Autocar - First for car news and reviews

pabs August 27, 2010 4:13 PM

I thought the Porsche was second and Ferrari 3rd ?

anyone got the mag. ?

suqercar97 August 27, 2010 5:43 PM

yes steve we know we all read the issue

suqercar97 August 27, 2010 5:44 PM

its not fare with the ariel becaues it was practically topping out at 128

realdriver August 27, 2010 5:53 PM

Hey, I only mixed up the Lexus and the GT-R... I say that the Datsun was underperforming!

Los Angeles August 27, 2010 7:29 PM

And did the Noble blow its engine?

Uncle Mellow August 27, 2010 8:14 PM

pabs August 27, 2010 4:13 PM

"I thought the Porsche was second and Ferrari 3rd ?

anyone got the mag. ?"

The Porsche was second with 163.2 and the 458 third with 163.9.

They just can't get the staff these days.

REALZEUS August 27, 2010 8:19 PM

These are the worst Ferrari 458 numbers ever... Either your tarmac sucks or this test is heavily biased...

stevenorkney August 27, 2010 8:36 PM

Damn I was so close. Shoulda thought about the Caterham. Didn't expect the GT-R to beat the R8 thought.

turini August 27, 2010 10:29 PM

The article states that it was top speed at the km marker that counted so the Ferrari was 2nd and the 911 3rd. On time the 911 was second but the terminal velocity here is the key - outright power proving the king. If you were to add another 100metres or more then the result would open out more.

Also in this part of the world I can't get the mag - without paying inflated prices and a week or two behind the published date - so these articles are a great read (typos, spelling errors and all). I for one enjoy the site.

RednBlue August 28, 2010 8:30 AM

Other magazines (italian Quattroruote for example www.quattroruote.it/.../prestazioni) had better numbers for the SLS and especially for the 458. Half a second faster, and that would make the 458 the fastest car. I agree with REALZEUS, your tarmac sucks. Unless...

Steve Sutcliffe August 28, 2010 8:40 AM

"pabs August 27, 2010 4:13 PM [Delete]

I thought the Porsche was second and Ferrari 3rd ?"

This competition was always about top speed at the kilometre post, which is why the Ferrari came second on 163.9mph, the Porsche third with 163.2mph. The fact that the Porsche got there faster was, in the end, a secondary issue. Not entirely sure why it appeared the way it did in the mag this week. Then again, understanding what goes on in the mind of our graphic artists has never been easy; there are those who say he hasn't seen daylight since 1963.

nopiano August 28, 2010 11:42 AM

At least your Ferrari didn't bust into flames....

VirginPower August 28, 2010 5:59 PM

Really well done, guys.

Terry got closest as far as I could tell, and if he hadn't put the Nismo two down from the Fezmo, he'd have got it so well, guys. Still, well done.

I know I'm very famous around this location as a bit of an Aunt Polly, but, no, really good. You guys really know your stuff.

I put the English supercar the Noble 600 at number four, but that's the best I could do. Sorry about that, guys.

jl4069 August 28, 2010 7:03 PM

"In the end, power is what mattered most –"

...assuming one hadn’t fluffed the initial getaway. "

12 comments and now mine makes 13- people aren't too impressed or interested in which car has 500 hp and which has 600 or 700 or 900 or 1200. Its wearing really thin. Think of a new topic. j

sputnik August 29, 2010 9:41 AM

next year you can do the same test with the above top 3 plus of course the Mclaren Mp4, now that will be a race to see

Christian Galea August 29, 2010 10:34 AM

Ooooh I was so close...got everything right except the Audi and the Nissan. Oh well, for next time...when maybe there'll be the new McLaren :)

duffy1207 August 30, 2010 7:45 PM

I got it spot on!

Was quite unsure about the middle order, and thought that the 911 might just beat the ferrari

LongLiveTazio August 30, 2010 8:01 PM

That list was exactly how I predicted, except with the R8 and GT-R swapped around.

Steve, can you clarify as to why the GT-R was quicker than the R8 V10? It's down some 50bhp/ton (a huge amount) so I can't see how it could be that much quicker. I believe the new ones don't have launch control either.

Is this down to a manual R8 being used with some fluffed gearchanges or was the GT-R someone's personal car? If so are you sure it wasn't modified in any way? Or have Nissan given you a 'particularly healthy' example?

I love the GT-R but it doesn't stack up.

TheOmegaMan August 30, 2010 8:44 PM

"The fact that the Porsche got there faster was, in the end, a secondary issue."

Yes.

But in the real world, getting there first is more important.

When you race your mates you don't go on who had the higher terminal velocity as you go through the finish line do you? You go on who got there first.

Ask Mr Vettel too.

Bambazonke August 31, 2010 12:04 PM

TheOmegaMan has got it spot on.  I thought the 911 Turbo S was hugely impressive and couldn't help but wonder what a GT2 RS would have done to this lot.  But there again, Autocar wouldn't want such machinery to spoil their pre-arranged Noble party!