I believe they still hit 100mph in sub 10s with ease ...
I don't think they do.
I believe they still hit 100mph in sub 10s with ease ...
I don't think they do.
Sorry they are around 10.8s, still night and day faster than an A5 diesel though which takes in the region of 16s. But if you compared 0-60mph the difference is far less which might make some believe an A5 Diesel would keep up quite well with an F355 wheras in reality it won't stand a chance.....
From a roll?
I know the SL65 is a powerhouse but they also weigh a fair bit.
Must get myself in one of those soon!

It's 665bph v 383bhp (rr numbers for the 2 cars). That near 300bhp makes all the difference when moving.
I thought the SL65 was 600ish. Either way, when you put it like that and ignore the power to weight ratio, that's a healthy margin.
Good thread though, interesting to see what some people regard as quick and others don't and the parameters used.
It was a tweaked SL65 and clocked over 211mph with the roof down at VMax!
I've never ever experienced a bike. Do "proper" bikes actually FEEL quick when you're accelerating at full chat? Or do you need to be looking at the speedo in order to see the speed climbing? Part of me thinks all the weight and surrounding metal of a car helps with the whole "shove" you get when you accelerate
[TW]Fox;16858114 said:Actually according to his scale a DC2 is 'bland'.

See, *that* is fast, albeit in a straight line. The standing mile events in the US are getting more popular and competitive and some of the terminals are just ridiculous. If we use that sort of performance as a yardstick, you can whittle down properly fast cars to a tiny percentage of road going cars, which is exactly how I think it should be.
I've never ever experienced a bike. Do "proper" bikes actually FEEL quick when you're accelerating at full chat? Or do you need to be looking at the speedo in order to see the speed climbing? Part of me thinks all the weight and surrounding metal of a car helps with the whole "shove" you get when you accelerate