Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 16:11:29 GMT
It seems to me that in the era of ever-escalating power and torque figures, faster 'ring lap times and quicker acceleration figures, the manufacturers have not only abandoned the practice of conservatism (who, after all, would want to appear slower than someone else - who might be fibbing), but have started telling porkies.
The V8 Bentayga is quoted at 4.4 to 60, which would be pretty impressive. Half a second slower than Bentley's claims for the W12, though. But Autocar's two-up, full tanks figures for the W12 are 4.9 to 60 and 11.6 to 100. Good, but a long way off what's promised. I am sure it'd be a little quicker with driver and not on full tanks, but a second quicker. I seriously doubt it.
Carrera S and base Boxster are both half a second off manufacturer's figures. Mini Cooper S Works, a second off. Elise (250PS), almost half a second off. Guilia quoggyfoggy, six tenths off, Velar 240d, two whole seconds off.
I know that you could argue the toss about the merits of two-up, that conditions will sometimes be less than ideal and that smaller cars are more heavily penalised by a second driver, but some of these figures are produced by the marketing departments, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Feb 28, 2018 16:53:27 GMT
Is half a second a long way off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 16:59:03 GMT
Top Gear reckon they clocked the new RS5 at 3.2 secs to 60. Dunno how scientific the measurement was, but that's quicker than advertised. They didn't like the car, though!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 16:59:48 GMT
Are acceleration from zero figures relevant anymore? 30-70 perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Feb 28, 2018 17:01:09 GMT
One of the reasons bikes were generally always measured in 1/4 mile times with closing speed posted and in-gear roll-ons (ie moving at 40mph in top and seeing how long it would take the engine to get to some other speed by just whacking open the throttle). No one is interested in 0-60 when it's down at 2-3 seconds (don't forget common or garden sports bikes have been sub-3s 0-60mph for thirty or so years) or even sub-6s 0-100mph as you might lose half a second with ham fisted clutch-ery. You might still fuck up a 1/4 mile in the same way but the overall effect is reduced over the much greater distance covered.
Also what if the journos are quoting after three or four runs and taking an average to account for clutch fuck-uppery, traction issued etc. but the manufacturer has a nice long bit of Shellgrip and a robot to do the launch just once?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 9:28:14 GMT
I think testers often quote the best time that they achieve. I've read several where they've stated that getting the figure was difficult, and that even a skilled driver would be lucky to repeat it. I reckon half a second is a noticeable way off when it's more than 10% of the time in question, even more so if it's the best a road test can achieve after multiple attempts - that suggests the manufacturer is fibbing. How relevant it is - probably down to the individual I suppose, but given how manufacturers are lying about weights and with quoted fuel consumption figures which are presently from cloud cuckoo land - I see nothing wrong in expecting truthful figures, whatever they relate to.
I think evo and TG work on best time, and are one-up, low fuel etc - which is why they tend to be quicker than Autocar's.
Anyone else remember that tale about Aston - might have been the first Vanquish? I can't remember which magazine, but they couldn't get within half a second of the car's supposed sub-6s 0-60. The man from Aston turned up and confirmed that it wouldn't do it through the gears. The way you got it was to ram it into the soft limiter in the appropriate gear, so it was not achievable whilst driving properly. |
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Mar 1, 2018 10:22:37 GMT
When were the tests carried out and on what surface?
If last week then the figures are going to be down then if the tests were carried out on a warm bit of tarmac. If the Guilia QF was on the sticky Pirelli the tyre doesn't work below 7C so that would explain the result along with most others.
Porsche has generally been seen as very conservative when it came to 0-60 times so interesting to see them in the mix.
As others have said the 0-60 is one of those measures that's rather pointless as you're never going to launch a car at 4000rpm or set launch control at a set of traffic lights. Anyone with launch control ever used it more than once?
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Mar 1, 2018 10:24:53 GMT
I had a Lambo do it alongside me on the R1 2 summers ago. Sounded like an expensive way to pull away from the lights.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 10:30:07 GMT
I use my car's standing start abilities pretty heavily!
Autocar's full road test does describe conditions, temperature etc - but alas they don't reproduce it on the website. You'd guess with the Bentayga that it would suffer less than most cars because of conditions, because of 4wd, weight and electronics.
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Mar 1, 2018 10:39:39 GMT
I had a Lambo do it alongside me on the R1 2 summers ago. Sounded like an expensive way to pull away from the lights..... Tell me you schooled him on what fast really is? |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Mar 1, 2018 10:47:18 GMT
I had a Lambo do it alongside me on the R1 2 summers ago. Sounded like an expensive way to pull away from the lights..... Tell me you schooled him on what fast really is? Not really. Only after the first second or so and then using the whole rev range: cars get off the line much easier than bikes unless you're Vale or MM93 but then it's generally game over. The gorilla will see off a 600cc sports bike with no issues in the dry and once rolling and above the national speed limit it's pretty crushing as most bike riders will only go down to one gear above where they'd need to be thrashing the motor to beat kickdown. Full bore acceleration on a litre bike is also pretty scary on public roads: things that were in the distance are very suddenly in your face, like a video game! |
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Mar 1, 2018 11:11:38 GMT
I use my car's standing start abilities pretty heavily! Oh don't get me wrong we all like a TLGP mixed with a bit of flat shifting to give a few more tenths but I don't think I've ever sat at a set of lights next to another car with 3000rpm dialled in waiting for the lights to change. That's too knuckle dragging antics even for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 11:33:16 GMT
Agree entirely! But dialling up 4k as soon as they change is (ahem) life affirming. I do it pretty much every time the car is out, often more than once.
|
|
|
|
Post by franki68 on Mar 1, 2018 13:34:00 GMT
Autocar are unique amongst magazines and manufacturers as they are the only ones that test 2 up with a full tank as you say.
There was a video on youtube a few years ago where motor trend or motor week showed themselves doing figures on an aston ,car was a manual and front engined rwd with 500+ bhp ,(a terrible combo for launches) and they took well over 20 attempts to get a figure they were happy with .This was a professional road tester who does it for a living,I am not sure a normal driver would get within a second of the figure they printed ,certainly anyone with mechanical sympathy for their vehicle wouldn't.
Obviously with auto/dual clutch boxes etc and launch control it is now easier for most of us to get very close to such figures but some launch control systems are so complicated a milk float would beat them in a short drag race as you spend about 30 seconds configuring the launch control.
The major factor though is conditions.I spent a while doing launches with the gt3 at the pec day and because it was 3 degrees on the day the car struggled with traction ,and I must have lost 0.5-1 second each time over the quoted times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 14:54:29 GMT
I recall Steve Sutcliffe doing a video with two Golf Rs, one manual, one DSG. He could barely get near the time claimed for the three pedal car, but the auto one neatly replicated its own time five times on the bounce.
Another possible issue that comes to mind is that magazine test cars are often dripping in options, some of which may add weight to the car. Stuff like sunroofs are pretty heavy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blarno on Mar 2, 2018 8:01:33 GMT
And also the fact that journos are lead footed and don't actively give a shit about the car they are testing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 14:15:24 GMT
I see that Rimac is quoting 0-60 and 0-100 times of 1.85s and 4.3s respectively for its next model. But as they are from a rolling start, what's the zero doing there?
(I know that Yankee Doodle Pigeons often do this - a tactic probably borne out of the desire to hide the relative crudity of its home-grown fast car.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 9:17:36 GMT
Stinger in 240 PS petrol form. 0-60 7.39, rather than quoted 5.8s. Damp conditions, but traction not limited, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on May 1, 2018 9:27:38 GMT
How heavy is the Stinger?
If its nearing 2 tonnes I can't see how they ever got a car with 240hp to get to 60 in less than 6 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 1, 2018 10:21:59 GMT
Stinger in 240 PS petrol form. 0-60 7.39, rather than quoted 5.8s. Damp conditions, but traction not limited, apparently. Are you getting it mixed up with the 2.2 litre diesel as those are its figures. The reviews I've seen for the 2.0 litre petrol (1700 kg kerbweight) say it'll do 0-60 in 6.0 secs comfortably. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 11:24:09 GMT
1,717kgs*, doesn't say if that's manufacturer's claim or as weighed.
Definitely petrol. 0-100 18.2, performance is just a gnats ahead of the XE with 200 PS from a similar engine.
'It felt like a big, heavy car let down by a hesitant gearbox...' XE quicker to 30 and 40.
EDIT: This is Kia's 'minimum' kerb weight - I wonder if that means dry. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin on May 1, 2018 12:20:35 GMT
That’s pretty much the same kerb weight the latest 7 series starts at (1725kg).
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 1, 2018 13:23:59 GMT
1,717kgs*, doesn't say if that's manufacturer's claim or as weighed.
Definitely petrol. 0-100 18.2, performance is just a gnats ahead of the XE with 200 PS from a similar engine.
'It felt like a big, heavy car let down by a hesitant gearbox...' XE quicker to 30 and 40.
EDIT: This is Kia's 'minimum' kerb weight - I wonder if that means dry. It's academic, it won't sell on this badge-obsessed island. As Clarkson said: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 14:50:35 GMT
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some semblance of honesty, doubly so if you want to take on the established players.
Do bear in mind that this isn't the hot one, so it's not intended to compete with M,AMG or RS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 1, 2018 15:26:52 GMT
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some semblance of honesty, doubly so if you want to take on the established players. Do bear in mind that this isn't the hot one, so it's not intended to compete with M,AMG or RS. I agree, who tested it? Was it RWD or AWD? Any ideas why their figures differ from the rest? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 15:55:51 GMT
Autocar, and RWD is the only option. I wonder if the others are relying on manufacturer claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 2, 2018 7:50:03 GMT
Autocar, and RWD is the only option. I wonder if the others are relying on manufacturer claims. LHD petrol models are also available AWD and are half a second quicker. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 8:06:20 GMT
UK ones are all RWD?
(The 0-60 is still more than 1.5s off the manufacturer's claim, however it's propelled though.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 20:39:34 GMT
3 out of the 4 cars on the cover of evo went faster than their claimed 0-60 time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 7:22:54 GMT
I saw that, though bear in mind that evo does one-up and clearly pulls out all the stops - their times are always quicker than anything else that I see. And one was a mile off, however they did it. Besides, the claimed times would be for 0-62 in most cases, whereas evo is testing 0-60. The claimed times should (just) be beaten anyway - although some of the three that did beat their times did so convincingly, I'll give them that.
|
|
