What defines a fast car?
Discussion
TheAngryDog said:
Excluding Supercar!
I used to think, and still do, that a fast car was one that could hit 100mph in 10 seconds or less from standstill.
Would cars today that can achieve that, in your opinion, still be considered fast?
To be fair the cars that can hit that sort of time tend to be on the upper end of high performace and in the catagory of very fast.I used to think, and still do, that a fast car was one that could hit 100mph in 10 seconds or less from standstill.
Would cars today that can achieve that, in your opinion, still be considered fast?
For me "fast" car would be sub 5 seconds to 60 and a quick car being sub 6 seconds to 60
To me, a fast car is any car that gives the sensation that that it is fast, if it feels fast then I'd class that car as a fast one. It's all relative and a matter of opinion. A clio 182 for example may not be most peoples definition of a fast car, but if you are really going for it on a narrow B-road then yes, it is a fast car. The same car though to me would be considered slow on a motorway next to a 911 Turbo.
neil1jnr said:
To me, a fast car is any car that gives the sensation that that it is fast, if it feels fast then I'd class that car as a fast one. It's all relative and a matter of opinion. A clio 182 for example may not be most peoples definition of a fast car, but if you are really going for it on a narrow B-road then yes, it is a fast car. The same car though to me would be considered slow on a motorway next to a 911 Turbo.
Yep, it's all relative. Trying to chase bhp numbers and performance times is a mug's game. It's whatever gives you that buzz. I had a mk2 16v Golf Gti that would get wasted by most modern TDi hatches but I know who was having the most fun. I think the trick is not to exploit 100% of the performance too often or you'll get accustomed to it and start looking for mods...
For me it used to be whatever could wind up to the best speed down the local dual carriageway.
Of course now that pockets are deeper and insurance is cheaper most of the cars I would want are capable of 155+ and it would be silly to do this on a highway.
So 'fast' for me is anything that has the get-up-and-go, the power, the guts, to pull me from the 45mph that the old/infirm/incapable do on NSL roads up to a billion leptons per hour to overtake them whilst spending as little time on the other side of the road as possible.
I guess that is what it is about today, with overcrowded roads, and harsh punishment for speeding; in order to make fast progress you need to be able to pass safely in small gaps. I suppose that does equate to a 0-100 time in order to be able to quantify it, if you like. But fast for me is a feeling, not a number.
Of course now that pockets are deeper and insurance is cheaper most of the cars I would want are capable of 155+ and it would be silly to do this on a highway.
So 'fast' for me is anything that has the get-up-and-go, the power, the guts, to pull me from the 45mph that the old/infirm/incapable do on NSL roads up to a billion leptons per hour to overtake them whilst spending as little time on the other side of the road as possible.
I guess that is what it is about today, with overcrowded roads, and harsh punishment for speeding; in order to make fast progress you need to be able to pass safely in small gaps. I suppose that does equate to a 0-100 time in order to be able to quantify it, if you like. But fast for me is a feeling, not a number.
I know it is all relative, but I guess there will always be some kind of standard.
I agree that a car needs good mid range as well, which you would expect with a car capable of hitting 100mph in 10 seconds or under. A lot of today's hot hatches are capable of this, or close to it, so does fast need to be redefined? I looked at 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less being the standard some 12 odd years ago, times have changed and moved on, should this now be 8 or 9 seconds?
I agree that a car needs good mid range as well, which you would expect with a car capable of hitting 100mph in 10 seconds or under. A lot of today's hot hatches are capable of this, or close to it, so does fast need to be redefined? I looked at 0-100mph in 10 seconds or less being the standard some 12 odd years ago, times have changed and moved on, should this now be 8 or 9 seconds?
We could all list a lot of obviously fast cars that take longer than 10 seconds for 0-100.
Given that we have a lot of other adjectives for very fast cars, I don't think it would be sensible to set such a high benchmark to be considered "fast".
I think of anything that is noticeably quicker than the average modern car as fast (albeit not necessarily "vey fast", "extremely fast" or "mental". Maybe sub-7 seconds 0-60 (or whatever the equivalent 0-100 time).
Given that we have a lot of other adjectives for very fast cars, I don't think it would be sensible to set such a high benchmark to be considered "fast".
I think of anything that is noticeably quicker than the average modern car as fast (albeit not necessarily "vey fast", "extremely fast" or "mental". Maybe sub-7 seconds 0-60 (or whatever the equivalent 0-100 time).
neil1jnr said:
To me, a fast car is any car that gives the sensation that that it is fast, if it feels fast then I'd class that car as a fast one. It's all relative and a matter of opinion. A clio 182 for example may not be most peoples definition of a fast car, but if you are really going for it on a narrow B-road then yes, it is a fast car. The same car though to me would be considered slow on a motorway next to a 911 Turbo.
Similar to my view.Any car that feels fast has too much power for it's handling qualities. With the exception of anything french or from volvos 300/400/sv40 ranges as they go too fast for the chassis when parked.
Studio117 said:
When it keeps pulling the same at 120 as it did at 60.
If you mean it needs to maintain the same rate of acceleration, I suspect no-one has ever produced a car which can do that, at least in the dry. It would need to be traction limited up to 120 but with no aerodynamic downforce. 
oilydan said:
So 'fast' for me is anything that has the get-up-and-go, the power, the guts, to pull me from the 45mph that the old/infirm/incapable do on NSL roads up to a billion leptons per hour to overtake them whilst spending as little time on the other side of the road as possible.
I guess that is what it is about today, with overcrowded roads, and harsh punishment for speeding; in order to make fast progress you need to be able to pass safely in small gaps. I suppose that does equate to a 0-100 time in order to be able to quantify it, if you like. But fast for me is a feeling, not a number.
+1. I guess that is what it is about today, with overcrowded roads, and harsh punishment for speeding; in order to make fast progress you need to be able to pass safely in small gaps. I suppose that does equate to a 0-100 time in order to be able to quantify it, if you like. But fast for me is a feeling, not a number.
I wish the UK was more like California where people seem to use their rear view mirrors and always seem to go out of their way to let drivers who wish to proceed more rapidly past.
It's a very personal thing. I'm sure we've all been cornered at parties by people who won't stop telling us how fast their V6 Vectra or their ST220 Mondeo is 
I tend to refer to fast and slow in terms of lap times, rather than straight line performance. For example I would say that a Caterham R300 is faster than an E92 M3, even though the acceleration times and top speed of the Caterham are both slower, because on a race track the R300 is massively faster in terms of lap times.
In terms of straight line speed though, I completely agree with the OP, for me fast in a road car starts at 0-100mph in under ten seconds. Very fast would be under 8. My Lotus 2-Eleven is 8.9secs I think, which is between fast and very fast. That's just a limited comparitive benchmark though obviously, because the acceleration one actually feels is actually when exiting a corner at 30-40mph and nailing the throttle, not when screaming off the line. A 4WD car with slicks that did 0-100 in 10 seconds would actually be pretty slow in terms of the feeling of acceleration from corner to corner, because it's 0-100mph time is more down to grip than power/torque to weight ratio.
I tend to refer to fast and slow in terms of lap times, rather than straight line performance. For example I would say that a Caterham R300 is faster than an E92 M3, even though the acceleration times and top speed of the Caterham are both slower, because on a race track the R300 is massively faster in terms of lap times.
In terms of straight line speed though, I completely agree with the OP, for me fast in a road car starts at 0-100mph in under ten seconds. Very fast would be under 8. My Lotus 2-Eleven is 8.9secs I think, which is between fast and very fast. That's just a limited comparitive benchmark though obviously, because the acceleration one actually feels is actually when exiting a corner at 30-40mph and nailing the throttle, not when screaming off the line. A 4WD car with slicks that did 0-100 in 10 seconds would actually be pretty slow in terms of the feeling of acceleration from corner to corner, because it's 0-100mph time is more down to grip than power/torque to weight ratio.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff