Cars with sub 4 secs 0 to 60 mph?
Discussion
yonex said:
First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
Reminds me of a Track Day I did with Bookatrack once where, in the briefing, Johnny told the owners of the "Turbo-nutter barges" (there were several Skylines there) that they may be able to pull away on the straights once their turbos spooled up but to show some consideration for the Caterhams and Elises that would rather like to do some cornering. 
blank said:
OdramaSwimLaden said:
Absolutely no chance it can do a sub 4 secs 0-60 (in standard form).
ETA.....sorry; was this some sort of 335d mapped joke of some kind that i've missed? If so, sorry.
Top Gear mag tested it at 3.8s to 60 in a group test with the 1 Series M.ETA.....sorry; was this some sort of 335d mapped joke of some kind that i've missed? If so, sorry.
http://www.autobild.de/artikel/gross-gegen-klein-d...
Having said that, I do sometimes wonder if Audis provided for road tests are somewhat on the healthy side.
yonex said:
See the thing is I really like Porsches but I just cant stand some of the people who talk them up who dont know anything. Perhaps you can tell me how many times you have been past me on track in a 911 
First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
Where did you see me saying the 911 would take a Caterham on the track? The Turbo S is a tonne heavier, no chance. Read my post please - we were talking straight line speed only!First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
Edited by 911p on Friday 22 July 23:22
911p said:
yonex said:
My Caterham would. It would also knacker it to 100.
Sorry to say, but your caterham simply wouldn't. 997.2 Turbo S 0-60 2.7, 0-100 6.4. It will do this time and time again. Caterham R500 0-60 2.9, 0-100 6.9. You'd be hard pushed to ever get those figures in the Caterham I reckon!Car & Driver Road Test
IIRC, the Yanks tend to do the tests with only a driver and 1/2 a tank of fuel as opposed to the European norm of a full tank and two bods in situ. If they do, then ignore me (not that I care that much either way, just suspect/possibly know that American road test figures are always rather good for this reason).
911p said:
Where did you see me saying the 911 would take a Caterham on the track? The Turbo S is a tonne heavier, no chance. Read my post please - we were talking straight line speed only!
Yes and its poor form bringing a Caterham into a BS debate about 0-60 and 0-100 when their reason to exist is to provide thrills that cannot be gained from anything else. However if you do ever see a Mclaren orange Caterham and you happen to be in a 911 I wouldn't assume that a brace of turbo's and JLS on the audio is enough to keep it honest 
98C4S said:
911p said:
yonex said:
Yes and its poor form bringing a Caterham into a BS debate about 0-60 and 0-100
What was your reasoning then?"My Caterham would. It would also knacker it to 100."
All this Caterham (and Ariel and similar) v Porsche etc.
One thing is forgotten in the arguments: to drive the former 'fast' on the road you need a helmet (or goggles), which you don't with the other cars mentioned.
Of course, you can do without but who wants their face to look like Clarkson's!!!
And the bit about race Caterhams on the track keeping all the other cars out of the way comment. Caterhams usually race Caterhams. I rarely see Caterhams lined up in a real race against other marques, only at hillclimbs and sprints.
Now take this little thing pictured and it can even show a Porsche or two a thing (and Esprits, Elises, Morgan Plus8s etc etc). O-60? Good enough for it to leave the grid so quick it would win some races by in excess of 20 secs (yes, that was 20, not 2, or 0.2), and yes that is the front row of the grid.
sorry about pic colour.
Anyway getting back on subject of sub 4 secs to 60.
I'm not sure what my son's 500 bhp Audi S4 does 0-60, but who cares?
All I know is that passengers usually utter the same words I do when they get a ride...
(in fact, the last guy who was thinking of buying it also said the exact same 2 words when my son dropped a gear).
0-60 seems irrelevant when you're hurtling at getting on for 3 times that figure in seemingly no time.
The words are always the same.
Starts with a loud long pronounced word beginning with F.......!
very quickly followed by a shorter, but still loud, word beginning with H!
At the same time the jaw has dropped and the eyes are very wide open!
Much more fun than having a sweaty helmet on, or your cheeks wrapped round the back of your head!
Ok, there are faster cars out there, but his car and mods together cost probably a lot less than any fast Caterham.
0-60 is, again, irrelevant really.
A Caterham would hit its aerodynamic brick wall before his S4 was in 3rd gear!
One thing is forgotten in the arguments: to drive the former 'fast' on the road you need a helmet (or goggles), which you don't with the other cars mentioned.
Of course, you can do without but who wants their face to look like Clarkson's!!!
And the bit about race Caterhams on the track keeping all the other cars out of the way comment. Caterhams usually race Caterhams. I rarely see Caterhams lined up in a real race against other marques, only at hillclimbs and sprints.
Now take this little thing pictured and it can even show a Porsche or two a thing (and Esprits, Elises, Morgan Plus8s etc etc). O-60? Good enough for it to leave the grid so quick it would win some races by in excess of 20 secs (yes, that was 20, not 2, or 0.2), and yes that is the front row of the grid.
sorry about pic colour.
Anyway getting back on subject of sub 4 secs to 60.
I'm not sure what my son's 500 bhp Audi S4 does 0-60, but who cares?
All I know is that passengers usually utter the same words I do when they get a ride...
(in fact, the last guy who was thinking of buying it also said the exact same 2 words when my son dropped a gear).
0-60 seems irrelevant when you're hurtling at getting on for 3 times that figure in seemingly no time.
The words are always the same.
Starts with a loud long pronounced word beginning with F.......!
very quickly followed by a shorter, but still loud, word beginning with H!
At the same time the jaw has dropped and the eyes are very wide open!
Much more fun than having a sweaty helmet on, or your cheeks wrapped round the back of your head!
Ok, there are faster cars out there, but his car and mods together cost probably a lot less than any fast Caterham.
0-60 is, again, irrelevant really.
A Caterham would hit its aerodynamic brick wall before his S4 was in 3rd gear!
Flintstone - No. Although they are extreme - until you actually drive a BEC it just does not make sense.
Example - on paper, it makes no sense to use such short gearing (,ime does 11mph/1krpm in 6th) - but the reality is totally different from expectation. Bike engines make regular car engines feel thoroughly Bolton & Watt. The total urge to scream wills you on for a start. The total lack of inertia does the rest. Heck it doesnt really want to run much under 3Krpm...
Then you find that (done right) clutchless upshifts are all over in about 50mS, >>10x faster than conventional gearboxes; downshifts are similar and the sheer lack of drivetain inertia is something else. There is no penaltly for wanting to swap cogs a lot - quite the opposite in fact. Dropping 3 in <0.2s, easy, even though its sequential. Blat, tak tack done.
The usual car-driver argument is that 'bike engines have no torque'. That's utter b
ks too, because it overlooks the function of the primary drive in a bike engine/gearbox train. 80lbft @ 12Krpm then becomes 120lbft at 8Krpm at the clutch. Not bad from 1 litre.. heck even an S2000, or RX8 only muster s150lbft give or take, in a car of min. 3.5 times the mass.
- and with only 430Kg to propel / 510Kg with me in it, but 4 wheels for braking and turn-in ...it's enough to give 600cc sports bikes a real fright on most roads involving bends. And have me changing pants often!
It's just a very pure kind of fun %)
Example - on paper, it makes no sense to use such short gearing (,ime does 11mph/1krpm in 6th) - but the reality is totally different from expectation. Bike engines make regular car engines feel thoroughly Bolton & Watt. The total urge to scream wills you on for a start. The total lack of inertia does the rest. Heck it doesnt really want to run much under 3Krpm...
Then you find that (done right) clutchless upshifts are all over in about 50mS, >>10x faster than conventional gearboxes; downshifts are similar and the sheer lack of drivetain inertia is something else. There is no penaltly for wanting to swap cogs a lot - quite the opposite in fact. Dropping 3 in <0.2s, easy, even though its sequential. Blat, tak tack done.
The usual car-driver argument is that 'bike engines have no torque'. That's utter b
ks too, because it overlooks the function of the primary drive in a bike engine/gearbox train. 80lbft @ 12Krpm then becomes 120lbft at 8Krpm at the clutch. Not bad from 1 litre.. heck even an S2000, or RX8 only muster s150lbft give or take, in a car of min. 3.5 times the mass.- and with only 430Kg to propel / 510Kg with me in it, but 4 wheels for braking and turn-in ...it's enough to give 600cc sports bikes a real fright on most roads involving bends. And have me changing pants often!
It's just a very pure kind of fun %)
yonex said:
See the thing is I really like Porsches but I just cant stand some of the people who talk them up who dont know anything. Perhaps you can tell me how many times you have been past me on track in a 911
First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
But of course. Terrific cars, no doubt and hugely fun. A supercharged Exige would give a 911 a bloody nose too.First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
All I was saying was that the latest generation of Porsches are such rounded cars; the Turbo/S covers all the bases so well. Admittedly, at a cost but that's a another matter.
Also, in terms of pure acceleration, the Turbo S is brutal off the line. They launch like no other production car and I'm confident that one would pull a lead over many supercars to 60, even 120. Beyond this cars with more cubic inches and horsepower would push pass.
Edited by torres del paine on Saturday 23 July 07:02
43034 said:
torres del paine said:
yonex said:
Caterham's obviously aren't the last word in luxury but to say they are one dimensional is rubbish. Go have a look around and see some of the miles people do in them, unless you start to run heavily biased track setups they aren't that bad to live with.
Give over.They are at the extreme end of the road car spectrum, the point where another car for all manner of routine duties is necessary.
Great car with a singular approach, but a weekend car, lets be honest.
can only manage a paltry 4.6 second 0-60mph, so doesn't qualify for this thread.torres del paine said:
yonex said:
See the thing is I really like Porsches but I just cant stand some of the people who talk them up who dont know anything. Perhaps you can tell me how many times you have been past me on track in a 911
First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
But of course. Terrific cars, no doubt and hugely fun. A supercharged Exige would give a 911 a bloody nose too.First briefing at Brands years ago 'Right to all you guys who have 911's, please stay out of the way of the Caterhams, you will only hold them up and comprimise your laps'
All I was saying was that the latest generation of Porsches are such rounded cars; the Turbo/S covers all the bases so well. Admittedly, at a cost but that's a another matter.
Also, in terms of pure acceleration, the Turbo S is brutal off the line. They launch like no other production car and I'm confident that one would pull a lead over many supercars to 60, even 120. Beyond this cars with more cubic inches and horsepower would push pass.
also, we are not talking about any old 911, we are talking about the turbo S, as a road car, they are stupidly fast in a straight line, no way would a supercharged Exige get close even from a standing start (that video I posted a link to is in a K20 SC Exige with ~360hp, and the turbo was just driving away from me - compared to the GT3's on track that I could just drive past).
even a top spec Caterham would not stand a chance from a standing start, that's not to say on a track like BH indy it could not beet it's laptime.
But then again, I've been IN a Caterham Levante. It wasn't fascinating, it was utterly terrifying 
An R500 merely ordinarily bowel loseninly scary.
It's all about the launch though, which is going to be a lot easier with a German computer helping. Bear in mind Evo only *just* got the Levante under 5s 0-60 ! The 3s it then took to get to 100 is quite quick.
Both 911 and R500 are impressively quick, for different reasons. One because, as people rightly point out, you can be comfortable as well. The other because it is built in a shed in Dartford
An R500 merely ordinarily bowel loseninly scary.
It's all about the launch though, which is going to be a lot easier with a German computer helping. Bear in mind Evo only *just* got the Levante under 5s 0-60 ! The 3s it then took to get to 100 is quite quick.
Both 911 and R500 are impressively quick, for different reasons. One because, as people rightly point out, you can be comfortable as well. The other because it is built in a shed in Dartford
Grovsie26 said:
How am i wrong, i listed well over 50 cars. Your lame statement about cars that are 50 years old was pointless. Well done for stating the obvious that a car from the 50's isn't as fast as one today.
You're making the mistake of applying common sense to someone so clearly hard of thinking.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff