|
chrisdurham
Original Poster
264 posts
15 months
|
Hi Guys,
Looking for some info here, as ive had my heart set on a cerb for a while now..
BUT is there much difference in real world terms in straight line performance between 0-100 between a cerb 4.2 and the chim's i see theres a few different engine options, but for arguments sake 4.0.
Is it significant or just a paper exercise..?
|
|
|
dbv8
5,702 posts
89 months
|
The only very slight advantage the Chimaera would have would be off the line.
Once the Cerbera is rolling it would be no contest.
Lets say 0-100
Cerber 4.2 in about 10 seconds dead
Chimaera 400 would take at least 13
|
|
|
big_treacle
1,723 posts
129 months
|
My Chimaera 4.0 felt fast. My Cerbera feels brutal. They deliver the power differently though. I wouldn't set your heart on either one by some 0 to x in y seconds figures.
|
|
|
athomp04
71 posts
37 months
|
In terms of outright performance the two simply cannot be compared (and the Cerb is another league), however as said above this is not the point as they are two very different vehicles in terms of how they deliver their performance.
|
|
|
dbv8
5,702 posts
89 months
|
|
|
Mark.
10,013 posts
145 months
|
big_treacle said: My Chimaera 4.0 felt fast. My Cerbera feels brutal. Bang on, simply can't compare. 2 very different cars and they will both get you in to trouble very very quickly, difference being if you get it wrong you go through the hedge sooner and further in the Cerbera than you will in the Chimaera.
|
|
|
MrChips
1,710 posts
79 months
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUWNKEgrwPkNot necessarily a good comparison but it shows how well the chim can get off the line. Above 70, the Tuscan and similarly a Cerbera would be quicker but a lot of it comes down to how easy the car is to launch. I'd definitely agree that doing number comparisons isn't really worth it as they all drive very differently.
|
|
|
Tyre Smoke
9,207 posts
130 months
|
50hp/litre vs 90hp/litre  or if you prefer 270lb/ft vs 320lb/ft No contest, a wheezy 1950's Buick lump against a bespoke race designed V8.
|
|
|
haircutmike
6,766 posts
73 months
|
MrChips said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUWNKEgrwPkNot necessarily a good comparison but it shows how well the chim can get off the line. Above 70, the Tuscan and similarly a Cerbera would be quicker but a lot of it comes down to how easy the car is to launch. I'd definitely agree that doing number comparisons isn't really worth it as they all drive very differently. Oi, that's my chim, it's even quicker now!
|
|
|
dbv8
5,702 posts
89 months
|
MrChips said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUWNKEgrwPkNot necessarily a good comparison but it shows how well the chim can get off the line. Above 70, the Tuscan and similarly a Cerbera would be quicker but a lot of it comes down to how easy the car is to launch. I'd definitely agree that doing number comparisons isn't really worth it as they all drive very differently. Nice filming 
|
|
|
domV8
705 posts
50 months
|
Reckon there's more to it than that though -
My gut feel (though I have no proof to back it up), is that the power delivery of a Chim may make it faster through the backstreets with all the twists, turns, give ways etc - due to it's lowdown torque always being "on cam" in these situations.
Where there is a longer stretch of road, obviously this is where the "race-style" delivery of the AJP would come into its own... One of the things I see people say on PH is that there are relatively few places where you can "stretch the legs" of the AJP Cerberas - due I guess to the scarcity of lengthy, uninterrupted roads here..?
Where will you be driving most often?
IMO,
Dom
|
|
|
chrisdurham
Original Poster
264 posts
15 months
|
hi guys, thanks for the responses,
i wouldnt be doing any track work, mainly some country lane blasts etc....
i appreciate there are significant differences in the two models, but my understanding is that the cerb would likely be far more costly to maintain in terms of the engine.
So at this stage i am weighing up is the extra driving experience (one of the aspects being straight line acceleration)worth the extra outlay to buy and maintain. I know there are other advantages but just focusing on this at the moment.
One example to use is ive been on the modded saab scene for years, where we can achieve a very fast road car with some of the lower stages of tune, rather than the bigger laggier turbos with tall boxes. and the question came down to, do you want a 0-100 car or a 70-140 car....
|
|
|
domV8
705 posts
50 months
|
Hi Chris -
Your last paragraph neatly sums up to what I was trying to allude to in my post above...
Just another point though - I think the 2 cars do not make a good comparison...
The lowest performance/tune Chim against the 2nd highest tune Cerb... As someone else mentioned, just look at the differences in torque - not really comparable models...
I would have though a Chim500 vs. 4.2 Cerb would be more appropriate - where torque is equal (even though BHP is not) probably makes for a more logical comparison of delivery characteristics...
Just my 2p,
Dom
|
|
|
7 TVR
1,915 posts
37 months
|
haircutmike said: Oi, that's my chim, it's even quicker now! I was going to say the chim was handicapped by the driver :]
|
|
|
Byker28i
4,952 posts
86 months
|
domV8 said: Reckon there's more to it than that though -
My gut feel (though I have no proof to back it up), is that the power delivery of a Chim may make it faster through the backstreets with all the twists, turns, give ways etc - due to it's lowdown torque always being "on cam" in these situations.
Where there is a longer stretch of road, obviously this is where the "race-style" delivery of the AJP would come into its own... One of the things I see people say on PH is that there are relatively few places where you can "stretch the legs" of the AJP Cerberas - due I guess to the scarcity of lengthy, uninterrupted roads here..?
Where will you be driving most often?
IMO,
Dom No contest - 4.2 Cerbera all the way Mine was remapped, a little extra power but the torque curve comes in at around 2k revs rather than 3k. Very easy to launch and very driveable in normal circumstances. But lets face it - it's not about the power/speed really is it. Do you want 4 seats, a good sized boot, but a fixed roof, or two seats and a softop? Both are fast enough to embarrass most things you meet on the road.
|
|
|
chrisdurham
Original Poster
264 posts
15 months
|
one part of me says, get the cerb, i like the looks better and the step up in performance, but how long will i keep my licence? LOL
|
|
|
big_treacle
1,723 posts
129 months
|
You gotta drive em both. The handling is completely different too. And the noise!
|
|
|
chrisdurham
Original Poster
264 posts
15 months
|
|
|
scotty_d
5,652 posts
63 months
|
Had a chim 400 and now a cerb 4.2 chim 225bhp Cerb 350bhp + loads more ft/lb But the chim has it all down low feels quick, The cerb at first to me felt not a quick due to the way it delivers the power but look down at the speedo and it is not having making a good pace. The chim is by no means slow and every bit as fun great car for over taking but alot on here seem to find them slow i never felt that. Here is one here with a 300bhp scooby behind and there is nothing between the 2 cars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k8SoVJ7NIM
|
|
|
domV8
705 posts
50 months
|
Byker28i said: No contest - 4.2 Cerbera all the way Be interested to see the characteristics of the torque curve on a RR printout (before/after?)... On the 1/4 mile, often seems like it's Griff's/Chims that are first off the starting line due to their low-down torque - and it's this characteristic that I would have thought works in their favour on cross-country/backstreet driving on road sections of relatively short length. Would love to test it in the real world. Difficult though (read: probably illegal) Dom
|
|
