Acceleration speed

[blindworld1]

can someone please tell me what the acceleration speed of a 95 model Vs Berlina should be doing.. I am currently doing 0-100km in 8.7 seconds and it seems very sluggish.

Thanks.

 

[slappedvr]

yea that sounds about right depending on the weather and other things.

i gota vr exec with basic mods
and i ran a 8.4 with spare tyre in boot big double sub box a mate in the car and it was a fairly hot day.

 

[blindworld1]

ye same here manz! but i also have an mp3 player so thats where the .3 is coming from.

 

[VSIIBerlinaL67]

when i had my old stock v6 engine mine did it in 7 secs flat with exhaust/extractors, chip, cai

timed it with g-tech got vids of it too

 

[alex2_s]

stock as a rock VS acclaim v6 9.0 secs 0-100kmh. so you're beating me lol

 

[slappedvr]

yeaa
see most people think that because the ecotec has 17 more kw its alot faster when personaly i think the old buick engines go harder even though the buick engines have less power they still seem to rev harder and go better.

what do you guys think?

 

[vsl67]

Had a series v6 in a vp & have driven ecotechs ,the vp performed better and went a lot harder,
But is the vp lighter than a vs?
now I have a supercharged l67 in a Vs wins hands down (so it should) as for 0-100 times ,havent timed it yet ,and too scared of breaking the gearbox

 

[kopper69]

VP V6 Exec: Kerb Weight (kg) 1301
VR V6 Exec: Kerb Weight (kg) 1347
VS V6 Exec: Kerb Weight (kg) 1409
VT V6 Exec: Kerb Weight (kg) 1551

Im sure my VR goes harder than my folks VT. VR powers as soon as you plant your foot. VT seems to spread the power out, doesnt take off like the VR.

 

[vsl67]

Kopper 69 somes up the vp - vr series 2 motor compared to the ecotec well ,plus the vp-vr are lighter, although weigth wise theres not much between them