• Welcome to the ElgrandOC forum.

    You will find that the majority of the forum is locked, but do not worry. You can unlock more content by registering to the forum completely free. Sign up is automatic, does not require email confirmation and is instant. Feel free to browse through the sections to see what topics have been covered before you register.
    You can register for an account by CLICKING HERE

    Once you have registered, you will unlock more of the forum content. You will not unlock all of the content until you have reached 10 posts. This is to give you an opportunity to chat to existing members and help to integrate you into the forum community.
    We are a friendly and helpful community and there is a wealth of infomation contained within the forum. Please feel free to register, introduce yourself and get to know your fellow members.

    Feel free to look at the Frequently Asked Questions section, the Meets/Events section and the Competition Section without having to register.
    We look forward to getting to know you and help you with any questions or problemd you have with your Elgrand.

Elgrand E51 Top Speed

  • Thread starter Thread starter braedach
  • Start date Start date
Andyzz said:
Well perhaps you got a slow one being a brick won't have any effect on 0 to 60 times
Click to expand...

Aero plays a huge part. That's why sports cars are low and have a low co drag, otherwise they would make them big and square and more comfortable, Mines no slower than any other standard one but that still doesn't make it fast.

I guess it all comes down to what your perception is and what you're used to driving.
 
NDS2 for Windows has built in 0>speed timer, you can set various speeds including 100kph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guf
The E52 is quicker at accelerating than the E51 due in part to its CVT gearbox. The engine might have 240/270bhp respectively but those ratings are at high rpm... The engine isn't at such high rpm constantly, you set off with the engine at 2000rpm and rpms rise up to (say) 6500 in 1st gear, then it changes up to 2nd gear and rpms fall at (say) 4000, and so on and so on. The engine doesn't make 240bhp/270bhp respectively at 4000rpm and obviously doesn't make that much power below 4000rpm either, especially not at 2000rpm when you first set off from a standing start. Even with the CVT gearbox the E52 doesn't get straight to the red line as soon as you boot it but once it is at the redline it stays at the red line while you keep you maintain full throttle.

Regards wheel spin, sometimes it can help with acceleration, that's one very good reason why some racing drivers do a 'racing start' intentionally causing wheel spin. On one side of the coin there''s the energy wasted by spinning wheels which goes into heating the tyres and road up (smoking the tyres depending on conditions), on the other side of the coin wheelspin is like slipping a clutch to get the engine to rpm where it produces more power... A clutch also wastes power to heat but we all know we can accelerate quicker from a standing start in a manual car by getting revs high then letting the clutch out than we could set off with revs low. The amount of power you put to the tarmac will be engine power at given rpm minus transmission losses minus any power that goes into heating the tyres - sometimes the energy that goes into heating the tyres during wheelspin will be more than offset by getting the engine to rpm where it makes more power (than it would make at lower rpm and setting off without wheelspin).

Some made up example figures... Suppose the engine makes 240bhp between 5500 and 6500rpm and makes a relative fraction of that power at lower rpm, so at 2000rpm it makes around 1/3rd the power that it can make at 6000rpm so makes 80bhp at 2000rpm. If we set off from a standing start without spinning the wheels then since the torque convertor stall speed is around 2000rpm we set off with only 80bhp minus losses to drive us forwards. If we set off wheelspinning at 6000rpm we have 240bhp minus losses to drive us forwards but we might waste 100bhp of that heating the tyres and road up, still this means we have 140bhp minus losses to drive us forwards instead of the 80bhp minus losses that we'd have if we didn't spin the wheels. Much depends on the engine's torque curve, the 'losses', gearing, and how much traction the tyres have. Still over-simplified because of the way the torque convertor and gearing affects things.

Ideally for max acceleration we'd want the engine to be at (high) rpm where it makes its full power all the time and no wheel spin even from a standing start.

As it is you set off with maybe around that 80bhp until the engine revs start climbing above 2000rpm then you get an increasing fraction of the full 240bhp until a gear up-change and then you're down to a fraction of that 240bhp again This is one aspect of a modern multi-valve engine design - they might make a high power figure at high rpm but they make a fraction of that power at lower rpm. If instead of the modern V6 we fitted an old design V8 with the same peak power of around 240bhp it might be able to make close to the 240bhp even at 4000rpm that it makes at 6000rpm (though really the rpms might be 240bhp at 3000rpm and 240bhp at 4500rpm, still it would mean closer to constant 240bhp than our modern smaller engine can make during gear changes). Given the same torque convertor stall speed the V8 would also make more power from a standing start, and it would only have to make a bit more power to get the wheels spinning which might cause rpms to rise to just the right rpm to get it into it's power band. We talk about having 240bhp but that's the maximum bhp at high rpm, acceleration is also affected by power at various fractions of high rpm.
 
Last edited:
Lpgc said:
The E52 is quicker at accelerating than the E51 due in part to its CVT gearbox. The engine might have 240/270bhp respectively but those ratings are at high rpm... The engine isn't at such high rpm constantly, you set off with the engine at 2000rpm and rpms rise up to (say) 6500 in 1st gear, then it changes up to 2nd gear and rpms fall at (say) 4000, and so on and so on. The engine doesn't make 240bhp/270bhp respectively at 4000rpm and obviously doesn't make that much power below 4000rpm either, especially not at 2000rpm when you first set off from a standing start. Even with the CVT gearbox the E52 doesn't get straight to the red line as soon as you boot it but once it is at the redline it stays at the red line while you keep you maintain full throttle.

Regards wheel spin, sometimes it can help with acceleration, that's one very good reason why some racing drivers do a 'racing start' intentionally causing wheel spin. On one side of the coin there''s the energy wasted by spinning wheels which goes into heating the tyres and road up (smoking the tyres depending on conditions), on the other side of the coin wheelspin is like slipping a clutch to get the engine to rpm where it produces more power... A clutch also wastes power to heat but we all know we can accelerate quicker from a standing start in a manual car by getting revs high then letting the clutch out than we could set off with revs low. The amount of power you put to the tarmac will be engine power at given rpm minus transmission losses minus any power that goes into heating the tyres - sometimes the energy that goes into heating the tyres during wheelspin will be more than offset by getting the engine to rpm where it makes more power (than it would make at lower rpm and setting off without wheelspin).

Some made up example figures... Suppose the engine makes 240bhp between 5500 and 6500rpm and makes a relative fraction of that power at lower rpm, so at 2000rpm it makes around 1/3rd the power that it can make at 6000rpm so makes 80bhp at 2000rpm. If we set off from a standing start without spinning the wheels then since the torque convertor stall speed is around 2000rpm we set off with only 80bhp minus losses to drive us forwards. If we set off wheelspinning at 6000rpm we have 240bhp minus losses to drive us forwards but we might waste 100bhp of that heating the tyres and road up, still this means we have 140bhp minus losses to drive us forwards instead of the 80bhp minus losses that we'd have if we didn't spin the wheels. Much depends on the engine's torque curve, the 'losses', gearing, and how much traction the tyres have. Still over-simplified because of the way the torque convertor and gearing affects things.

Ideally for max acceleration we'd want the engine to be at (high) rpm where it makes its full power all the time and no wheel spin even from a standing start.

As it is you set off with maybe around that 80bhp until the engine revs start climbing above 2000rpm then you get an increasing fraction of the full 240bhp until a gear up-change and then you're down to a fraction of that 240bhp again This is one aspect of a modern multi-valve engine design - they might make a high power figure at high rpm but they make a fraction of that power at lower rpm. If instead of the modern V6 we fitted an old design V8 with the same peak power of around 240bhp it might be able to make close to the 240bhp even at 4000rpm that it makes at 6000rpm (though really the rpms might be 240bhp at 3000rpm and 240bhp at 4500rpm, still it would mean closer to constant 240bhp than our modern smaller engine can make during gear changes). Given the same torque convertor stall speed the V8 would also make more power from a standing start, and it would only have to make a bit more power to get the wheels spinning which might cause rpms to rise to just the right rpm to get it into it's power band. We talk about having 240bhp but that's the maximum bhp at high rpm, acceleration is also affected by power at various fractions of high rpm.
Click to expand...
How much do you think the age of an engine will affect power output?
 
LeStempy said:
How much do you think the age of an engine will affect power output?
Click to expand...
Lots of of variables to consider in that one @LeStempy , lots and lots of info about any one engine would be needed I should think to even try to answer it.
Some say a perfect engine given absolutely the best treatment and driven perfectly could loose between 1 to 5% ( I think a lot more), others say that with bad treatment driven badly it could be 25/30% ( but we’ve all heard of engines dying thus 100%)
Don’t think anyone could ever realistically predict power loss due to age without mystic Meg being involved, even then I wouldn’t trust the answer.

Now, I have a piece of string. ???? lol
 
LeStempy said:
How much do you think the age of an engine will affect power output?
Click to expand...
I expect age will affect power output hardly at all but wear and tear can affect it and wear and tear occurs whenever the engine is running, more so under some conditions than others and more so on some engines than others. 'Some' engines could start out seemingly identical, how they are used / driven / looked after (servicing etc) and a massive helping of pot luck (unpredictable / chaotic type stuff) will affect how use causes wear and tear. Wear and tear can occur at a different rate than use.

The main bits in the engine are metal, keep the metal soaked in oil and it'll still be in nearly as new condition after many years. Not all engine bits are metal, there are bits like valve stem oil seals that can go wrong in time, if they let oil into the intake charge it'll burn oil and probably be down a bit on power due to that. Bits like cam chain tensioners/guides would probably go wrong in time before the metal bits would but we'd expect them to last many years in storage too.

If we had a new engine that made 240bhp and a 50 year old same model engine than only made say 180bhp, then if we consider that the old engine is down on power by 60bhp we could ask where that 60bhp went. If that 60bhp went to internal friction we'd soon know about it because the engine would either soon start to break up or suffer localised internal overheating issues, so the power loss must be either due to either valve train related breathing issues or piston ring blowby, but we'd normally have easy ways of knowing if it was ring blowby.

I reckon power losses with increasing wear and tear / mileage are mostly due to valve-train related wear such as cam profiles / cam followers getting worn, valve seat recession and cam chain stretch... aspects that affect the engine's breathing so hence volumetric efficiency and power, but as said above these are normally things that happen with wear and tear not age.

In some ways age and use can be a positive over a new engine... At one time racers used to prefer to build a race engine using an old block that had already been through many cold/hot cycles because the cold/hot cycles helped relieve internal stresses in the block thus making it less likely to fail. Not sure if that would still be the case today though because on the flip side there is metal fatigue due to continued slight bending of the metal going against the more used block. That said it's not normally the block that fails.

Post crossed with @Highway Dave 's
 
Lpgc said:
I expect age will affect power output hardly at all but wear and tear can affect it and wear and tear occurs whenever the engine is running, more so under some conditions than others and more so on some engines than others. 'Some' engines could start out seemingly identical, how they are used / driven / looked after (servicing etc) and a massive helping of pot luck (unpredictable / chaotic type stuff) will affect how use causes wear and tear. Wear and tear can occur at a different rate than use.

The main bits in the engine are metal, keep the metal soaked in oil and it'll still be in nearly as new condition after many years. Not all engine bits are metal, there are bits like valve stem oil seals that can go wrong in time, if they let oil into the intake charge it'll burn oil and probably be down a bit on power due to that. Bits like cam chain tensioners/guides would probably go wrong in time before the metal bits would but we'd expect them to last many years in storage too.

If we had a new engine that made 240bhp and a 50 year old same model engine than only made say 180bhp, then if we consider that the old engine is down on power by 60bhp we could ask where that 60bhp went. If that 60bhp went to internal friction we'd soon know about it because the engine would either soon start to break up or suffer localised internal overheating issues, so the power loss must be either due to either valve train related breathing issues or piston ring blowby, but we'd normally have easy ways of knowing if it was ring blowby.

I reckon power losses with increasing wear and tear / mileage are mostly due to valve-train related wear such as cam profiles / cam followers getting worn, valve seat recession and cam chain stretch... aspects that affect the engine's breathing so hence volumetric efficiency and power, but as said above these are normally things that happen with wear and tear not age.

In some ways age and use can be a positive over a new engine... At one time racers used to prefer to build a race engine using an old block that had already been through many cold/hot cycles because the cold/hot cycles helped relieve internal stresses in the block thus making it less likely to fail. Not sure if that would still be the case today though because on the flip side there is metal fatigue due to continued slight bending of the metal going against the more used block. That said it's not normally the block that fails.

Post crossed with @Highway Dave 's
Click to expand...
Who needs mystic Meg lol
 
Highway Dave said:
I wouldn’t get under Meg for love nor money, not too sure about you simon lol
Click to expand...

Can't remember if you commented on the other thread where we were talking about Donnervan and Kylie Minogue? I wouldn't want Mystic Meg's kebab if she offered it me on a plate after a night out.
 
Lpgc said:
Can't remember if you commented on the other thread where we were talking about Donnervan and Kylie Minogue? I wouldn't want Mystic Meg's kebab if she offered it me on a plate after a night out.
Click to expand...
You've put me off kebabs for life now.
Thanks 🤢
 
As per my other thread the best I got out of her last week was 9.4s using the vbox. I am lead to believe these are accurate?

Shes a camper with pop top roof. Full tank of petrol. Forgot to mention before that this was in auto and I've got 235/50/18 tyres so not bad really.
IMG_20250415_220018.jpg
 
Top speed I got in the Elgrand E51 2004.

Whilst on holiday driving across Germany on the Autobahn the traffic was terrible even though I left the 11 PM at night the amount lorries was ridiculous I think there’s more lorries and cars everywhere I did manage to get one run in the top speed I got was 126 mph 202 km/h I think it could do more but cars keep pulling out on you the vehicle was dead stable no problems at all with handling I’m on standard suspension but with 30% up rated springs I don’t know why people say they’re unstable they’re not mine handles brilliantly.


Screenshot (302).png

keep getting Oops run into a problem I'll try again later to upload some more pictures
IMG_20250830_152134966_HDR22.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top