The "How Fast Did You Drive Today" Thread

[dazzleman]

That's why I left so early.  Good movement today.  Much better than on the way up Wed!

I understand.

When I leave Boston, I time it for the maximum speeding opportunities.  I left at 8am this morning, and I should have left earlier, but I didn't feel like getting up.  Early Sunday morning is the absolute best time for some good lead-footing, especially with the good weather we had today.

[cawimmer430]

Have not been speeding much lately. Hit 150 km/h today and left it at that.

[Laconian]

35mph!

[Rupert]

1341!



mm/s, that is.

[cawimmer430]

35mph!

Did you get dizzy at that speed? 

[MrH]

110 mph yesterday

Only 90 mph or so today.

[Eye of the Tiger]

110 mph yesterday

Only 90 mph or so today.

Accent as been topping out at an indicated 110, lately. That one time I got it up to 114 must have been a slight downhill grade.

[Colonel Cadillac]

I hate I-95 and find that it takes a lot longer than my favored route, which is I-90 to I-84 to I-91.  I only saw a few cops.  Glad I avoided I-95.

Definitely the superior route.

Down here in Texas, at least in my limited experience, the cops are everywhere. I propose budget cuts to the police. I prefer Mississippi's level of highway enforcement: zero.

In any event, the highways are all perfectly straight, horrendously boring, and are not even remotely scenic.

[MrH]

Accent as been topping out at an indicated 110, lately. That one time I got it up to 114 must have been a slight downhill grade.

  I was going uphill.  Still felt like it had quite a bit left too.  Top speed is supposedly 143 mph.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Top speed for the A4 is definitely 132mph

Stupid governor, it still has steam for more.

[Eye of the Tiger]

  I was going uphill.  Still felt like it had quite a bit left too.  Top speed is supposedly 143 mph.

I try to top out every vehicle I own, just to make sure.

[Raza]

Top speed for the A4 is definitely 132mph

Stupid governor, it still has steam for more.

Yeah, the Passat still had juice at 130 and that had a lot less power than your 3.2.

[Cookie Monster]

About 80 today.


Miata doesn't have much left after about 130. I only got to 133 once due to the slight downhill. Mad wobbles at that speed.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Yeah, the Passat still had juice at 130 and that had a lot less power than your 3.2.

Yeah, but according to CALL_911 the 3.2 has lazy ponies.

[CALL_911]

Yeah, but according to CALL_911 the 3.2 has lazy ponies.

And CALL_911 maintains that position. Must we get into this debate every time someone mentions that your engine produces more power than a hamster on a wheel?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/20055-audi-a4-20t-quattro-road-test
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2005-audi-a4-32-quattro-page-1

I can't dig up 0-60 times on the 3.2 in that article, but the 3.2 runs a 15.8 second 1/4 mile, while the 2.0T ran a 15.5. I maintain, they are lazy horses.

"The 3.1-liter V-6 uses direct injection to make humdrum motor sounds, a healthy 252 horsepower, and a healthier exhaust. We'll have to take the latter two on faith because the drag-strip times don't vary much [from the old 3.0]."

[CALL_911]

Fine, I'll grant you that they tested an automatic 3.2 and a manual 2.0T, but this is as close to an even comparison as I can find. Regardless, with a 55 horsepower advantage, the 3.2 should still theoretically walk away from the 2.0T.

[dazzleman]

I think I hit 40 mph today.....

[Raza]

Swept past 90, but only momentarily.  I realized how fast I was going and backed off.  Headlamp died on me, so I'm cyclops out there right now.  Need a new bulb.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I think I hit 40 mph today.....

You are driving like an old man. Time for a new car. Something with some pep. Focus ST?

[cawimmer430]

An older video where I am doing 220 km/h in the 118i on the Autobahn.

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

[SVT666]

0 mph

Yup, still 0 mph.

[CJ]

60!

[Colonel Cadillac]

And CALL_911 maintains that position. Must we get into this debate every time someone mentions that your engine produces more power than a hamster on a wheel?

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/20055-audi-a4-20t-quattro-road-test
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2005-audi-a4-32-quattro-page-1

I can't dig up 0-60 times on the 3.2 in that article, but the 3.2 runs a 15.8 second 1/4 mile, while the 2.0T ran a 15.5. I maintain, they are lazy horses.

"The 3.1-liter V-6 uses direct injection to make humdrum motor sounds, a healthy 252 horsepower, and a healthier exhaust. We'll have to take the latter two on faith because the drag-strip times don't vary much [from the old 3.0]."

The manual was never tested. I maintain that in a drag race, manual to manual, I'd win every time. Testing conditions could be different, and I'm willing to bet the automatic 2.0T is a solid few ticks slower than the manual 2.0T. When I bought my car, a similarly equipped 2.0T was the same price, and the 3.2 is the more enjoyable engine so that's what really matters. At new prices, it wasn't really worth it, but used absolutely. The 3.2 + manual combination is quite rare, so that adds to the appeal as well.

I enjoy discussing the awesomeness of the 3.2, even if its not markedly faster than the 2.0T

[CALL_911]

The manual was never tested. I maintain that in a drag race, manual to manual, I'd win every time. Testing conditions could be different, and I'm willing to bet the automatic 2.0T is a solid few ticks slower than the manual 2.0T. When I bought my car, a similarly equipped 2.0T was the same price, and the 3.2 is the more enjoyable engine so that's what really matters. At new prices, it wasn't really worth it, but used absolutely. The 3.2 + manual combination is quite rare, so that adds to the appeal as well.

I enjoy discussing the awesomeness of the 3.2, even if its not markedly faster than the 2.0T

I don't know about the drag race claim, but fair enough. The 3.2 probably does sound better than the 2.0T.

[cawimmer430]

Hit 150 km/h today. 

[giant_mtb]

52mph

The manual was never tested. I maintain that in a drag race, manual to manual, I'd win every time. Testing conditions could be different, and I'm willing to bet the automatic 2.0T is a solid few ticks slower than the manual 2.0T. When I bought my car, a similarly equipped 2.0T was the same price, and the 3.2 is the more enjoyable engine so that's what really matters. At new prices, it wasn't really worth it, but used absolutely. The 3.2 + manual combination is quite rare, so that adds to the appeal as well.

I enjoy discussing the awesomeness of the 3.2, even if its not markedly faster than the 2.0T

Yes, the automatic is slower.  6.8 vs 6.5 seconds to 60, I believe, according to Audi.

[MexicoCityM3]

I don't know about the drag race claim, but fair enough. The 3.2 probably does sound better than the 2.0T.

The 3.2 is the engine I'd get definitely - if the price were close enough, which I think was the point of the reviewers that preferred the 2.0T.

[sportyaccordy]

I pegged 100 a couple of times on the storage ride. This bikes a god damn squirter man, you get it in its powerband and it just takes off. I am almost scared to get a fairing because the wind is whats keeping my speed down. Gonna try and get out on the track next spring.

[dazzleman]

I pegged 100 a couple of times on the storage ride. This bikes a god damn squirter man, you get it in its powerband and it just takes off. I am almost scared to get a fairing because the wind is whats keeping my speed down. Gonna try and get out on the track next spring.

WTF, you're riding bikes at 100 at this temperature?

[Raza]

The 3.2 is the engine I'd get definitely - if the price were close enough, which I think was the point of the reviewers that preferred the 2.0T.

Not me.  It's a fine engine, but the 2.0T is a great engine, gives you less weight over the nose, and can be boosted to high 200s with a $600 ECU tune.