Did anyone read the Ferrari Special edition of Autocar?
There is an interesting bit in the letters page about braking distances. The Porsche Carrera GT on road tyres with ceramic composite discs and eight piston calipers did 70-0mph in 52.1m with a kerbweight of 1472kg. The Land Rover Discovery TDV6 HSE on dual purpose tyres did 70-0mph in 51.2m with a kerbweight of 2718kg.
Rather puts paid to one of the anti-brigades main arguments that 4X4's have longer stopping distances!
As a Range Rover driver I may be a little biased, but it has to be good for all motorists to have some factual evidence as we are all under attack by the anti-car groups.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
Interesting, they should do an advert "If he was driving a 4x4 he would have stopped HERE......"
Anyone have any other stopping distances for comparison, ie is the Disco especially good, or is this par for the course?
|
Sorry, but I simply don't believe it. I have driven many 4x4's, including ones with horrendous brakes (like the Frontera - which I personally think is dangerous). At one time I had (briefly) a company Range Rover (was working for them at the time) and have also driven Disco's (although not the very latest one).
There is no way on Earth that I will believe that the Disco's stopping distance is less than the Ferrari's - espcially if it was fitted with M&S tyres. I suspect that either the measurement was in error or measurements were done on different surfaces. Most family cars will easiy outbrake a large 4x4. One of the main reasons is that the high CoG and compliant suspension causes a large weight transfer to the front (forward pitching). This means that only a small amount of braking force can be applied to the rear tyres (otherwise they will lock up - ABS cuts in) - this reduces the total braking force that can be applied to the road surface.
Best braking performance is generally achieved when there is nearly equal braking force applied to front a rear wheels - you can only do this when there is little weight transfer (i.e. very low CoG) - car low to road, engine low down and balance weight distribution fore and aft etc.
|
>There is an interesting bit in the *letters* page about braking distances.
I take it that this was a contribution by a reader and not a test by Autocar itself?
Kevin...
|
Strange - here's from an earlier thread (Note ref to Porche Carrera - bit of a difference between 70mph-0 and 100(63mph)-0 kph if both sets of figures are accurate)
"German car mags measure the braking distance of the cars they test. Generally they measure the distance required to decelerate from 100km/h to 0 with cold brakes and warm brakes and with the car laden and unladen. Average seems to be around 40m, extended when the car is laden or the brakes are hot. Worst seem to be small, cheap hatchbacks and large SUVs, both around 43m ish. Best I've seen was the Porsche Carrera and BMW M3, both 34m, I own an M3 and the braking force is unbelievable. Note that at 200km/h the braking distance extends to 146m."
See
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=26605&...f
|
|
There is the matter of aerodynamics.
|
|
|
|
I said Porsche not Ferrari. The author of the letter was quoting Autocar figures, not his own.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
|
|
|
My brother in-law used to have a mitsubishi L200 pick-up, he said that if the traffic lights change at the last second as you approach them you might as well go through them as the brakes wont up to heavy breakin or emergency breaking!!!!
|
|
What tactic would he employ if a person drunk/sober adult or child step out/fall in front of him I wonder ?
|
Well if he was to swerve we might avoid the pedestrian, but then again he might flatten the poor fiat panda comin from the opposite direction maybe?
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
|
|
|
