You are correct there.

Though in my previous post I was more focused/talking on just the manifold unit that the supercharger itself mounts onto since that would effectively make or break the cross compatibility of this kit amongst the 3 1.5L L-series engines we have state side. (Followed by the positioning of the pulley, inlets running from the throttle body to the compressor, the S/C lubrication system, etc.)

Skimming through Sprintrex's page on Facebook, I did notice that the compressor's "nose unit" as it was referred to was actually interchangeable with their other models to assist in positioning the compressor's pulley the engine's pulleys. They did mention interchangeable inlets as well but I haven't seen any pictures posted as of yet.

 

If it can be (relatively) easy to replace the pulley with a different offset, it's at least one less issue to worry about.

Maybe some GD owners could/would get the kit and make necessary adjustments themselves.

 

I am pretty sure it does not explain that it is a Non-USDM fit on the facebook picture earlier today,...

I guess they just EDIT the title of that photo...
I think on that facebook page earlier today, it just say "Installed on Honda Fit" or something like that...

actually look at one of his reply on other poster comment,
it clearly say that his response had been edited,...
so most likely he also edit the title of the picture too.

It's ok, it doesn't really matter, I can understand that they want to create marketing buzz by posting an installed picture on a NON USDM fit...

it is just that I was so excited and was thinking that they actually had installed the first kit on a USDM fit because they post it on their USA facebook page, (and I pretty sure they wrote installed on Honda Fit) but turn out it is a installed picture on a NON USDM Honda Fit,
which we already know from few years back that can be done and work.

so, right now, I am just going to wait patiently until they had a picture for their supercharger kit installed on either their development USDM Honda Fit or the first USDM customer car...

and for someone here running their car with this kit for few thousands miles and if everything is perfect, then I would surely buy this kit.

come to think of it,
they had been developing this kit for USDM GE right...
they should post their development picture on their facebook.
This would create excitement again...

 

would this kit work for AT? (:

 

Perhaps it is best for me to buy the "Supercharged" emblem first,
that way, I will be forcing my self to buy this Sprintex Supercharger kit since
what is the point of having the emblem if I can't install it ? hahaha

Here is some nice Supercharged Emblem on eBay:



here is an Audi Supercharged Emblem:













GM emblem (most likely for Corvette ZR1 or Camaro ZL1):

 

Most "speed shops" have supercharged script in different styles also.

 

haha iam the opposite, I wanna get this kit and actually try to keep the car looking as stock as possible.

I plan on leaving the stock intake and the stock exhaust on this thing once I buy the supercharger.

Idk about you guys but I am so excited for the first people to install this thing so we can see the difficulty and what exactly is required to install this thing.

I really just hope that its an easy installation because I really do want this kit badly.

 

Wow, you must be planning to be in "Silent Killer" mode
I mean, hoping some faster car try to race you and then you surprise them when you beat them

but realistically, at just 135 supercharged horsepower,
I don't think our Fit can be that fast even after this supercharger kit installed...

most likely a 0 to 60mph of around 7 seconds at the fastest...
(manual transmission, A/C off, only one slim person driving with no passenger, 15in wheel hahaha)

of course 7 seconds is already a giant improvement compare to the current 0 to 60mph of at least 11 seconds hahaha...

my reason for buying this kit is just
so I am not struggling when I am going into freeway like right now...
you know,
just so I can have a "decent" acceleration like a stock Honda Civic...

and at the same time, "showing off" that I had a supercharged Fit,
with all the emblem that I plan to put on my car hahaha

but if somebody came to my side and start challenging me to race,
I would just say "go ahead" my car is still slow hahaha
you will win, I will lose

on serious note, I am seriously need to buy this supercharger kit once I am sure about the reliability of this kit,... currently my car (with AT transmission and all the sound deadening that I put in my car) is so damn slow that I think it is kinda dangerous on the freeway...

and about 4 hours ago, I just send an email to Sprintex,
asking them whether they have an "UPGRADE KIT" for this Supercharger,
so at least it can make around 160 horsepower at the minimum...
this way, hopefully we can have a Honda Civic Si kinda of acceleration
(hopefully it is just some simple pulley and injector upgrade plus software upgrade on the piggy back, with no internal changes needed)

but even if they don't have any upgrade kit, then I will still buy the standard 135 horsepower kit...

just like you, I can't wait to see other "pioneer" installing their kit and review it here

 

Oh, I also email Jackson Racing, asking them whether they can consider building a supercharged kit for our Honda Fit with at least 160 horse power... (CARB exempted)
you know, just so we can have choices

 

I'm pretty certain 11 seconds is for the A/T... The Fit is already in the 8 second range with M/T (Google MotorTrend's review on the Fit).

 

my fit definitely does it faster then that (2012 MT) Its probable your 24lb of extra wheels and tire slowing you down too. i dont think the AT should be that slow.

 

Hi Goobers and Hi Krunk13,

My Fit with AT transmission and 18in wheel and at least 50lb or more of sound deadening
probably doing as slow as 12 seconds to 60mph (seriously)...

but
I am also pretty sure that a stock GE Manual Transmission Honda Fit will not be able to reach 60mph in just 8.2 seconds
if you do it from a dead stop... now if you did it from a rolling start, then I will believe the 8.2seconds timing.

here is why:

somehow I never trust review from either Motor Trends or Car and Driver to simulate real world driving performance...

Ok here is the review from Car and Driver for 2010 Honda Fit with MANUAL Transmission:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...azda-2-ego.pdf

please take note at the table at the bottom of the page.

The 0-60 mph time is 8.3 seconds.
but strangely the ROLLING from 5-60mph time took longer which is 9.2 seconds ???
This do NOT make sense,
because they are testing a MANUAL transmission Fit so a rolling start from 5mph should result in quicker time, (no need for kick down like AT that consume time)...
but on this test a rolling start is actually slower then a full dead stop???
I mean at 5mph, I bet they were still using the first gear,
cause if at 5mph they used second gear, then the result would be far slower...
so how come a dead stop acceleration test to 60mph result in 8.3 seconds time while a rolling start from 5 to 60mph took almost 1 seconds longer at 9.2 seconds?
that do NOT make sense to me.
(I suspect this guy had it backwards... the rolling test is the 8.3 seconds while the start from dead stop test were 9.2seconds)...

earlier in 2009, motor trend also conduct a test which result in 0 to 60mph time of 8.3 sec:
2009 Honda Fit Sport - Quick Test - Motor Trend
but on this article they do not explain whether they doing this from a dead stop of they doing this with a rolling start...


now the other source that I think represent real world test is the test from Edmunds:
2013 Honda Fit Review | Edmunds.com
here they test a 2013 MANUAL Transmission Honda Fit Sport and here is what they say:
In Edmunds performance testing, the Fit Sport with the manual went from zero to 60 mph in 9.5 seconds, which is average for this class of car. With the automatic, that time drops to 11 seconds, which is below average.

If you notice, for almost every car that Edmunds test, their acceleration number are most likely lower then the same car tested by car and driver or Motor Trend...


here for example a test for BMW M3,
at motor trend they manage a 0 to 60mph time of 4.2 seconds:
2011 BMW 1 Series M vs 2011 BMW M3 Comparison - Motor Trend
while at Edmunds they only manage 4.6seconds for BMW M3:
2013 BMW M3 Review | Edmunds.com


again for BMW M5,
Motor Trend manage a 0 to 60 mph time of 3.7 seconds !!!
2013 BMW M5 First Test - Motor Trend
while Edmunds only manage 0 to 60mph time of 4.2seconds for the M5
2013 BMW M5 Review | Edmunds.com

I had been reading all this car magazine since the 80's,
and after a while I can see the "difference" in the way each of those magazine review car...
at one point in the early 90's to late 90's I used to subscribe to Automobile, Autoweek, Car and Driver, Road and Track and Motor Trend all at the same time !!!
and at that time they do not recycle, so I think I waste quite a lot of tree hahaha...

but after the internet era, I stop buying all those magazine and just read review from the internet...

ok back to our Honda Fit test,
the best result is to time your own 0 to 60mph run,
and I think for Manual Transmission Honda Fit,
most likely you will get much slower then the 8.2 seconds time from Motor Trend... (and of course for Automatic car owner like me, it will be even worse hahaha)

I think most of Motor Trend 0 to 60 mph review were done using rolling start and NOT from a dead/complete stop.

(remember some of the car tested were automatic transmission or DCT transmission and all the time Motor Trend still get better time then Edmunds, which mean driver is not really a factor here since all you had to do in AT car is just bury your foot)...

those "PROS" at Motor Trend had been doing this for decades, because
it was good at getting more people to buy their magazine...
you know, sensational news sells better then the truth

 

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...-60-times.html
Its definitely not more that 9. There is a slight lag when you press the gas sometimes but from a standstill you can drop the clutch at 3k+. It doesn't bog off the line when you do that.

 

Hello,

I briefly read the 0-60 times thread that you link above,
and from what I read, only 1 person did try to measure his 0 to 60mph time and he said he got worse number then the car and driver result. (well he said worse then stock, so I assume the stock number is the number from car and driver because he never mention that he measured his car in stock form before),
in fact his number is so worse that he was embarrassed to post it on that thread.
yes, he did have a 50lbs subwoofer but at the same time he had exhaust and cold air intake (yes people believe those mod do not increase horsepower), anyway a 50lbs sub should not alter the result that much...

actually this is what that poster said and response when someone ask/question the method of his 0 to 60 mph measurement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandahh

Maybe I did something wrong? My 0-60 was pretty bad when I tested it a few weeks ago. I don't even want to post it hahaha. I'm disappointed because I have Tanabe Concept G exhaust and an Injen cold air intake and I don't think they added anything but sexy noise. Maybe it's because I added a subwoofer too which I'm guessing weighs about 50lbs. But yeahh my 0-60 is worse than stock right now

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackndecker

How did you test it? If it included yourself operating a stop watch while simultaneously driving and eyeballing the speed gauge, well then.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandahh

I'm a pro!

and the other poster on that thread https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...-60-times.html NEVER do any 0 to 60mph testing on their own.


now remember the latest M5 tested by Edmunds was a DCT,
and do not lag since it is not an MT and it have launch control.
somehow Motor Trend got better number then Edmunds...
and you can check again and again on other car...

ok here is a 2013 Nissan GT-R Black Edition number
2013 Nissan GT-R Review | Edmunds.com
Edmunds test a 2013 GT-R Black Edition and they got 0 to 60mph of 3.1seconds
The quarter mile is at 11.1 seconds.

2013 Nissan GT-R Black Edition Long Term Arrival - Motor Trend
Motor Trend had the same car in their long term fleet,
and their number is 2.8 seconds from 0 to 60mph,
but Motor Trend had the same quarter mile number of 11.1 seconds...

what this mean ?
this show Motor Trend 0 to 60mph time always faster because most likely they cheat with rolling start,
but after a quarter mile, those cheating make less effect,
and that is why the quarter mile number of 11.1 seconds from both edmunds and motor trend were similar...
remember that Nissan GT-R do not have manual transmission,
and they used launch control (otherwise, they would not get that acceleration number). so no bogging of the line here... and consistency almost guaranteed with launch control.

Again, if you can afford an M5 or GT-R, or 911 Turbo S or some AMG,
it is easy to be as fast as anybody (in the same car),
cause all you have to do is just activate launch control, and press the gas pedal,
but how come motor trend always faster then other?
grippy surface? yeah right... rolling start is the explanation...

also, please read back the Car and Driver claim for Honda Fit,
their 5 to 60mph test result in 9.2 seconds (rolling start),
while their 0 to 60mph is actually only 8.3 seconds ....

are you going to believe what Car and Driver said about this?
how come a rolling start became slower then a standing start?
remember a rolling start do not have that bog down effect at all,
and no problem with traction (with our car at least)...
and you start at 5mph not 0mph in rolling start...

if you believe that the car and driver 5 to 60mph in 9.2 seconds is accurate,
then the REAL 0 to 60mph should be in the 9.7 to 9.8 seconds range...
this show those car magazine stats sometime is over inflated.

you know what, I think the Car and Driver 0 to 60 start were most likely already at 10mph when they start,
that is why they can have a faster 0 to 60mph time compare to 5 to 60mph rolling start hahaha,
because they don't start at 0 but at 10mph...

now you say that you think that a Manual Transmission Fit will DEFINITELY not more than 9 seconds...

How can you be so DEFINITE?
Did you test your car yourself?
from what I read and from my own GPS, I can estimate that a standard Fit speedometer with Standard Wheel size is pretty accurate.
mine currently had 18in wheel so I check with GPS and an indicated 60mph would be more like 64 to 65mph in reality (with GPS).

so I think a test with a simple stopwatch and eyeballing the spedometer should be accurate enough (probably up to 0.5 seconds plus or minus error)... (or it will be best if you check your speedometer accuracy with your GPS before you test your car)...

and of course,
you should do it with dropping the clutch at 3000 rpm,
but do it from a standing start (0 mph) and not rolling test.

do it at least 5 times and average your time...
if you want, you can practice first before start taking your time.

if you can reach below 9seconds, then it is a good result.
after you test it yourself then you will see the truth,
because after all what is the point of motor trend saying they can reach 0 to 60mph in 8.2 seconds if you can never repeat that yourself in real world?

(and no, motor trend driver is not that much better then us, because if motor trend driver is that good, than that can only means Edmunds driver is always 0.5 to 1 seconds consistently worse then motor trend hahaha)

I don't have a manual transmission honda fit, otherwise, I would go out right now and test my car, unfortunately, even if I got a MT car, and if my result is over 9 seconds, people might think that I am a bad driver,... (which might be true considering my age hahaha)

so it is best for any of the forum member here who have a MT car to test their car themselves, after all usually we are confident in our own ability to drive our car fast right?
so our selves became the benchmark.
if we ourselves can not reach the number as Motor Trend, then we might start to realize that those number are impossible to achieve.

but I do hope when you test your car, you can reach below 9 seconds,
because of course I want our Honda Fit to have as high performance as possible in real world
I am just a skeptic at this point

 

Good grief charlie brown... why is almost every post you make, an essay? on top of your long signature, it makes visiting threads, that you post in, a chore.

Even if you ignore MotorTrend and go with the more "subdued" Edmunds, it's still 9.5 seconds, not 11.

my point was, you were using "potential" 7 seconds for M/T to compare to the 11 seconds on A/T.

And by the way, what krunk said about clutch dump from stop vs bogging at rolling is true.

 

Its a hard sensation to explain. you can be driving around in a parking lot in first crawling and when you press the gas it feels like there is a delay before it really starts to move (supercharger should fix that). 1.5L at low rpm with a throttle by wire system just doesn't produce as much torque as it would when you clutch drop it. So the numbers are at least probable.

 

Good Grief Goobers,
Do you ever hear the devil is in the detail?
hahaha

did my long essay show the "TREND" that Motor Trend always have a 0 to 60 mph faster data compare to Edmunds ?
did my long essay show UNCONSISTENCIES in Car And Driver Test , where a MT Honda Fit reach 9.2 seconds with
rolling start from 5mph to 60mph while from 0 to 60mph magically the same MT fit actually only need 8.3 seconds?
did logic came to your mind when you read my essay ? did those result make sense to you?
if you still think the number from both Car and Driver/Motor Trend make sense and you believe them ... oh well hahaha

and if you complain about my long signature,
well, last time I check, there is no rules about what kind of signature that I can had or not,

focus on the facts, and details related to our debate is better rather than attacking me personally related to my long signature,
but even though it is not related to the debate we have here,

as usual I have a solution for you,
go to setting,
and on the "visible post elements" uncheck the "show signature".
There you won't have a problem not with just my signature but with other people signature too

no more chore related to my long signature right?
only chore you experience now is related to my long detailed essay right ? hahahahahhahah

if you read Edmunds again, you will see that they say for AT transmission it is about 11 seconds from 0 to 60mph.
Now, this is what I said before:

most likely a 0 to 60mph of around 7 seconds at the fastest...
(manual transmission, A/C off, only one slim person driving with no passenger, 15in wheel hahaha)
of course 7 seconds is already a giant improvement compare to the current 0 to 60mph of at least 11 seconds hahaha...

the above is what I said,
so from my own prediction, I thought the Honda Fit need about 11 seconds from 0 to 60mph, that is of course based on my experience with AT.

turn out, the MT is faster (according to Edmunds) at 9.5seconds.

so my prediction at about 7 seconds at the fastest for manual transmission modified to 135supercharged hp do make sense, right?

so my mistake is, I thought the MT is slower in stock form,
turn out the MT is a bit faster at 9.5seconds in stock form according to Edmunds....

but you are also not exactly correct either when you say the MT fit is in 8 seconds range in stock form,
unless you BLINDLY trust Motor Trend hahaha
you see, your very short post show that you have FAITH in Motor Trend 0 to 60 number,
so my unfortunately long essay were written in details just for you to show you
why I think Motor Trend number can not be trusted to represent real 0 to 60 mph number,
but if you don't appreciate my effort to convince you about that MOtor Trend number,
then you are welcome to trust what ever you trust,
hey, this is America, It is a Free Country

of course you are welcome to time your car your self (if you have MT),
and please be honest with your self when you use that stopwatch

if you can reach the 8 seconds range when you test your car,
then congratulations,
but if you are unable to reach 8 seconds and only reach mid 9 seconds range (or even slower), then... hahaha

hemmm...
do I wrote another long essay for you?
well please forgive me, as you know, my English is not as good as you

 

Yes Krunk13,
I totally agree with you,
even without a throttle by wire system, the car will have delay before it can response because at such a low rpm, the engine had not reach it's peak torque,
and dumping the clutch at 3000 rpm will surely solve the lack of torque,
as long as the wheel spin is not excessive right?

but every magazine that test a car, most likely they will do that dumping clutch thing because they want to be able to get maximum performance number.
it is just that some use a rolling start (like they already moving at 5mph when they hit the timing light) while other do it from a dead start...

 

We should first come to terms that we purchased a Honda Fit. By no means is it supposed to be a fast car, far from it. It's an economical car with great gas mileage in my opinion.

Anything we do to the cars as far as modifying really makes the car a lot more fun.

Once I receive my sprintex there is a few things I will need to address before I move forward with the install.

First:

The lag felt with the clutch should be fixed with this:

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/fit-...elete-diy.html


Second:

In order to fix the delay when you push the gas is a throttle controller. I'm looking at either the one that Twpanson offers, the D1 that A&J offers, Apexi or ARK design.

Again I'm not expecting a 300HP car, I just love the FIT and modifying it.

 

Edmunds.com Policy when testing car,

How We Test Cars and Trucks

Their policy is comprehensive, and include braking, acceleration, quarter mile etc etc,...
but since the current debate here is about 0 to 60mph time,
then I will copy and paste only the paragraph from Edmunds.com that related to this,
if you guys want to read more about their rules when testing car,
then please kindly click the above links..

here they are:
How We Test Cars and Trucks

Behind the Numbers With the Edmunds Test Team
Published: 08/20/2008 - by Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing



Burnouts, powerslides, closed roads, racetracks — that's what people think the Edmunds.com test crew does all day, right?
Not always. Like most of you, we also drive our test cars mundane miles through suburban sprawl, inch forward on hopelessly jammed freeways and go on grocery runs. But behind every story, supporting and quantifying every editor's driving impressions, you'll find what we call "the numbers."
The numbers are utterly familiar. Anyone who has spent any amount of time reading car reviews will recognize them: acceleration time from zero to 60 mph; quarter-mile elapsed time and trap speed; braking distance from 60 mph to a dead stop; lateral acceleration around a skid pad; and speed through a slalom course.
Yet the process of developing data is a no-nonsense business. We do it as well as we can, and we don't skip over the hard parts, either. Getting trustworthy numbers requires slavish devotion to standardized procedures, accurate measurement equipment, controlled conditions, dedicated testing locations and skilled drivers with a knowledgeable and consistent approach.
We're all about the numbers.


A Is for Acceleration
Acceleration tests follow as soon as the brakes cool. While we're waiting, let's review our fuel policy. Nominally, we use the minimum required fuel octane for our test runs, and if a manufacturer recommends a higher grade "for best performance," we'll use that. The only exception occurs when 93 octane is recommended, a grade of gasoline that isn't available here in California and many other states. Fortunately, cars that present this problem are few in number and all of them list 91 octane as the minimum requirement, a fuel we can readily obtain. If the runs come out a little slower than a manufacturer's claim, so be it. It's the manufacturer's fault if it optimizes an engine for a grade of fuel that isn't widely available.
All of the published acceleration data — the quarter-mile time and trap speed plus the 0-60 time and all of the intermediate speeds — come from the best single run. But getting that best run requires a skilled driver who can feel out the ideal launch technique that optimizes speed, yet doesn't damage the car. This is no easy task due to the wide variety of vehicle configurations, engine outputs, transmission types, gear ratios and tires in the marketplace. And then there are traction control systems, launch controls and a variety of sport settings to wade through.
Josh Jacquot explains: "When testing a car with this sort of adjustments, I'll get in, fire it up and make a pass, ignoring the electronic enhancements to establish a baseline number." After that, more aggressive settings are engaged to see if they represent any real improvement.

For vehicles with manual transmissions, Jacquot notes, "Some cars are quicker with moderate wheelspin; some are quicker with none at all. Some cars like a little clutch slip; some require instant clutch engagement and lots of drivetrain shock. Trial and error is, unfortunately, the only way to be certain which technique is best."

Vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions don't require as much imagination. Jacquot says, "If it yields a better test result, we'll brake-torque the vehicle by revving the engine at the start line while it's held in check by the brake. Often, a simple brake-off, throttle-on technique is best since the electronic stability control in many cars will no longer allow simultaneous brake/throttle application. Sport modes are always utilized after completing a default pass. Same goes for manual shifting — although this rarely helps."
The automated manual transmission is an emerging technology that requires a similar technique of brake torque, even though there's no torque converter and the transmission's clutch disc could be damaged. "The use of simultaneous brake/throttle application on this kind of transmission can, occasionally, result in quicker acceleration. It is a technique we use under the assumption that most of these cars have drivetrain protection that will keep this Neanderthal behavior from destroying the clutch pack. It's an unrealistic technique for real-world driving, but some cars are considerably slower without it," Jacquot said.
A Few Words About Rollout
The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.
We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.
On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.
Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.




Corrected Data
Correction factors are another source of controversy in vehicle testing. Because weather conditions vary from day to day, this affects an engine's horsepower output. As a consequence, acceleration times can be effectively compared only if the results are adjusted to a set of standard atmospheric conditions. The most widely recognized correction factors are those the SAE specifies within its horsepower measurement procedure.
SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.
The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349. Some publications still use J607, ostensibly because they don't want to lose the ability to make comparisons to their library of past data. (Sure, the 0.3-second advantage they get in quarter-mile times has nothing to do with it.)
If the outdated correction factor is combined with rollout, the results can be dramatic. The following example is based on data from a single run of our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS long-term test car. Here you can see the effects that the worst-case combination of correction factor and rollout can have on a 0-60 time.




If you inappropriately apply rollout to 0-60 times and use the outmoded SAE J607 for weather correction, the 0-60 time appears to be 7.9 seconds. We use the more current SAE J1349 and do not use rollout for 0-60 runs, so we would report 8.6 seconds, a difference of some 0.7 second. On quarter-mile runs, where we do include rollout for reasons explained earlier, the difference comes down to correction factor alone, and in this example the difference would round out to 0.2 second and 1.1 mph.
Same car, same run, same raw data file, same ambient conditions, but different data processing — clearly, a lot of tricks can be played by massaging the raw data. And there's a strong temptation to corrupt the data in this way because acceleration times arouse such strong emotions among readers. Enthusiasts want their dream car to be super fast, so those publications that produce the lowest numbers are hailed as professionals, while anyone who gets a lesser number "doesn't know how to drive." We think it's more important to be as correct about performance as possible, so we're scrupulous about our data.
Meanwhile, the weather data we use for the correction calculations comes from a Novalynx WS-18 portable weather station we set up at the track. It records ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure and relative humidity at five-minute intervals throughout the day.


Second Opinion:
Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton says:
It's more than a little ironic that the farther away the test equipment gets from the subject vehicles, the more precise the measurements become. Here's what I mean.
When magazines began testing cars in the 1950s, there was a second person riding inside the car beside the driver. He'd start a set of stopwatches with a master lever, then click them off one-by-one as the speedo would reach 60 mph, when the quarter-mile mark was crossed and when the speedo reached 100 mph. When it came time to measure braking distances, a .22-caliber bullet would blast a hole in a can of chalk to draw a line on the pavement to measure braking distances.
Jump ahead a decade or so, when cars still had substantial chrome bumpers, and a bicycle wheel or so-called "fifth wheel" was bolted to the rear bumper of the car to record the number of its rotations and thus time over distance. (I had a speedometer on my Schwinn Stingray that worked just like this.) Alignment, tire pressure and surface irregularities were all challenges. (And whatever you do, don't turn left — or was that right?)
Another decade passed and the radar gun made its debut. Sitting atop a tripod (or even worse, suction-cupped to the inside of the windshield), it bounced radar waves off the vehicle (or something in the distance) and, when analyzed by a computer, the data generated a bunch of neat graphs. But the system was also susceptible to pervasive interference and required error-inducing assumptions and lots of data smoothing. A couple of magazines still use this system to report acceleration and braking data. So does law enforcement, but even they are beginning to admit how inaccurate and unreliable radar is.
Finally, the U.S. government put a bunch of machines in orbit above the Earth, and our VBOX system talks to as many as 12 satellites to track a vehicle some 12,600 miles below. Our data is now more precise than it has ever been.
So test gear has gone from being inside the car, to being bolted to the outside of the car, to standing behind the car, to now sending microwaves from space to tell you how fast a car is. Man, how far we've come.