He cites "0-60" times

>>16224402
Because it's a useful benchmark for acceleration?

>>16224402
what car did he reviewed ?

File: Kissling Motorsport Opel Manta.jpg (310KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1024x681px

Pic related: Garbage 0-60 times, would wreck every car owned by every anon (outside of the one guy with the open wheeler)

>>16224407
>useful
Its the most useless benchmark there is. It doesn't mean anything.

>>16224416
t. frs owner

>>16224412
>would wreck every car owned by every anon
In what metric? Pretty sure my car would beat it around the burgerkingring while I sat in comfort having my butt cooled and automatic climate control on.

>>16224488
Lmao
You fucking /o/ kids

File: 312633-2955616.jpg (79KB, 640x429px)

79KB, 640x429px

>>16224412

I have owned 2 mantas (Stock 2.0 GT, and a 2.2 swapped GSI on bilsteins with enem rack), and goddamit are they hard to drive fast. You blink, you die. You MUST add watts linkage if you plan to track one of these.
I'm glad I survived mine.. While I miss them, they thought me to appreciate a forgiving chassi.

Probably one of the most aesthetic cars in the world though. Picture related but not mine.

>>16224488

Here is a random 8:15 btg with one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRfNW0nF6AA

What does your refrigerator run?

OK, sum up a single metric that adequately described the driving experience of a car.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

>>16224601
7:50 something. Glad that stripped out track focused car is so fast /s

>>16224416
It's the single most useful one for a daily driver.

>>16224618

Then you have a car that is quicker than a NSX. Not shabby. But probably bs.

>>16224412
THANK YOU MANTA

>>16224407
People cite 0-60 all the time in the world of motorcycles and it's a useless fucking metric because this time is more dependent on rider skill than anything.

>>16224416
lol acceleration is useless
>enjoy your twingo loser

File: 0619A6720000044D-2848450-image-7_1416902738360[1].jpg (61KB, 634x421px)

61KB, 634x421px

lmao, he almost died on that dragster accident, right? But when he cites the 0-60 times, weren't he and Jeremy throwing a childish comparison on whether the 918 or P1 was the best? I don't recall they were being serious there.

>>16224715
It's especially useless in the context of motorcycles because anything with 100hp+ is capable of roughly 3s 0-60 times, but very few will do much better than that due to geometry and tire slip limitations.
Quarter mile times are a much better metric.

>>16224668
>But probably bs.
Why would I lie about something so dumb?
Almost every newer performance oriented car can do <8min runs nowadays.
My car isn't even hugely performance oriented, it's a "luxury" landyacht with a nice suspension and OP engine.

>>16224407
>car is geared to shift at 59 instead of 60
>loses half a second

No its stupid. It should go by average g-force.

File: IMG_2052.png (179KB, 508x494px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 508x494px

>>16225258
Yeah, because that one is so easily measurable.

From the factory it is feasible, but for quick vehicles that are often modified and tested by end users, 0-60 is a more pragmatic approach

>>16224412
These look so damn good

>>16224402
Because 0-60 is what's useful on public roads. It's not that difficult to understand.

>>16224402
Shitty drivers are bench racers