Hi lads,
I'm doing homework on the notion of the SVR...and some questions:
There is a lot (as in more than the expected "quite a bit" of disparity among all the 0-60 and 1/4 times of the F models it seems. I've not been able to find a definitive list of the best recorded R and R AWD. Of course Jag states 4.2 for both...but I've seen the RWD down to 3.6 somewhere I believe..?

If so, I wonder what that means for the SVR? If they have a habit of being half a second too conservative, are we looking at a 3 second car? Doesn't seem likely, even with the power bump, re-calibrated tranny and maximum specced weight savings?

Keen to hear some thoughts!

cheers.

 

I don't expect the few pounds of weight loss and extra 25 horsepower to have a huge difference over the AWD R. Since the AWD R can do it in 3.4, I'd guess you'd be looking at 3.3 seconds. There are better cars if your focus is solely on acceleration.

 

jaguars estimates seem very conservative. Best V8S time I've seen is 3.4 and a couple 3.6's. The R doesn't seem a bunch quicker (the 40hp has to contend with another 170 lbs and some additional driveline loss although traction is obviously better) but probably a tenth or two and it's undoubtably more consistent. the SVR should be a tiny bit quicker but I doubt it can do a 3.0 stock. ....my money is on the P7 for quickest...if the SVR can beat one 0-60 due to the AWD, I don't think it could in the quarter..

2 cents,
Dave

 

The best I have seen documented on a 15 rwd R is 0-100 km/h in 3.7 sec. I would guess that is close to 0-60 mph in 3.5-3.6 sec.

It has a lot to with tires and traction. The 15 R is a bit lighter than the SVR and even more so than the awd R, but traction is a challenge when you start from standstill.

 

Car and Driver has the '15'R at 3.5 to 60mph.

 

Thanks guys. So seems that 3.5/3.4 is indeed the realistic minimum for the AWD R? IN that case, I agree that a 3.3 MIGHT be possible on a good day with the SVR specced correctly. Cheers!

 

I know for a fact it will do 3.4, I've done it before. But the only advantage the SVR has is the weight factor. It doesn't have any extra torque, so the horsepower gain is minimal on the top end.

 

Motor Trend tested the 2016 F-Type R AWD doing 0-60 in a blistering 3.3 sec!

2016 Jaguar F-Type R Coupe First Test Review - Motor Trend

 

That's even better than I thought.

 

Just sayin'

 

Oh there are much faster things out there in the price bracket, some of which I'm cross-shopping. Still interesting to know though!

 

"around" 3.5 seconds is the limit of heavy V8 front engine, high torque, RWD cars no matter the HP ... it is all about a perfect launch. You need something like an Ariel Atom to beat that. More likely than not the SVR is not a smidgen faster than an R in any circumstances ... the R may get very close to 200mph without a limiter ... it is just a question of a long enough, flat straight away because of the 8 gears ... the rest is marketing ... my S has 600+ bhp by the way ...


and here an V8S

 

The z06 is the same formula, and does well south of 3.0.

 

not in stock form ... that is GTR and 911 turbo territory ... everything else is hot air ...



and that is on cup tires ... versus street P zeros on the Jags. I have no doubt the Z06 is faster but not below 3 seconds in a repeatable fashion. Not saying you cannot have "a" run below but then you also have to check the timing method ...

 

I don't think it's well south of 3.0, but it is faster everywhere it really counts. In fairness, the Z06 (and regular Corvettes) are not exactly a classic front powertrain configuration. The engine is set well back of the front wheels, and the transmission is mounted just in front of the rear wheels.

Lastly, it has a substantial weight advantage with the C7 coming in at about 400 lbs. lighter and the C6 800 lbs. lighter than F-Type V8s.

 

GMs official number is 2.9:
The 2015 Corvette Z06 Hits 0-60 In 2.95 Seconds, Is Stupid Fast

A couple of mags have managedwith the auto. Fastest Laps calls it 3 flat:
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 C7 laptimes, specs, performance data - FastestLaps.com

Also, regarding the R35 comparison video, note that Randy has since retested it with the proper aero, and it's beaten the R35 Nismo. It is in fact now the 4th fastest production car ever around Laguna Seca, which is pretty hilarious!
Viper ACR, P1, 918....Vette.

 

OK then, I'll give you "barely" south but not "well." I am a big Z06 fan, and my last was a C6 Z06. And as I said, it is definitely one of the fastest production cars in the world where it counts on the track.

 

I'll pay that! "well" was a step too far. Anyway, it IS the same basic formula, and IS definitely faster in a straight line. That's the only point I wanted to make...I'm no Corvette apologist lol.

 

Really, what else has the engine mounted in front and the transmission in the rear? My definition of the basic formula is front engine/front trannie. That's why I called it a "hybrid" configuration. It's also considerably faster around any road course, not just in straight lines.

 

0-60 times are irrelevant in cars with more than 500hp. Just ask any of the GTRs I destroyed in my ZR1. I'm sure as I put car lengths on them they felt secure in the idea they were faster 0-60. It's all traction limited off the line. Quarter mile trap speed and 0-180 tells the story.