http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3738/296897stoppingtheclock2bv4.jpg Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes its amazing to see how fast the 599 GTB is! I posted the times of the four quickest cars on the "motor trend 599" thread.
that is so amazing. I have driven an SLR and I own a 599 and have already put 1,000 kms on it. I felt the 599 was quicker but I couldn't believe it. How about a CGT? I still feel the CGT is quicker
The Carrera GT is actually even slower than the SLR at higher speeds. I believe the 0-186mph of the CGT is 34.2. Look at my post on the motor trend thread. You will see some of the different 0-186mph times. Congrats on the 599 btw.
Actually, PRS29 is correct. According to a previous AMS high-speed test (the above chart is also based on AMS data) the CGT did 0-300 in around 34s. The factory claim is close to 26s, though. The CGT has never managed to achieve its factory claims. For example, in various tests the CGT failed to do 0-200 in claimed 9.9s. Most results were in the 10.5s range. Same with the 0-300 performance...
Just checked again (0-300kph data): SLR (old test): ca. 30.5s CGT (same old test) ca. 34s SLR (new test): ca. 36s Enzo (old test): ca. 26s 599GTB (new test): ca. 30s Murcielago (580hp): ca. 36s Murcielago (640hp): ca. 32s Z06: ca. 41s 997TT: ca. 41s Gallardo 520hp: ca. 41s 997 GT3: ca. 46s BMW M6: ca. 47s
All of these tests are extremely subjective and depend heavily on outside factors such as weather, location, tires, driver etc etc. There are way too many variables to "paper race". The only true measure, head to head, is where the test takes place in the same location at the same time, using the same driver. That way you eliminate all of the external variables and measure the cars purely against each other. In any event the SLR is really not very appealing to me personally. It is a pumped SL and I warrant that, from a driving feel POV, you would get 99% of the feel of an SLR out of an SL55. The fact that Britney Spears used it (Paris Hilton's SLR) as a stage for her latest loveflaps exhibition, sets it back even further
I completely agree that I would take a CGT any day over an SLR, but if you go by the "paper game", which unfortunately is the only reference I have for the time being, then the SLR is meant to be quicker at the higher speeds (yes it was hard for me to believe as well... I can't stand automatics). My cousin invited me to take his CGT out for a drive.. but I don't have anyone close to me that has an SLR. Have you driven either or both cars? Do you have personal experience with them? Would be curious to know from that perspective.
Alex has a great collection of cars...his insights into them are great to read...it's guys like this that can offer the most useful and interesting jabs, as he owns them and drives them extensively...
I find that extremely hard to believe. Over 200kgs heavier, less power and torque and FR layout rather than a mid-engined design. There is no way...
Here is the real paper test regarding these cars - a purely objective look at their power versus their weight. CGT 3042 lbs 605 HP lbs/hp 5.03 SLR 3732 lbs 617 HP lbs/hp 6.05 In an ideal test, where the running conditions are identical (same time, same driver, same location, same weather conditions) the SLR weighs more (more inertia to overcome) and carries 20% more weight than the CGT per each unit of horsepower, there is no way the SLR can be faster than the CGT. This is why most published road tests are misleading. They cannot be compared to other cars tested at other times in other conditions. It's all BS BTW I have a CGT and I have tracked an SLR. The SLR is, in a word, underwhelming. Like a heavy SL55 - competent, fast, but really not exciting to drive. Direction changes in the SLR are an adventure however. Weight is the enemy on a track and it's really not how fast you go in a straight line that defines a sports car, rather how efficiently it can go around a corner. In this regard the CGT is in another league versus the SLR. This is why I place very little store in magazine roadtests. You simply cannot compare cars tested at different times under different conditions. It's all BS. Entertaining no doubt, but BS all the same. It's fodder for middle school boys to argue about, but rational people should recognize them for what they are - suitable for the National Enquirer next to the "George Bush is an alien" story.
Tru, but at higher speeds AFAIK the CGT generates more DF than the SLR, hence a lot of drag, so I woudn`t be surprised if it`s slower at speeds over 250km/h than an SLR my opinion
I completely agree with you. Which is why I say I would rather own a CGT. I much prefer a light, agile car to enjoy on a track. This is why I am not a huge fan of American muscle cars. Although its true that straight line speed is irrelevant to both you and I, I was merely regurgitating what I have read. I hope someday I will have the opportunity to own these cars and formulate my own opinion.
Completely agree. I also have a CGT for several years, 9,000 kms, and have tracked it on a full F1 track. I know the car well. I have driven an SLR and was also absolutely disappointed
That is absolutely amazing. Ferrari has built an incredible car for sure. However the numbers the Bugatti Veyron puts out is just absolutely SICK! Man I would love to feel what that Bugatti is like. The Veyron has to be the largest and fastest egg on the planet . I think the 599 is much better looking.
Veyron is in a league of its own,you can have four 599s for one Bugatti.... (in theory,based on MSRP,not the Market)
Uh oh, we better not hijack the thread into "well, for one 599, I can have 23 Ducatis..... However, the $40k Brembo equipped 550 HP 2700 pound Subaru WRX I drove was so fast it was painful!
