What defines a fast car?

[t4thomas]

You know a car is fast when it has red seatbelts.

Thread closed.

[ORD]

t4thomas said:

You know a car is fast when it has red seatbelts.

Thread closed.

Or 4 exhausts

[fivepointnine]

Timmy40 said:

+1.

I wish the UK was more like California where people seem to use their rear view mirrors and always seem to go out of their way to let drivers who wish to proceed more rapidly past.

You must not have been in the same California as where I grew up! The fast people will just pass you on the left, right, shoulder, through you haha.

[T0MMY]

RegMolehusband said:

But as I said above, "fast" is not all about acceleration and top speed. A light car, such as a Caterham, will out brake any of the above, turn in sharper and be back on the power before the others have finished braking. I am of course basing this on hill climb experience where cars such as the above are decidedly tardy .

Though, to contradict myself, they are all fast and enjoyable cars, but some will brake and turn in better than others.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, in that all round performance is far more important than acceleration, I think most people do consider a "fast" car to be one that accelerates well, not relating it to handling and not really even to top speed based on replies here. My mind immediately turned to 0-XXX times when I read the thread title, as unimportant as they are to enjoyment.

aka_kerrly said:

This makes sense, the feeling of speed is important but so is the speedo going up! I can't stand it when people with TDIs bang on about how fast they are when by most measures 8-10 seconds to 60 is not that fast.

If instead of relying on the feeling of being pushed into the seat due to a 1000rpm power band between 2000-30000 rpm maybe pay a little more attention to the way the speedo rises.

For me a proper fast car is one where the speedo moves as fast as the rev counter, one where if you floor it in 3rd/4th/5th the engine responds the way a "regular" car replies in 1st & 2nd!

It's very true that a big wallop of torque appearing out of nowhere low down the rev range feels faster than a gradual building of power to a much higher redline in a normally aspirated petrol engine. When I had an MX5 I remember a colleague telling me he'd raced a MK1 in his 2.0 Cdti Insignia company shed and was surprised it had pulled away. He'd driven MX5s in the past but honestly thought the Insignia was a faster car; in fact from the stats it's way off but I can appreciate why he thought that having driven both.

[aka_kerrly]

TheJimi said:

Eh?!

All it means is that to achieve the same level of performance as the car being 10/10th'd in every gear, the super-fast car will just be using a small amount of it's available performance.

Now, if you want to say that the driver of the car being 10/10th'd is having more fun, then I would perhaps be inclined to agree with you.

Edited by TheJimi on Friday 26th June 15:40

What I'm getting at is for example a 100hp turbo diesel that is driven around doing flat out bursts of 30mph>50mph is enough to convince some people that the gap in performance between that and a 500hp N/A car being driven sedately isn't that huge.

Then you put the person who is used to a 100hp car in a 500hp car going from 100mph->140+ in around the same time their car takes to do 50-70 and they might begin to realise.

[Troubleatmill]

Problem is....

When you have owned a car that does 100 in 7.6 seconds ( worst I had a fast car post ever....)

Everything else you drive is somewhat pedestrian.

You can't forget it - and it is a bit unfair to other cars with different characteristics.

[T0MMY]

Troubleatmill said:

Problem is....

When you have owned a car that does 100 in 7.6 seconds ( worst I had a fast car post ever....)

Everything else you drive is somewhat pedestrian.

You can't forget it - and it is a bit unfair to other cars with different characteristics.

I'm not sure I'd agree...I still appreciate a car feels fast even if it isn't nearly as fast as a previous car I've driven or owned. for that matter I still appreciate fast cars which are nowhere near as quick as motorbikes, although the feeling is different (I think a fast car feels faster than a fast motorbike if that makes sense).

[PGN]

LJK Setright used to say that anything which was quicker from 60 to 90 than from 0 to 60 was a quick car. I think that's a pretty good definition.

[corozin]

If it passes you, it's fast

[Japveesix]

cerb4.5lee said:

I think similar to the OP as well, my Cerbera did 0 to 100 in less than 10 seconds and I always thought it was a fast car, my E92 M3 did 0 to 100 in over 10 seconds and that never felt like a fast car to me so I would still say anything under 10 seconds to 100 is a fast car.

I realise this is a car site where many people own supercars and 800bhp monsters but if an E92 M3 isn't a fast car then I think you've been spoilt a bit with what you must drive daily!

[BORN2bWILD]

I have owned a few 'fast' cars over the years, I think the classic Scooby P1 with 315bhp was probaly the most fun as it handled like a dream with 0-60 in about 4.5 seconds and top speed about 155MPH.

Yesterday I drove a Lambo, Ferrari and GT-R at Dunsfold track, the Lambo was a clunky bag of poo, the Ferrari was much better and very pretty, but the GT-R was better to drive and faster around the track than any other road going car there, and that includes the McLarens, Astons etc.

I was told by the pro driver no other car could beat the GT-R (530BHP with ceramic brake kit) and it was the car of choice to take home at night.

I was very pleased that the pros rated the GT-R so highly as I have a 600BHP Black Edition and love it, 0-60 in less than 3 seconds and over 200MPH, but for fun I still miss that Scooby P1.

[Japveesix]

Troubleatmill said:

Problem is....

When you have owned a car that does 100 in 7.6 seconds ( worst I had a fast car post ever....)

Everything else you drive is somewhat pedestrian.

You can't forget it - and it is a bit unfair to other cars with different characteristics.

You obviously need to buy this guys kit car:

jeffw said:

My personal level of fast would be faster than my kitcar is....this was from the datalog at Silverstone Stowe last weekend. Not bad for a Road going car.

[Some Gump]

Only read the first 4 posts.

This thread is clealy a PH dick contest gone wrong.

[Justin Case]

PGN said:

LJK Setright used to say that anything which was quicker from 60 to 90 than from 0 to 60 was a quick car. I think that's a pretty good definition.

From my experience of a MG Maestro Turbo, it certainly fits that definition

[carl_w]

DocJock said:

LJK Setright used to say a fast car was one which took less time 60-90 than 0-60.

Interesting. I wonder what would fit into that category?

[R8VXF]

A fast car is one where you look at the Speedo and go "oh fk, I could easily end up in jail for that speed". Some cars have a feeling of going fast, ie my Corsa feels fast at 110mph, on the other hand you have cars that are grovelling very quickly but hold their composure and hide their speed, ie my vxr8 that feels sedate at 140+. Being supercharged it has one of the most linear BHP "curves" I have ever seen on a dyno and doesn't stop till it hits the redline. Will easily do 20mph to 120mph in less than half a mile in 4th! Thank god for the HUD keeping you in check

[dinkel]

It's funny. We did 265 kmh in an Ultima CanAm (383 with a giant Holly and revving to 7 grand) and even in angry acceleration mode all was so controlable. I've never been more scared than in my old Civic at topspeed. Fast is not the numbers. It's the experience.
Yesterday a TR6 was a quick car. Today it's a hassle to even keep up with traffic.

[jeffw]

carl_w said:

Interesting. I wonder what would fit into that category?

Mine does 2.5sec 60-90 and 3.7 0-60.

It all comes down to what you are use to. My kitcar will do 1G on acceleration in the first 3 gears but doesn't 'feel' fast when you are doing it. Cars always seem faster when you are in the passenger seat as well.

[Troubleatmill]

Japveesix said:

Troubleatmill said:

Problem is....

When you have owned a car that does 100 in 7.6 seconds ( worst I had a fast car post ever....)

Everything else you drive is somewhat pedestrian.

You can't forget it - and it is a bit unfair to other cars with different characteristics.

You obviously need to buy this guys kit car:

jeffw said:

My personal level of fast would be faster than my kitcar is....this was from the datalog at Silverstone Stowe last weekend. Not bad for a Road going car.

Nah... the 0-60 time is slower. Try 3.6 secs. ( for a production road going car that can take some large suitcases on a pan European trip - with aircon, cruise control- and very comfy suspension )


@Swerni.. Yup I should have done.

Might be back in one next year.

I miss it like no other car I have had.

Edited by Troubleatmill on Friday 26th June 23:03

[SidewaysSi]

Personally a car is too fast for me when I can't push it through the gears on the road and keep this side of licence losing speeds.

I don't spend a lot of time on trackdays but I do a lot of recreational road miles e.g. early Sunday morning blats etc. Having a car that hits 100mph in no time in second gear would be hugely frustrating.

I find the 4.5-6 sec to 60 mark (approx. 250 ish bhp/tonne) mated to sensible gear ratios and a great engine/chassis match to be perfect.

Oh yes, and having suitably narrow tyres and especially decent steering is far more important than being able to accelerate quickly (I find it gets dull pretty quickly).