Had my Evora test today

[justin220]

mrdemon said:

quote
"If the S is hugely quicker then it must be ridiculously fast"

peoples ideas of what ridiculously fast means differ.

I would not say a Evora S is ridiculously fast in my eyes, it's not even as fast as some of todays hot hatch backs.
0-124mph in 20 seconds is not great.

Its not rediculously fast, but if drag racing is your thing, a Lotus is not for you. They have never been about 0-XX sprints. All the reviews have said the Evora S is plenty quick enough.

Its quicker than an Exige S to 124 by 2 seconds, and almost an extra 50% weight, if thats your thing.

[zebedee]

mrdemon said:

quote
"If the S is hugely quicker then it must be ridiculously fast"

peoples ideas of what ridiculously fast means differ.

I would not say a Evora S is ridiculously fast in my eyes, it's not even as fast as some of todays hot hatch backs.
0-124mph in 20 seconds is not great.

so what does a car have to be capable of to be 'quick' by your definition (not ridiculously quick, just 'quick'?

[mrdemon]

well just look at a boxster spyder thats sub 18 seconds
THe new Cayman R was tested at 16.9 seconds
Audi TTRS 14.9


then you look at a GT3 at 12 seconds

Then you want fast the GT2 RS is 9.4 more than twice as fast.

we are not talking about drag racing and other people jumping in talking about how well it handles.

we are making a comment on the quote "ridiculously fast" when it's just not.

20 seconds is 5 seconds off the pace imo.

Edited by mrdemon on Monday 9th May 21:52

[Mr Moley]

I had a Cayman S for a couple of years and when I drove the Evora S I remember thinking - yeah the bum tells me this is pretty similar in performance. When I drove the base Evora I thought I'm wringing this thing out and it just doesn't feel quick. I have no doubt that it is a very capable point-to-point machine though.

Probably a bit harsh to call it a non-quick car but at that sort of money I personally would be looking for a bit more poke.

[dmpriso]

So, my contribution to number f...ing


German "Auto Motor und Sport" tested the Evora S and achieved:
0-100 km/h: 4.9
0-200 km/h: 17.3 (not 20!)

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8228/evora2.jpg

[mrdemon]

tested or published figures :-)

Sport Auto tested it at 20 with the NA at 20.5

point is, it's not "ridiculously quick" that's all I was getting at.
I like the car but if I am paying high rate of road TAX and low MPG figures I want it to get a shift on for my 70k.

Edited by mrdemon on Tuesday 10th May 10:20

[dmpriso]

Tested. Official 0-100 time is 4.8 not 4.9. There is no official 0-200 time.

[mrdemon]

dmpriso said:

Tested. Official 0-100 time is 4.8 not 4.9. There is no official 0-200 time.

So still slower than all the cars in it's class.

[dmpriso]

OK but let's debate with correct numbers.
Event if an Audi TT-RS is faster 0-200 I don't want one. It's just another concept of car. You can't seriously compare it.
(But if you want to, the Audi TT-RS lap time on Hockenheim Short is 1:14:30, so it's the same as a NA Evora having 60HP less)

[zebedee]

mrdemon said:

So still slower than all the cars in it's class.

4.9 or 4.8 seconds is still a 'quick' time to get to 60, irrespective of what other cars are doing. A Cayman R, which is a quick car and costs the same as an Evora does 0-60 in 5 seconds and the standard Evora isn't far off that (5.5 secs real world) despite having 50bhp less (PDK is quicker, but lets compare like with like) and having a lot more to offer in terms of space, experience and style (and exclusivity as no-one seems to be buying them!)

So the Evora is not a non-quick car, before we even think about how quickly it will deal with the bends. (Evo did same laptime on Bedford as a Boxster S in the standard Evora). But as someone says, judging a car on figures is a ridiculous exercise anyway. Is it fun to accelerate hard in an Evora - yes. Does it feel quick, yes. Same way your 3.5 Z4 will feel probably. Is it nice in the bends - oh hell yes. Is it relaxing and comfortable to schlep across Europe in? Hell yes.

Is the ride unbelievably good? Yes. Makes my Mondeo feel like a wooden wheeled chariot driving them back to back on the same road! Evo said it (the non S car) made the Cayman R feel 'heavy footed' when driven back to back.

I'm not actually sure what cars I would put in its class to be honest. If I win the lottery, I think I will just buy one. Nice quote sums it up from end of Evo report: "the Evora has well and truly endeared itself to both me and a now soundly sleeping Vosper. It has proved to be a really usable GT car, yet it has also played the junior supercar role in a way I hadn’t expected. It still hasn’t got the feeling of solidity that Porsche imbues in its cars, but as a package the Evora has a lot of similarities with the multi-talented 911. Although I don’t think even a 911 would have coped so well with our genuine cross-section of British roads. Make no mistake, this is a very special car."

Edited by zebedee on Tuesday 10th May 12:08

[Scuffers]

zebedee said:

4.9 or 4.8 seconds is still a 'quick' time to get to 60, irrespective of what other cars are doing. A Cayman R, which is a quick car and costs the same as an Evora does 0-60 in 5 seconds and the standard Evora isn't far off that (5.5 secs real world) despite having 50bhp less (PDK is quicker, but lets compare like with like) and having a lot more to offer in terms of space, experience and style (and exclusivity as no-one seems to be buying them!)

not sure I can agree with that, 5 sec's is not really quick these days...for example, my 4 door Audi shopping trolley can do 62 in 5 sec's... (and you can actually fit real people in the back without surgery)

[jazzyjeff]

Scuffers said:

not sure I can agree with that, 5 sec's is not really quick these days...for example, my 4 door Audi shopping trolley can do 62 in 5 sec's... (and you can actually fit real people in the back without surgery)

An S4 is hardly a shopping trolley (and no doubt Audi would be insulted by that description... )

[Scuffers]

jazzyjeff said:

Scuffers said:

not sure I can agree with that, 5 sec's is not really quick these days...for example, my 4 door Audi shopping trolley can do 62 in 5 sec's... (and you can actually fit real people in the back without surgery)

An S4 is hardly a shopping trolley (and no doubt Audi would be insulted by that description... )

well, that's what I call it (and use it for).

it's certainly NOT a sports car, it's a 4 door saloon car.

My point is that it's not a £60K sportscar, comes well equipped and build quality is something Lotus can only dream of (and has a list price of £37,330)

Yes, I know the Evora's handling is better, but so it should be, it's supposed to be a sports car, not a shopping trolley.

[Tuna]

Scuffers said:

it's certainly NOT a sports car, it's a 4 door saloon car.
...
Yes, I know the Evora's handling is better, but so it should be, it's supposed to be a sports car, not a shopping trolley.

But isn't that the irony of the current car market? You can buy relatively cheap saloons, hatches or even pickup trucks with powerful engines at bargain prices. It's fairly easy to get hold of a functional platform, put in a bigger power plant and sell it at a decent price.

In terms of 0-60, it doesn't matter whether your favourite is Porsche, Lotus or Ferrari, there's usually something faster in a straight line at a much lower cost. As a means of comparing cars, it has no value outside of Top Trumps.

[Scuffers]

Tuna said:

But isn't that the irony of the current car market? You can buy relatively cheap saloons, hatches or even pickup trucks with powerful engines at bargain prices. It's fairly easy to get hold of a functional platform, put in a bigger power plant and sell it at a decent price.

In terms of 0-60, it doesn't matter whether your favourite is Porsche, Lotus or Ferrari, there's usually something faster in a straight line at a much lower cost. As a means of comparing cars, it has no value outside of Top Trumps.

I know it's a struggle, but you really need to read a thread to follow it, not just comment on the last post!

Scuffers said:

zebedee said:

4.9 or 4.8 seconds is still a 'quick' time to get to 60, irrespective of what other cars are doing. A Cayman R, which is a quick car and costs the same as an Evora does 0-60 in 5 seconds and the standard Evora isn't far off that (5.5 secs real world) despite having 50bhp less (PDK is quicker, but lets compare like with like) and having a lot more to offer in terms of space, experience and style (and exclusivity as no-one seems to be buying them!)

not sure I can agree with that, 5 sec's is not really quick these days...for example, my 4 door Audi shopping trolley can do 62 in 5 sec's... (and you can actually fit real people in the back without surgery)

[900T-R]

mrdemon said:

Audi TTRS 14.9

Um, with a mere 335 PS in a car that weighs a tonne and a half? Sonds more like the 0-100 mph time to me....

[C43]

the 0-60 time does not tell all as we well know. Yes the S3 is quick and well built but it is light years off a Lotus in terms of driver satisfaction. I had one for 4 months when my Europa was off the roads and was surprised by how bad the S3 is in terms of ride, handling an fun.

[Scuffers]

C43 said:

the 0-60 time does not tell all as we well know. Yes the S3 is quick and well built but it is light years off a Lotus in terms of driver satisfaction. I had one for 4 months when my Europa was off the roads and was surprised by how bad the S3 is in terms of ride, handling an fun.

who said anything about an S3?

and the point that was being made is that 5 sec's to 60(/2) is not exactly fast in this day and age.

Edited by Scuffers on Wednesday 18th May 20:54

[Tuna]

Scuffers said:

Tuna said:

But isn't that the irony of the current car market? You can buy relatively cheap saloons, hatches or even pickup trucks with powerful engines at bargain prices. It's fairly easy to get hold of a functional platform, put in a bigger power plant and sell it at a decent price.

In terms of 0-60, it doesn't matter whether your favourite is Porsche, Lotus or Ferrari, there's usually something faster in a straight line at a much lower cost. As a means of comparing cars, it has no value outside of Top Trumps.

I know it's a struggle, but you really need to read a thread to follow it, not just comment on the last post!

You prat. The important part of that was 'in a straight line'. The subtle difference is between a functional platform and a genuinely sporting one. You know that, but chose to ignore it to make your point.

[Scuffers]

Tuna said:

You prat. The important part of that was 'in a straight line'. The subtle difference is between a functional platform and a genuinely sporting one. You know that, but chose to ignore it to make your point.

thanks for the compliment....

and may I refer you again to the context of my post yet again?

I know reading is a challenge for you, but please at least try