If I were a betting man I'd be betting that those manual times weren't taken with clutch dumps with the RPM a bit over the 2K mark. CarTest2000 simulations yields dramatically different results between clutch slip and clutch dump starts, when setting up the simulation using real-world dyno results as its whp basis. Sure, everything from tire's static and dynamic coefficient of friction to clutch engagement speed to engine torque curve factors into the right RPM to choose. But anything from the mid 1000 RPM range to low 2000 RPM range was the 'sweet spot' in most all simulations when changing parameters. Tell it to use "clutch slip" for a start and you're in the mid 6 second range. Do a clutch dump and you're in the low 6 second range. I didn't run it with the JCW power figures yet, but I'm pretty sure it'll break into the high 5.+ second range.

I'll wait for Top Gear or Car & Driver (or other) tests figures... you know they'll be driving it like they stole it.

 

p.s. The 6.5 sec time is 0-100km/hr ... that's 0-62+mph ... which requires and extra shift from 2nd to 3rd to reach the speed. That's an extra 0.3'ish+ seconds additional there than if measuring 0-60. 0-60 is rates 6.2; doing simulations w/the HP & torque ratings of the JCW through the efficient drivetrain yields much better times than that.

 

if i would purchase the JCW (maybe later on) then i would just add the options i want minus the suspension upgrades. just install some coilovers and its going to be one potent machine. if the car did come with the jcw suspension then the only thing worth keeping is the jcw specific front swaybar. i'm sure a lot of people would do the same thing. it kinda makes sense why JCW doesn't come with it, they know its going to be thrown out for coilovers or lowering springs and in that case stock shocks will work as well as the jcw because the jcw ones don't lower it much.