch and gearbox. They often give the car a boot full of revs and then step sideways off the clutch: produces a quick time but painful to do. I know this to my cost as I tried to do a 0-60mph in a BMW 540 (with 6 speed manual box) a few years ago. After around three runs the clutch started slipping and died shortly afterwards.
By the way, that car did it in an amazing 5.5 seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
I've read 7.4 secs for a Mk1 1.8 which isn't too bad. Haven't done it in my car though as it would be fairly painful on the transmission.

The rev limiter should be at around 7250rpm. Although mine revs and revs until 7500 at which point I've changed up as I don't want to take it much further than that, must have had the limiter removed at some point. That or a really inaccurate tacho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
Sorry to bring up an old post.

I recently fitted a Stack tacho and its amazing how innacurate the standard tacho is. My ECU is modified so my rev limiter is in a vastly different place to stock anyway, but RPM to MPH was vastly different, by as much as 700 rpm in places (worse at the top end).

And my limiter is at 8k....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
In my 1994 Autocar magazine it says 9.1s for the 1.6 and 8.6 for the 1.8.
 

·
4 Speed, 4 Star
Joined
·
2,789 Posts
In my 1994 Autocar magazine it says 9.1s for the 1.6 and 8.6 for the 1.8.
Proably around 9 seconds, depending on the drivers weight, what else is in the car etc, there is no way that a stock mk1 can do it in 8 seconds.

Remember as well the speedo will be out, so 0-60 is probablt 0-55.
 

·
Oh, hai!
Joined
·
5,001 Posts
Mk1 1.6 (90bhp) - 8.28s
Mk1 1.6 (115bhp) - 10.79s
Mk1 1.8i - 8.26s
Mk2 1.6i - 9.36s
Mk2 1.8 Sport 6 speed - 7.75s
Mk2 1.8i - 7.53s
Mk2 1.8i (125bhp) - 9.03s
Mk2 1.8i (158bhp) - 7.28s
Mk3 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.35s
Mk3 Roadster Coupé 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.52s

http://letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp

Quite how accurate the details on the later Mk2/Mk3s is I don't know, but the Mk1/early Mk2 stuff is about right. Their calculator reckons Yuki (136bhp/1055kgs) would do it in 7.96s
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,792 Posts
Mk1 1.6 (90bhp) - 8.28s
Mk1 1.6 (115bhp) - 10.79s
Mk1 1.8i - 8.26s
Mk2 1.6i - 9.36s
Mk2 1.8 Sport 6 speed - 7.75s
Mk2 1.8i - 7.53s
Mk2 1.8i (125bhp) - 9.03s
Mk2 1.8i (158bhp) - 7.28s
Mk3 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.35s
Mk3 Roadster Coup? 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.52s

http://letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp

Quite how accurate the details on the later Mk2/Mk3s is I don't know, but the Mk1/early Mk2 stuff is about right. Their calculator reckons Yuki (136bhp/1055kgs) would do it in 7.96s
.
Think you got the top two mixed up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,586 Posts
Mk1 1.6 (90bhp) - 8.28s
Mk1 1.6 (115bhp) - 10.79s
Mk1 1.8i - 8.26s
Mk2 1.6i - 9.36s
Mk2 1.8 Sport 6 speed - 7.75s
Mk2 1.8i - 7.53s
Mk2 1.8i (125bhp) - 9.03s
Mk2 1.8i (158bhp) - 7.28s
Mk3 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.35s
Mk3 Roadster Coupé 2.0 (158bhp) - 7.52s

http://letstorquebhp.com/rwd.asp

Quite how accurate the details on the later Mk2/Mk3s is I don't know, but the Mk1/early Mk2 stuff is about right. Their calculator reckons Yuki (136bhp/1055kgs) would do it in 7.96s
.
Think you got the top two mixed up!
[/quote]

TBH early model 1.6's are no where near a mk1 1.8 either, from experience, but I think the clue is in the pages title 'Rear Wheel Drive Theory Stats' in other words speculative bullshit!
 

·
The nutzer formerly known as Fenix
Joined
·
1,579 Posts
I'm a bit sceptical about the Mk2 1.6 time aswell

Aren't they 90 BHP engines in a heavier chassis than mk1?

Unless the gear ratios/final drive have changed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,586 Posts
I'm a bit sceptical about the Mk2 1.6 time aswell

Aren't they 90 BHP engines in a heavier chassis than mk1?

Unless the gear ratios/final drive have changed.
IIRC the MK2 1.6 is 110bhp, but the figures still aren't right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
I'm a bit sceptical about the Mk2 1.6 time aswell

Aren't they 90 BHP engines in a heavier chassis than mk1?

Unless the gear ratios/final drive have changed.
NO! 1.6 Mk2's are all 115hp!

or are they 110
 

·
Oh, hai!
Joined
·
5,001 Posts
Ahh, yes, apologies. I swapped the 90bhp and 115bhp around but forgot to switch the times.


Mk1 1.6 (90bhp) - 10.79s
Mk1 1.6 (115bhp) - 8.28s

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
I think that letstorquebhp site just uses a formula to work out the various times according to power, weight and drive type, which is obviously a very inaccurate way of doing it as it doesn't take into account things like tyres, driver aids, aero etc. I seriously doubt they have actually tested these cars.
 

·
Oh, hai!
Joined
·
5,001 Posts
I think that letstorquebhp site just uses a formula to work out the various times according to power, weight and drive type, which is obviously a very inaccurate way of doing it as it doesn't take into account things like tyres, driver aids, aero etc. I seriously doubt they have actually tested these cars.
Presactly. They also don't take torque into account.

It's still a half decent way of comparing cars to each other though, and from what I've seen of the stock times when the car data is correct, they're fairly close to actual times.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top