The fairest test of a car's acceleration would be a 15-100? race. That way at the start all cars would be fairly up in their power band (eliminating advantage of N/A vs lagged turbo) and any advantages in the start (inc AWD) will also be taken out of the picture. 100 is probably just enough to test if a car's upper end power matches its lower end power.

 

Can I correct that?

The Supra's minimal turbo lag is due to its sequential turbos (one small and one big). Turbo lag is more noticeable on the Z32 TTs.

 

I really don't think the slow run would affect the turbo cars very much. Most cars need to shift to 2nd to hit 100kmh. The turboes would have already spooled enough to catch up and pass.

BTW, 0-60mph is not the same as 0-100kmh. 0-62mph is more like it.

 

Some on this board got a 5.2 at the track, including JmanZ.

 

I was talking in miles...

 

Sequential turbos are still twin turbos. However, not all twin turbos are sequential, so they would suffer more than the supra. My point was it was because of the supra's twin turbo configuration (sequential) that it would be affected less

 

not a bad idea, but they dont do it. only other common roll tests is top gear acceleration from 30-50 and 50-70 I think it is. but again, in both tests turbos will likely start off under their spool area. maybe not so much in the latter.