Autocar 0-100-0 Test

[paul.davies]

Anyone had chance to look at this yet? Noticed the Tamora had a time of 14.2 seconds. I'll have to give it a go on the weekend, looks like fun!!

[granville]

Nope but I'm just howay for a copy this instance...

[Lance]

havent seen this, can you post some of the competitor times?

[VictorMeldrew]

Just had a quick scan, couldn't buy it as I left my wallet at home today (doh!).

Points of interest - (forgive the inaccuracy, my memory ain't that good!)

TVR Tamora 15.nn secs
Pagnini Zonda 11.nn secs
Caterham 500 11.nn secs
F1 car 5.nn secs.
F1 1.68 secs 100-0!!!! OH MY GOD!

The chasm between F1 and "sports" cars is so wide that from this side of it it's difficult to comprehend.

[Nigel lewis]

Lance,
Porsche 911 Turbo 13-02
Lambo 13-9
Merc SL55 15-15
Tamora 15-2
EVO RS Sprint 15-9
Audi RS6 16-75
Subaru Imp STI 18-4
Elise 135 sprint 20-53
Focus RS 21-25
They said of the Tamora.
"Getting the TVR off the line is all about what happens in the first 25 feet.Too much wheelspin and forget it, Too litle and the engine just Bogs"

[Lance]

get this...the downforce generated by a F1 car at 150+ causes deceleration greater than standing on the brakes in a porsche, just by backing off the throttle.....

[paul.davies]

Them F1 Car's are amaising, I'm going to have to go and buy a copy now

[Jarrett]

These are interesting comparisions to the figures that Evo published in May 2001 for the Tuscan(RR)/M3/Skyline/RS4/911(C2)

Tuscan 14.0
M3 16.6
RS4 16.8
Skyline 16.8
911 16.5

[trefor]

They also said the Tamora was not on form since they figured one to 100mph in 9.1 secs in a previous test. This car took 9.8 (I think). They then went on to say the brakes didn't feel quite right. I guess 0.7secs in acceleration and say 0.5 in braking would put the Tamora 0-100-0 time well up the charts.

That Merc SL55 is a bit rapid isn't it!

T/.

[andyvdg]

This has got me thinking. If I were to pay £70k for a Tuscan R, I would want to it be faster than the Porsche. I would want it be as fast as the Pagani. In fact, if it was faster than the R500 I might go out and get a loan!

Good show from the Tamora. Even as the slowest TVR, and with an engine a bit off, it still posted a time to 100 less than 10 seconds!

[paul.davies]

What do you reckon to the brakes on the Tamora though??
It takes a full half a second longer than the other slowest car to stop...I'm going to get some rubber bumpers for the front incase a micra tries to out brake me.
What can we do about the brakes? Any ideas?

[Lance]

funny you just mentioned that. Given the Tamora has 30% higher power-to-weight than the 911 turbo so presumably faster to 100 (despite less traction off the line) what does that say about the Porsche ABS brakes versus the TVR non-ABS brakes? Hate to re-ignite that old debate.....

[whatever]

Why is there never any times for a 4.5 Cerb these days? TVR's own stats say it's as fast as anything else they make (and is it still the only car where they publish a 0-150?) yet it never seems to get tested.

They're binning it...

[paul.davies]

The published timings for 100-0 are:
Porker 4.28
TVR 4.99

and 0-100
Porker (with engine kit) 8.43
TVR 9.8

[AndrewD]

Lifelong TVR fan having owned Chimaera through to 4.5 Cerbie, but I have to say I am extremely doubtful that any current TVR would be anywhere near the same performance league as a 911 Turbo. Mind alteringly quick, and gorgeous, but just not quite that quick (and not 90 grand either).

Andrew

[kevinday]

Apologies Andrew, but a standard 911 Turbo cannot keep up with a Cerbera (for sure) and probably not Tuscan or Tamora either, but only in a straight line, the Porsche MAY beet them on the twisty stuff and certainly would in the wet thanks to 4wd.

Edited to add: Obviously a Turbo is easier to upgrade for extra performance to produce a TVR beating package.

>> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 3rd October 11:31

[AndrewD]

Says who Kevin? They both probably weigh the same and the 4.5 Cerbera does not put out anywhere near the 420bhp it is advertised to have. 360 if you are lucky.

I owned the Cerbera for 2 years, and I test drove the 911 Turbo for 5 minutes. It is a quicker car. Not as special to sit in etc but that wasn't my point.

Andrew

[gazzab]

This old chestnut!!! The cerbera is proven to beat it. Is a cerb a better car , prob not. Is it faster in a straight line, yes. What lights my fire the most - a boring old 911 or a cerb?! Easy to answer.

[AndrewD]

Well I don't argue with you about the lights my fire bit, like I say I did own the Cerb. But I guess we'll have to agree to differ on the speed thing. If I ever go to road cars again, I know where my money's going and it ain't Blackpool, but that's what makes the world go round I guess, yes?

[lee77]

quote:
Says who Kevin? They both probably weigh the same and the 4.5 Cerbera does not put out anywhere near the 420bhp it is advertised to have. 360 if you are lucky.

I owned the Cerbera for 2 years, and I test drove the 911 Turbo for 5 minutes. It is a quicker car. Not as special to sit in etc but that wasn't my point.

Andrew

We've been here before Turbo is the quicker car in every sense of the word even in standard 420 bhp form, trust me I have owned and driven a host of high performance cars....

Cerbera's do hold a special place in my heart though...


>> Edited by lee77 on Thursday 3rd October 18:27