ok, this could be on of those things I humiliate myself by asking… but a long time ago a car ‘expert’ (I use the word reluctantly) said the fastest PRODUCTION LINE car from 0-10mph was… please don’t laugh, the London Black Cab!
Now as crazy as this sounded at first, his argument for why made some sense. Black Cabs are designed specifically for constant accelerating and decelerating in dense traffic at low speeeds, therefore the quicker a black cab can reach 10mph (60 is rarely reached I immagine) the less time it’s at junctions and the more fares the driver can handle.
Can anyone confirm/refute this? And if so tell me what car IS fastest 0-10mph (specifically production line cars, not prupose built racing cars).
I remember hearing earlier this year that London’s municipal average traffic speed had fallen to as low as an average 8mph for the one hour period of 4:30 to 5:30 pm. In this context, even a zero to ten mph acceleration time is STILL a moot point!
As to the OP? I personally would put my money on some American muscle car as holding THAT particular distinction. No substitute for cubes, and all that stuff.
Although, in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that the real figure that counts here is “torque to weight ratio” and NOT “power to weight ratio”. Obviously, big torque and low weight are gonna nail the 0-10 mph acceleration race. Hence, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the legendary 1972 Porsche 911 Carrera with the 300hp 2.7 litre engine might be a contender - primarily because it was such an astonishingly light car - about 970kgs if memory serves me correctly. And those Boxer sixes develop some serious torque.
But my money is still on some 427 cubic inch monster.
Guaranteed, the holder of that record would be an all-wheel-drive car. Wheelspin would be a major limiting factor.
My vote would be for the Bugatti Veyron. 1,000 HP, AWD. No contest.
For low cost cars, I’d go with the Subaru WRX STi. 300 Hp, 300 ft/lbs of torque, and AWD. I think that car would kick the ass of a Viper in the first 30 feet.
Lamborghini is making an AWD drive 600+ hp car with traction control and 20+ inch wheels/tires. That is the sort of setup that would compete for such a title.
I have been reliably informed by someone who knows about cars that the best road car of all is the Audi RS4.
Apparently it’s an estate as well, so Audi are taking the piss in some way. But by all accounts it does 0-60 in about 3.5 seonds and it leaves ferraris, porches, lamborghinis etc in it’s dust.
From what I have been told, the Audi RS4 is faster than any other car, has greater torque, has two turbos and is generally the ultimate car.
It’s even an estate so you can put the dog in the back.
Any car illegally parked near the Car Pool in Ballston, VA. With the parking brakes on, no less. You should see those bastard tow-truck drivers move in for the kill.
Your “expert” is either an idiot or was making a bad joke (or possibly both?). As has been said, it will obviously be an AWD sports car. Something strong and light. All the cars mentioned are worthy contenders but my vote goes to the WRX because it will cost less to replace parts. High RPM “dumps” are very hard on diffs and trannies on AWD cars and things will break. Would you rather pay to fix a halfshaft on a 1993 Eclipse or on your 2002 Bugatti?
Of course, it’s worth noting that even a piddly 800cc Lada could probably set the record if it was placed on the steam catapult of the flight deck of the USS John C. Stennis. Indeed, under such circumstances I dare say the Lada would hold the record for 0-10, 0-40, 0-60, and even 0-220 mph!
Sam? Just as a theoretical aside regarding AWD vehicles - you know, I remain unconvinced on that (but bear in mind I’m hardly going to disagree with you though).
My thinking is influenced by the following - with a rear wheel drive car, obviously you get immediate weight transfer to the rear wheels upon the application of turning force to the rear wheels. This, in turn loads extra wheight onto the rear wheels which increases grip. I suspect that modern traction control systems would be such that a rear wheel drive car could possibly remain a viable contender.
Certainly, no Front Wheel Drive car is a remote possibility for the same reasons of course.
The area of debate here revolves around the quality of the traction control system. In theory, if the traction control is sufficiently fine tuned, maximum grip will be obtained without any wheel slippage whatsoever - in turn, maximum acceleration will also be delivered. The question to be asked is, will the grip which is delivered by the inherent weight transfer on to the rear wheels of a muscle car with fat tyres and traction control be equal to the grip of an AWD car which (by the nature of AWD) doesn’t induce the same amount of weight transfer?
Yes Boo Boo Foo in extreme cases RWD would be better. Think dragsters. But, and I may very well be proven wrong, I think in a real world, AWD is going to be difficult to overcome. But since nobody that I know of tests 0-10(because nobody cares), we are all just theorizing. A lot of car rags do 0-30 and the top cars there will probably be the top 0-10 cars as well. I’m much to sleepy to look into it now, when I wake up I may thumb through some Car and Drivers and see what I can figure out.
Boo Boo Foo , since not all the weight is transferred to the rear wheels, an active AWD drive setup with traction control can max out power to the rear wheels AND provide power to the front wheels. Essentially, under heavy accel, an AWD car with traction control is probably something like 90% RWD and 10% FWD. In an RWD car, the power that would spin the wheels is offset by the TCS (traction control system) by cutting throttle, but in the AWD/TCS setup, the power that would spin the wheels is used in part by the front wheels.
The most likely street candidate remains a wide tired, light, short geared, AWD car with a TCS.
Boo Boo Foo: It’s not just weight transfer, but the size of the contact area of the rubber. With AWD, you have four tires making contact, for twice the area, all else being equal. For your RWD car to be competitive, you’d have to put it on monstrous tires, and even then, less than 100% of the weight is transferred to the back.
The closest numbers I could find for the WRX STi show 0-30 in 1.32s. That’s about half a second faster than a Dodge Viper, despite the Viper having 60% more horsepower and very large tires. Half a second is a VERY long time at this point. I imagine the WRX would virtually leap away from the Viper off the line. It’d probably get five to ten car lengths ahead of the Viper, and then that 500 HP would kick in the Viper would start to close before eventually beating it in the 1/4 mile. But not by much, because of that big gain off the line for the WRX.
Another factor in launch speed is going to be inertia, so you want as light a car as possible. That also works in favor of the WRX, although it’s certainly not a lightweight. Just lighter than most other cars that would be in the running.
I think if we chose to limit ourselves to under-50,000, the WRX wins. If we go 50-100,000, the nod goes to the Audi RS4, which is also AWD, only slightly heavier than the WRX, but has 450HP. It is a stupendous car.
If the sky’s the limit, then my money is still on the Bugatti Veyron. Light weight, AWD, 1,000 HP. I can’t imagine a car that could beat it short of an Indy car or a dragster. But you don’t want to break parts on that one! The brake discs alone cost $6,000 to replace.
I let this slide, but wanted to pop in agains to mention that there isn’t a regular electric car with an electric motor that snaps to life quite like that yet. Granted, torque is available, but I don’t know of any applications where a large electric motor can spin up fast enough to launch a production vehicle with the authority needed while couple to a traction control system to make it all work.
Comparing R/C vehicles, my electrics do jump off the line much faster than piston powered vehicles in the short run, so electrics can do some bragging.
Dragsters can go from 0-100 in about a second. Considering some can do the quarter mile in about 4.5 seconds and reach speeds of 300+ MPH.
Kenny Bernstein - 4.477seconds, and 332.18 MPH in different passes.
I ran CarTest 3.0… I realize this is just a simulator, but it’s fun for argument’s sake. The vehicle database is 5-10 years old, but the winners are informative.
A 1991 Audi 80 came in at .28 seconds.
A 1991 Eagle Talon TSI with AWD tied it at .28 seconds.
This tends to validate most of the previous posters.
Heck, my speedo doesn’t even come off the stop until about 8 or 9 mph! What use is a 0-10 time, when reaction time is probably going to be GREATER than the actual acceleration time?
Well, it’s probably the most tangible result of ‘stoplight races’, if you’re into that sort of thing. No one races a full 1/4 mile on the street unless they are suicidal. They might race to 60 if they want to live dangerously. But most stoplight races are probably zooms to 30 or 40 miles per hour, or even just a quick launch for a couple of hundred feet before someone backs off.
For a non-racer, the 0-10 time probably contributes a lot to the sensation of having a ‘fast’ car. That initial neck-snapping acceleration is a big part of the street-racer experience.
Not that I condone street racing. And I’d rather have a car with a nice wide power band so I can put the gas down in the twisties and convert my understeer to oversteer and modulate the performance of the car. And I like to have lots of power for merging lanes and passing safely on two-lane roads. So it’s mid-range power and torque that get me going.
I am nowhere near the caliber of car enthusiasts that you folks are. However, I still want to throw my 2¢ in. What about the “muscle cars” of the 1960’s? Two that come to mind are the Shelby Cobra and the Corvette.
Their advantages would be: 1) light weight 2) huge engines and 3) no anti-pollution hardware to decrease performance.
Also, (and there are a LOT of Corvette websites), I noticed one site selling a supercharger to boost the usual “paltry” horsepower up to 490 HP. I wonder how a “hotrodded Vette” would do in the 0-10 race?
That said, I have a hard time believing that a viper, with only 100 extra lbs of curb weight but a soul-crushing 525 foot-lbs of torque is gonna be beaten in 0-30 by the WRX. Sam Stone, do you have a cite for those times?
Browsing specs on carpoint, I’ve got to put my money on a Ferrari Enzo, which comes in with the lowest curb weight of any car I looked at (3009), and puts out 657 ft-lbs of torque (660hp). One thing that stands out, however, is the Audi RS6 (I assume this is what you guys who are saying RS4 are talking about), which gets 415 ft-lbs at a low, low 1950 RPM, whereas most of the other cars had their torque peaks up in the 3500-5000 RPM range, and low-RPM torque would be important for 0-10 (speaking as someone who’s driven a car with decent power but really lousy low-RPM torque).
As to how to tell when the car gets to 10mph, there are inexpensive accelerometers on the market which do that calculations for you and are probably a whole lot more accurate than your speedometer for this type of thing.
