Cars with sub 4 secs 0 to 60 mph?

[JonRB]

There seems to be quite a lot of "yeah..but...no...but... yeah..but..." in this thread.

Forgive me if I misread the thread title; clearly it is "Cars with sub 4 secs 0 to 60 mph, but not Caterhams or Atoms or Radicals or anything that isn't my car (assuming it can do under 4s)"

[Mr Dave]

A cheetah can apparently get from 0-60 in three strides.

• ** cars a big african cat is where its at.

[PaulFontaine]

JonRB said:

There seems to be quite a lot of "yeah..but...no...but... yeah..but..." in this thread.

Forgive me if I misread the thread title; clearly it is "Cars with sub 4 secs 0 to 60 mph, but not Caterhams or Atoms or Radicals or anything that isn't my car (assuming it can do under 4s)"

Too be fair they do meet the criteria set forth but in all reality are they really street cars or more track day specials? I think the factors that set them apart are the fact that they really can't be used to travel, lack a roof, or as even the most basic of a day to day car. I see both side of the equation and the OP has only set fourth one criteria and that is a 0-60 time but I do see where both sides are coming from.

[anonymous-user]

torres del paine said:

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.

Being extreme does not mean they are not used as daily transport Cockwomble will testify to this. The point was made that a Caterham cannot be allowed into the 0-60 debate becuase it is a 'track car' which was and still is nonsense

[Noger]

PaulFontaine said:

Too be fair they do meet the criteria set forth but in all reality are they really street cars or more track day specials? I think the factors that set them apart are the fact that they really can't be used to travel, lack a roof, or as even the most basic of a day to day car. I see both side of the equation and the OP has only set fourth one criteria and that is a 0-60 time but I do see where both sides are coming from.

To be fair, you are woefully under-informed, sir

Can't be used to travel....Really ?

75 cars from Europe drove from Houston to San Francisco via Santa Fe, Vail, Lake Tahoe and Yosemite (with a side trip to Vegas for two nice people to get married). In terms of actual *travel* most of the "sports car" owners on here can barely get to Goodwood

Other than aircon, what are they missing in terms of "basics" ?

[anonymous-user]

Noger said:

To be fair, you are woefully under-informed, sir

Can't be used to travel....Really ?

75 cars from Europe drove from Houston to San Francisco via Santa Fe, Vail, Lake Tahoe and Yosemite (with a side trip to Vegas for two nice people to get married). In terms of actual *travel* most of the "sports car" owners on here can barely get to Goodwood

Not to mention Swiss meets, Alp blats, Welsh blats, Evo triangle.......

[Noger]

..Arctic circle, the China trip...

Liege - Agadir - Liege, Monte Carlo Challenge (both done by a Mrs Clarkson )

Edited by Noger on Friday 22 July 10:24

[busta]

swerni said:

Roof is nicely waterproof and even has a zip out rear window. ( luxury )

You don't even get that on an S-class- that's real luxury!

[PaulFontaine]

Noger said:

To be fair, you are woefully under-informed, sir

Can't be used to travel....Really ?

75 cars from Europe drove from Houston to San Francisco via Santa Fe, Vail, Lake Tahoe and Yosemite (with a side trip to Vegas for two nice people to get married). In terms of actual *travel* most of the "sports car" owners on here can barely get to Goodwood

Other than aircon, what are they missing in terms of "basics" ?

Now your just being silly I'd love to see a car missing "air con" make that trip it well over 100 degree in most of that route hitting temps of 110 in many portions now I know your just being silly. I am sorry but I don't consider driving thousands of miles in stifling heat in cramped, sweaty discomfort with little to no room for bags travel or even very safe for that matter. Take a look at US temperatures if you think I am making it up. I call your bluff. Stop trying to justify the shortcomings of your car and enjoy it for what it is. You're actually bolstering the point being made by owners of more well rounded sports cars in whose cars you can arrived cool, comfortable and with more than a toothbrush. That is EXACTLY what makes cars like the 911 turbo more amazing as they can be comfortable and easy to drive at highway speeds with out the draining constant roar of wind and road noise, with the harshness and vibration for thousands of miles yet be unleashed to great effectiveness on a track. and then once again driven home. I am not going to even touch upon safety and it is a factor in the US as over 50% cars are large trucks and SUV's

[JonRB]

PaulFontaine said:

Now your just being silly I'd love to see a car missing "air con" make that trip it well over 100 degree in most of that route hitting temps of 110 in many portions now I know your just being silly. I am sorry but I don't consider driving thousands of miles in stifling heat in cramped, sweaty discomfort with little to no room for bags travel or even very safe for that matter. Take a look at US temperatures if you think I am making it up. I call your bluff. Stop trying to justify the shortcomings of your car and enjoy it for what it is. You're actually bolstering the point being made by owners of more well rounded sports cars in whose cars you can arrived cool, comfortable and with more than a toothbrush. That is EXACTLY what makes cars like the 911 turbo more amazing as they can be comfortable and easy to drive at highway speeds with out the draining constant roar of wind and road noise, with the harshness and vibration for thousands of miles yet be unleashed to great effectiveness on a track. and then once again driven home. I am not going to even touch upon safety and it is a factor in the US as over 50% cars are large trucks and SUV's

What exactly are you trying to prove with all this "debate"? The title of the thread is pretty damn simple yet you seem intent on making it more complicated to prove some point that completely escapes me.

[Marf]

PaulFontaine said:

Now your just being silly I'd love to see a car missing "air con" make that trip it well over 100 degree in most of that route hitting temps of 110 in many portions now I know your just being silly.

Pretty sure the car wouldnt give two sh-ts that it doesnt have aircon. The passengers might.

PaulFontaine said:

being silly.

[Paxman]Nnnnnyeeeesss[/Paxman]

[Noger]

PaulFontaine said:

Now your just being silly I'd love to see a car missing "air con" make that trip it well over 100 degree in most of that route hitting temps of 110 in many portions now I know your just being silly. <snip>

I call your bluff.

OK, I got two pairs...A pair of aces.....and....another pair of aces

http://usa2005anamericanroadtrip.blogspot.com/

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=101...

[911p]

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

[Scuffers]

doogz said:

torres del paine said:

NorthernBoy said:

What point are you trying to make here? The thread is about acceleration, why are you trying to argue "yes, but, look at the size of my boot"?

You always get the 'my Caterham will blow this, that and the other away' but so what, it's a one-dimensional track toy.

It's more impressive that a bloater like the 911 can mix it up with more focused cars and do the whole GT thing.

As I said, a 997.2 Turbo S will do bang on 3 seconds to 60. That's bonkers fast.

That's opinion. I think it's more impressive that a Caterham could spank a 911 Turbo round a track, for a fraction of the price.

I'm not saying i'm right and you're wrong, but that's only your opinion.

it would have to be a pretty special Caterham to spank a proper turbo S on an open cct. they are *really* fast as production cars go....

for example

[PaulFontaine]

Noger said:

OK, I got two pairs...A pair of aces.....and....another pair of aces

http://usa2005anamericanroadtrip.blogspot.com/

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=101...

You further validate my point that these cars are not designed for long range comfort and driving. I don't see more than the distance of one tank of gas covered in a day. Are you realistically telling that you feel that what is essentially a kit car is a superior to the many sports and GT cars available? Rationalize to yourself how your car is a superior to something like a turbo 911. I personally don't buy it. It has far more in common with a motorcycle than a car as far as traveling here is concerned. (there's nothing wrong with that but don't try and tell me that it's the best, fastest most comfortable way of covering driving distance).

[Noger]

PaulFontaine said:

You further validate my point that these cars are not designed for long range comfort and driving. I don't see more than the distance of one tank of gas covered in a day. Are you realistically telling that you feel that what is essentially a kit car is a superior to the many sports and GT cars available? Rationalize to yourself how your car is a superior to something like a turbo 911. I personally don't buy it. It has far more in common with a motorcycle than a car as far as traveling here is concerned. (there's nothing wrong with that but don't try and tell me that it's the best, fastest most comfortable way of covering driving distance).

So, hang on a minute... You said you didn't think it was possible to drive from Houston to SF in something you barely consider to be a car (fair opinion, they are a bit extreme) ... and yet it was done (and I only didn't go because my car was in bits at the time). And yet I show you the actual pictures of it being done. <licky finger in the air to denote 1 point thing>

As to the rest....

Superior ? God no. Just faster, and more fun
Fastest AND most comfortable ? God no. But you just said "sub 4 secs" and didn't say anything about being comfortable, you near to be clearer in future.

But why are you are upset by the simple physics of putting a light, moderately powerful engine in something light as a means to going fast ? Sure, they are not the last word in comfort, but they are not THAT bad, and it is a giggle

[PaulFontaine]

Noger said:

So, hang on a minute... You said you didn't think it was possible to drive from Houston to SF in something you barely consider to be a car (fair opinion, they are a bit extreme) ... and yet it was done (and I only didn't go because my car was in bits at the time). And yet I show you the actual pictures of it being done. <licky finger in the air to denote 1 point thing>

As to the rest....

Superior ? God no. Just faster, and more fun
Fastest AND most comfortable ? God no. But you just said "sub 4 secs" and didn't say anything about being comfortable, you near to be clearer in future.

But why are you are upset by the simple physics of putting a light, moderately powerful engine in something light as a means to going fast ? Sure, they are not the last word in comfort, but they are not THAT bad, and it is a giggle

I am tired of your silliness it can be done by walking as well, Enjoy your kit car but don't belittle cars that are vastly superior in every measure

[JonRB]

PaulFontaine said:

I am tired of your silliness it can be done by walking as well, Enjoy your kit car but don't belittle cars that are vastly superior in every measure

I really, REALLY think you are missing the point of this thread. You are now so blinkered at "winning" some argument based on some criteria that you invented that has very little to do with the very simple title of the thread that you are now starting to get into a strop.

A fighter jet could out-accelerate your precious Porsche and can also fly. But so fking what?

[JamesK]

Nearly all these threads end up with the teeth itchingly smug Porsche freaks sneering at anyone deemed not worthy. Shame really as some of their cars are quite nice

[anonymous-user]

911p said:

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

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'