acceleration time

[CrAzY RuSSian]

does any one know what is the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time for a unmodified 1979 spider

[Torxx]

Approximately 2 minutes 0-60 .
Just kidding. I don't know, but slow. Still a lot of fun though.

I am hoping some basic mods I will be making will make an appreciable diff.

[bran100]

I thought it was just me. As much fun as my '82 FI is, it still seems very slow. I've got a few things to work on that I'm hoping will improve performance, but it seems by your posts that it will still be slow.

Few short-term things I'd like to sneak past my wife:
1. header
2. ANSI muffler
3. test pipe in place of catalytic

Longer term:
1. cam (will cam alone provide a boost, or do I need higher compression pistons as well?)
2. Hi-flow air filter
?

[brad131a4]

I would say probably for your FI car would be a better fuel managment system to start off with if you want n/a power. the rest is normal hicomp pistons, cams, exhaust, not just a header but all of it.With the right combo and work with a FI motor I would think 140hp would be a reasonable output and very streetable.

[bran100]

What's "a better fuel managment system"? Is that FI modifications, or a carb setup?

[spidernut]

I found 0-60 at 10.6 seconds and 1/4 mile at 18.0

Here's the reference: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/ ... 38764&Fiat

[spidernut]

I forgot to mention that this is with 5 speed manual transmission. It doesn't list the automatic, but I'd estimate you'd need to add about 15 minutes to the time.

[brad131a4]

Sorry, the fuel managment would be the ecu box that controls the electrical pulse for the injectors. The spider FI is set up with the sensors in place for most of the aftermarket fuel managment systems out there.
If your good with electronics the best bang for the buck is the megsquirt as its a build it yourself kit that has a very strong support group on their web page. The head would be the next thing I would work on . As in a good port match and polish of the intake and exhaust. I can't remember if its better to go with a little larger exhaust valve also as to what is in the head now . Meaning if you go with larger valves you want to make the the exhaust a few more tenths larger in ratio aspect than the stock setup. If you realy want to get into it then have the head chambers cc'd and all the intake and exhast runners flow tested to match . Its all in how much you want to spend to make it go fast. Depending on how far you want to go with the head work I've seen almost a 35hp gain with just what I've discribed above on a 1800cc rabbit head. Stock cams were used as well as intake and exhaust.With a good street cam header and exhaust it was up a good 10 to 15 hp right in the mid to top . I'm sure with a bigger cam and a better header I would have got more but this was for a street driven car and built for durability. This is without touching the bottom end. you would free up more hp with having the bottom end and componants balanced but stock. Adding pistons with higher comp will add to the hp rating but sometimes at the expence of durability.

[124cso]

Remember that if you change the valve timing (cam lobe angles) you will need to have an ECU that matches the new setup or your injectors will keep squirting at the old (and now incorrect) timing.
Normally this means getting the ECU out of the (probably lancia) that the cams come from.

[Tom1B]

I forgot to mention that this is with 5 speed manual transmission. It doesn't list the automatic, but I'd estimate you'd need to add about 15 minutes to the time.

I did some testing today with a GPS app,
0-60 is between 12 and 13 seconds

1981 2000FI with automatic transmission

[DieselSpider]

Just be mindful that the candle that is made to burn more brightly usually burns our more quickly. The rear axle on the Spider is not really up to big boosts in HP or Torque.

[Nitrate]

I still can't figure why the stock compression ratio on the FI models was so low 8.5: 1. That's where a lot of easy power could be found. I mean that ratio is 1940's -50's era. RB

[GeorgeT]

I still can't figure why the stock compression ratio on the FI models was so low 8.5: 1. That's where a lot of easy power could be found. I mean that ratio is 1940's -50's era. RB

They were made in the early '80's before the industry had developed efficient NOx reduction systems. Lower compression equals a cooler running motor which equals lower NOx emissions.

[phaetn]

Note sure if this is helpful, but here's what I recorded in 2014 on an iPhone app called Dynolicious. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've seen numerous videos by popular car vid guys who suggest it's just as accurate as a dedicated Gmeter devices in their own testing.



Bear in mind my car is not stock. It's a (tired?) 1974 1.8L that, at the time, leaked and burned copious amounts of oil. I had a bunch of seals changed, but it still burns oil on lift off (suspect a worn exhaust valve seal that I may try and replaced with the rope trick in a week or so). Also has an after market-electronic ignition, plus a bigger carb so definitely not stock.

This season I put on Vick's Auto stainless steel header. I should try it again with the new kit and see if I get different numbers. I suspect the ambient temperature would probably make a big difference, too. Who doesn't like the feel and power of a drive on a crisp and cool summer morning compared to the sluggishness on a hot afternoon?

For the test I tried like the dickens to get a truly flat stretch of road where I could get up to 60mph without overly speeding and where it was also safe enough to start from a complete stop. This year I actually had the car up to the century mark. I've had it up to 90 a bunch of times, but that was a first for me, where there was a slight dip in the road and I suspect a bit of a tailwind.

Interesting that the app rates the car at 71hp. That's assuming I had the weight entered correctly, plus including all the loss through the transmission, so I wonder what the engine is actually putting out. 80 something? After 40 years not so bad... Bear in mind it's a '74 so it's lighter than the later tubular bumpers and also doesn't have all the pollution restrictions of the '79 model.

Cheers,
phaetn

[azruss]

One of the car mags did an article when they were new and stated a 0-60mph and 10.5 sec. I was never able to duplicate their time, even with a new car. There was a later article written that stated a 12.5 sec time. I think this is more accurate. I have not timed my current car.