Suzuki Kizashi aiming for 200M/H at Bonneville.

[GT_Prologue5]

Now I have no pictures for this, but I found this article and I wanted to know how you all felt:

Now there isn't a whole bunch of info, but apparently Road and Track's Sam Mitani will be driving the car, and the car itself will be competing in the Blown Gas Coupe Category. The car keeps the regular 2.4L I4 but uses a Turbonetics turbocharger creating 500hp and 420lb.-ft. of torque. The car is set for its run soon here, on August 14th. Fro the full article, see this: http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1048154_suzuki_kizashi_aiming_for_200_mph_top_speed_at_bonneville

Again, it's not full of info, but it may hint, at maybe, an upgraded/more powerful version of the Kizashi? We'll wait and see. And if anyone can get the picture off the site, please don't hesitate.

EDIT: it seems the link just takes you to the homepage. Just scroll down to see it.

 

[eSZee]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/04/video-road-and-track-working-on-200-mph-suzuki-kizashi-for/

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/11/suzuki-releases-official-details-on-200-mph-bonneville-bound-kiz/

 

[Jim Prower]

That thing is gonna need serious aero and lightening work to bust 203 with only 500hp. The ZR1 has 650+, and can do "only" 211.

Perhaps Famine can crunch some numbers for us...

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It looks pretty aero'd out, still it's a small car. I don't know about 200M/H, though.

 

[Tornado]

That thing is gonna need serious aero and lightening work to bust 203 with only 500hp. The ZR1 has 650+, and can do "only" 211.

Not the best example. The Z06 could pull 200 all day long. Even the normal C4 could probably do it if the gearing allowed it.

This will still need serious aero work with only 500 ponies, but it is quite possible.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

"only" 211? A 660hp Mucrcielago SV can hit 213. So thats a pretty regular example. Think, though. The ZR1 certaintly isn't as light as a Kizashi, and much less a Bonneville Version. Now for the SV, well, it's probably in the gearing.

 

[lpb-nissan-gt-r]

And the big wing out back.

 

[Tornado]

"only" 211? A 660hp Mucrcielago SV can hit 213. So thats a pretty regular example. Think, though. The ZR1 certaintly isn't as light as a Kizashi, and much less a Bonneville Version. Now for the SV, well, it's probably in the gearing.

The ZR1 is gearing as well.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

"only" 211? A 660hp Mucrcielago SV can hit 213. So thats a pretty regular example. Think, though. The ZR1 certaintly isn't as light as a Kizashi, and much less a Bonneville Version. Now for the SV, well, it's probably in the gearing.

Weight doesn't have much to do with top speed.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

Weight doesn't have much to do with top speed.

??? Weight normally slows a car down. Can you give me an explanation/reason?

 

[Tornado]

Vehicle curb weight only contributes to rolling resistance of the car, and it is static (I'm pretty sure). Air resistance has far more of an effect, and it increases exponentially.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Yes

??? Weight normally slows a car down.

Slows down in the acceleration sense

 

[Famine]

Vehicle curb weight only contributes to rolling resistance of the car, and it is static (I'm pretty sure). Air resistance has far more of an effect, and it increases geometrically.

Edited for trues.

Guessing at a drag coefficient of 0.29 (similar to its peers), I arrive at 530hp at the crank for 203 mph, give or take.

What's a Suzuki Kizashi?

 

[daan]

What's a Suzuki Kizashi?

And why is this a big deal, or any deal?

 

[Tornado]

Edited for trues.

I thought that, as speed increases, the power required for each MPH doubled?

What's a Suzuki Kizashi?

Some completely unnoticeable mid-size car that Suzuki replaced whatever their last mid-sized car was (the Verona?) with. Brad seems to like them, I think.

 

[Famine]

I thought that, as speed increases, the power required for each MPH doubled?

No - though that's also a geometric increase.

All other things being equal, as you increase speed by 10%, air resistance increases by 21% and you need to increase power by 33.1%.

If you need 100hp to do 100mph then you need:

116hp to do 105mph
133hp to do 110mph
173hp to do 120mph
220hp to do 130mph
338hp to do 150mph
536hp to do 175mph
800hp to do 200mph

Racks up quick doesn't it?

 

[kikie]

Yes. If they weren't sure, they would not attempt this.

 

[homeforsummer]

All other things being equal, as you increase speed by 10%, air resistance increases by 21% and you need to increase power by 33.1%.

Worth noting you do mention "all other things being equal" and yet your list of power to speed conversions doesn't include the aero drag factor of 21% (I'm guessing). Nor rolling resistance for that matter, which is why to be quick in corners you need low tyre pressures and ideally fairly wide tyres, but to be quick on a salt flat you need narrow-ish tyres and high pressures to lower the rolling resistance.

So 500bhp in the Suzuki on the right wheels and tyres and with some decent aero work shouldn't have too many problems hitting 200mph.

I'd reckon the standard drag is a little higher than what you mentioned though Famine - the similar-looking VW Jetta has an unimpressive Cd of 0.33 (unimpressive since numerous makers have been making sub 0.30 Cd cars for decades now).

 

[Famine]

Worth noting you do mention "all other things being equal" and yet your list of power to speed conversions doesn't include the aero drag factor of 21% (I'm guessing).

It's included in the calculation.

The initial calculation involves the CdA and rolling resistance to arrive at a minimum wheel power requirement - which is then fudged up to a crank power requirement. I don't like talking in crank power, but the discussions about the car involve crank power.

From that point on, all that changes is the speed - as the speed increases, the air resistance increases by a square of the speed and the power required increases by a cube.

If the car has 100hp and is aerolimited to 100mph, 105mph represents a 5% increase (1.05) in speed, a 10.3% increase (1.05 * 1.05) in air resistance and a 15.7% increase (1.05 * 1.05 * 1.05) in power required - 116hp. 120mph is a 20% increase in speed, a 44% increase in air resistance and a 72.8% increase in power required - 173hp.


What can affect the numbers is adaptive/active aero which change the car's weight, frontal area and drag coefficient while it's moving. If it doesn't have these, all other things stay equal.

Nor rolling resistance for that matter, which is why to be quick in corners you need low tyre pressures and ideally fairly wide tyres, but to be quick on a salt flat you need narrow-ish tyres and high pressures to lower the rolling resistance.

Rolling resistance is also included and, while it can be changed (narrow tyres also reduce air resistance), it is barely significant at higher speeds. If you could completely remove rolling resistance from the equation, in the original fagpacket calculation it would account for a 5% reduction in total vehicle resistance. Taking the above 100hp/100mph car as a basis, it would change the power requirements at 200mph from 800hp to 760hp.

However, every little helps, as we saw with the TG American car special at Bonneville.

So 500bhp in the Suzuki on the right wheels and tyres and with some decent aero work shouldn't have too many problems hitting 200mph.

Which is what my calculation also said. 530hp crank based on numbers I don't actually have and a crank power fudge for the base car is close enough to 500hp crank for an optimised version for my liking - it'd be like comparing 130hp to 138hp.

I'd reckon the standard drag is a little higher than what you mentioned though Famine - the similar-looking VW Jetta has an unimpressive Cd of 0.33 (unimpressive since numerous makers have been making sub 0.30 Cd cars for decades now).

No-one seems to pack a number for it. The car is compared to the Camry (0.28) and the Mazda6 (0.27 - US market version) - and has ballpark dimensions, weight, torque and fuel economy for those cars, so 0.29 seemed a reasonable estimate. Of course, increasing the Cd increases the air resistance - every 0.1 change in Cd affects air resistance by about 3%.


Can it do it with 500hp? The numbers say probably.

 

[Jim Prower]

Okay, so my skepticism is probably a bit unwarranted. Still, I wanna see 'em do it.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

What's a Suzuki Kizashi?

It's Suzuki's small sedan, like a Civic but slightly larger, and a little more fun than its competition. But you don't get one in the UK.

Okay, so my skepticism is probably a bit unwarranted. Still, I wanna see 'em do it.

Same here.

 

[niky]

More like "like an Accord but slightly smaller." Completely different class from the Civic.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's Suzuki's small sedan, like a Civic but slightly larger, and a little more fun than its competition. But you don't get one in the UK.

I suspect Famine was asking rhetorically, in a kind of "what's a Kizashi and why should we care" sort of way, but it's amusing how many people are responding anyway

 

[Famine]

What's a rhetorical question?


But yes, the UK Suzuki line-up since we lost the Liana is city car, city car, small hatch, small hatch crossover, mini 4x4, 4x4 (Splash, Alto, Swift, SX4, Vitara/Grand Vitara). I didn't know they even made a Mondeo/6/Vectra*/Accord segment vehicle.

*I don't care. They may have changed the name, but it's every inch a Vectra - and sold as one in Chile or Burkina or somewhere

 

[Paulie]

Isn't there an AWD version of the Kizashi? I wonder if their top speed runner is FWD or AWD. I'd love to see 500hp is a FWD family car.

 

[Jim Prower]

I'd imagine they'd go FWD. AWD would have too much mass and parasitic drivetrain loss.

 

[Paulie]

If that is the case I'd love to watch video of them trying to find traction on salt.

 

[niky]

If that is the case I'd love to watch video of them trying to find traction on salt.

Should be no problem. The 220-something mph Neon had 700 hp.

Land-speed runs are not drag races. You start out gently and build up speed as you go along. They take the speed as the average at the end of a five mile straight (two way average to eliminate wind influence), so there's no hurry (as in the Texas mile) to get to your top-speed right away.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

What's a rhetorical question?


But yes, the UK Suzuki line-up since we lost the Liana is city car, city car, small hatch, small hatch crossover, mini 4x4, 4x4 (Splash, Alto, Swift, SX4, Vitara/Grand Vitara). I didn't know they even made a Mondeo/6/Vectra*/Accord segment vehicle.

*I don't care. They may have changed the name, but it's every inch a Vectra - and sold as one in Chile or Burkina or somewhere

Yep, the UK Suzuki lineup looks very sad, at least from what I've read in TopGear.

A rhetorical question is one where you keep the answer to yourself. Looks like I failed. You're not supposed to out-loud answer a rhetorical question.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yep, the UK Suzuki lineup looks very sad, at least from what I've read in TopGear.

It depends on what you want from a car. Suzuki make some of the best cheap small cars around, so in that respect their lineup is very good. The Alto gets good reviews, the Swift does even though it's been around for ages, the SX4 is more than reasonable, the Jimny will give a Land Rover Defender a hard time off-road and the Vitara is a lot of car for not a lot of money.

Worth remembering that from a review perspective Top Gear isn't really the most definitive magazine, and their rating system (out of 20 points if it's still the same as it was last time I checked) is plain weird. Virtually no car seems to get above 15 points unless it's a supercar of some sort, and yet even cars which they give 8/20 points to they still sometimes recommend, even though 8/20 in any normal scorechart would be "below average".

I've a lot of respect for Suzuki. They don't make the best cars out there but they're pretty hard to beat at the low end of the market, and unlike Kia or Hyundai or other budget brands, they've been fairly consistantly trustable and don't have too many utter piles of awfulness in their back catalogue.