M3 Sedan Vs Merc C63 Vs Lexus ISF. VE Clubby Too

[F6Mauz]

Autocar had a comparison between the three rivals and the Vauxhall for just the drag race. You see how the Clubby really compares to the best of the world.


YouTube - Super saloon showdown - by Autocar.co.uk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUQb6SiJUh0)

[CarlFST60L]

Does someone have the official 400m times for those cars?

The Clubby was totally disappointing... My stocker ran 13.5 at 52C...

Maybe a roll on would have been better to eliminate retarded launching.

[KeenGolfer]

Bit of a stupid test. 1 run with someone who can't drive a M6 against 7/8 speed auto cars.

[Veeate]

I cant imagine a stock VE clubby getting any where near a M3 or c63 in any form of measurement or comparison i.e 1/4 mile time , lap time etc.

Nothing against the Clubbie but the other cars are in a different performance bracket (and price bracket).

[Mega76]

Hmmm the Clubby didn't last long. If the Clubsport was an auto I wonder if it would have made a difference down the 1/4??

The Mercedes sounds awesome drifting through the bends.............

[F6Mauz]

Bit of a stupid test. 1 run with someone who can't drive a M6 against 7/8 speed auto cars.

The M3 was a Manual.

[Funky_Munky]

Anyone else take notice of the power figures for the Lex? 417 hp from a 5 ltr! Man that thing flew. Only .5 of a sec slower than the M3.

Geez the Clubsport was a massive disappointment!

[kart_racer]

I think it just showed how crap that Tom guy in the HSV was at driving. Full of wheel spin and changed gears while they were still spinning, only to bog the car when it regained traction. Didn't really expect the HSV to win, but it should have been in the mix.

[nikola]

Seems like the comparison was designed to exclude the HSV straight away. After the drag race, they compared space and practicality (which the HSV would have won) and then drifting which the HSV would have done very well at.

[Ghosn]

Why eliminate it, at least compare all the cars in the different formats.

[HazzaHSV]

Gees. So the clubby is the cheapest and probably heaviest so fair enough probably would come a close last at best, but wtf kind of driving was that? He spins them up like crazy in first and then instead of lifting off getting traction and continuing to red line in first (like the guy in the M3 said he did), he pulls 2nd at 40km/h and bogs it down and goes nowhere. :rofl:

[F6Mauz]

Seems like the comparison was designed to exclude the HSV straight away. After the drag race, they compared space and practicality (which the HSV would have won) and then drifting which the HSV would have done very well at.

The HSV isn't in the price bracket of the others. Isn't a direct competitor.

[nikola]

The HSV isn't in the price bracket of the others. Isn't a direct competitor.

So why include it in the comparison at all then?

[DuffMan]

I wouldn't expect the clubbie to win overall in that company, but the bloke driving it sure did screw that launch up. Almost a mirror image of my first launch at the drags :burnout: He probably hadn't ever driven a manual without some fancy pants launch control, or a manual at all :confused:


Does someone have the official 400m times for those cars?

The Clubby was totally disappointing... My stocker ran 13.5

I think a recent Wheels or Motor comparo (with the same model BMW and Merc) had the M3 clocked at a best of 13.5. That's not much to go by though. Can't remember the Merc's time but it was quicker.

As for your 13.5, that was on a preped drag strip. This comparison looked like a runway, don't know if it makes much difference though.

[CarlFST60L]

As for your 13.5, that was on a preped drag strip. This comparison looked like a runway, don't know if it makes much difference though.

Soft launch at 2000rpm and it ran 13.6, so about a 10th, and that was at 52C!!!

That test was obviously designed to push the R8 out straight away. He purposely smoked them off the start. Its takes a bit of effort and WOT to hold smoke in first gear... believe me, I know :lol:

I want to know the offical time of the M3.... I would imagine mid to low 13... so the clubby would be no more than a car length behind!

[Holden Man]

The Vauxhall had the worst badge - of course they would turn there noses up at it. :stick:

[BadMac]

Comment at the end was R8 not up to it, but in the last 2 tests it would have slaughtered the others. Biggest boot and inside room by a mile. And drifting, well Mr Clarkson recons its alright at that.

So, yes a test designed to produce a result.

I bet if they'd gone.

Boot
Drift
1/4

The R8 would have lost out in the final to the Merc.

[Martin_D]

The only surprising thing about that test is that an M3 out acclerated a C63....first time that I have seen in over a dozen tests :lol:

[mustanger]

:lol: That test was joke :lmao:

[Martin_D]

Stifling as the test was you only need to look at the power:weight ratio of the contestants to work it out. Regardless of its propensity to wheelspin like a mofo the C63 has the best numbers, and at $140,000 or so Aussie represents a nice quality bargain against something awkward like a W427 :cool:

On the other hand a Clubby or an SS makes an excellent modification base. A pallette on which big power mods can be painted and take the cheapness of build and materials in the cheapness of purchase price. Make your own masterpiece from there :) :bow:

Fast forward to a certain Maloo we did recently :eek:

[SchrgdVSV6]

A race on a runway with a few old geezers is some sort of valid test? A few car mags and a few private owners have already run 12s in the C63, M3 and ISF.
The question is, can the Vaxhaul (in ideal conditions with a top driver) get into the 12s?

[alexp]

Wheels Magazine dec 07
CSV LS7 VE HSV
0-100 4.9 secs
¼ mile 12.9 @ 187 km/hr
80-120 km/hr 3.2 secs

Motor Magazine April 08
CSV LS7 VE HSV
0-100 4.8 secs
¼ mile 12.8 @ 178 km/hr
80-120 km/hr 2.6 sec

M3
0-100 5.3 secs
¼ mile 13.5@ 174 km/hr
80-120 km/hr 3.1 secs

C63
0-100 5.4 secs
¼ mile 13.4 @ 178 km/hr
80-120km/hr 2.9 secs

Two separate mag tests.
100 kw or so more powerful LS7 over LS2.
It would seem that the average punter with a stock VXR8 or R8 would struggle to get into the 12s.

I am not sure why the 80-120 times are 0.6 secs quicker in Motor mag than the Wheels article, as I would have thought they would be a more consistent factor than from a standing start where traction issues occur.
A 80-120 time of 2.6 secs is damn quick(if real) given the 6.2 litre AMG engine which seems to do it around 3 secs.
I think 80-120 km/hr times are more relevant to real world driving than
¼ mile/0-100 times which we are all obsessed with.

[SchrgdVSV6]

We've always been wary of how Wheels and Motor do their 1/4 mile tests (sometimes two up, with a full tank on a dodgy back road). So if you wanna know what your mum could do in the 1/4 mile with the above cars, read a Wheels/Motor mag.
Not too sure on 80-120 times, but maybe the CSV was manual and they mis-timed the shift?

Now for some more 1/4 mile times for the obsessive....

http://greg-w.smugmug.com/photos/272927730_3bZoJ-O.jpg

[CarlFST60L]

Wow, 12.6 is crazy for the V8 M3... Didnt the V8 use to be only 13.2 or somthing, and the 6 was like 13.4, I had no idea they were mid 12's!

Still, 13.5 to 12.6 is only a couple of car lengths, not 100m like in that video

[Funky_Munky]

I just cant believe Toyota have produced a 5 ltr V8 that goes from 0 - 100 km/h in 4.4 seconds. Really does put the LS2 / 98 / 76 to shame. :(

[Holden Man]

I just cant believe Toyota have produced a 5 ltr V8 that goes from 0 - 100 km/h in 4.4 seconds. Really does put the LS2 / 98 / 76 to shame. :(

475nm isn't that great for an 8.

8 speed gearbox would help accel times.

Toyota need to bring back the Supra with that V8.

[Funky_Munky]

475nm isn't that great for an 8.

Agreed. However, power / torque figures arent all that relevant when running times like that.

Also, the M3 is a 6 speed with even less torque than the Lex, yet it runs .3 seconds faster to a 100 km/h (which is a full second faster than the VE GTS).

Its about time that GM take a page out of the engineering books of Euro or Jap cars. Its getting silly they rely mostly on cubes to extract power when other companies are producing cars a lot quicker than GM with smaller V8s and better feul economy.

[Ghosn]

Still, 13.5 to 12.6 is only a couple of car lengths, not 100m like in that video

You're way off with that.

[Martin_D]

I cant believe how some here cant understand that a car twice the price of a HSV is going to be somewhere around twice as good at most things :cool:
You do get what you pay for! :teach:

[Funky_Munky]

I cant believe how some here cant understand that a car twice the price of a HSV is going to be somewhere around twice as good at most things :cool:
You do get what you pay for! :teach:

Im well aware that for twice the price, you would expect twice as much car (figuratively speaking). Even so, the power ouput is not the one and only selling factor of a car. For the extra money you spend on the M3, you not only get a faster car, but you obviously get all the extras associated with paying a premium price, ie safety features, creature comforts, etc.

However, the fact that GM have a 6 ltr V8 that cant stand up to a 5 ltr v8 produced by Toyota, is somewhat disappointing. You would expect some sort of parity between the two cars considering how much bigger the GM engine is and how much more fuel it uses.

Now dont get me wrong, Im not having a whinge about the fuel consumption rate and I do love my HSVs, but I just think its time GM and Holden step to the Euro / Jap standard for super cars if they expect to be playing on the same field. Especially now that they have released the W427 for an expected $150K.

[Martin_D]

Holden have traditionally never had the firepower and quality vehicle to match the similar sized Mercedes/BMW offerings. Not then, not now.....its just a fact of life that the Germans do indeed make better cars than the yanks. Dont expect that to change anytime soon :)
Enjoy the VE for what it is. Nicely powered, big, brawny, but not particularly clever....like old mate that plays for the B-grade Union team. He has the size, but just not the skills :cool:

[Funky_Munky]

Holden have traditionally never had the firepower and quality vehicle to match the similar sized Mercedes/BMW offerings. Not then, not now.....its just a fact of life that the Germans do indeed make better cars than the yanks. Dont expect that to change anytime soon :)

Exactly my point. They really should be aiming towards the quality that Euros and Japs have. I think its important to set a certain standard or benchmark a more successful company with better quality products.

The new GTR being the perfect example. If Nissan is able to produce a car that out performs the Porsche 911T in every aspect at a third of the cost I dont see why GM or Holden cant do the same.


Enjoy the VE for what it is. Nicely powered, big, brawny, but not particularly clever....like old mate that plays for the B-grade Union team. He has the size, but just not the skills :cool:

Interesting analogy. To demonstrate my point, is it not possible that old mate starts a rigorous training program and trains twice as hard to attain the skills he lacks, thereby making him a better sportsman?

NB - Im not trying to turn this into a contentious issue. Im simply trying to note that I think its about time that GM / Holden step up to the mark if they are trying to compete in the 'super car' market.

[CarlFST60L]

You're way off with that.

Well, here is 12.49 and 11.99, thats half a second,and its not even a car lenght in it ;)

YouTube - ve vs ve at wsid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-cU-Xx8KGE)


PS Im the black car, and was VERY surprised to see not even a car length separating us

[Martin_D]

Exactly my point. They really should be aiming towards the quality that Euros and Japs have. I think its important to set a certain standard or benchmark a more successful company with better quality products.

Holden did that aiming at Audi as their interior quality benchmark some years ago. Problem is a company like Holden will always be a design generation behind using this approach so the goalposts keep moving :)


The new GTR being the perfect example. If Nissan is able to produce a car that out performs the Porsche 911T in every aspect at a third of the cost I dont see why GM or Holden cant do the same.

On road I think you will find that gap starts to narrow to around half the price (expect not a LOT of change from $200K once you have the keys in your hand) and Nissan have carefully built in an extremely expensive maintenance program. At the end of two years ownership that gap might have narrowed considerably :eek:


Interesting analogy. To demonstrate my point, is it not possible that old mate starts a rigorous training program and trains twice as hard to attain the skills he lacks, thereby making him a better sportsman?

Its quite possible this could happen, but to do so given the current exchange rate and cost of labour in Australia the already highly protected price of Commodore in Australia would blow out wildly. This is about as good as it gets guys....and it aint that bad! Just dont aim too high or believe much of the hype as driving a current E class Merc / 5 Series BMW (to a lesser degree) would show that VE is still probably a good 7 year design cycle behind. Which isnt as bad as some US cars that are 14 - 20 years in the past :lol:

[Funky_Munky]

Holden did that aiming at Audi as their interior quality benchmark some years ago. Problem is a company like Holden will always be a design generation behind using this approach so the goalposts keep moving :)

I dont see how they can be a design generation behind when they are benchmarking another company. The interior design for Holden maybe outdated, but I thought that the whole purpose for benchmarking a more refined car manufacturer would mitigate such an issue.

Moving targets are pretty much the standard as the expectation for all companies (automotive and non automotive) is to improve on the quality of their superceded products. To benchmark is not only to try and maintain, but also keep up.


On road I think you will find that gap starts to narrow to around half the price (expect not a LOT of change from $200K once you have the keys in your hand) and Nissan have carefully built in an extremely expensive maintenance program. At the end of two years ownership that gap might have narrowed considerably :eek:

Thats the price in Australia. Im certain that the price in Japan is nearer to 80,000 Yen retail.

Regarding the maintenance, I havent heard of such a thing, but no doubt you have being the industry. Not very surprising that Nissan have built in an expensive maintenance program to maximise profits due to the lower profit margins on the retail price of the car.

However, the proof is in the pudding that your 'standard' car manufacturer can match the cream of the crop at a significantly lower price if the goal has been set. After all, when buying Euros, people pay for the exclusivity and name as well as the car. Once that factor is out of the equation, the car price would drop significantly.


Its quite possible this could happen, but to do so given the current exchange rate and cost of labour in Australia the already highly protected price of Commodore in Australia would blow out wildly. This is about as good as it gets guys....and it aint that bad! Just dont aim too high or believe much of the hype as driving a current E class Merc / 5 Series BMW (to a lesser degree) would show that VE is still probably a good 7 year design cycle behind. Which isnt as bad as some US cars that are 14 - 20 years in the past :lol:

Have to agree with you on that one. Even though the VE is percieved to be leaps and bounds ahead of the VT - VZ generation, it is still far behind when looking at things at from a wholistic view. As compared to other cars, there is still a lot of work to be done for it to be considered a truly innovative car.

I think Im going to have to let this go and just agree to disagree. The point I was simply trying to make is that GM / Holden should be aiming higher - alot higher than where they are now. If they want to justify $150K price tag on the W427, they will have to do a lot better than a 7 ltr V8 (which will probably narrowly beat an M3 down the quarter) and if they expect their cars to be taken seriously as supercars, they need to improve the car in all aspects instead of just throwing a big V8 into it.

[vx_ss_black]

what have we learnt? that twits who cant control wheelspin in muscle cars, make aussies look like theyre the twits. you try throwing another 15000 pounds at the "vauxhall" and see how it goes then. just to make it even eh?

[Martin_D]

I dont see how they can be a design generation behind when they are benchmarking another company.

Sure they look at the stuff thats in the market now and base next models release on it :)


Thats the price in Australia. Im certain that the price in Japan is nearer to 80,000 Yen retail.

No point in cost comparing cars in different countries. It simply doesnt work. The cost is what YOU pay to own one here. In the US a C63 AMG is $63,000....here in Aus its $140K. Sucks to be us :cool:


Regarding the maintenance, I havent heard of such a thing, but no doubt you have being the industry. Not very surprising that Nissan have built in an expensive maintenance program to maximise profits due to the lower profit margins on the retail price of the car.

Its called buy now, pay later :)
Dont do the service, void the warranty....easy really :cool:


After all, when buying Euros, people pay for the exclusivity and name as well as the car. Once that factor is out of the equation, the car price would drop significantly.

You also pay for stuff like Porsche warranting the vehicle on a race track...the things that make a BIG difference...and the vehicle only really costs you (Cost = Purchase Price - Sale Price). To think that the difference between top line European, Japanese and Australian brands even has an inkling of 'you pay for the name in it' is proof positive you havent driven too many of these cars, and I dont mean to sound rude about it, but the driving is the believing :)

Go test drive a car see what I mean....you will thank yourself for it :)

[Funky_Munky]

To think that the difference between top line European, Japanese and Australian brands even has an inkling of 'you pay for the name in it' is proof positive you havent driven too many of these cars...

Guilty as charged. Ive bee in a few E46 M3s but never driven one. Havent even experienced any form of AMG in either driver or passengar seat. :( Hope to get in the drivers seat for either the M3 or C63 AMG soon to get an idea of the difference in the quality of the cars.


I dont mean to sound rude about it, but the driving is the believing :)

Thats cool. Dont see that as a rude comment - just stating facts.

Anyhow, at the end of the day, we have differing opinions and this will just turn into a cyclical conversation. Admittedly though, I know your opinions are far more realistic where as Im just being idealistic. Heres to hoping anyway. :cheers:

[Martin_D]

To quote a famous movie line "Such mad hope, but there it is"
Just before the 300 got slaughtered..... :lol:

[Ghosn]

Well, here is 12.49 and 11.99, thats half a second,and its not even a car lenght in it ;)

That video shows me it was more than a car length, how much more it's hard to tell with that footage, u need to factor in the camera position and the fact it cut away before the race was even over. Still stand by my view :)

I guess 1 way to look at it is, the distance a car will travel at 110MPH in 1 sec? Surely it's not a matter of just two car lengths? Someone do the sums, i sec with numbers ...

Having said that I agree the test was a joke and the distance between the cars at the end was ridiculous.

Funky, you do realise Holden have a budget and a timeframe? I'm sure they have built a car to the best of their ability within their allocated allowances.

[CarlFST60L]

That video shows me it was more than a car length, how much more it's hard to tell with that footage, u need to factor in the camera position and the fact it cut away before the race was even over. Still stand by my view :)

I guess 1 way to look at it is, the distance a car will travel at 110MPH in 1 sec? Surely it's not a matter of just two car lengths? Someone do the sums, i sec with numbers ...

Having said that I agree the test was a joke and the distance between the cars at the end was ridiculous.

Funky, you do realise Holden have a budget and a timeframe? I'm sure they have built a car to the best of their ability within their allocated allowances.

I was driving the black car, it was lucky to be a car length ;)

And its not how far you travel @ 110mph, its the difference in speed, so 114mph v 117mph, is only 3mph difference for only 0.5 of second :cheers: I had to to sit down and look at it as i was stumped how it was so close, but such a "big" time difference

[NickS]

And its not how far you travel @ 110mph, its the difference in speed, so 114mph v 117mph, is only 3mph difference for only 0.5 of second :cheers: I had to to sit down and look at it as i was stumped how it was so close, but such a "big" time difference

Exactly right mate ... first thing I thought when I read Ghosn's comment was "both cars are moving". You only worry about how far the car goes @ 110mph if the other car was stationary.

re; the Nissan's high service costs ... love it. In Aus we can't depreciate anything over $57009 (for a tax deduction), but there is no limit on deductibility of service costs. I'd much rather have a cheaper car and higher maintenance costs ...

As for the test ... ignoring everything else it's just plain moronic to exclude any car from a comparison completely because it was beaten down the quarter mile. I would have flogged all of them but I have no doubt that in a complete review a professional journalist would put an M3 or a C63 ahead of my Coupe 4.

:confused:

[Holden Man]

re; the Nissan's high service costs ... love it. In Aus we can't depreciate anything over $57009 (for a tax deduction), but there is no limit on deductibility of service costs. I'd much rather have a cheaper car and higher maintenance costs ......

Once an accountant always an accountant ! :)


Re : Interiors - how much extra would it costs if Holden used only quality materials, plastics etc in their interiors ?

Even if it costs another grand to the total cost, it would help the perception of quality greatly. Look at VW, Skoda, Audi etc.


Is the IS-F 4WD or RWD ?

[Funky_Munky]

Funky, you do realise Holden have a budget and a timeframe? I'm sure they have built a car to the best of their ability within their allocated allowances.

I realise that. However, it is Holden themselves who stipulate the budget. Its the design team, build, test, etc teams who would have to adhere to such a budget.

Realistically, they could up the budget but the costs would then be passed on to the consumer.


re; the Nissan's high service costs ... love it. In Aus we can't depreciate anything over $57009 (for a tax deduction), but there is no limit on deductibility of service costs. I'd much rather have a cheaper car and higher maintenance costs ...

As for the test ... ignoring everything else it's just plain moronic to exclude any car from a comparison completely because it was beaten down the quarter mile. I would have flogged all of them but I have no doubt that in a complete review a professional journalist would put an M3 or a C63 ahead of my Coupe 4.

:confused:

I would have an extremely difficult time trying to convince the ATO that a GTR is specifically used for my business. Although Im sure if you had a good accountant (or if you are one, in your case :)) that shouldnt be very difficult.

Regarding the Clubby being exluded based on the quarter mile time, it is very safe to assume if the car is having such difficulty in keeping up with the other cars down the quarter mile, it would be a useless exercise to include it circuit race or any other form of racing.

[SchrgdVSV6]

Is the IS-F 4WD or RWD ?
RWD, just like the rest of the group it was tested against.

[Holden Man]

I would have an extremely difficult time trying to convince the ATO that a GTR is specifically used for my business.

:rofl:


...it is very safe to assume if the car is having such difficulty in keeping up with the other cars down the quarter mile, it would be a useless exercise to include it circuit race or any other form of racing....

Some cars are super quick on a circuit but still post ordinary 1/4 times. Like an Elise.

[ssberlina]

Exactly right mate ... first thing I thought when I read Ghosn's comment was "both cars are moving". You only worry about how far the car goes @ 110mph if the other car was stationary:

I am afraid you are wrong here. The speed difference is irrelevant as the comparision is made to the "stationary" 400 metre line. (If your logic was used then the car with the fastest m/h would always win. Which is definately not the case, due to many many reasons ie: wheel spin etc.)

At 113 m/hr you travel approx 25 metres in 0.5 sec. This is not exact as the cars are still accelerating and not at a constant speed but is it close enough for this exercise. (In the old school rule of thumb 1 sec equates to 12 car lengths so the old school guys arent too wrong it seems. :))

If there was only one car length between the cars in question then something is wrong with either the speed difference or the time difference. Care to post the slip!!



re; the Nissan's high service costs ... love it. In Aus we can't depreciate anything over $57009 (for a tax deduction), but there is no limit on deductibility of service costs. I'd much rather have a cheaper car and higher maintenance costs :

I agree. Just a point of difference is that based on my record the depreciable limit has been raised a massive amount in 2008 from 57,009 to
57,123. That makes all the difference :confused:


As for the test ... ignoring everything else it's just plain moronic to exclude any car from a comparison completely because it was beaten down the quarter mile. I would have flogged all of them but I have no doubt that in a complete review a professional journalist would put an M3 or a C63 ahead of my Coupe 4.

:confused:

Too right !!! :D

[NickS]

I am afraid you are wrong here. The speed difference is irrelevant as the comparision is made to the "stationary" 400 metre line. (If your logic was used then the car with the fastest m/h would always win. Which is definately not the case, due to many many reasons ie: wheel spin etc.)

At 113 m/hr you travel approx 25 metres in 0.5 sec. This is not exact as the cars are still accelerating and not at a constant speed but is it close enough for this exercise. (In the old school rule of thumb 1 sec equates to 12 car lengths so the old school guys arent too wrong it seems. :))

If there was only one car length between the cars in question then something is wrong with either the speed difference or the time difference. Care to post the slip!!

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here ? My only point was that measuring how far a car travels at 110 mph will not tell you how far ahead of the other car it would be if it beat it by 0.5 of a second as that would assume the other car isn't moving !!!

I'm not sure there is an formula to work this one out, but the distance the car travels in 0.5 of a second has to be adjusted to allow for the fact that the other car has also travelled a fair distance in that same time.

:confused:


I agree. Just a point of difference is that based on my record the depreciable limit has been raised a massive amount in 2008 from 57,009 to
57,123. That makes all the difference :confused:

Dead right, I remembered this after posting. I am still doing 2007 tax year stuff so my brain hasn't ticked over to the 2008 rates yet. Huge difference hey ... not sure why they bother.

:rolleyes:


I would have an extremely difficult time trying to convince the ATO that a GTR is specifically used for my business. Although Im sure if you had a good accountant (or if you are one, in your case :)) that shouldnt be very difficult.

The ATO has no right to question it mate ... you can choose whatever car you want to drive, they would never question your choice. They have set a depreciation limit to reduce the tax deduction available with high cost cars but beyond that ... buy whatever you want.

In the same manner the ATO won't question your choice to drive more than 1 car ... if you do 20,000kms pa in 1 car or 10,000kms pa in each of 2 cars it doesn't matter. As long as you have done complying log books for each car it is all completely above board.

[ssberlina]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here ? My only point was that measuring how far a car travels at 110 mph will not tell you how far ahead of the other car it would be if it beat it by 0.5 of a second as that would assume the other car isn't moving !!!

I'm not sure there is an formula to work this one out, but the distance the car travels in 0.5 of a second has to be adjusted to allow for the fact that the other car has also travelled a fair distance in that same time.

:confused:.

The thing here is that once the other car has crossed the line, that this when the clock starts. If it then takes the second car 0.5 sec to then cross the same line then the distance between the cars at he finish is calculated by how far the second car travels in that 0.5 sec at the average speed calculated over that same 0.5 sec. (remembering that the car is still acelerating)

[CarlFST60L]

Just did the math, 25meters per 0.5seconds at 180km/h. My logic was wrong, its not the difference in speed, as you said, the clock starts when you effectivly 'stop' at the line! ;)

The problem in that video is that I was building speed quicker at the deep end i.e. catching up, and i had a better reaction time by 0.15. So that put me closer.

The slip is in the last WSID thread.

To work it out, its just Speed in Km/h / 3600 to give you meters per second.

[NickS]

The thing here is that once the other car has crossed the line, that this when the clock starts. If it then takes the second car 0.5 sec to then cross the same line then the distance between the cars at he finish is calculated by how far the second car travels in that 0.5 sec at the average speed calculated over that same 0.5 sec. (remembering that the car is still acelerating)

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ... you smart / me dumb ... thanks.

:cheers:

[CarlFST60L]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ... you smart / me dumb ... thanks.

:cheers:

I think I might have dragged you into agreeing with my 'logic' :lol: :hide:

You dumb, me dumer

I was actually drawn into this argument by someone and figured they were right... so this hole time I have just believed... I hate that.

[ssberlina]

The video i posted, I can tell you there was not even a car in it at the deep end 100% :)

Look I will break this up clearer for you.

The relative speed make ZERO difference unless you are trying to calculate the separation over the next 100 m or so once a terminal speed is reached or a relative distance. It cannot be used in this instance unless you want to be very wrong.

It is a simple calculation (grade 10 physics) dont try and over complicate it.

The thing here is once the first car crosses the line THAT IS IT, end of of any comparison or relative speed etc. The first car is now out of the equation TOTALLY.

You agree that the separation was 0.5 sec. Then the car that came second was 0.5 sec from the (stationary) finish line.

Then the distance this car has then got to travel to cross the same finish line (the distance between them at the finish) cannot be less than the distance it travels in that 0.5 sec.

So then using basic maths you calculate the distance the car at approximately 113 miles per hour average over the 0.5 sec to determine the distance it had to travel to get to the line.

Are you sure the difference was 0.5 sec and not 0.05 on the run in the video? As the 0.05 would be closer to 2.5 metres. Are you confident the slip is the same run as the slip you are quoting as basic phyics says that it isnt possible unless you were travelling at a average speed of 33.12 km/h (based on a car length of 4.8 metres).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about getting of the topic here guys ;) I hope you guys didnt take offence in the calculation discussion. I wast meant like that. Just the mech engineer in me trying to get the facts straight. :)

Back on the topic though, has anyone here driven a C63 yet?

I am very interested in this piece of machinery given the relative cheap price of it when compared to the M3 and RS4.

[CarlFST60L]

Look I will break this up clearer for you.

The relative speed make ZERO difference unless you are trying to calculate the separation over the next 100 m or so once a terminal speed is reached or a relative distance. It cannot be used in this instance unless you want to be very wrong.

It is a very very simple calculation (grade 10 physics) dont try and over complicate it.

The thing here is once the first car crosses the line THAT IS IT, end of of any comparison or relative speed etc. The first car is now out of the equation TOTALLY.

You agree that the separation was 0.5 sec. Then the car that came second was 0.5 sec from the (stationary) finish line.

Then the distance this car has then got to travel to cross the same finish line (the distance between them at the finish) cannot be less than the distance it travels in that 0.5 sec.

So then using basic maths you calculate the distance the car at approximately 113 miles per hour average over the 0.5 sec to determine the distance it had to travel to get to the line.

Surely you must agree :confused:

Are you sure the difference was 0.5 sec and not 0.05 on the run in the video? As the 0.05 would be closer to 2.5 metres. Are you confident the slip is the same run as the slip you are quoting as basic phyics says that it isnt possible unless you were travelling at a average speed of 33.12 km/h (based on a car length of 4.8 metres).

I agree with you 100%! I was way off in my first instance, no question. I did agree with you above!

There is more to the run which will explain why there was only a car between us (his car length, plus another car length). The reaction time was like 0.15 (my way) so it was a difference of 0.35 at the other end which brings it down to ~15meters, then, he was making ground big time for the first part (great 60ft, 1.6 v 1.95) all the way up to about 200m, then i started closing the gap at the other end...

[Funky_Munky]

The ATO has no right to question it mate ... you can choose whatever car you want to drive, they would never question your choice. They have set a depreciation limit to reduce the tax deduction available with high cost cars but beyond that ... buy whatever you want.

In the same manner the ATO won't question your choice to drive more than 1 car ... if you do 20,000kms pa in 1 car or 10,000kms pa in each of 2 cars it doesn't matter. As long as you have done complying log books for each car it is all completely above board.

Thanks for the info Nick. Thats awesome news. All this time, I was actually under the impression that the vehicle would have to be suitable for work purposes.

In any case, I cant use it to my advantage as I dont clock up enough kms on the car as I only drive weekends. :(