Discussion
Although we "only" achieved 9.4 for the GTO 3R in the 0-100-0 test earlier in the year, I think that this was only a development car.
What was incredible was to be a passenger in a Merc S600 (one of three passengers, none of them svelte) as it left the GTO-3R standing in a straight burn up on the same day. I think we'll have to put it down to better electronic assistance on the Merc to save any blushes....
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Wednesday 29th October 13:16
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Friday 31st October 11:46
What was incredible was to be a passenger in a Merc S600 (one of three passengers, none of them svelte) as it left the GTO-3R standing in a straight burn up on the same day. I think we'll have to put it down to better electronic assistance on the Merc to save any blushes....
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Wednesday 29th October 13:16
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Friday 31st October 11:46
stuart_forrest said:
What was incredible was to be a passenger in a Merc S600 (one of three passengers, none of them svelte) as it left the GTO-3R standing in a straight burn up on the same day.
Left it standing from the line? Past 100 MPH? Electront assistance my-arse... sounds a bit fishy to me.
The recorded figures showed a 9.99 to 100 for the Merc against 9.40 to 100 for the Noble. As to an explanation - god knows. The S600 had just done a couple of flying laps, whereas the Noble had been tootling round on photography work. May also have been because Phil Bennett was at the wheel of the Merc - he is a bit handy after all. Then you've got all the different permutations of fuel etc. that might have had an effect (empty at S600 against full M12 would probably narrow that gap).
Who knows - all I know is that I did see it with my own eyes...
Who knows - all I know is that I did see it with my own eyes...
Tuscan S beat the Noble by half a second in our test, but I happen to know that the Noble did the run with a full tank of fuel, whereas I think that the Tuscan S was running with a bit less....
We police fuel levels in our full Road Tests religiously to ensure that all figures are based on a level playing field. When it comes to 0-100-0 and suchlike however, the sheer number of cars and people milling around makes such a thing impossible.
I'm sure that Simon at the factory will concur - he was there on the day....
Edited to deal with my apalling spelling.
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Friday 31st October 11:47
We police fuel levels in our full Road Tests religiously to ensure that all figures are based on a level playing field. When it comes to 0-100-0 and suchlike however, the sheer number of cars and people milling around makes such a thing impossible.
I'm sure that Simon at the factory will concur - he was there on the day....
Edited to deal with my apalling spelling.
>> Edited by stuart_forrest on Friday 31st October 11:47
I have just found autocar mag wiv the 0-100-0 from july quote "While the noble impressed with a sub -10sec run ,the TVR simply blew it into next week by reaching 100mph in 8.08sec" and the noble does it in 9.40sec my Dad has the 0-100-0 test of the Standard Tuscan some where i will try and find it unless you already know it400bhp is what the latest version of the Tuscan S produces as standard, so look no further.
The car we loaned Autocar for the 0-100-0 was only a development car, so wasn't nearly as quick as today's production cars (we figured any publicity was better than no publicity). It had a poor gearshift, full tank of fuel (the TVR was on fumes) and when we took it to a rolling road it was producing a mere 300bhp. We never tried to justify coming second to the Tuscan, but recent tests of the full production 3R (Auto Express: 0-60 in 3.7, 0-100 in 8.8. Autocar: 0-60 in 3.9, 0-100 in 9.0) show how much closer in reality the car is to the Tuscan.
The car we loaned Autocar for the 0-100-0 was only a development car, so wasn't nearly as quick as today's production cars (we figured any publicity was better than no publicity). It had a poor gearshift, full tank of fuel (the TVR was on fumes) and when we took it to a rolling road it was producing a mere 300bhp. We never tried to justify coming second to the Tuscan, but recent tests of the full production 3R (Auto Express: 0-60 in 3.7, 0-100 in 8.8. Autocar: 0-60 in 3.9, 0-100 in 9.0) show how much closer in reality the car is to the Tuscan.
stuart_forrest said:Agree Stuart - these things are all so subjective. At Brunters we had exactly the opposite, a M12-3R leaving a 996TTX50 "for dead" between 20 and 120.
Who knows - all I know is that I did see it with my own eyes...
So many factors, so little consistency. Heck - who cares, Nobles, S600's, AMG55's, 996TT's they are all f****ng quick and would scare rabbits at 2000 yards
J
DanH said:
Why? Its got a 500bhp 6 litre v12 with 585lb/ft or torque. Brutal but its going to be effective in a straight line!
Surprisingly effective through the bends IIRC! I was in the front with a glass of champagne and my colleagues were in the back clutching stogies. Phil Bennet was at the wheel in Nomex and the car was stuffed with a load of photography gear. Having a medium format camera inches from your nut when travelling at 155mph is a nerve racking experience.....
Was the nomex to protect against cigar burns? 
I imagine that kind of torque is perfectly suited to moving over-puddinged captains of industry around with no loss of oompf.
I'm begining to suspect that you autocar journos have far too much fun. Hopefully some standing outside all day during crappy winter weather will give you your comeuppance
I imagine that kind of torque is perfectly suited to moving over-puddinged captains of industry around with no loss of oompf.
I'm begining to suspect that you autocar journos have far too much fun. Hopefully some standing outside all day during crappy winter weather will give you your comeuppance
I actually spend most of my time telling them when it's time to stop spending money. I occasionally get to try the nice stuff, but I'm not a journo. Just remember though, for every hour spent hooning around in the nice stuff, there are probably 10 spent figuring some joyless Korean nail in the pouring rain, as Micknall will no doubt confirm.
Most of us wouldn't swap the job for the world though...
Most of us wouldn't swap the job for the world though...
Stuart, could you shed any light on the 1/4 mile performance?
My impression has always been that the Noble is a high-11 second car (ie, 11.8 or 11.9, but at worst a 12 flat).. 12.3 at 115 seems slow to me. Do you know what the 60-foot times were or any particulars about the testing that might have affected the performance?
Thanks,
Marc
My impression has always been that the Noble is a high-11 second car (ie, 11.8 or 11.9, but at worst a 12 flat).. 12.3 at 115 seems slow to me. Do you know what the 60-foot times were or any particulars about the testing that might have affected the performance?
Thanks,
Marc
As I've often posted before - one of the "best" independant performance ranks is at
www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals_cars.htm
No axe to grind, nothing to prove, and just takes the details from "reliable" sources.
M12 12.5, 114mph for 1/4 mile. Pretty good when you look at the company it keeps.
J
www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals_cars.htm
No axe to grind, nothing to prove, and just takes the details from "reliable" sources.
M12 12.5, 114mph for 1/4 mile. Pretty good when you look at the company it keeps.
J
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff