What defines a fast car?

[BORN2bWILD]

TheAngryDog said:

Proving the point about willy waving.

My op wasn't about individual cars, it was about a benchmark. If you're not able to understand that then there is no hope for you.

---

exactly why i posted this before the trolls came out of the woodwork and attacked me for owning a GT-R..........



I think the point has been made already, fast in one car may not seem fast in another.

My 600BHP GT-R will take you to 60 in under 3 seconds and top 200 mph.

My '54 split screen moggy minor might do 70 mph on a good day with wind behind.

I feel much safer at 160 in the GT-R than I do at 60 mph in the moggy.

I put my foot down in the GT-R and the electronics keep the car in a straight line, I put my foot down in the TVR Chimeara I just sold and it wants to kill you... no airbags, no PAS, steering that has a mind of it's own and a RWD V8

My point is fast is really relative to the whole package... not just speed.

[BORN2bWILD]

T0MMY said:

Not knocking GTRs, they're not my cup of tea but I'm sure they're very capable. That said, I'm not convinced they would drive better, or indeed get round a track faster than numerous much lighter cars.

As a day to day all round road car they make a lot of sense but as a track or weekend car, I'd rather have something lighter. To be fair I've not driven a GT-R but are they all that involving compared to say an Atom or Caterham? I just remember that famous video of that A-hole driving round a track bullying people out of his way with one hand on the wheel while the gadgets kept him on the tarmac.

---

Is the Atom a road going car, if so they are very fast.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Some cars can `feel' fast, even if in the great scheme of things they really are not, It just depends on `how' some people get their kicks from driving fast.
The Caterham was faster than the GT-R around the TG test track, by nearly 2 seconds, but not many would be happy going that fast in a Caterham,at any speed In fact not many would be happy in a Caterham, period. So what defines a fast car will always be likely to differ person to person.

[nutcase]

I remember reading this Autocar review of the Ferrari 599 GTB when it came out and thinking their definition of performance and what makes a 'quick' car very much tallies with mine- here's a link to the article in question:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ferrari/599-20...

[BORN2bWILD]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Some cars can `feel' fast, even if in the great scheme of things they really are not, It just depends on `how' some people get their kicks from driving fast.
The Caterham was faster than the GT-R around the TG test track, by nearly 2 seconds, but not many would be happy going that fast in a Caterham,at any speed In fact not many would be happy in a Caterham, period. So what defines a fast car will always be likely to differ person to person.

---

I think hand built cars like the Atom and Caterham are really suited to track days and limited to when and how they can be driven, they are basically kit cars for the track.

Probably not really able to be compared to the GT-R with its 4 seats and massive boot, which can be driven 365 days a year.

[cerb4.5lee]

nutcase said:

I remember reading this Autocar review of the Ferrari 599 GTB when it came out and thinking their definition of performance and what makes a 'quick' car very much tallies with mine- here's a link to the article in question:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ferrari/599-20...

I remember that 0 to 100 time off by heart as I too was blown away at the time when I read that road test(still have the magazine)at how quick it was to 100 when once upon a time I thought 7.4 to 60 was quick!

[carl_w]

BORN2bWILD said:

---

I think hand built cars like the Atom and Caterham are really suited to track days and limited to when and how they can be driven, they are basically kit cars for the track.

Probably not really able to be compared to the GT-R with its 4 seats and massive boot, which can be driven 365 days a year.

Obvious car advert is obvious. Is yours up for sale at present/in the near future?

[Miglia 888]

As others have said, what you're used to driving relative to the other average traffic around on the roads at the time, could provide the context for what a "fast" road car might be in different eras:
60s fast car = 0-60 in 10s or less, when the average 1.1 Escort back then did 0-60 in 20ish.
70s fast car = 0-60 in 9s or less, when the average 1.1 Escort back then did 0-60 in 18ish.
80's fast car = 0-60 in 8s or less, when the average 1.3 Escort back then did 0-60 in 13ish.
90's fast car = 0-60 in 7s or less, when the average 1.4 Escort back then did 0-60 in 12ish.
00's fast car = 0-60 in 6s or less, while the average 1.6 Focus of those days did 0-60 in 11ish.
10's fast car = 0-60 in 5s or less, while an average 1.8 Focus does 0-60 in 10ish.

0-100 might be a better guide, as plenty of hot hatches in the 90's could manage 0-60 somewhere in the 7s, but not many could maintain that rate of acceleration and crack 0-100 in much under 20s, highlighting the difference between a hot hatch and a fast car which can keep on accelerating towards 100 at much the same rate, as LJK suggested.
0-100 in anything around 10s was supercar fast back then, and still fast today, imho.

Alternatively, power to weight ratio could be a better guide to a fast car?
Over 200 bhp / ton is where things start to get interesting, and over 300 bhp/ton is fast?

[red_slr]

Fast for me is 0-100mph in 8 seconds or less. Very few cars can do 0-100 in that time and those that do can generally hold their own in all company. 0-60 is a bit of a myth as plenty of sub 6 second 0-60 cars out there that are never going to do 8 seconds to 100.

[TheAngryDog]

BORN2bWILD said:

TheAngryDog said:

Proving the point about willy waving.

My op wasn't about individual cars, it was about a benchmark. If you're not able to understand that then there is no hope for you.

---

exactly why i posted this before the trolls came out of the woodwork and attacked me for owning a GT-R..........



I think the point has been made already, fast in one car may not seem fast in another.

My 600BHP GT-R will take you to 60 in under 3 seconds and top 200 mph.

My '54 split screen moggy minor might do 70 mph on a good day with wind behind.

I feel much safer at 160 in the GT-R than I do at 60 mph in the moggy.

I put my foot down in the GT-R and the electronics keep the car in a straight line, I put my foot down in the TVR Chimeara I just sold and it wants to kill you... no airbags, no PAS, steering that has a mind of it's own and a RWD V8

My point is fast is really relative to the whole package... not just speed.

OMG! It doesnt matter about how different cars feel, I am simply talking about ANY car being capable of 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less, being a benchmark for a fast car.

FFS!

[carl_w]

TheAngryDog said:

OMG! It doesnt matter about how different cars feel, I am simply talking about ANY car being capable of 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less, being a benchmark for a fast car.

FFS!

I agree, it's not a bad benchmark. Another question: are all cars (not trucks) with >400 bhp "fast"? I'm struggling to think of a 400bhp+ slow or mediocre car.

[TheAngryDog]

carl_w said:

TheAngryDog said:

OMG! It doesnt matter about how different cars feel, I am simply talking about ANY car being capable of 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less, being a benchmark for a fast car.

FFS!

I agree, it's not a bad benchmark. Another question: are all cars (not trucks) with >400 bhp "fast"? I'm struggling to think of a 400bhp+ slow or mediocre car.

I wouldn't think they'd be slow. An E39 M5 with 394bhp runs the 100 in just under 11 seconds, and I wouldnt call it slow, but it does fall short of the 10 seconds benchmark. I dont care though, I still want another

[turbobloke]

carl_w said:

TheAngryDog said:

OMG! It doesnt matter about how different cars feel, I am simply talking about ANY car being capable of 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less, being a benchmark for a fast car.

FFS!

I agree, it's not a bad benchmark. Another question: are all cars (not trucks) with >400 bhp "fast"? I'm struggling to think of a 400bhp+ slow or mediocre car.

Then there's torque, and mass, a previous car of mine had less than 400 bhp but more than 400 lb ft and was ~1450 kg due to carbon-kevlar and other modifications. With me granny starting it, 0-60 was 3.9s and after that 30-70 was 3s from a rolling 30, it felt like a fast car.

[BORN2bWILD]

TheAngryDog said:

OMG! It doesnt matter about how different cars feel, I am simply talking about ANY car being capable of 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less, being a benchmark for a fast car.

FFS!

---

If you don't understand speed is really about the whole package then your question might as well be how long is a piece of string.

A persons idea of fast in one car will be his idea of slow in a different car... I tried to explain this to you.

Also many will think 0-60 in under 6 seconds is fast, which is reasonable.

However my wife thinks 0-60 in under 10 seconds is fast.

So how long do you want that string?

[T0MMY]

BORN2bWILD said:

So how long do you want that string?

I'm not sure but the standards are getting increasingly ridiculous on here now Nothing slower than 8 seconds to 100mph is fast? Really?

carl_w said:

agree, it's not a bad benchmark. Another question: are all cars (not trucks) with >400 bhp "fast"? I'm struggling to think of a 400bhp+ slow or mediocre car.

Well in the context of acceleration, you obviously can't talk about power without talking about weight. Clearly anything that weighed more than a couple of tonnes isn't going to be all that fast at 400bhp with less than 200bhp:tonne, although it'll be fast at higher speeds. Must be some 400bhp tanks from Rolls Royce or someone that wouldn't be especially accelerative.

Equally you can hardly say any car under 400bhp isn't fast. My car only has 150bhp at most and I'd say it was fast, although not up to some people's metric on this thread

Edited by T0MMY on Sunday 28th June 10:04

[carl_w]

T0MMY said:

Well in the context of acceleration, you obviously can't talk about power without talking about weight. Clearly anything that weighed more than a couple of tonnes isn't going to be all that fast at 400bhp with less than 200bhp:tonne, although it'll be fast at higher speeds. Must be some 400bhp tanks from Rolls Royce or someone that wouldn't be especially accelerative.

Yes I realize that but the question is: can you buy any 400 bhp+ cars that aren't fast? "Some tanks from Rolls Royce" isn't an answer.

[T0MMY]

carl_w said:

Yes I realize that but the question is: can you buy any 400 bhp+ cars that aren't fast? "Some tanks from Rolls Royce" isn't an answer.

We come back to having to define fast then! My standard is far far lower than many on this thread but I'd say over 200bhp:tonne is fast to me.

I must confess to having literally no interest whatsoever in enormous luxury cars so I'm not aware what's on offer but presumably there are a good few 400bhp saloons out there that would fall below that and probably some a long way below that. Even more if we include SUVs.

This is complicated by what speed you want a car to still be accelerative at to call it fast too. Few people would say an Atom or an R500 were not fast but without bothering to google the stats, I imagine they don't feel all that fast over 150mph (if they can even get there), where a 400 bhp behemoth might still be pulling.

Edited by T0MMY on Sunday 28th June 10:20

[lukefreeman]

A mapped 335d.

[BigBen]

BORN2bWILD said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Some cars can `feel' fast, even if in the great scheme of things they really are not, It just depends on `how' some people get their kicks from driving fast.
The Caterham was faster than the GT-R around the TG test track, by nearly 2 seconds, but not many would be happy going that fast in a Caterham,at any speed In fact not many would be happy in a Caterham, period. So what defines a fast car will always be likely to differ person to person.

---

I think hand built cars like the Atom and Caterham are really suited to track days and limited to when and how they can be driven, they are basically kit cars for the track.

Probably not really able to be compared to the GT-R with its 4 seats and massive boot, which can be driven 365 days a year.

I drove my Atom on a trip to the Alps and it was great, until it rained. When it did rain I would rather have been in a GT-R, or anything with a roof. FTAOD I am agreeing no point comparing them completely different genre of car, a few owners have one of each.

Ben

[Troubleatmill]

carl_w said:

chris watton said:

Troubleatmill said:

[
I have a 600BHP Nissan GT-R, cost less than £40k, over 200mph and 0-60 under 3 seconds, made to handle on the race track so would leave the Bentley, and most any other super cars behind... and it looks good (black edition in black)

Remind us again, in case we didn't get it the first few times you managed to shoehorn it into almost every one of your posts, what car do you have?

I had no idea they were that cheap now.

I think someone's editing is a bit off .. I never said that.... I haven't even sat in a GT-R.