What would you consider is high performance?

[Heeno]

ok what would you consider is a high performance car due to kW's.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Heeno

ok what would you consider is a high performance car due to kW's.

KW's huh? Well, that kills of most of the Lotus stable.

Theres far more to performance then KW.

[Sourbastard]

Kilowatts is meaningless on its own, power to weight defines performance.

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Kilowatts is meaningless on its own, power to weight defines performance.

if you can add it to the poll then by all means change it

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Heeno

if you can add it to the poll then by all means change it

done....

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by Casper

done....

nicely done

[4.9 EF Futura]

I went for 130kw per tonne... about 250kw for a large 4 door sedan, about 200kw for a smaller car (i.e. little japanese number).

250 roughly what im working with and that's more than enough to get you into plenty of trouble.

Fly wheel, of course...

[Steffo]

I voted 190kW+/tonne... something like this car springs to mind

http://www.fast-autos.net/lotus/lotus240r.html

[TheSneakiness]

So, those power figures represent rear-wheel or fly wheel?

[Heeno]

Originally Posted by AUII_SE_Ute

So, those power figures represent rear-wheel or fly wheel?

fly wheel

[Gammaboy]

I voted 210 per tonne, i've got about 216kw/tonne and i don't think my car is that high a performance.... :P

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Kilowatts is meaningless on its own, power to weight defines performance.

Exactly, 150kw is much more fun on an Escort than a falcon.
I went with 150 per tonne.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Lol - 250kw per tonne... alright - who's got the 450kw falcon??

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Lol - 250kw per tonne... alright - who's got the 450kw falcon??

I don't see Gary viewing the thread.. :

Anybody else? :

Torque and drive train are just as important. Under the victoria 125kw/1000kg rule an integra type R with its 8.somethin 0-100 is a performance car yet the normal WRX isnt.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I voted 190kW+/tonne... something like this car springs to mind

http://www.fast-autos.net/lotus/lotus240r.html

Riiiiiiiight. I sure all the Porsche 911 Carrera owners are happy to hear there $200K super car doesnt cut it as a performance car in your eyes.

239kw/1.395t = 171.3kw/t

What a slug! :

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Lol - 250kw per tonne... alright - who's got the 450kw falcon??

Thats only 500hp at the crank in an XY (1500kg, 375kw).... if Falcon Coupes car were a tad lighter, it'd be right there.....

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by lizardmech

Torque and drive train are just as important. Under the victoria 125kw/1000kg rule an integra type R with its 8.somethin 0-100 is a performance car yet the normal WRX isnt.

They're alot faster then that. Mid to high 6's 0-100km/h for a Type R Integ.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Casper

Riiiiiiiight. I sure all the Porsche 911 Carrera owners are happy to hear there $200K super car doesnt cut it as a performance car in your eyes.

239kw/1.395t = 171.3kw/t

What a slug! :

Why take a stab at me, I'm not the only one who voted above that. And by the way, a 911 Carrera isn't exactly a supercar. That's more Carrera GT territory. Porsche themselves don't call any of their cars except the Carrera GT a "supercar."

Originally Posted by Steffo

They're alot faster then that. Mid to high 6's 0-100km/h for a Type R Integ.

The 2 mags I could find say 7.4 and 7.75, im pretty sure I have seen a 8.2 somewhere. I also recall it doing a slower lap than the 200sx at bfyb as well.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by lizardmech

The 2 mags I could find say 7.4 and 7.75, im pretty sure I have seen a 8.2 somewhere. I also recall it doing a slower lap than the 200sx at bfyb as well.

Yep, and the car is capable of alot more. MOTOR ran 5.55 0-100km/h and 13.36 1/4 mile in the Lambo Gallardo at PCOTY 2004, but it can do it in low 4's properly driven and in better conditions. I've heard of as low as 6.2 0-100km/h in the 2000 model Type R Integra's.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Why take a stab at me, I'm not the only one who voted above that. And by the way, a 911 Carrera isn't exactly a supercar. That's more Carrera GT territory. Porsche themselves don't call any of their cars except the Carrera GT a "supercar."

Cause you posted a stupid number first. Ok, the Porsche may not be a "supercar" but I'd say that it falls into the performance car catagory without much debate dont you think?
At 190kw/t you have ruled out some of the most obvious "performance cars" including most, if not all, locally built cars. Given that most FPV's and HSV's are under 190kw/t that would mean that they all fail to be considered a "performance car". You want to explain that or maybe we should all accept the "8 second AU" argument?

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Casper

Cause you posted a stupid number first. Ok, the Porsche may not be a "supercar" but I'd say that it falls into the performance car catagory without much debate dont you think?
At 190kw/t you have ruled out some of the most obvious "performance cars" including most, if not all, locally built cars. Given that most FPV's and HSV's are under 190kw/t that would mean that they all fail to be considered a "performance car". You want to explain that or maybe we should all accept the "8 second AU" argument?

Note, the thread says high performance car. None of the cars you have listed fall into that category, IMHO. And it also asks for opinion, and those can differ too you know.

[Hardtopxb]

EF FUTURA me 398 kw at the fly, dino

[parawolf]

I remember when a car magazine said 9kg/kW (or better) was a good ratio for a 'sports' car. Which is 111kW/1000kg. Which is slightly better than a BA Falcon XT. So obviously there is more to it because the original Lotus Elise (1997 model) which is a true 'sports' car had about 86kW and weighed in at around 730kg.

It has to be balanced to make a 'performance' car. It was about its weight/power ratio, chassis performance (turn - in, oversteer, understeer) and g-forces in acceleration and decceleration.

I think we are all in agreement that something like a M-B SL55 AMG is a great 'performance' car, and it has masses of weight to battle the above ratio and performance characteristics.

I picked 150kw/ton but it depends greatly.

[TURBOTAXI]

I voted 130/ton as I think a car with these figures would get along pretty well. I think modern cars are pretty impressive in light of what was......

[GTENVY]

I chose 170kw, 2000 Mustang cobra R. 287kw monster weighting 1628kg = 176kw per ton. Yeehaw :sm_headba

[NIGHTHAWK]

I selected 170kw. No overkill here.

[TZENU]

150kw, conservative here, but still gets the move on when asked ~!

[gtfpv]

in laymens terms i would consider high performance . by the seat of pants feel . one way would be listening to the engine smoothness on high rpm . no valve bounce . up to the task . another for me is a car that breaks rear wheel traction if fott is planted whilst car is moving . not many cars will break traction once moving . the ones that do i consider high performance . in laymans terms if a car does this . i'm happy with its performance . regardless off kw's