Quickest point to point car
Discussion
So MPG is an issue of it's an SUV but OK for a super car. 
Same with width? An SUV can't fit down a country lane but a super car of the same width or wider can. Er, righto.
And we are completely ignoring any form of road safety. OK. If you're going to treat other road users as collateral damage then any number of high performance cars will be faster, just as they would on the track but I did think there was a little more common sense on PH.
Same with width? An SUV can't fit down a country lane but a super car of the same width or wider can. Er, righto.
And we are completely ignoring any form of road safety. OK. If you're going to treat other road users as collateral damage then any number of high performance cars will be faster, just as they would on the track but I did think there was a little more common sense on PH.
Max_Torque said:
ime, performance SUVs are rather slow cross country for the following reasons:
1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
1. True, however you can use your brakes slightly less given your more commanding view of the road, its a tradeoff.1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
2. Ever driven an impreza sti?
besides thats not really the point of this thread.3. Your point being? Hell ive seen big Chelsea tractors actively bullying people to pull in and let them buy, not endorsing that but hey it works for point2point
4. Depends what your talking about RR SVR is a fat f
k but the likes of the MacanTurbo and audi rsq3 are not really wider than any other modern car. Also you would be suprised how confidence inspiring sitting high up can be, you see a lot if SUVs carrying far more speed than they really should through tight gabs because of the false sense of security you get, also the practical application of having your mirrors at roof level of other cars.Max_Torque said:
ime, performance SUVs are rather slow cross country for the following reasons:
1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
Your point 3 above is completely wrong. 1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
The 'him' you refer to is actually a 'she'. I know this to be true because I lived with her for a number of years. And still carry the scars....
And I'm against diesel BMW's. She invented those too...
Further more the quickest thing from a to b is the one I go to work in, it'll properly 'piss all over' (as someone put it) your silly shouty Japanese boxes and your souped up vans with windows and seats in the back
OK so a helicopter isn't a car but it does get from a to b rather rapidly
And another thing. When I have to pop out to the (3 miles down the road) shop for a pint of milk I typically get back home having driven between 15 and 20 miles. This is because I enjoy driving. A lot. In fact the only thing that spoils my fun rides out is the occasional idiot driving like a complete knob in his (or her) silly shouty Japanese box which is invariably being tail gated by some souped up van with windows and seats in the back. Feck knows where they're going or what they're trying to prove...
I can honestly say that bushes and line of sight are never usually a problem in a normal sized car for me. I don't know where you guys all drive where you think being 50cm higher up would make you much faster. The inertia from driving a 2ton bus far out weight the sight lines where I drive and n SUV simply wouldn't be able to keep up on anything other than the straight bits.
rb5er said:
I can honestly say that bushes and line of sight are never usually a problem in a normal sized car for me. I don't know where you guys all drive where you think being 50cm higher up would make you much faster. The inertia from driving a 2ton bus far out weight the sight lines where I drive and n SUV simply wouldn't be able to keep up on anything other than the straight bits.
They're talking real world driving though...4 years ago I followed an S3 down the A9. I was in an old ML270 oil burner with the family on-board. The S3 could shoot off when he could see, which was infrequently. There was heavy traffic, it's a crap road, there are trees, bends, humps, junctions - it's a horrible road really. I was just driving normally, the S3 was taking terrible chances. We kept up with him all the way. Power and handling mean little on a busy, mostly single-carriageway road with limited visibility.
Of course, had the road been clear, he'd have blasted off into the distance, but there are few chances to do that these days.
Horses for courses, and all that.
caelite said:
Max_Torque said:
ime, performance SUVs are rather slow cross country for the following reasons:
1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
1. True, however you can use your brakes slightly less given your more commanding view of the road, its a tradeoff.1) The brakes take an absolute hammering (even with carbon ceramics, stopping 2.5 tonnes from 100mph is hard!)
2) Fuel economy is dire - last time i went fast, XC in a proto 575 RRS, it did 9 mpg.
3) Other drivers think your the devil, and treat you like him (a SVR RRS at 100mph on a B road feels, sounds, and looks like you're on your way to murder some children. It's as subtle, and appropriate as polishing your assault rifle at the "Remember Columbine" memorial service.
4) Way, way, WAY too big and wide. I don't care how far you can see round a corner siting up there in the clouds, i'm forever having to stop for and behind massive,bloated SUVS that can't fit down normal width country roads. Should have gone to Fat Fighters, sorry.
2. Ever driven an impreza sti?
besides thats not really the point of this thread.3. Your point being? Hell ive seen big Chelsea tractors actively bullying people to pull in and let them buy, not endorsing that but hey it works for point2point
4. Depends what your talking about RR SVR is a fat f
k but the likes of the MacanTurbo and audi rsq3 are not really wider than any other modern car. Also you would be suprised how confidence inspiring sitting high up can be, you see a lot if SUVs carrying far more speed than they really should through tight gabs because of the false sense of security you get, also the practical application of having your mirrors at roof level of other cars.As to Scoobies, i er yes, i have a little bit of experience, what with working for Prodrive (you may have heard of them... ;-) for 6 years doing WRC and PPP stuff. and BTW, std STi are not that brilliant, what you want is an S203, which is imo, the best scooby even built!
On the size thing, a Macan is still i pretty big car, with poor sight lines, that makes accurate road placement more difficult, as witnessed by the thousands of similar SUVs that can't seem to get through gaps that are patently large enough for them.......
(editted because i can't type for sh*t, thanks chillie for spotting the mistake ;-) )
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 30th September 10:39
Max_Torque said:
what with working for Prodive (you may have heard of them... ;-)
This made me giggle a bit, as an ex commercial diver I did my basic air diver training (over 35 years ago) in Falmouth with a company called Prodive. They've gone now but I do think of them whenever I see Prodrive mentioned red_slr said:
Caterham just not that fast in base form and as soon as you get upto the proper pokey stuff getting the power down on anything other than warm tarmac is a big problem, plus stopping on anything other than said warm tarmac.
Let's not confuse 'fast' with corner speeds A well set up 160HP Caterham will demolish most 'faster' cars.
yonex said:
A well set up 160HP Caterham will demolish most 'faster' cars.
I'm not having a pop, I'm really not, but this and another current thread has words like 'demolish' 'obliterate' 'destroy' etc in reference to how much quicker one car is than another One of my favourite words is 'marmalise' but I've not seen it used on PH yet So, my Golf VR6 will totally marmalise a 911 turbo up to 80mph. (it won't really )I worked for Caterham back in the day when Lotus were still making the 7, and my first car at 17 years of age was a Ford Cosworth powered Lotus 7. A Lotus 7 with 160hp under the bonnet would have been the stuff of fantasy back then, and the only thing on the road that went round corners quicker than a 7 was a Lotus Europa... happy days
yonex said:
Let's not confuse 'fast' with corner speeds
A well set up 160HP Caterham will demolish most 'faster' cars.
Go to a track day and the Caterhams occupy two positions: Last and First. Unlike your Evos etc they're hard to drive fast without a decent skill level, so the crap drivers get beaten by some pretty conservative metal, but the good drivers get beaten by nothing whatsoever.A well set up 160HP Caterham will demolish most 'faster' cars.
Caterhams really are obscenely fast down a British B road if driven smoothly. You can go faster, with a similar car that has more modern suspension and aero, for example a 2-Eleven or road legal Radical. Most full on road cars over a tonne in weight wouldn't stand a chance. Just my opinion mind you. If it was a smoother sweeping A road though, like most of the Nurburbring resembles, more powerful cars would win the day imho.
Camoradi said:
The quickest point to point car I have driven is a Caterham with 125 bhp. For road use I wouldn't change anything about it. For track use I'd like about another 50 - 75 bhp, a full cage, and some composite seats.
(cue someone telling me this is the wrong answer
)
I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. I'm sure low powered Caterham drivers feel like they are going extremely quickly due to the nature of the car but i've done the evo triangle with a C63, a 200BHP Elise and the base Caterham. All driven with similar levels of commitment. The Caterham came last by a pretty large margin.(cue someone telling me this is the wrong answer
)Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff