Surprisingly quick cars
Discussion
Not in the same league as anything else on the 20+ pages before, but I am continuously surprised by the (relative) performance of my 2013 Smart ForTwo Pulse
Note they are not all the same: mine is 84bhp out of a 1 litre triple and is turbocharged
Clearly it is not in any 0-60 table but at normal road speeds it can be quick
Really surprises other drivers when you drop a gear on the flappy paddle box and pass them
Now for sale to get something bigger
Note they are not all the same: mine is 84bhp out of a 1 litre triple and is turbocharged
Clearly it is not in any 0-60 table but at normal road speeds it can be quick
Really surprises other drivers when you drop a gear on the flappy paddle box and pass them
Now for sale to get something bigger
279 said:
C70R said:
Oh crumbs. I'm actually embarrassed at the level of straw-clutching defence.
"lose all boost"
"split second to build back up"
"look at dyno sheet"
Look, cherub. I'm going to end this discussion now. You're wrong, you're looking silly, and these are the reasons why:
Now, I'll let the thread get back on track.
"lose all boost"
"split second to build back up"
"look at dyno sheet"
Look, cherub. I'm going to end this discussion now. You're wrong, you're looking silly, and these are the reasons why:
- A "highly-tuned R33 Skyline" is going to have upwards of 400bhp/400lbft (given 250-300bhp standard). At that level they are capable of beating MUCH faster motors than a torquey 2T barge. Given that there are plenty above the 500bhp mark, even 400bhp is looking a bit conservative for "highly".
- Your slushy autobox is not only a greater drain on engine's power output than the Skyline's manual, it's probably slower to shift too.
- Strong midrange power delivery, while nice, is only going to have a small impact on performance when charging flat out. Given that a Skyline (unless it's got a HUGE turbo - in which case you wouldn't have a prayer) will be making full boost from 4krpm, your midrange is a moot point.
- We're talking about two RWD (for all intents and purposes for the Skyline GTR) forced-induction cars with a similar number of gears. It's entirely relevant to compare power:weight, no matter how much you waffle to the contrary.
Now, I'll let the thread get back on track.
Okay, you win - BHP/Ton conquers all, peak power numbers are all that matters, manual turbo cars don't lose boost during gear changes and you can change gear quicker than a half decent automatic gearbox.
I can't be arsed to explain this s
t to someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about and isn't willing to learn.It really is a matter of what you are used to and cars that you have driven that were supposed to be quick. I have been in a McLaren SLR and Porsche Carrera GT at full chat and wasn't surprised. I have been in a Hyabusa powered Westfield and was surprised even though I was ready for a sub 4 second 0-60 and a 'comfy' (glass, heater, full factory interior, street tyres etc) Mk1 Escort that will do a 12 second 1/4 mile, these surprised me but then they're not common cars. I have a relative with a TR6 who thinks it's fast....but our Mini Cooper S would annihilate it. I have a mate with a new Golf R who thinks it's fast but my Westfield will leave it for dead at the lights (it might catch up after 75mph!). In essence the more cars you drive the less it will take to surprise you.
Edited by Lordbenny on Thursday 25th August 11:09
Lordbenny said:
It really is a matter of whet you are used to and cars that you have driven that were supposed to be quick. I have been in a McLaren SLR and Porsche Carrera GT at full chat and wasn't surprised. I have been in a Hyabusa powered Westfield and was surprised even though I was ready for a sub 4 second 0-60 and a 'comfy' (glass, heater, full factory nterior, street tyres etc) Mk1 Escort that will do a 12 second 1/4 mile, these surprised me but then they're not common cars. I have a relative with a TR6 who thinks it's fast....but our Mini Cooper S would annihilate it. I have a mate with a new Golf R who thinks it's fast but my Westfield will leave it for dead at the lights (it might catch up after 75mph!). In essence the more cars you drive the less it will take to surprise you!
All true - it's like people's idea of what a 'fun' car is. Impossible to say although you can have a guess.
Some people find fun in a car that other people don't ( e.g. see 'Worst Cars you have driven thread' )
[quote=Löyly]
It's a great car because Renault dared to build it. You are absolutely correct when you say it isn't quick, and definitely not surprisingly quick given its lairy looks.TameRacingDriver said:
A Clio v6, seriously? It blatantly looks look like it should be fast, but really isn't all that fast. I think you've got the wrong thread 
The Clio V6 is very underwhelming when it comes to pace. It's a great car in many respects but it is not quick. MattOz said:
Had a lift the other day in a newish Skoda Fabia. Think it was a 1.2 petrol. Surprisingly nippy and sat very easily at outside lane of M40 speeds.
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 25th August 12:33
Max_Torque said:
MattOz said:
Had a lift the other day in a newish Skoda Fabia. Think it was a 1.2 petrol. Surprisingly nippy and sat very easily at outside lane of M40 speeds.
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 25th August 12:33
Max_Torque said:
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!
Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Well, quite. But I'd say "M40 speeds" are more like 85-90 mph in the outside lane which (I'll let other do the maths) probably means the little Fabia only has 30-odd bhp/tonne to play with.Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Far from snobbery, most hold the German autobahns up as an example of free-flowing and disciplined multi-lane driving, but their success is in large part due to the widely observed hierarchy in terms of lanes and being able to 'hold your own'. You feel positively exposed sitting in the outside lane of a fast autobahn in something like a cooking hatch or Transit, even if you've genuine justification for being there. You sure as hell check your rear-view mirror regularly and move back over the first opportunity you get.
Our own 'M40bahn' might be about able the closest equivalent we have to the German roads, but it has some way to go to match that kind of discipline.
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
MattOz said:
Had a lift the other day in a newish Skoda Fabia. Think it was a 1.2 petrol. Surprisingly nippy and sat very easily at outside lane of M40 speeds.
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 25th August 12:33
I'm not quite sure how you jumped from "slow cars shouldn't hold up quicker cars" to "slow cars shouldn't be allowed in the fast {sic} lane." It seems you want to be outraged at something that isn't there.
xRIEx said:
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
MattOz said:
Had a lift the other day in a newish Skoda Fabia. Think it was a 1.2 petrol. Surprisingly nippy and sat very easily at outside lane of M40 speeds.
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 25th August 12:33
I'm not quite sure how you jumped from "slow cars shouldn't hold up quicker cars" to "slow cars shouldn't be allowed in the fast {sic} lane." It seems you want to be outraged at something that isn't there.
The original 1.2 Fabia poster actually said the car performed well at speeds above the speed limit. In that case, why would anyone want think it was holding traffic up, as no other car would legally be able to travel any faster. It seems as though you wanted to jump into my comment with both feet.
selym said:
xRIEx said:
selym said:
Max_Torque said:
MattOz said:
Had a lift the other day in a newish Skoda Fabia. Think it was a 1.2 petrol. Surprisingly nippy and sat very easily at outside lane of M40 speeds.
Which is why there are so many lane hogs on our motorways these days! Of course a modern car will sit at 80mph, that only takes about 35bhp to do it. The difference being how much power you have left to accelerate at those speeds!Take a 1.2l car with 100bhp. You're using 35bhp to do a steady 80mph. Assuming you change gear and take the engine to peak power rpm (which it won't be anywhere near when in top gear these days), you've got 65bhp left, and assuming your car and you weigh let say 1400kg, that's a whopping 46bhp/tonne you can use to accelerate.
Compare that to say an M3, with 420 bhp, which being a bit bigger frontal area and having wider tyres might be using 40bhp to do that steady 80mph. However, it has a 380bhp spare, so despite being probably 1600kg, it can apply 237bhp/tonne at the same speed!
Which is why you see loads of crappy little cars "holding up" much, much, much faster ones in the outside lane on all of our multilane roads...........
Edited by Max_Torque on Thursday 25th August 12:33
I'm not quite sure how you jumped from "slow cars shouldn't hold up quicker cars" to "slow cars shouldn't be allowed in the fast {sic} lane." It seems you want to be outraged at something that isn't there.
The original 1.2 Fabia poster actually said the car performed well at speeds above the speed limit. In that case, why would anyone want think it was holding traffic up, as no other car would legally be able to travel any faster. It seems as though you wanted to jump into my comment with both feet.
Car that surprised me back in 1989 was a Renault 21 Turbo.
I went to buy a Saab 9000se at a garage but the guy on the phone did not realise a colleague had sold it earlier that day.
Many apologies etc & a guy said have you ever tried these , so went out WOW, it must had been tampered with was the general consensus.
I remember coming back down from Scotland towards the lake district in the outside lane , letting a jag come up to me at 90mph & then I'd just punch it to 130mph . Incredible car that I kept for 3.5 years & hardly anything broke ? Plenty of people said "It'd have to ge well to be seen in it" ...Lol
I went to buy a Saab 9000se at a garage but the guy on the phone did not realise a colleague had sold it earlier that day.
Many apologies etc & a guy said have you ever tried these , so went out WOW, it must had been tampered with was the general consensus.
I remember coming back down from Scotland towards the lake district in the outside lane , letting a jag come up to me at 90mph & then I'd just punch it to 130mph . Incredible car that I kept for 3.5 years & hardly anything broke ? Plenty of people said "It'd have to ge well to be seen in it" ...Lol
Wills2 said:
Legally travel any faster? Are you one of those self appointed lane 3 mobile road blocks? If so stop it you'll cause an accident.
Don't be silly. Although the speed limit is arbitrary it is still a speed limit, set down by law. Do I adhere to it? No, but I'm aware that it is there so that when I get pulled at a speed over and above that legal limit, I can't come on here and bleat about it.BTW, most of the classic f
kwittery on motorways happens in the outside lane, so I try to spend as little time in there as possible.C70R said:
Smokey32 said:
C70R said:
What a load of absolute twaddle. If an R33 Skyline (assuming GTSt or GTR) was even "mildly tuned" it would comfortably walk away from a 250bhp/tonne barge.
You either outdragged a standard car with a loud exhaust, or a "tuned" car that wasn't trying.
Are you for real? Have you watched a little bit too much of fast and furious? Whats mildly tuned to you? A R33 would need a serious amount of money spent on it to pull away from a S55 on a roll.You either outdragged a standard car with a loud exhaust, or a "tuned" car that wasn't trying.
Vin diesel yo!
Do you not like/understand maths?
So this ridiculous argument from you has stemmed from your different understand of 'highly tuned' from the OP's. In any case, a 500bhp supercharged V8 barge is more than likely going to pull away from an R33 north of 100mph, even if the R33 has a better power to weight ratio.
I would expect the S55 to easily pull away from my Evo (280is bhp/tonne) north of 100mph. I am surprised how you can't see that the Merc could be quicker.
I don't really want to flame the war but I'd find it very difficult to keep up with some Merk in my GTS-T. You can go to 400-450bhp reliably on stock internals with the GTS-T's (that's what I have read, happy to be corrected). Throw in some corners and I'm sure I could see the merk for longer but it'd have to be really twisty, so Touge anyone?
I do find it strange though that Skyline's are talked about, with the possible exception of the 2.0 N/A's they were all very quick in their day (possibly they are now, stock GTS-t's are 6.18 0-60mph as an arbitrary measure) and I don't see their relevance to this thread.
To get more on point, I failed to keep up with some low spec Sierra (defo was with those rubber spoilers & soft springs) who was absolutely flying down an a-road and carrying so much speed it was ridiculous, surprising as I didn't think it would be that quick.
I do find it strange though that Skyline's are talked about, with the possible exception of the 2.0 N/A's they were all very quick in their day (possibly they are now, stock GTS-t's are 6.18 0-60mph as an arbitrary measure) and I don't see their relevance to this thread.
To get more on point, I failed to keep up with some low spec Sierra (defo was with those rubber spoilers & soft springs) who was absolutely flying down an a-road and carrying so much speed it was ridiculous, surprising as I didn't think it would be that quick.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff