German Car Forum

Stealth fighters: You won’t believe what can keep up with an Audi R8 these days.


Contrary to popular belief, not all car scribes had dads that raced Porsches. A good many of us waited much longer than we care to admit to be exposed to the cool cars of the world. We’ve done more time than we care to admit behind the wheels of beat-up New Yorkers and hand-me-down family-haulers.

So we know how it feels when you’re choking on your own fumes at a stoplight and along comes something rowdy: maybe a Mustang or a WRX, paint gleaming, motor rumbling, driver grinning. The light turns green, and you know the rest.

But wouldn’t it be funny if you could actually keep up? Imagine the surprise on that sports car driver’s face when what seemed like an ordinary vehicle produced an extraordinary run. Oh, savory indeed is that brand of automotive irony.

And this sort of irony is the thrust behind this article, in which we have paired one traditionally hot car with one whose driver has a little secret—the kind that’ll have the other driver shaking his head (and maybe his middle finger) in disbelief when they meet again at the next light. All performance statistics quoted in the following pages were recorded by Car and Driver test gear.


Toyota Camry V-6 vs. Subaru WRX

There are many reasons we love Subarus, and the WRX is one of them. An unassuming Impreza on the outside, but a turbocharged, 224-hp rocket on the inside, it is more than a little bit ironic all by itself. Indeed, with a 0-to-60 time of just 5.8 seconds, it has that sneaky sort of quickness that catches muscle car drivers unaware in impromptu stoplight wars.

But it’s going to be the WRX driver that’ll be surprised when the driver of an even less assuming, nearly full-sized Toyota Camry V-6 runs nose-to-nose with the much smaller WRX through 60 mph and all the way to the quarter-mile mark.

Add in the fact that the Camry V-6 is available with many top-dollar features not available on the WRX, has far more upscale size and interior design, and has a base price that’s nearly $1000 less, and the Camry is a whopper of a stealth-speed bargain.

Toyota Camry V-6 --- Subaru Impreza WRX
0–60: 5.8 seconds --- 0–60: 5.8 seconds
1/4: 14.3 @ 93 mph --- 1/4: 14.4 @ 95 mph


Infiniti FX50 vs. Ford Mustang Bullitt

Infiniti claims that the idea behind the original Infiniti FX was the concept of a “bionic cheetah.” The result was a seriously muscular SUV that, if you squinted, looked vaguely cheetah-like but was undeniably bionic in terms of its ability to go fast.

The brand-new second-generation FX is even more muscular, particularly in FX50 form, and now it can keep pace with the one of the most iconic versions of the most iconic pony car around, the 315-hp Ford Mustang Bullitt. Yep, even though the FX50 is a 4600-pound five-seater that can haul a small family to a ballet recital, its 5.0-liter V-8 pumps out 390 horsepower and 369 lb-ft, thus bestowing it with acceleration that’s truly cheetah-like.

The FX50 can match the Stang’s five-flat 0-to-60 hustle and 13.6-second quarter mile. Furthermore, it can also track true and flat in corners, so don’t think McQueen’s Mustang will lose it when the road gets twisty. In fact, add water and watch the family trickster pull far and fast away from the Ford. Sorry, Steve—you’ve been served.

Infiniti FX50 --- Ford Mustang Bullitt
0–60: 5.0 seconds --- 0–60: 5.0 seconds
1/4: 13.6 @ 104 mph --- 1/4: 13.6 @ 104 mph


Cadillac Escalade vs. Mini Cooper S

We’ve constantly celebrated the spastic Mini Cooper S for offering big performance surprises in a small, efficient package. But an even bigger surprise comes in one of the biggest packages around: the behemoth Cadillac Escalade.

Yep, as speedy as the 2700-pound Cooper S is, the 5700-pound Escalade is just as quick, trailing Mini’s diminutive demon by only 0.1 second to 60 mph but beating the Cooper S by 0.2 seconds to the quarter-mile mark. Indeed, for a big gal, this Caddy can boogie.

Of course, both get their grunt from powerplants that are as antithetical as the wrappers they arrive in. The Cooper S’s high-tech 1.6-liter engine uses a turbocharger to put a “bang” in “four-banger,” whereas the Escalade employs a brutal, old-school, 403-hp 6.2-liter V-8 that sucks down more than twice the fuel. Furthermore, if anything remotely resembling a curve turns up in the middle of that quarter-mile run, David will eat Goliath for lunch.

Still, we think that even the concept of drag-racing a Cooper S in an Escalade is downright cartoonish fun. Disagree? Just check out the video.

Cadillac Escalade --- Mini Cooper S
0–60: 6.3 seconds --- 0–60: 6.2 seconds
1/4: 14.8 @ 95 mph --- 1/4: 15.0 @ 95 mph



Toyota Tundra vs. BMW 328i

Talk about two vehicles on opposite ends of the spectrum: the sporty, sassy, prudently packaged and perennial 10Best-winning BMW 328i, and the oversized, overwrought, utilitarian, ladder-framed workhorse Toyota Tundra. You know which you’d want to be in during a drag race, right?

Think again, city slicker. If ‘dem country boys were smart enough to order ‘emselves a 381-hp, 5.7-liter V-8 turnin’ their Tundra’s rear wheels, that big-ass Tonka-yota will keep pace with the Bimmer all the way through the quarter-mile, which it hits in less than 15 seconds and at which point the 328i is finally starting to pull away. And while aerodynamics ensure that the Bimmer driver will ultimately win this race, it won’t have been by enough of a margin for him to outrun the humbling reality that a Texas-sized truck stayed with him for a shockingly long time.

Maybe he should step up to the 300-hp 335i before he starts pickin’ on pickups again.

Toyota Tundra --- BMW 328i
0–60: 6.1 seconds --- 0–60: 6.1 seconds
1/4: 14.9 @ 94 mph --- 1/4: 14.8 @ 95 mph


Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG Wagon vs. Audi R8

Few sports cars at any price have garnered as much attention and accolade as the sexy, saucy, and very fast Audi R8. So imagine one being outgunned by a housewife in, of all things, a station wagon. That’s exactly what could happen with this über-fast and über-rare über-wagen, the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG wagon.

Picture it: you’re at the wheel of your brand-new R8. A black Benz E-class pulls up, and the driver puts down her phone long enough to toss you a sideways glance over her latte followed by a nod to the horizon. Surely she jests. An E-class against an R8? This should be easy, you think. As the light turns green, you notice the “6.3” badge on the fender and hear wheelspin. Uh oh.

You get on it with all four wheels gripping. Your ears are pinned back as you blast to 60 in four seconds flat, neck and neck with the Benz. 100 mph and what’s this? She’s pulling away! Then you start to get a view of the sheetmetal aft of the B-pillar: she’s in a station wagon! A quarter-mile later, she’s still pulling away. At 130 mph, are those her kids laughing in the rear-facing jump seats? Within 23.5 seconds, she’s at 150, 1.2 seconds before you. Mercedes’s seven-passenger station wagon will outaccelerate the R8 all the way to its 155-mph governor. And now the driver is probably back on her pink Razr to tell her BFFs all about it.

Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG wagon --- Audi R8
0–60: 4.0 seconds --- 0–60: 4.0 seconds
1/4: 12.5 @ 115 mph --- 1/4: 12.6 @ 113 mph


Videos:

Car and Driver

Car and Driver



Article Link:

Surprise Speed Tournament - Feature/Features/Classic Cars/High Performance/Hot Lists/Reviews/Car and Driver - Car And Driver


This is just a fun article. No need for telling us how "stupid" it is to compare these vehicles. This isn't a serious comparo, just an interesting look at different cars and their performance capabilities.


M

Ha ha ...fun match ups

The E63 wagon

This is no different from the M5bord.com airfield events. Everyone races all kind of cars.

0-60 mph in 5.8 secs in a V6 Camry? Hot dang, that's one helluva Camry!

Yes indeed, how on earth can they get a time like that ? Even if it is from 0-60mph, the fastest time the aussie magazines have ever got from the V6 Camry was 6.8 sec 0-62mph, and the supercharged TRD version (241kW) did it in 6.2 sec 0-62mph.

Car and Driver uses the Brake-Torque method. They consistantly get better times than every other U.S. magazine. Though Road and Track is starting to get similar times. Road and Track recently tested the SL63 and got a 4.0 sec 0-60 time.


M

^ So this brake-torque method is? Step on the brake with left foot, get the revs up with the right foot on the gas whilst holding the car on the brake. Then lift off the brake and mash the accelerator to the carpet? [Referring strictly to torque convertor auto's for the method described]

Ouch! sounds unhealthy for the car

Yes something like that.

This is why I like Car and Driver because they also do a 5-60 mph test, which gives you a more real world time. Take for instance their roadtest of the Maserati Quattroporte Automatica:

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec <------
Zero to 100 mph: 12.8 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 24.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.8 sec <------

Notice the difference. Most people aren't going to be able to get the 5.3. sec time IMO.


M

It can be - depending on the stall characteristics of the torque convertor. These days modern torque-convertors have higher stall-speed tolerances than before. So as long as you're not abusing the privilege and over-heating the ATF then it's a fairly accepted method of launch testing an auto.

BTW, Marcus, I thought that most auto mags use this "brake-torque" method to get better starts out of an auto?

I'm not sure. Some do some don't, but C&D seems to have perfect it. MotorWeek does it too, but the best they could get for a car like the C63 AMG was 5.0 secs to 60 mph. While C&D got 3.9 secs the first time they tested one. So many factors play into these numbers I guess.

M

Super-sticky American downhill dragstrips might be a factor

Why are they testing this way? I mean, how many people are doing like this when they accelerate?

5-60 mph sounds more normal thing to do.

Not many which is why C&D does a street test (5-60 mph) also, which is usually much more in line with what the average driver will get.

M

Don't joke - you've probably got a very good point!

Sure it may be more representative of the real world to do rolling starts.

But as far as Isaac Newton's concerned there is no more noble test of acceleration than to accelerate an object from rest!

[as for that style of driving - I know a couple of instructors that only drive like that! (left foot on the brake, right foot on the accelerator) ]

0-60 mph times are overrrated anyway so carmags can do whatever they want. There is always someone who will be impressed and excited over a good acceleration figure.

but I rather drive like this

A little off topic but I couldn't resist:

The 5-60mph test IS more representative of street starts because you don't launch the car at high rpm's (for a manual) and you don't use the "brake-torque" method (for automatics).

It is in this area where the advantage of high torque (at low rpm) engines come in.....and in this regard, AMG always trounces the equivalent M car if you look at 5-60mph times from Car & Driver. Basically, this forces the M car to start rolling from low revs, and it usually has no chance against the equivalent AMG competitor. I think I made a post about this long ago, but the M boys here struck back saying nobody cares about 5-60mph times...... Trust me when I say that in your typcial street "encounter" this low rpm torque makes the BIGGEST difference. No, I'm not talking about high speed rolling starts like on M5board's airfield demonstrations......I'm talking about street starts at more street legal speeds.

Of course, the 135i/335i/535i don't suffer from this problem as much as the M cars do because of the high torque at low rpm's from the twin turbos.

Yeah, but so is launching a manual car from high revs to get the fastest 0 to 100km/h or 200km/h or whatever time. It's all about whether you want to MAXIMIZE your acceleration from a standing stop.

I have owned just 2 manual transmission cars in my life. This may be hard for some of you to believe, but I still have not launched one from high rpm's by dropping the clutch from a standing stop. I just don't like the idea of grinding my clutch like that......

Also, I have never tried the brake-torque method for my automatic cars either. Don't like the idea of loading the torque converter like that either.....


Therefore, a 5-60mph time is the most relevant for me. I imagine that it would be for most drivers too, unless you keep launching your car from a stop.

And the sad thing is that this car has all this power and the vast majority of Camry owners will never use it. They just buy the V6 because "it's a V6" and because "Car and Driver / Motor Trend etc. tells them it's better than the 4-cylinder"...

People, there are many facets to performance motoring, some of us - like me - care less about outright acceleration and more about driver involvement and car control. But, to simply dismiss one aspect of a car's performance as being irrelevant or less than representative of real world motoring is to dismiss the joy of performance motoring altogether.

I for one love the feeling you get from a perfectly launched car from standstill. It's like being on the end of a powerful elastic band and it gives you a sensation that no 100-200 km/h rolling start will ever give or 5-60mph start for that matter. By the same token there's no better lateral feel than driving a car at 10/10ths on a track through your favourite 120 km/h 3rd gear sweep.

People say that 0-100 is irrelevant. I say nothing feels better in terms of straightline speed.

Although I dont care much about 0-60 times, I do test it sometimes when I'm alone.
But I dont stop at 60, I usually go all the way up to 100 mph before I think its fast enough. Although my car isnt a superfast car its pretty quick up to 60 mph so I dont see any point to stop at only 60 mph. It's all or nothing

Well yes of course, if you have the ponies, you may as well whip them. No one's expecting the owner of an M5 to gas it to 62 mph and then stand on the anchors. Heck if I had an E60 M5 I'd have it derestricted so that I could get that other lovely sensation: speed.

But in terms of the sensation of acceleration, the force pushing you back in the seat is most prevalent in the lowest gear ratios - particularly from rest. Obviously.

I doubt there are many impromptu street "encounters" where people dawdle at 5MPH and then punch it. I have never been in one, it is either a traffic light drag race from a stop or a high speed race starting from freeway speeds.

Anyway, drag racing on streets gets old faster than milk left out on a hot summer day - at least for me.

The point of the 5-60mph test is to see what the car can achieve without a high rpm launch. 5mph is a slow crawl. You're right that nobody will dawdle at 5mph and then punch it. However, most people will punch it from a standing stop, but only a fool will regularly dump their clutch from 4000rpm or higher to get that maximum acceleration that car mags do to get their zero to whatever times.

And I agree with you about "drag racing" being one dimensional. But any car enthusiast will be lying if they say they derive absolutely no pleasure from gunning their car once in a while to feel that acceleration. And the honest truth is most of us don't run on a race track everyday or even once a week.