Thread 28478071

Pretty interesting. The 911 Turbo S is insane. And the Type R taking nearly a full minute is hilarious.

>This image shows the field arranged in accurate relative finishing position, with the 911 Turbo S in front coming to a stop 1.1 miles sooner than the Civic Type R.
>1.1 miles
Holy kek.

Link to article: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45765297/0-150-0-mph-speed-test-2023/

>>28478071 (OP)
Model year? All the latest?

>>28478077
2023, all new.

The real kicker is the dark horse doing just as good as a Supra while costing 6x more

>>28478079
Dark horse is was $60k, Supra was $55k. You're thinking of the dark horse GTD.

>Porsche gets to 100 before an elantra n or ctr get to 60 and has a trap speed well over 100
>A lot of the cars in the bottom half seem geared to hit 60 then taper off
>Stopping distance probably relates to tires

>>28478085
You need slow shitboxes (elantra N, golf R, Type R) and super fast cars (911, Z06) for frame of reference.

>>28478092
Then why not throw in a base model 2.0 Civic? Or a fucking Mirage? It'd help you suck off muh sooper cars even harder.

>>28478095
>Getting upset because a magazine tested a spread of high-trim cars.
Bad day?

>>28478095
You have or aspire to have a shitbox hot hatch don't you. And they wouldn't include that because a base civic won't hit 150 mph. That's why they didn't include the Corolla GR, it has a top speed of 144 mph.

>>28478097
benchracing is the lowest form of car culture

>>28478098
>That's why they didn't include the Corolla GR, it has a top speed of 144 mph.
holy kek

>>28478071 (OP)
So a CTR brakes from 150 to 0 80 feet further and 9/10ths of a second longer than a 911?
BBKs are a fucking meme stock is clearly fine.

>>28478100
>Corolla GR 0-150-0 time: ∞
Some say it's still going to this day..

>>28478099
I tend to agree, but it's not a big deal. They aren't trying to psyop you into buying something or backing a political party - just showing objective measurements of what certain cars can do. And it isn't track times where there are so many variables involved. There's nothing to get upset about, anon.

>>28478090
>Stopping distance probably relates to tires
Absolutely, OP chart is basically just 0-150 times inflating otherwise boring data.
Braking distances from there are within 100~200ft of each other and from 5~7s which is hardly interesting.

>>28478104
Big brakes are more about brake fade over repeated use. One time stopping distance is mostly influenced by tire size (and quality), then weight after that. A Challenger scat pack has the same stopping distance 70-0 mph that a Type R does. Because the Challenger has big ass tires.

>>28478112
>Braking distances from there are within 100~200ft of each other and from 5~7s which is hardly interesting.
I actually thought it was very interesting that largely the braking times are relatively the same. That the oft quoted "heh it ain't about going fast it's about stopping!" is bullshit. It's about going fast.

A 911 turbo s can do a high speed blast to 150 then be back to I'm-doing-nothing-officer 55mph in 16 seconds. Whereas a Type R will be in the danger zone for a full minute.

>>28478071 (OP)
Tons of this is aero and gearing once you get to 150mph. The odd specs of the GT3 show that.

>>28478136
The Turbo S has 122 hp more than the GT3 RS.

>>28478122
It's much safer to reach 150 in 15 seconds than 60, fact.

>>28478122
>A 911 turbo s can do a high speed blast to 150 then be back to I'm-doing-nothing-officer 55mph in 16 seconds. Whereas a Type R will be in the danger zone for a full minute.
Now you get it.

>>28478142
Trvke. Illustrated well by this quote from the article.

>Back in the day, we used its 2.2-mile straightaway, but the only one we have access to now is 1.5 miles. That sounds like a lot until you're doing 145 mph in a Honda Civic, staring at the speedometer creeping up digit by digit as you cover about two-thirds of a football field every second.

>>28478079
They cost nearly the same you actual retard

>>28478145
>you have 15 seconds to think about your actions, vs 60 seconds to think about your actions
there's always another perspective

>>28478098
>it has a top speed of 144 mph.
>>28478100
>holy kek
huehuehuehue different cars for different markets and different driving have different gear-ratio settings.
huehuehue
wrc cars can't hit 120
huehuehue
fucking retards.

G..G...Guyz,
Grøndal's subaru does 0-60 in 2.4 seconds but can't reach 120.
huehuehue
it's slower than a corolla
hueheuhuehue
the Xtrac Escort does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds but can't reah 120.
huehuehuehue
it's slower than a yaris
huehuehueehue

>>28478373
>>28478377
You seem upset. Lol.

>>28478136
>>28478138
Turbos and AWD as well

>>28478071 (OP)
elantra n and civic 0-60 times look too high
i've gotten my N to 60 in 4.83 s, shouldn't be more than 5 sec for a mediocre launch

>>28478104
I don't know what you're trying to >imply here but tires make a bigger difference in stopping distances than bigger brakes. As long as your brakes are powerful enough to lock your tires AND not fade in a single 150mph stop, getting bigger ones would not make a difference in this metric. Also 80ft is a lot, it's like 5 car lengths.

>>28478099
No, stancefaggotry is worse than benchracing.

>>28478470
>oh no, they missed 0.6 seconds on a 47 second run
Anon pls. The elantra n and type r are slow, let it go.

>>28478071 (OP)
Not sure why you'd even bother testing how fast any of those last 3 cars can reach 150 mph. Any person driving any of them at 150 is looking for a way to die.

>>28478696
For what it's worth, the Type R has a top speed of 170 mph. It just takes a really, really long time to get there.

>>28478071 (OP)
Does that shit matter at all?
I'm not even hitting 150mph at the track.
And I'm sure as hell not braking to 0 MPH
Something like 60-160-60 would make sense.
Not 0-150-0

>14 seconds
>Cheaper than the cheapest 911

>>28479230
>Not hitting 150 so what's the point
>They should do 160

the truest form of faggotry, I bet your mother still suffers from postpartum depression to this day.

>>28479269
True, they should be doing 80-180mph

>>28479269
Most cars don't do 160mph unless the track has a crazy long straight.
And there's never any 0mph acceleration of braking.
I don't see how that 0-150-0 test is relevant.

>>28478377
>Grøndal's subaru does-
>block windowed itself
who the fuck cares, all subarus are fucking bombs

>>28479230
>>28479299
>muh track

>>28479324
You ain't doing 0-150-0 on the street either.

>>28479391
Sure you can. Especially when it takes 30 seconds or less to do.

>>28479396
Ok anon, post your 0-150-0 time.
I'll wait.

>>28479431
Around 31 seconds :)

>>28478071 (OP)
Look how fucking close the Corvette kept it. It powergapped the fuck out of the Dark Horse too. Wtf I love GM now.

>>28478470
>A note about our results: They're more like lap times than our typical performance figures. We didn't subtract the initial one-foot rollout or apply any correction for ambient conditions, and the results are simply the best run, not an average of passes in both directions or a merging of acceleration and braking segments from different runs. All of the foregoing, and the fact that Oscoda's fresh asphalt isn't nearly as grippy as the concrete from our usual test venue, means that the 60-mph and quarter-mile times from this test aren't comparable to other test results.
Right from the article.

Why is the bentley so fast
i thought they were just boats for old rich people

>>28479743
Continental GT speed has 650 HP. Bentayga has 542 HP. Power is luxury.

>>28479532
For me it's the CT5-V Blackwing. Big sedan putting down numbers.

>>28478071 (OP)
wtf a golf can hit 150?

>>28482609
Yep, and a civic. Slowly. But they do get there eventually.

Plaid does it in 16.2s btw. 90k EV blows the doors of a $250k 911 lol

>>28482711
KEK if plaids are so fast, how come whenever I see them they're always driven by some 80yo who doesn't even want the SMOKE bmaooo

>>28482599

The CT5-V Blackwing is not a big sedan. It's a heavy sedan with a big engine that handles wonderfully, but the backseat is fucking tiny. It's basically a gran coupe.

>>28482880
Nah. It has plenty of rear leg room. It has 38", an E-Class has 36" and a S-Class has 43.8".

>>28478138
It’s also McDonald’s turbo slop

>>28482889

Nigger if you're more than 5'8" your head will be hitting the ceiling. Who gives a fuck about leg room when you need scoliosis to fucking sit down. Back seat is fucking tiny.

>>28478085
That actually makes sense tho

>>28482988
>CT5-V Rear headroom 36.6"
>E-Class 37.6"
>5 Series 37.7"

>>28478696
>>28483077
>>28482880
CT5 was intended to be smaller than a 5 series and bigger than a 3 series

>>28478458
>You seem upset
you read it that way.
I was laughing the whole it.