Autocar - First for car news and reviews

The fastest cars in the world against the clock... Watch Video

I don't think it's such a massive shock that the Vantage beat the DBS, when it's time of 12.28 seconds was quicker than any of the other 4! The recent facelift and that extra 40bhp must have really gone a long way to transform the Vantage from a great-looking but slightly pedestrian sports car, into a fire-breathing GT2/R500 devouring monster! Are you sure Aston didn't supply you with the V12 RS dressed as lamb? Or was that 12.28s recorded the V8's time to 100 in the damp.. Surely not?

HOW DO YOU WATCH THEM? MAYBE I'M DOING SOMETHING WRONG? 

How was the V8 so fast? Fair enough upsetting the DBS, but beating the GT-R, Lambo, GT2 and almost purpose built R500 seems a bit unbelievable. Is it really just that good now?

And no matter how advanced a 4wd system the GT-R has, surely only witchcraft would allow acceleration like that on wet grass!!!

I've no idea why they've got 12.28 on the video.  In the mag, the Vantage is a fraction slower than the DBS at 15.00 (doing 0-100 in a shade under 10 secs).  Bizarre...   Mind you, with those unreadable dials he probably started breaking at 80 rather than 100!

But then again no more bizarre than Chris Harris being unable to drive a Corvette Z06 properly when being filmed :-)  Maybe Autocar should stick to mags and leave the vids to someone else.

agreed that the mag times are totally different.  i would expect that the mag's times are based on more runs and taking the "best of".

here it seems we have simple one-off head to heads, where any errors e.g. in reaction times, proximity to 100mph, etc would be exposed.

still there is value in it as it shows how easy or not it is to do 0-100-0 in these cars.... because it really really counts in everyday driving  :p

 

12.28 for the Vantage? Surely a mistake unless it was the 600 BHP V12 prototype...

The V8 doesn't even reach 100mph before braking. Judging by the position of the needle with my friends V8 dials means it probably hits 85-90mph before braking. Unless the new 4.7L version has different increments on it's dials to the 4.3L version!

 Why not just do it properly? Makes you wonder about the times in the magazine.

Good of Autocar to comment, isn't it ? Bet I get "thanked" for my patience again.

James Read:

Good of Autocar to comment, isn't it ?

(And in response to the previous poster's comments about the accuracy of the data in the magazine).

As a very long-term reader of Autocar (and when it existed Motor) I am saddened by the slow decline in standards at Autocar.  I've always relied on Autocar as a source of accurate performance data, but no longer trust the data in the magazine (or on the web-site).

I've made several attempts myself to get Autocar to correct systemic errors in the road-test data at the back of the mag, but have never received a response.   The main errors relate to fuel consumption, with a large number of vehicles' "overall" numbers actually being their "track" numbers.  Nobody seems to care about fixing the data.  If they can't be bothered to fix it, they shouldn't bother to publish it.