They're the same idea in terms of driver involvement and ease of operation (i.e., pressing a button/paddle to upshift/downshift), but completely different mechanically. But yeah, I get what you're saying, you get what I'm saying.Aristotle said:Pretty much the same idea though. I didn't think you were being that specific so... yeah.
Yeah, I actually hit 1700 miles on the way to work this morning. Everything's pretty much broken in (engine and transmission specifically) and I have a really good understanding of the engine response and ideal shift points for whatever situation. I wish I had filmed the time a few days ago when I chased the Porsche 911 GT3, but it's okay. Hopefully I'll be able to take a friend along to record some stuff.Aristotle said:^So have you passed the 700 mile mark yet, or however long you had to wait. Get out there and film something.
When a car accelerates, it doesn't accelerate at the same rate until it hits its top speed. As speed increases, it becomes more difficult to continue accelerating, partially due to the engine and its gearing as well as aerodynamics. Generally speaking, it only takes about 100 hp in a reasonably aerodynamic car to reach 100 mph, but that doesn't mean it only takes 200 hp to reach 200 mph; it takes a lot more than 400 hp, actually. As speeds surpass 100 mph, aerodynamics plays a huge factor since wind resistance and stuff like that increases exponentially, not linearly.tennis_dog said:that aside, i looked at that site....the record of 0-200 is 28 seconds??? wow..i was thinking at the rate cars were hitting 60...in 4 seconds or less...they'd hit 200 by at least 15 or 18 seconds...28?? man....
I noticed you're one of the European members... you do know that we're talking about 200 mph and not km/h, right? And 800 hp is not "4 times the power" of a stock 911 Turbo, which has 420 hp; it's a bit less than two times the power.Duke said:^^ Well explained, yet im still in doubt. Not about your explanation, its rock solid, but 28 seconds sounds like a fucking lot. Im drunk and stoned and not in the mood to search specs right now, but 28 secs damn.
now i remember, previous day my boy linked me an article about swiss tuner sportec that pushed a new (997) 911 Turbo to 800+ hp. now thats sick, i realize, but it does 0-200 km/h in like 8 seconds. and even though it was 4 times the power, the gap seems big.
I don't know, man... 28 seconds to hit 200 mph is fast. However, some of their records are outdated, obviously. But I looked it up, the new 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron EB16.4 can hit 200 mph in approximately 22 seconds.FrOgStRaDaMuS said:but 28 does seem kinda long... depending on the car
DeeezNuuuts83 said:I noticed you're one of the European members... you do know that we're talking about 200 mph and not km/h, right? And 800 hp is not "4 times the power" of a stock 911 Turbo, which has 420 hp; it's a bit less than two times the power.
I don't know, man... 28 seconds to hit 200 mph is fast. However, some of their records are outdated, obviously. But I looked it up, the new 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron EB16.4 can hit 200 mph in approximately 22 seconds.
The Evo is faster than that. 200 km/h equates to roughly 124 mph, which isn't that hard to reach in this car. It can finish the quarter-mile in less than 13 seconds and has a trap speed of around 105 mph or so (when driven all-out), and I don't think it takes that much longer to hit 124 mph (~200 km/h) based on how much pull this car still has at such high speeds. It should hit that speed in well under 20 seconds.Duke said:I thought the Evo did 0-200 KPH (and not mph) in 28secs, not the Porsche. I compared it to the worked up 911, hence the 4 times (well, about) the power reply.
But as i try to make my brain do what i say, it becomes obvious that the it was the GT3 does 0-200 in 28 seconds? Does a GT3 even get to 200 (thought they topped at 190 odd)
Yes, like I said, it's outdated. Once something on that site gets published, they don't really go back and edit it. They only add new information, like new car reviews of new cars or recent news about upcoming cars.tennis_dog said:but if its outdated, then maybe the enzo could beat that 28...on that site, the enzo seems to be killing all the other cars when it comes to performance.....and that 22 by that buggatti seems ok....10 mph/sec....that looks good....
In all honesty, a high hp/liter ratio is a good thing since it refers to how efficient an engine is in terms of putting out power, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the car is fast because its ratio is high or that the car is slow because its ratio is low. It just means that the engineers did a good job at getting a lot of power with a given amount of displacement.tennis_dog said:and one last question...how important is that hp/liter ratio??? i forget what that term is called....how efficient the engine is?
You're correct. My bad, slip of the tongue... or finger, in this case.Duke said:^ ha! M3's have inlines, not V6's!
I've never tried it myself since experimenting with an AWD when you don't have to can do some serious damage to parts of the transmission. But what I've always heard is that dumping the clutch will break something, and slipping the clutch will lead to a stinky clutch. A "quick slip" is commonly what Evo drivers say is the best method.Duke said:Im just wondering, whats the fastest way to hammer your Evo away from the lights? Slip or dump? Any wheelspin?