motor

Shinigami · 06-21-2006, 04:44 PM

The Mosler looks much prettier, the Ultima looks awkward. Price to performance is awesome, but I find it hard to drive a card I cannot "love" due to the looks

TopGearNL · 06-21-2006, 05:27 PM

Here's another vid for you to see this beasts power and speed

:arrow: http://www.sporttuned.com/watch.php?v_id=204&p=10&m=all

TeflonTron · 06-21-2006, 05:58 PM

I think that all of those 1/4 times are the slowest that I've ever seen. I can't see how they got 11.6 @ 125 for the McLaren F1 when it can hit 124 in under 9.5 seconds. I'd say it's a high 10 car at about 135. Thoughts?

JoeHahn · 06-21-2006, 09:03 PM

The Mclaren hasnt been recorded in the 10s. The figures they used were the US version of the F1 which did the 1/4 mile a tad slower than the autocar test (11.2 I think). Some of the other quartermile times they have used are pretty laughable aswell but thats marketting

TeflonTron · 06-21-2006, 10:11 PM

Yeah. There's no way in hell that a CGT can accelerate faster than a McLaren F1, from anywhere to anywhere, the same holds true of the Enzo.

nthfinity · 06-21-2006, 10:28 PM

the US publication Motor Trend recorded 11.1 1/4 mile time if memory serves... it could've been Road and Track... or perhaps even both the same

that said, given poor road conditions and/or too much wheelspin, 11.6 with that mph isnt unbelievable.

TeflonTron · 06-21-2006, 10:34 PM

^true, but it'd have to be a terrible launch and run, and it's kind of "unfair" for another company, such as Ultima, to use the worst numbers of its "rivals", although expected.

nthfinity · 06-21-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by TeflonTron

^true, but it'd have to be a terrible launch and run, and it's kind of "unfair" for another company, such as Ultima, to use the worst numbers of its "rivals", although expected.

yes, "expected" seems appropriate

but....
what if both launches were by amature enthusiasts? then it might be a bit more credible... but just seeing the numbers doesn't say that, so i'm just fishing

TeflonTron · 06-21-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

Originally Posted by TeflonTron

^true, but it'd have to be a terrible launch and run, and it's kind of "unfair" for another company, such as Ultima, to use the worst numbers of its "rivals", although expected.

yes, "expected" seems appropriate

but....
what if both launches were by amature enthusiasts? then it might be a bit more credible... but just seeing the numbers doesn't say that, so i'm just fishing

Well, Ultima use their own driver (the owner of the company, IIRC) so I would expect him to be able to get the best out of the car. As for the McLaren, I would just say that people have to be realistic. A car with that much power and so little weight is going to always be very, very fast.

When all is said and done, I respect the numbers that the Ultima puts down, but it's ugly as hell and doesn't do anything for me.

RC45 · 06-22-2006, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by TeflonTron

I think that all of those 1/4 times are the slowest that I've ever seen. I can't see how they got 11.6 @ 125 for the McLaren F1 when it can hit 124 in under 9.5 seconds. I'd say it's a high 10 car at about 135. Thoughts?

Exactly - and I am sure there was a reason they used a automatic 1998 C5 Coupe as their "benchmark"... along with the slow times they chose for all the other cars... PR purposes

Uhm 750bhp will net 9.9s times for many other cars too

TeflonTron · 06-22-2006, 12:06 PM

^ On the 1/4 mile video it looked as if the C5 had given up. I was sitting there saying to myself "what's the point?".