OT: Talking Cars Tuesday - Faster than...
We live in a golden age of horsepower. It's recent. A 2006 Ford Mustang GT had 300 horsepower. You can get that in multiple minivans today. Ho hum cars are so fast, they put everything but the craziest supercars of yesteryear to shame. So, what's the most surprising car that your car is faster than?
Here's one of my favorites.
Ferrari 328GTS: 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. https://www.zeroto60times.com/6-second-cars-0-60-mph-times/
2015 Golf GTI Manual: 0-60 in 6.0 Seconds
On the one hand I'm dying laughing at this and also thinking how cool it is that engineering has made something like this possible.
On the other hand my inner child just died a little.
Never floor your heros. Unless its something like a 959 or F40.
The engineer in me wishes to make one other correction - it's not just HP. Tires are a lot stickier than they used to be. Also launch control can make sure that all that power gets to the road by slipping clutches and making sure the tires don't just spin...
Anyway - things are fast now!
What about vehicle weight? For pickup trucks, they have gotten dimensionally bigger, as have most all cars in general, but what about the weight of current models vs. their predecessors of 15 years ago?
Weight has mostly gone up across the board. More safety features = more weight. Tougher crash test standards = more weight.
Per the Google Machine, a 2003 Mustang weighed between 3070-3780 lbs, a 2018 3532-3835. So not as much on the top end for the Mustang, but the base model is way heavier. And the Mustang went to a might lighter rear suspension recently...
also, the large weight ranges for the Mustang probably include things like engine (2.3L I4 Turbo - 5.2L V8 for the new one), transmission, and coupe vs. convertible. Mustang will have a bigger range than many cars.
I googled a Camry too, 2003 was 3086-3362, 2018 is 3241-3572. That's probably more typical. Up 200-300lbs or so in the last 15 years.
Okay, so I have a question for you....
It seems (this is a big assed it seems...) that we have alot more HP. However, torque doesn't necessarily follow. I.E. My Jeeps had the 318 and the 4.7; both were around 230hp and 300lb/ft of torque.
But new V6's get much higher HP, but the torque seems to lag and is lower than the HP. I thought maybe it was just the circulating mass of the engine for a V6 vs V8 wasn't as much, but then you see little engines like the ecoboosts getting great torque....
Is it because the V6's dont' have the mass and don't rev as high, whereas the V8's just have more mass, and the little blown 4 bangers don't have alot of mass but rev like crazy so F=MA they are high on the A, V8's are high on the M, and V6's are high on neither....
Confusing enough? :-)
The little 4-bangers with lots of torque is strictly because turbocharged engines tend to have a lot of torque. The turbos on those cars are sized to come on boost fairly early; the 2005 WRX I had made full boost around 3500rpm. It also didn't have much of a top end, since the stock turbo wasn't efficient at high revs. So you get a lot of low end torque and some high end horsepower. A current example of this is the Civic Type R, which is a heavily turbocharged (22.8 psi) 2 liter that makes a peak power of 306 hp at 6500 rpm, but peak torque is 295 ft-lbs at 2500 rpm.
V8s have lots of torque because you have twice as many 'bangs' per revolution of the crankshaft than a 4-cylinder. They, generally, don't rev as high, so it's easier to tune a flat powerband as you don't have to span as large of a rev range (though flat-plane cranks like the Mustang GT350 and the Ferrari 488 can rev to the moon since they're inherently more balanced, and some four cylinders are real bad at going too far up the tach, like the Subaru boxers).
I think the reason you don't see 6 cylinders having significant torque figures is that they're generally not supercharged/turbocharged like their 8- and 4-cylinder brethren are. Most 6s end up in commuter cars, minivans, and small SUVs where they can be efficient in traffic. You don't need torque in those situations, and the horsepower comes from the efficiency at the top of the rev range that older models didn't have. The only boosted 6s I can think of are the Porsche flat-6, GM LFs (Cadillac XTS/CTS/ATS-V) and the Nissan V-series. All of those have similar torque-vs-horsepower as other boosted engines.
Overall, the higher horsepower you're seeing these days is primarily due to efficiency at high revs and, in general, engines that can rev out a bit further. The C4 Corvette had a redline of about 5500; the newest Corvettes can go up to 6500. Given the same torque, at redline, an engine at 6500rpm makes 18% more horsepower than one at 5500. Looking at the specs, the Gen-II LT1 engine in the C4 Corvette made about 300 hp at 5200 rpm and 340 ft-lbs at 3400 rpm. The newest (non-supercharged) Gen-V LT1 in the current Corvettes makes 455 hp at 6000 rpm and 460 ft-lbs at 4600 rpm. 52% increase in power, 35% increase in torque.
Having all wheel drive helps a ton when talking about getting all that HP to the road without smoking tires. I've had a vette ZR1 and a Z06 with the ZR1 package. Corvette needs to go the way to all wheel drive which they are going to do with the new mid-engine vette.
And when talking about pure performance, at least 0-60, it is really hard to beat a Tesla Model S in Ludicrous mode. 0-60 in 2.39 seconds. That's just plain nuts.
My car is faster than your car.
I live my life a quarter mile at a time...
I'd settle for a car that didn't squeak.
Your SZD not holding up?
My caprice classic station wagon is probably faster than a horse and buggy at this point lol.
we have three 1-ton rigs, two of them are diesel. i'm pretty sure the '02 (chipped) diesel and the new/used '14 diesel are faster than almost any vehicle i've owned, excepting a late '80's 5.0 mustang i had back in the day, and one fancy car i owned about 15 yrs ago. the '14 is so quiet and smooth its surreal. and it has something like 850 ftlbs of torque. i can't imagine putting a chip in that thing.
I have a '15 F150, and when you put it in "Sport" mode, it handles like a Mustang. Trucks have come a long way!
What would be your dream truck (brand/engine/ ton size) if you had to choose between gas or diesel which one would you prefer.
I want a diesel but I hear they are a nightmare to work on, or very expensive if you hire a diesel mechanic. I'm a YouTube mechanic (for my personal vehicles only). I won't ever touch a transmission in my life, but I might get as far as a suspension lift for the right truck when the time allows.
I've never bought a new vehicle. I typically buy ones with 60k-100k miles depending on how well they have been maintained and always buy from a private party for cash. I have only had one car payment in my life for a honda I bought in highschool, a 96 accord ex from a used dealership that I worked for as a detailer. (It was a great purchase price, but making the minimum payment every month 3 years later made it a bad deal.) Great education though and learned my lesson. Sure, if I win the lottery I'll buy a brand new truck but that won't happen because I don't play the lottery.
Last year I purchased a 1500, '08 Ram with 128k on it with the smaller 4.7 liter motor but it runs great. It was the last year the third gen Dodge was made so all of the bugs had been worked out with those trucks except for the bed fenders rusting. I love working on it to make it look better and it has turned out well.
however, 2.5" bilstein leveling kit front end, and 3" body lift, 35"x12.5" toyo open country tires with a -23 offset to match the fender covers ( put those on because I cut out the bad cancer "rust" and M3 pannel bonded new powder coated steel) front and rear cameras with all new Polk speakers, and a Kenwood dvd head unit and a jbl stealth box and amp currently sitting on my couch waiting for the right moment to be installed.
The good Lord will turn us all back to dirt eventually, and he will turn his property "on loan to us" quicker to make us understand family is more important than things. It's a fine line to walk on this blog but I'm asking no one else but you xtramelanin.
What ive seen, Your experience through life undeniably coensides with, family values, the right dose of temperament, standing up for hard work & truth. But most of all You will not ever steer anyone in the wrong direction.( So back to truth and conviction).
There's three usernames I try to remember now of their last Post so I can go to the old post and see what they say about football since 3.0. Yours is one but it's never about football for me it's always about how you view life because you are honest to a fault.
I'm sorry to be a little off topic here, but do you all think that a ~40 something VP driving a Civic Type R is appropriate? I'd love to get one, but almost everybody at my level drives an Audi, or an SUV.
I'm not a VP, but speaking from principle do what is best for you. Who cares what anyone else drives. If driving a cheaper/more reliable car helps increase your margin and grow your net worth, do it.
This is merging into another topic area, but I think Dave Ramsey has some good principles along these lines (such as "live now like no-one else, so that later you can live (and give) like no-one else"). I also like his line about the paid-off home mortgage surpassing the BMW as the status symbol of choice.
I would hope a VP can live like no one else now and later in life as well no matter the car they drive.
Eh, like I said this is merging into another topic category. But just because someone makes a bunch of money doesn't mean they are in a good financial situation. If you make a bunch of money but are buried under a mountain of debt, you have no business splurging on a nice car.
Maybe if it was black on black? Because that thing is over styled (but supposed to be a hoot!)
The Golf R would be the "sensible" choice. The Focus RS (again, in subtle colors) might be appropriate enough.
But like a young enterprising man once said about his dad's 928, sometimes you just have to say "what the fudge" and get the Type R.
Drive what you want, screw everyone else.
My brother is older and drives an STI (has that huge wing). He owns his own business, so it's not that big of a deal for him.
I like the Civic for reliability, but will also check out the Golf R. I'm driving a mom mobile now (RX350), so I guess I shouldn't care about appearances.
I love my 2016 Golf R. Still stock aside from the wheels, but you can cheaply add power if you don't care about the warranty much. Definitely more of a sleeper than its competitors. My boss has a GTI and even he didn't know what it was so I just said it's a GTI with 4 wheel drive so he wouldn't regret giving me a raise.
It's little softer around the edges but I wanted more of a GT car than a track monster anyway.
There were some spy photos of the Civic Type R with a smaller wing testing recently so maybe they'll sell a more reserved looking edition soon.
What car do you think is more fun to drive? What car can you track if you wanted to occasionally? Type R or Audi? Who are the sheep?
You're looking it at the wrong way. Because you're a VP or the CEO, you can choose to drive *whatever* you want. The others are just status-conscious wannabe's.
The move to small displacement engines with turbos has helped lift Hp and torque numbers.
I have a 2015 VW GTI, so apparently my car is faster than a Ferrari 328GTS!
I recently drove a Ferrari 458 Italia on the Chicago Autobahn, and it was incredibly fast. I was a little cautious (you're charged big bucks if you get any wheels in the grass), but the acceleration was fast and furious. Maybe someday I will be lucky enough to own one, but I guess you have to PLAY the lotto to WIN the lotto...
Hp =\= speed.
You are correct. However the 2018 Toyota Sienna goes 0-60 in 7 seconds. That's faster than a 2004 Mini Cooper S (7.1), a 1989 300ZX Turbo (7.2) A 1997 Pontiac Firebird (7.1) and a 1991 Supra Turbo (7.1).
Things are much faster than they were 10-20 years ago!
I remember in the 80s American pony cars had a horsepower resurgence after the engine choking designs of the 70s. Mustang and Camaro proudly packed V-8s and things were looking up for enthusiasts. My car has a 2.0L turbo and is faster than those cars. I'm pretty sure it's faster than the Corvettes of the 1980s, too. 0-60 in less than 7 seconds was exotic car territory at that time. My current car is faster than the 1989 Taurus SHO I owned----and a hell of a lot easier to drive, too. That car had all the horsepower laid down by the front wheels. On wet or snowy roads, you could enduce some crazy torque steer. However, the noises the motor made were intoxicating. My Audi A5 is really tame and quiet compared to the V-6 in the SHO.
Here's a blast from the past: [Motor Week's review of the 1989 Taurus SHO]
watching that video reminded me of a day in the mid-90's when my investigator raced me to LAX in his SHO and we badged our way right on to a plane home. that was quite the memorable ride, and that car could go.
I had a SHO too - 1998 V8 model. That car was a lot of fun, but not very fast. I bought a 2004 Legacy GT turbo 4 and that was pretty quick. Traded in the Legacy for an 03 Audi RS6. Now that thing could haul a** but was expensive as heck to maintain. At that point I sold the SHO and traded in the Audi for my 2010 Tacoma. I look forward to another 15 years of no car payment (knocks on wood).
Upvoted for the same model/year owned.
I had a silver 89 SHO - went out and crashed it, and then got a 91 red SHO. 5spd manuals. Lots of fun at the time and felt super fast.
I drive a hybrid because of an insanely long commute. It's faster than nothing, but has plenty of power to move along on the highway, as well as pick up and accelerate when I need it to. Plus, its comfortable, quiet, and easy to drive. Getting 43 mpg in a midsize sedan (Fusion) is not bad, either...
There was a time when I was like everyone else, and wanted the fast little sports car. Anymore, I don't give a shit what you might think about my driving choice. It's a car - it gets me to work and back. What I want, aside from that, is that it's comfortable, quiet, drives easily, and gets decent mileage.
I will win no drag races whatsoever, so go ahead and feel manly by beating me in a race we're not having!
Hey man, Talking Cars Tuesday is a judgement free zone. Assuming you've got a 2013ish Fusion Hybrid (which, way to save on gas!) you're looking at about 9.1 seconds 0-60, which is faster than an '82 Camaro Z28, or a 1982 Ferrari Mondial!
‘78 Cutlass Supreme w/T Tops and mags, Black, was not quite as fast as my 5.0 King Cobra or Z4, but boy did it have style until I wrapped it around a fire hydrant...
Now rocking a 200h CT (economical and easy to maneuver in the city) and a Honda Pilot Elite (surprisingly nimbly and great in the snow, packed w/safety features I really appreciate).
But I do long for that Cutlass...
If we're talking 0-60mph, I'm surprised my car is faster than a 2017 Aston Martin V12 Vantage S. And I have 8 fewer cylinders.
And spent $140,000 less.
Okay. I have to go back awhile.
My Five Hundred would beat many cars in the '80's with a 0-60 of 8.7. But To keep in what I think is the spirit I want to go to the sensational. So.... My 500 (0-60 8.7) would be neck and neck with an early 911:
1964 0-100 km/h (sec): 8.7
Also, any Porsche 914; most Porsche 924's, and some Porsche 944s.
If I got a Taurus SHO it would be on par with most of the muscle cars my uncle raced back in the day with a 0-60 of just under 6 seconds.
I'd also beat a GT-350.
We live in a Golden age of automobiles.
0-60 figures gotten from various sources on the internet.
Tesla Model S or X P100D with ludicrous mode pretty much smokes everything out there. But it's not really very fun to drive.
I have some very fast cars, but still like my Cayman GT4 because it handles awesome and I can try and get up to the cars limit somewhat around a track.
I drive a 2013 Subaru WRX Sti Hatch. At 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, its quicker than a lot of cars, old and new. Its always surprising to find something from the days of yore that its not faster than -- the 1991 GMC Syclone Pickup Truck is 0-60 in 4.3, for example... ridiculous. Best thing about the STi is that its paid off in August and thats when the mods are added :)
A Pensioners Progress
In 1989 I was managing editor for AutoWeek magazine and attended the press preview for the first ever ZR-1 Corvette. This car was so special that GM held the event in France. This ultimate Chevy was a fair match for Ferraris and Lamborghinis of the time, generating 385 hp and 370 lb ft of torque. And it cost tens of thousands less than those Italians.
Today I am retired and drive a 2018 Ford F-150 which I bought to pull our travel trailer. Its 375-hp 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 falls an eyelash short of the 380-hp dohc 5.7-liter V8 of that ZR-1, but it also generates 470 lb ft of torque--100 lb ft more than that Vette. And its sticker price, fully loaded, was only $9,000 more than the ZR-1's MSRP of approx. 55,000 1989 dollars.
Wow, welcome to Talking Cars Tuesday! You should host some time, I'm sure you've got great questions and/or stories to tell.
Glad to hear you like the F-150, I work at a major supplier and did a lot of the front end design work for some parts in it.
It's great to look back at some of the cars I always wanted as a child and see how terribly outdated their performance is.
One fun example is that the 1993 Corvette ZR-1 and the 1990-92 Lamborghini Diablo both did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, which is still pretty fast, but that's now attainable by the Dodge Durango SRT (which, while a 60k SUV, is still a SUV).
It's also great to look at the progress in model lines.
- The 1995 Mustang Cobra R hit 60 in 5.1 seconds. By 2013 the V6 version of the Mustang was also at 5.1.
- The 1993 Camaro Z28 was at 5.5 seconds. The slowest Camaro you can get now is at 5.4.
- The aforementioned 1993 Corvette ZR-1, at 4.4 seconds, would get walked by any new Corvette (the Stingray is the slowest at 3.7). The newest ZR-1 is at an incredible 2.9.
Even the legends can't compare from a pure performance aspect to the latest "budget" supercars. For example, the holy grail, the 1994 McLaren F1, a car which fetches $15+ million whenever an auction comes up, takes 3.1 seconds to hit 60. The new BMW M5 takes 2.9; the Porsche 911 Turbo takes 2.6. The F1 is actually the second-slowest 0-60 road car that McLaren has ever released, surpassed in slowness by only the 540C (3.4).
My 1998 Subaru Outback keeps humming along just fine, but it feels slower and slower each year compared to everything else on the road. Thank you for explaining why.
My 2003 Infiniti I35 was rated at 6.9 seconds 0-60, which is the same as or faster than the first generation Porsche Boxster (manual and tiptronic, respectively). Go figure.
For a grin look at motorweek retro on youtube.
'The (whatever) made a stirring 0-60 run of 11 seconds....'
When I see kids turn their noses up at cars now... man. They have no idea. When my family got a 2.2 Charger we thought it was hot stuff.
I just saw a BMW X3 m40i in a parking lot over the weekend. I looked it up -- 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. Immediate infatuation. I'd have to drive one before I could say I was in love. But a small SUV that drives like a sports car would be fantastic. I've driven the Macan, by the way, and my GTI is more fun to drive.