# R8 0-60 time?



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

Is it correct that an R8 is 4.6 seconds to 60 and a stage 1 TT can do it in 5.5??  Kind of blows me away conidering there 60k+ price tag....


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

3.9 for the V10 but there is sooooo much more to a R8 that 0-60


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Don't think a mapped TT does it in 5.5. Or does it? Sounds a little optimistic to me


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Yeah a TT should do it in about 5.5 once mapped.

The P1 Scooby does it in 4.6 sec too i think


----------



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

Bikerz said:


> Yeah a TT should do it in about 5.5 once mapped.
> 
> The P1 Scooby does it in 4.6 sec too i think


But for 60k+ you'd expect it to be in the 3 second mark. 8)


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

You never get the best performance from the entry level model.


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

jay said:


> Bikerz said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah a TT should do it in about 5.5 once mapped.
> ...


Excluding super lightweights like the Westfield/Atom, 
you'd be hard pushed to get in the 3 second mark for 60k.
The £250,000 Lamborghini Murcielago SV LP670-4 is 0-62mph in 3.2 seconds  
As said, it's about a lot more than 0-60.
The sheer acceleration and torque in those cars at any speed, in any gear is stunning.
The power just keeps coming and coming.
You don't get that from a remapped TT.
John.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

In the words of Top Gear, its enough to make you throw up.


----------



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

GEM said:


> jay said:
> 
> 
> > Bikerz said:
> ...


Never said we did but we do get 5.5 seconds - 60 for anything from 4.5k upwards now a days bet we can get quicker if we go jap for same wedge.....
I dont drive around a track everyday on my way to work nor coming back from tesco :lol:


----------



## Dance171 (Feb 8, 2009)

i dont see why there are 0-60 times anyways!!! Fast times are acheived by any decent car. its after 60 where you can tell the cars apart

anybody know the 0-100 time on an R8 and 0-100 on a mapped TT i bet its quite the difference


----------



## 26ash_tt (Jul 16, 2008)

4.6 and 5.5 dont sound like much on paper but the r8 would wipe the floor with a remapped tt without trying that hard


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

That's 20% faster... I've been in cars that have 6s and 5s 0-60 times and they feel massively different, so I imagine the difference between 4.5s and 5.5s is even more noticeable (anyone want to lend me an R8 so I can confirm this?)


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

I have a mate thats only 19 with an R8 (V8 in white) . And before you slate spoilt rich kid, he earnt every penny himself with a business he started on his own when he was 15/16 :wink:


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

Bloody hell. Wots the betting he'll be dead by the time he's 20 then?


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I sure a few others will back me up here, the R8 is scarily quick


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

swfblade said:


> Bloody hell. Wots the betting he'll be dead by the time he's 20 then?


Don't think age really comes into it. My neighbour crashed his brand new M3 yesterday, literally only had it about a week or so - maybe not even that. But now it's in sh!t on his driveway (silent :lol He's in his late 30's, possibly even 40's now - but he spanked it right up doing crazy speeds around a corner: mounted pavement and smashed into a skip. Just as easy for an 'old' person to be an idiot as it is some young fella.


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

I'm not going to get into an argument over stats on who is most likely to crash, a 19 year old, or a 40 year old.

Just think about what you are saying... :roll:


----------



## mestonian (Jul 6, 2009)

swfblade said:


> I'm not going to get into an argument over stats on who is most likely to crash, a 19 year old, or a 40 year old.
> 
> Just think about what you are saying... :roll:


Got to be honest, ive never agreed with the whole stats thing. I know of many, many more mid 40's guys who have spangled their cars than people around my age (23).... and also, the majority of friends who i know of who have crashed cars have been women, who also receive lower premiums..... I dont cain it around in my tt, because i respect i have to pay for the thing for years lol, but still.... im paying a hefty premium to do it, whereas my girlfriend, she pays nearly half at the same age. And has had an accident! Unfortunately, stats arent reliable stats unless you monitor every human on the planet.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

In teh biking world. Im 22 and its cheaper for me to insure anything than my old man. 35-45 are the bigest % group of people crashing bikes, theres an interesting one for you. Yes i know its differnt with cars and under 21 smash up the most.

Dan had a AMG merc at 17 and now gone for the R8 at 19. Its quite suprising how cheap his incurance is. So he used to a pretty quick car coming from a AMG merc, but yes R8 can be scary fast (but quite civivlised if you want it to be)


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mestonian said:


> Unfortunately, stats arent reliable stats unless you monitor every human on the planet.


I think the point is that the stats swfblade is talking about will have monitored more people than you have amongst your friends/friends of friends...

Anyway, you're arguing against yourself there. If they monitored even* more* people to get their stats, they'd be even more generalised and less acurate for you personally. As a safe/calm driver you'd be better off, premium-wise, if they monitored just you. Based on my accident history, I should be paying around £2.50 (to cover their administrative costs :wink: ).


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

If there's only (ha ha) .9 of a second in it to 60mph then hunt down an R8 and race him. :wink: 
It'll feel like you're being pulled backwards at warp factor 9 by the Starship Enterprise. :lol:
John.


----------



## mestonian (Jul 6, 2009)

Spandex said:


> mestonian said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, stats arent reliable stats unless you monitor every human on the planet.
> ...


Good point, but you see what im saying anyway....


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

swfblade said:


> I'm not going to get into an argument over stats on who is most likely to crash, a 19 year old, or a 40 year old.
> 
> Just think about what you are saying... :roll:


Thanks for the advice, but I did think about what I was saying.

So I'll say it again for you; a neighbour either in, or approaching his 40's - not his teens or early twenties - went and spanked his M3 up within days, all because he got a bit brave behind the wheel. Point is: you can't assume age makes you a better driver - it doesn't at all. Perversely, it _may_ actually be the arrogance of an older driver who thinks he can take his eye of the ball, cut corners if you will, which works against him. Obviously not _all_ will be like that, but then not _all_ young drivers are toerags who are bound to crash if put behind something with a bit of kick.

Stats are great and that, but when I see my middle-aged neighbour's M3 smashed to smithereens - it really _does_ make something of a mockery of them. Meanwhile there's another neighbour on my street, I'd imagine he's in his twenties, and he's always had a nice enough motor on his drive (RS/Scooby/S3) and I've never once seen a scratch on it. Square that one then.

Lord knows why on Earth an R8 is being compared to a TT though :? Some people really _do_ think they are driving Bentley's or something. Weird.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

EnfieldTT said:


> Stats are great and that, but when I see my middle-aged neighbour's M3 smashed to smithereens - it really _does_ make something of a mockery of them. Meanwhile there's another neighbour on my street, I'd imagine he's in his twenties, and he's always had a nice enough motor on his drive (RS/Scooby/S3) and I've never once seen a scratch on it. Square that one then.


I'm no statistician, but I reckon you've got him beat there. 100% of the young people in your test group are good drivers while 100% of the old people in it are rubbish. It's a compelling story.

(please don't shout at me. It's a joke, honest)


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

Spandex said:


> EnfieldTT said:
> 
> 
> > Stats are great and that, but when I see my middle-aged neighbour's M3 smashed to smithereens - it really _does_ make something of a mockery of them. Meanwhile there's another neighbour on my street, I'd imagine he's in his twenties, and he's always had a nice enough motor on his drive (RS/Scooby/S3) and I've never once seen a scratch on it. Square that one then.
> ...


100% spot-on :mrgreen:

Spandex, even if I _did_ shout at you...I doubt you'd hear it :wink:


----------



## ChadW (May 2, 2003)

In Audi Driver's first TT special, (back in March 2003) their 'Test' feature was a non-modified standard 225 coupe.

It listed some 0-60s; one of which states 5.9 secs!


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

As I say, I'm not going to argue it. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Strange then that young drivers have higher premiums than older ones. All the figures that CLEARLY show that young people have more accidents must all be faked then.

Still, your going by your obviously limited experience in the matter, so fair play for sticking to your guns.


----------



## chris_p (Dec 14, 2008)

As i always say. 0-60 is bolloks!

what does a mapped tt hit 100 in?


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

swfblade said:


> As I say, I'm not going to argue it. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
> 
> Strange then that young drivers have higher premiums than older ones. All the figures that CLEARLY show that young people have more accidents must all be faked then.
> 
> Still, *your going by your obviously limited experience in the matter*, so fair play for sticking to your guns.


No need to try patronising me. If you wanna make a point - fair enough, just make it, but there's no need to prove to everyone that you're rude and obnoxious - because that'd be _really_ immature behaviour, right? :wink:

No one is arguing that young people _don't_ have accidents. But you assumed that, because this fellow was young and had a fast then - then it was a given that he was gonna have one. Not so. It's more about experience and attitude: one you only gain through miles on the road, while the other is a mindset that no amount of experience or years will ever change.

The insurance premium scheme is a simple _lazy_ 'logic': young = reckless, old = safe. Actually, in truth, the water is far muddier than that - but insurance companies _also_ know the 17yo Jack the Lad will pay whatever it takes to get his rectum on the road. Simply not living in the real world to go basing such generalisations about how good/bad a driver is, purely because of their age. Obviously, a business of 'risk' like insurance is perversely skewed, but c'est la vie - any old rule of order can be used as your benchmark. Y'see, unfortunately a computer doesn't have much in the way of common sense and some basic 'rules' (_/false assumptions_) have to be made.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The only reason insurance companies charge more for young male drivers is that they are statistically more likely to have an accident than any other group. This statistic isn't down to 'using computers' or a lack of common sense. Statistics are just calculations and in this case they're correct.

Insurance companies take into account more than just the age of someone, but there's no way to calculate risk based on someone's personality as there is no reliable scale to measure that on. The closest they can come is your NCB as they will take your accident history to be an indication of your driving 'attitude'.

I know you're smart enough to know all this already, so I don't understand you why believe the insurance companies are somehow incorrectly manipulating the data. They only have 3 choices: charge *everyone* the same; use statistics to vary charges; have an insurance broker in the car with everyone, constantly assessing your driving. I think they use the only sensible method.


----------



## chris_p (Dec 14, 2008)

Girls, you've gone way off topic and tbh, it's boring!

The thread is comparing the tt to an r8 (ridiculous too, but nevermind), so perhaps take your handbags to pm?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

chris_p said:


> Girls, you've gone way off topic and tbh, it's boring!
> 
> The thread is comparing the tt to an r8 (ridiculous too, but nevermind), so perhaps take your handbags to pm?


No handbags here... If you're bored, I noticed there were some other threads here:
http://www.********.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=2


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

wallsendmag said:


> 3.9 for the V10 but there is sooooo much more to a R8 that 0-60


ditto that!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Lopping seconds off acceleration times, it's especially easy, and isn't linear in effort.

Accelerating a heavy object like a car to 60mph in 10 seconds in this day and age is easy. Taking it down to 8 seconds is pretty easy. Then it gets harder and more expensive, with anything under 5 seconds very tricky.

But as other people have noted, 0-60 isn't everything. Apart from racing at the lights, it's not of much use - and I doubt many R8 drivers drag at the lights.

Big engines come with big weight, which is always difficult to get rolling. Personally, I find I want to be able to go from 40-80 in the shortest time possible, as that's the sort of acceleration required for overtaking.


----------



## EnfieldTT (Jun 7, 2008)

Spandex said:


> chris_p said:
> 
> 
> > Girls, you've gone way off topic and tbh, it's boring!
> ...


Exactly!

Handbags, what bloody handbags??! :?


----------



## big josh (Apr 26, 2009)

ok lets be honest now it may be 0.9 secs and it may not sound much but lets be honest if i had a r8 i wouldnt be spanking it off the lights round toun like a boyracer corsa. lol but one thing for sure if a mapd tt wich i have had at proven 267 bhp went up a dual carageway with any of the r8 range the r8 would proper eat the tt for fun. the end !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wink:


----------



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

Well for me it would be the Nissan GT-r, around 48k to buy and leaves an r8 in its rear view mirror from start to finish. Now that is a super car, and there is one in the next street from me but I dont think i'll be trying to race it :lol:

Just look at this beast man....http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/ww ... gLetter=08


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

:!:


----------



## mobbster (Mar 5, 2005)

Hi all just found this -
0-60 mph test results of the new Audi R8 V10 5.2 FSI quattro. Check it out!

Power: 525 hp @ 8000 rpm
Torque: 391 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm

Weight: 3583 lbs
Weight distribution (percent, front/rear): 45/55

0-60 mph: 3.8 sec
0-100 mph: 8.5 sec
0-110 mph: 10.3 sec
0-120 mph: 12.1 sec
0-130 mph: 14.9 sec
0-140 mph: 17.0 sec
0-150 mph: 20.0 sec

1/4 mile pass: 12.1 sec @ 120 mph

Peak acceleration g: 0.87

30-70 mph "passing:" 4.0 sec

70-0 mph braking: 151 ft
Peak deceleration g: 1.19

Power: 525 hp @ 8000 rpm
391 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm

Speed in Gears:

-1st: 48 mph
-2nd: 78 mph
-3rd: 109 mph
-4th: 140 mph
-5th: 169 mph
-6th: 196 mph

Cheers


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jay said:


> Well for me it would be the Nissan GT-r, around 48k to buy and leaves an r8 in its rear view mirror from start to finish. Now that is a super car, and there is one in the next street from me but I dont think i'll be trying to race it :lol:
> 
> Just look at this beast man....http://search.autotrader.co.uk/es-uk/ww ... gLetter=08


I'm too busy laughing to type a sensible response :lol:

I'm trying to work out how old you perhaps are? A mapped TT vs an R8, i can just imagine all R8 owners sat at traffic lights up & down the country in case a re-mapped TT pulls up along side them.

Do you imagine Bentley Flying Spur drivers cry when a 7 Series pulls alongside? (depreciation aside) :wink:

The R8 is a true supercar & the TT a fairly quick coupe. The GT-R is a very rapid machine, but only a true novice would view it as a supercar.

It may be quicker than an R8, however the GT-R is also meant to be a gnats pube quicker than a 997 Turbo & a Gallardo, but i know which most folk would opt for.

Taking nothing away from TT's or GT-R's, but overall supercar beaters they aint.


----------



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

W7 PMC said:


> jay said:
> 
> 
> > Well for me it would be the Nissan GT-r, around 48k to buy and leaves an r8 in its rear view mirror from start to finish. Now that is a super car, and there is one in the next street from me but I dont think i'll be trying to race it :lol:
> ...


As you clearly struggled to spot the gap between super and car that makes me old enough to put a space separating two words giving it a whole new meaning :wink: 
Do you disagree that the GT-r is a super---------------------------------------------------------------------- car? :roll:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jay said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jay said:
> ...


Why would you describe a non supercar as a super car :lol:

I totally agree that the GT-R is a good car, perhaps even a great car, but by my reckoning & from what i've read it has many floors & a good few owners are chucking them back at Nissan. Fast will never equal SUPER.

If i didn't require rear seats, i'd have followed through with my 1st batch R8 order, rather than it's step brother the RS4, but given it's the same 0-60 (mine is mapped), i'm hardly going to be slower but know it's the R8 i'd prefer if i didn't need the space.

Horses for courses really :lol:


----------



## jay (Mar 17, 2009)

Super-
• combining form 1 above; over; beyond: superstructure. 2 to a great or extreme degree: superabundant. 3 extra large of its kind: supercontinent. 4 of a higher kind *(especially in names of classificatory divisions)*: superfamily.

- ORIGIN from Latin super 'above, beyond'.

No its a super car, sorry but not splitting hairs over a matter of opinion. Enjoy your day.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jay said:


> Super-
> • combining form 1 above; over; beyond: superstructure. 2 to a great or extreme degree: superabundant. 3 extra large of its kind: supercontinent. 4 of a higher kind *(especially in names of classificatory divisions)*: superfamily.
> 
> - ORIGIN from Latin super 'above, beyond'.
> ...


Awesome, so pleased & likewise :lol:

If spoken, what length of pause would you use to show a difference between a super car & a supercar?


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

I love my Handbag. It makes me feel all secure and warm inside.


EnfieldTT said:


> No need to try patronising me. If you wanna make a point - fair enough, just make it, but there's no need to prove to everyone that you're rude and obnoxious - because that'd be really immature behaviour, right?


BTW I wasn't trying to be patronising, just don't understand why you disagree with stats. Not being rude or obnoxious either, you _do_ have a limited experience in the matter (as do I), and I was trying to actually give you _respec'_ for sticking to your guns (much the way that religious people do, despite the facts to the contrary. Something I could never do), without seeing the facts. As for being immature, well I like it, means I dont have to grow up. But don't see the relavence here.

Maybe he'll crash his R8, maybe he won't. I sure as hell wouldn't want any 19yo's round here having one!

Anyway, seeing as someone doesn't like my handbang, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So, R8 then. It's quick. It'll piss on a TT, without even trying. 0-60 is like bhp - Pub talk, means feck all in the real world.


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

PS.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

The reason younger drivers are charged more is that they crash more. Whatever your personal stats are or those of your friends, the likelihood is that you're far more likely to crash when you're an inexperienced driver and outdriving your own talents and/or the capabilities of the car.

WRT to the motorbike stat, the reason it goes up again for older riders is that that group is more likely to be made up of blokes trying to relive their youth in their mid-life crisis. Not only are they inexperienced riders, but they're also likely to be able to afford some expensive and quick machines. Again - far outriding their own talents.

As for women, it's true that on the whole they have more scrapes than men, but they tend to be low-speed car parking accidents and, as such, cost less to repair. Ergo, cheaper insurance.

For the record I didn't have anything even resembling a bump or scrape until I got the TT and as someone else pointed out, was a little bit too arrogant and got my come-uppance.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Me thinks the above sums it up perfectly.


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

Agreed, Good post Kell.


----------



## Andywarr (May 14, 2009)

id like to see a remapped R8, although probably wouldn't make a massive difference.....

has anyone from warrington seen the white R8 with the blue vents and blue wheels, i wonder if thats standard under the bonnet


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

Agree with Kell.
I just got sent this by Dan. :wink:










Cant wait to hear her now


----------



## Dr_Parmar (May 10, 2002)

Kell said:


> The reason younger drivers are charged more is that they crash more. Whatever your personal stats are or those of your friends, the likelihood is that you're far more likely to crash when you're an inexperienced driver and outdriving your own talents and/or the capabilities of the car.
> 
> WRT to the motorbike stat, the reason it goes up again for older riders is that that group is more likely to be made up of blokes trying to relive their youth in their mid-life crisis. Not only are they inexperienced riders, but they're also likely to be able to afford some expensive and quick machines. Again - far outriding their own talents.
> 
> ...


With regards to younger drivers, I had my first TT when i was 20, a 180 coupe and i never smashed it or scratched it, HOWEVER, at 22 i got my first 911 and er... i kinda lost that sucker on a roundabout late at night and smashed the front up! However, since then.... no problems. I think younger drivers are more prone to accidents, because they are less mature and have that "i am invincible" attitude. Another thing is the car, if you have a car that is v.powerful and somewhat tail happy chances are you will put it in a ditch, but a 1.2 litre corsa may be easier to control as the understeer is more predictable....?

As for the R8 V10... BLOODY HELL THATS QUICK!! 0-60 sub 4 secs!!! is that quicker than the current 911 turbo?


----------

