Image of RUF BTR

RUF BTR specs

Car type Coupe
Curb weight 1260-1280 kg (2778-2822 lbs)
Introduced 1992
Origin country Germany
Gas mileage 17.7 l/100 km (13 mpg US / 16 mpg UK)
Views 8.9k
Submitted by Georg

Performance

0 - 50 kph1.7 s
0 - 100 kph3.9 s
0 - 160 kph11.7 s
0 - 200 kph12.8 s
1000 m21.0 s
60 - 100 kph (4)5.8 s
60 - 100 kph (5)7.9 s
80 - 120 kph (6)10.0 s
Est. 100 - 200 kph9.0 s
0 - 60 mph3.6 s
0 - 100 mph8.3 s
Est. 1/8 mile8.3 s @ 100.7 mph
1/4 mile11.9 s
Est. 1/2 mile19.4 s @ 148.5 mph
Est. 1 mile31.7 s @ 173.4 mph
Top speed331 kph (205 mph)
Est. max acceleration0.80 g (8 m/s²)
RUF BTR acceleration graph

Powertrain specs

Engine type flat 6 turbo
Displacement 3.8 l (232 ci)
Power 415 ps (409 bhp / 305 kw)
Torque 550 Nm (406 lb-ft)
Power / liter 109 ps (108 hp)
Power / weight 327 ps (322 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 433 Nm (319 lb-ft) / t
Efficiency 23 PS per l/100 km
Transmission 6 Speed manual
Layout rear engine, rear wheel drive

More 0-60 and 1/4 mile times

User avatar
User avatar

hostboy  2m ago

Looking back to my post from 4 years ago, it looks like the 0-100kph time was far better than the posted 4.7sec. Back then, Road & Track had a joint venture test with Le Moniteur Automobile. That 0-60mph time (4.6s) alongside the Jag XJ220's 4.8s (which did the 1km sprint in 22sec) were ridiculously conservative estimates. But the 90s were complicated, even some 1km times, like say the Ferrari F40's 19.9 and the Lamborghini Diablo's 20.7, were actually liberal.

If you think about it, the 90s and even the 2000s were not much better than the 60s. They didn't have advanced stopwatches to keep track of speed and distance like today. I think the 3.6sec 0-60mph time (for the Ruf BTR) is far more accurate than the 4.6sec time, considering not only the 1km time, but also considering the gap in between 400-1000m; it did the 400m mark in 11.9s.

In addition to that, the 0-100mph time of 8.3sec is more consistent with the 11.9 and 21.0 numbers posted for the quarter-mile and full-kilometer miles, than the 9.7sec (let alone the 11.7sec) one. Also, I believe Ruf underrated the BTR in the same way they did with the CTR.

 

User avatar

196ss  2m ago

Considering they reached 100 km/h with RUF, XJ220 and 456GT in the same ~5 seconds, I think they had traction problems. Dusty or slippery surface probably.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago

And this:
"If you think about it, the 90s and even the 2000s were not much better than the 60s. They didn't have advanced stopwatches to keep track of speed and distance like today."
Are you serious??
I mean, REALLY?

abe5dc949725.jpg?550x800m

a0be0374c5ee.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

196ss  2m ago

Le Moniteur Automobile № 1073, 26.01.1995:
0-160 kph - 11,7 sec
1000 m - 21,0 sec
Top speed - 330,7 kph

 

User avatar

hostboy  2m ago

I don't think a 0-160kph time of 11.7sec is consistent with any car that does the standing kilometer in 21 flat. Most cars that do that sprint are in the high 7, low 8 sec range from 0-160. On a different topic, a BMW M3 E9x does the 0-160 sprint in around 9 seconds, and that does the standing km in only a bit less than 23 seconds.


User avatar

hostboy  4y ago

400m: 11.9
1000m: 21
0-100kph: 4.7sec (60mph in 4.6)
0-160kph: 9.7sec
Vmax: 330.7kph

http://www.autotitre.com/forum/Bugatti/EB110/Bugatti-EB110-Magazine-articles-scans-108001p1.htm


User avatar

Anonymous  13y ago

1260 is the mass, not the weight distribution. Please correct it!


User avatar

Wads  13y ago

"that are GT3 wheels mounted to a RUF..." so its not stock then ;-) only joking....


User avatar

Anonymous  13y ago

An 18 year old car has great numbers!!! A little surprised there are no track times??


User avatar

Georg  13y ago

that are GT3 wheels mounted to a RUF...


User avatar

Anonymous  13y ago

This aint no Ruf, this is just a Porsche Turbo. what ruf has porsche insignia on the wheels?