60-0 distance?

david_12121 · #1 06-21-2012, 10:46 PM

I just saw this 60-0 distance of 98ft for the SVX, in Wikipedia
I'm finding that hard to believe, since a STI with Brembos does it in ~110ft
how big of a lie are we talking about?! my guess is that it actually does it in 120-130ish...anyone tested that?

svxcess · #2 06-21-2012, 11:46 PM

.

Motorweek did a full report on the SVX when it came out in late 1991.

You can see the entire episode here

We are not talking a lie at all. According to the Motorweek road test, the 60-0 brake time was indeed only 98 ft. Here is a screen shot of that road test.

.

david_12121 · #3 06-22-2012, 12:10 AM

I have seen that, and I also have seen that other more recent review that talks about the braking performance being bad and needing an upgrade.
I personally can't see the SVX braking as good as these, specially being so heavy

or that's just me...thanks anyways

smc · #4 06-22-2012, 12:24 AM

Believe it. Hell, check out the end of my video. 80 mph to 0 in just a tick over 100 feet. Stock brakes with stock rubber brake lines. Just some good pads. A good rule of thumb. If you lock up your tires, then you dont need bigger brakes. I had to modulate the brakes a good deal to keep from locking up.

http://youtu.be/6A7wND9oibk

jetboy · #5 06-22-2012, 12:54 AM

I'm rarely in the pedal area where it actually bites but it does bite when you really kick the pedal. I've got EBC discs (vented all around) with greenstuff and when I went for a brake test I didn't even want to do a full emergency stop because it was very uncomfortable

"other reviews" probably complain about the brakes because they're not really so great for racing. Unless you really put effort into it, the SVX is not a racing machine (and if you turn it into one you will upgrade to much harder brakes).

It's got stopping power, maybe that explains the not so uncommon warping.

david_12121 · #6 06-22-2012, 01:45 AM

I'm not one to do brake tests and I fortunately had to panic stop just once, and in that, I experienced 2 seconds of interrupted brake locking but I never imagined that it could be that good at braking...hell, I still have trouble believing it

that's a good explanation for the disk warping situation...

Thanks guys

svxcess · #7 06-22-2012, 05:37 AM

.

The Myth of the Warped Brake Rotor

Having a clean mating surface and the wheels mounted and torqued correctly and uniformly are very important, but uneven transfer of brake material is the major cause of the vibration.

.

LetItSnow · #8 06-22-2012, 06:11 AM

60-0 in 98 feet does seem awfully hard to believe. You're talking deceleration on the brink of 1.2g on civilian all-season tires?

Don't fall too easily into YES OUR CAR WAS SO MANY AWESOME IT HAD MONSTER BRAKES BETTER THAN A 20 YEAR NEWER SUPERCAR ON STICKIES without doing the math.

I have no idea who Gil is, but the numbers posted <here (cars101.com)> 70-0 lean more toward 170. That would make a good share of sense when compared to the number posted <here (TampaRacing stats quoted)>, 134.

Chuckls · #9 06-22-2012, 06:18 AM

^ I miss Tamparacing..

svxcess · #10 06-22-2012, 07:02 AM

The SVX thread on the TamponRacing site is a real hoot. Sooo much misinformation from those who did little research its ridiculous.

I like this quote :

"Car was designed by subarua with motor & all, but had some input from mclaren. Window design was from mclaren, supposed to be beneficial to get minimal wind buffer & rain in when having the window down."

No mention of Giugiaro

.

icingdeath88 · #11 06-22-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckls

^ I miss Tamparacing..

Tampa racing is full of 'tards. Packed, even. Highly un-recommended.

Chuckls · #12 06-22-2012, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icingdeath88

Tampa racing is full of 'tards. Packed, even. Highly un-recommended.

Exactly why I miss it.

icingdeath88 · #13 06-22-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckls

Exactly why I miss it.

benebob · #14 06-22-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

60-0 in 98 feet does seem awfully hard to believe. You're talking deceleration on the brink of 1.2g on civilian all-season tires?

Don't fall too easily into YES OUR CAR WAS SO MANY AWESOME IT HAD MONSTER BRAKES BETTER THAN A 20 YEAR NEWER SUPERCAR ON STICKIES without doing the math.

I have no idea who Gil is, but the numbers posted <here (cars101.com)> 70-0 lean more toward 170. That would make a good share of sense when compared to the number posted <here (TampaRacing stats quoted)>, 134.

Car and Driver had the SVX stopping from 70 in 186 feet (not bad for the day) but not even the best in Subarus corner at the time. The Turbo Lego did it in 171 which was better than a Porkhaus 911 could do at the time.

david_12121 · #15 06-22-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benebob

Car and Driver had the SVX stopping from 70 in 186 feet (not bad for the day) but not even the best in Subarus corner at the time. The Turbo Lego did it in 171 which was better than a Porkhaus 911 could do at the time.

but there is no way that 70-60 takes 88ft...one of them is incorrect, and based on the braking performance of modern cars, my guess is that the 98ft is not very accurate!