Quickest point to point car

[RizzoTheRat]

Baldchap said:

That said, I've always said a bad day on the bike beats a good day in the car! No feeling like it (though it does take years to get good enough to appreciate it)

It's a fair point, and thinking about it does it mean that the fastest point to point car actually a 1.0 Nissan Micra? I mean if you need to go from A to B in one, you're just going to drive there the quickest way aren't you. Whereas if it's a nice sunny morning and you're in a 911 or riding a Pangale you're going to be tempted to go via C, and probably D, and maybe stop for a coffee and cake and E and make a morning of it.

[caelite]

DonkeyApple said:

-MANY WORDS-
-Tall cars go faster, safer-

Thanks for making the point I couldnt be bothered making. I think the future of cars is going to be interesting, with crossovers becoming more popular we might soon see more cars that strike the medium of being tall whilst also being fast without blowing the bank like the RR SVR or Porsche Cayenne/Macan do. So far we have the Juke Nismo RS (A personal favourite of mine despite its marmite looks) which offers almost hot hatch performance in a tall package.

Personally I am waiting for one of the manufacturers to go nuts and offer one of the super hatches (Focus RS/Evo/Scooby STI) performance in a tall package with a reasonable price, would love to see a Kuga RS, Mokka VXR or a new Mitsubishi Shogun Evolution come to the market.

[RobM77]

caelite said:

DonkeyApple said:

-MANY WORDS-
-Tall cars go faster, safer-

Thanks for making the point I couldnt be bothered making. I think the future of cars is going to be interesting, with crossovers becoming more popular we might soon see more cars that strike the medium of being tall whilst also being fast without blowing the bank like the RR SVR or Porsche Cayenne/Macan do. So far we have the Juke Nismo RS (A personal favourite of mine despite its marmite looks) which offers almost hot hatch performance in a tall package.

Personally I am waiting for one of the manufacturers to go nuts and offer one of the super hatches (Focus RS/Evo/Scooby STI) performance in a tall package with a reasonable price, would love to see a Kuga RS, Mokka VXR or a new Mitsubishi Shogun Evolution come to the market.

As I said before, any visibility advantages are marginal at best (honestly, try it: cycle down a road and then stand up in the pedals and tell me what difference you see), whereas the disadvantages of a high CofG are huge in terms of handling. An ordinary car running 20mm lower has noticeably less weight transfer and more composure, so running a difference of ten times that or more in the other direction is an absolute disaster for handling. Performance SUVs have been created in the past (Porsche Cayenne and X6M for example), and it's amazing what chassis engineers can do with such a platform, but if you want a car to handle well, then the ride height is the first thing you look at reducing. The off road ability of an SUV in terms of ride height, and also weight, is a huge dynamic compromise in a road environment.

[DonkeyApple]

RobM77 said:

caelite said:

DonkeyApple said:

-MANY WORDS-
-Tall cars go faster, safer-

Thanks for making the point I couldnt be bothered making. I think the future of cars is going to be interesting, with crossovers becoming more popular we might soon see more cars that strike the medium of being tall whilst also being fast without blowing the bank like the RR SVR or Porsche Cayenne/Macan do. So far we have the Juke Nismo RS (A personal favourite of mine despite its marmite looks) which offers almost hot hatch performance in a tall package.

Personally I am waiting for one of the manufacturers to go nuts and offer one of the super hatches (Focus RS/Evo/Scooby STI) performance in a tall package with a reasonable price, would love to see a Kuga RS, Mokka VXR or a new Mitsubishi Shogun Evolution come to the market.

As I said before, any visibility advantages are marginal at best (honestly, try it: cycle down a road and then stand up in the pedals and tell me what difference you see), whereas the disadvantages of a high CofG are huge in terms of handling. An ordinary car running 20mm lower has noticeably less weight transfer and more composure, so running a difference of ten times that or more in the other direction is an absolute disaster for handling. Performance SUVs have been created in the past (Porsche Cayenne and X6M for example), and it's amazing what chassis engineers can do with such a platform, but if you want a car to handle well, then the ride height is the first thing you look at reducing. The off road ability of an SUV in terms of ride height, and also weight, is a huge dynamic compromise in a road environment.

The trouble is that the height differential isn't that of sitting on a bike and then standing on the pedals. It's bigger and it makes a very clear and significant difference as to how soon you see obstacles or how soon you see passed them. The difference between approaching a typical vegetated roundabout in a low slung sports car versus a tall vehicle like a van is spectacular.

And the handling aspect is moot as you aren't on a track but on public roads. All the dynamic compromises of a higher centre of gravity just don't come into play on UK roads unless you are really driving like a spaz. Cornering speed differentials are tiny, unlike the differentials in being able to see so much further ahead which are enormous.

You have this very extreme view of living purely for the corner but you aren't going to be travelling down a country lane anywhere near the capabilities of a good sports car like a 911 and nor are you going to be breaching the capabilities of a performance SUV. Across country a Cayenne Turbo will be faster than a 911 turbo purely because you will not need to be slowing down for all the obstacles that are generated from being so low and having such a compromised line of sight.

[Robbins]

Zad said:

The Micra 1.0 I drove on my very first driving lesson. I swear I was doing at least 300 mph on the back roads.

It felt like it anyway!

I can definitely relate to this. My old 1.1 Saxo was brilliant on the country roads, soft suspension soaking up bumps and ruts and revvy little engine motoring up hills.

[coppice]

..is one driven by somebody who doesn't even pay lip service to the law and has no respect or concern for other road users. Instead of an adolescent discussion about car X or car Y go and look at some lap records .

[JuniorD]

"Real world" as in speed limits, traffic, cameras, police etc.

On my 25 mile point to point commute I would think that a 911 Turbo S/ Impreza/ whatever would be oh, maybe one or two mins quicker than any bog standard econobox.

[duudiz]

coppice said:

..is one driven by somebody who doesn't even pay lip service to the law and has no respect or concern for other road users. Instead of an adolescent discussion about car X or car Y go and look at some lap records .

Hang on. It's a discussion, I am not advocating anything. This is all speculation and theory, after all this is a 'petrol heads' forum and we all like our motors,

[Ilovejapcrap]

Rented micra

[br d]

[redacted]

[caelite]

DonkeyApple said:

RobM77 said:

caelite said:

DonkeyApple said:

-MANY WORDS-
-Tall cars go faster, safer-

Thanks for making the point I couldnt be bothered making. I think the future of cars is going to be interesting, with crossovers becoming more popular we might soon see more cars that strike the medium of being tall whilst also being fast without blowing the bank like the RR SVR or Porsche Cayenne/Macan do. So far we have the Juke Nismo RS (A personal favourite of mine despite its marmite looks) which offers almost hot hatch performance in a tall package.

Personally I am waiting for one of the manufacturers to go nuts and offer one of the super hatches (Focus RS/Evo/Scooby STI) performance in a tall package with a reasonable price, would love to see a Kuga RS, Mokka VXR or a new Mitsubishi Shogun Evolution come to the market.

As I said before, any visibility advantages are marginal at best (honestly, try it: cycle down a road and then stand up in the pedals and tell me what difference you see), whereas the disadvantages of a high CofG are huge in terms of handling. An ordinary car running 20mm lower has noticeably less weight transfer and more composure, so running a difference of ten times that or more in the other direction is an absolute disaster for handling. Performance SUVs have been created in the past (Porsche Cayenne and X6M for example), and it's amazing what chassis engineers can do with such a platform, but if you want a car to handle well, then the ride height is the first thing you look at reducing. The off road ability of an SUV in terms of ride height, and also weight, is a huge dynamic compromise in a road environment.

The trouble is that the height differential isn't that of sitting on a bike and then standing on the pedals. It's bigger and it makes a very clear and significant difference as to how soon you see obstacles or how soon you see passed them. The difference between approaching a typical vegetated roundabout in a low slung sports car versus a tall vehicle like a van is spectacular.

And the handling aspect is moot as you aren't on a track but on public roads. All the dynamic compromises of a higher centre of gravity just don't come into play on UK roads unless you are really driving like a spaz. Cornering speed differentials are tiny, unlike the differentials in being able to see so much further ahead which are enormous.

You have this very extreme view of living purely for the corner but you aren't going to be travelling down a country lane anywhere near the capabilities of a good sports car like a 911 and nor are you going to be breaching the capabilities of a performance SUV. Across country a Cayenne Turbo will be faster than a 911 turbo purely because you will not need to be slowing down for all the obstacles that are generated from being so low and having such a compromised line of sight.

Should probably point out; 10-15 years ago I would completely agree with rob. If you compare older 4x4s & SUVs to their equivalent specced estates/saloons then the latter would win every time because the driving dynamic of these old conventionally sprung SUVs was so awful. However with modern electronic adaptive suspension tech it is more than possible to have a tall car that, whilst more rolly is still extremely sure footed on the road and can even add to the dynamic of the car.

A good example of this is the Audi RSQ3. It is reviewed very well by a fair few outlets, however the only one to directly compare it to the rs3 rather than its conventional rivals was Evo. They point out that the Q is set up in such a way that its imperfections actually build on the driving experience. The roll lets you know how far you are actually pushing the car mechanically, the height makes the numb electronic steering more excusable also the slightly wobbly chassis amplifies some of the driving feel.

Weight will always be a drawback but it is for all modern cars, as donkey points out on busy roads having a high view is fantastic. The most useful feature I notice from driving my shogun is the ability to either, see over the roof of cars or see through there windscreens via the back window. Meaning you get a good vantage point from any road position, also dips in the road are far less of a hazard as are awfully designed roundabouts allowing you to carry far more speed SAFELY, which is what matters on the road

[DonkeyApple]

I agree. When people talk about point-2-point on public roads one has to assume a modicum of sanity in terms of speeds. We aren't talking about taking bends on lanes at 100+ or any kind of speed where the centre of gravity of a modern performance SUV becomes any kind of issue.

In terms of accelerating back up to speed, well a performance SUV just isn't going to be lagging a sports car in reality either.

So, having far fewer obstacles you need to slow down for, fewer blind bends, obscured junctions, that ability to simply maintain a higher average speed is what counts.

I have a very tall car with 200bhp that weights two tonnes and a very low car with over 400bhp that weighs a tonne. Pretty much the only driving I now do these days is in the country. I know from direct personal experience which of my cars will be quicker a to b for the same risk. And it wins by a relevant margin. If I want to get across country quickly and easily I wouldn't think of taking the Typhon.

And then there is something like the RRS SVR, not as quick as the Cayenne Turbo but you're much higher up. For country persuits it is by far the fastest vehicle you could chose. Anyone trying to match its pace in a low down sports car will be taking much higher risks to do so.

[TheJimi]

The real world involves hedges and other visibility limitations.

The roads surfaces are also largely st, which imo, rules out anything with overly stiff suspension.

My choice of car to get from A-B as quickly as possible on any UK road would be a Cayenne S.

[ChilliWhizz]

[redacted]

[Olivera]

[redacted]

[Nedzilla]

I would probably also say an Evo,a 9 MR fq 360 if we're talking straight out of the box. I've had two,a 5 and an 8 MR and they are just so easy to drive fast on real world roads. I've had a 600 bhp GT-R,currently drive an R8 and been in stuff that's even quicker on paper but on real roads with traffic,pot holes,speed humps,rain and all the other st we have to put up with I think an Evo would probably do it better than most.

[br d]

[redacted]

[200Plus Club]

In actual real world terms I rode my new bike to Whitby in Friday in normal "whitby" traffic on a nice sunny day. With a 4000rpm limit and 72mph top speed as it's still being run in I was the fastest thing on the route. Not one sporty car overtook me because they were generally blocked from a single safe overtake due to constant two way traffic on roads that don't lend themselves to overtaking at peak times.
I got there about half an hour faster as well than cars due to the usual jams.
Discussion ended :-)

[MDMA .]

caelite said:

Personally I am waiting for one of the manufacturers to go nuts and offer one of the super hatches (Focus RS/Evo/Scooby STI) performance in a tall package with a reasonable price

Been done years ago. I have one

[av185]

Olivera said:

I'm also slightly disturbed by those who need a paddle shift to drive faster, I'd rather less competent drivers drove slowly.

Fact is MOST paddleshifts ARE faster.

GT3 PDK S changes in 9 milliseconds, GT3 RS 6 milliseconds.