sport auto/AutoBild 0-300-0 km/h shoot-out

Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by ajzahn, Apr 16, 2008.

  1. and it didn't even need to use all 1018bhp to destroy the competition
     
  2. it got out braked by a car that's 1300 lbs heavier than it...
     
  3. O
     
  4. hahah RLQ wins
     
  5. I just have to explain things clearly to slow individuals like ajyawn, but even then I feel like I'm wasting my time.
     
  6. There have been many cases where a heavier car out braked a lighter one, so it's nothing new. I just love the fact that the CCXR pwns the 0-300 and 0-300-0 even with slower than usual acceleration and braking numbers.
     
  7. I wonder if the weight of the Murcielago is actually the thing that's giving it an advantage in braking. All of these cars have world class brakes and tires. My guess is the Murcielago's weight gave it to the ability to get more mechanical grip out of the tires, especially the front tires during the weight transfer.
     
  8. perhaps the awd?
     
  9. How?
     
  10. Engine braking on all 4 wheels makes for excellent stability.
     
  11. i would like to see what the UGR TT Gallardo would do in this test. they hit 241.6 in the standing mile with it at the texas mile.
     
  12. Its not. Weight is never a good thing in cars. Coefficient of friction lowers as the load on the tire increases for road-vehicle-like weights.

    It probably has more to do with either a very well set up suspension with some mild camber curves, some heavy anti-dive, or a number of other things. Most likely it just has really big ass, sticky tires with big enough brakes to lock them up.
     
  13. also i guess it has wider tires at the front than rwd cars
     
  14. The Apollo and CCXR have equally wide tires, and locking the brakes is not the way to achieve the best stopping distances. The purpose of larger brakes is to more quickly convert forward motion into heat, and then dissipate that heat.

    Also, as far as your first sentence goes, it didn't work for me, and since in the years and years I've seen you post on this forum, I've seen countless idiotic/misinformed statements by you. I decided to look it up.

    "Tire traction- realize the more load placed on a tire, the more traction ..but...the tires coefficient of friction decrease. However, up to the design limit of the tire, its traction capacity ( ability to actually transmit force to the road) as opposed to dimensionless coefficient of friction, increases with vertical load.
    simplified - vertical load on a given tire increases, the area of the rolling contact patch remains virtually constant, and so the unit pressure of the footprint increases. As the unit loading rises, the rubber has less resistance to frictional shearing and so the coefficient decreases. However, the curve is so gentle , if you graphed this, that the increase in vertical load overpowers the decrease in coefficient of friction."

    See, unlike what you said, that's actually logical. It's also logical to assume that the Murcielago's tires are designed around the operational limits of the Murcielago, and that supporting the car's weight doesn't put them outside of their operational envelope, in fact all cars/trucks on the road use tires that are designed to support their GVWR. It's almost scary that you're actually working in this field.

    Based on that one statement you should also think that the 911 would have less traction at the rear than a car with 60% of it's weight over the front wheels instead.
     
  15. not sure, however in the Ultimate Factories episode with the lambo factory, the head or R&D described that in the same way as power is send to the loaded rear during acceleration (unless traction is lost), power is also transferred to the loaded front tires during braking. not sure how it works, so I wont pretend, but if its a point worth bringing up, then maybe it has some significance. also, if awd helps with traction during acceleration, why wouldnt it help during "negative acceleration".
     
  16. You took nearly everything I said incorrectly. I design the brakes on the formula car. Ive forgotten more about brakes and tires than you will ever know.

    Locking the tires isnt the fastest way to stop. I never said it was. Locking the tires is a terrible way to stop. Having the ability to get to impending lockup is incredibly important in stopping power though. Without sufficient braking power you cant slow the vehicle down at the limit of the tires, youre at the limit of the brakes. Thats a bad thing.

    Absolutely its traction capacity increases. Unfortunately, it gets LESS EFFICIENT at it. That is why LESS WEIGHT IS BETTER. You have less weight, therefore have to stop less weight, but youre MORE EFFICIENT at it. According to your backwards ass logic, 18 wheelers would be really good at stopping because they have such a high traction capacity. The curve is gentle, but its damned important.

    The murcies tires are definitely chosen to be optimal with the car, but A: it has nothing to do with the GVWR. Thats a safety rating.
    B: Just because its properly chosen doesnt mean it wouldnt be beneficial to

    Based on my statement it shows WHY a 911 brakes so well. After dynamic load transfer, the car is closer to minimizing the loading on all tires (ie: having them all matched). Minimum load on each tire is optimum for most performance aspects. That can be achieved by proper weight transfer, driver input, or WEIGHT.

    If I had an electronic version or a scanner+no life, I would post the pages from textbooks im getting my information from, but unfortunately I dont.

    As for why it outbrakes the apollo or CCXR, there could be a huge number of reasons LIKE I SAID. it could have a much better setup for braking in the suspension (through milder camber curves, more anti dive, better damping, etc), better tires, more controllability, better test conditions, a better driver, who knows. Most likely it has to do with the camber curves and tires. They probably have a much more aggressive curve to improve cornering power at the cost of braking performance due to the relatively larger amount of time spent cornering than braking.

    and contact patch doesnt remain constant with cars under braking. Increasing load on a high performance car pushes you further into the camber curve as the suspension compresses. That means a relatively smaller contact patch and decreased braking performance.
     
  17. new sport auto

    Stock cars:
    20,7 s - Bugatti 16.4 Veyron (Handling-mode, no High Speed-Key)
    28,6 s - Porsche 911 GT2 RS 32,3 s - Lamborghini Gallardo LP570-4 Superleggera
    35,4 s - Corvette ZR1
    42,2 s - Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG
    50,6 s - Lexus LFA
    54,3 s (to 280 km/h) - BMW M3 GTS (I knew it won't do 300 km/h...)

    Tuned cars:
    17,3 s - 9ff BT1000 AWD
    33,5 s - MTM-Audi RS6 Clubsport
    36,0 s - Importracing-Nissan GT-R
    41,7 s - Väth-V60 RS (tuned SL63 AMG)
    51,9 s - Wimmer-C63 AMG
    54,4 s (to 270 km/h) - AC Schnitzer X6
     
  18. damn the GT2 RS is fast
     
  19. jus for the records, the compelte and revised listing:

    0-100 km/h:
    2.6 s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1890 kg
    3.1 s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/2056 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.2 s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670-4 SV, 670 PS/1751 kg
    3.3 s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 Turbo GT RSC 3.6, 624 PS/1482 kg
    3.4 s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 Roadster, 640 PS/1665 kg
    3.4 s - Porsche GT2 RS, 620 PS/1385 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.6 s - HGP Golf R36 Bi-Turbo, 640 PS/1608 kg
    3.6 s - Hohenester HS 650 RR, 650 PS/1472 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.6 s - Lamborghini Gallardo Superlegera, 570 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.6 s - Ruf Rt12 S, 685 PS/1608 kg
    3.7 s - edo competition Maserati MC12 XX, 800 PS/1481 kg
    3.7 s - 9ff BT1000 4WD, 1000 PS/1573 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.7 s - Enco Porsche 997 Turbo, 630 PS/1589 kg
    3.7 s - Importracing Nissan GTR, 590 PS/1768 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.7 s - MTM Audi RS6 Clubsport, 740 PS/2045 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.8 s - Heffner Gallardo 850 Twin Turbo, 893 PS/1629 kg
    3.9 s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 GT3 RSC 4.0, 465 PS/1393 kg
    3.9 s - Gumpert Apollo Sport, 700 PS/1148 kg
    3.9 s - Heffner Ford GT 1000 Twin Turbo, 1113 PS/1610 kg
    3.9 s - Mercedes SLS AMG, 571 pS/1683 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    3.9 s - Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 Edition, 650 PS/1773 kg
    3.9 s - Koenigsegg CCX-R, 806 PS/1473 kg
    3.9 s - Wiesmann GT MF5, 507 PS/1421 kg
    4.0 s - Corvette ZR1, 647 PS/1531 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.0 s - Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo, 1047 PS/1615 kg
    4.0 s - Porsche GT3, 435 PS/1453 kg
    4.0 s - Speedart Panamera, 550 PS/2062 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.1 s - Lexus LFA, 580 PS/1598 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.2 s - BMW M3 GTS, 450 PS/1546 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.3 s - edo competition Ferrari 599 GTB, 650 PS/1807 kg
    4.3 s - Lingenfelter Z06 Twin Turbo, 1124 PS/1679 kg
    4.3 s - Saleen S7 Twin Turbo, 786 PS/1390 kg
    4.5 s - Aston Martin V12 Vantage, 517 PS/1709 kg
    4.5 s - Väth V60 RS, 655 PS/2051 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.6 s - AC Schnitzer GP 3.10, 552 PS/1890 kg
    4.7 s - AC Schnitzer ACS6, 650 PS/2371 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    4.7 s - AC Schnitzer ACS1 3.5i, 360 PS/1531 kg
    4.7 s - Cadillac CTS-V, 564 PS/1955 kg
    4.8 s - 9ff Porsche 997 Turbo Cabrio, 781 PS/1667 kg
    4.8 s - Wimmer C63 AMG, 565 PS/1755 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    5.0 s - Bentley Continental GT Speed convertible, 610 PS/2524 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    5.0 s - edo competition Porsche 997 GT2 RS, 670 PS/1337 kg
    5.2 s - Lorinser Mercedes E 500 L 55 RS, 460 Ps/1875 kg


    0-200 km/h:
    7.3 s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1890 kg
    7.8 s - Heffner Ford GT 1000 Twin Turbo, 1113 PS/1610 kg
    8.3 s - Lingenfelter Z06 Twin Turbo, 1124 PS/1679 kg
    8.5 s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/2056 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.7 s - 9ff BT1000 4WD, 1000 PS/1573 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.9 s - Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo, 1047 PS/1615 kg
    9.5 s - Gumpert Apollo Sport, 700 PS/1148 kg
    9.5 s - Heffner Gallardo 850 Twin Turbio, 893 PS/1629 kg
    9.8 s - Koenigsegg CCX-R, 806 PS/1473 kg
    9.8 s - Porsche GT2 RS, 620 PS/1385 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    9.9 s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 Turbo GT RSC 3.6, 624 PS/1482 kg
    9.9 s - HGP Golf R36 Bi-Turbo, 640 PS/1608 kg
    9.9 s - Saleen S7 Twin Turbo, 786 PS/1390 kg
    10.1s - edo competition Maserati MC12 XX, 800 PS/1481 kg
    10.2s - Hohenester HS 650 RR, 650 PS/1472 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    10.3s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670-4 SV, 670 PS/1751 kg
    10.6s - Ruf Rt12 S, 685 PS/1608 kg
    10.7s - Lamborghini Gallardo Superlegera, 570 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    10.8s - Enco Porsche 997 Turbo, 630 PS/1589 kg
    10.8s - Porsche 997 Turbo, 500 PS/1606 kg
    10.9s - 9ff Porsche 997 Turbo Cabrio, 781 PS/1667 kg
    11.2s - Importracing Nissan GTR, 590 PS/1768 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    11.4s - edo competition Porsche 997 GT2 RS, 670 PS/1337 kg
    11.5s - Corvette ZR1, 647 PS/1531 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    11.5s - MTM Audi RS6 Clubsport, 740 PS/2045 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    11.6s - Wiesmann GT MF5, 507 PS/1421 kg
    11.7s - Mercedes SLS AMG, 571 PS/1683 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    12.0s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 GT3 RSC 4.0, 465 PS/1393 kg
    12.0s - edo competition Ferrari 599 GTB, 650 PS/1807 kg
    12.0s - Lexus LFA, 580 PS/1598 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    12.8s - Porsche GT3, 435 PS/1453 kg
    13.2s - Speedart Panamera, 550 PS/2062 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    13.5s - Wimmer C63 AMG, 565 PS/1755 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    13.7s - Väth V60 RS, 655 PS/2051 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    14.0s - Aston Martin V12 Vantage, 517 PS/1709 kg
    14.1s - BMW M3 GTS, 450 PS/1546 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    14.3s - AC Schnitzer GP 3.10, 552 PS/1890 kg
    14.3s - Cadillac CTS-V, 564 PS/1955 kg
    16.2s - AC Schnitzer ACS6, 650 PS/2371 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    16.7s - Bentley Continental GT Speed convertible, 610 PS/2524 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    17.0s - AC Schnitzer ACS1 3.5i, 360 PS/1531 kg
    18.0s - Lorinser Mercedes E 500 L 55 RS, 460 Ps/1875 kg


    0-300 km/h:
    15.9s - Heffner Ford GT 1000 Twin Turbo, 1113 PS/1610 kg
    16.3s - Lingenfelter Z06 Twin Turbo, 1124 PS/1679 kg
    16.8s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1890 kg
    17.3s - 9ff BT1000 4WD, 1000 PS/1573 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    17.9s - Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo, 1047 PS/1615 kg
    20.0s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 GT3 RSC 4.0, 465 PS/1393 kg
    20.7s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/2056 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    21.3s - Heffner Gallardo 850 Twin Turbio, 893 PS/1629 kg
    24.3s - 9ff Porsche 997 Turbo Cabrio, 781 PS/1667 kg
    24.7s - Koenigsegg CCX-R, 806 PS/1473 kg
    25.3s - edo competition Maserati MC12 XX, 800 PS/1481 kg
    25.6s - Saleen S7 Twin Turbo, 786 PS/1390 kg
    26.7s - Gumpert Apollo, 700 PS/1148 kg
    27.3s - Ruf Rt12 S, 685 PS/1608 kg
    27.5s - edo competition Porsche 997 GT2 RS, 670 PS/1337 kg
    28.2s - Cargraphic Porsche 997 Turbo GT RSC 3.6, 624 PS/1482 kg
    28.3s - HGP Golf R36 Bi-Turbo, 640 PS/1608 kg
    28.6s - Porsche GT2 RS, 620 PS/1385 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    28.8s - Hohenester HS 650 RR, 650 PS/1472 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    29.7s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670-4 SV, 670 PS/1751 kg
    30.2s - Enco Porsche 997 Turbo, 630 PS/1589 kg
    31.1s - AC Schnitzer ACS1 3.5i, 360 PS/1531 kg
    31.9s - Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 Edition, 650 PS/1773 kg
    32.3s - Lamborghini Gallardo Superlegera, 570 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    33.3s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 Roadster, 640 PS/1665 kg
    33.5s - MTM Audi RS6 Clubsport, 740 PS/2045 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    34.0s - Lorinser Mercedes E 500 L 55 RS, 460 Ps/1875 kg
    34.9s - edo competition Ferrari 599 GTB, 650 PS/1807 kg
    35.4s - Corvette ZR1, 647 PS/1531 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    36.0s - Importracing Nissan GTR, 590 PS/1768 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    40.6s - Wiesmann GT MF5, 507 PS/1421 kg
    41.7s - Väth V60 RS, 655 PS/2051 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    41.9s - Porsche 997 Turbo, 500 PS/1606 kg
    42.2s - Mercedes SLS AMG, 571 PS/1683 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    50.3s - Porsche GT3, 435 PS/1453 kg
    50.6s - Lexus LFA, 580 PS/1598 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    51.9s - Wimmer C63 AMG, 565 PS/1755 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    52.8s - Speedart Panamera, 550 PS/2062 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    53.1s - AC Schnitzer GP 3.10, 552 PS/1890 kg
    53.7s - Aston Martin V12 Vantage, 517 PS/1709 kg
    54.3s*- BMW M3 GTS, 450 PS/1546 kg (sport auto 09/10) *to 280 km/h
    54.4s - AC Schnitzer ACS6, 650 PS/2371 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    59.4s - Bentley Continental GT Speed convertible, 610 PS/2524 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    69.3s - Cadillac CTS-V, 564 PS/1955 kg


    braking 300-0 km/h:
    6.4 s*- BMW M3 GTS, 450 PS/1546 kg (sport auto 09/10) *280-0 km/h
    6.49s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SV
    6.59s - Gumpert Apollo Sport
    6.6.s - Porsche GT2 RS, 620 PS/1385 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    6.76s - Porche GT3
    6.86s - Koenigegg CCX-R
    6.9 s - AC Schnitzer ACS6, 650 PS/2371 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    6.92s - Techart GT Street RS
    7.0 s - Lamborghini Gallardo Superlegera, 570 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.0 s - Lexus LFA, 580 PS/1598 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.05s - Ruf Rt12 S
    7.07s - Cargraphic 997 Turbo GT RSC 3.6
    7.1 s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1890 kg
    7.11s - Porsche 997 Turbo
    7.11s - Wiesmann GT MF5
    7.2 s - 9ff BT1000 4WD, 1000 PS/1573 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.3 s - Corvette ZR1, 647 PS/1531 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.3 s - Importracing Nissan GTR, 590 PS/1768 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.3 s - Mercedes SLS AMG, 571 PS/1683 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    7.47s - Geiger Ford GT
    7.51s - Geiger Corvette Z06
    7.53s - Aston Martin V12 Vantage
    7.67s - Cadillac CTS-V
    7.68s - MTM Audi RS6
    7.8 s - Speedart Panamera, 550 PS/2062 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.0 s - Väth V60 RS, 655 PS/2051 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.1 s - MTM Audi RS6 Clubsport, 740 PS/2045 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.3 s - Wimmer C63 AMG, 565 PS/1755 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    8.5 s - Hohenester HS 650 RR, 650 PS/1472 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    9.2 s - Bentley Continental GT Speed convertible, 610 PS/2524 kg (sport auto 09/10)


    0-300-0 km/h:
    24.5s - 9ff BT1000 4WD, 1000 PS/1573 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    27.8s - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1890 kg
    30.3s - Geiger Ford GT
    30.8s - Cargraphic 997 Turbo GT RSC 3.6
    31.6s - Koenisgegg CCX-R
    33.3s - Gumpert Apollo Sport
    33.4s - Techart GT Street RS
    34.4s - Ruf Rt 12 S
    35.2s - Porsche GT2 RS, 620 PS/1385 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    36.2s - Lamborghini Murcielago LP670-4 SV
    37.3s - Hohenester HS 650 RR, 650 PS/1472 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    39.3s - Lamborghini Gallardo Superlegera, 570 PS/1496 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    41.6s - MTM Audi RS6 Clubsport, 740 PS/2045 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    42.8s - Corvette ZR1, 647 PS/1531 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    43.2s - MTM Audi RS6
    43.3s - Importracing Nissan GTR, 590 PS/1768 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    47.7s - Wiesmann GT MF5
    49.0s - Porsche 997 Turbo
    49.5s - Mercedes SLS AMG, 571 PS/1683 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    49.7s - Väth V60 RS, 655 PS/2051 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    50.7s - Geiger Corvette Zo6
    57.1s - Porsche GT3
    57.6s - Lexus LFA, 580 PS/1598 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    60.2s - Wimmer C63 AMG, 565 PS/1755 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    60.6s- Speedart Panamera, 550 PS/2062 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    61.2s - Aston Martin V12 Vantage
    68.6s - Bentley Continental GT Speed convertible, 610 PS/2524 kg (sport auto 09/10)
    77.0s - Cadillac CTS-V


    remarkable:

    - the 991 GT2 RS is best on the brakes down from 300 km/h
    - the Galalrdo SL is nearly as fast as the LP640
    - 9ff BT1000 beats the Vey
     
  20. this is an OUTRAGE! the M3 GTS did NOT REACH 300, so dont for a second say its the best from 300-0! that title goes triumphantly (sp?) to the LP670-SV <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  21. BMW M3 GTS (exception)

    0-280 km/h in 54.3 secs.
    280-0 km/h iun 6.4 secs
     
  22. You'll have to keep imagining because no one will ever bother testing one.
     
  23. at this point I'd rather see tests for Agera than anything else.
     

Share This Page