Yamaman Posted November 5, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 5, 2009 Anybody know the approximate 0-60 time for a stock RSV? I just want to know when I'm sitting at the line and need to get in front of somebody, what cars might be tough to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiteSquid Posted November 5, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 5, 2009 TransportSpecs.com has this to say at this link: 0-60 7 Sec. Rembember it is only rated at 98 HP and weight 827 Lbs........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamaman Posted November 5, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted November 5, 2009 TransportSpecs.com has this to say at this link: 0-60 7 Sec. Rembember it is only rated at 98 HP and weight 827 Lbs........ Thank you KiteSquid. That's exectly what I was looking for. Couldn't seem to find it when I did a Google search. I must say, she feels a bit faster than that to me. I sure thought top speed was higher than 106, since I've gotten up to about 90 in 3rd gear. I think those numbers may be a bit conservative, but I'm sure they're in the neighborhood. Thanks much for finiding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongobobny Posted November 5, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 5, 2009 Anybody know the approximate 0-60 time for a stock RSV? I just want to know when I'm sitting at the line and need to get in front of somebody, what cars might be tough to beat. Uhhhh, slower than a 1st gen??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeze Posted November 5, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 5, 2009 Uhhhh, slower than a 1st gen??? Yes, but that not "approximate", it's a Fact. :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG TOM Posted November 5, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 5, 2009 Uhhhh, slower than a 1st gen??? not the ones sitting in garages not running ...lol...bobby ....you set yourself up for that one...:rotfl:who loves u baby???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hig4s Posted November 5, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 5, 2009 Thank you KiteSquid. That's exectly what I was looking for. Couldn't seem to find it when I did a Google search. I must say, she feels a bit faster than that to me. I sure thought top speed was higher than 106, since I've gotten up to about 90 in 3rd gear. I think those numbers may be a bit conservative, but I'm sure they're in the neighborhood. Thanks much for finiding them. 106 sounds about right,, remember the revlimiter kicks in at 5600 rpms, below the engines normal peak HP. If they let it rev it would make more HP, just like the old V-max. But, 98 HP with a 175lb rider gives you 10lbs per HP, so it should have about the same acceleration as a new Mustang GT. They are around 315hp and 3300lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yammer Dan Posted November 5, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 5, 2009 "Ugly" is running..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes0778 Posted November 5, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 5, 2009 I sure thought top speed was higher than 106, Must be that speedo error thingy , cause someone told me mine was still pulling when the needle was pegged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted November 6, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 6, 2009 I have been clocked at 121. Dont know where this 106 comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeperhawk Posted November 6, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 6, 2009 "Ugly" is running..... "Ugly" engine's might be running in place , but are you actually on the riding it on the rode yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisolm1 Posted November 6, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 6, 2009 1st gen MkII for comparison from Cycle Nov 86 road test 1/4 mi 12.55 @ 104.44 0-60 3.60 sec 45-70 3rd gear 3.20 sec 4th gear 4.40 sec 5th gear 5.92 sec Speed @ 7500 RPM 1st gear 47 2nd gear 68 3rd gear 90 4th gear 113 5th gear 133 (They stated they backed at 115 so unclear if this is actual?) I've never driven a 2nd Gen but think it should do sub 6 sec 0-60 easily. Anyone have a Cycle road test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skid Posted November 6, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 6, 2009 "Ugly" engine's might be running in place , but are you actually on the riding it on the rode yet? I'll have to take up for Yammer, we were riding together this past weekend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hig4s Posted November 6, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 6, 2009 1st gen MkII for comparison from Cycle Nov 86 road test 1/4 mi 12.55 @ 104.44 0-60 3.60 sec 45-70 3rd gear 3.20 sec 4th gear 4.40 sec 5th gear 5.92 sec Speed @ 7500 RPM 1st gear 47 2nd gear 68 3rd gear 90 4th gear 113 5th gear 133 (They stated they backed at 115 so unclear if this is actual?) I've never driven a 2nd Gen but think it should do sub 6 sec 0-60 easily. Anyone have a Cycle road test? I would think a second gen would be close to this if they moved the rev limiter to up around 7000rpm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeperhawk Posted November 6, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 6, 2009 I'll have to take up for Yammer, we were riding together this past weekend... About time :cool10: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamaman Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted November 6, 2009 (edited) 1st gen MkII for comparison from Cycle Nov 86 road test 1/4 mi 12.55 @ 104.44 0-60 3.60 sec 45-70 3rd gear 3.20 sec 4th gear 4.40 sec 5th gear 5.92 sec Speed @ 7500 RPM 1st gear 47 2nd gear 68 3rd gear 90 4th gear 113 5th gear 133 (They stated they backed at 115 so unclear if this is actual?) I've never driven a 2nd Gen but think it should do sub 6 sec 0-60 easily. Anyone have a Cycle road test? I'd have to agree. If a 1st gen can do a legitimate 3.6, then there's no way the 2nd gen would take 7.0 - twice as long to do 0-60. I thought that seemed pretty high. I have a 4 cyl car that does under 7.0 and my RSV sure feels a lot faster. Edited November 6, 2009 by Yamaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisolm1 Posted November 6, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 6, 2009 Other than street racing (OH... but, I've NEVER:no-no-no: done THAT:whistling:), Magazine test times are the only true apples to apples comparison most us have. BUT I've go to think a 3.6 sec 0-60 magazine time is really closer to 4-5 secs for most of us poor slobs who actually own the machinery. Testers make a living thrashing machines they don't own, wear the best free safety gear and often have an ambulance standing by. Plus the manufacturers WANT the testers to wring the living snot out of those machines so they can publish the best times. Where do I apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemorrisonjr Posted November 6, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 6, 2009 Heck, I just tell people it goes from 0-OH MY GOD in 7 sec........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmnChode Posted November 6, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 6, 2009 Well...according to MCNews.com, a 2nd gen will run 0-60 in about 5.2-5.3s. See here: http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/technical/200801perfindex.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now