Originally Posted by Dave1
I have to disagree with CAR magazine when they say "in the real world nothing comes close to the Evo". By this I assume they mean B roads (country roads) because that were the Evo shines and if were being realistic a lot of things can keep up with this new Evo. Simply because of the fact that public roads are dangerous and when your approaching a blind bend at speed you always have that thought in the back of your mind that there could be a tractor, cyclist or someone broken down on the exit of it :shock: . So really you can't use the anywhere near the full potential of either of these cars of B roads and if you feel you can you shouldn't have a drivers licence!!! So in the real world the closest you can get to using the full potential of these cars on the public roads is on motorways where, provided that driving conditions are good it is much safer do so. On the motorway the Evo would be outclassed. On a closed country road the Evo probably would leave the Zonda for dust but in the "real world" when are roads closed for you to have a blast in your car?
0-62 times are not a benchmark for cars of this power they are all much of a muchness. A more relevant benchmark would be 0-100 or more importantly 50-100.
One thing I do agree with CAR in that the evo would be much better in the wet. But the Zonda would be more fun or dangerous maybe? LOL depends who’s driving it.
|
Dave1 did you bother reading and understanding the article/scans at all? Your assumptions are out of sync with what was stated. “Real world” means roads that have defeats, potholes, speedbumps, debris, wet etc. These are the kind of roads you find in cities, towns and in between. I doubt the Zonda or any supercar for that matter can go fast and at the same time handle a sudden depression caused by a pothole and survive without damage. The Evo in general can in most cases.
The driving situations you describe are behavior off a reckless & stupid driver that really can’t be blamed on the Evo or any car for that matter. The FQ400’s acceleration can be used in real world situations, whether to overtake slow moving cars, evade accidents or avoid traffic. In the wet the AWD handles wet/damp/moist road surfaces better. Yes you can do overtake slow moving cars, evade accidents or avoid traffic in a Zonda or any other supercar for that matter but again can it do that on a poorly maintained & wet public road?
Again how can the FQ400 be outclassed by a Zonda when the article states that the Evo is .1 second faster from not to 62mph? By all indication the time published were timed on a race circuit where the Zonda should shine.
Yet again why cant 0-62mph be the benchmark on how to quantify the performance of any car? Sooner or later another mag will showcase 0-100mph or 50-100mph but those are secondary data that a more elaborate review and not a preview should cover. After all the car is slated to be sold on October 1 and the article was done months in advance.
What I find most amusing is that a 303 thousand quid supercar that has superior engineering specs can post an inferior time.