If not 0-60, what measurement indicates a truly fast car?
Discussion
Inspired by the 0-60 thread, and numerous other discussions, I was interested in opinions on what other statistical measure could be used to indicate a truly fast car.
Given the various 'quickest car from A-B' threads, and the difficulties of comparing track times to road times (and of getting realistic and legal road A-B times anyway) is the act of comparing car performance really a subjective one? Or is there a specific measure people would agree on being a good benchmark?
For example, some people have put forward 0-100, 60-100, 20-80, 30-70 as possibly more relevant comparisons of acceleration (with acceleration then being used as a proxy for ability to make road progress). Of those I think the 20-80 or 30-70 would be the most relevant markers given the opportunities to use such acceleration on the open road.
Using TorqueStats as a measurement tool (and to be honest I have no idea how accurate that is) it throws up a number of examples where 0-60 times are the same but 20-80 times are different, suggesting it is a better differentiator.
For example, the Jaguar XF Supercharged and the BMW 335D (not mapped) have identical 0-60 times of 5.7 secs, but the Jag does 20-80 in 6.7 secs compared to the 335D's 7.9 secs, which gives the impression the Jag is clearly the quicker car.
So, is 20-80 a good benchmark? If so, what differential in that benchmark would separate a quick car from a truly rapid car? 2 seconds, 3 seconds, more?
Given the various 'quickest car from A-B' threads, and the difficulties of comparing track times to road times (and of getting realistic and legal road A-B times anyway) is the act of comparing car performance really a subjective one? Or is there a specific measure people would agree on being a good benchmark?
For example, some people have put forward 0-100, 60-100, 20-80, 30-70 as possibly more relevant comparisons of acceleration (with acceleration then being used as a proxy for ability to make road progress). Of those I think the 20-80 or 30-70 would be the most relevant markers given the opportunities to use such acceleration on the open road.
Using TorqueStats as a measurement tool (and to be honest I have no idea how accurate that is) it throws up a number of examples where 0-60 times are the same but 20-80 times are different, suggesting it is a better differentiator.
For example, the Jaguar XF Supercharged and the BMW 335D (not mapped) have identical 0-60 times of 5.7 secs, but the Jag does 20-80 in 6.7 secs compared to the 335D's 7.9 secs, which gives the impression the Jag is clearly the quicker car.
So, is 20-80 a good benchmark? If so, what differential in that benchmark would separate a quick car from a truly rapid car? 2 seconds, 3 seconds, more?
OllieC said:
Everyone knows red cars are the fastest.
So it must be colour.
Dog poo brown is the slowest
OK, so yellow, green and black must also be up there under red, but I am struggling to place white. After all, most Astramax or Astravan's are white, and they are clearly very fast...So it must be colour.
Dog poo brown is the slowest
I think a better comparison to compare the speed and relitive power of cars is a BHP x Torque figure (may beed to divide everything by 100/1000 to keep the numbers sensible.
This would account for the low bhp, high torque engines being relitively powerful in real world figures and also give a good impression of low torque, high BHP cars.
What does PH think?
This would account for the low bhp, high torque engines being relitively powerful in real world figures and also give a good impression of low torque, high BHP cars.
What does PH think?
kiethton said:
I think a better comparison to compare the speed and relitive power of cars is a BHP x Torque figure (may beed to divide everything by 100/1000 to keep the numbers sensible.
This would account for the low bhp, high torque engines being relitively powerful in real world figures and also give a good impression of low torque, high BHP cars.
What does PH think?
I think it's an utter load of tripe, because bhp is torque x rpm anyway, so you've created a nonsense piece of maths.This would account for the low bhp, high torque engines being relitively powerful in real world figures and also give a good impression of low torque, high BHP cars.
What does PH think?
And power is useless unless you can actually make it stick, so actual timings in seconds are the only way to go. Therefore, 1/4 mile times are all that matters.
It's a never ending number of stats you could pull.
For some, 0-60mph is the best measurment as they don't go over 60mph but they love a traffic light drag.
Some want to know what a car will do 60-100mph as they spend their lives on a motorway.
1/4 miles seem a good measure as it nearly cancels out loss of traction and gearing compared to 0-60.
But who really cares! If it feels quick to you then great.
For some, 0-60mph is the best measurment as they don't go over 60mph but they love a traffic light drag.
Some want to know what a car will do 60-100mph as they spend their lives on a motorway.
1/4 miles seem a good measure as it nearly cancels out loss of traction and gearing compared to 0-60.
But who really cares! If it feels quick to you then great.
fido said:
100-0 .. fast cars need good brakes
Fido's thinking along the same lines as I am; what do you mean by fast? Something that accelerates hard? Find your favoured speed increments and the time it takes to get between them (either in a given gear or allowing gearshifts.)
High top speed? Easy - compare figures.
Overall package? Well, that involves more than either of the two above, as it also involves braking capability and handling. And then you are looking at lap times, for a given circuit. And then you have to decide which circuit you are going to use to set the benchmark ...
Alan Clark reckoned that a diesel disco was one of the fastest vehicles for getting from London to Scotland as you didn't need to stop to fill up. Other vehicles may travel quicker, but the extra speed was absorbed by the time spent queueing, filling and paying.
Oli.
I really wish that 30-130mph would be adopted as an industry standard.
It is the ideal range IMHO because it largely takes traction advantages out of equation and also tests grunt over a range where wind resistance is becoming the dominant factor.
Cars with high traction such as Subaru's can appear faster than they actually are in a 0-60 or 0-100mph test. 30-130 would give a far better indication of the vehicles true performance.
Similarly, light-weight cars such as Caterfields can often appear blisteringly quick over the 0-60 or 0-100mph increments but 30-130 will show up some of the underpowered ones once they get to around 100mph.
Finally, I would argue that 30-130 is the most useful of stats for testing real world accelerative grunt. In a track environment you do not come to a complete stop and the majority of hard acceleration we do on the roads is from corner to corner or overtaking and nearly always within the 30-130mph range. Even road 'races' are usually from a rolling start with very few people actually sitting at the lights with the launch control on waiting to go.
It is the ideal range IMHO because it largely takes traction advantages out of equation and also tests grunt over a range where wind resistance is becoming the dominant factor.
Cars with high traction such as Subaru's can appear faster than they actually are in a 0-60 or 0-100mph test. 30-130 would give a far better indication of the vehicles true performance.
Similarly, light-weight cars such as Caterfields can often appear blisteringly quick over the 0-60 or 0-100mph increments but 30-130 will show up some of the underpowered ones once they get to around 100mph.
Finally, I would argue that 30-130 is the most useful of stats for testing real world accelerative grunt. In a track environment you do not come to a complete stop and the majority of hard acceleration we do on the roads is from corner to corner or overtaking and nearly always within the 30-130mph range. Even road 'races' are usually from a rolling start with very few people actually sitting at the lights with the launch control on waiting to go.
Splats said:
I really wish that 30-130mph would be adopted as an industry standard.
It is the ideal range IMHO because it largely takes traction advantages out of equation and also tests grunt over a range where wind resistance is becoming the dominant factor.
Cars with high traction such as Subaru's can appear faster than they actually are in a 0-60 or 0-100mph test. 30-130 would give a far better indication of the vehicles true performance.
Similarly, light-weight cars such as Caterfields can often appear blisteringly quick over the 0-60 or 0-100mph increments but 30-130 will show up some of the underpowered ones once they get to around 100mph.
Finally, I would argue that 30-130 is the most useful of stats for testing real world accelerative grunt. In a track environment you do not come to a complete stop and the majority of hard acceleration we do on the roads is from corner to corner or overtaking and nearly always within the 30-130mph range. Even road 'races' are usually from a rolling start with very few people actually sitting at the lights with the launch control on waiting to go.
I would be willing to bet that most cars on sale now (measured in number of units sold) can't even reach 130mph.It is the ideal range IMHO because it largely takes traction advantages out of equation and also tests grunt over a range where wind resistance is becoming the dominant factor.
Cars with high traction such as Subaru's can appear faster than they actually are in a 0-60 or 0-100mph test. 30-130 would give a far better indication of the vehicles true performance.
Similarly, light-weight cars such as Caterfields can often appear blisteringly quick over the 0-60 or 0-100mph increments but 30-130 will show up some of the underpowered ones once they get to around 100mph.
Finally, I would argue that 30-130 is the most useful of stats for testing real world accelerative grunt. In a track environment you do not come to a complete stop and the majority of hard acceleration we do on the roads is from corner to corner or overtaking and nearly always within the 30-130mph range. Even road 'races' are usually from a rolling start with very few people actually sitting at the lights with the launch control on waiting to go.
mattmurdock said:
Inspired by the 0-60 thread, and numerous other discussions, I was interested in opinions on what other statistical measure could be used to indicate a truly fast car.
Maximum G-Force reading during acceleration, cornering and braking. Could do an average for overall comparison of various cars
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff