Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > General Discussion > Video and Picture Links

Video and Picture Links WORKING HTTP or FTP links only, no torrents or other P2P links.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2010, 01:05 AM   #1
tforth
Regular User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,092
Default Flying Pigs :o

tforth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 08:46 PM   #2
Minacious
Regular User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The shadows
Posts: 2,397
Default

__________________
Ed - Trekkie women are HOT! (A Trekkie for life)
Manic-Depressive and my head hurts.
Minacious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 12:58 AM   #3
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Those big W12 Bentleys come into their own at autobahn speeds. I have spent a little time with a Bentley Coupe here and they are stupid fast above 180mph... they seem to defy all rational thought.
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 01:25 AM   #4
enzoferrari
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,069
Default

The fanboyism of Motor Trend is becoming tiresome. Find something new, MT, you're beating a dead horse.
__________________
Check out my photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/am1988/:-)
enzoferrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 04:56 AM   #5
79TA
Regular User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,570
Default

I love how after the hype has gone away these magazines just let the times dwindle to less and less heroic (read: probably more realistic) numbers.

The first C6 Z06's tested all ran 11's in the quarter. Later, the standard Z06 1/4 mile time became 12.0 for Motor Trend. Road and Track tested the first S197 Mustang as being able to hit 60 in 4.9 seconds. Later, the magazines were content to consistently call it 5.1-5.3 seconds. The GT-R seems to have received the same fate as any other highly anticipated car once the new has worn off with its 11.9 second run here.



There are a ton of factors that affect straight line performance, but I think the one that should be considered here is a magazine's determination to run the quickest number while the hype is still big. Average test, average effort, average time (for the GT-R, not cars in general.)
79TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2010, 05:54 AM   #6
zeus_2011
Regular User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 248
Default

You do see some rather unbelievable figures in some of the US mags....I always thought the tarmac, temp and other factors would made the difference.

Even though I recall evo testing the then new BMW M Coupe (back in 1998) in the UK and getting a 0-60 time of 4.3 secs, something that was never repeated by anyone, I think evo has changed it too in the "Knowledge" to about 5 secs now!
zeus_2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2010, 08:59 PM   #7
pitfield
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mayfair/Brighton
Posts: 1,262
Default

I've driven a normal 552bhp CGT, it was very fast, rain and traffic meant I topped out at 164 indicated mph. It was very stable and even a little bit lacking in excitement. I did the same run in a CL55 AMG shortly before and managed 150, it's stability light was flashing all the way up t0 120, the Bentley's didn't come on much at all, obviously the 4wd made loads of difference. On a B road both cars were much too big and lardy, a boxster on the same road was much much quicker. I've never played with a GT-R or even followed one but according to Autocar/Evo they defy physics. However, I'd rather be slower and have more of the control to myself.
__________________
MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI MINI
pitfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 10:41 AM   #8
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

Originally Posted by pitfield View Post
I've driven a normal 552bhp CGT, it was very fast, rain and traffic meant I topped out at 164 indicated mph. It was very stable and even a little bit lacking in excitement.
552? I guess you mean Continental GT not Carrera GT?
Originally Posted by pitfield View Post
I did the same run in a CL55 AMG shortly before and managed 150, it's stability light was flashing all the way up t0 120, the Bentley's didn't come on much at all, obviously the 4wd made loads of difference. On a B road both cars were much too big and lardy, a boxster on the same road was much much quicker.
I've never played with a GT-R or even followed one but according to Autocar/Evo they defy physics. However, I'd rather be slower and have more of the control to myself.
We can agree on something I see ) but a local GT-R owner confessed to me that the car cooked its tyres after a short time of "physics defying" and that I should just hang back till his tyres where toast and then zip on by
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 03:52 PM   #9
RC45
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,413
Default

A Honda FIT? Are they serious ? LOL More like UnFit...
RC45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2010, 07:57 PM   #10
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by 79TA View Post
I love how after the hype has gone away these magazines just let the times dwindle to less and less heroic (read: probably more realistic) numbers.

The first C6 Z06's tested all ran 11's in the quarter. Later, the standard Z06 1/4 mile time became 12.0 for Motor Trend. Road and Track tested the first S197 Mustang as being able to hit 60 in 4.9 seconds. Later, the magazines were content to consistently call it 5.1-5.3 seconds. The GT-R seems to have received the same fate as any other highly anticipated car once the new has worn off with its 11.9 second run here.



There are a ton of factors that affect straight line performance, but I think the one that should be considered here is a magazine's determination to run the quickest number while the hype is still big. Average test, average effort, average time (for the GT-R, not cars in general.)
The 06 S197 Mustang's were heavier. Also, the first batch of cars officially tested all were equipped with the drag pack; and lighter wheels/ summer compounds. But the weight was the biggest differences. Some rumors suggest the 05 was closer to 320 hp; while the 06-10 cars were 305. Who knows.
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump