Sponsored

GT350R 60-130 MPH results

PencilGeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
225
Reaction score
195
Location
Northern California
First Name
Robert
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R HR278, 2008 BMW M3
EDIT: These results are not valid. Please see updated results here: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81318

Today I got my first chance to take the car out with the vBox attached. I took it to a place down in Mexico that a few of us know as "Steve Dinan's raceway." It's a perfectly secluded 4-lane highway with protective high guard rails on both directions, with no side streets in one of those directions.

I intended to do a full 0-130 run, but that got botched when I did a rolling start from about 1 MPH. I botched two gear shifts when I barely bounced off the RPM limiter. Regardless, it was good enough for a baseline.

I was a bit curious what kind of wheel horsepower would be calculated with the vBoxDyno, so I collected as much info as I could, then I hit a brick wall (so to speak). The three hardest pieces of info were the wheel weight, drag coeeficient, and frontal area. For wheel weight, I started with the Carbon Revolution wheels for GT-R, and added three extra pounds. But as hard as I tried, I couldn't find any data, other than speculation, on drag coefficient or frontal area. Does anybody know where to get this? I ended up using 0.32 Cd, and 24.2 sq-ft frontal area. These were somewhat educated guesses as I started with the 2012 Mustang Boss 302 and shaved the drag coefficient from 0.36 to 0.32, and kept the same 24.2 sq-ft frontal area. But if anybody knows the real numbers, I'll re-do the vBoxDyno with the real numbers.

Here's the results:
9.204 seconds 60-130 with 494 calculated rwhp. The rwhp numbers were corrected using SAE J1394 horsepower correction formula using the weather data that was collected from the car's CAN bus while driving. I'll have a lot more on that subject later.

VBOXDYNO-000006-V-060-130MPH.jpg
Sponsored

 
Last edited:

J_Maher_AMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2016
Threads
9
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,197
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R (HR057)
9.2 seconds 60-130 would be a very decent time! Was this on 93 octane fuel? Any mods done to the car?

Looking at the 0-60 and 0-130 tests that Motortrend did of the R on 91 Octane, I believe the 60-130 time came out to be about 10.5 or 10.6 seconds I believe.
 
OP
OP

PencilGeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
225
Reaction score
195
Location
Northern California
First Name
Robert
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R HR278, 2008 BMW M3
9.2 seconds 60-130 would be a very decent time! Was this on 93 octane fuel? Any mods done to the car?

Looking at the 0-60 and 0-130 tests that Motortrend did of the R on 91 Octane, I believe the 60-130 time came out to be about 10.5 or 10.6 seconds I believe.
I am bone stock, California 91 octane gas. I didn't change any car settings from the way she fires up in the driveway.

I'm also a rather slow shifter @ 0.7 seconds. I have friends who can shift @ 0.4 seconds.

Do you have a link to the MT article? I couldn't find any with 0-130 tests.
 

J_Maher_AMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2016
Threads
9
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,197
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R (HR057)
I am bone stock, California 91 octane gas. I didn't change any car settings from the way she fires up in the driveway.

I'm also a rather slow shifter @ 0.7 seconds. I have friends who can shift @ 0.4 seconds.

Do you have a link to the MT article? I couldn't find any with 0-130 tests.
Sorry that was my mistake, I meant CarandDriver had that time. Article is linked below:

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/mustang-shelby-gt350-gt350r

Interesting to note that indeed though, you could have one of those "factory freaks" haha

Though I do think that using a 0.32 CD is being extremely generous. I believe a 911 is even a 0.31, and my CLA45 with no downforce properties at all had a 0.32. I wouldn't be surprised if the 350 was 0.34-0.35, if not slightly more for the R with the front splitter and rear wing attached. Personally I would input a 0.35, assuming that the front end changes benefited the overall aerodynamic profile slightly more than the additional downforce hurts it.

Though the numbers might make sense, considering your 60-130 is significantly lower than CarandDriver managed at 10.6s, and once its up and moving there is very little driver error to introduce there, certainly not 1.4s worth. You might just have a very strong pony :D
 
OP
OP

PencilGeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
225
Reaction score
195
Location
Northern California
First Name
Robert
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R HR278, 2008 BMW M3
Sorry that was my mistake, I meant CarandDriver had that time. Article is linked below:

http://www.caranddriver.com/ford/mustang-shelby-gt350-gt350r

Interesting to note that indeed though, you could have one of those "factory freaks" haha

Though I do think that using a 0.32 CD is being extremely generous. I believe a 911 is even a 0.31, and my CLA45 with no downforce properties at all had a 0.32. I wouldn't be surprised if the 350 was 0.34-0.35, if not slightly more for the R with the front splitter and rear wing attached. Personally I would input a 0.35, assuming that the front end changes benefited the overall aerodynamic profile slightly more than the additional downforce hurts it.

Though the numbers might make sense, considering your 60-130 is significantly lower than CarandDriver managed at 10.6s, and once its up and moving there is very little driver error to introduce there, certainly not 1.4s worth. You might just have a very strong pony :D
Though I haven't done it yet, I'm pretty sure if I change the CD to 0.35, the calculated WHP will increase.

I don't necessarily believe in factory freaks, especially not an entire second 60-130. So I'm going to keep digging into this. My only hesitation is that I didn't have my GPS antenna completely stationary. But I don't see that making any difference either because there aren't any motion sensors in the GPS antenna. So here's what I'm going to do, but it will take a few hours to do it. I was also datalogging the entire CAN bus at the same time. I know where the wheel speed sensors and speedometer are in the CAN bus topology. Wheel speed sensors are transmitting on the CAN bus at 80 Hz, and the speedometer is transmitting at 50 Hz. Both are orders of magnitude higher resolution than the 10 Hz of the VBOX. However, the speedometer and wheel speed sensors aren't as accurate as the GPS. So the comparison won't be perfect, but I'll be able to see -- probably within +/- 0.10 seconds, if the 9.2 is real or not. I've never seen the VBox wrong yet, but I'm going to double check it with the CAN bus data just to make sure.
 

Sponsored

J_Maher_AMG

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2016
Threads
9
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,197
Location
Newfoundland, Canada
First Name
Justin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R (HR057)
I am bone stock, California 91 octane gas. I didn't change any car settings from the way she fires up in the driveway.

I'm also a rather slow shifter @ 0.7 seconds. I have friends who can shift @ 0.4 seconds.

Do you have a link to the MT article? I couldn't find any with 0-130 tests.
Though I haven't done it yet, I'm pretty sure if I change the CD to 0.35, the calculated WHP will increase.

I don't necessarily believe in factory freaks, especially not an entire second 60-130. So I'm going to keep digging into this. My only hesitation is that I didn't have my GPS antenna completely stationary. But I don't see that making any difference either because there aren't any motion sensors in the GPS antenna. So here's what I'm going to do, but it will take a few hours to do it. I was also datalogging the entire CAN bus at the same time. I know where the wheel speed sensors and speedometer are in the CAN bus topology. Wheel speed sensors are transmitting on the CAN bus at 80 Hz, and the speedometer is transmitting at 50 Hz. Both are orders of magnitude higher resolution than the 10 Hz of the VBOX. However, the speedometer and wheel speed sensors aren't as accurate as the GPS. So the comparison won't be perfect, but I'll be able to see -- probably within +/- 0.10 seconds, if the 9.2 is real or not. I've never seen the VBox wrong yet, but I'm going to double check it with the CAN bus data just to make sure.
It would increase the hp for sure, based on the time remaining as is but drag forces increasing. Agree that is a bit of a head scratcher, are you sure the area where the pulls were done are a level bit of road? Oftentimes some roads may appear perfectly flat but are actually downhill/uphill. In other instances, and I've experienced this in vehicle myself, the horizon and surroundings literally create an optical illusion. I actually was 100% sure a section of road was going "downhill", this area is actually located at a small park, but when you get to the end and put your vehicle in neutral, your car reverses backwards on its own "uphill".

CarandDriver and Motortrend and all the others uses VBoxes as well, not the sport models I imagine, but I'm not sure how much more accurate the higher end models are. Which model were you using for curiosity sake?
 
OP
OP

PencilGeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Threads
3
Messages
225
Reaction score
195
Location
Northern California
First Name
Robert
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT350R HR278, 2008 BMW M3
It would increase the hp for sure, based on the time remaining as is but drag forces increasing. Agree that is a bit of a head scratcher, are you sure the area where the pulls were done are a level bit of road? Oftentimes some roads may appear perfectly flat but are actually downhill/uphill. In other instances, and I've experienced this in vehicle myself, the horizon and surroundings literally create an optical illusion. I actually was 100% sure a section of road was going "downhill", this area is actually located at a small park, but when you get to the end and put your vehicle in neutral, your car reverses backwards on its own "uphill".

CarandDriver and Motortrend and all the others uses VBoxes as well, not the sport models I imagine, but I'm not sure how much more accurate the higher end models are. Which model were you using for curiosity sake?
OK, I believe something just isn't right. It was easier than I thought to extract the CAN data and look at the timestamps; so what I thought would take hours, only took minutes. According to the wheel speed sensors, the 60-130 should have been about 11.15 seconds. That sounds more like what I would have expected. I guess the only way to solve the mystery is to secure the GPS antenna and do it again. Sigh. Back to Mexico lol!

I use the Video VBox Pro, 10 Hz with 32-channel CAN bus collection. At the time of these runs, I was also connected directly to the CAN bus with Vehicle Spy 3 real time CAN bus logging software.

I can't remember which one, but one of the big three magazines also uses my vbox analysis software with the vBox results. I remember a video posted at one of their web sites comparing drag strip timeslips to vBox results from the same runs. When they showed the comparison, they showed the graphs from my vboxtools.com software. :):) IIRC, they ended up concluding that an official timeslip and my vbox analysis software came up with virtually same results.

Though the slope wasn't graphed in the vBoxDyno chart, it is listed as -0.523% -- a fall of 7.2 feet over a distance of 1372 feet. That's pretty flat. The vBoxDyno already increases and decreases calculated WHP based on elevation changes.

Here's the normal graph that shows elevation changes.

Sponsored

 
 




Top