New definition of quick. 0 -100 mph time
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
otolith said:
Welshbeef said:
otolith said:
The diesels only look particularly good when you force the cars to use a gear that favours them. Quite a useful figure if you don't know how to use a gearbox, I suppose.
Well if the "challenge" is 50-70 in 4th gear then it's totally relevant. Depends on what feat is being measured. Anyway only the D5 sneaks under 10 seconds to 100mph from the derv lot currently - actually sorry the M550d/remapped does it too.
Look in autocar they do every single increment in every gear - what's relevant to each individual and circumstance is different. You might have grandma in the car so 2nd gear @55mph might not be the best idea whereas 4th doing the same would be fine.
Also not sure about you but when I overtake I do so at the pace I feel right each time different rarely is it max revs in any car I've had - sometimes of course but generally I've got more than enough power to do it in the gear I'm prevailing at.
Do you scream to the limiter past on every overtake?
Go back in time and you could get a 3 speed manual... not an issue today, but plenty of 5, 6 and even 7 speed manuals about. So arbitrary saying "4th gear" is bonkers.
Also some cars are sold with a choice of final drive raio, so while 4th gear itself might remain static, the mph per 1000rpm in 4th for the same car with different final drive ratios won't be the same.
300bhp/ton said:
Using 4th gear as the statistic is pretty pointless though.
Go back in time and you could get a 3 speed manual... not an issue today, but plenty of 5, 6 and even 7 speed manuals about. So arbitrary saying "4th gear" is bonkers.
Also some cars are sold with a choice of final drive raio, so while 4th gear itself might remain static, the mph per 1000rpm in 4th for the same car with different final drive ratios won't be the same.
Generally 4th is 1:1 or used to be post 3rd gear and overdrive but your talking decades ago Go back in time and you could get a 3 speed manual... not an issue today, but plenty of 5, 6 and even 7 speed manuals about. So arbitrary saying "4th gear" is bonkers.
Also some cars are sold with a choice of final drive raio, so while 4th gear itself might remain static, the mph per 1000rpm in 4th for the same car with different final drive ratios won't be the same.
swerni said:
Welshbeef said:
Exige77 said:
My Exige is just under 7 secs to the Ton.
5 secs must be Flipping Fast
Wow I didn't realise they were that quick - that's F40 fast. 5 secs must be Flipping Fast
If those numbers are correct it would piss on the F40.
swerni said:
Welshbeef said:
Exige77 said:
My Exige is just under 7 secs to the Ton.
5 secs must be Flipping Fast
Wow I didn't realise they were that quick - that's F40 fast. 5 secs must be Flipping Fast
If those numbers are correct it would piss on the F40.
Does go a bit but nowhere near these modern Supercars.
My Old Motor. New one is a bit quicker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeK8MExNTlE
Edited by Exige77 on Monday 31st August 19:44
IanCress said:
I think 30-70mph gives a better idea of real world performance. 0-nnn tends to favour rear and 4 wheel drive cars.
Agree with this. My SLK does 30-70mph in 3-3.5 seconds which I'd consider more than quick enough on the road. Best bench mark for on the road driving I think.Edited by JockySteer on Monday 31st August 20:36
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.
IIRC many moons ago when they started doing 0-100-0 tests for bikes... I think a MK1 R1 did it in 10. cars, ha.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.
ORD said:
SidewaysSi said:
Or maybe he just wasn't trying/couldn't give a s
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.
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.
Who said anything about racing? Welshbeef said:
Generally 4th is 1:1 or used to be post 3rd gear and overdrive but your talking decades ago
But even if 4th is 1:1 if the same car can be had with say a 3.73:1 final drive and a 3.08:1 final drive then It'll massively affect its in gear performance. So comparing car to car just based on the gear selection is pointless. 
. AMS Nissan GTR does the ton in 2.78 secs rather brisk http://www.amsperformance.com/builds/ams-shop-vehi...
jamieduff1981 said:
I don't find I get that many more overtaking opportunities in my XFR-S (542bhp) nor Cerbera than I do in my little 3.0 cars nor pickup truck. If the road is dry there are marginal benefits, but not in the wet. In situations which you describe - and they are very frustrating, I agree - it's usually a lack of ability to leap-frog a few at a time that dissuades me. Even in the dry we can add speed easily but you don't want to find yourself committed to overtaking a whole line of traffic. A) there is rarely long enough stretches to see that far ahead B) there's always hazards from junctions and lastly C) to pass them smartly you'll be close to 3 figure speeds which the car can achieve easily but if anyone else does decide to pull out to overtake in front of you you have a big problem. If someone does come the other way you need to brake off a massive amount of speed to slot back in to a gap on your own side of the road.
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!
I have a 200 mile round trip to work and back - sometimes I do it 5 days a week, other times once a week (staying down)- either way I decide which car to use on a near daily basis and I can very decisively say the M5 has an advantage and I'll choose it whenever I'm in a rush for any reason. It may just be down to the specific journey and traffic conditions I'm used to - when I've driven in your neck of the woods I've found traffic on A roads to generally be faster flowing and for overtaking to be much more common and 'acceptable' than where I live. Where I am, traffic is generally *slow* moving, overtaking is a lost art and deemed socially unacceptable, and indeed others will attempt to thwart would-be overtakers wherever possible by closing gaps, flooring it, etc. I find the M5 is effective because it has sufficient 40-80 pace to render other people's actions irrelevant - I see a decent gap 4-5 cars up the queue and can just go for it. I often overtake in stages, looking up the road for further gaps (or hazards) and either tucking back into a gap or proceeding to pass the next few dawdlers. The idiot closing his gap in front of you becomes irrelevant because you're aiming much further up the road. In a slower car (even a Golf R) I find you can't really do that - you're stuck passing one or two at a time and the chances of breaking free of the sometimes considerable queue are much diminished.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!
GTRmad said:
AMS Nissan GTR does the ton in 2.78 secs rather brisk http://www.amsperformance.com/builds/ams-shop-vehi...
ER, me thinks this not in the spirit of the posting. Virtually a dedicated drag car.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff