Jaguar XJ220 specs

Unfortunately your images are not visible

https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/lib/magazines/evo/2012/Evo_2012-01.pdf

You can find the article here. Nielsen remembered to reach 315 kph in the main straight at Nring. I guess real speed was around 300 kph looking at Autocar speedo discrepancies from indicate speed vs real speed.
Those 300 kph there indicate #005 that was faster than #007 one more time. 300 kph suggest a car that run around 270 kph at the end of 1000 meters. Autocar found 259 kph. So, at Millbrook #005 made the standing km 20,3s, if made 270 kph, then it could reasonable right, in my point of view. #005 was delivering over 600 hp.

I generally agree, but the speedo error remains an unknown in this equation. There is at least 100 hp difference between 300 and 315 kph at the Dottinger straight.
Have you seen an estimate of the speedometer error specifically for the 005 car? Maybe there was something in the press?
009 car for example speedo error was reported as only 1 mph at speed 200

I understand what you mean. Unfortunately we cannot try a correct conclusion. As far as I know we can find just the shot where 5851 miles was shown, odometer grows up at 132 mph @ 6200 rpm. Who knows how it was accurate due to the fact that speed was taken with rev counter accuracy, that can be unaccurate. On the other hand #009 I can guess it was adjusted to be effective due to the fact that odometer was caught on camera for a reason, that reason, so who knows. I just start for the assumption that they were not talking of a 313-314 kph car... at least I hope so:) They had reason? I don't know, but think they had no reason to push the Nring with a 700+hp car, just that. Nring lap record it wasn't a war at that period as nowadays.

Wait a moment.

The 5851 miles pictured on the odometer in the promotional video of the Nring was taken by the Nardo video. So it was #009 instead of #005 rated at those accumulated miles and that accuracy of odometer. It's not a case #009 was showing 5856 miles when it was pushed at Nardo running 210 mile per hour as if it was distance accumulated in the lap.
So the theory of 300 kph at Nring for #005 can holds up again if we assume that was the common speedo error.
Do you have another way to measure speed for #005 at Nring? by video stopwatch? or something other screenshot? Let me look around again.

Prototype that Evo used, recently odo shows 175 mph @ 6100 rpm in 5th gear. That seems accurate.

As Jaguar removed the limiter and catalytic converter for its top speed runs, and estimated the difference was ~55hp... I seriously think if they knew they could do that, whats to say they didn't do that for their nurburgring run? would explain speed differences in different cars.

I seriously think if they knew they could do that, whats to say they didn't do that for their nurburgring run?<

Because they had the transparency to show the straight exhausts, directly fixed from the manifolds, that's just looking at pictures made at Nardo speed event.
When they tested the Nring, it was easily visible they used their standard exhausts that comes out from the rear bumper. What's the real proof they had used there a decatted car?

IF anything, differences of Turbo specs, would explain speed differences in different cars. That's why they used Garrett T3 units or TB03. The second was upgrated using a compression wheel for higher power levels.
We cannot say Jaguar was cheating if they were using a better turbo specification for their engines, untill they used both turbo specifications for production cars.
IF anything they claims 542HP (549PS) using Garrett T3 and their engines were found to be underestimated when they addressed production to assembly their engines with Garrett TB03 units.
Like some prototypes, the silver cars that Autocar tested for their Bruntingthorpe attempts, the red metallic car that Superbike tested, were all the way cars delivered with upgrated turbo in my opinion.
The only problem is that here the fact remained in the dark still the start of production about their delivering power and nothing was claimed by Jaguar.

I was checking your XJ220 power diagrams again. I thought that higher power Superbike car deliver during the run is due to the fact that Autocar was lunched so many times before and turbos were overheathed.
When Superbike turbos comes to be heat also power seems addressed to decrise down to Autocar levels. This explains that the turbos were colder than Autocar approaching their run.
Unfortunately Autocar doesn't published data over 160 mph, it would be interesting to compare with Superbike data more accurately.
I was looking at the 180-187 mph that Superbike did with https://x-engineer.org/vehicle-acceleration-performance-calculator/ and my research suggest me that 180-187 mph segment need the same Autocar power at 150-160. Am I wrong?
I think I'm right because both your diagrams were showing ~350 kw.

Yeah, I also think it would be a bit odd if there were major technical differences between the engines of the 005, 007 and 009 cars. At least there's no mention of it anywhere. Perhaps as you suggest everything is due to the nuances of mileage and thermal operation of the turbos.
In this regard it is interesting to see how a car tested by AMUS and R&T performs. It seems impossible how a car gaining only 250 km/h at 1000m can accelerate to a maximum of 340. There's clearly some kind of power imbalance, which is btw what Phil Hill was talking about. Yes, this particular car was potentially out of order, which resulted in a malfunction due to overheating, but perhaps this kind of unraw power delivery is common to all XJ220s to a greater or lesser extent.
Regarding the 005 I was thinking maybe this car was somewhat lightened. But as far as I can see from the video it has a full interior with air conditioning and sound insulation. What do you think?

Do you have another way to measure speed for #005 at Nring? by video stopwatch? or something other screenshot? Let me look around again.

It's a good idea. Sometime at my free time I'll try to storyboard the video and link to some objects between which I can determine the distance on the map.

The car that AMuS and R&T tested I have a suspect that it was #004 after the rebuilt. I don't have proof because it could be another one repainted silver but it doesn't explain that a German car was at period estensively tested if it wasn't official. And it could be explained that a prototype rebuilt car can be assembled as much as a production car with a new fresh produced engine. I have picture of #004 disassembled.

Concerning #005 l'm a bit uncertain. The car seems to be definitive assembled but from the picture rear exhaust it seems not the definitive one. I would like to know if that it was born as uncatted car (pay attention I'm not saying it was decatted) and still provided of undefinitive exhaust. Something other suggested me it wasn't. #002 I'm almost sure it was uncatted car but less powerful. If you remember the period was transitory when unleaded gas come out. Picture or video of #005 are not so clear at this regard at the detail, perhaps it's just a suspect for me but something sound strange on that car. At fact it was fast with Correvitt fitted on the rear of it. And when the car was at NRing exhaust comes rear as definitive one.

I have pictures of #007 during assembled.

Taking a time with a stopwatch on the video, need to take count that the lap could not be the fastest one and just a lap for the promotional scenes.

Wasn't #002 one of the first 2 narrower body prototypes with around 500 hp?

Yes exactly.

I think iwe need to provide more pictures in detail of engine bay of #004 and #005 prototype cars.

Another question I'm wondering about XJ220.
Several sources state that later cars have stronger brakes. However, looking at the specification it is apparent that the size of disks and calipers haven't changed, ABS hasn't appeared either. Do you know in what way exactly they are strengthened? Maybe it's just a matter of settings?

Yes it was a question of braking weight as I know. Then fixed. Perhaps the brake pump adjusted? Or like with the F50 something like a stronger brake pedal input.

Coming back to engines. As far as I know also power claims were a bit misleading. At the beghinning it was staterd with uncattted 500 hp TT engine. Believable looking at the Bruntingthorpe speed reached by #002 prototype. Then engine was developed to 542 hp (549 PS). Later I read that early claims were 507 PS for engine provided with catalysts converters but then, 542 hp became the official figure for the production line
It sound something strange because both figures seemed underrated as we saw. There is no trace of those numbers from the analysis.
A XJ220 prototype that reached 300 kph at Nurburgring didn't had just 549 PS, probably neither 580. Hard to know.
300 kph was reached after turning a full lap, so engine was used intensively and already overheathed so I think the engine performance should be high to run till 300 kph on the Dottingher Hohe straight.
A XJ220 from a client like Superbike provided didn't had just 549 PS, let's alone less. I think power was seating down to 580 no less loocking at your estimation dynos. The power that engineers claimed to Autocar test, so 580 bhp, it was a figure that seems the more common delivered by those engines (due to fact that they claimed power testing at 542 hp on 40°C degrees test room conditions) and provided from perfecly catalysed engines. I'm pretty sure both examples were using cats for their tests. Remaing the fact that we already saw, decatting those engines 50 hp come out easily, so I can't imagine how performance was a engine made already uncatted and perfectly adjusted to run fast, in the case if it was produced. More than one suspect addressed me to think that the 203 mph development car at Bruntingthorpe was #004 or #005 (or simply #003) after to be paint refurbished by Jaguar and sent to press some years later. But never an image of the engine bay, coincidentally it never came out an engine well pictured for these prototypes. I'm not referring to any particular engine tricks to used tuned engines but just using strong early uncatted engines.
And #007 to be the very early car provided of catalysed engine? Who knows?Maybe?;-)

Just found.

Car was provided of catalyst systems.

To be honest, I don't know which development car was stored untill 1996 at Jaguar factory for the Autocar test at Bruntingthorpe.

Maybe #003? Maybe #004 repanted in silver again?

Thanks for the interesting info!
I wonder if Autocar 1996 Bruntingthorpe test car (or may be 1995 Kemble Airport car?) turned out to be the 1994 Ehra-Lessien reserve top speed attempt car?
I believe it was made supposed to be a presscar from the beginning.

Hard to know if the XJ220s tested at Kemble Airport 1995 and Bruntingthorpe 1996 were the very same car. I looked to find details by pictures but I never find nothing to compromising. The only detail I found in the main picture of the 1995 article, from above you can glimpse of the cone of the left side catalyst. As we know 290 kph on the mile, was an achievable speed for a customer car.
The only mid acceleration detail of XJ220 in the 1996 article, was said into the GT2 short story:
"...up to 130 mph felt unbeateble, even by 220 standards."

That can be more than a detail.

No, no. Kemble and Bruntingthorpe were definitely different cars, Autocar mentioned this separately. I mean that one of these two cars is the same one that R&T tested with other magazines at Ehra-Lessien in September 1994.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I didn't find the detail.

Which is the R&T article you are referring? I have a memory lapse. The one tested with the met red XJ220 and the Greengas Bugatti?

Yes, it was met red AMUS car substitution.
The car was brand new, not properly broken in at the moment.

I can only say that car was normally provided of cats.

I must research at the red 993 GT2 tested by 1996 Autocar, because it seemed to be a fast 911 reaching 173 mph at Bruntingthorpe, and it could be a reference for that XJ220's 0-130 mph time.

More than one suspect addressed me to think that the 203 mph development car at Bruntingthorpe was #004 or #005 (or simply #003) after to be paint refurbished by Jaguar and sent to press some years later

I don't think it could have been 004. It looks like it existed as a race car at that time.
It's likely that your picture shows the conversion of 004 into a racing XJ220c (the Jaguar Sport inscription on the guy's back partially confirms this).
Curiously, 004 was subsequently rebuilt back into a road car with catalytic converters fitted, given the number 220VAN and featured quite a bit in the press.
In a Top Gear test, if the speedo is accurate enough, it hits 200mph in over 65 seconds from rolling start. I think that suggests a power output far less than 550 hp at the time. Perhaps this is due to active use in race spec, what do you think? A mileage of 23600 miles doesn't seem that high, and given that the car is owned by Don Law, one would assume it has been well maintained.
Unfortunately, shortly after these episode was taken, it was wrecked.

Yes I know that #004 was registred with 220VAN plates. And its recent crash, unfortunately! Still I have not so clear that XJ220 #004 became XJ220C #004.
The road car with 220VAN plates was crashed late 2020, the race car that was owned by Law appear at Jaguar Summer Festival 2019 still in racing trim (#53). Also Justin Law partecipate at Goodwood Festival of Speed 2017 with the race car (#53). The same period Don Law company used the road car to test new tires for the XJ220 at Bridgestone track in Italy. Be careful. Could it be a misleading from road car VIN and C car VIN plates? To be honest I don't believe the #004 road car was converted so many times in those short times.

I would like to in say you that in the article publisched by Motor16 and AutoPur it was raffigured car #009 the same car that raced Nardo top speed. The proof was the fact that both tire images addressed to 009 written with a white marker.
In both articles were publisched fast acceleration numbers, but pictures are indicated that catalysts were there in the right position. On both engine bay images the cats were there.
Motor16 said:
0-100 3.85
1000m 20.34
AutoPur said:
0-100 3.9
0-200 10.6
I retain that need to investigate this car too. I undertand it could be a fast car when it was decatted. Unless these are just claimed data of pre tested #005 car these are opposite situations running with cats fitted.

Probably I've got something wrong.
That's from Autocar article:

Today he’s lending us one of his own cars, the fourth of nine pre-production prototypes. This car did much of the original tyre development work (including running being driven at 213mph by Andy Wallace at Fort Stockton), then spent several seasons as a race car before being turned back to bog standard road car spec.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/slideshow/xj220-has-jaguar%E2%80%99s-90s-supercar-been-badly-treated-1

https://www.cjm-photography.co.uk/p/575/cm20-4246-jaguar-xj220-13749724.jpg.webp

https://www.cjm-photography.co.uk/p/575/cm20-4228-jaguar-xj220-13749688.jpg.webp

There were both cars at Silverstone XJ220 Parade in 2017.

Back to #009. If that car was so fast as provided with cats. Let's imagine how it was fast using the last solution to decat it for the best speed.

Probably it's not XJ220C #004 but some other chassis participated in British racing series at the time.
I'm not sure how race car numbers correlated with the road ones.
May be #80 or #6:

https://www.racingsportscars.com/type/photo/Jaguar/XJ220.html

Yes probably. It's evident is that if the car raced, it was converted to road car so many times ago.

Sure, I meant prototype #004 was the race car in 1996 and couldn't participate in Autocar Bruntingthorpe top speed test.

I'm not sure how race car numbers correlated with the road ones.
May be #80 or #6:<

I think N and C chassis had separated numbers. I believe #004 became Race Number 23.
https://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/photo/SAJJEAEX7AXXPO104.html

Yes, it looks like.
Thank you!

http://www.xj220.collectordata.com/cars/detail/?car=SAJJEAEX7AXXPO104&datahistory=yes

Exactly.

Back to #009. If that car was so fast as provided with cats. Let's imagine how it was fast using the last solution to decat it for the best speed

We already estimated it earlier as 120-180mph in ~14 seconds according to the diagram, and that's seriously fast. Not sure it was on full throttle on that segment however.

Yes I remember. XP4 did 11.1s. That ~14 yes is really fast for that car.

Now should be understood the reason why these two cars (#005; #009) were that fast.....it seems they were both able to run 1km in 20.3 secs.

I want to look better at the Top Gear video where #004 recently did 195 mph after more than 1 minute.

In a Top Gear test, if the speedo is accurate enough, it hits 200mph in over 65 seconds from rolling start. I think that suggests a power output far less than 550 hp at the time. Perhaps this is due to active use in race spec, what do you think?<

I think it was not a question of seconds. Video editing time can be misleading.

The car did ~195 mph indicated on the speedo running the Elvington Airfield track for 2150 meters from the start to the white finish line on the tarmac. All of that with a wrong gearshift.
No bad ~195, actually good, in my opinion looking your data measured in past for a 585 hp car, expecially with an accurate speedo:

400m – 11.8 sec 126.6 mph
800m – 18.0 sec 157.5 mph
1000m – 20.8 sec 163.5 mph
1200m – 23.5 sec 170.7 mph
1600m – 28.6 sec 182.1 mph
2000m – 33.4 sec 190.4 mph
2400m – 38.0 sec 196.2 mph
2600m – 40.3 sec 198.4 mph
2736m (1.7 mile) – 41.8 sec 199.8 mph<

The 220VAN XJ220 would have burned an EB110SS in another video changing gears with the rev counter broken (if video was made correctly).

It seems that the Bugatti had a better jump starting from zero, maybe due to the AWD but the Jaguar staied there back close. Approaching 100 mph the Jaguar was behind but still close. After those images it seems the Jaguar made a winning comeback.

Huh. It hit 195mph from the standing start, and in next attempt 200mph from a roll over a distance of only 2150m?
Well, that's really even more than good in that case! The timing of the video confused me, I thought it was at least double distance.

Maybe from the video, for the 200 mph attempt on rolling start the driver used a distance longer than 2150 meters. Double checking it. He was braking later.

speedo speed tho.

Probably a silly question, but couldn't the Autobild/AMUS/R&T car be a rebuilt #006 pre-production?
Just got this idea from seeing in the net an image of the red car with HG JX220 license plate and 006 number on the windshield.

If you found 006 somewhere on the met red car, does means it is! They usually put the production number on the windshield or signed set of tires.

I was thinking that 220VAN was delivering around 600 PS for the Top Gear video.

220VAN speedo accuracy.
170 mph @ 6000 rpm.

Probably a silly question, but couldn't the Autobild/AMUS/R&T car be a rebuilt #006 pre-production?<

The book reported that #006 was painted green. Other source it was pictured in metallic red. You are saying me that you found 006 on the car fitted with german plates. My ask is problably that's because the client prefere a repaint before the delivery?

I must research at the red 993 GT2 tested by 1996 Autocar, because it seemed to be a fast 911 reaching 173 mph at Bruntingthorpe, and it could be a reference for that XJ220's 0-130 mph time.

Looks like it was a good day for all turbos.
170+ mph for 350 hp Esprit is also a bit overperforming in my opinion.

I was thinking that 220VAN was delivering around 600 PS for the Top Gear video.

The question is would be 600m enough to accelerate another 8 mph from 195?

Looks like it was a good day for all turbos.
170+ mph for 350 hp Esprit is also a bit overperforming in my opinion.<

Good reason. But it doesn't explain that the GT2 was the fastest up to 130 mph that day in my opinion. It seems courious. Could be a reason that the XJ220 had a prolonged wheelspin? BUT with this theory It would say that the top speed could be improved.

The question is would be 600m enough to accelerate another 8 mph from 195?<

Guessing the fact that 220VAN miglt have had a good launch to 130. It seems that Autocar 1996 car was faster just launched from 130 to 203 mph between the two.
Maybe two different torque curves? Different weather conditions? Unfortunately we own just few details building an effective theory. But I think we are not far.

Could be a reason that the XJ220 had a prolonged wheelspin? 

That seems plausible explanation.
If we got back to the Superbike test, 60-130 was 9.6 seconds. I suppose GT2 was able to do something similar. Traction should be better due to weight distribution.
Perhaps without sudden thrust drop after 162 mph Superbike could be close in behavior to Autocar May 1996 car.

Enjoy

For Superbike the XJ220 did a better 60-130 ulapsed time compared to the GT2. Both cars had wheelspin at the start.

Well, in this example we could see that GT2 is also slightly faster at 0-130.
Although both cars 0-130 times are fairly bad, probably due the poor surface.

Yeah!

If you think now, the day that Autocar tested in 1996, how fast could have been the GT2? 0-130 mph 14s? just slightly under 14? Who knows.
It sound courious that a XJ220 reaced 203 mph on that distance (1.7 mile) running up to 130 mph so slower than #007 for its test did. In the single test the XJ220 did 130 mph in 12.6. Think about this analysis. Did conditions affect that much?

Here GT2 accelerates to 140 mph in ~650m.

On a rough estimation it would need another ~500m to get 160 mph.
Autocar claims GT2 achieved 160-165 mph in a half distance I.e. ~1350m.
This adds up I suppose.
Probably at Bruntingthorpe they had worse start but better progression due to favorable conditions.

👍
The reason why every comparison should be treated with a margin of variable. The absolute value needs always confirmation, expecially on close cars.. No need I explain you that;-)

It would be interesting to see a McLaren F1 that day at Bruntingthorpe. Andrew Frankel said to hit 211 in the F1.
A couple of F40s reached over 190 with a top of 194 for an early car (198 starting on the roll). F1 remains the favourite for the Bmw power, the light profile and low weight, but it's not all a given due to varibles of weather and from car to car. On rough variables we already seen an XJ220S was slower than the standard car due to have traction problems with the damp surface, that's happens on dry surface also*. An F1 GTR hit just 195 because of the drag. Just to say that just different aero set up could eat miles at the end of a long straight. A couple of Ford GTs hit 300 kph one the double time need for the other car. We already know that Turbo engines have the ability to deliver more power when turbochargers are cold and air is colder. My F40 was faster than a friend's Enzo, starting acceleration from a roll. His Enzo became faster very late. The F50 owner was disapponted for its top speed at Bruntingthorpe. That's just because the open roof or because of engine weak? Just to say how that means concerning engine conditions, engine characteristics and the multitude of variables that affected a car performance. Maybe we would have seen a Jaguar much closer to the Mclaren if the day was good for turbos. Who knows.
Do you have any other data for the F1 at Bruntingthorpe? Or some other period test on airfield?

• for the XJ220S I have some doubts that was always a reson of wheelspin. The day at Brutingthorpe the surface was drying, and it had the distance and the time to arrange an higher speed than the achieved. Not sure it has all the power they claimed, especially now that we have stated that the standard car hit 203 mph staring the launch with wheelspin too. I'm torn.
  

Do you have any other data for the F1 at Bruntingthorpe? Or some other period test on airfield?<

I think Alverca straight test could be fun to take count. I would see an XJ220 running those Alverca conditions.

F1 Autocar road test:
0-322 kph = ~1700 meters

Alverca road test:
0-330 kph = ~2400 meters

Bruntingthorpe:
339 kph (~2700 meters)

XJ220 acceleration (although different cars, different places, but still)
1600m - 290 kph (Kemble Airport)
2150m - 315 kph* (Elvington Airfield)
2700m - 327 kph (Bruntingthorpe)
~2400m - 315 kph*? (Dottinger straight before the braking zone).
Acceleration since 120-130 kph here, but mostly going uphill. Not sure if it's possible, more realistic 300-305kph.

*-speedometer

Speaking of Alverca, given the dry cool weather suitable for turbos, do you think a 009 without cats would be able to accelerate to the same speed as the XP5?

I think that a fast XJ220 versus a weak F1 could be a match to see. Expecially on days the turbos works fine. Yes I think #009 had good possibility to run fast as XP5 at Alverca. On the basis we have, #009 is a car that can run the standing km with a terminal speed of over 270 kph just as it was made.

Here a 1997 Autocar road test where there was high possibility povided the same XJ220 tested the year before. Unfortunately pictures doesn't provide any means of recognition but Jaguar plate say to us the car was officially provided.

30 mph - 1.99s
60 mph - 4.23s
100 mph - 8.41s

It seems it had wheelspin but it mouves to 100 mph almost 2 seconds faster than Superbike. This car would have so much room to accelerate to 2736 meters

povided the same XJ220 tested the year before.

You mean Bruntingthorpe car?

Maybe yes

I don't believe in 1997 Jaguar had so much silver cars from the development department to send to press. They had still a lot of new cars to sell.

It's curious to focus on the 60-100 mph intermediate:
AMUS (#006) - 4.5 sec
Superbike - 4.5 sec
Autocar (#007) - 4.3 sec
Autocar (silver car) - 4.2 sec
XJ220S (Palmer car) - 4.0 sec
005 - 3.7 sec

100-0 mph braking:
XJ220 (Autocar) - ~7 (?) sec
XJ220S (Autocar) - 8.4 sec
005 (Nielsen) - ~6.5 sec

I don't believe in 1997 Jaguar had so much silver cars from the development department to send to press. They had still a lot of new cars to sell

Yep, that's why I think the car from Ehra-Lessien was then also tested by Autocar. The only point Ehra-Lessien was LHD, but Autocar I can't figure out from the pics, they usually have RHD cars I think.

The silver XJ220s Autocar used were all LHD.

Where it was explained that the XJ220 tested by Autocar at Kemble and Bruntingthorpe weren't the same car? I have no memory to had read that detail, but it seems you was sure.

Look at what I'm thinking now. Looking at your estimate dynos, curves suggest that #005 and #009 seems aren't powerful than the others but just tested in better conditions.

What Superbike suggested is that after a slightly wheelspin in 2nd gear the car hit 390 kw at the wheels in 3rd gear, 380 kw in 4th gear. The power decrese because turbos were becaming very hot, so power decrese even more for thermal reasons. The real figure of the car talking about corrected power was about 340-350 kw delivered at the wheels. Your dyno was showing us that 6600 rpm was about 340 kw.

What happened to #007 tested by Autocar?

Here the car seems it was timed when the engine was already overheated by some other launchs before (there was a picture in the article with already burned surface before the main launch) and themperature of turbos was higher. Power levels out between gears are closer. Unfortunately we have no data for the high fifth gear but the line suggested it was addressed to pick up very close to Superbike's level of power. I wouldn't be surprised if the power was the same for both the cars.

When it was tested the F40, AMuS tested it in very ideal conditions for turbos.
What's happened here is easy. The car is not referred to be up at 340 kw. It's more like 300 or 290 kw looking at the direction of the curve. 340 was just the figure the engine was able to pick up because air themperature and turbochargers were not sill overheated. That's happened to Superbike car also, but here conditions were even better. The engine gain peacking up even more power.

I have the suspect that Superbike could be much powerful if it was tested in conditions similar at those AMuS tested the F40. Colder air give the engine more power, better thermal condition and better cooling. Figures suggested the power could have gone up to over 400 or 410 kw, the heat up more slowly getting then better performance between the gears.

That's the reason why these cars (like #005; #009 did) can reached standing km timing it down to 20,3 sec with terminal speed up to 270 kph or more. That's the most interesting aspect on turbo engines.

Here referred figures were for #009 (the car was pictured here with cats fitted):
0-100 kph - 3.85 s
0-1000m - 20.34 s
Top speed 340 kph

Where it was explained that the XJ220 tested by Autocar at Kemble and Bruntingthorpe weren't the same car? I have no memory to had read that detail, but it seems you was sure.

Hmm, firstly I've read the article in autotranslation and was quite sure that they meant other car than last year Kemble test.
And now I reread it in English a couple of times and can't really understand were they meant changed a car for a model with improved brakes, or Jaguar equipped the very same car with better brakes. Still, I'm leaning more towards the former.

"It also had much better brakes this year, thanks to a different pad compound that improves feel and ultimate retardation."

http://www.lotusespritworld.com/ERoadtests/AutoCar_May96_GT.html

I forgot to say at the traction on the bad surface at Bruntingthorpe.
Superbike diagram indicare it had a longer wheelspin expecially in 3rd gear.

Look at what I'm thinking now. Looking at your estimate dynos, curves suggest that #005 and #009 seems aren't powerful than the others but just tested in better conditions.

It seems to me that everything is more complex and complicated. Both the condition and the nuances of engine assembly and tuning contribute, giving fluctuations in power in a given rpm range. It also seems that factory drivers like John Nielsen and others do a much better job of shifting gears than Autocar and AMUS testers, and it also influence on acceleration significantly.
As for the 005 and 009 cars, is there any chance they were originally fitted with some kind non-standard exhausts? Maybe somewhat simplified, without a muffler and with a shorter path?
Looking at the torque curves of the 007 reminds me of the F40 from the Cargraphic test. There, too, was a dip after the torque peak and then output returns in the max power range. Perhaps this character of curves is typical for engines with insufficient running-in period?
The maximum horsepower and torque in this case are in line with factory specs and may not change significantly thereafter, but the area between the peaks becomes increasingly convex rather than concave over time and this improves overall performance?
Just a hypothesis.

Looking at the photos archived, the exhaust of #004 or what it looks like by the book, its exhaust look was the same that later was the choice for the production. There is just a little difference for the tail. #005 tail was looking like this also. The tube has a not definitive vertical cut and it's a bit longer out of the bumper at these cars. No info about inside the silencer even I think it was definitive, the box look like that. #007 and #009 had definitive the exhaust tail too. I think that was an irrilevant detail like early cars were made with less accuracy into looking details. My concern was the absence of the cats in the very early prototypes.

Unfortunately is not easy to know how an angine progress or decline its power during the life, too much details affect this point. In my short knowladge we can only guess.
Frictions inside at the internals are surely imporving, the engine will come to run better. It will arrive the moment that those frictions will losses and the engine will decline power. It make me think that and engine make to mileage accumulation test will be afterwards stronger and faster.

I retain to say that when we compare the Autocar 203 mph car to the XP5 at Alverca, also traction detail comes to be taken into account. We know the Jaguar was wheelspinning rear tires for sure.No info on this for the F1 at Alverca. The F1 did its best at almost 332 kph within tree runs made running 2400 meters with a slight rear wind. The XJ220 did almost 327 kph running 2700 meters but for sure an amount of wheelspin. Just to say that these data may not be properly compared with the right accuracy. Just a good clue.

As I know the XJ220, the car has a prone tendency to loose grip on lower gears. Not the same experince with the F1. I never drove this last. The F40 is the rawest of the tree cars but the lighter weigth of the Ferrari seems to rewards this car compared to the heavier XJ220. My tires on the XJ220 are becoming old now, but identifyning myself at Bruntingthorpe I reatin possible this tendence of the car. It seems like the heavier weight helps the engine violence to break at the traction more than often, more than with the F40.

Definitely XJ220 should be more prone to the wheelspin than F1, and while wheelspin can spoil acceleration numbers on a short distances massively, I don't think it could impact 2km+ trap speeds to much.
If we imagine that 680 hp XJ220 and F1 equaled the same speed at Alverca, it's perhaps a reason to think if the F1's power is seriously below the claimed. Considering F1 has so much weight and drag advantage.

Surely XP5 at Alverca doesn't perform the same as the cars does at Millbrook and Bruntingthorpe for the Autocar's test. That's the mistery of the variables to take count:)
Was referred in general that case. This is why:
"The reason why every (car) comparison should be treated with a margin of variable."
XP5 did also better numbers than it was able to do at Alverca. It did better numbers than XP4 too. But we know Alverca test was made uder good conditions. That's why cars comparisons are never too obvious.
The problem became when need to find a reason. Don't worry there is always a reason. When XP5 was in the hands of Quattroruote or Autozeitung the car was said it perform in line as the XP4 if not better. At least they provide better numbers at high speed. At Alverca the car perform as it was hard to improve speed. It reached 327 kph after running a long distance, 2400 meters. Autocar did 322 kph after a composition of runs, but a total of about 1700 meters . Unfortunately no info on these reasons. Low mileage because engine was not properly running in? Front wind at 2,6m/s affect that bad? Lower gasoline rating was used? Any nolders? Any particular surface? Are you sure the engine was properly down on power because it was chronologically too new?

I can say that already you know, official source reported XP5 was provided with the very early 627 engine.

I'm doing the same question about the XJ220S at Bruntingthorpe, with surface drying there was high probability to reach better speed than the 189 mph achieved just shifthing before, using higher gears, that engine was claimed strong but evidently they were unable to do better than that figure. In the amount of attempts, during testing, these situations happens.
Maybe reasoning, we will find a reason.

I don't think it could impact 2km+ trap speeds to much.

Agree. We are talking about slightly improuvements, but everything does.
I repeat it would be intersting to see a comparo at Alverca that day.

Top Speed at the NRing sound you nothing intersting? Difference from tacho from both cars?
With #005 Nielsen said to reach almost 200 mph (196 to be accurate). For the F1 XP5, souces said that top speed was 200 mph on the main straight.
Who knows how those speed were really close. Both tacho are usually accurate.

Am I right thinking that 189mph at Bruntingthorpe is also the Palmers car?
My problem with the XJ220S is that looking at the specs this car promises a lot, but in no real test has it shown even a hint of performance worthy of those numbers. It is clear that the tests were basically few and there were factors of tires and conditions, but nevertheless there is not even a glimmer of improvement over the standard 220.
Most impressive achievement could be the speed record at Millbrook, where it did a lap in 40 seconds at an average speed of 180.4mph. But, frankly speaking, looking at the result of the XP5 it seems that the standard XJ220 could well show something close to 220S, and maybe even better. It would just have to find tires that could handle the loads.

BTW, do you have any info what top speeds XJ220C could reach in the races?

Yes the yellow XJ220S.
If I remember correctly, the book I own concerning LeMans 1993, the Annuary of the 24h race said 311 and 314 kph for two of the green "Unipart" cars. Another source said just 296. The reason why there is a variable I think it was due to fact that the slower figure was taken during qualifying. I always thought the higher top speed was reached due to deleating cats, and partially by aero train taken behind someone slower, deleating cats was the reason why they were disqualified next the race.

At this regard I suggest you to read the article, on jagsupercars.com. Restricted and catalysed the car deliver 500 hp from 4500 to 6800 rpm. Torque was 550 lbft.
I don't know if they were totally honest on their claims. In my opinion those speed were very high at LeMans even if the cars were unofficially decatted. Rumors said the car was just delivering 540 hp even with cats, out.

Are you trying to get if there was relation between XJ220C engines and XJ220S performance at Bruntingthorpe? I tried but hard to say.

I don't remember the speed of 1995 XJ220C cars, I need to open the yearbook. I remember that engineers choose to run with sligtly underboosted engines.
I think the had a good potential, never know why they always raced very short on power compared later to the F1GTRs and F40GTEs.

Both the year XJ220s lapped in the region of 4:10's in qualifying. Slow performance for the 1995 level of the GTs registred at the race. A real shame. Like the F40 there was a potential behind these cars.

I was asking XJ220C top speed to make XJ220S TWR top speed estimation.
I guess their aero was close.
So, with 680 hp 220S top speed should be in 340-350 kph range, just like standard car.

Yes are the same car, the rear wing was adjustable. Plus race cars had a couple of front "moustache" and a rear nolder. I don't know why, I always suspected the yellow car was provided of restrictors (silly to think).

Do you guys know if the Pininfarina version was actually faster than the TWR version? (https://fastestlaps.com/models/jaguar-xj220-pininfarina) It shared at least the engine, but it's unclear to me if it was actually faster.

Correction: more like 320-330kph

I always doubt Pininfarina car had an S spec engine. I always doubt that all the S cars had decatted engines with upgrated turbos. From the pictures diffused looking at the engines, my answer is no.

XJ220 Pininfarina was made for the Sultan of Brunei on individual order. It had a standard engine and automatic transmission, so it was most likely slower than the regular XJ220.

Enjoy. This test was made to a Fast Master car in a hot day. C&D tested it, this is a French reprint. To note the car was just provided of a lighter racing driver seat.

Unfortunately this test show to us just numbers on lower gears. It would be interesting to confirm this car into the value of over 340 or 350 kw when themperature became those of turbo on full throttle overheat.

It can help us to get a dyno with these engines running hot conditions but made on a dragstrip surface.

OK, I'll try to do something with it

Another curious detail.
There was reported that XJ220 broke the record at the Ring by over 30 seconds, I wonder what they used as a benchmark. Was it Motoharu Kurosawa's 8:22 run in Skyline R32? Or 8:16 in NSX?
Why CTR 8:05 run with Roser at the wheel or Kurosawa's 8:08 run on a 964 Turbo were not considered? Were those cars officially classified as tuned?

1000m in 20.8? Looks pretty optimistic to me, especially considering it only trapped around 194-195 km/h in 12.4 seconds. The 400-1000m gap would make it better than a McLaren F1 (20.8-12.4 is better than 19.6-11.1).

Most likely a typo.
Probably 21.8

Yes! (Similar issue occurred with Fast Lane's F40 and a factory-tested SS-powered EB110GT... both of which happened to have had a "19.9" 1km time posted in their outlets... when clearly those two did it in 20.9)

I can't help you on this. I always considered 964 Turbo made by Kurosawa a little courious. If I recall the car was very fast on the striaght. Uncommon for a 320 hp car like that. At those times Ring lap record were very unofficial.

Yes I also think at 21.8.

We have already treated that point on the MOTOR's F40 (FastLane provided another test).
Our friend 196ss calculated that 19.9 was unachievable for the F40.
What sound strange to me, was not the absolute result. It was the fact that tree cars were tested, tree cars were undoubtely producing uncommon fast numbers.
A 2WD Diablo at 20.8 means to be fast as the main results of an F40.
I'm in the same idea looking at the 959. It did 21.6, common time for it but never did starting with a bad launch.

It was the fact that tree cars were tested, tree cars were undoubtely producing uncommon fast numbers.<

I forgot. On this I understood that calculated numbers did NOT find those 1000m figures BUT also as already seen, expecially on turbos engine curves are often very floating. I dont know if everything can be simulated 100% gear per gear it seems hard, just to say that never we could HOW simulate floating curves like Superbike with XJ220 example did if we hadn't known. Just that point out.

From here the difference to say X car has Y power to X car is producing Y power in my idea.

The same idea, the Motor test could be wrong. But remain me a doubt.

I always considered 964 Turbo made by Kurosawa a little courious. If I recall the car was very fast on the striaght. Uncommon for a 320 hp car like that.

BM often tests tuned cars without announcing it (or we can't understand it from the context). And Porsche 964 seems to be just such a case, I find it very difficult that a stock Turbo can drive like this.

1000m in 20.8? Looks pretty optimistic to me, especially considering it only trapped around 194-195 km/h in 12.4 seconds. The 400-1000m gap would make it better than a McLaren F1 (20.8-12.4 is better than 19.6-11.1).

Another reason could be that the 1000m time is simply taken from another source. Given that this is a reprint of C&D article, and US magazines never measure 1000m times.

May I ask. Is it possible to simulate Motor test trying to going much closer to it using 5 different curves, a simulated curve for any gear?

I can probably help, but I'm not quite sure what needs to be done.

Looking at your diagrams and trying to imagine how phisically termical variance affect the curves, it seems that what is spreaed on high power by AMS F40 trought the gears, it might not be the higher limit. I think that looking at diagrams we need to derive a sort of relationship but it's a difficult task.
I think the first step trying to understand those Motor test is starting to get weather conditions from the Diablo figures.
Anyway let's back to the Jaguar.

You mean simulate 1000m for the F40 with Motor test launch and power curves from AMUS test???

No I don't means that. I means that if we want to simulate Motor test, need to start from power curves from AMUS test. Motor power at wheels will be higher for sure than 330-340 kw verified for AMUS. Obvisiouly it seems that power will settle less from overheating. Fix data respected, kerb weigth will be 1202 kgs (Motor car was tested very empty), etc. The car will be launched in the right way otherwise it will not reach 100 kph in 2nd gear at 3.9s after a close gearshift asi it did, than it will be a wheelspin in second gear, than full throrttle, gearshift in 3rd , sligtly wheelspin in 3rd, than at 160 kph in 7.8s (with some questions on it). All the 3rd gear down and than the power will flex down at the wheels higher that AMUS for all the 3rd, 4th and 5th gear for sure because it will overheated less. AMUS was flexing power direction down to 290 kw concerning your estimation up to 7000 rpm. I wouldn't be surprised if the air was cold, dense, running Motor was simulating already in the region of 320 kw with the 5th gear fitted!

In a nutshell the same things happens to XJ220 prototypes when reaching 20,3s on the km. Something good happens in power delivery helping that goal. Usually XJs were on very high 20's or 21 seconds on the 1000m.

Look at the 959 that Motor tested on their mysterious conditions, why that car perform as no one before?

The 100-160 kph very short 4 seconds!, km 21.6 launching it from zero as the worst on these 959s.

European reprinted R&T test did 21.7 starting in 3.7s. Quattroruote did the same 21.6 as Motor, starting from 0 to 100 kph in 3.7s with trap at over 240 kph.

I'm sure Motor's 959 need to trap in the region of 250 kph out of 1000m!! My question is like the Motor's F40 and Diablo, why these cars ran so fast if no under particular ideal conditions? .

It's not a problem to say this test was wrong. But, I ask, why these few (959) data helps each others?

I've been racking my brain over those numbers from Motor magazine.
I keep trying to build some kind of logical sequence, but it's falling apart like a house of cards).
If to suggest that 959 started well and changed gear just before reaching 100 km/h, and further up to 1000 meters accelerated to 250+ km/h, then this Comfort is even faster than Sport.
In addition to the acceleration figures, there are other things that puzzle me. Where it says kerb weight, 1450 kg for 959 Comfort is very little. Perhaps it means dry weight, but then 1656 is too much for Diablo. I also can't understand why the F40 is cheaper in Australia than the Diablo. In Europe and the US it seemed to be almost twice as expensive.

400m from old AMUS test looks like it was 390m, and 1km probably a bit shorter distance also.

I know this thing is treacky. I'm the first to say that if conditions affected results, it need an amount of more power. But that was.

For the 959, looking at gears panel it suggested they started in 2nd gear(they claims as 5 gears) launching it till 113 kph. I think that's the reason why that high time to 100 kph.

If to suggest that 959 started well and changed gear just before reaching 100 km/h, and further up to 1000 meters accelerated to 250+ km/h, then this Comfort is even faster than Sport.<

From the article, it was explained the car was a preproduction car, it's evident in was than delivered as Comfort interior. Yes those figures suggested it should accelerate up to 250+ kph to reached that 21.6.

That's was the main reason why an F40 due to be tested in the exactly the same conditions, should accelerate till 275 kph if that 959 did it. There is no other way this detail help the other result.

For the 959, looking at gears panel it suggested they started in 2nd gear(they claims as 5 gears) launching it till 113 kph. I think that's the reason why that high time to 100 kph.

It was the first gear. Shorter gear is for bad roads:

959 top speed on the first gear is 104-105 kph at rev limit 7600 rpm. I don't know that 8200 number came from, but it can't be correct.

I guess if they shifted after 100kph, it would be something closer to what AMUS got with Sport model:
100kph - 3.9 sec
160kph - 8.3 sec

959 top speed on the first gear is 104-105 kph at rev limit 7600 rpm. I don't know that 8200 number came from, but it can't be correct.<

I guess if they shifted after 100kph, it would be something closer to what AMUS got with Sport model:
100kph - 3.9 sec
160kph - 8.3 sec<

I don't know when they shifted into 2nd gear. The article said: "Maximun permissible engine revs were 8200 rpm, with boost pressure peacking 2.0 bar up to 4300 rpm and 1.9 bar thereafter."
It can be possible that being a preproduction car sold then to a customer, it could had a specific higher revs limiter. Who knows.

I don't love to insist. But I repeat, this test was very courious. Your theory on the shifting point make sense. The fact is that if that theory is taken in count, due to tested in exactly the same conditions the other two cars became too fast in comparison. Then, theory collapse, I'm the first to say no it's not possible. Became not possible that at the side of a within standard performance 959, there were two bullets.

The fact that an AWD 959 starts worse than 2 RWD rivals in the same conditions, on each of which a good hooking up at the start is a big deal, is also strange, wouldn't you agree?

Let me try another way. That day was present also a 964 Turbo and a 190E EvoII but they had not properly tested at their side. Let me understand if these cars give us a feedback.

The 911 seems it was a detuned 288 PS (212 kw???) 964 Turbo, running 0-160 kph 12 sec as a standard 320 PS if not faster. Top speed 250 kph was very low. I don't know if Australian market had specific 911 cars. The 190E Evo seems it was not a particulary quick car.

Well, I'm not sure that 160 kph in 12 is anything exciting for the detuned 964T. 11 seconds is pretty normal for the 320 PS car. R&T did 11,9 with 261hp 930 although with rollout.

I don't know what source this is from, and is it a reliable data, but looks like this Diablo was a fast example and could cover 1000m in low 21 seconds:

I'm still incline to think their 1000m was something like ~960-970m in real. The same mistake as AMUS did in the old 959 test.
The only puzzling thing is 959 8,3 sec to 160 kph, but probably it was possible if this particular example engine could rev to 8200 rpm and achieve 160 on the second gear.

I find it interesting how there's basically 0 values to the 959 acceleration honestly.

The way I see it, I think it should be capable of 3,7 > 8,2 > 13,0 seconds. That way it would almost be in line with the 993 GT2 and logically slower than the F40 in all departments except for 0-100. Or on par with a Diablo SV

Well, I'm not sure that 160 kph in 12 is anything exciting for the detuned 964T. 11 seconds is pretty normal for the 320 PS car. R&T did 11,9 with 261hp 930 although with rollout.<

It's not easy conclude tacking that way due to unkonwn conditions. I will check better at those detuned launch 0-160 kph at 12.0s.
Be careful with 911 Turbos at that period. Their power figures was out of rate very often. Look at those results for the 911 3.0 liter Turbo:
0-100 mph 12.9s C&D
0-100 mph 15.3s R&T

I don't know what source this is from, and is it a reliable data, but looks like this Diablo was a fast example and could cover 1000m in low 21 seconds:<

What's your 1000 meters estimation for that Diablo test? Looking at the QR Diablo Jota I'm more inclined to mid 21's. The Jota trapped higher speed at 21.2s.

I'm still incline to think their 1000m was something like ~960-970m in real. The same mistake as AMUS did in the old 959 test.<

The same thing happens to Autocar with the XJ220 and Auto with the F40. They published respectively 20.6 and 20.8. They both were at corrected 21 or 21.1s. It seems like it was a fault of the Correvit system. If that is the theory, that's could be the reason.

P.S. if you look at Autocar F1 road car test too, it doesn't was right 1000m 19.6, the sum of the two launches was more like 19.4.

What's your 1000 meters estimation for that Diablo test? Looking at the QR Diablo Jota I'm more inclined to mid 21's. The Jota trapped higher speed at 21.2s.

In 1990 SAF tested 21.6 sec with slightly worse 0-200 and same 400m. I guess that car from F40 comparison should do something between this and your Jota test. Something like 21.4-21.5, probably 21.3 at most.

Be careful with 911 Turbos at that period. Their power figures was out of rate very often.

320 PS 964 did 11.1 with a passenger in Automobil Revue magazine and 10.7 in C&D (~11.0 considering rollout). That's why I think that 12.0 is OK for for the detuned version.

That's looks fair for Sport version.
For Komfort version I'm thinking about something like 4,0 > 9,0 > 14,0

The same thing happens to Autocar with the XJ220 and Auto with the F40. They published respectively 20.6 and 20.8. They both were at corrected 21 or 21.1s. It seems like it was a fault of the Correvit system. If that is the theory, that's could be the reason.

True.
However, even today with modern GPS equipment sometimes we have strange results like in this example:

https://fastestlaps.com/tests/ioztl5rlvn8l

I can agree with that. I always thought 3.7 for the non-S is very optimistic, considering even the 996 Turbo S couldn't do that in best conditions.

320 PS 964 did 11.1 with a passenger in Automobil Revue magazine and 10.7 in C&D (~11.0 considering rollout). That's why I think that 12.0 is OK for for the detuned version.<

Yes I get. But situations like Quattroruote tested the 964 Turbo II at 0-160 kph 11.3s, under very favourable conditions for turbo engines , air temperature was very low, pressure was very high. Till a detuned car did 12s, this does means that conditions could been very favourable the day Motor tested, somewhere like those of Quattroruote. That's the tricky point IMHO.
I just found the test in the archive.

True.
However, even today with modern GPS equipment sometimes we have strange results like in this example:<

I don't know about GPS, but reffering Correvit I supposed that over a certain speed the arms of the equipment flex just enough to photocell offset due to speed wind, so going on detection offset.

True.
However, even today with modern GPS equipment sometimes we have strange results like in this example:<

If the reason of the figures achieved by Motor was due flexing arms of the Correvit, then we need consider that the error will be based on the speed the vehicle was running. Example the error on the F40 test start at 220 kph. It's evident that all of the tree cars can have the same discrepancy on results or very close. Looking at how the 959 Comfort closed the km for R&T test, I guess everything could be closed in about 3 or 4 tenths later. But it's not said that it was.

I don't know about GPS, but reffering Correvit I supposed that over a certain speed the arms of the equipment flex just enough to photocell offset due to speed wind, so going on detection offset.

If you don't mind I would like a little more clarification in this part.
If I understand correctly what you are describing, in this case, part of the wheel revolutions will not be counted, and then there is an error in the smaller side, and we have an error in the larger side. I.e. the wheel revolution counter gives information about more distance than actually traveled.
Or am I missing your point?

Wait wait. You are confusing. The situations I'm referring are not made with wheel equipment, they were all made with laser equipment. The equipment was always anchored with suction cups with laser eye looking down the surface by an arm. Usually also some laces or tape were added for safety. I know that later the equipment must be connected to the main system inside of the car and calibrated. I guess the calibration need because the laser eye must be read perfecly the distance from the surface and the perfect vertical position. At this point I losted into my research I made, but the error I think come from the fact that running very fast wind crosses the equipment with a lot of drag. I think it was enough that the vertical calibration offset then I guess the detection offset. I don't know really how the eye works, but it's evident that changing vertical angle, change the detection.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Example the error on the F40 test start at 220 kph. It's evident that all of the tree cars can have the same discrepancy on results or very close. Looking at how the 959 Comfort closed the km for R&T test, I guess everything could be closed in about 3 or 4 tenths later.

Let me ask another question please.
Isn't the error value in this scenario would be larger with higher terminal velocity at 1000m mark?
I mean for example like 0.3 sec for 959, 0.4 sec for Diablo, and 0.5 for F40.

That could be, but also could be based on how well the equipment was anchored and how amount of wind accross it. So here is difficult to know. Quattroruote figures for the F40 were find using laser Correvit for sure but results were in that case very accurate, so.
If you take a look at the XJ220 prototypes pictures with laser Correvit applied at the rear of the car you will noticed that equipment was strongly anchored directly to the rear bumper with no arm, so surely 0 margin of error on these cases.
Just to be clear that laser Correvit doesn't means high speed error surely. Accurancy depends on how the equipment can be strongly applied and the amount of wind accross the equipment in the position it is applied at the body of the car and if it arrive to flex.

Regarding Motor test we have no any single picture with Correvit equipment applied so, talking of error means just suppose it. I know they usually used Correvit but guessing just they used it, we have no any based proof on how well they applied the equipment on the cars. They applied it rear or at the side of the cars? They used additional laces? Was the equipment exposed to strong air flows? We can just suppose could been margins of error on their 1000m figures as the same as suppose the conditions were very favourable to produce power and speed, so who knows the right reason.
As I already said you I can garantee that there are situations expecially on turbo engines where the sum of an excellent engine under particular favourable conditions the times comes out amazing. That's within phisical limit but it's sure.
I was thinking also they used the mode of find 1000m numbers simply using two laser beams 1000 meters far one from the other like BM usually do, giving sense to a probably rollout to add. But honestly this theory collapse as soon as few acceleration numbers I found published in the article. So it wasn't just a distance reason. How can they found acceleration numbers with no any acceleration equipment?
Hope to be clear on all of that.

P.S. if you look at Autocar F1 road car test too, it doesn't was right 1000m 19.6, the sum of the two launches was more like 19.4.<

I have no clear why the F1 error is opposite, real distance was faster than published. The reasons could been due to an error on the sum of the two launches or just because applying the equipment at the side of the car, due to unknown reasons the eye read the surface by bending in the opposite direction? Who knows.

I generally support your suggestion of favorable conditions in the MOTOR test. Not so much because of the Turbo's acceleration result, which I don't think was great, but because the test took place in winter. Since the article was printed in August probably the test itself took place in June-July, which corresponds to December-January in our hemisphere. Most of Australia is dry cool weather at this time - perfect for this type of testing. Under these conditions I estimate trap speeds at 1000m for these cars to be around - 270-275 for F40, 250-255 for the Diablo, and 240-245 for the 959. I exclude the possibility that they may be higher for stock cars even if it was very cold, since at sub-zero temperatures there are more counteracting factors to increasing power, such as - worse tire traction at low speeds, more air resistance at high speeds, higher friction losses in the engine and transmission.
Speaking of the F40, if we assume that at the 400m mark the speed was ~215km/h and at the 1000m mark it was 270+, then those 600m should have been covered in about 8.7 seconds. We have previously estimated that with an acceleration of 3.9-7.8, acceleration to 160 should take about 190m. In this case, it turns out that acceleration from 160-215 takes 3.4 seconds and 210m, i.e. the average speed on this section should be ~222km/h.
The figures don't add up, which is why I get the impression of some error occured.
It is apparent that with minimal information about how the measurements were made we cannot judge the nature of the errors, nor can we be sure that there were any, but nevertheless it is interesting to speculate about it.
If the corrected figures at 1000m would be let's say:
F40 - 20.4
Diablo - 21.3
959 - 22.0
that would be plausible in my opinion, and very strong numbers for all three cars.

Everything you are saying is correct. I also support your theory. But there are a couple of aspects that I don't want that mislead the idea. First of all, the F1 was not so properly close, and a XJ220 prototype did at fact 20,34. If those cars were used as benchmark we must consider how both cars were pusched down. A customer F1 did 19 flat, running brand new engine, then the prototype could be surely well broken in, but for sure it was assembled as a really much heavier car. I don't know now, if the aspect of to be that slower in one km than a new F1 could be out of scale. Also out of scale, I don't think consider it faster than a prototype XJ220 as it was impossible. My question could be why. We have treated the case till the point that Jaguar had the possibility to run that chrono without cheating. It is normal that everyone thinks now what they believe in most. We will never know. At the same time was fun.

Speaking of the F40, if we assume that at the 400m mark the speed was ~215km/h and at the 1000m mark it was 270+, then those 600m should have been covered in about 8.7 seconds. We have previously estimated that with an acceleration of 3.9-7.8, acceleration to 160 should take about 190m. In this case, it turns out that acceleration from 160-215 takes 3.4 seconds and 210m, i.e. the average speed on this section should be ~222km/h.<

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15ucUXxMKD/

Let's look at BM F1. It did in the video 1000m 19.54s.
Trap speed 276 kph. Add rollout it became the result we are talking for, with exactly the trap speed you claims for the F40, just a bit higher.
Anyway don't warry. It's just to talk.

Yep, I remember we already treated that BM F1 test. Trap speed seem low.
Considering using XJ220 20.34 as a benchmark.
We already experienced that XJ220 #005 and #009 cars were enormously fast even with cats fitted. Could stock early F40 be faster at 1000m tested at favorable conditions, that's a question to think about. As I see Ferrari could be faster only at 160-240kph section or something closer to this region. Considering that more than a half of the 1000m distance covered at those speed range, F40 probably has a chance. But I won't be to optimistic on that.

Could stock early F40 be faster at 1000m tested at favorable conditions, that's a question to think about.

Looking at Auto Pur, it seems that the Ferrari it doesn't be faster than #009 prototype.

That's fair, but:
1. Seems like, as you said yourself, Jaguar engineers had to put extra effort into this.
2. Perhaps the F40 tested which showed 504 PS on the dyno wasn't the strongest representative, and probably less powerful than, for example, the AMUS car or Nick Mason's.

Seems like, as you said yourself, Jaguar engineers had to put extra effort into this.

I don't know really how facts goes. Using translator again it seems that they tested the cars on track and then connected the Pc to solve a relay fault just later. Who knows if they used the Pc connection to push into the Ecu.
The truth was that despite the higher weight the Jaguar closed 0-200 kph better than the 504PS Ferrari.

The same thing happens to Autocar with the XJ220 and Auto with the F40. They published respectively 20.6 and 20.8. They both were at corrected 21 or 21.1s. It seems like it was a fault of the Correvit system. If that is the theory, that's could be the reason.

It is curious to examine how Correvit works in the Auto test.

Until reaching 200 kph the device works fine, then there is a clear failure and the device starts to count the distance by 15-20% more than the actual one. Then after 240 kph there is a reverse fluctuation and Correvit indicates the distance less than actually traveled.

Interestingly enough, the acceleration in gears at the same time shows fairly correct figures all the way up to 260 kph. The only exception is 80-180 at 5th gear in 279.2m, but this is hardly a Correvit fault. Most likely just a typo or a miss, it should have been about 625m there.

Do you think it's a device fault or because something interferes in the correct detection of the eye?
As I researched the head of the equipment has a laser that take the speed, and an other sensor that take the distance. I know that the equipment should be applied to the vehicle in the right way looking at distance and perfect angle from the surface. I noticed that detection error more than one time. Usually it was noticetable at the end of long distance and high speed that's why I thought about the wind. Auto test had the distance traveled published so we can get how the system works and when it fault more accurately. It's interesting to know that in gear acceleration published by Auto, were high speed more accurate.

For the GPS accuracy I don't know. I own Vbox, I guess that accuracy depends on how connected the equipment to satellites and the number it is connected. Stronger the signal accurate the detection I suppose. The reasons why the test you linked me was fast on the distance and slow on trap speed I don't know. I'm the idea that also GPS could be wrong data if the connection was wrong. I guess that if device loose connection as had been in that case, system stores the last position received, and from there comes the wrong publised data, who knows. I always noticed that Autocar published a very fast 170 mph at the end of the standing km for its Zonda test. I am always torn on that detection because of a typo or to be a detection error, like the system detected it faster. How it take the last connection in a wrong place, further ahead than the car was.

I was looking to try a roughly estimation of #009 power using the corrected figure of the Ferrari with Auto Pur figure. Lol.
Given that figures should come out from the same place. Low gears of both cars were very close, just an important difference of weight. Power figure estimated confirmed all that said.

Do you think it's a device fault or because something interferes in the correct detection of the eye?

I don't know this equipment well enough to draw conclusions, to be honest. It seems that the emitters and photocell were fine, otherwise the testers would have noticed it. Judging by the correct acceleration to 200 and in the gears, the device was calibrated properly. Probably your theory about the equipment application geometry being out of alignment may be the most acceptable. But, I really don't know much about such measurement tools.

Had another look at the comparison I did earlier. This is a comparo of the acceleration in gears of the XJ220 calculation model based on the Parnagian car dyno and the real #007 car test.
Do you think that the power deviations at the end of acceleration in 4th and 5th gear are caused by turbos get overheated?
So after 45-50 seconds of active operation, the turbos overheat and the power drops?
It's apparent that #005, #009 and Bruntingthorpe cars haven't such issues...

It would seem so. Phisical variations based on how rules of turbos are heating or cooling is difficult to estabilish in my opinion. We have to start from a fixed point: factory engine power claimed are figures the engine deliver when overstressed and overheated. The reason why when the turbocharged system is colder engine develop more power. Obviously during the engine delivery dyno at the factory the test must be done under stable temperatures but under very hot overstessed work of the turbos. When a turbo engine will operate for long, then is said the power will decrease. About Autocar, they tested it at temperatue of 18 C deg so it's evident the system is still cooling fine. I can't help you saying more than that. We must remember that Autocar did power curves very stable between gears, your dyno said so, it seems that the main acceleration run started when turbos and all the system were already hotter than the car at Bruntingthorpe, #005 and #009 too.
Let's say that we have summarized what has always been said.

But infact that was the message I wanted to send you when we treated Rombo test, i.e every single test is different at high speed due to how turbocharged engine react to cooling the air by the intercoolers and how heat the turbochargers.

I will try to explain me better. Starting the launch, colder the turbo are, will better for deliver more power. At speed, it's more a question of balance between lowering temperatures, air out of the turbos and then air out of the intercoolers. It seems to me that there are some tests were temperatures were well balanced cooling for longer time. Better than other tests.

Made power graphs for the AMUS and C&D tests of the Fast Masters series car. There are a few things that I found unusual.

First off all are the gear ratios of the AMUS car. Presumably it started it's life as pre-production car #006, i.e. very close chronologically to car #007 that Autocar tested, yet they have different gear ratios. And it also seems (not sure if this could really be the case) different ignition advance angle settings, the engine of the AMUS car seems stronger at low rpm (80-120 kph in 7 seconds flat in 5th gear, while the Autocar would apparently be 7.5-7.7 seconds, while AMUS car being heavier and with a taller gear), and obviously inferior at mid-range. I had previously seen these gear ratios (3.0-1.95-1.46-1.13-0.91-2.88) in a promo booklet featuring the silver car, but it stated that the specification isn't final and may vary on customer cars. So initially I thought that AMUS had made a mistake in specifying pre-production gear ratios, but looking at the measured speeds on gears of the AMUS and Autocar cars it seems probably about right:
AMUS #006 - 2.88 x 0.91 - 1000 rpm - 48.8 kph
Autocar #007 - 3.36 x 0.85 - 1000 rpm - 45.1 kph
The AMUS car showed a peak power of about 330 kW at the wheels when accelerating in third, which corresponds to about 530 PS at the flywheel in my opinion. As for the supposedly measured top speed of 347 kph by AMUS (not very believable), calculationally this would require about 395 kW@7100 of power at the wheels. At the same time we know for sure that the same particular car hit 340.7 km/h at Ehra-Lessien a little later, it would have required 375 kW@7000 at the wheels to do so.
As for the Fast Masters car 290 kW on wheels I don't even know how to comment. Adverse weather conditions and perhaps low octane fuel used?

I don't know that 8200 number came from, but it can't be correct.

The 959 book I bought is here. It said that 8200 rpm was the mechanical limiter.

There are a few things that I found unusual:

I think that #006 engine was built as it was a "baseline". Are you saying 530 HP or 530 PS? This is a low figure delivered by this engine. Do you think because of cam, ingnition or injection timing or due to running in was maybe at the beghinning?
I hope that engine was at least 540 PS able to deliver.

No, 290 kw was very bad. Yes sure a combination of hot day (it was said in the article and very low rating of gas. Maybe their Ron 87.

The 959 book I bought is here. It said that 8200 rpm was the mechanical limiter.

Well, this is interesting. The owner's manual states a maximum permitted speed of 7600 rpm, it's a bit odd that the fuel cutoff occur only 600 rpm later. We'll, OK, knowing it's a racing engine it definitely can rev)

In any case judging by the power curve it makes no sense to rev this engine to 8000.

I think that #006 engine was built as it was a "baseline". Are you saying 530 HP or 530 PS? This is a low figure delivered by this engine. Do you think because of cam, ingnition or injection timing or due to running in was maybe at the beghinning?
I hope that engine was at least 540 PS able to deliver.

It's a tricky question. It accelerated to 340 kph, so its max power according to my estimates should be around 590-600 PS. I find this engine powerful but not quite working properly. The R&T article claims that compared to the reserve new XJ220 the power delivery was uneven, in short sudden bursts, and the motor was making more noise. It was said that after fixing a leak in the cooling system, the engine was damaged and the car didn't accelerate faster than 200mph, but I think it could have been that there were mechanical problems already during the AMUS test.
The acceleration figures give us an average smooth power curve, but perhaps it's more of a hedgehog's back with peaks up to 350kW and dips to 310, and closer to high revs individual peaks of 370-375kW. There are some serious torque holes though, judging by the trap speed at 1000m, the car doesn't accelerate very confidently in 4th gear either.

Interesting to know what do you think about the gear ratios and the AMUS car low revs pulling?

Sure, there are no reasons to revs a turbo engine that high. Attacched pictures of the short article I found on the book.

Concerning the red metallic XJ220 I never considerer it like a benchmark, I always neglected it.
I think that final ratio was the set rated at 3,36:1 as the definitive. I mean, choose for the production (I want to see my onwer manual what's say).
You are maybe right, at regard of the low revs pulling. It's possible that engine was built with a slightly different distribution timing? It's strange that it expresses so much uncertainty revving high.

Officially the 959 (Comfort) was claimed at:
0-100 kph 3.9
0-200 kph 14.3

So I guess that R&T performance were not that bad, expecially for the Comfort version.
Motor's jump to 100 kph and 0-160 kph remains doubtious.I don't think you will be indifferent. Reading the article was written that the testers pusched the car up to 270 kph at Anglesea Prouving Groud that I have to verify if there was all the room to launch a 959 till that speed so easy before to brake for the left hander. A 959 that trap 1000 meters 255 kph will be much faster on distance related to speed compared to a 959 that trap 240 kph. The article said that they peacked the first four gears and than hard in 5th. So they had the room to launch it to 270 and brake to the corner in one of the long straights starting, it seems from zero.
There are a couple of 1200 meters long straights at Anglesea, joined by two bends. I don't know if all these details will helps us.

The acceleration figures give us an average smooth power curve, but perhaps it's more of a hedgehog's back with peaks up to 350kW and dips to 310, and closer to high revs individual peaks of 370-375kW.

Let me understand, at the end it peacks 375 kw? yes?

Officially the 959 (Comfort) was claimed at:
0-100 kph 3.9
0-200 kph 14.3

Yep, I've seen that. I suppose Porsche was a bit conservative with this number.
However R&T test numbers weren't bad, C&D was something close.

Let me understand, at the end it peacks 375 kw? yes?

According to calculation it is what needed to achieve 340.7 kph at Ehra-Lessien

There are a couple of 1200 meters long straights at Anglesea, joined by two bends. I don't know if all these details will helps us.

After reading the article I have in impression that they had 2km straight before the left-hander. Did I misunderstood something?

I think that final ratio was the set rated at 3,36:1 as the definitive. I mean, choose for the production (I want to see my onwer manual what's say).
You are maybe right, at regard of the low revs pulling. It's possible that engine was built with a slightly different distribution timing?

Maybe I should recalculate the power curves with the standard XJ220 gear ratios in mind.
Although to be honest I wouldn't want to believe that AMUS made a mistake in case of gear ratios. They are a respected automotive publication known for their German pedantry, and from what I understand they have had the car in their possession for quite some time. Strange if they really haven't sorted it out...
Do you happen to know anyone involved in the original design and production of the XJ220? Would be curious to know more about the life of the #006 prototype. How much rework did it undergo after the 25,000 mile durability test? Was the red car from Germany really a pre-production #006? (According to the information in your book it was originally RHD green and after the rebuild a metallic red LHD?). Were there nuances in the different cams timing distribution and gear ratios in the early prototypes and pre-production cars?

After reading the article I have in impression that they had 2km straight before the left-hander. Did I misunderstood something?

The article said so. At fact straights are about 1200 meters checking with GoogleHeart.

Do you happen to know anyone involved in the original design and production of the XJ220? Would be curious to know more about the life of the #006 prototype. How much rework did it undergo after the 25,000 mile durability test? Was the red car from Germany really a pre-production #006? (According to the information in your book it was originally RHD green and after the rebuild a metallic red LHD?). Were there nuances in the different cams timing distribution and gear ratios in the early prototypes and pre-production cars?

Unfortunately I have not any known to close person involved in the XJ220 project. I agree oon all your questions; concerning gears reatio, I always noticed that discrepancy of data published, I already said you the idea I'm more inclined to think. Also I think that AMS was not prone to mistake. Concerning cams distribution timing I think it will be more a reason of the single engine and the modality the engine builder did it. On the rest, non need to project different cams, it's enough just a little variance of timing angles that engine change character.

According to the information in your book it was originally RHD green and after the rebuild a metallic red LHD?

That's it will be interesting to know or just to clear. There will be a reason behind the fact that car was German registred. A change of destiny at birth?

It's full length is 4.2 km, so straight can't be 2km. 1200 m seems correct.

https://aarconline.com/research-and-development/tracks-and-facilities/highway-circuit/

It's not obvious in the article that it's talking about acceleration from a standing still in my opinion. Does the article seem to imply that they hit 260 in a previous to highest gear? (they said "fifth", but a bit earlier said 240 kph on "sixth")
Another interesting detail is that the article claims that they accelerated the 959 to 200 kph in "a bit over 12 seconds". 12.x to 200 is very fast for a Komfort model.

Yes I agree, reading it again it seems not so clear if they did acceleration from standing still but there are a couple of overwhelming details. That's my opinion.

As far as I get, they did the first straight and the saw 240 on the speedo in 6th gear, so easily. Later, on the back straight they hit 270 in 5th gear (closer to 7600 or 7800 rpm here?). But here Colin was saying they "peaked the first four gears", he also said "we accelerate hard again" like if they did stopped for the launch to 270, it seems it was the time they did their time on 0-1000m there. What does mean saying that, if they were running 5th or 6th gear already?

I'm not very lucky with translations, but the article was saying that all the three cars were able to top over 300 kph, and they all reached two thirds of their top speed in a bit over 12 seconds. I'm honest not sure on that because of the tricky meaning so I don't use that as sure benchmark because also data were not published.

There are two details not be be underestimated but tricky, but one was highly comprensible, one the fact Colin was peaking starting from the first gear and acceleratin hard again; the second detail and tricky, it was meaning at 2/3 of their top speed?

What is really sure the story is told in the article, and surely they take their chrono in the meantime they drove them.

They said 2/3 of THAT speed, not top speed.

Yes, each capable of more than 300 kph. Does that means 200 kph or more? it's like a play on words.

This mean each car capable of accelerating to 200 kph in a bit over 12 seconds. It's an easy thing for the F40, but quite a task for Diablo and 959.

Ok, but why they were each car capable to 200 in a bit over 12s, and then, one km 21.6 and down to 19.9, the other? They should have been closer at 1000m time. Or just as if it was taken 960m. Or F40 and Diablo are curiously typos. This thesys will say us that published 1000m were mistaken and unpublished data were right. That's really courious.

As I understand it, the phrase "each car capable of accelerating to 200 kph in a bit over 12 seconds", doesn't mean that all 3 cars accelerate to 200 kph in, say, 12.2 seconds, but it means the slowest of the 3 accelerate to 200 kph in 12.2.
For example, if we say all McLarens were capable to reach 200 kph in a bit over 9 seconds, it doesn't mean that F1, P1, 570S and others are equal in acceleration.
Hopefully I expressed it clear.

"...but it means the slowest of the 3 accelerate to 200 kph in 12.2."

Yep. The reason why I introduced a question of favourable conditions, from the beghinning. A 959 that closed 100-200 kph in less than 8s. Mostly 160-200 kph less than 4s means that numbers could have been fast that day, in my opinion. Fast enough to allows a 959 Comfort to produce faster numbers over 100 kph than usually done by a Sport. I don't think to say something wrong.

If the car was launched in the right way, it could have closed the 1000m in about 1 second faster than the Comfort did in the R&T test (it did 22.2) as conditions allows those kind of acceleration that day. Hope to be comprensible.

And because we have nothing more in hand, nothing more than this. All of that confirm IN MY opinion an high probability, that day conditions AFFECTED numbers of all the three cars very highly. But I repeat, this is just to talk.

I cannot exclude that Correvit equipment doesn't works fine at the 1000 meters distance, sometimes it does. But we can say that a 959 Comfort that closed it at 22 flat, it doesn't have done 200 kph in a bit over 12s. It would be different! This does confirm for the 959 test, the equipment works fine.

Unless the equipment had a fault during F40 an Diablo test, my thesys is just to say those conditions allows a 959 Comfort to be faster than a Sport. That's a lot.

Sorry for writing off topic, but as I can see you are very well informed about the characteristics of many sports cars, do you by any chance have any information about the enzo fxx? such as 0-200, 100-200 time, speed on any circuit straights, or its review in any publications, I managed to get some information, but unfortunately it is very little, thank you for your attention :)

Hello,
source from a friend involved in Fiat Group at that period.
FXX internal factory test:
0 - 100 km/h in 2"9
0 - 200 km/h in 7"8
0 - 300 km/h in 20"
Top speed 320 km/h at the limiter.
That's what I know.

I think I can guess what kind of person we are talking about now, he was an active user of one forum, I didn't know that he really had such a close relationship with the automotive industry, I wonder on what track the 0-300 time was recorded, it looks pretty slow for a car with such power and weight, I also wonder how big the difference will be with the 2008 evo package, thank you)

I think the reason you are referring on its 300 kph time could be due to the high CxS related on the downforce.

If the car was launched in the right way, it could have closed the 1000m in about 1 second faster than the Comfort did in the R&T test (it did 22.2) as conditions allows those kind of acceleration that day.

I built the theory just thinking behind at that point. Honestly I don't know if it's phisically possible due to weather conditions variance, but that seems happened that a 959 Comfort could be faster than how a Sport perform. If you ask me to calculate probability or just why that happened, my answer will be, I don't know. Think about the Motor's 959 400m speed trap: it will be ~196 kph? ~ 198 kph?
That's quite really fast for a car that averaged something around 190 kph or less (R&T managed 192 with the Sport).
And if the 959 has this kind of on the roll performance, my ask is, why can't be with the other two? It"s evident is that IF that day was particulary ideal to the air to produce power and to slip away, all of the three would have had such increases in the dynamics of the result.

That's the Bugatti EB110 by CarGraphic for comparison.
The car was launched fine, and it trapped 251 after 1 km.
The 0-200 kph was 12.1, the time get down to 21 flat. Just to say that Motor's 959 could the able to get down 21.2 if launched in the right way.

What about Diablo?

The Diablo we have just a couple of numbers. 0-100 kph, 0-1000m.
A rougly reason could be the sum of the conditions + maybe decatted. What do you think?
I don't think just conditions helps in that way being N/A engine.
I have a couple of SE30 test and Jota. Need baseline power to a 2WD Diablo to reach 20.8 also helped by conditions (Gente Motori magazine hit 21.2 with a SE30).
I want to add that very early 2wd Diablos (I own two, a 2wd and a VT) were light cars, and the most important detail, thery were very low drag compared to the limited versions that they were weighed down by aerodynamic utility, like wings, spoilers, larger front fenders, air scopes and so on.
Furthermore early 2wd Diablos were light due to, built spartan, no powersteering, little Ate brake calipers, no electronic sunspensions system, no carbon engine bay panels, etcetera. Not for last, their engine was usually strong. Not sure because, but a reason could be due that early catalyst units provided were less restrictive by internal cells by legislative rules than the units produced and provided later? Who knows.
Early claims from Lamborghini was a standing 1000m 20.7s. I looked behind the prototype, it was tested at Nardò (named as last version of P132 test mule) and I found a lot of details, to then conclude that 1000m time was unusual for production cars. Production cars were slower. Prototype P132 car was like all the others mules being it, it was very powerful and built as not as definitive. Evidently it was also lighter.
But, to achieve the 20.8 that seemed Motor found, it might be just enough to be more powerful than SE or SV produced later. Then, add favourable conditions and the game is done.

Gente Motori magazine hit 21.2 with a SE30)

Here the test published in the magazine September 1994 of the SE30.
The car was slower than the Jota at the beghinning of the launch, obviously the Jota kit produced more power, then it became faster due to the lack of the airscope? So Jota was powerful but provide higher drag at the same time? Who knows, maybe yes. Both cars hit 333 kph. Maybe Jota was just sligthtly powerful than the SE30.

Anyway I'm not surprised if a powerful low drag 2wd car will be 20.8 looking at the SE30 if the engine was strong and weather was favourable. We'll get there. It must not make any mistakes. That's for sure.
SE30 engine was claimed 525 PS but it was known that it deliver more like 540. So if decatting an early Diablo engine, then the weight improve and power will be there.

I agree with you, there's no arguing with what you write. But when so many unlikely factors occur together it usually seems suspicious to me. On the other hand, a chain of unlikely events led to the fact that life appeared on earth and that our dialog with you became possible here:) So we can't completely rule out the possibility that all three cars traveled 1000 meters that fast.
I think what I'll do is this. I'm going to do a calculation of the acceleration of each of these cars at about 0 deg and high air pressure. Then I will try to add more power until I get the numbers that are given or casually mentioned in the article. Then we can estimate how much these figures will differ from the factory stated output.

Well done. It could be the only way to go much CLOSER as possible at that situation.

The analisys of the 959 will be enough for us.

I'm not here to say that test was a benchmark. I have my doubts too.

This teach us how the role of phisical laws.

Later I will show you another EXAMPLE of wide variance.

Interesting conclusion with the S to Comfort and the 0.5/0.8/1.3 differences. Looks all in line to me.
I have taken some of my time to conclude some of my car stats what I believe these are capable of, maybe this can help you out to some degree:

1986 Porsche 959 Comfort (450 PS)
0-100: 4.1s --> 160: 8.8s --> 200: 14.1s --> 250: 27.4s --> 300: 58.0s --> Theoretical VMAX: 314 kph --> Weight: 1.485kg

1986 Porsche 959 Sport (450 PS)
0-100: 3.9s --> 160: 8.4s --> 200: 13.4s --> 250: 26.1s --> 300: 55.4s --> Theoretical VMAX: 317 kph --> Weight: 1.485kg

1988 Porsche 959 S (515 PS)
0-100: 3.7s --> 160: 7.9s --> 200: 12.5s --> 250: 24.0s --> 300: 50.3s --> Theoretical VMAX: 334 kph --> Weight: 1.520kg (depends on the source)
///////////
As for the Diablo, I think it should go like this (it's some older stats so these might be inaccurate):
///////////
1993 Lamborghini Diablo SE30 (525 PS):
0-100: 4.1s --> 160: 8.2s --> 200: 12.4s --> 250: 21.6s --> 300: 41.6s --> VMAX: 330+ kph --> Weight: 1.450kg

1995 Lamborghini Diablo SE30 Jota (596 PS):
0-100: 3.9s --> 160: 7.5s --> 200: 11.1s --> 250: 18.4s --> 300: 32.1s --> Theoretical VMAX: 340 kph --> Weight: 1.450kg

I'd give you my info on the EB but I'm not there yet

One other example of wide varince was obviously the Bugatti EB110.
We all knows that the car was tested by many mags, and it was hammering the standing 1000m a bit over 21.

AMS 21.3
SAF 21.2
CG 21.0

https://www.autotitre.com/forum/diapos.php#6d7c20ba26.jpg

It was known that EB110 was homologated at Nardo, with that kind of numbers.

https://www.autotitre.com/forum/diapos.php#40c713f16b.jpg
http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/39006.htm

The problem wasn't the fact that car nr 25 did 19.9 at Gente Motori test.
Engine was evidently misteriosly switched with a SS powerplant or just upgrated to SS specs by the factory during press test period.
"With a little malice, Bugatti has modified the engine with the Supersport ECU specifications to boost the performance level."

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/EB110_GT/GT025.htm

https://www.autotitre.com/forum/diapos.php#a45ca0a916.jpg

The car was said to be able of 20.2 when the SS powerplants they still had to develop it.
This article was referred during GT development.
That's a yearbook.

Just to say that untill we desn't enter into detail, the Gente Motori test will been happeared like a typo. The ballasted car during homologation test with 20.7 will be happeared as the fastest of the cars
tested. Unlikely. They were launched GT cars at 20.2 already. Press was constatly over 21. We can't know behind that 20.2 but surely a SS powerplant that wasn't. It's evident that early cars maybe like prototypes GT 005 (the car pictured) or GT 006 were able to provide those acceleration numbers. But those cars were mechanically definite already. I personally know well GT 005 last summer and it's 99% a production car. Just slightly different on few details but engine was an already constantly produced 550 PS powerplant. Evident that also here conditions had a main role to achieve those chrono.

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/39005.htm

One second variance it's a lot on the 1000m distance, but seems it's a common variable looking at the examples treated untill now.

Yes, the EB110 is also interesting to take a closer look. Apparently the weights and acceleration capabilities of these cars were very different. It looks like some cars were particularly fast, on the other hand in the Autocar test, for example, the results were very poor.

The analisys of the 959 will be enough for us

With the 959 I have a bit of a problem so far. The fast Komfort, which hits 100-160 and 160-200, in about 4,0 seconds both, goes 1000m significantly faster than in 21.6 seconds. It seems the level of engine power output after 200kph decreases for some reason.

Kerb weight was usually around 1790 kgs.
During the Nardò test GT006 was ballasted at 1850 kg, they said adding a theoretical weight of a passenger and baggage. Maybe GT006 was lighter, pictures shows they used racing seats on it. Autocar usually used a different method to weight cars, maybe a question of fuel amount. When Bugatti was using testing GT005 & GT006 cars and developing, car GT008, the early SS development prototype, was just an idea. I exclude SS develop engine on the very early cars.
I recently bought the Trucco book of the Bugatti History. Very early honeycomb alluminium chassis EB110 engines were very courious, it seems the engine was delivering these figures at respectively rpm:
300PS @3000rpm
307PS @3800rpm
427PS @6000rpm
550PS @8500rpm
Limiter @9000rpm
I guess GT005 & GT006 engines were not far than this. GT008 engine Bugatti claims 600 PS for the first time

The reason of fast 959 power fluctances you are saying me I'm inclined to say because of heating. Anyway that said can give us addressed clues on how their turbo engines works that day.

0-30mph 2.1 sec
0-60mph 4.5 sec
0-100mph 9.6 sec
0-150mph 23.2 sec
30-70mph 3.3 sec
0-400m 12.8 @ 115
0-1000m 22.9 @ 150
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 3.9 / 5.7
40-60mph in 4th/5th 4.9 / 6.8
50-70mph in 5th 7 sec
60-0mph 2.8 sec
Top speed 212 mph

This Autocar number for EB110GT brifly seems like less than 500 hp

This Autocar number for EB110GT brifly seems like less than 500 hp

Maybe a poor engine delivered, tested on poor conditions :))

Here is a general graph for visual understanding. Simulation conditions -3 degrees, 1025 MPa:

Further I would like to comment on each auto individually.
959. Car mass for calculation took 1590 kg, because the specified 1450 is too low, probably meant dry. The car starts well (0-60 in 2.3 sec), switches to the second shortly before reaching 100 km/h. Further confidently accelerates on the 2nd and 3rd gear developing peak power on wheels up to 314 kW, overcomes 400 meters in 11.98 sec (199.1 km/h). Then in 4th gear the power drops noticeably to about 270 kW at the wheels (peak). 1000 m is covered in 21.55 sec (248.0 km/h). 1100m - 23.0 sec, 253.1 km/h. 1200 m - 24.4 sec, 255.6 km/h.
Diablo. The car's weight for the calculation was taken as 1556 kg. 1656 kg looks too big a figure for an early RWD Diablo, and calculating with that mass would have produced too much power (closer to 570). The Lambo hooks well at the start (0-60 in 2.4 sec), shifts into second just after 100 km/h, hits 160 km/h in 8.0, 200 km/h in 11.1 sec, 400 meters in 11.89@207. In 3rd and 4th gears, it develops peak power of 347 kW at the wheels, and eventually covers a standing kilometer in 20.84 sec at 266.4 km/h. Diablo with that kind of power accelerates to 300 km/h in just over 30 seconds and can hit 340 km/h. (More like a Murcielago to be honest).
F40. Good start in 1st gear (0-60 in 2.1). Then I tried different scenarios to explain the relatively weak acceleration on 100-160 section, and the most plausible one I choose was an exessive wheelspin in 2nd gear and a very early shift to 3rd. In this case 0-100 is good for 3.9, 0-160 for 7.8. Further after sluggish pick-up at the beginning of the 3rd gear on 160 kph turbines are fully spun up and the car simply shoots out as from a slingshot:
0-200 - 10.5 seconds
0-250 - 14,4 sec
0-300 - 22.1 sec
0-320 - 27.7 sec
400m - 11.58 sec 215.6 km/h.
1000m - 19.94 sec 288.4 km/h.
In this case, in 4th gear, the F40 develops 430 kW average at the wheels, and 436 kW peak.
Estimated after adjusting for normal pressure and temperature of 20 degrees, the maximum power at the crank turns out to be:
959 Komfort - 485 PS (+7.8% from factory)
Diablo - 530 PS (+7,7% from the factory)
F40 - 654 PS (+36.8% from the factory!)

Thanks for your calculations. What need to say. 959 and Diablo are considerably within their possibility. The F40 seems completely out. My considerations are different evidently using another kind of power/torque curves, you know I don't use calculations but my theory said me that it could be that delivering lot of torque and around 600 PS that day.
Just to explain, my view was more like:
0-60 ~2.0
0-100 3.9
0-160 7.8
0-200 ~10.2
0-250 ~15.0
0-280 ~19.9
400m ~11.4
1000m ~19.9
As it was running and wheelspinning like a Michelotto N/GT car that day, but it was not over 280 at trap speed.
N/GT F40s were delivering more like 590 PS when overboosting (yes I'm saying overboosting). Michelotto claimed his NGT cars as 0-100 4.0; 1000m 19.6 able. Motor's 19.9 is there close.
I'm trying to evaluate your view but it throws me off a bit! Looking at my elasped times considering with your Sportec numbers calculated, we are in the 600's region. Maybe the conditions we have used to calculate aren't accurate?
I think we need to look better at why, in any case it was overboosting so much.

In my opinion CLK GTR was rappresentative, too:
0-100 3.8
0-200 9.9
1000m 19.8
CLK GTR was much heavier and delivering in the region of mid low 600's PS.

400m - 11.58 sec 215.6 km/h.

In my view the car should be further ahead than 400m. It's more like 0-400m 11.4; 0-1000m 20 flat.

I think we need to look better at why, in any case it was overboosting so much.

The reasons why it was overboosting that high maybe was because valve was that way calibrated or because some conditions affected its function to overcontrol. I have not so clear that point about that particular day. Wastegate nut was setted as usually factory does looking at the engine bay picture, so the car seems not as main turbocharged elements were alterated to gave more boost. I'm inclined to think the second reason because 959 didn't had that extra spin having no that high overboosting function. Anyway all of that will never push as high as momentary 650PS.. It will be more a question of momentary higher torque.

The problem with this valve is becasue usually works more uncontrolled than explained in the manual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X07KHbIAQ7E

959 and Diablo are considerably within their possibility

I'm not sure about that. The extra 35-40 PS could be a result of installing a sport exhaust without catalysts, but we know the cars were standard. I also have a question about the Lambo factory claim of a 20.7-second at 1000m. It's probably was measured on some sort of lightweight and/or power-enhanced prototype.

Just to explain, my view was more like:
0-60 ~2.0
0-100 3.9
0-160 7.8
0-200 ~10.2
0-250 ~15.0
0-280 ~19.9
400m ~11.4
1000m ~19.9

This could be the case if 0-160 was 7.3-7.4 seconds. Relatively slow acceleration in the 100-160 section results in a worse 400m time and therefore more acceleration required after 160 to get to 19.9 at 1000m. For your information, if we eliminate the problems with power delivery in 2nd gear in the calculation, we get 0-160 in 7.2, 0-200 in about 9 flat and 1000m in 19.7. That's about the figures of a 660PS 288GTO Evo, even though the Evo is also much lighter. If you look closely at 160-200 in 2.4 seconds in your estimate it also says about 700PS under given conditions, or about 650 when converted to normal.
I own a freelogic device for measuring dynamic characteristics, I have often compared the measured data with my calculations and have come to the conclusion that the difference is usually no more than 0.5%. At the same time, the calculated values are usually slightly higher than the readings of the device. I don't know if it is the error of calculations or specificity of measurements via GPS, but it exists. However, once again, the difference isn't big.

The extra 35-40 PS could be a result of installing a sport exhaust without catalysts, but we know the cars were standard. I also have a question about the Lambo factory claim of a 20.7-second at 1000m. It's probably was measured on some sort of lightweight and/or power-enhanced prototype.

Sure as already said.

This could be the case if 0-160 was 7.3-7.4 seconds. Relatively slow acceleration in the 100-160 section results in a worse 400m time and therefore more acceleration required after 160 to get to 19.9 at 1000m.

I totally agree but times on the distance are usaully affected also by the launch from zero. No need to argue this thing with you. If the time got worse to 100-160, but then the car was better launched, distance result will be different. It must be enought a tenth down to 40 kph becasue of the improve surface or the clutch friction than another run, and the distance time will be improved.
I mean, we cannot be so accurate on a 400m distance untill we don't have even a minimal number on how hard the car was launched with just a 100-160 time on hand.
Only approximate.

If you look closely at 160-200 in 2.4 seconds in your estimate it also says about 700PS under given conditions, or about 650 when converted to normal.

That's really the most interesting aspect to argue, in my opinion. Why that high figure?.

Surey that engine wasn't a built 650 ps unit, 600 was high too.
Things were two:
- measurement equipment fault.
- uncontrolled overboosting car delivered from the factory.

This could be the case if 0-160 was 7.3-7.4 seconds. Relatively slow acceleration in the 100-160 section results in a worse 400m time and therefore more acceleration required after 160 to get to 19.9 at 1000m.

The example below are explaining what I'm saying.

Both the Enzo and the Ruf CTR2 did 11.4 on the 400 meters. Both cars hit 100 kph in 3.6s. The 0-200 differ from more than 1 second.
The Ferrari trapped 212 kph, the Ruf trapped less than 200.
How is possible the Ruf did exactly the same Enzo's time on the 400m distance?
That's what I means. Evidently the Ruf was much more effective when it was launched from zero.

Looking at the 1000m time, look how well it holds up to speed. It seems the Ruf closed just 1 tenth later.
That's the evidence that sometimes road test made by different magazines on different cars, on different testing methods they can have logical incompatibilities, but there could been also reasons.

Difference here it seems that unless of an error the Ruf was working fine launching 4th and 5th gear, recovering to the point of trapping closer to Ferrari speed. All that with a lot less power than the Ferrari.
To evidence that Turbo engines can do these things, expecially under certain conditions.

Thing that seems didn't happened during AMS test.
Tell me if these things aren't funny.

That's why I evidence you the Motor's test to be analyzed deeply.

I'm sure you will find the same hard compatibility simulating this car fluctuances.

Difference here it seems that unless of an error the Ruf was working fine launching 4th and 5th gear, recovering to the point of trapping closer to Ferrari speed. All that with a lot less power than the Ferrari.

Could you please specify what speed at 1000m Ruf showed? I can't see in the scans you provided. It is known that Rufs are often underrated, but still, I highly doubt it can get close to 280 km/h.

How is possible the Ruf did exactly the same Enzo's time on the 400m distance?
That's what I means. Evidently the Ruf was much more effective when it was launched from zero.

That's true, but it could be also a combination of factors. It seems that near the end of the 400m before reaching 200km/h, Ruf makes a gear change and this reduces the trap speed somewhat. As for the launch, yes, one would assume that a rear-engined Ruf would be able to hook better than an Enzo, but F40 has its limits in that regard. In my simulation, I already considered a very good start for the F40. Under the same conditions it started better than the AWD 959, which is not supposed to happen.

Looking at the 1000m time, look how well it holds up to speed. It seems the Ruf closed just 1 tenth later.
That's the evidence that sometimes road test made by different magazines on different cars, on different testing methods they can have logical incompatibilities, but there could been also reasons.

There is also a nuance of rounding. If let's say Ruf showed 20.24 sec and Enzo 20.05, at the 1000m mark it's about 15m between them, which in principle is not that much, but fairly noticeable. Also, I don't know about the SAF, but some magazines, without paying attention to the math, blatantly round down the time at the distance, i.e. 20.29 in their books is also 20.2.

Things were two:
- measurement equipment fault.
- uncontrolled overboosting car delivered from the factory.

In this case, the former seems most likely.
Do you have any other articles from this Australian publication where measurements were made? Curious if their acceleration numbers are always this strong?
The article kinda says they've previously tested this particular Diablo. I'd be curious to see the numbers to see if this particular specimen is really that strong.

Looks like this issue:

However, it was probably only drive review without testing.

Could you please specify what speed at 1000m Ruf showed? I can't see in the scans you provided. It is known that Rufs are often underrated, but still, I highly doubt it can get close to 280 km/h.

Unfotunately it didn't showed the trap speed. It said just it did 255 kph after 1km starting in 4th gear from 50 kph, time 23.3s. This does not seems it was slow, looking at the F40 ingear comparison. Obviously this data could be just a partial proof.

That's true, but it could be also a combination of factors. It seems that near the end of the 400m before reaching 200km/h, Ruf makes a gear change and this reduces the trap speed somewhat. As for the launch, yes, one would assume that a rear-engined Ruf would be able to hook better than an Enzo, but F40 has its limits in that regard. In my simulation, I already considered a very good start for the F40. Under the same conditions it started better than the AWD 959, which is not supposed to happen.

Also can be true. It can't be denied.
The Ruf was the same car that R&T tested, infact under that situation the car trapperd higher. You know, R&T doesn't used 1000 meters distance, but in my point of view it should do well.

There is also a nuance of rounding. If let's say Ruf showed 20.24 sec and Enzo 20.05, at the 1000m mark it's about 15m between them, which in principle is not that much, but fairly noticeable. Also, I don't know about the SAF, but some magazines, without paying attention to the math, blatantly round down the time at the distance, i.e. 20.29 in their books is also 20.2.

If we take count of rounding this does became more complicate but Yes. Here you can have a different point of view than the mine and vice versa. Also difficult to know how exactly magazines are taking rounding their figures. That's the reason why my approach to number is more like to be very variable if a test figure could be done or not. Obviously within a limit. I have learned to be compliant when faced with numbers ,you noticed it,but I didn't feel bad.

In this case, the former seems most likely.
Do you have any other articles from this Australian publication where measurements were made? Curious if their acceleration numbers are always this strong?
The article kinda says they've previously tested this particular Diablo. I'd be curious to see the numbers to see if this particular specimen is really that strong.

I own a couple of these Australian magazine, one is showing a test made with Correvit applied to an Escort Cosworth, 400m was done in 13.8, trap speed 155 kph, 0-100 kph 5.4. Our Italian road test were sligtly slower starting from initial data. The car did over 14 to 14.5 in our road test, starting to 100 around 6.

Please I don't want to pass as a party pooper! I'm just arguing this strange or close to limit road tests done around. Otherwise I didn't posted them :) Look at that Motor16 test made at a Diablo SV. Paradoxically it was made by the same magazine did a XJ220 test, and at the same time it seems had compatibility with figures done by RWD Diablo tested by Motor.
0-100 kph 4s
0-1000m 20.4s
These chronos were the fastest numbers I found for a Diablo, faster than numbers made with powerful Diablos.