The 150 MPH speedometer in my Saab is actually pretty close to the top speed. 
The 150 MPH speedometer in my Saab is actually pretty close to the top speed.
bgkast wrote: The 150 MPH speedometer in my Saab is actually pretty close to the top speed.
Speaking of SAABs I remember the literature of the 9000 Aero proclaiming it faster from 50 to 75mph than a Ferrari Testarossa or a Porsche Carrera 4. Also the Saab 9-5 Aero was faster from 40-70mph than the 911 Turbo of it's time. I think those were top gear pulls.
An 81 marquis has really weird floating feelings at 130.
A 3.5 ecoboost with a K&N filter runs a faster 1/4 mile then a large portion of stock muscle cars.
A car with a 3 position shifter and an AOD can be locked into second buy upshifting out of first and pulling the shifter back down right after the shift.
Modern V6, fwd, family sedans are crazy fast 0-60 outshining exotica from even one generation ago. Amazing. And a little terrifying knowing that the average, no training driver is piloting all that performance around.
nderwater wrote:wearymicrobe wrote: My stupid little i3 is faster 0-40 then a new M3. It may actually be the fastest car to 40 that BMW makes.It's also the least expensive car sold with a carbon composite chassis. Is the i3 your first EV? What's your take on the car?
So we have had one of the 1st gen insights, the 2nd gen insight, two Prius' and a CMax for a little while. I love my i3 over any and all of them. The thing is fast enough in traffic to scoot around almost anything, the tech is intuative and just works, charging is fast and the rex motor in the back give's me infinite range if I want.
Things that I want are a increase form the 1.6 gallon tank to the 2.7 gallon one they get in Europe. In fact I would give up all the frunk space under the bonnet for a 7 gallon increase. (I measured what I could fit). The stereo needs to be better on power and it needs the next generation cabin sound damping tech which is coming soon. There is literately no service on the car, its like wipers every 12 months and something to do with the Rex motor every 50K I believe.
If and when the i8 goes full electric I will upgrade to that and give the i3 to my wife. But if Honda had simply dropped the K20a2 into the last CR-Z and kept even more weight off it that would be the perfect commuter for me. No electric needed.
nderwater wrote:G_Body_Man wrote: A previous gen Rav4 V6 will hit 60 in the low to mid 6s.The V6 Accord, Altima and Camry will each do 0-60 in about 5.8 seconds. On more than one occasion I've had to flog my E36 M3 to keep up.
I'm doing one of those annoying mind blown things they do on commercials right now. If you look at the numbers for Shelby Mustangs and Sunbeam Tigers, it makes you wonder why people would spend so much money on them.
One thing frequently overlooked when comparing acceleration times is tire technology. Old muscle car 1/4 mile and 0-60 times were taken with skinny little tires, made of rubber as hard as granite. Swap a set of slicks or modern rubber onto the back of an LS6 Chevelle, or 440 Cuda, and 1/4 mile times dropped into the 12s, sometimes faster. (I remember a review of a Yenko Nova running in the 11s!)
Considering how fast they really were, and how crude handling and braking was, you can understand why they felt so darn fast!
Granted, modern engines are very powerful, efficient, and nearly everything is now fast. But those older cars sometimes get misrepresented as their original tires were junk.
A surprising stat that impresses me........ a new Corvette weighs about 3300 lbs. About the same as a 1965 Corvette. This despite having air bags, ABS, a bazillion computer nannies, ultra comfortable interior, jamming stereo, A/C, etc. etc. Damn good job Chevy on keeping the weight down!
My Fiesta does 0-60 in less than 10 sec. 
I does get to 100 after awhile.
It does cruise at 75/80 nicely.
In reply to Joe Gearin:
We just hope it's not a rumpled beer can when the nannies fail and you hit a wall at 140mph because the sound deadening was so great you couldn't hear how fast you were going and we're playing with the jamming stereo.
This silly Brabus E55 I've saddled myself with does the 50-to-holykrap-there-went-125 passing maneuver in um hardly any time at all.. Which makes me wonder just how ridiculous a new ZR1 is.
Dave wrote: Modern V6, fwd, family sedans are crazy fast 0-60 outshining exotica from even one generation ago. Amazing. And a little terrifying knowing that the average, no training driver is piloting all that performance around.
Year / Make / Model -- 0-60 -- 1/4 mile
1977 Ferrari 308 GTB -- 8.1 -- 16.8
1982 Ferrari 308 GTS -- 7.2 -- 15.6
1983 Ferrari 308 GTBi QV -- 6.7 -- 15.0
1983 Ferrari Mondial -- 7.5 -- 15.8
1986 Ferrari 412 -- 6.6 -- 14.8
1988 Ferrari 328 GTS -- 6.6 -- 14.8
1989 Ferrari Mondial T -- 6.5 -- 14.8
1990 Ferrari 348 TB -- 5.9 -- 14.1
G_Body_Man wrote: A previous gen Rav4 V6 will hit 60 in the low to mid 6s.
And the current Rav-4 EV is about 7 seconds. It uses Tesla components, which makes me wonder if it's artificially slow - i.e. a hacker might be able to turn it into something truly dangerous.....
nderwater wrote:Dave wrote: Modern V6, fwd, family sedans are crazy fast 0-60 outshining exotica from even one generation ago. Amazing. And a little terrifying knowing that the average, no training driver is piloting all that performance around.Year / Make / Model -- 0-60 -- 1/4 mile 1977 Ferrari 308 GTB -- 8.1 -- 16.8 1982 Ferrari 308 GTS -- 7.2 -- 15.6 1983 Ferrari 308 GTBi QV -- 6.7 -- 15.0 1983 Ferrari Mondial -- 7.5 -- 15.8 1986 Ferrari 412 -- 6.6 -- 14.8 1988 Ferrari 328 GTS -- 6.6 -- 14.8 1989 Ferrari Mondial T -- 6.5 -- 14.8 1990 Ferrari 348 TB -- 5.9 -- 14.1
All slower to 60 than a V6 Accord or Camry.
I had a stock MG Midget that did 0-rusty in just under 5.5 years. Not all that surprising, really.
RossD wrote: You can get a 2015 Chrysler 200 with the 295 hp and 262 lb-ft.
I had one of these as a rental and it would bark the tires on the 1-2 upshift when using the paddles. It was a great rental car.
Top fuel dragsters accelerate 0-60 in .2 seconds, within their own wheelbase.
A stock Golf GTD (tdi) will top out at over 150mph!
I have a Lexus hybrid that does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and is cheaper now than all the fast new v6 midsizers i love (i am still surprised!).
TTAC got a Camry Hybrid to do the 1/4 mile in 15.2@91 mph a while back. That's NOT the fast version. Thats the version that gets 40+mpg and STILL does that.
My stupid little i3 is faster 0-40 then a new M3. It may actually be the fastest car to 40 that BMW makes.
I suspect that it's actually the i8. I love those things.
a 2wd 2.7 Ecoboost does 0-60 in under 6 seconds and pulls something over 25 MPGs.
Their real-world MPG numbers are sort of disappointing. Not 25 mpg..
the current Rav-4 EV is about 7 seconds. It uses Tesla components, which makes me wonder if it's artificially slow
The Tesla 'motor/trans unit' is actually used in a number of cars which are all much slower than the Model S. But turning up the wick depends a lot more on the rest of the hardware than it does on the motor itself. Sadly.
Streetwiseguy wrote: Top fuel dragsters accelerate 0-60 in .2 seconds, within their own wheelbase.
And the clutch is slipping until about half track.
You can get a 2015 F150 that weighs less than a ZL1 Camaro
The 2014 Town & Country I picked up a couple weeks ago has a published 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds...for a 2-ton minivan.
A stock thirdgen fbody would pull .88-.92 on a skid pad. That's pretty respectable handling for a stick axle car from the 80s.
In reply to Vigo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO5z32L32aY
I've done 110mph in a new Caravan. That thing hauls ass. And I've taken it ofroading uphill (by accident).
wearymicrobe wrote: ...if Honda had simply dropped the K20a2 into the last CR-Z and kept even more weight off it that would be the perfect commuter for me. No electric needed.
Speaking of silly honda's: here are my own fun stats:
I have a 2011 CR-Z I have owned for a little over 2 years. I have driven it 18538 miles and it has consumed 478.86 gallons of gas (about 38.7mpg)
I have a 1994 toyota 4 runner, v6 5 speed. I have owned for about 6 months. I have driven it 7886 miles using 413 gallons of gas (about 19.7mpg)
The miata is less polar; 3 years, 10669 miles and 393 gallons of gas (about 27.7mpg)
I no longer have a dodge challenger, but I drove it 16718 miles on 870 gallons of high test (averaging 19.3mpg)
Flynlow wrote: A stock thirdgen fbody would pull .88-.92 on a skid pad. That's pretty respectable handling for a stick axle car from the 80s.
Lateral G isn't handling, though, it's how sticky the tires are and not much else.
Suspension-wise, GSL-SE RX-7s were the same as their 12A brethren, but they also would pull .92g, far better than the (lighter) lesser models, because of the stock gummy tires.
The Nissan GT-R originally came with a superspecial sticky compound tire, that people would put on other models (Vette or Viper, I forget which) to get the additional grip. Memory says they were a GT-R specific compound of Pilot Sport Cup.
You'll need to log in to post.
