RE: 400hp Abarth 500!

[Nigel_O]

Ahbefive said:

I'm surprised that people are still struggling with why a fwd car has limitations in regards to 0-60 times. I'd be interested to see the 1/4mile or 0-100mph time, much more telling.

Exactly - 0-60 is not an indicator of the true performance. Assuming it weighs roughly the same as a standard 500 Abarth (c. 1100kg), I would expect a sub 13 second standing quarter at about 110-115 mph terminal, so a 0-100 of about 11-12 seconds

[Dave Hedgehog]

Nigel_O said:

Ahbefive said:

I'm surprised that people are still struggling with why a fwd car has limitations in regards to 0-60 times. I'd be interested to see the 1/4mile or 0-100mph time, much more telling.

Exactly - 0-60 is not an indicator of the true performance. Assuming it weighs roughly the same as a standard 500 Abarth (c. 1100kg), I would expect a sub 13 second standing quarter at about 110-115 mph terminal, so a 0-100 of about 11-12 seconds

I would expect it to be way faster than that once of the line 40-120 should be mind bending in a 360bhp per tonne car

[neil1jnr]

Cool, bonkers little car.

Disappointing that roughly half the comments are people moaning about 0-60. It's irrelevant, it's a FWD car.

[PoopahScoopah]

I'm sure some people have been strapping big turbos to Starlet GTT/Glanzas and making this sort of power for years so it's not really that surprising. Could probably do it much cheaper too, but if I had to pick between the Starlet and this 500 I'd take the latter.

[nikaiyo2]

ecsrobin said:

AHM near Hook. Was very impressed with the setup, I spoke to the gent who does the maps Adie, he races an Alfa Romeo 33 which was in the corner being worked on, and he owns a 595 Competizione.

http://alfacare.co.uk

Thanks buddy they did the Cambelt on my old Abarth

[deeper6]

A roll cage might be worth considering

[aeropilot]

Gandahar said:

400 from 1.4 though. That's pushing it even for a modern engine. In the old days it would be a highly tuned Sierra Cosworth with so much fuel being pumped through the large exhaust you could smell the petrol as it overtook you and had to put out your ciggy pronto....

Not just old days....

In the past couple of years I've been behind several GT-R's that have forced me to push the recirc button on the air-con to block out the heavy smell of unburnt fuel coming into the car, and only a week or so ago, I was following some crazed nutter driver in a stupidly low, stretched tyre SEAT, that must have had some awful map in it judging by the odur of unburnt fuel he was leaving in his wake!!

[robinessex]

400bhp from 1.4 ltrs. Remember the Turbo F1's. Max was 1500bhp from 1.5ltr. So that 400bhp don't look so barmy after all!! The Jaguar C-X75 had a 1.6-litre dual-boosted (turbocharged and supercharged) four-cylinder powerplant which generates 502 bhp at 10,000 rpm.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 28th March 10:47

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 28th March 10:48

[stuckmojo]

Renn Sport said:

Shame the engine is in the wrong place.

May have been nice to have the engine in the back or mid mounted like a Renault 5 Turbo. Then the scorpion would have sting in its tail.

saying that.. its still an amazing piece of engineering deriving 400bhp from the front mounted 1.4

This.

[big_rob_sydney]

Ahbefive said:

I'm surprised that people are still struggling with why a fwd car has limitations in regards to 0-60 times. I'd be interested to see the 1/4mile or 0-100mph time, much more telling.

I'm not so sure people are "struggling" with it, as opposed to just calling it like it is. When there are other ways to leave the line quicker for a lot less money, its not wrong / mistaken to point this fact out.

If you want to argue that the rolling acceleration is different, fine. Just don't get your panties all bunched up while doing so.

[Ahbefive]

big_rob_sydney said:

I'm not so sure people are "struggling" with it, as opposed to just calling it like it is. When there are other ways to leave the line quicker for a lot less money, its not wrong / mistaken to point this fact out.

If you want to argue that the rolling acceleration is different, fine. Just don't get your panties all bunched up while doing so.

No, it's quite obvious that people are struggling with the physics of it. Of course an awd car lanches better than a fwd one. People are commenting on "400bhp why does it only do 60moh in 4.7 seconds", theybare not saying it woyld be better as awd.

What other fwd cars do 60mph in less than that would be my answer to those struggling with the physics of it.

No need to get your knickers in a twist just because you fail to understand weight transfer.

[BVB]

Brilliant.

[HJMS123]

mooseracer said:

People wondering why 4WD and RWD cars accelerate quicker off the line than this. Really?

Everything single time a high powered FWD car is featured it staggers me there are comments from enthusiasts comparing the 0-60 times to similarly powered AWD/RWD cars

[AMGJocky]

micksims said:

4.7 to 60? would have thought it would be quicker than that? My SQ5 weighs twice as much, 91hp down on this and still does it in 5.1!! Ok its 4wd but really!?

C'mon, physics.