New definition of quick. 0 -100 mph time

[robinessex]

I've decided that the old 0-60 sprint is obsolete, that a 0-100 is the new standard. And I'm assigning a time of <6 secs as the pass level. The Ultima does it in 5.3 secs. Anything road going faster!

[Jimmm]

Agera R is supposedly 5.1 seconds to 100mph.

[kambites]

I wouldn't say 0-anything is a very good metric for anything particularly powerful because traction has so much effect. Maybe 50-150 or 100-200 for properly fast cars?

Not that I've ever owned a car which will even do 150.

[RemaL]

Road going 0-100 4.92 seconds

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/motorbikes/672...

^^ posted 6 years ago so their is going to be faster possibly now

[Jimmm]

Just found this list online of supposedly sub 6 seconds to 100mph cars...

SSC Ultimate Aero TT - [2008] 0 to 100 mph time - 4.6 seconds
Porsche 9FF GT9R - [2009] 0 to 100 mph time - 4.9 seconds
Caparo T1 3.5l V8 - [2007] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.0 seconds
TVR Cerbera Speed 12 - [2000] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.0 seconds
Koenigsegg Agera 5L V8 - [2011] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Koenigsegg CCX R Special Edition 4.8 V8 S - [2008] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.1 seconds
Koenigsegg CCR 4.7 V8 Supercharged - [2005] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Koenigsegg CCX 4.7 V8 Supercharged - [2006] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Koenigsegg CCX 4.7 V8 Supercharged - [2006] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.2 seconds
Hennessey Venom GT - [2010] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.3 seconds
Ultima GTR 720 - [2000] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.3 seconds
Ariel Atom V8 500 - [2008] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.4 seconds
Caparo T1 2.4 V8 - [2006] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Porsche 9FF GT9 - [2008] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.5 seconds
Bugatti Veyron 8.0 litre W16 - [2005] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.7 seconds
Ascari A10 5.0 V8 - [2006] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.8 seconds
Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 - [2011] 0 to 100 mph time - 5.9 seconds

[joe1145]

Mclaren 650s 0-100 5.7 secs

[ging84]

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. 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.
Once you get taking a car into to higher speeds, it becomes less important how the power is transmitted, and more about how much grunt it has relative to it's weight.

[aeropilot]

robinessex said:

I've decided that the old 0-60 sprint is obsolete, that a 0-100 is the new standard.

You're half a century too late.....

0-60mph as a yardstick became obsolete back in 1965 when the Cobra 427 cracked 0-100mph in 10 secs, when 0-60 in 10secs was considered a 'fast' car.....!!

10secs to a 100 is still quick 50 years later, but it was 'millennium falcon' quick back in 1965 when most of the cars sold actually couldn't even do 100mph!!!

[IanCress]

I think 30-70mph gives a better idea of real world performance. 0-nnn tends to favour rear and 4 wheel drive cars.

[kambites]

Yeah the quarter mile is a fairly well established one.

[rb5er]

0-100 still takes into account traction as well as grunt. I think its a pretty good indication of what a cars capable of.

None of those cars are quick though they are properly fast.

My car does 100 in around 14 seconds. As a 0-60 its about 5 seconds. So the latter is primarily about traction. 0-100 then shows thats after that 5 seconds its not massively grunty.

[MrBarry123]

0-100mph in <6 seconds = quick



PH strikes again.

Didn't we have almost an identical thread about 2 weeks ago?

[ORD]

I think increments of speed once moving are more relevant to the driving experience: 30-70 is quite a good indicator of how it will feel on the road; 60-100 will tell you how much puff it has; 100-140 will separate the very fast from the insanely fast

On the road, the biggest difference between fast and normal cars is that fast ones spend almost no time to get back to 60mph + after slow corners on A and B roads. Most reasonably powerful cars are too fast to use WOT on the motorway (except on the slip road), so high speed acceleration doesn't really factor in what I would want in a road car. Nice short gears and about 200bhp/ton is what you want.

[toasty]

Isn't Redvictor3 street legal and about 3secs 0-100mph?

I'd say that's rather pokey if not truly quick.

[TheAngryDog]

MrBarry123 said:

0-100mph in <6 seconds = quick



PH strikes again.

Didn't we have almost an identical thread about 2 weeks ago?

Yes.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Devil2575]

MrBarry123 said:

0-100mph in <6 seconds = quick



PH strikes again.

Didn't we have almost an identical thread about 2 weeks ago?

This.

0-100 in <6 seconds in a road car isn't quick, it's bordering on insanity and IMHO completely irrelevant on the public highway.

[Speed addicted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnoX9T0WhGA

Kawasaki H2. Makes the Hyabusa seem somewhat sensible.

[kambites]

I'd say "quick" for a road car should be defined as "faster than average" so that would probably be 0-100 in about 30 seconds.

[kambites]

Speed addicted said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnoX9T0WhGA

Kawasaki H2. Makes the Hyabusa seem somewhat sensible.

I always find it amazing how much power these things can put to the road before they start wheelying. Presumably there has been major focus on driving the CoG on modern superbikes downwards?

300bhp/litre from a production engine is quite silly.

[SlackBladder]

0-100 pah, I'll give you 0-200 in 23.3 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnpEG8dGkQY