75ZT Community

So there we (StuC and I) were pootling up the slip road at Strensham services back onto the M5 when I spotted a fastish (maybe an understatement read on) Audi in front of me! wondering if he might put his foot down I decided to get a bit closer. Though must add I was chatting to StuC on the CB saying I wanted to have fun but as we were in convoy so should behave! but Stu being Stu gave me his blessing!

So we both exited the slip onto a clear bit of the motorway and then all of a sudden you saw the Audi change its stance as it was dropped down a gear and floored!! Well I floored it too and after a gear change or 2 there was I virtually sitting the same distance from the said Audi! The Brit hybrid underdog kept up with the German precision engineering and all on Jubilee Weekend too!

Soon after we hit traffic and as we rolled past the audi his window came down and he was peering down at my car and then at the back and then at Stu's... he didn't say anything but he was looking a bit miffed! now mine doesn't say supercharged or have a ZT400 badge so when he googles it he is going to think it was a standard 260! Can just see him going into the garage and saying a rover kept up with his Audi so must be something wrong with it!

Now the icing on the cake... it wasn't just any Audi it was an R8!!! not sure if V8 or V10 though as all I could hear was mine on full chat at the rear and the whine at the front! very satisfying!!

He clearly wasn't trying if it was a V10, as I've driven one of them and he would have left a ZT V8 (even with a blower) for dead, as they are FAST!

Merl, thats NOT helping me fight my desire for a V8 haha

V10 Probably only .2 of second faster 0-60 than a V8 400

Mick wrote:V10 Probably only .2 of second faster 0-60 than a V8 400

Are there any official performance figures for a ZT 400 anywhere?

As I seriously doubt that a 2 wheel drive car weighing approx 400 Ibs more and having 125 hp less, would only be .2 of a second slower to 60 mph!

4-4.5 seconds depending on where you get the info. The Audi V10 is allegedly 3.8 seconds.

Quite how these figures are produced, or whether they are accurate. I don't know. Hence my use of the word. Probably.

Mick wrote:4-4.5 seconds depending on where you get the info. The Audi V10 is allegedly 3.8 seconds.

Quite how these figures are produced, or whether they are accurate. I don't know. Hence my use of the word. Probably.

Any links?

I Googled it and couldn't find anything!

I seriously doubt that with the limited traction that the 225 section rear tyres give, that it's much faster than 5.3!

try
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/audi-r8/ke1440.html

I know on the TT the performance figures don't match the book figures. Also if you turn the traction off it doesn't turn it off completely

MN190 wrote:try
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/audi-r8/ke1440.html

I know on the TT the performance figures don't match the book figures. Also if you turn the traction off it doesn't turn it off completely

Thanks for the link, but I didn't have any trouble finding info on the R8, I couldn't find any performance figures for a ZT 400!

I'll find you some.....but bear in mind there are two different S/C that have been used...one producing 385 bhp and one producing 420 bhp....until you increase the size of the injectors and the flow of the fuel pump to get closer to 475 bhp... and then there is Martin's... Nobody knows what Martin's might do.....not even Martin...

Zeb wrote:...one producing 385 bhp and one producing 420 bhp....until you increase the size of the injectors to get closer to 475 bhp... and then there is Martin's... Nobody knows what Martin's might do.....not even Martin...

Is it this one then?

MrDoodles wrote:

MN190 wrote:try
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/audi-r8/ke1440.html

I know on the TT the performance figures don't match the book figures. Also if you turn the traction off it doesn't turn it off completely

Thanks for the link, but I didn't have any trouble finding info on the R8, I couldn't find any performance figures for a ZT 400!

That will teach for not reading properly
Try this
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/attach ... -ztvm5.pdf

Ha ha....they can go way past that Jürgen...

Martin's was...418bhp 475ft lbs torque.......but I have a suspicion he's fiddling again...

Can't find any 0-60 times for the s/c ones though..

Good find that article!

Thanks for bailing me out guys, I couldn't find any of the pages I was reading earlier on. Same search terms in Google produced bugger all results

Dreadnaught quote 5.2 secs but not for which 260 / SC. The 520 race trim car is quoted as 4 secs

Sorry guys, but as the E39 M5 produced a 0-60 time of 5.2 and an S Type R did 5.3, both with 400 bhp, with the limited traction of the standard 225's, I just can't see one of these cars doing low 4 second 0-60 times, unless someone can show me some official timings!

Mick wrote:
Dreadnaught quote 5.2 secs but not for which 260 / SC.

Thanks Mick, that sounds much more realistic!

Albeit a long way from 3.9!

The mustang engine can be tuned to silly numbers....but, as you say....bigger wheels might be needed....and a different clutch / gear box too...

You have to remember I was not doing 0-60 here but more like 50 to ..... Where the torque of our cars kicks in more... and the grip is already being laid down so if smooth power delivery you are not worrying about traction....
Unofficially Brian thinks if you push the gear box hard enough you are looking at 4.7sec 0-60 in a blown one... now then without getting all technical Kenne Bell changed the design of the blower and my one has more grunt but slower initial take off which means once moving I can power through more.

What you really need to look at is the times through the gearing not 0-60 or bhp... BHP sells the car but Torque wins the race. Mine has never been on the rolling road but dreadnought has said mine is one of the faster ones...

Also the ZT400 doesn't feel as fast as other cars due to its size etc... I know plenty of people who have been in a civic type r and said it was faster than a 260 until they were put head to head with a 260 which hammered the type r. Again people go off how fast a car feels which is by no means a measure of its performance. Similar figures for the type r and the 260 with 0-60 (depending where you look) but the 260 trounces it with torque.

I'm not saying that a ZT V8 with a blower, isn't a quick car, because it clearly is and as you have found out, is a great "Q" car, but sorry, my original comments about the V10 still stand, as performance wise that car is in a different league!

(0-60, 3.9 seconds, 196 mph top speed!)

However, if the R8 had been a V8, (as is likely) a blown ZT would give that car a hard time, in road conditions.

Which when you consider the cheapest one of these is normally £50,000, that's a fair result for the ZT!