The S7TT article

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by VIPER 5, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. Where's SAR do give us another little mostly unknown tidbit about the cars capabilities, or things that it could be made to do, to shock us even more?
  2. Really?

    On the website, it didn't have an article for the road test and I haven't seen that issue on newstands yet.

    Anyhow, those are pretty amazing stats
  3. god damn thats fast...

    maybe they actually tested it on good surface this time.

    edit: and it actually matched or beat Saleen's performance which contradicts what people say about Saleen making bullshit claims.
  4. Actually the test was done on the same surface as the car & driver test the big difference was that the track was a bit cleaner, some of the mags are using a new correction factor they just came out with, which take turbos into account and adds a bit of a penalty, where on a given day a NA car will get a correction that actually gives you a better time, the S7 TT was actually corrected UP! adding time to the run, (we were real happy with this) So to let you know the car ran faster on real time for both magazine runs and got abit of a penalty for a cool day with turbos.
  5. so 0-100mph, the S7tt was actually timed under 6.0s?
    that's pretty amazing!
  6. actual times uncorrected from the Motor trend test 1/4- 10.54 @ 143.85
    0-100 , 5.89 sec. I am not sure where this "new" correction factor came from they are using, it did not do us any favors. Car and driver times where 10.76 @ 141, 0 -100 @ 6.1
  7. does anyone have links to the motortrend article?
  8. Very loud, but there are 3 road cars even louder (inside the cockpit):
    Ferrari F40 - 101 dB
    Ferrari F50 - 99 dB
    Lamborghini Countach QV - 97 dB
  9. hell i could be deaf as long as i was driving any of those except the f50.... never was a fan of that car.
  10. motor trend seems to be the best at really testing the cars. the best times i have seen for the ford gt, porsche carrera gt, lambo murc, ferrari enzo have all come from motor trend.
  11. Agreed. Iwouldn't be surprised if they hired a pro racer to do their road tests
  12. WTF? I renewed my subscription but nothin...I'm gonna call them.
  13. Yeah. The one in this thread says 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, on the Saleen website it says 2.8
  14. i dont have the magazine but people are saying it was tested again at the same place as road and track. look who got the better time. now if motor trend were to do a speed shoot out take the s7 along with the ccr Zonda F and veyron etc.. to lets say the ford proving grounds in arizona then we would probably see the 2.8 seconds quoted from saleen.
  15. For a car like that which has that much power and rear wheel drive, you could add another 250 hp and not see any change in the 0-60 time, once you get to that sort of power the main factor is the traction. If the manufacturer are claming 2.8 seconds I bet that was done on a drag strip or another high traction surface with non road tyres, do the same with a CGT or an Enzo and you would get similar times.

    The Veyron can get 2.5 seconds 0-60 times as all the weight of the vehicle is used to provide traction, not just the weight over the rear wheels. If you put slicks (although non of that size and spec exist) on a veyron and took it to a drag strip you would see some really silly times!!

    But personally and in the industry the 0-60 time means nothing it is just a marketing tool!
  16. you increased the size not the resolution
  17. Just a marketing tool? Are you an idiot? Some people want a higher performance car and that is one of the main factors they look at.
  18. ... So, do you wanna tell me what a marketing tool is then?
  19. "Some people want a higher performance car and that is one of the main factors they look at."

    And you don’t think marketing know that!!!

    But in the real world very few people actually do a full out racing start, and manufactures often compromise their vehicles to gain a high 0-60 time for marketing to use, for example setting up the gearing to get to 60 fastest which may impact on mid range acceleration and driveability.

    A fast 0-60 time is an indicator of speed but a car with a 3 second 0-60 will not necessarily be faster than a car with a 4 second 0-60 time around a track or in real life driving.

    It is like the skid pan rating, this is completely pointless as there are so many factors to consider when a car is going around a corner peak g is only one factor. And to say a car with a 1g skid pan corners better than a car with a 0.9g skid pan is plain silly.
  20. 0-100 mph in 5.8 seconds is #$%#ing awesome.

    Any word on why the 0-150 mph time is so slow compared to R&T 12.1 seconds?

    I bet it is the gearing...
  21. does anyone know how many S7TT's Saleen is building each year?
  22. It is a marketing tool more than a performance benchmark. Most people who are performance oriented look at 60' times, quarter mile ET's and trap speeds. 0-60 is lame and doesn't tell the whole story of a cars acceleration. Go to any real website that deals with actual racing by real people and you won't even see a 0-60 time.
  23. Dude, I had f**kers like that. In Sydney, Luna Park got closed down because people in apartment blocks (that were built decades after the park first opened, I might add) complained about the noise.
  24. Wtf, why do they correct it? I don't follow you. Shouldnt it get the time it runs?

Share This Page