I think 0-100 mph is a good measurement and for vehicles that can't reach 100 mph top speed can be used instead. Another good measurement is quarter mile time but for slow vehicles the top speed is more important cause it answers the question "can I take it to a highway and go 80 mph like anyone else?". For fast vehicles the top speed doesn't matter that much. Most people don't care if their German car can go 190 mph or is it limited to 155. 0-60 is good for cars but bad for bikes which are more dependent on the rider's launching skill and 60-100 tells us more about the bike itself than 0-60. Track laps are quite shitty as an objective measurement cause cause the results vary between tracks. We can decide that Nurburgring is the most important one and use it as a measurement but if car A was faster than car B on the Nurburgring but slower on any other track, it would be pretty unfair.>tltrTop speed is the best for comparing slow vehicles, 0-100 mph or quarter mile time is the best for comparing fast vehicles
0-60 and 1/4 mile with trap speed generally tell me what I need to know.You can cheat a 0-60 with gearing, but if your trap speed is low then it probably sucks after 2nd gear.
Imagine being so boring that you stress about going in a straight line. Real men fight corners not quarter mile times.
>>28868505>insecure about being slow>muh cornersPredictable.
>>28868505I gotta mog people on the freeway dawg
While nobody uses it I think 0-60-0 is a better way
>>28868522Yeah, just give up and go electric now if all you care about is racing from stoplight to stoplight. Oh wait, muh V8 exhaust note!Curb weight/torque ratio is a pretty good measure of "interesting", if you like to drive.
>>28868505You talk about corners until the Camaro enters the chat. then you shit yourself and claim it doesn't count.
>>28868572
>>28868578The camaro is faster on summer tires.
>>28868572>>28868578>>28868581What are the odds that these splits are all due to differences track knowledge and driver skill rather than one car being objectively faster than another?
>>28868581The Turbo 1LE was a marvel of price to track performance. It's too bad nobody noticed. The Camaro crowd just wants a V8 and the sports car crowd doesn't want a Camaro.
>camaro 2.0Twhat an abomination
BHP/ton is probably the best metric if you have to pick one. Once you get into the realm of 300bhp/ton you’re firmly in fast car territory and much higher than that and you’re probably exceeding what is going to be reasonable to drive on most roads450~ is GT2 RS, Zonda 7.3 and C8 ZR1 levels of fast which even among the bench racers of /o/ are fast cars. Unless you race for money you’re going to run out of talent long before you run out of performance
>>2886847860-120 is the true measurement of speed (100-200 for philistines)
>>28868608They're driven by the exact same driver (Randy Pobst) for streets of willow.
>>28868552I think Tesla is fast as fuck but I'm not a big fan of it. It's not like I'm obliged to love every fast car.
>>28868619>450~ is GT2 RS, Zonda 7.3 and C8 ZR1 levels of fast which even among the bench racers of /o/ are fast carsAnd remember that literbikes make over 750 with fuel and a 70 kg rider
>>28868552Did you know that straight line fast, loud, nasty V8s can also devastate your shitbox in "muh corners" too?
>>28868754And yet it gets smoked in drag races by electric shitboxes. Cope harder. Muh loud, nasty V8! I'd choose a base 'vette, even a C7, over that thing for my next step up, and that will be a while, because I'm nost a bench racer. But it's not the engine note, not that there's anything wrong with that you horrible faggot.
>>28868777What you aren't getting is that straight line speed matters. "Straight line speed" = max traction and acceleration. That's always relevant for performance.
>>28868777what electric shitboxes. the million dollar rimac?
>>28868787Do you really think I'm not getting that or are you shouting at clouds? Muh emotion, muh verve, muh noise! Get a real sports car and drive it ffs. Can you think about why I'd say "I'd choose a base 'vette over that" or is your bottom just twitching again? It's the whole package and even BHP/ton is not a perfect metric. I know, it's very hard for the "I learned everything I know about cars in the eighth grade" crowd to keep up, There's nothing at all special about straight-line performance anymore. It's over. And noise for the sake of noise... well, I can cut the muffler off a shitbox, and it will bother other people just as much.>>28868793My lesbian aunt's tesla plaid. (I don't have a lesbian aunt, and she does not have a Tesla Plaid)
>>28868821Tesla plaid runs 9 second quarter milesCorvette ZR1X runs 8
>>28868821>this wall of seetheIf you don't understand why a loud V8 is awesome you're a pussy. It's that simple.
>>28868822That's a Z06. And the quarter mile times are disputable and narrowing on the top trims. I don't have a dog in this fight - it's just been over for the straight-line crowd for years. You have no reason to carry on with the boring metric you learned in eighth grade. Yes, a real sports car like a vette is still a lot more interesting than any electric shitbox and you should learn why. And if you're bench racing 1/4 mile times and 0-60 times, you'd run out of talent long before you got to a ZR1X.
>>28868833Way to miss the point. Muh noise! Go cut the muffler off grandma's grand marquis and pretend it's a stock car. A loud V8 *by itself* is not awesome. It's actually kind of sad.
>>2886847860-130mph times are what the big boys use. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are for EV's and production cars with fancy launch control and shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY9ZMGMUhbIhttps://youtu.be/BVhOYzwa5g0?t=619
>>28868478Percentage of G
>>28868836Okay, but the corvette is the fastest accelerating production car you can buy under a million dollars. you need quite more than a "shitbox" to beat it.
>>28868839Nah. A 70's Camaro is slow as shit but still awesome. And a big part of that is the V8 sound.
>>28868625https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/randy-pobst-autocross-improves-car-control/randy pobst says you should go race in a parking lot in your camaro
>>28869315Ok boomer. Crank up the bob seeeeger
>>28868478define fast?to me a "slow" vehicle you want to drive fast because it feels solid and comfortable at high speeds is "faster" than a higher performing car that gives you white knuckles and high blood pressure maintaining high speeds. i wont say an old volvo is anything extreme but i could set cruise at 180kmh and keep one finger on the wheel sippin coffe driving through the swedish forest. almost as it was made for it...and i could do the same with the diesel vw vans we used for work even during winter, they just took a bit longer to get up to that speed but they did so even towing a car on a trailer (ok that capped them at ca 160kmh but still). i had some "fast" cars, alfa romeo, cosworth sierra and driven a few others. most are set up to be trashed, hooned or dragged not to actually drive fast for long periods.tl;dr, neither top speed or 0-60 matters, just if you want to drive it fast 'ish.
>>28869414Hell yeah. Free Bird on loop for 2 hours.
>>28869456As long as you get those boomer tingles it feels plenty fast
>>28868777>"smoked by electric appliances"awd is fast from a dig. This is not news. Automakers bitching and moaning and dragging their feet when faced with a powerful all-wheel drive car has existed since 1989. This extends to consumers, which if they had above average intelligence would instead demand an automaker competently put a boosted V8 behind an all mechanical all-wheel drive drivetrain. I don't know why this is apparently so hard to do.
>>28869499ZR1X is AWD. But it's often not done because of the customers asking for RWD. Particularly American cars, excluding SUVs and trucks. People wouldn't like it if a Mustang was AWD instead of RWD. Even the $325k Mustang GTD is RWD.Euro makes do have AWD like BMW, Audi, Mercedes etc.
>>28869447Yikes, how is going fast supposed to be fun if you don't feel like the car is about to fall apart and you're probably gonna die?
>>28869691i get you but how is going fast gonna feel like if you need to go fast for 12h straight? or even longer.. it aint fun for that long. i lived 800++ km from home once with my then gf and tried to visit my parents as often as i could, i used 13h to drive there in my dads '75 1,2L corolla that topped out at 130, i used 12 hours in my ford sierra cosworth that i bugged out at 220 kmh it had plenty more in it. i used 10h in a plain old volvo 850.so tell me what was fast? the 1,2 54hp, the 2L turbo at 220+hp or the comfy swedish cruiser at 170hp?also had a 1,6L opel for a while it was in the 12h range for that run.and this is on norwegian roads...
>>28869722>and this is on norwegian roadsWait, you didn't go to jail?
>>28869734why wold i? its also why "fast" cars aint faster. you are stuck with speed limits and risk of police much of the way, however nothing is illegal when no one is watching...been to jail btw due to driving but that was me driving too drunk not too fast.
>>28869793Drunk drivers are the most oppressed race on earth.
>>28869801if you only knew. cost me 6k in fines, 2,5k in lawyers, lost time off work income due to jailtime, and thats for an intoxiation level that would be ok in usa.
>>28868478Trap speed in the 1/4 mile is one of the best indicators of overall speed. A lot of manufacturers have cars setup to get to 60mph quickly then they fall on their face. But if your car only does double digits in the 1/4 you're stuck in 14 second hell or worse.
>>2886847840-120 imo. It mimics a reasonable roll race.This negates tractions gimmicks with a high starting speed, yet also negates active aero gimmicks with a relatively low top speed measurement.
>>28868505reddit the post
