Come on, this is a Top Gear group, isn't it? The fastest car in the world is a RENTAL!
Seriously, though, how the car is driven is the most important thing in the argument.
ANY car is the fastest when you are talking Portland traffic.
Many cars are fast when doing neighborhood driving.
Sports cars and hot hatches are fast when put on real roads, with real limits, and real other drivers.
Sports and exotics rule on the track.
That being said, IMHO, one has to be really careful when modifying their car. It has to match the real usage of the car- so if autocrossing or track days are #1, then that's it. If hustling down two lane roads is it, that's totally different. And if commuting is the use- then it's even more different.
BTW, when you are driving on the street, there's no timer, so the term "fastest" is incredibly relative. A more important measure to me is "fun-est". A slight compromise for comfort that leads to more tossibilty is a good trade off.
A lot of hot hatches really don't have that much travel. Some are notorious for pretty much riding on the bumpstops from the factory. A lot of "low slung" sports cars actually have a decent amount. IMO, most stock sports car suspensions are still not super stiff. They can often get away with using much lower rates due to superior suspension geometry, lower center of gravity, wider stance, etc.
It also depends on how E36 M3ty your road are. Most places I've lived there are certainly some corners/sections where a stock Miata would be upset less than a Corvette or Cayman, but once you got through there there would be plenty of smooth road to put mega distance on a less powerful car before the next bumpy section.
All that said, I do enjoy taking my stock Saturn through this one corner thats a major bump-fest at a pretty decent clip, while my STR Miata I would slow to almost a crawl.
alfadriver wrote:
Come on, this is a Top Gear group, isn't it? The fastest car in the world is a RENTAL!
Bordering on patio, I think an interesting way to tell how someone's political inclinations lean is to ask their opinion on driving someone else's car...
SVreX
MegaDork
5/13/17 8:30 a.m.
What you call "real roads" is no where close to my reality. There may not be a pothole within hundreds of miles of my house.
I drive my full race suspension cars on the street with no problem.
Roads vary by region.
We can boil this down to having the right setup for the terrain. If you don't have traction and damping in the ballpark for where you want to go fast you don't have a fast car.
Stiff isn't inherently bad, but it shouldn't be any stiffer than it needs to be. And the stiff you go, the more important good shock setup is to let the suspension still do its job. The goal is stiff but not harsh, so the suspension will still move immediately when it hits something, just not as far as a softer setup would move.
A lot of setups seem to over-do the compression damping in the shocks to make things feel stiff and responsive. But this compromises grip.
Taller sidewalled tires can help maintain grip on rough stuff with stiff suspension as well. 6" of sidewall is the only thing that keeps my heavy solid axles from skating all over the place on rough ground.
SVreX wrote:
What you call "real roads" is no where close to my reality. There may not be a pothole within hundreds of miles of my house.
I drive my full race suspension cars on the street with no problem.
Roads vary by region.
Yes. Having moved from the driving Nirvana of East TN, North GA and Western NC, the cruel reality of the condition of the roads in the rest of the country set in. The roads here in central Texas are pitiful, they are worse when brand new than the worst road you will find in that region. And they deteriorate fast. Having driven both I'd say they are on par with Michigan roads in the spring.
A local that has never left Texas will argue with you about that, because everything is better in Texas. But they would be wrong.
Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote:
SVreX wrote:
What you call "real roads" is no where close to my reality. There may not be a pothole within hundreds of miles of my house.
I drive my full race suspension cars on the street with no problem.
Roads vary by region.
Yes. Having moved from the driving Nirvana of East TN, North GA and Western NC, the cruel reality of the condition of the roads in the rest of the country set in. The roads here in central Texas are pitiful, they are worse when brand new than the worst road you will find in that region. And they deteriorate fast. Having driven both I'd say they are on par with Michigan roads in the spring.
A local that has never left Texas will argue with you about that, because everything is better in Texas. But they would be wrong.
Don't I know it. My college years were spent down in Ventura and I had really easy access to all the famous canyon roads above Malibu and the less famous ones near Ojai.
My ride to work is about 8 miles of "Michigan straight" roads. 5 turns and four curves. I frequently envision it as my personal high speed testing grounds, although I'm more likely to be at less than 10mph above the limit on any of the roads.
The Cruze tackles the task well, I often dream of swapping in a 2.0T and manual transmission from the Verano and Regal then upfitting the Verano hubs and the Regals big wheel and brake package to the car. It needs more power off the corner and more grip all around.
The RX8s were excellent for the drive, their long legs and sublime chassis gave me more confidence than I probably needed out there.
I drove a coworkers C6 on most of the route and while clearly attaining higher speeds all around I felt like I was going to be bucked off the horse and left for dead.
The RX8 is best for my drives for now, but I'm certain I will enjoy a better Answer for this problem before too long.
Huckleberry wrote:
We can boil this down to having the right setup for the terrain. If you don't have traction and damping in the ballpark for where you want to go fast you don't have a fast car.
With the subsequent discussion of how a lot of "fast" cars are currently set up in such a way that they're not fast on real roads.
I'm with prodarwin. I liked the way my light, flimsy, snow-tired and softly sprung Saturn would boing over the bumpy stuff. It was pretty fun barrelling down a curvy dirt road or tossing it over some potholes. The Ranger is the same way.
Driving around here (Metro Detroit ) in something set up for track or hardcore auto cross would be miserable.
Cue James May ranting about how the Nurburgring has ruined cars for everyday use
My Fiesta is faster than anybody.
Keith Tanner wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
We can boil this down to having the right setup for the terrain. If you don't have traction and damping in the ballpark for where you want to go fast you don't have a fast car.
With the subsequent discussion of how a lot of "fast" cars are currently set up in such a way that they're not fast on real roads.
Right. I would put my Tacoma up against any supercar if I can choose the course. I probably wouldn't feel that way if they got to choose.
/thread
thatsnowinnebago wrote:
That's pretty funny.
It is funny because it's not even an RS
Real world? A white van will whip em both.
I was thinking about this the other day, but in more of in an around town running errands kind of way. I also noticed that cars that are lowered, or are low from the factory, can be slower in the real world of bad roads, driveways, and speed bumps. I think of my cars, two complete opposites might be the in the running. My Miata is stock ride height on sticky tires, and seems to handle everything well in around town running about. Light and nimble, it accelerates well enough up to 40. It doesn't need to slow much for corners, and can take driveways at decent speeds without bottoming or scraping. Bonus that I can park it just about anywhere. Minus that it gets no respect in traffic, and slow cars change into my lane or pull out in front of me. The other contender is my Nissan Titan. Over 2x the size and weight of the Miata, but quicker in a strait line. Handles good for what it is, but it's no Miata. Doesn't need to slow as much for driveways and speed bumps, slow cars tend to not pull out in front of it. Finding a parking space is it's big disadvantage. I think when the Legacy GT wagon gets done, it will take the crown. Surprisingly, my 2015 Chevy Malibu is horrible at this. Despite the advantage of being a leased company car, it has way too much front overhang and the air dam is way too low. I think I could scrape it on flat ground if I brake hard enough.
The only thing I can base this on is my Cagiva Grand Canyon motorcycle.
It topped out at 125. It did 0-60 in only 3.7 seconds. On smooth roads, a 600cc sports bike would walk me. Obviously, in a straight line, it would. I would get on the back roads in the mountains on less than perfect, old asphalt and whip their ass. They couldn't keep me in sight. I had long travel suspension that had a more progressive spring rate, a similar balance. I will be the first to tell you that I am not a great rider. Average is probably being generous.
The road, the driver, and the setup are probably worth more than the base car itself. There are obvious exceptions to the rule.
I remember a video, and can't find it on here, of a mini cooper being held up by a 911 in a very tight technical section. Then as soon as the road opened, poof gone.
I have always thought this bombing around the back roads of NorthCentral PA. There are some great roads, but you often encounter gravel in the corners, railroad crossings, frost heaves and other obstacles. In a lowered Vette, you would have to constantly be slamming on the brakes to gingerly walk over them. In a beater WRX at stock ride height, you would be unbeatable.
chuckles wrote:
You should at least consider FWD, with LSD and sufficient torque. Fast and safe.
I completely agree. My SAAB c900 turbo on stock suspension and sticky tires, with front sway bar deleted, is fantastic at moving fast on less than well maintained back roads. That's probably the single most important reason that love these things. It would be that much better with an LSD. Some day I will have one with a Quafie.
In reply to FlightService:
Back when I had my Honda Hawk GT, I routinely spanked squids on all sorts of sport bikes on NE PA roads. I'm a big boy, and like you, calling me an average rider is probably being generous.
Yes, they blasted past me on any kind of smooth straight, but it was always easy to reel them back in when there were multiple turns or bumpy sections.
A Corvette, specifically, is much faster than the hot hatches or rally cars on real roads.
It has two main advantages, both "in the fiberglass". First, it's low, giving both high midcorner speeds and high end-of-straight speeds. 300 WHP in a sedan gives about 160 MPH, 300 WHP in a Corvette gets nearly 180, and that advantage persists down to any speed where drag matters. Second, its radar and lidar signatures are tiny. Coming around open bends, I will have time to search for a policeman and slow down, while he's already locked onto the big shiny steel box I'm against. I got one speeding ticket in four years of Corvette ownership.
In reply to HappyAndy:
Hawk GT was a great bike. The Honda-cati was the forerunner to the SV-650. I wished it would have been around longer.
I try not to compare myself to squids. We had a guy at the shop that wreck his CBR900RR 7 times. We had another guy that could ride. I compare the backroads ability to the latter instead of the former. The first guy I never could figure out how he was alive, much less still riding.
Sports bikes are mind-blowingly capable machines. They accelerate, brake and turn, all while being stock, at an inconceivable rate. Especially at the price you can buy them for. That being said, their limits are the road surfaces and squids don't consider that. The second guy never would run with me on the roads I would pick. He knew because I let him ride my bike. He commented how easy it was to go really fast on "normal" back roads. We both knew he was a superior rider, but he knew I knew my limitations and his bikes.
FlightService wrote:
The only thing I can base this on is my Cagiva Grand Canyon motorcycle.
It topped out at 125. It did 0-60 in only 3.7 seconds. On smooth roads, a 600cc sports bike would walk me. Obviously, in a straight line, it would. I would get on the back roads in the mountains on less than perfect, old asphalt and whip their ass. They couldn't keep me in sight. I had long travel suspension that had a more progressive spring rate, a similar balance. I will be the first to tell you that I am not a great rider. Average is probably being generous.
I would consider myself to be an average rider as well - and had the same experience on a big, heavy, slow R1200GS Adventure. It was so soft and forgiving with like 8.5" of travel, and had so much torque down low that even on good pavement it was easy to frustrate sloppy riders on a lot more hardware. On terrible pavement it was a machine gun at a knife fight even with much better riders than I. It was impervious to mid-corner bumps, potholes, etc. and the soft DS tires would roll right over some small gravel without even a wiggle.
The new XR has a lot of those same traits but the stiffer suspension and wide tires are less forgiving of loose gravel, dirt or cracked asphalt and so on. I find that I have to ride much more sensitive to the conditions of the road. It won't let me be lazy about traction and get away with it. It's an order of magnitude faster at the cost of being a little more finicky about where. I could see a case riding my normal stomping grounds where a guy on a GS or Tiger or KTM Adv could hound me easily.
