iqbad
Senior Member
- First Name
- Eric
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2017
- Threads
- 12
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 27
- Location
- Sweden
- Vehicle(s)
- Honda Civic Type R 2018, Audi TT-RS 2010 400hp, Audi A6 3.0 TFSI 400hp
- Thread starter
- #1
So I have read a lot of CTR reviews and many of the testers say that the car really accelerates hard once you get up to speed. The power to weight ratio is also quite good with about 4.4kg/hp. In general FWD cars accelerate better while up to speed compared to front-engine RWD cars because of lower transmission losses. Especially the 90-degree rear differentials have poor efficiency. But all the instrumented tests that I have seen just show poor acceleration figures. I am not talking about 0-100km/h now since all FWD cars will suck here. I am talking about 100-200km/h readings, something that is relevant for track driving.
In a recent test in the German Sport Auto magazine the CTR was tested against among others the BMW M2. The M2 has higher power (370hp) and slightly better power-to-weight ratio with 4.2kg/hp. The M2 blew the CTR away on Hockenheim, with a 1.59.8 laptime. The CTR pulled a 2.03.4 on the same track. The M2 was on pilot super sports and the CTR on the stock continentals. The interesting part comes when you analyze the speeds on different parts of the racetrack. The CTR has higher (and sometimes equal) curve speeds in all turns! This basically means, that everything that is lost to the M2 is because of acceleration! If the CTR had equal acceleration it would be quicker! I think this is very interesting data and that the CTR pulls higher G’s in the corners despite slightly worse tires (I consider the MPSS a bit better than the Continentals for dry track driving) is impressing!
So the CTR pulls a 100-200km/h acceleration in 14.8 seconds. The M2 makes the same in 11.5 seconds. OK, this is quite a large difference. Comparing also to other cars with almost the same power to weight ratio the CTR seems slow.
M3 E46 (4.5kg/hp) = 12.0sec
GTI CS S (4.4kg/hp) = 13.0sec
Leon Cupra 300 (4.7kg/hp) =11.8sec
Cayman S 987.2 (4.3kg/hp) = 12.5sec
Source: fastestlaps.com
In my opinion the CTR should pull better times 100-200, so what is the issue here?
What do you guys think?
In a recent test in the German Sport Auto magazine the CTR was tested against among others the BMW M2. The M2 has higher power (370hp) and slightly better power-to-weight ratio with 4.2kg/hp. The M2 blew the CTR away on Hockenheim, with a 1.59.8 laptime. The CTR pulled a 2.03.4 on the same track. The M2 was on pilot super sports and the CTR on the stock continentals. The interesting part comes when you analyze the speeds on different parts of the racetrack. The CTR has higher (and sometimes equal) curve speeds in all turns! This basically means, that everything that is lost to the M2 is because of acceleration! If the CTR had equal acceleration it would be quicker! I think this is very interesting data and that the CTR pulls higher G’s in the corners despite slightly worse tires (I consider the MPSS a bit better than the Continentals for dry track driving) is impressing!
So the CTR pulls a 100-200km/h acceleration in 14.8 seconds. The M2 makes the same in 11.5 seconds. OK, this is quite a large difference. Comparing also to other cars with almost the same power to weight ratio the CTR seems slow.
M3 E46 (4.5kg/hp) = 12.0sec
GTI CS S (4.4kg/hp) = 13.0sec
Leon Cupra 300 (4.7kg/hp) =11.8sec
Cayman S 987.2 (4.3kg/hp) = 12.5sec
Source: fastestlaps.com
In my opinion the CTR should pull better times 100-200, so what is the issue here?
- Does the CTR struggle with heat-soake and cannot make 320hp for a full pull to 200?
- Is the CwA higher than its competitors?
- Is it the lack of double-clutch gearbox that kills the acceleration times?
What do you guys think?
Sponsored