#corvette disc brake caps | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

perksofwifi · 5 years

Text

Super (Stupid) SUV Showdown: Porsche vs. Lamborghini vs. Jaguar vs. Bentley

My face hurts from smiling. My ears are ringing. My shoulders sore. Behind me, 2,358 horses tick cool in the mountain air. Grocery getter. Mall crawler. Chelsea tractor. Family hauler. These four Skittle-colored SUVs shouldn’t exist. They’re too big, too heavy, too powerful. Yet these stupid things—the 2020 Bentley Bentayga Speed, 2019 Jaguar F-Pace SVR, 2019 Lamborghini Urus, and 2019 Porsche Cayenne Turbo—are among the best-driving SUVs on the road and among the most fun vehicles I’ve driven this year, period. And one of them is going to earn its way into the crucible that is Best Driver’s Car.

Combined, these four trucklets have 2,360 lb-ft of torque, and each puts its power down through an eight-speed automatic and a grippy all-wheel-drive system. Each offers levels of performance that would have easily put them in the running for top spot at Best Driver’s Car as recently as 2011, when the Ferrari 458 Italia won. The performance capability of these four is silly. Stupid—in all the best ways—even.

But one certainly has to be the silliest, stupidest, most fun super SUV on the road.

With our annual Best Driver’s Car competition fast approaching and a hard cap on the amount of performance cars we could bring, we decided to have another play-in game to determine which SUV most deserved a ticket to one of the most grueling performance car tests in the world. Last year the Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio earned entry to BDC after a similar play-in comparison, and it stunned us when it finished an impressive eighth place—beating heavy hitters like the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 and the Ford Mustang GT PP2. This year, the Bentayga, F-Pace, Urus, and Cayenne are each getting their shot at disrupting the field.

Because the stupidest SUV earns an invite to BDC, these four contenders will play by the same BDC rules. Over a week of testing on Los Angeles’ best roads, we’ll focus on how rewarding each is to drive—Does it drop right into a corner or fight you? How well balanced is it? Does it pin you in your seat when you stomp on the gas? Do you want to keep driving it?—and considerations like price and cabin comfort and space will be ignored. Objective test numbers will be a factor, but weighted less than usual.

This is how it all shook out.

Fourth Place: 2019 Jaguar F-Pace SVR

Sprinting in Boots

Goddamn, am I going to miss supercharged V-8s. Although I’m ready to embrace electrified performance with open arms (there’s a reason the last holy trinity of hypercars all had electrified powertrains), the F-Pace SVR’s 550-horse 5.0-liter V-8 is gonna make me sad to see internal combustion go.

No engine in this comparison can match the Jag V-8’s character. With the sole supercharged engine of the group, the F-Pace delivers its 502-lb-ft of torque right off idle, delivering a delightfully juvenile roar as the Jag attempts to punch a hole in the space-time continuum. It has the best power delivery of the bunch, associate road test editor Erick Ayapana said. “It’s strong from the start and continues to pull hard to redline, and it sounds amazing doing it.” You’ll hear no complaints from us on the Jag’s eight-speed automatic, either (assuming one could be heard complaining over the SVR’s exhaust note). When left to its own devices, it fires off shifts quickly and decisively.

We wouldn’t change a thing under the F-Pace’s hood, but we would change a thing or two at the wheels, starting with the brakes. Given the amount of power on tap and the SVR badge on the Jaguar’s rump, we were expecting some serious stopping power. Instead, we’ve got simple 15.5-inch front and 15.6-inch rear two-piece vented discs, each smaller than the Cayenne’s rear brakes. The result is you’ll get plenty of butt-puckering moments when pushing the Jag hard. “Not kidding, there was a moment or three when I was not convinced the SVR was going to stop,” senior features editor Jonny Lieberman said. “The pedal went to the floor, and I could feel the rapid click-click-clicking of the ABS. These binders just cannot cope with the engine.”

And then there’s the issue of Jaguar’s tire choice. Europeans get to choose between all-season and summer rubber on the F-Pace SVR, but Jag’s New Jersey–based product planners have determined that all U.S.-spec SVRs will exclusively ride on all-season tires. I’ve got no doubt that the all-season tire choice will make the SVR a better year-round performer—especially in the Northeast, Jaguar-Land Rover’s largest market—but it seriously hurts the F-Pace’s performance. The choice of rubber doesn’t do any favors to the SVR’s hyperactive Xbox steering feel and leaves the SVR constantly fighting for grip every time you dive into a corner or power out of it.

The Jaguar’s struggle for traction is evident at the test track. Despite being the lightest SUV of the group by 300 pounds—and having the second-best power-to-weight ratio—the F-Pace SVR brings up the rear in every single of our instrumented tests. Granted, its 3.7-second 0–60 time and 12.0-second quarter mile at 116.5 mph is quick any way you look at it, but it gets left in the dust by the Volkswagen Group triplets.

This isn’t surprising considering our experience on the road, but the SVR lags behind the others in 60–0 brake tests and on the figure eight, too. Perhaps the result that most shows how under-tired and under-braked the F-Pace really is, though, is in its 0–100–0 result. It took 13.1 seconds to get up to 100 mph and back down again, more than a second slower than the next quickest performer.

The Jaguar is ridiculous, childish fun, but as Ayapana put it, “Unfortunately for the F-Pace SVR, brakes and tires are kinda important for a performance vehicle.”

Third Place: 2020 Bentley Bentayga Speed

Yep, It’s Fast

Never has a performance variant had such a fitting name. “Speed” tells you exactly what to expect from this Bentley Bentayga; with a 190.1-mph top speed, it’s the world’s fastest SUV. Powered by a monstrous 6.0-liter twin-turbo W-12 making 626 hp, Bentayga Speed nevertheless is neither the quickest nor even most powerful SUV here, but it is the heaviest. Despite that, the Bentley surprised us with how well-rounded it is.

At the test track, the big Brit accelerated from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.1 seconds, and it blew through the quarter mile in 11.5 seconds at 120.7 mph—just 0.2 second and 0.6 mph behind our leader. Impressive considering its more than 5,600 pounds of steel, leather, and depleted uranium (probably), but that extra pork hurts the Bentayga on both the figure eight and in the 60–0 test. In the latter, the Bentley’s best stop was its first, in 114 feet, and it lapped the figure-eight course in 24.6 seconds at 0.79 g, just edging out the Jaguar.

Out in the real world, though, the Bentayga Speed handles better than it has any right to. Aided by air springs, an active anti-roll bar, and proper summer tires, the Bentley drives far smaller than it is, somehow feeling more agile than the significantly lighter Jag. Although steering feel is a bit on the dull side, the Speed transitions smoothly through bends and is impressively free of body roll. “I’m shocked that when the going gets hard, the Bentayga is able to transform from a chrome-dipped hippo into something of a lion,” Lieberman said.

The Bentley gets better as roads straighten out. Its test-best 664 lb-ft of torque are delivered nearly instantly off the line. “This one made me giggle for the sheer, unadulterated power,” features editor Scott Evans said. “Something this heavy shouldn’t conceivably be able to accelerate this hard by pistons and compressed air alone.” The Bentayga Speed is EV-like in the way its W-12 delivers its power. Despite having two massive turbos wedged between 12 cylinders, the Bentayga squats down on its rear wheels when you bury your foot in the throttle, instantly pinning you back in your seat, nearly silently turning the scenery outside its jewel-encrusted cabin into a blur.

As impressive as the Bentayga Speed is, it lacks the sharpness and poise of our top two finishers and comes off more as the ultimate grand touring SUV than a high-riding supercar. “The Bentley’s a lot sportier than you’d give it credit for, but in the end it’s just too heavy,” Evans said. “You feel it every time you turn, the sense it really isn’t meant for that even if it can do it. A 747 can do a barrel roll, but that’s not the point.”

Second Place: Porsche Cayenne Turbo

Clinically Capable

If the Bentley’s a 747, then the Porsche Cayenne Turbo is an F-15: big and heavy, yes, but also fast and immensely capable. Like pretty much all modern Porsches, the Cayenne Turbo makes driving quickly easy, happily taking any punishment you throw its way. The drama of the Bentley’s W-12 as it launches forward is gone, but so too is the Bentayga’s considerable heft—impressive considering the Cayenne shares its platform and transmission with the Bentayga (as does the Urus).

It’s hard to pinpoint why, exactly, the Cayenne lacks the excitement of the other three SUVs here. Looking over the numbers, the Porsche is a strong contender. It’s 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8 only has 541 hp and 567 lb-ft of torque, but it explodes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.2 seconds and blasts through the quarter mile in 11.8 seconds at 115.8 mph. Aided by huge, progressive-feeling carbon-ceramic brakes, the Cayenne even sports the best braking performance of our quartet and the best 0–100–0 time of 11.5 seconds. Its cornering numbers are near best-in-class, too, lapping the figure eight in 23.9 seconds at 0.83 g.

Out on the road, the Cayenne does all the right things. Its engine is a touch laggy, but it pulls strongly once its turbos spool up. It’s eight-speed auto, if left to its own devices in Sport plus, fires off PDK-quick upshifts and smart downshifts. It corners well, too; steering is a touch on the numb side, but it’s easy to point the nose where you want it as Porsche’s Dynamic Chassis Control, torque-vectoring all-wheel drive, four-wheel steering, and grippy summer rubber all work hand in hand to get you around the bend and pointed toward the next straight section of road.

So why, then, is the Porsche heading back to Stuttgart with a silver medal? “The steering, the grip, the power, the brakes are all excellent, so it’s hard to fault the Cayenne Turbo for anything measurable, at least performance wise,” Lieberman said. But when it comes to the immeasurable, the Cayenne might as well be called the Bell Pepper.

It’s just a bit boring, sadly—as if Porsche engineered all the excitement out of its SUV. It’s missing the silly exhaust note of the F-Pace, the Bentayga’s constant need to stop the rotation of the Earth, and the Lamborghini’s absurdity. “There’s no flair, no excitement,” Evans said. “I don’t mean bad behavior. I mean a ‘wow’ moment.”

The Cayenne Turbo is like an excellent session musician; it’s immensely talented and incredibly versatile, but it doesn’t stand out in the final mix. Our winner, however, certainly does.

Winner: Lamborghini Urus

A good SUV and a great Lamborghini

An Audi platform, Bentley bits, and a Porsche engine. In all fairness to Urus’ corporate cousins, those borrowed parts wouldn’t seem to make a good Lamborghini. A great Audi, Bentley, or Porsche, sure, but a Lamborghini?

You’re excused for being skeptical, but the Lamborghini Urus is way more than the sum of its parts, combining the speed and power of the Bentayga Speed, the precision and handling of the Cayenne Turbo, and the personality only Italian supercars typically have.

The Urus’ cousins do deserve some credit, though, for giving Lamborghini engineers such a capable platform for the automaker’s first SUV in 26 years—especially the Porsche engineers responsible for the Urus’ 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8. Not content with the Cayenne Turbo’s power output, Lamborghini went to Porsche Motorsports—the outfit that builds Porsche’s GT3 and LeMans cars—to soup up the engine for Lambo duty. The result is 641 horses and 627 lb-ft of twist. It’s 66 hp shy of the Jeep Trackhawk, to be fair, but even that mighty Grand Cherokee doesn’t accelerate like the Urus can.

The Urus is the quickest SUV we’ve ever tested, beating the Jeep, Mercedes-AMG GLC 63 S, Tesla Model X P90D Ludicrous (we haven’t gotten our hands on the P100D version yet), and the Bentayga Speed on all fronts. The Urus launches from 0 to 60 mph in just 3.0 seconds and can run the quarter mile in 11.3 seconds at 120.1 mph. It can handle, too, lapping the figure eight in 23.5 seconds at 0.87 g—0.2 second quicker than the most recent BMW M5 we tested.

The reborn Rambo Lambo is even sillier on the road. Like the Stelvio Quadrifoglio last year, the Urus is one of the only SUVs that truly delivers a super-SUV experience—check that, it’s one of the only SUVs on the road that delivers a supercar experience.

Take the way it goes around a corner. Just like all-wheel-drive supercars such as the Nissan GT-R or Porsche 911 Turbo, you can throw the Urus into a corner as hard as you dare, stomp on the gas midcorner, and let the torque vectoring and four-wheel steering system rip you out. Every time you think the Lambo is going to run out of grip, it somehow finds more. “It did things in turns I didn’t think it could do,” Evans said. “The grip! The power! I can’t explain it. There’s just no way this much power and weight with this center of gravity should be able to do these things.”

The Urus’ powertrain is phenomenal, even if it lacks the traditional Lamborghini V-12 or V-10 soundtrack. The V-8, even while relaxed and quiet at city speeds, is but a stab of the throttle or a flick of a paddle away from unleashing gobs of power. “The high-speed stability would be impressive on a sports car,” Lieberman said, “and is damn near impossible on an air-suspended SUV.”

It would’ve been so easy for Lamborghini to screw the Urus up, but it truly delivered. The Urus is not just a good SUV. It’s a great Lamborghini. This special monster takes the comfort and versatility of an SUV, mixes it with the speed and precision of a supercar, and tops it all off with a healthy dose of Lamborghini personality. There’s no SUV as capable and as rewarding at the limit—either its limit, or more likely yours. There seems to be two camps when it comes to the Lamborghini Urus: those who haven’t driven one and hate ’em and those who have driven it and become prophets of the big, silly, stupid, wonderful thing. Count us in with the converts—and the Urus in for this year’s Best Driver’s Car.

4th Place – Jaguar F-Pace SVR: Proper tires and brakes would go a long way in improving the SVR’s standing. 3rd Place – Bentley Bentayga Speed: Certainly fast but more suited for straight stretches than curves. 2nd Place – Porsche Cayenne Turbo: It’s a Lamborghini Urus minus the $210 designer T-shirt, $550 pre-ripped designer jeans, and $800 studded designer sneakers. It’s missing the personality and power, too. 1st Place – Lamborghini Urus: Constantly trying to convince you it’s a real Lamborghini—and it is. Mission accomplished.

2019 Lamborghini Urus 2019 Porsche Cayenne Turbo 2020 Bentley Bentayga Speed 2019 Jaguar F-Pace SVR DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, AWD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo W-12, alum block/heads Supercharged 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 243.6 cu in/3,996 cc 243.6 cu in/3,996 cc 363.1 cu in/5,950 cc 305.2 cu in/5,000 cc COMPRESSION RATIO 9.7:1 10.0:1 10.5:1 9.5:1 POWER (SAE NET) 641 hp @ 6,000 rpm 541 hp @ 5,750 rpm 626 hp @ 5,000 rpm 550 hp @ 6,000 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 627 lb-ft @ 2,250 rpm 567 lb-ft @ 1,960 rpm 664 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm 502 lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm REDLINE 6,800 rpm 6,750 rpm 6,250 rpm 6,800 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 7.7 lb/hp 9.4 lb/hp 9.0 lb/hp 8.4 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.31:1 (front); 3.09:1 (rear)/2.21:1 (front); 2.06:1 (rear) 3.10:1 (front), 3.31:1 (rear)/2.21:1 3.09:1 (front); 3.31:1 (rear)/2.85:1 3.23:1/2.15:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Multilink, air springs, adj shocks, adj anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, adj anti-roll bar Multilink, air springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, anti-roll bar Multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 13.3:1 12.2:1 17.1:1 15.1:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 BRAKES, F; R 17.3-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 14.6-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS 17.3-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 16.1-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS 17.3-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 14.6-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS 15.5-in 2-pc vented disc; 15.6-in 2-pc vented disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 10.5 x 22-in; 11.5 x 22-in, forged aluminum 9.5 x 21-in; 11.0 x 21-in, cast aluminum 10.0 x 22-in forged aluminum 9.0 x 22-in; 10.0 x 22-in, forged aluminum TIRES, F;R 285/40R22 110Y; 325/35R22 114Y Pirelli P Zero Corsa L 285/40R21 109Y; 315/35R21 111Y Pirelli P Zero Corsa N0 285/40R22 110Y Pirelli P Zero B 265/40R22 106Y; 295/35R22 108Y Pirelli Scorpion Zero JLR (M+S) DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 118.2 in 113.9 in 117.9 in 113.1 in TRACK, F/R 66.7/67.3 in 66.4/65.7 in 66.5/66.6 in 64.9/65.6 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 201.3 x 79.4 x 64.5 in 193.9 x 78.0 x 65.8 in 202.3 x 78.7 x 68.8-70.5 in 185.6 x 77.1 x 65.7 in GROUND CLEARANCE 6.2-9.8 in 6.3-9.4 in 8.0-9.8 in 5.9 in APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE 15.9-22.4 /22.9-23.7 20.3-27.1/15.1-24.1 deg 17.6-20.5/20.6-22.9 deg 18.7/19.1 deg TURNING CIRCLE 38.7 ft 37.8 ft 39.0 ft 38.0 ft CURB WEIGHT 4,931 lb 5,090 lb 5,605 lb 4,632 lb WEIGHT DIST, F/R 58/42% 56/44% 56/44% 51/49% TOWING CAPACITY 7,716 lb 7,716 lb 7,716 lb 5,291 lb SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 40.9/38.0 in 39.0/39.0 in 40.3/38.0 in 37.8/37.5 in LEGROOM, F/R 41.6/40.0 in 41.1/40.3 in 41.7/40.9 in 40.3/37.2 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.9/56.5 in 59.1/56.5 in 58.7/57.8 in 57.7/55.8 in CARGO VOLUME, BEH F/R 56.4/21.6 cu ft 59.3/26.3 cu ft 62.6/17.1 cu ft 63.5/33.5 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.1 sec 1.1 sec 1.2 sec 1.3 sec 0-40 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.0 0-50 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.8 0-60 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.7 0-70 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.7 0-80 5.0 5.5 5.1 5.8 0-90 6.1 6.9 6.3 7.2 0-100 7.6 8.6 7.7 8.7 0-100-0 11.7 11.5 12.0 13.1 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 QUARTER MILE 11.3 sec @ 120.1 mph 11.8 sec @ 115.8 mph 11.5 sec @ 120.7 mph 12.0 sec @ 116.5 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 107 ft 100 ft 114 ft 116 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.01 g (avg) 0.98 g (avg) 0.93 g (avg) 0.89 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 23.5 sec @ 0.87 g (avg) 23.9 sec @ 0.83 g (avg) 24.6 sec @ 0.79 g (avg) 25.0 sec @ 0.77 g (avg) 2.4-MI ROAD COURSE LAP 1:30.87 sec 1:31.59 sec NA NA TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,500 rpm 1,250 rpm 1,250 rpm 1,500 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $200,000 $125,850 $242,125 $81,016 PRICE AS TESTED $255,803 $146,590 $301,740 $90,920 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes AIRBAGS 6: Dual front, side/head, knee 9: Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, driver knee 8: Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain 6: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 5 yrs/60,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 19.8 gal 23.7 gal 22.5 gal 21.7 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 12/17/14 mpg 15/19/17 mpg 13/22/16 (est) mpg 16/21/18 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 281/198 kW-hrs/100 miles 225/177 kW-hrs/100 miles 259/153 kW-hrs/100 miles 211/160 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.40 lb/mile 1.17 lb/mile 1.22 lb/mile 1.08 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Unleaded premium

The post Super (Stupid) SUV Showdown: Porsche vs. Lamborghini vs. Jaguar vs. Bentley appeared first on MotorTrend.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lamborghini/urus/2019/porsche-cayenne-vs-lamborghini-urus-vs-bentley-bentayga-vs-jaguar-f-pace-comparison-test/ visto antes em https://www.motortrend.com

0 notes

cars4starters · 5 years

Text

Chevrolet has taken the wraps off a its first ever production Corvette with a mid-mounted engine.

Equipped with Z51 Performance Package, the new Stingray will do the dash from 0-100km/h in less than 3.0 seconds.

Former Holden boss and now President of General Motors, Mark Reuss, explained the traditional front-engine layout had reached the limit of its performance potential, necessitating the change.

“In terms of comfort and fun, it still looks and feels like a Corvette, but drives better than any vehicle in Corvette history,” he said.

“Customers are going to be thrilled with our focus on details and performance across the board.”

Power comes from Chevy’s next-generation 6.2-litre Small Block V-8 LT2 engine, the only naturally aspirated V-8 in the segment.

It produces 369kW and 637Nm of torque when equipped with performance exhaust — the most power and torque for any entry Corvette.

The next generation LT2 is paired with Chevrolet’s first 8-speed dual-clutch transmission, which provides lightning-fast shifts and excellent power transfer.

Driver modes have been expanded from four to six, allowing drivers to tweak the feel to their personal preference.

The familiar Weather, Tour, Sport and Track modes remain, and there are two new modes:

MyMode, a configurable setting for preferred driving style that can remain between key cycles.

Z mode, named after the famed Z06, ZR1 and Z51 Corvette performance packages, is activated through a “Z” button on the steering wheel. This is a single-use mode that takes MyMode configurations one step further, allowing drivers to adjust the engine and transmission as well.

Chevrolet says the new mid-engine layout provides several advantages:

Better weight distribution, with the rear weight bias enhancing performance in a straight line and on the track.

Better responsiveness and sense of control due to driver positioning closer to the front axle, almost on top of the front wheels.

The fastest 0-100 time of any entry Corvette ever — under three seconds when equipped with Z51 Performance Package.

A race car-like view of the road due to lower positioning of the hood, instrument panel and steering wheel. Excellent forward sightlines throughout the vehicle for both driver and passenger.

An enhancement of Corvette’s traditional utility strengths, with dual trunks for a total of 357 litres of cargo volume, ideal for luggage or two sets of golf clubs

True to its aeronautical and racing roots, Stingray’s canopy-forward stance was inspired by F22s, F35s and other modern fighter jets and Formula One racing.

The look is a bold and futuristic, with mid-engine exotic proportions — but still unmistakably Corvette.

Vice president of Global Design and another Holden expat Aussie Mike Simcoe said the redesign had presented the team a historic opportunity, something Chevrolet designers have desired for over 60 years.

“It is now the best of America, a new arrival in the mid-engine sports car class,” he said.

“We know Corvette can stand tall with the best the world has to offer.”

A supercar level of craftsmanship, premium materials and attention to detail were critical in designing every component of the Stingray.

The new location of the engine is the focal point and sits like a jewel in a showcase, visible through the large rear hatch window.

The added attention to detail optimised the appearance of every wire, tube, bolt and fastener, similar to those found in modern track and all-road motorcycle design.

The Z51 Performance Package introduces a host of new technology:

• Performance suspension with manually adjustable threaded spring seats • Larger brake rotors with Z51 logo on calipers • Enhanced cooling • Specific axle ratio • Front brake cooling inlets • Performance exhaust

Corvette has always represented iconic American design, performance, technical ingenuity and attainability.

The entry 2020 Stingray continues that tradition as a no-compromise value proposition, as it will start under $US60,000.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

2020 CHEVROLET CORVETTE STINGRAY PRELIMARY SPECIFICATIONS

ENGINE

Type: LT2 6.2L V8 VVT with direct injection and Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation) Bore & stroke (in / mm): 4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92 Block Material: A319-T7 cast aluminum with cast-in iron cylinder liners and nodular main bearing caps Oiling System: Dry sump-type (7.5-qt. capacity); includes oil-spray piston cooling Oil Type: Dexos 2 0W40 synthetic Cylinder Head Material: 319-T7 cast aluminum Combustion Chamber volume: 59cc Compression Ratio: 11.5:1 Valvetrain: Overhead valve, two valves per cylinder; dual-equal variable valve timing. Valve Size (in / mm): 2.13 / 54 hollow (intake) & 1.59 / 40.4 sodium filled (exhaust) Fuel Delivery: Direct injection with Active Fuel Management: Max pressure: 2,175 psi (15 Mpa / 150 bar) Firing Order: 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 (all cylinders); 1-7-6-4 (with deactivation) Throttle body: 87mm single bore (electronic) ECU: GM E99 (32-bit processing) Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): SAE-certified to 495 / 369 @ 6450 rpm (with performance exhaust) Torque (lb.-ft./ Nm @ rpm): SAE-certified to 470 / 637 @ 5150 rpm (with performance exhaust)

TRANSMISSION & AXLE

Type: M1L 8-speed dual clutch (DCT)

CHASSIS & SUSPENSION

Front Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; monotube shock absorbers (46mm /); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available on Z51. Adjustable front lift with memory is available Rear Suspension: Short/long arm (SLA) double wishbone, forged aluminum upper and cast aluminum L-shape lower control arms; direct-acting stabilizer bar; monotube shock absorbers (46mm); Magnetic Selective Ride Control 4.0 available with Z51 Steering Type: Bosch/ZF variable-ratio rack-and-pinion with electric power assist; includes Active Steer Stops with available Magnetic Ride Control 4.0 Steering ratio: 15.7:1 Turning Circle (ft. / m): 11.6 m (std.) 11.1 m (with FE4 Magnetic Ride Control) Brake Type: Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston/two-piece front calipers and four-piston/monobloc rear calipers With Z51 – Front and rear E-boost-assisted discs with Brembo four-piston monobloc caliper at front and rear Brake Rotor Size (in / mm): Front: 12.6 x 1.18 (321 x 30) Front: 13.3 x 1.18 (345 x 30) – with Z51 Rear: 13.6 x 1.02 (339 x 26) Rear: 13.8 x 1.06 (350 x 27) – with Z51 Wheel Size: Front: 19-inch x 8.5-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern) Rear: 20-inch x 11-inch (w/5 x 120mm bolt pattern) Tire Type and Size: Stingray: Michelin Pilot Sport ALS Stingray with Z51: Michelin Pilot Sport 4S Front: 245/35ZR19 Rear: 305/30ZR20

EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS

Wheelbase (in. / mm): 107.2 / 2722 Overall Length (in. / mm): 182.3/ 4630 Overall Width (in. / mm): 76.1 / 1934 Overall Height (in. / mm): 48.6 / 1234 Track (in. mm): (front) 64.9 / 1648 (rear) 62.4 / 1586

INTERIOR DIMENSIONS

Headroom (in. / mm): 37.9 / 962 Legroom (in. / mm): 42.8 / 1086 Shoulder Room (in. / mm): 54.4 / 1381 Hip Room (in. / mm): 52.0 / 1321

WEIGHTS & CAPACITIES

Dry Weight (lb. / kg): 3366 / 1530 Cargo Volume (cu. ft. / L)^: 12.6 / 356.8

CHECKOUT: Corvette cost astronauts $1 a year

CHECKOUT: Corvette sets new lap record

Mid-engined Corvette inspired by jet fighter #Aussie #carnews #carphotos #carreviews #cars4starters #notjustcars Chevrolet has taken the wraps off a its first ever production Corvette with a mid-mounted engine.

#Aussie #car news #car photos #car reviews #cars4starters #Chevrolet #Corvette #not just cars #Stingray

0 notes

itsworn · 6 years

Text

High Tech Braking Systems: The Latest Developments in What’s Stopping You!

The disc brake as we know it was first patented in 1902, but it failed to gain acceptance in the U.S. until the early 1960s, when vacuum-assist power brakes made the pedal effort acceptable for the American driving public. European automakers had adopted disc brakes in the 1950s, rapidly following Jaguar’s dominance in the 1953 24 Hours of Le Mans race, thanks in no small part to the car’s four-wheel disc-brake system.

Disc-brake systems can be divided into two key components: the friction side, which is the hub/rotor and caliper clamping system, and the apply side, which includes the pedal, pushrod, booster (if any), master cylinder, and hydraulic lines. In more modern vehicles, a third system has been introduced: electro-mechanical controls like antilock braking systems (ABS). Originally, ABS was developed to rapidly modulate brake pressure to prevent locking up the brakes or tires, putting an end to uncontrolled skids. Relatively simple ABS systems have morphed into complex car-control and hydraulic-force application systems for electronic brake force distribution (EBD), such as anti-skid, stability control, and yaw control. By 2020, all new vehicles will have some form of automated emergency braking (AEB), along with a sensor, ECU, and algorithm-based predictive brake assist—and, yes, fully autonomous vehicles are coming soon.

One of the most interesting technologies on the horizon for enthusiasts will be integrated brake controls (IBC), which are being introduced in 2019 vehicles. An IBC uses a smaller, high-pressure pump that replaces vacuum pumps, vacuum boosters, or hydro-boost units. It is a compact unit that functions similarly to drive-by-wire throttles, weighing about 11 pounds less than the units it replaces. The control system will come from the OEs, much like GM and Ford crate engine/trans combinations or the aftermarket’s adapted electronic-transmission controls like those from TCI, HP Tuners, FiTech, and Holley. This will allow enthusiasts to add ABS, stability control, and other similar features to their classic cars and rods with far less fabrication and hassle.

ZF TRW’s integrated brake control (IBC), introduced this year, replaces the electronic stability control system, vacuum/booster pump, and the associated cables, sensors, switches, electronic controllers, and vacuum pumps with a single unit. IBCs also provide faster response, particularly for automated emergency braking triggered by onboard proximity and radar sensors. That faster response can mean a reduction of 10 to 20 feet in overall stopping distance, often the difference between stopping just in time and a crash.

On the friction side, two major elements are driving the technology: 1) the need to absorb and dissipate more heat due to heavier, higher-horsepower cars and trucks, and 2) the need to reduce weight to improve suspension control, steering response, and fuel economy.

In both cases, technologies developed for racing are trickling down into the enthusiast’s budget. The first such technology was aluminum calipers, made possible by improved materials such as 6061 and 7075 aluminum alloy and, more recently, 2618 forgings—the same alloy used in racing pistons. The next technology wave was the multi-piston caliper, which allows for the use of larger, curved pads with more swept area. More pistons of graduated size allow for fine-tuning of brake pressure across the pad face. However, more pistons add cost and machining complexity. While 8- and even 12-piston calipers had been developed at one time for cost-is-no-object racing, 6-piston calipers remain the gold standard for high-end sports cars like Ferrari, Ford GT, and the ZR-1.

This prototype 12-piston racing caliper was attempted in the late-1990s, but the complexity of six individual pads, guide rods, and tiny pistons overwhelmed the intended benefits.

These calipers illustrate the growth in size of brake calipers over the last 20 years. Caliper size can increase as wheel size increases, allowing for larger rotors, calipers, and greater swept area. These larger calipers also show how racing technology has improved the brakes available to the performance aftermarket, with graduated piston sizes and castellated (slotted) pistons, or as shown here second from top, two-piece pistons with crenelated (complex, FEA-designed) milled caps.

These OE and aftermarket pads illustrate the effect of larger caliper size and increased swept area over the past two decades. Pads can be identified and purchased by application and cross-referencing using the Friction Materials Standards Institute (FMSI) numbers. From left to right: The pad shape and size used in Baer and Wilwood compact four-piston calipers, FMSI 480, the then-revolutionary 1984 C4 Corvette PBR pad, FMSI 412, Gen 4 Camaro, FMSI 731, C6 Corvette, FMSI 1247, and an FMSI 1405 pad used in aftermarket racing and ultra-performance street calipers.

The other major friction-side development was bigger rotors enabled by bigger wheels. Much like using a 1/2-inch breaker bar instead of a 3/8-inch ratchet, a larger-diameter rotor provides greater mechanical advantage for the same pressure applied at the caliper. However, bigger rotors mean more weight, so two-piece rotors with aluminum hats have become the serious upgrade for hot rodders looking to offset the necessary increase in rotor mass. For relatively little money, a two-piece rotor with optimum materials will not only look great but can also remove as much as 8 pounds per wheel, which helps acceleration and braking. As wheels have grown, so have rotors—now up to 16 inches on many trucks, SUVs, and high-end cars. Large rotor diameters have brought about the next evolution: floating rotors.

Here is a 2015-and-later Mustang GT Performance Pack rotor and a similarly sized, two-piece replacement rotor. The replacement two-piece rotor weighs 7.9 pounds less, which helps reduce stopping distance and lap times. It has curved vanes for better cooling and uses NAS S287 fasteners.

As rotor diameter and thickness have increased to keep up with today’s faster and heavier cars, increased rotor mass has exacerbated the effects of differential rates of heat expansion. To allow for that, rotors—or more often the rotor hats—are now slotted to allow the materials to grow radially while still being safely retained to prevent or minimize side-to-side motion. For street use with acceptable noise levels (the two parts can rattle under some circumstances), two approaches have been used: T-shaped bobbins that lock the hat to the rotor and more complex CNC-shaped rotor stanchions typically combined with anti-rattle clips.

On these 14-, 15-, and 16-inch rotors, we see the three types of two-piece rotor attachments: the fixed T-shaped bobbin and the stanchion-style bobbin.

This two-piece, slotted rotor shows the T-style bobbin components used to fasten the hat to the rotor in lateral attachment; they still allow for differential growth due to heat in the radial dimension.

The T bobbin is more compact and simpler to produce, saving some cost and allowing for tighter fitments. The stanchion style, while substantially more expensive, is better for eliminating or reducing noise, and due to its increased size and flat versus round sides, it can support 1.125-inch-thick rotors in 15- and even 16-inch-diameter sizes. The stanchion style is used almost exclusively for carbon-ceramic brakes due to its greater surface and clamping area.

The Corvette Z06/Z07 package’s carbon-ceramic brakes; note the floating rotor hardware and the small drilled holes. These holes are more for fashion than function.

This close-up of the stanchion-style bobbin shows the precisely machined dimensions, the 0.0001-inch tolerances, the anti-rattle retaining clips, and a plain rotor for this road-race-only application. Drivers of pure race cars don’t care about a little noise, but road-going cars need the clips for NVH reduction. Also note the NAS A286 high-temperature fasteners.

The last word on the friction side is carbon/carbon and carbon-ceramic brakes. The advantages are an estimated 50 percent weight savings over similarly sized cast-iron rotors and virtually fade-free performance. The carbon/carbon brakes used in Formula 1 and other top racing series aren’t suitable for street driving, as they are designed to be run at extreme temperatures and literally burn themselves off during racing use. Racing carbon/carbon brakes also cost $20,000-and-up (way up) per axle. Carbon-ceramic brakes, which have a ceramic braking-surface coating applied to the underlying carbon-fiber disc, have made the transition to high-end exotic cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Aston Martin; sports cars from BMW, Mercedes, and Audi; and the best of Detroit with the ZR-1, ZL-1, GT350R, and the Z06/Z07 package available for Corvette.

Carbon-ceramic brakes bring the huge weight savings and fade resistance of carbon/carbon without the accelerated wear. Carbon-ceramic brakes will typically last longer than a similarly sized iron disc-brake system, but replacement costs are still between three to five times more expensive. For those who use their cars heavily at track days, annual rotor replacement is part of the program, and many Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, and even some German import drivers turn to iron rotors and compatible pads for similar braking performance and reduced cost despite the increased rotating weight.

This recent Formula 1 brake shows the carbon/carbon rotor, carbon-reinforced caliper and ducting, and the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) components all stuffed into a 13-inch wheel! The KERS is much like the regenerative braking found on electric hybrids and pure electric vehicles like the Tesla. Formula 1 drivers can use the extra power under limited circumstances like the NOS bottle in Mad Max.

The apply-side technology had been static for many years, with many hot rodders using OE-style vacuum or hydraulic boosters for power brakes or converting to manual brakes, of which the latter remains a surprisingly good option for drag-race, road-race, or autocross competition. Once again, the technology that trickles down from racing has made items like multiple individual master-cylinder setups more available and affordable for building more serious customs or hot rods with hidden brake setups. A more surprising source—electric cars—has brought us affordable and quiet electric vacuum pumps that help big-cam or blown applications use a vacuum booster while still maintaining the 15 to 16 inches of manifold vacuum necessary for proper brake-application pressure when the engine is at idle. These developments are making well-thought-out, highly effective brake systems easier to install and tune than ever before.

As with assembling a new blown engine or a performance transmission, a little research and planning can save time, money, and, unlike the other two, maybe your life.

Two-Piece Rotor Technology The use of an aluminum hat or bell bolted to an iron rotor ring was introduced from aerospace to the high-end racing classes in the 1960s and, as with all technologies, trickled down to more mainstream racing and high-performance street-driven cars—and then trucks—over the next decades.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the typical way to attach the hat to the rotor ring was with bolts that clamped the hat into threaded holes in the rotor. But a simple set of Grade-5 or even Grade-8 bolts isn’t adequate for the critical task of keeping the hat firmly attached to the rotor. Everyone has seen nighttime pictures or video of brake rotors glowing red under racing cars caused by the enormous heat generated by heavy braking at speed. Those cycles of heat, expansion, and contraction, as well as thermal tempering of the bolts themselves means that the bolts will come loose or fail completely over a relatively short period of time.

There are additional issues with using conventional bolts. Because of the expansion-rate differential and the stress relaxation it causes, SAE J429 Grade-8 bolts should not be used at temperatures above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, Grade-5 not above 450 degrees, and plated bolts should not be used above 250 degrees. Iron and steel glow red at 900 degrees. Your rotors need to be fastened according to how much heat you’ll be generating. Like so many other technologies, aircraft and aerospace requirements led to the development of super-high-quality bolts and nuts that are specifically recommended for use in circumstances like rotor-to-hat attachment.

Examples of NAS A286 aerospace high-temperature stable hardware. These fasteners retain their clamping properties at temperatures up to 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit and are more than twice as strong as Grade-8. They come in conventional hex-head styles and in unique counter-sunk, tri-wing configurations for tight clearance situations. The torque specification is double the Grade-8 fastener, and while they cost 10 times as much, what would you rather have holding your rotors together?

Finally, bolts must be sized so that the sheer plane—the surface where the hat and rotor are attached—is on the shank of the bolt, not the threaded portion. Bolts are weakest at the root of the thread, and bolt strength is reduced by almost 30 percent when the threaded portion is placed in sheer. Therefore, the length of the bolt shank is critical, as is the material it is made from, in order to have an extended service life and significant margin of safety. Look at the bolts used in your two-piece rotors—are they sized correctly, do they have the right shank length, and what material are they made of?

These illustrations show the proper bolt-shank length for sheer-loaded fasteners. This applies to any situation where bolts are loaded in sheer, such as suspension components.

Drilled and Slotted vs. Slot-Only Rotors When larger-diameter and thicker rotors were introduced to the car-buying public in the early 1980s via the C4 Corvette and some imports, street-compatible pad-formulation technology lagged. As a result, pad outgassing (the pad boiling off the resins and binders used to hold the friction materials together) became a significant issue. You’ll know you have brake fade to pad overheating when the brake pedal stays hard, but the car won’t stop. If the pedal goes soft, you’ve boiled the fluid.

The answer was drilled rotors, which gave the gases a ventilation path. Slots allow the rotor to actively clean contaminants off the pad face, keeping the best elements of the friction material in use. As a result, drilled and slotted rotors—along with zinc plating to eliminate oxidization from the unscrubbed parts of the rotor—as introduced by Baer Brakes in the 1990s became the default standard for high-performance brakes. You can see this today, as even the carbon-ceramic brakes on Ferraris and Corvettes are drilled. In the last five years, pad technology has evolved dramatically, and as a result, properly selected, high-quality pads don’t have outgassing issues. Instead, the additional heat generated can cause radial cracks at the drilled holes, especially with big-power, heavy drag cars or frequently used track-day cars. If the cracks are fingernail-width-thick or thicker, the rotor should be replaced. For these applications, slot-only rotors are recommended. For pure road-racing applications with no street driving, some racers will use a plain rotor with no zinc plating to speed up rotor seasoning and pad bedding. Talk to your brake provider’s tech support to get the right answer for your specific application.

The post High Tech Braking Systems: The Latest Developments in What’s Stopping You! appeared first on Hot Rod Network.

from Hot Rod Network https://www.hotrod.com/articles/high-tech-braking-systems-latest-developments-whats-stopping/ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Hot Rod Network

0 notes

ablogofcourage · 3 months

Text

#1968 camaro ss #60s muscle car #corvette disc brake caps #american muscle car

3 notes · View notes

forgeline · 4 years

Photo

Can you believe 23-year-old Justin Zimmerman started building this gorgeous Impala at home in the garage when he was just 14? It’s true, and nine years of learning and hard work paid off when Justin earned the Goodguys Goolsby Customs YoungGuys award -- and his Impala won the chance to be on display in the Goodguys booth at the 2019 SEMA Show. Justin’s ’59 Chevrolet Impala is powered by a 327ci V8 mated to a Turbo 400 transmission and rides on RideTech suspension, Corvette disc brakes, Nitto NT555 G2 tires, and 18x8/20x10 Forgeline RB3C wheels finished with Titanium centers, polished outers, and Tall Center Caps! See more at: https://forgeline.com/customer-gallery/justin-zimmerman

Photos courtesy of Fuel Curve.

#forgeline #forgelinewheels #forgedwheels #customwheels #RB3C #notjustanotherprettywheel #doyourhomework #madeinUSA #Chevrolet #Chevy #Impala #59Impala #protouring #goodguys #GoolsbyYoungGuys

15 notes · View notes

robertkstone · 6 years

Text

2018 Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor Performance Quick Test Review

Every push notification or swipe up seems to bring more brow-furrowing news about Tesla, mostly due to the mystifying moves of its chief executive. So many questions swirl—what’s he doing? Where are they going?—but after 70 hours and 600-some miles behind the wheel of the new 2018 Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor Performance, at least one thing is clear: Tesla still knows how to extract staggering performance out of its electric vehicles.

Quick refresher: The Model 3 is the tidiest Tesla currently in production—an all-electric sedan that comes in rear-wheel drive (via a rear-mounted permanent-magnet motor) or all-wheel drive (with the addition of an induction motor between the front wheels). In base rear-wheel-drive trim, the Model 3 (long-range version) makes 258 horsepower and 317 lb-ft of torque. The Dual Motor Performance (DMP) variant ups the output to 450 horsepower and 471 lb-ft of torque. To what end? Read on.

Mini Me

Very much like a mini Model S, the Model 3 DMP accelerates on par with an early Model S P85D but not even close to the record-holding P100D Ludicrous+. Unlike that car, there’s no launch mode, no preconditions. Simply hold it in place with your left foot on the brake pedal then simultaneously remove that foot while quickly applying full throttle—maybe full “rheostat” is more appropriate—and off you go. Looking closely at the data, from 0 to 10 mph, the acceleration rapidly increases (in g-load) from 0.00 up to 0.80 g. Then, between 10 and 40 mph, it simply plateaus there (precisely, as if by design), averaging 0.83 g (see graph). Thereafter, acceleration, still referring to g-load, begins to gradually wane as power starts to decrease and wind resistance begins to increase. Still, 0–60 mph takes just 3.2 seconds. How quick is that? Here’s a partial list of cars with 3.2-second 0–60 times: a pair of Teslas—the 2015 Model S P85D and 2016 Model X P90D Ludicrous; a couple of Audis—the 2014 R8 V10 Plus and RS7; and a trio of Super Sedans—the 2018 BMW M5, 2018 Mercedes-Benz E63S, and 2017 Porsche Panamera Turbo Executive. What do all of these have in common? All-wheel drive, of course.—Chris Walton

The Model 3 Dual Motor Performance’s best quarter-mile run begins at the dotted vertical line (1-foot rollout). Red is miles per hour, and purple is longitudinal g-load over time.

The Tesla Model 3 DMP’s quarter mile flew by in 11.8 seconds at 115.2 mph. Here’s a random list of some cars with slower quarter-mile times:

2018 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat Wide Body (11.9 sec @ 125.1 mph)

2017 Aston Martin DB11 (11.9 sec @ 124.7 mph)

2012 Lexus LFA (11.9 sec @ 123.7 mph)

2017 Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio (12.1 sec @ 119.8 mph)

2015 BMW M3 (12.1 sec @ 117.8 mph)

2017 Ford Shelby GT350R Mustang (12.2 sec @ 119.0 mph)

2017 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport (12.2 sec @ 116.1 mph)

All the Feels

In the realm of quick sport sedans, it’s interesting that the Model 3 DMP feels much, much quicker than an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, which gets to 60 mph in 3.8 to 3.9 seconds. Like all Teslas, without a raucous revving engine or the occasion of gears shifting abruptly, one is more focused on the silent experience of acceleration, the way your cheeks feel heavier than normal, and a sense of the seat really pushing you down the road. Minus the screaming, running down the dragstrip in the Model 3 DMP is not dissimilar to an electromagnetic amusement park ride: You’re just sitting there and then, suddenly … speed! In the Model 3, the dash and cowl are lower so the sense of speed and acceleration is heightened, even more so than in either an S or X.—Chris Walton

Hitting the Brakes

Besides the variable-rate electricity-regenerative braking that uses the motors to slow the vehicle, the Model 3’s traditional disc brakes haul the car from 60 to 0 mph in 99 feet, on par with some formidable performers. This ties the GT350R and Giulia Quadrifoglio from above, as well as two 2016 Cadillacs: the ATS-V and CTS-V. It’s also shorter than a couple of 2016 BMWs: the M4 GTS and M3 Competition. Here are a few contemporaneous notes from the test track. “The Model 3 DMB has a very firm brake pedal, without much travel or feel, but the brakes are highly effective and consistent. I did one stop from 100 mph (the second one) and got them rather hot and a saw a puff of smoke when the car stopped. On the next pass, the distance shrank to the shortest stop (99 feet), so the brakes are capable of dissipating heat well. In order: 100, 105, and 99 feet.”

When you chart the data (above), there’s an absolutely straight line showing the car shedding speed in a linear fashion. Also, when looking at g-loads, there are no dips or spikes. It’s pretty much 1.2 g from 60 mph down to a halt.—Chris Walton

Slot Car

Imagine a gigantic slot car, and you’ll get the idea. Of course, the slot you’re following isn’t an actual slot but a virtual one, a sharply defined path the steering angle has mentally scribed on the road ahead of you. If any alterations are needed, you just make small steering adjustments; the Telsa Model 3 DMP’s steering is very quick to respond (you even have to get used to it). That’s a good thing, too, as everything’s happening so fast, and the stability control system isn’t very tolerant of slip angles. Quick steering is exactly the scalpel you need here.

An analogy might be a bobsled (or maybe a luge) plunging down a bob course: You need to keep the path clean and be economical with your inputs. Turning into a corner cues the tail to slip sideways momentarily, followed by a whiff of understeer as the corner’s line is traced. Nearing corner exit, you tramp down the throttle—I mean the loud pedal … no, that’s not right, either … stamp the accelerometer—and the tail snakes a bit and the forward rush starts all over again. The rush is really like a tractor beam—a linear, nonstop seat-back compression from corner exit to the next braking point.

On the first lap I overshot that brake point, completely blew the lap, and instantly thought, “These brakes aren’t up to the kinda speed this car’s making. Or maybe it’s feeling its 4,086-pound weight. Maybe it’s both of those things.” But according to Chris over at the dragstrip, the brakes themselves do indeed deliver ballpark stopping distances: 99 feet from 60 mph. So I’m simply underestimating the speed—it builds so linearly and silently that you’re at 80 mph when you think you’re doing 70.

There’s been some debate as to whether the new Track mode will actually improve performance around the figure-eight course. But after my chance to drive this car, I’m pretty sure it will. The Tesla could benefit from a little more opportunity for driver improvisation. Less restrictive stability control means a wider canvas to paint on—if you’re handy with the brush. On the flip side, it’s also an invite to just scribble all over the road with lurid (but slow) sideways antics; it’ll take discipline to use it for good (a quicker lap time) and not evil (Instagram moments).

After a few hard laps the acceleration edge noticeably wore off; apparently the motor temps were rising. But Track mode promises to keep the quick laps coming via precooling the motors and battery, operating the cooling system at full-tilt howl, and as necessary, opening the fluid connection between the two cooling circuits (thermally destressing the motors at a small cost to the battery temp).

Can we get a 95th percentile lap, under 24 seconds, in the Model 3 DMP in Track mode? It won’t be easy. Although the Model 3 DMP ranks about 72nd place in our all-time 0–60 rankings, on the leader board (including modified cars and race cars) its 0.94 g of cornering grip sinks it to a good but unremarkable 470th place in the skidpad category. Big difference. Most of the figure eight’s lap time is spent cornering, and obviously Tesla isn’t too keen on dialing up cornering pace with higher rolling resistance tires (being that battery range is by far the car’s priciest feature). Still, meet me back here at the figure-eight course with a Track mode Model 3; I’ll pull the bill of my baseball cap down tight, and we’ll find out.—Kim Reynolds

2018 Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor Performance BASE PRICE $65,000 PRICE AS TESTED $78,700 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front/rear elec motors, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan MOTORS 3-phase internal permanent-magnet electric motors: 197-hp front; 283-hp rear; 450-hp/471 lb-ft combined TRANSMISSION Front/rear single-ratio transaxles CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4,086 lb (51/49%) WHEELBASE 113.2 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 184.8 x 72.8 x 56.8 in 0-60 MPH 3.2 sec QUARTER MILE 11.8 sec @ 115.2 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 99 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.94 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 120/112/116 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 28/30 kW-hrs/100 miles

IFTTT

#IFTTT #PerformanceJunk WP Feed 3

0 notes