Drag Race: XKR vs. Corvette
 

Sorry, the video quality is horrendous, but you can still see what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2evhAzhuYM

Wow..I honestly thought it was going to be the exact opposite

DEEEEEEER what happend sam?I saw the xkr take off ..in the lead and i assume it won..but its not cleare at the end:icon_confused:

Yeah, the XKR won.

I assume that whoever was driving the Corvette didn't know how to drive. It looks like that was a C-5 which supposedly had a bit more power than my 1995 C-4. But my XKR feels like a massive lug compared with my 1995 Corvette.

Doug

Yeah, I think the vette lost traction at the start, and from that point forward he just couldn't catch up.

hard to tell but it looked like 14.8 for the XKR and 15.5 (or maybe 16.5) seconds for the 'vette.

I never dragged the Corvette but I am pretty sure the numbers I had always seen posted for late C4 and early C5 models was always in the 13-13.5 second range for the 1/4-mile purely stock out-of-the-box.

Doug

Driver malfunction.

Stock for stock, an XK is no match for a vette.

/thread

I think they both had pretty poor times. I'm wondering if the track couldn't hold them.

These 14 and 15 second quarters are not too impressive. There are some hot econoboxes out there that'd eat those two cars up.

More interesting races are on UTube where M5BOARDDOTCOM takes high line cars and runs them head to head starting at maybe 25mph and letting off at maybe 150 mph. They put a camera in one of the cars, filming the other car. I pulled it up by ordering "Jaguar XKR versus Mercedes."

The series is showing a new 510 hp XKR coupe running against a bunch of european Supercars. They also raced a XJR.

A Jag XJR ran against a Mercedes S63, and the Jag embarrassed the Merc.
They then ran a Jag XKR against a Mercedes SL600 biturbo, and the smaller Merc barely had them on top end. Mostly even.
The XKR absolutely embarrassed an Audi R8 with the V10 motor.
The XKR ran all over a BMW M3 DKG.
The XKR tore up a Porsche 911 Turbo model 997.
When they ran against a Nissan GT-R, they finally met their match. The car is absolutely incredible--and relatively affordable.

That new model is a different animal than my 99 XK8.

Very well could be. Some owners will turn off the t/c....which is fine if you have some practice/experience under your belt and can get a clean launch.

If you're a novice at the strip it's easy to get excited and over-enthusiastic with the throttle :-)


Cheers
DD

Any Corvette outside those 220hp slugs built between 1975 and 1989 should be running at least low 14's and downward. Any decent low end C5 should run along with the XKR in a 1/4 mile. The Z06 is faster, and of course the ZR-1's (old and new) are faster yet. The XKR is no slouch for sure, but neither the vette or the xkr are drag cars. As a former ZR-1 owner for almost 10 years I can tell you that those cars were pretty good in the 1/4, but that's not where they were exceptional. It's when you cruise at 175 or dabble at 195+ that made them impressive. I suspect the XKR is really in fine form at speed, and not necessarily trying to kill the drive train getting there.

http://images110.fotki.com/v560/phot...280/021-vi.jpgHosted on Fotki

It was a beast for sure, but these days I'd take an XKR in a "heartbeat" (sorry, Chevy). ;)

http://images54.fotki.com/v556/photo...280/015-vi.jpgHosted on Fotki

Horsepower has gone nutz over the last few years. When I bought my 1995 Corvette it had 300hp and that number was almost mystical at the time. There were really only a couple of semi-mainstream exotics (is that an oxymoron?) that had 400hp (ZR-1, Viper) and those were well beyond the normal reach of most folks.

These days 300hp is common in many mainstream 4 door sedans and 400hp is the new 300hp.


Doug

I know what you mean. The 1984 Mustang GT only got 165 horsepower out of a 5.0 liter engine. And it was considered a fast car!

But tire technology must have improved along with engine technology, because it was easy to smoke the tires on my friend's 84 Mustang GT. Now, with nearly 300 HP and Continental DWS's, I have trouble spinning the tires in my XK8 on dry pavement (And yes, I turned off the traction control).

You also have to consider the near instant torque of the 5.0 (mine had around 200 HP/300 ft-lbs torque with a few mods to the non-HO 5.0 in my old Cougar, stock was 150 HP and the HO in the Mustang that year was 225 HP) and the low weight of Fords Fox body platform. That, coupled with an open differential and skinny 215mm width all season tires made it easy to light it up.

https://oi41.tinypic.com/2e4hxyh.jpg

The Jag was able to put all the power down and especially with all that torque. The Corvette couldn't put the power down properly.

No No No!!!!!! The driver of the Vette was asleep at the wheel, I heard him snoring. ZZZZZZZ

I raced an XKR with my 1995 corvette before I had to sell it (I had a re worked computer, throttle body, intake, injectors, roller rockers and trans-kit which = his super chargers) and he never knew what hit him!

I'll bet the driver took traction control off and did not know how to launch the car properly, lost traction and did not know how to get off it to let the tires grab in time.

In my opinion, a base 2000 up Vette will get by any stock Jag on the road and the Z06 will eat a jag XKR for lunch.

I like XK8's & R's but a good driver behind the wheel of a good running late model Vette (not to mention Z06) should be able to beat an XKR all day long.

The real advantage that the Corvette has over any Jaguar is much lighter weight. I believe my 1995 Corvette was somewhere in the neighborhood of 3400 pounds while the XK8/XKR are pushing 4000 pound in convertible form.

I found out it is not all that easy to be the fastest guy on the street. Especially when someone in one of those Asian rice-cookers like a Suburu WRX with some cheap tweaks could blow by most expensive muscle cars at a fraction of the cost.

I just feel good cruising along in my Jaguar and getting all the admiring looks even it is is a real mild driver by today's standards.


Doug

I dunno, Sam. That car looked too much like either you or H20Boy, which makes the win even better with a non-boosted engine!;)

Dunno about the condition of the Vette or its driver, buuuuuutttt....

Jaguar XKR vs C5 Corvette - YouTube

if its a crap job blame the tools

Two years ago I ran against a C5 Z06 with my 99 XJR at the drag strip. I ran a 12.996 to his 13.008. Of course they're much faster cars, he just had a bad launch. Still made my day though.

Too bad the beginning of the run was not recorded. The camera kept shutting off because the batteries were dying.


<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullscreen="true" allowNetworking="all" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf" flashvars="file=http%3A%2F%2Fvid988.photobucket.co m%2Falbums%2Faf2%2Fblackeagle2%2FVideos%2F18Oct091 2996.mp4">


http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/a...Oct0912996.jpg


Here's the time slip:


http://i38.tinypic.com/k522ww.jpg

That's gotta be 1000 feet and not a quarter mile, right? I can't imagine an XJR doing a 13 second quarter mile.

Damn! I just looked at the slip. That's a quarter mile! I had no idea an XJR could do a sub-thirteen second quarter. Wow! That's impressive.

And that's one of the old, steel XJRs, too, not one of the newer aluminum ones. Have you modified the engine?

As "Uncle Tom" McCahill would've said, "That's really haulin' the mail." :-)


Cheers
DD

Yes that a 1/4 mile. Only mods are exhaust and intake.

You done good.

From the reaction time he doesn't seem to have had that bad of a launch. He got the jump on the start.

edit: Have you got that timeslip laminated for inclusion in the sales kit for the next owner? :D

Yeah, I fell asleep at the lights. But this was only time trials so reaction time doesn't matter. I saw him running much faster times that day.

I don't think the next owner would want to know that I've been drag racing it.

Funny that I just noticed this thread. Our only home town drag strip - the 44 year old Kansas City International Raceway is in imminent danger of being closed down at the end of this season which is the last weekend in November.

Each weekend is threatening to be the last one.

My Dodge is on jackstands while I'm rebuilding the pushbutton torqueflight. So..... I decided to make possibly my last few trips down the quarter mile last weekend. I took the '03 XKR. It was crowded, so I only got two runs in.

I lined up against an rumbling open-header 2001 mustang with a 16-17year old teen at the wheel and thought my ass was grassed.

Well, he was kinda sleeping at the tree while "Dad" in his "luxury GT" left him standing still at the line. Surprisingly to me, he never caught up.

XKR ran 14.021 @ 100.98 mph to the mustang's 14.236 @ 100.38 mph!

Second run was 14.098 at 100.71 mph

I WAS surprised at the time she did turn - fairly respectable I'd say.

I guarantee if that $%#%$@$^%$ ZF 6HP26 TURD BOX of a tranny in our 03 and newer XKs would friggen hold 1st gear past 3000 rpm I could have bested that time by AT LEAST 2 tenths of a second.

I Hate HATE HATE that I can't manually shift into or out of 1st gear! It's bullsh*t!!!

But hell, our cars aren't made for that kind of duty anyhow, right?


If your interested here's some info about how the strip is being "taken" by the city.

KCIR is closing, and you didn't get a VOTE. - KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum
The Timeline of News feeds on KCIR's Closing - KCSR - THE Kansas City Forum

Yeah, that's the thing. Apparently the British are more into the top speed capabilities of these Jags than the 0-60 or quarter mile times as are us Americans.

These cars could be somewhat quicker in the 0-60 and quarter mile times if they were engineered that way.

OK, they can go 155 mph, that may be great for the Autobahn or some other places where you won't get thrown into jail for driving at those speeds, but here in America if would be better if they were engineered for a quicker start.

Though it doesn't bother me, as I am well past the phase of racing people from stoplights, I am sure that to a lot of other American XK owners would like if Jaguar had focused more on the short distances than the 155 mph top end.

The fastest I have been is about 145, and that was in the 70's, before cops had radar.

I'd love to get my Jag up to 155, but I don't have a place anywhere near to do it without fear of going to jail.

I agree about the top speed thing. Every time I see a cover of Motor Trend or Road & Track or some other magazine trumpeting that some car goes 175mph or 190mph or 205mph the first thing I think is "so what". I really care more about how briskly a car will get to 60.

Doug

Oh, I dunno. I've subscribed to various UK motoring publications and the writers talk about 0-60 acceleration all the time.







I think Jaguar usually goes for a blending of attributes when designing a car. And, let's face it, the overwhelming majority of Jag buyers driver their cars as though they were made out of glass anyway.

I'm just grateful that Jaguar has gotten back into the performance game. For many years they bowed out almost entirely and developed an image, IMHO, of have tons of style and elegance and very little else.

Personally though, I agree. I'd enjoy stronger acceleration much more than top speed numbers.....which, other than bragging rights, are pretty much academic.

Cheers
DD

0-60 is as meaningless to me as top end is. I don't race my car. I'd much rather have brisk mid range acceleration.

For some "mid-range" might be 10-145 mph :-)

Of course the 0-60 time doesn't tell the whole story about a car's performance any more than top speed does, but it does does provide an objective measurement.

Off-the-line ooomph is important to me, as is 50-80 mph acceleration for highway overtaking. It's not a matter of racing, though.

Cheers
DD

Clarification on what I said earlier.

1. I understand that Jaguar did not design the XK8 to be a stoplight racer and have the optimum 0-60 times. That was my point.

2. I am sure that everywhere on the planet there is interest in what time a car can go from 0-60.

3. We always get people coming to this forum shortly after they buy one of these cars, wanting to find out how to make it faster.

4. My point, once again, since I guess it was not clear the first time around is that Jaguar did not design this car to have the optimum 0-60 time, and, if they had, it would probably be a little faster in that area.

5. This is what I said before:
"Though it doesn't bother me, as I am well past the phase of racing people from stoplights, I am sure that to a lot of other American XK owners would like if Jaguar had focused more on the short distances than the 155 mph top end."

6. To me, the optimum area of performance for this, or most any other car that I, personally, am looking for is in the mid range, to allow me to easily pass cars on two lane highways when I need to as that is the only time that I really give it a chance to stretch its long legs.

I haven't seen anyone misunderstand or disagree with you :-)

Cheers
DD

I am COMPLETELY satisfied with the mid-range punch of my '03 XKR!

Nothing is so much fun as pulling into the left lane on the highway at about 50-60 mph to pass a dawdling slow-poke, and flooring it! Sheesh, it downshifts and simply hammers past other cars! I've seen 110 mph after an overtake many many times in the past 9 months that I've owned my car.

And the control, the precise feel of the steering when making a pseudo-kid move like that is refreshing too.

I know it's no Mercedes C65, twin-turbo powerhouse - but yeah! The Jag gets the job of midrange punch done JUST FINE. :)