There are some apps that can do it using the accelerometers in your phone. If you have a 3800 engine with obd2 you can use a Bluetooth engine adapter and the torque app

I'll claim I can do 0-60 in 6 minutes, give or take. I'm sure I could prove it.

Mark your starting point. Accelerate. When you reach 60, mark that point. Measure the distance. Convert the speed to meters per second. Convert the distance to meters. Divide the distance by the speed. The answer is your 0-60, in seconds.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

Seriously, it's not rocket science, it seems to be something pretty simple to figure out.....

Here are a few off the top of my head

- Try a stop watch, click when you start to accelerate, and click again when you reach 60 MPH - Use a stop watch app (Included with the iPhone and Android) - Look at your watch, when the second hand reaches the top or 00 on a digital, accelerate, and when you hit 60 MPH glance at your watch to see how long it took - Count 1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippi till you hit 60 MPH - Install an app on your phone that will use the accelerometer & the GPS in the phone to measure it automatically - When you do have someone with you sometime, put em in the passenger seat and have them use their watch, phone or app - Record a video on your phone, doesnt matter what you are pointing the camera at. Say START when you begin, and when you get to 60 MPH say STOP. Playback the video and time how long from when you said START to when you say STOP. - Do the same as the last one, but just use an audio recorder. - Re-take Calculus 101, or at least rake a refresher course at your local community college, and then do as tshark says

[This message has been edited by JohnWPB (edited 04-11-2015).]

It isn't Calculus. Probably 7th grade math. Basic algabraic formula: distance = rate * time. I'm sure unit conversions were covered in 4th grade, but google will do the conversions. On the other hand, if you go somewhere other than Rolla, Calculus may be different. Calc 1 was differential equations. Not for everyone.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

I'll claim I can do 0-60 in 6 minutes, give or take. I'm sure I could prove it.

Mark your starting point. Accelerate. When you reach 60, mark that point. Measure the distance. Convert the speed to meters per second. Convert the distance to meters. Divide the distance by the time. The answer is your 0-60, in seconds.

You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

Originally posted by lorennerol: You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

I think

You are correct. I edited. There is a linearization. I usually cheat and use a weighted average. Or divide the speed by 2, but that would be way off here.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

You are correct. I edited. There is a linearization. I usually cheat and use a weighted average. Or divide the speed by 2, but that would be way off here.

You don't need equations to get 0 to 60 times... you need a stopwatch. You don't care about the distance, the rate, or the acceleration, just how long it took to get to 60 mph.

You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

I think

Whoops, made my own typo: Should be V=at+V0, but since a isn't constant (even though it's less variable...as an integral of V if I recall correctly, I don't think this is a valid way to make the calculation.

I've been wondering how accurate the smart phone apps are; all they really need is to start a timer at first motion and stop it at 60 MPH. Seems like they might be accurate within a few tenths, and I think that would be better than relying on the accuracy of the speedometer and hand-eye coordination to stop a stopwatch.

By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.

By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.

Yes, people do make those. They are called smartphone apps. Or the G-Force thing that does 0-60 times and such (but I don't know if they still make any that work without OBD-II).

In a 0-60 dash, is it proper to redline the engine in first gear? Especially on a 28 year old engine... Im always afraid to push my cars to their limits, Ive only entered the red once in second on my Formuka. Who knows about my Honda (no tach).

I think in a lot of cases you are better off not redlining because the highest horsepower is produced at a lower rpm than redline

It doesn't matter where the peak HP is made. What matters is what the torque curve is, and what the gearing is like. HP is a completely useless number. On a 2.8, hitting redline is entirely useless, no matter what you're doing. Your rate of acceleration drops way off after 4500 RPM. The only thing hitting redline in a Fiero will do, is get you a blown head gasket, or a rod through the block.

What is the relationship between horsepower and torque?

HP = (RPM * TQ) / 5252

HP is directly related to RPM and TQ. If your engine continues making TQ at higher RPMs, even if not at peak, it will continue to climb, as long as it can keep breathing; otherwise the torque curve will fall off like a sheer cliff, and you won't be doing anything but risking pulling rods apart or blowing head gaskets.

I was always told HP means nothing unless you know the Revs that it makes peak HP at. Engines make more HP the faster they spin since they are firing more times a second... Say average racecar makes 600hp 300lbs of torque. It makes 600hp because it's spinning at 12,000 rpm. Easiest way to understand is how Jeremy Clarkson explained it... "HP is how fast you hit the wall, Torque is how far you push it".

By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.

They do, and it works on any car:

Push the big button when you floor it. Push the big button again when your speedometer reads 60. Read the number on the dial. That's your 0-60.

Stopping distance takes more leg work. Pick a point on the road and approach at whatever speed you want to test from. When you reach that point, stop. Get out and measure how far away you are from the point you hit the brakes.

I did find an electronic gauge that hooks up with one wire and measures 0 to 60, stopping distance, and even cornering g-force. The only problem was the price of $250. I am surprised that some of the high priced performance cars do not have a similar gauge incorporated in the dash.

I did find an electronic gauge that hooks up with one wire and measures 0 to 60, stopping distance, and even cornering g-force. The only problem was the price of $250. I am surprised that some of the high priced performance cars do not have a similar gauge incorporated in the dash.

They do. The new C7, Z/28, and new Viper all have performance stuff like that. Some also have cameras in the rearview mirror, to record video at a track, and will overlay performance info on top of the video.

But a 30 year old Fiero, and a C7 are very different things.

I was always told HP means nothing unless you know the Revs that it makes peak HP at. Engines make more HP the faster they spin since they are firing more times a second... Say average racecar makes 600hp 300lbs of torque. It makes 600hp because it's spinning at 12,000 rpm. Easiest way to understand is how Jeremy Clarkson explained it... "HP is how fast you hit the wall, Torque is how far you push it".

Even if you know the RPM that peak HP is made at, it's still pretty much useless. The new Challenger Hellcat has 200 HP more than a C6 Z06, but is still slower.

600 HP @ 12,000 RPM == 262.6 lbs-ft of torque. Not sure what average race car you're talking about, but race cars are a very broad field of possibilities.

HP has nothing to do with how fast you hit the wall, nor does torque have anything to do with how far you push it, when you do hit it. Basic Newtonian physics is all you need for that. Speed determines how fast you will hit it. Speed / distance will determine how quickly you will hit it. Speed, mass, and surface area of the vehicle where contact will be made, will determine how hard you will hit it. Structural integrity and material density of the wall, and the force applied to it, will determine how far it is pushed (or pieces of it are pushed).

More RPM does not necessarily mean more HP. Or we'd all be driving Hondas or rotary Mazdas, instead of messing with Fieros and pushrod engines. You only get more HP, if your engine can still make reasonable amounts of torque at that RPM. HP doesn't determine 0-60. Gearing, torque, and weight/drag do.

Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.

Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.

Well, it's a head on collision, so both cars are likely to be totalled anyway. But otherwise, yes, it's possible. Cars are very complex shapes though, especially modern aero-efficient cars), so hitting in the exact right way to make that true can be difficult. Speeding up would also cause more damage to the other car. It's a fairly easy thing to demonstrate with some bricks or such. F = MA. More speed means more force. The heavier car moving faster will always win.

Although, with modern vehicle designs that have crunch zones and such, winning in a head-on collision is very subjective. Pretty much everyone will lose. If you're going to demo derby an old station wagon though, speed + mass == winning car (as long as you don't break it first).

[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 04-14-2015).]

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. (84 IMSA) garage queen (12 mustang base) Honda tormenter (86 basterdized mera) fake ferrari (84 fastback IMSA) confused lil one The forums Youngest CDL driver

Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.

I would have liked to have seen your physics professor's math on that one. I guess he's saying you should be going faster than the other car, so when you collide you slow down but the other car will be pushed backwards.

I would have liked to have seen your physics professor's math on that one.

Agreed: I=mV^2, so the energy of an impact increases geometrically with speed. No way speeding up can reduce the energy of a collision. It might change the internal physicals of the system, but can't possibly reduce the energy that has to be dissipated to bring both cars to a halt. Except, perhaps, if you are about to be rear-ended by a car going faster than you.

[This message has been edited by lorennerol (edited 04-14-2015).]

Agreed: I=mV^2, so the energy of an impact increases geometrically with speed. No way speeding up can reduce the energy of a collision. It might change the internal physicals of the system, but can't possibly reduce the energy that has to be dissipated to bring both cars to a halt. Except, perhaps, if you are about to be rear-ended by a car going faster than you.

Less damage != no damage. What was said was, the faster moving vehicle would sustain less damage, than if they were both moving at equal speed, which is a fairly sound statement. The math works.