Hacker News Reader

Comment by dublinben | Hacker News Reader

The original title says "quickest" not "fastest." They're two very different claims, and only one of them is remotely true here.

View on HN

OP here, good point. I edited the title to "quickest" to mirror the original claim.

Very true. The HN title mislead me and I thought there was no way it was true (which it isn't)

Even the "quickest" is up for debate since this only measures 0-60 time, but I think it is leaps and bounds more accurate than "fastest".

2.7 seconds 0-100. Is there a quicker production car than that?

* Bugatti Veyron - 2.5 seconds

* Porsche 991 Turbo - 2.5 seconds

* Porsche 918 Spider - 2.2 seconds - limited production, only 918 built.

So it's not the quickest, but it's right up there.

Today I stumbled upon this video of a fully electric, Croatian-made Rimac Concept One vs a Tesla Model S P90D vs a LaFerrari. The Rimac Concept One destroys everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT7KKxoAvvk

The Bugatti folks might have a legitimate beef, but I don't think it makes sense to count the unpurchaseable Porsche models as 'production cars'.

The 918 is unpurchaseable, but you can walk into any Porsche dealer and buy a 911 Turbo S for ~$190k that'll do 0-60 in 2.5s.

We're picking nits, so I'm going to point out that Porsche claims the 911 Turbo S that they sell today does 0-60 in 2.8s, slower than you're suggesting.

I don't have firsthand knowledge to be able to say which of you is wrong.

Porsche is conservative with their reported 0-60 numbers. People that have tested it are able to get 2.5s. Look at the first two columns of times in the table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car...

Rollout can account for 0.1 or 0.2 of a second, and that table kind of hand-waves it away: "Some measurements exclude the first foot-rollout."

Do you have the data for acceleration past 100MPH? The cars you listed really come to life after a 100MPH and it would be an interesting comparison.

0-60 and 1/4 mile times here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_car...

link from truckle who's currently being blocked (turn on showdead).

Thanks. The 2016 model has has a quarter mile time of 10.8 sec @ 121.99 mph. Not bad. Should dip into the 10.5 with grippy tyres. I wish they offered an additional overdrive gear to see if they would get to 200MPH. I don't know if they can handle the aero but they sure have the power.

I think that you can have these speeds with Bugatti and Porsche only if you are a good pilot. With tesla, you can do it if you have a foot.

The Porsche has launch control, so there's really no skill involved for a 0-60 run.

There's a video on youtube of a guy doing it without his hands on the wheel, repeatedly (to show off the durability of the 911's transaxle, I believe, as compared to the GT-R which tended to blow up in the early models). That tech is pretty remarkable.

Are any of the faster cars still in production?

2.5 seconds to 0-60 and only 2.7 seconds 0-100?

That would be a pretty scary 0.2 seconds. Some back of a napkin math puts that at around 32,000 g.

(I assume that was a typo)

It's an additional 0.2 seconds to get to 100km/h (62mph).

Your napkin math is way off. 40MPH in 0.2 seconds is only 89m/s^2, or about 9g. You probably wouldn't even lose consciousness!

0-60 is what matters. Top speed is not a bottleneck anymore unless you are track racing. It has a 0-60 that is comparable to a Bugatti Veyron.

I'd argue that lap times are what matters.

Fastest is a broad term. I'd expect that "the fastest production car in the world" would have no problem winning a race at a majority of tracks.

"Fastest" has nothing to do with getting up to speed on the freeway.

"Fastest" has nothing to do with getting up to speed on the freeway.

But for day to day driving, getting up to highway speed, and acceleration at passing speeds with good handling while doing so are what I actually need.

Okay, but then don't make comparisons to cars like the 918 and LaFerrari.

Or call it the fastest production car. Quickest maybe, even that is debateable. Quickest 0-60, sure.

hey, the new tesla fanboys need something to cheer for. they're new to this whole racing-cars-on-the-internet thing.

At least they're not bragging about HP/Liter.

Fastest is commonly reserved for cars with the highest top speed. A fast track car is very different from that. You can have a car like a miata outpace a porsche 911 turbo on certain tracks.

> You can have a car like a miata outpace a porsche 911 turbo on certain tracks

this is basically only true on an autocross track. i.e. a bunch of cones in a parking lot.

I wish that were true. Notice that I did not mention a stock miata or stock 911. A properly setup miata can and will outpace a modified 911 on certain tracks (not autocross). Of course, the driver is a key element, but will still happen with equal drivers.

so, if you modify a cheap car, it can go faster than more expensive ones?

as per usual, a car thread on the internet that has yielded another set of incredible insights.

The issue with this snarky comment is that it fails to take into account the limits of modifying cheap cars. There are cheap cars that may be modified to go faster than an expensive one without modifying the original structure (no tube chassis). But not all cheap cars can achieve that. Only a small list of "cheap" cars can do so. Such as the miata, civic, mustang, etc. In fact, the word cheap is not even the right way to address these cars because price does not define a cars performance or potential.

None of those matter really in day to day driving

Eh. What "matters" is pretty debatable when it comes to cars. I very rarely accelerate from 0-60mph in one single acceleration, same as I rarely reach top speed.

Most people accelerate a lot more than they take a few laps on a track though...

>Most people accelerate a lot more than they take a few laps on a track though...

Lap times give a better "all-around" indication of performance: speed, handling, acceleration.

For production cars top speed doesn't matter, after you get past highway speeds it is meaningless. Maybe it's me, but I'd rather a car that goes 0-60 really fast and can only go 100MPH than one that goes 0-60 slower but can go 200MPH.

And I'd like one that can corner on rails, which is arguably more valuable than both speed and acceleration (after all, acceleration, after a certain point, is also useless).

Hence why lap times are an interesting metric.

This is the reason that the metrics I tend to look for are skidpad rating and 60-0 rating. Turning abruptly at high speed to avoid debris and braking abruptly from highway speeds are both things I do depressingly often.

I often do, nearly every time I stop at a toll booth (toll roads, bridges, and tunnels are very common in my area -- I'm guessing they're uncommon in your area, lucky you).

(Of course, being able to do that really quickly, while fun, is not so /useful/ in real life, so it's still pretty debatable what "matters")

I rarely do 0-60, but I do ~25-70 almost every day getting on highways.

I find it very useful when merging onto busy roads that don't have a merging lane.

Except that they like to point out that the Porsche and Ferrari are "little 2 seaters with no cargo capacity" while the Tesla can carry seven passengers and has exceptional cargo capacity - well, without the passengers in the third row. And the fact that the 0-60 time was with only a driver on board, not the seven passengers + cargo, so it's a little unfair to call out the others for that.

Cadillac CTS-V is the actual luxury vehicle Tesla is competing against.

Roughly the same price. CTS-V has significantly better laptimes on Laguna Seca (roughly 10-seconds faster) than Tesla's best lap times. Tesla has better 0-60 acceleration but that's about it.

CTS-V has better skidpad-tested turning radius, better braking, better suspension, etc. etc.

Porsche and Ferrari are high standards and all, but they're not commuter cars, nor are they luxury cars. They are race cars that have been converted into barely street-legal form. Its unfair to compare a Tesla against them... as the Tesla is a 4-door sedan.

--------------

Tesla S on Laguna Seca: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8gJG-wkpdE

Cadillac CTS-V on Laguna Seca: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la6BZ89Z6bs

Ford Focus ST ($25,000 lol wrong-wheel drive): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW2rOUFCcyo

Someone claimed a 1:45 time with the Tesla S (maybe it was one of the faster models?), which is the fastest time I'm aware of. But still not close to the 1:38 time of the CTS-V.

I really don't think the people who buy Teslas would otherwise be buying Cadillacs. The Tesla P90D and similar are competing against the top option package BMW 7-series, Audi A8 and similar.

The Tesla P90D is $107,700 AFTER the federal credits.

The Cadillac CTS-V starts at $85k, while the normal CTS is around $45k. BMW 7-series is also around $85k with electric / hybrid models flirting $100k.

Tesla is definitely in a higher price class, but not much higher. I think its a fair comparison price-wise and feature wise.

Both the Cadillac CTS and the Tesla S are "fast" sedans with spacious interiors and cost upwards from $50,000+, with racing versions (either the CTS-V or P90D "Ludicrous") just around $100k.

---------

I can agree that the BMW 7-series counts as a competitor, but it isn't considered by anyone to be a "fast" vehicle. Aimed at more luxury. The Tesla 0-60 score has always been front-and-center as part of marketing... as has been the CTS-V.

Interesting. I'd think the Teslas low center of gravity would be a boost to handling too.

Tesla's 4500lb curb-weight because of a 2000lb battery is a severe disadvantage. The Tesla weighs the same as an F-150 TRUCK, no lie.

An ICE car zips-around the corner with literally a thousand-pounds lighter than the electric-based Tesla. In fact, the Tesla S barely performs any better than $30k hot-hatchbacks like the Ford Focus ST or Subaru Impreza WRX. (Both of which are 4-door 5-seater sedans for a daily driver)

----------

When you get to $50,000+ ultra-luxury cars, they all have awesomely low center of gravity and optimized suspensions. IMO, it all comes down to weight for why the Tesla fails to perform on the track.

Also, the battery IIRC overheats if held in "Ludicrous" mode too long. The ICE engine virtually never overheat and can be revved high for many laps at a time.

I've heard of more issues of ICE Cars where brakes overheat... forcing the car to stop the track early... rather than the engine overheating. Tesla batteries can output a lot of power, but only for a limited time. I don't know if that "limited time" is one or two laps, but its apparently an issue.

Performance cars don't necessarily all perform well on a track. The Ford Focus ST allegedly has brakes overheat after just a few laps for example. Although, its like they say: front-wheel drive is wrong-wheel drive in these sorts of high-performance comparisons.

Not really unfair IMO. They're just pointing out the enormous relative versatility of the car.

Not playing down the versatility of the car at all. But it's very apples and oranges if you're saying on one hand the Tesla is "better" because of the additional capacity, when both the Porsche/Ferrari were tested using exactly the same capacity as the Tesla (i.e. "a driver"), and saying "but this can carry seven people" without "at quite a lower speed"...

But it's a press release, so it is what it is.

Not at all. They're saying that you can use the same car for hauling the family on vacation as you use to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, where with one of these other cars you'd need to buy two separate vehicles. They're in no way implying that the car does both things simultaneously.

The ferrari and porsche aren't meant to be versatile. They will beat the Tesla every time at what they are meant to do.

On the other hand, the Tesla is a much better family sedan.

That their purpose isn't to be versatile isn't a point in favor of their versatility. Tesla still wins this point as a net, regardless whether it matters to you personally.

It's like saying a multitool is more versatile than a hammer. It's true, but a multitool still makes a shitty hammer. If I want a hammer and you hand me a multitool I'm gonna be disappointed.

The exposition of the relatively versatile features was placed in the same paragraph as the acceleration claim. You'd expect the two to reconcile.

However, according to the disclaiming asterisk, the acceleration claim hasn't even been tested and is only an estimate, making the title claim particularly dubious.

The Tesla has a trunk in the front, too. Where the IC engine would be.

Americans buy horsepower and drive torque.

Are these technical terms? To my ears they sound like synonyms.

Fastest is more likely to refer to top speed, and quickest is more likely to refer to the 0-60 times. But yes that's subjective difference in usage and not a strict definition.

Acceleration versus top speed. Quick to me refers to a period of time whereas fast refers only to a point of time.

Thanks for asking; I was very confused as well. I still don't find the difference between the two terms satisfying. I would rather them state acceleration or speed versus quick and fast.

I've always thought, quick is measured in time and fast is measured in speed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com