OT: 5 fastest production cars in test

[Danish]

The latest issue of the German car magazine Auto Motor und Sport (AMS) has a comparison between 5 +300 km/h cars. They are all non modified production cars:

Aston Martin Vanquish
Ferrari 550 Maranello
Lamborghini Murciélago
Mercedes SL55 AMG (unlimited version, a DM 3000 option)
Porsche GT2

They test the cars at the Italian high speed track Nardo (where you don't have any centrifugal force on the car when doing 240km/h). They test acceleration 0-100km/h, 0-200km/h, 0-300km/h and topspeed.

The results are surprising:

0-100 km/h:
Aston Martin Vanquish 5.6 s
Ferrari 550 Maranello 4.7 s
Lamborghini Murciélago 3.6 s
Mercedes SL55 AMG 4.6 s
Porsche GT2 4.0 s

0-200 km/h:
Aston Martin Vanquish 17.4 s
Ferrari 550 Maranello 14.6 s
Lamborghini Murciélago 11.4 s
Mercedes SL55 AMG 13.7 s
Porsche GT2 13.1 s

0-300 km/h:
Aston Martin Vanquish 55.0 s
Ferrari 550 Maranello 61.2 s
Lamborghini Murciélago 34.2 s
Mercedes SL55 AMG 32.5 s
Porsche GT2 40.9 s

Top speed:
Aston Martin Vanquish 316 km/h
Ferrari 550 Maranello 306 km/h
Lamborghini Murciélago 330 km/h
Mercedes SL55 AMG 325 km/h
Porsche GT2 315 km/h

The Mercedes Sl55 AMG (with automatic transmission and tons of extra options) is the fastest car to 300 km/h and only slower in top speed than the twice as expensive Lamborghini...

Weight of the cars:
Aston Martin Vanquish 1863 kg
Ferrari 550 Maranello 1732 kg
Lamborghini Murciélago 1819 kg
Mercedes SL55 AMG 1974 kg
Porsche GT2 1446 kg

CW value:
Aston Martin Vanquish 0.34
Ferrari 550 Maranello 0.33
Lamborghini Murciélago 0.33
Mercedes SL55 AMG 0.29
Porsche GT2 0.34

The SL 55 AMG is the heaviest car but also has the best CW value.

BMW better build that V10 M5... It has to to 330 km/h in order to keep its position among the Autobahn stormers...

[KnightRider]

SL will be the least expensive to buy initially and maintain too i guess? more practical than others?
another thing must be remembered that it's the only convertible out of these cars too (definitely an added value in my book).
brings me to a logical conclusion, what an amazing car MB has created!
the other thing i had in mind when reading through your post Michael, where is BMW? they really do need a car similar to SL55, either in coupe or convertible form, but as powerful and as fast. semi-supercar say? something like 850CSi for the third millenium i meant

[greg]

The SL55 is very impressive. But I'm willing to bet that, unlike the other cars in this tgest, the low drag coefficient directly related to lack of downforce (Yes, you can't get something for nothing - positive downforce-inducing aerodynamics create drag).

I wonderful how uncomfortable that thing felt at those speeds?

[JamE55]

IMO is a BANG for your buck!!

[BimmerBoyM5]

EWWWWWWWWWWW AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I think the Beast needs a friend!!!

[BimmerBoyM5]

After some research guys... Seems that a Supercharger is good on the low end to generate HP for torque. How is the top end HP going to hang with the Lamborghini??? I just don't by those numbers. Still good company to be tested against!


The numbers smell fishy. I still put a deposit on 1 today anyway!!!

[Mr Janne]

I remember last years test, or maybe it was two years ago, in the same magazine. The only Mercedes then was the Brabus SL 7,3 and they said that you could drive it with one hand on the steering-wheel at over 300km/h.

[johann]

Greg,

I think you're generalizing a bit too much on low drag coefficent vs down force.

996 Turbo has a Cw of 0.295 and produces a downforce of 6 kg.
996 GT2 has a Cw of 0.32 and a downforce of 8kg.
E46 M3 has a Cw of 0.32 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 18kg
996 C4 has a Cw of 0,30 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 11kg.
Audi RS4 has a Cw of 0,33 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 12kg.
Audi TT has a Cw of 0,34 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 54kg.
Audi S3 has a Cw of 0,335 and a a NEGATIVE downforce of 31kg.

In other words, low drag is not always direct proportional too lack of downforce. There are several ways of producing downforce and some of them do increase drag some decrease it (such as Venturi tunnels).

Cheers,
/Johan

[kees]

Originally posted by johann
Greg,

I think you're generalizing a bit too much on low drag coefficent vs down force.

996 Turbo has a Cw of 0.295 and produces a downforce of 6 kg.
996 GT2 has a Cw of 0.32 and a downforce of 8kg.
E46 M3 has a Cw of 0.32 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 18kg
996 C4 has a Cw of 0,30 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 11kg.
Audi RS4 has a Cw of 0,33 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 12kg.
Audi TT has a Cw of 0,34 and a NEGATIVE downforce of 54kg.
Audi S3 has a Cw of 0,335 and a a NEGATIVE downforce of 31kg.

Cheers,
/Johan

The downforce produced by a vehicle's design is relative to its speed...that's the main reason a car can start to feel unstable above certain speeds, while being perfectly settled at lower speeds.

I believe in Germany it is typical to measure downforce generated at 200 km/h.

[johann]

Kees,

You are correct downforce is relative to speed, the downforce above are all @ 200km/h.

Cheers,
/Johan

[Gustav]

Is this because the downforce gets so high that the centripetal forces get neglegtible small? Or the forces that pushes the car forward?

Also, I remember that you don't have to steer anything at above some speeds at oval tracks. Why is this? Can someone please enlighten me?

Originally posted by B8 Guru
They test the cars at the Italian high speed track Nardo (where you don't have any centrifugal force on the car when doing 240km/h).

[johann]

Originally posted by Gustav
Is this because the downforce gets so high that the centripetal forces get neglegtible small? Or the forces that pushes the car forward?

Also, I remember that you don't have to steer anything at above some speeds at oval tracks. Why is this? Can someone please enlighten me?

Aren't you the one taking the M Sc in mechanical engineering?
I majored in ComSc don't expext me to explain why!

On oval tracks the corners are banked the banking and to some extent dowforce will produce enough forces to make the car take the corner without the driver using the steering wheel.


Cheers,
/Johan