New definition of quick. 0 -100 mph time
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
To be fair though generally your not sitting ready in the right gear all the time for every single opportunity are you so by default you are going to be in the wrong gear and can and will get caught napping - heck you might be on a slow Sunday drive and get owned by some s
t heap diesel while you've the 30 Jarah M5 but not even notice that they are trying.
Not many people race or try to race on the public roads and if they do it's only a matter of time before a big accident or you get caught speeding then bye bye fast car and welcome Sierra 2.3 D
I don't do unplanned overtakes, so I don't value the ability to lunge in a cruising gear - I can see that the ability to do that facilitates that driving style, but I'm not sure that is a good thing.t heap diesel while you've the 30 Jarah M5 but not even notice that they are trying. Not many people race or try to race on the public roads and if they do it's only a matter of time before a big accident or you get caught speeding then bye bye fast car and welcome Sierra 2.3 D
ORD said:
It's been used as a way to sell idiots diesel cars without them noticing that they're buying something utterly miserable.
At least 3 people have told me that their Audi 2.0 diesel is 'rapid'.
Back on topic, anything below 10 seconds to 100 is more than fast enough for any road driving. It may actually be slightly annoyingly fast in that it reduces the time spent accelerating to the point where you wish you could use the loud pedal more.
Only 2x derv are under 10 seconds and most in the 18+ territory so not worth discussing further. They feel fast simply as it spoils up low revs the same spool up in my old RS6 would leave you thinking fAt least 3 people have told me that their Audi 2.0 diesel is 'rapid'.
Back on topic, anything below 10 seconds to 100 is more than fast enough for any road driving. It may actually be slightly annoyingly fast in that it reduces the time spent accelerating to the point where you wish you could use the loud pedal more.
k this is a fast car which doesn't stop it gets silly fast. I noticed that for the roads I drove on the RS6 easily was too fast and many times when I was feeding in the throttle to WOT I'd have to back right off as I realised it was far too fast for the road. Fun but in some ways annoying as you could only access it's 470bhp in 2 gears the other 5 would see you in jail.
theboss said:
ORD said:
Max_Torque said:
In 2015, i rather suspect that all cars are "fast". With hot hatches having 0-60 times in the low 6's high 5's, sporting saloons now in the low 4's high 3's and the truly mad stuff dipping into the 2's, there is really getting to be little real world difference in their performance, imo.
Unless you have a completely empty dual carriageway and a scant regard for the law or anyone's safety (neither of which occur very often) you'll never "drop" a hot hatch these days, even in a supposedly much faster car........
Back say 25 years ago, super cars were in the 5's, but the average car was in the mid teens, which meant a big enough difference you could exploit. Today, unless you are on a race track, it's just about how stupid the driver of any particular car is.........
Not sure about that. 30-80 in a genuinely fast car will leave a hot hatch looking like it's standing still. Unless you have a completely empty dual carriageway and a scant regard for the law or anyone's safety (neither of which occur very often) you'll never "drop" a hot hatch these days, even in a supposedly much faster car........
Back say 25 years ago, super cars were in the 5's, but the average car was in the mid teens, which meant a big enough difference you could exploit. Today, unless you are on a race track, it's just about how stupid the driver of any particular car is.........
I agree that a lot of cars are now decently fast, though. But most people still drive very slowly on A and B roads, especially if driving a manual car. You can find yourself overtaking loads of cars in a 320d.
My dailies are 560bhp M5 and 300bhp Golf R, and the former literally will leave the latter languishing in the queue by virtue of its power advantage and the increased overtaking opportunities. One of the key factors is that in the more powerful car you can plan to take many more dawdlers at a time... Just on Friday I cleared about 12 cars and a HGV on the Ludlow bypass in a series of safe, clear passes inbetween oncoming traffic, which might have been marginal or impossible in the slower car. If you're happy to sit at 30-40mhp everywhere then the difference is irrelevant, and I also believe that if you removed other traffic from the equation the hatch would keep up with more or less anything.
I'd rather have the power than not, because to be fair it's not that often I can't get past these people, but I struggle to believe you can overtake more often in the M5 than in your Golf R. If it was a 1.6 Golf or whatever there would be a big difference, but the extra power of the M5 coupled with 2 wheels drive is largely superfluous. If the road is wet, you're overtaking with light throttle anyway. I've broken traction mid-overtake on a dry but cool road before. It's not something I'm keen to repeat!
HJG said:
Aerodynamics play a much larger part in a 0-100 sprint, since drag force increases with the square of speed.
In my experience, aerodynamics only seem to outweigh power:weight when you're not far from 100mph anyway (which surprised me) so it wouldn't have that big an effect on that measure. It's definitely better than 0-60 as a metric as it goes some way to reducing the importance of getting off the line well and whether or not you can get there in 2nd.My old Impreza WRX was slower than my mildly tuned 200SX in roll on acceleration but on paper had a much quicker 0-60 time which exagerated how fast a car it actually was in general driving.
Welshbeef said:
A 10 second car to the ton is fast.
I can only imagine those handful of people with faster cars to think it's not / actually if wager only those with cars which don't have a cat in jells chance of even beating 20 seconds to 100mph would consider 6 seconds now to be the time of a fast car.
Motorbikes went through this phase many years ago where acceleration ended up being separated by tenths or less of a second. Instead the focus is now on Bhp/tonne and absolute power.
My Elise is 9secs to 100mph and I'm quite used to it now. But I won't be saying it's slow!I can only imagine those handful of people with faster cars to think it's not / actually if wager only those with cars which don't have a cat in jells chance of even beating 20 seconds to 100mph would consider 6 seconds now to be the time of a fast car.
Motorbikes went through this phase many years ago where acceleration ended up being separated by tenths or less of a second. Instead the focus is now on Bhp/tonne and absolute power.
Mike29 said:
My Elise is 9secs to 100mph and I'm quite used to it now. But I won't be saying it's slow!
What I found with the RS6 you kept thinking why is he accelerating so slowly when your coasting - then you look at the speedo and realise they are actually accelerating fairly hard for the vehicle they had. Both 0-60 and 0-100 are irrelevant because everywhere you look there are actual times mixed-in with claims. Unless a claim is accompanied by a video and a stopwatch then add 1 second at least onto it, but sites aren't interested in reality and just go for the astounding claims.
Of the two you can legally test 0-60 if you're so inclined whereas you can't do 0-100. So, yeah, silly idea.
Of the two you can legally test 0-60 if you're so inclined whereas you can't do 0-100. So, yeah, silly idea.
BarbaricAvatar said:
Both 0-60 and 0-100 are irrelevant because everywhere you look there are actual times mixed-in with claims. Unless a claim is accompanied by a video and a stopwatch then add 1 second at least onto it, but sites aren't interested in reality and just go for the astounding claims.
Of the two you can legally test 0-60 if you're so inclined whereas you can't do 0-100. So, yeah, silly idea.
Add 1 second?Of the two you can legally test 0-60 if you're so inclined whereas you can't do 0-100. So, yeah, silly idea.
How about deduct 1 second as they are not testing like a full on test driver would as no one would ever drive their P&J as hard as a tester does to get the maximum out of it.
ORD said:
It's been used as a way to sell idiots diesel cars without them noticing that they're buying something utterly miserable.
At least 3 people have told me that their Audi 2.0 diesel is 'rapid'.
Back on topic, anything below 10 seconds to 100 is more than fast enough for any road driving. It may actually be slightly annoyingly fast in that it reduces the time spent accelerating to the point where you wish you could use the loud pedal more.
I'd say there are a fair few diesels that are rapid the OH's diesel has a 0-60mph time of 4.6 0-100mph 11.8 secs 1/4 mile 13 Secs, I'd class that as rapid wouldn't you. At least 3 people have told me that their Audi 2.0 diesel is 'rapid'.
Back on topic, anything below 10 seconds to 100 is more than fast enough for any road driving. It may actually be slightly annoyingly fast in that it reduces the time spent accelerating to the point where you wish you could use the loud pedal more.
ORD said:
ZX10R NIN said:
I'd say there are a fair few diesels that are rapid the OH's diesel has a 0-60mph time of 4.6 0-100mph 11.8 secs 1/4 mile 13 Secs, I'd class that as rapid wouldn't you.
Yep, but I rather suspect it has more than 4 cylinders. Still wouldn't take one if they were free. ORD said:
Another reason why Porsches are very fast in 'real world' driving - they can get the power onto the road rather than spinning the wheels or triggering traction control. I remember leaving a roundabout in my old Cayman S and keeping pace with a DBS to 70.
and then I woke up.ORD said:
iloveboost said:
and then I woke up.
Sometimes it is hard to accelerate fast from a bend in a powerful FE-RWD car. It can be like trying to run on ice. Presumably the slush box auto was a bit slow, too.
t about trying to prove some kind of point. I don't race anyone and quite frankly get a bit pissed off when people try it on.ging84 said:
I don't think this is how it works
you don't get to make the rules
0-60 is what people are used to, all the data is there and people know what it means.
Actually I think few people really know what it means, they just get suckered into obsessing about it, despite it being quite a useless metric.you don't get to make the rules
0-60 is what people are used to, all the data is there and people know what it means.
And lets not forget, some of today's modern ECU overload cars with launch control take ages to get into the right mode, just to be quick off the line.
Frankly a 1950's Morris Minor could probably sprint to 60mph quicker than many a modern hypercar/performance if you include the F*ck about time spent getting LC to work.
ging84 said:
If you want one with wider differences, why not look at 1/4 mile times, this is something which is as old as 0-60 times.
0-60 has some advantages over 0-100, it is targeted at what it is measuring, and that is off the line speed, you get a good combination of measuring the power, and how it puts it down, so gear ratios, gear shift times and traction all make a big difference to 0-60 times.
0-60 has some advantages over 0-100, it is targeted at what it is measuring, and that is off the line speed, you get a good combination of measuring the power, and how it puts it down, so gear ratios, gear shift times and traction all make a big difference to 0-60 times.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff