Performance according to PH

[300bhp/ton]

Now this is purely observational and largely tongue-in-cheek, however the PH regulars among you will likely note that it rings a bell of truth to it


Slow:



Fast:



Epic:



Giant slayer:



Fast:



Glacial Slow:



Really Fast:



Very very slow and gutless:



Fast:



Undecided....:



Fast:



Slow:





All of the cars above carry broadly the same performance stats. And in most cases about the same power and weight stats too, failing that very similar power to weight ratio overall.

Funny how opinions differ though.

[y2blade]

Good post, For once I agree with you

[Vladimir]

And all conquering, budget hero supercar for those in the know. Makes a BMW appear utterly pointless.

Most definitely very very FAST ;-)

[zebra]

I kind of agree. For all their similarities though, they handle remarkably differently, say different things through their aesthetics, appeal to different markets and vary on price per punch.

[Rawwr]

Most people on PH seem to think that if a car doesn't have enough torque to pull the Eiffel Tower out of the ground from 500rpm then it's too much like hard work and a slow car.

/observation

[aka_kerrly]

That is brilliant and yes I completely agree.

What happens next though is a whole lot of guff about most of them being FWD shopping trolleys, a hair dressers car, a underwpowered sports car and a chav car.

[roadman]

[CampDavid]

A good 300 thread?

That's just punched a hole through my reality

[Output Flange]

...which reminds me, I really need to buy a Clio.

[sandman77]

Very true but cant believe there isn't an MX5 or TVR in there.

[0000]

Do they all cost the same? Isn't the GT86 quite a lot slower than the Focus ST?

Edited by 0000 on Thursday 29th August 11:31

[boobles]

You failed to mention the Crossfire which as we all know will destroy most things on the road!






Oh wait...... Thats the MX5 I was thinking about

Edited by boobles on Thursday 29th August 11:36

[The Beaver King]

I think the other decider on how we view cars is based on the rest of the range.

For example:

The Boxster; a pretty quick car in the grand scheme of things, but in relation to other Porsches it's looked down on.

Civic Type R; it's one of the flagships for Honda and one of the fastest in their range (with the S2000)

Audi TT; the 3.2 was quick and pretty strong in it's class, but compared to a RS4/RS6/R8...?

[300bhp/ton]

0000 said:

Do they all cost the same? Isn't the GT86 quite a lot slower than the Focus ST?

Edited by 0000 on Thursday 29th August 11:31

Car	0-60	Power	Weight	Power to Weight	Top Speed
GT86	6.2 sec (Motor Trend)	199.7 PS (197 bhp	1253 kg	157.22 bhp/ton	143mph
Focus ST 2005	6.5 (Carfolio)	225.1 PS (222 bhp	1362 kg	163 bhp/ton	150mph

I'm not saying the Focus isn't slightly quicker, but I think they are close enough to be counted as "broadly similar".

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 29th August 12:27

[300bhp/ton]

The Beaver King said:

I think the other decider on how we view cars is based on the rest of the range.

For example:

The Boxster; a pretty quick car in the grand scheme of things, but in relation to other Porsches it's looked down on.

But maybe try comparing to a 944 S2, a 968, or even an older non turbo air cooled 911.

[aka_kerrly]

0000 said:

Do they all cost the same? Isn't the GT86 quite a lot slower than the Focus ST?

Edited by 0000 on Thursday 29th August 11:31

To be fair to 300BHP he has nailed this one as he clearly says the cars all have broadly the same POWER to WEIGHT ratios which is a fair measure of performance.

[s p a c e m a n]

Was I the only one pressing the reveal button hoping for a smart car?

[Output Flange]

s p a c e m a n said:

Was I the only one pressing the reveal button hoping for a smart car?

Yes.

I was hoping for a '68 Lincoln Continental.

[The Beaver King]

300bhp/ton said:

The Beaver King said:

I think the other decider on how we view cars is based on the rest of the range.

For example:

The Boxster; a pretty quick car in the grand scheme of things, but in relation to other Porsches it's looked down on.

But maybe try comparing to a 944 S2, a 968, or even an older non turbo air cooled 911.

Yes, but now you're bringing age into it. All those cars shown are reasonably modern (sub 10-15 years) so are not yet blessed with the tinted specs that classics cars are privvy to.

When comparing cars, you look at others that are relatively similar in age. A TR6 is considered a pretty quick car when compared to others of its age, but it couldn't keep up with a Elise etc.

[0000]

300bhp/ton said:

Car	0-60	Power	Weight	Power to Weight	Top Speed
GT68	6.2 sec (Motor Trend)	199.7 PS (197 bhp	1253 kg	157.22 bhp/ton	143mph
Focus ST 2005	6.5 (Carfolio)	225.1 PS (222 bhp	1362 kg	163 bhp/ton	150mph

I'm not saying the Focus isn't slightly quicker, but I think they are close enough to be counted as "broadly similar".

If those are the figures I'll give you that. That 0-60 seems a lot quicker than what I recall from elsewhere.