Road tests The Official Car Lap Times Thread - Supertest Results / Acceleration / Track Battles etc...


sport_auto_supertest_-_porsche_911_gt3_weissach (1) másolat.webp

Sport Auto Supertest: Porsche 911 GT3 Weissach Package (992.2)
  • Measured power: 516 PS @8668 rpm
  • Measured torque: 452 Nm @6451 rpm
  • Gearbox: 6-speed-manual
  • Tyres: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 R N1
  • Weight (wet): 1449 kg (39,7/60,3 %)
  • 0 - 40 km/h: 1,4 s
  • 0-100 km/h: 3,9 s
  • 0-160 km/h: 7,9 s
  • 0-200 km/h: 11,9 s
  • GPS-Vmax.: 325 km/h @limiter in 6th gear (Autobahn, slight downhill and tailwind :p)
  • Braking 200-0/100-0 km/h (warm): 111,9/29,8 m
  • 18 m slalom (PSM OFF): 78,6 km/h
  • 36 m slalom (PSM OFF): 155 km/h
  • 110 m evasive test (PSM OFF): 174 km/h (as quick as the 992.1 GT3 RS!)
  • Downforce @200 km/h: 45/86 kg (fr./rear)
  • Hockenheimring Grand Prix: 1:46,4 min
  • Nürburgring-Nordschleife: 7:04,58 min
 
This record of 0-400-0 is over 2sec faster than what the Jesco Absolut could achieve.

0-400km/h - 17.35sec vs 18.82sec (-1.47sec)
0-250mph - 17.71sec vs 19.20sec (-1.49sec)
0-400km/h-0 - 25.79sec vs 27.83sec (-2.04sec)
0-250mph-0 - 26.20sec vs 28.27sec (-2.07sec)

The Nevera R saved 0.5sec in braking from 400 to 0 compared to the Jesco Absolute. That is alot.
 
sport_auto_-_mclaren_artura (1) másolat.webp

Sport Auto: McLaren Artura
  • Power, torque: 700 PS, 720 Nm
  • Tyres: Pirelli P Zero Corsa MC-C
  • Weight (wet): 1563 kg (41,4/58,6 %)
  • 0 - 40 km/h: 1,3 s
  • 0-100 km/h: 3,3 s
  • 0-160 km/h: 6,1 s
  • 0-200 km/h: 8,9 s
  • 0-250 km/h: 13,9 s
  • 0-300 km/h: 23,6 s
  • 400 m: 10,8 s @221 km/h
  • Braking 200-0/100-0 km/h (warm): 126,5/31,3 m
  • 18 m slalom (ESP OFF): 71,4 km/h
  • Hockenheimring GP: 1:50,7 min
 
C&D Tested: 2025 Mercedes-AMG E53 Is a Plug-In Hybrid That Rips
The latest E53 boosts the output of the inline-six and adds an electric motor to crest 600 horsepower.

1752847608031.webp


HIGHS: E63-adjacent performance, improved braking and cornering, useful EV range.

LOWS: Flinty ride with a lot of tire noise, nonlinear brake pedal, way heavier than before.

VERDICT: Inline-six plus electric motor equals massive performance gains.

Specifications


2025 Mercedes-AMG E53
Vehicle Type: front-engine, front-motor, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE
Base/As Tested: $89,150/$109,800
Options: Pinnacle trim (head-up display, four-zone climate control, projection adaptive headlights), $4150; AMG Dynamic Plus package (AMG steering wheel, active engine mounts, electronic limited-slip rear differential, front carbon-ceramic brake rotors, 174-mph top speed limiter), $3150; black Nappa leather, $2990; Multicontour Seating package (ventilated and massaging front seats, heated front armrest), $2950; 21-inch forged-aluminum wheels and tires, $2600; Driver Assistance package (lane-keeping assist, steering assist, adaptive cruise), $1950; MBUX Superscreen package (larger center screen, front passenger screen, selfie camera), $1500; sun protection package (rear and rear side sunshades), $800; black microfiber headliner, $450; AMG fuel cap, $110

POWERTRAIN
turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve 3.0-liter inline-6, 443 hp, 413 lb-ft + AC motor, 161 hp, 354 lb-ft (combined output: 604 hp, 553 lb-ft; 21-kWh lithium-ion battery pack; 9.6-kW onboard charger
Transmission: 9-speed automatic

CHASSIS
Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilink
Brakes, F/R: 15.4-in vented, cross-drilled, carbon-ceramic disc/14.2-in vented, cross-drilled disc
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S
F: 265/35ZR-21 (101Y) MO1A
R: HL295/30ZR-21 (105Y) MO1A

DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 116.6 in
Length: 194.9 in
Width: 76.7 in
Height: 57.9 in
Passenger Volume, F/R: 58/47 ft3
Trunk Volume: 13 ft3
Curb Weight: 5357 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 3.3 sec
100 mph: 7.8 sec
1/4-Mile: 11.6 sec @ 120 mph
130 mph: 13.7 sec
150 mph: 19.1 sec
Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.3 sec.
Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 4.1 sec
Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 3.0 sec
Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 sec
Top Speed (gov ltd): 174 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 154 ft
Braking, 100–0 mph: 307 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.94 g

 
Autoexpress Comparison Test:

Audi S6 Avant e-tron vs BMW i5 M60 Touring: fast EV estates face-off
A pair of blisteringly fast estate cars and two different electric powertrains, but can the new Audi S6 Avant e-tron topple BMW’s i5 M60 Touring?

1753366480403.webp


Audi has long been known for fast estate cars. Over various generations, the likes of the RS 4 and RS 6 have offered mind-bending performance with space for the whole family – plus the dog – to enjoy.

Now, Audi has dipped its toe into the waters of high-performance estates with an electric twist, thanks to the new Audi S6 Avant e-tron. While there’s no fully blown RS model (yet, at least), the on-paper specs of the S6 show promise for fast wagon fans. After a series of electric SUVs that haven’t troubled the front runners in their respective classes, can Audi deliver something special when it’s working with the bodystyle it does best?

BMW might have something to say about that. Of the big three German premium brands, it has been BMW that has most consistently delivered with its electric cars – especially at the pricier end of its range, where its EV line-up is almost universally excellent. The i5 is one such example, and in the M60 Touring, BMW has a direct answer to the S6 Avant ready and waiting to go.

In a segment where performance, refinement, luxury and space all matter, which car delivers the most?

Audi S6 Avant e-tron

1753366646677.webp


Model:Audi S6 Avant e-tron Edition 1 quattro
Price:£91,340
Powertrain:2x e-motors, 94.8kWh battery, 543bhp
0-62mph:3.9 seconds
Test efficiency:3.1 miles/kWh
Test range:294 miles
Annual VED:£620
The S6 Avant e-tron sits at the top of a wider electric A6 line-up and as a result it comes with a range-topping price tag; the launch-specification Edition 1 quattro starts from £99,340 on the road. If the full-fat S6 experience is more than you’ll need, then there are less expensive options lower down the line-up. The A6 Avant e-tron starts from £64,340 when paired with a 322bhp motor and 75.8kWh battery – enough for an official range of between 324 and 363 miles.
Tester’s notes

The S6 e-tron is fitted with adaptive air suspension, which can alter its ride height by up to 30mm. Raise mode jacks the car up by 20mm relative to the standard setting, making access easier and improving ground clearance at low speeds over bumpy terrain. At the other end of the scale, Dynamic and Efficiency modes drop it by up to 10mm and offer a sportier drive and reduce aerodynamic drag at speed. The settings don’t dramatically adjust how the car behaves on the road, though.

Aerodynamic efficiency has a big part to play in making a car give the most out of the energy you put in. Be it petrol, diesel or electric, there’s not much else on the market that can claim to be as slippery as the A6 e-tron family.

In Sportback form, its drag coefficient of 0.21Cd makes it the most aerodynamically efficient car Audi has ever produced. Although the Avant doesn’t quite cut through the air as cleanly, its figure of 0.24Cd is still class leading, according to Audi.

BMW i5 Touring
1753366664982.webp


Model:BMW i5 M60 xDrive Touring
Price:£100,015
Powertrain:2x e-motors, 81.2kWh battery, 593bhp
0-62mph:3.9 seconds
Test efficiency:3.0 miles/kWh
Test range:244 miles
Annual VED:£620
One glance at the prices is enough to make it abundantly clear that the S6 Avant e-tron has the BMW i5 M60 xDrive Touring in its sights – and is focused on undercutting it. Prices start from just over six figures for the BMW, at £100,015. Spend that much on the Audi and it’ll come loaded with options, but to get similar levels of tech on the i5, you’ll need to factor in a further £11,800 for the optional Ultimate Package. On paper, then, the BMW doesn’t quite offer the same bang for your buck.
Tester’s notes

While Audi makes big claims about the A6 family being the most aerodynamically efficient car it has ever produced, the i5 runs it extremely close. Indeed, while the Audi is more slippery as a saloon, in their estate guises, the pair have a matching coefficient of drag of 0.24 – an impressive return considering the boxier shape of the BMW. Active aero features help it reach that figure, with a pair of vents in the grilles opening and shutting to allow for a balance between cooling and efficiency.

It doesn’t feel like the i5 has been around for very long, but BMW is already preparing a mid-life facelift. We’ve seen spy shots of the revised model testing, and even through its heavy camouflage it’s clear that the front end is set to get an overhaul. The fresh face will carry the ‘Neue Klasse’ design language that will make its debut on the next X3 and 3 Series, which looks set to banish BMW’s oversized kidney grilles to the history books – expect a slimmer design integrated into the car’s nose.

Head to head

1753366770783.webp


On the road

Both of these cars have superb ride and handling, but we gelled better with the S6. A large part of this is down to the steering; the BMW’s chunky wheel rim and remote feel prevent the driver from feeling properly connected, while the way the Audi’s steering weights up through turns seems more natural. Both offer superb performance and refinement; the i5 has more wind noise but less road noise.

Tech highlights

The S6 takes an early lead here, because it has a battery capacity of 94.9kWh (usable) to the BMW’s 81.2kWh, yet despite the heavier battery pack, it’s marginally lighter than the i5. With 543bhp, the Audi’s two motors are 50bhp down on the BMW’s, but they offer combined torque of 855Nm – 35Nm more than its rival. The Audi is quicker to charge, too; the S6’s peak speed is 270kW, while the BMW’s is 205kW.

Price and running

Slippery through the air as this pair are, they are both still very heavy, very powerful cars, even if their estate car bodies do make them more efficient than their SUV range-mates. While the Audi has only a small advantage in overall efficiency, it has a much bigger battery, so based on our 3.1 miles/kWh real-world figure, it would travel 294 miles on a charge – 50 miles further than the BMW.

Practicality

If you’ll regularly be carrying taller passengers in the back, then the BMW is the car to have out of this pair. For a vehicle of its size, the Audi’s back-seat space is a tad disappointing, while the BMW offers loads of room. Both cars have very large boots, though the way that the S6’s load bay slopes up slightly towards the back seats is a little awkward. The i5’s boot is square and usefully flat.

Verdict
Winner: Audi S6 Avant e-tron

Trust Audi to save its best work for a rapid estate car. We’ve not been sold on all of the brand’s EVs so far, but this is the German company’s most convincing yet. Ride, handling, range and tech are all excellent, while it manages to combine all of this with a strong powertrain, which provides punchy performance, rapid charging speeds and is efficient enough to return a long range at a cruise. Add in the fact that the Audi is also better value for money than the i5 M60, and it’s enough to seal the win on this occasion.

Runner-up: BMW i5 Touring M60 xDrive

It’s a close second, but the i5 doesn’t quite form the all-round package of its rival here. In several ways it’s a superior car to the A6; the cabin in general is a nicer place to be both in terms of design and practicality, and the refinement is about as good as it gets in any new car. With better steering, it’d match the Audi for overall driver involvement, too. However, its range falls short of the Audi’s, plus it’s no more efficient, and with a car that feels like it has been designed for long journeys, that’s something that really matters.

 
evija.webp

Autocar Road Test: Lotus Evija
  • Power, torque: 2013 bhp, 1710 Nm
  • Weight (wet): 1906 kg (42/58%)
  • 0 - 30mph: 1,4 s
  • 0 - 60mph: 2,8 s
  • 0-100 km/h: 2,9 s
  • 0-100mph: 4,8 s
  • 0-150mph: 7,7 s
  • 0-200mph: 13,0 s
  • Quarter mile: 9,5 s @171,6mph (276,2 km/h)
  • Standing km: 16,2 s @217,4mph (349,9 km/h) :X3:
  • Braking 70-0/50-0mph: 46,6/21,9 m
  • Average range: 122 miles (196 km)
Estimated km/h-acceleration:
0-100 km/h: 2,9 s (measured)
0-200 km/h: 6,2 s
0-250 km/h: 8,2 s
0-300 km/h: 11,3 s
0-350 km/h: 16,3 s

Acceleration-graph:
1753849721623.webp
 
evija.webp

Autocar Road Test: Lotus Evija
  • Power, torque: 2013 bhp, 1710 Nm
  • Weight (wet): 1906 kg (42/58%)
  • 0 - 30mph: 1,4 s
  • 0 - 60mph: 2,8 s
  • 0-100 km/h: 2,9 s
  • 0-100mph: 4,8 s
  • 0-150mph: 7,7 s
  • 0-200mph: 13,0 s
  • Quarter mile: 9,5 s @171,6mph (276,2 km/h)
  • Standing km: 16,2 s @217,4mph (349,9 km/h) :X3:
  • Braking 70-0/50-0mph: 46,6/21,9 m
  • Average range: 122 miles (196 km)
Estimated km/h-acceleration:
0-100 km/h: 2,9 s (measured)
0-200 km/h: 6,2 s
0-250 km/h: 8,2 s
0-300 km/h: 11,3 s
0-350 km/h: 16,3 s

Acceleration-graph:
1753849721623.webp
Nevera R is in a complete different universe compared to this.
 
Nevera R is in a complete different universe compared to this.

I don't quite keep up with these times, but is it in a slower or quicker universe?

They should have given the Lotus 2025 hp for this model year LOL. And then 2026 hp for next year. I mean, 2013 hp is so......2013.
 
I don't quite keep up with these times, but is it in a slower or quicker universe?

They should have given the Lotus 2025 hp for this model year LOL. And then 2026 hp for next year. I mean, 2013 hp is so......2013.
Quicker universe:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
0-300 in 11 sec is sick!
Remember that the Rimac numbers are from the manufacteur AND with roll-out. Autocar test results are done with two persons and are always among the slowest. So the difference is not that big.
The looks of the Evija is amazing, the Rimac looks bland and generic. No doubt which I would choose.
 
0-300 in 11 sec is sick!
Remember that the Rimac numbers are from the manufacteur AND with roll-out. Autocar test results are done with two persons and are always among the slowest. So the difference is not that big.
The looks of the Evija is amazing, the Rimac looks bland and generic. No doubt which I would choose.
Do we really know that the Rimac times are with rollout? Seems odd from a European company testing in Europe...

Also, what is the rollout time of a 2000 PS car? 0.1 s? 0.15 s? 😁 Virtually nothing.
 
Do we really know that the Rimac times are with rollout? Seems odd from a European company testing in Europe...

Also, what is the rollout time of a 2000 PS car? 0.1 s? 0.15 s? 😁 Virtually nothing.
The difference is probably not much more than what you suggest, I agree on that.
If I remember correctly it was Rimac themselves that informed that roll-out was used, in a video I saw I think.
 

Back
Top