Which car is worst affected?

The Porsche 917/10 Spyder (1971): 1.82 s to 60 mph normally, 4.71 s on a wet surface — 2.89 s worse, or 158.9%.

Which car is least affected?

The Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (1999), which loses only 0.00 s (0.0%), going from 7.86 s to 7.86 s.

Does it hit turbocharged and naturally aspirated cars differently?

Yes. Simulated on a wet surface, forced-induction cars lose 64.9% on average against 65.7% for naturally aspirated ones and 63.3% for electric cars. That gap is the point: a spec sheet quotes one number per car and cannot show it.

Are these real measured times?

No. Both the normal and the wet figure are produced by the same physics simulation, each car modelled from its published mass, power, drivetrain and gearing and trimmed to its own published acceleration figures. What is meaningful here is the difference between two runs of the same car under rules that differ in exactly one respect.

← My Auto Racer Answers All cars Comparisons Fastest lists

How much slower is a car in the wet?

Run on a wet surface, the middle car of 2,929 is 62.9% slower to 60 mph — for that car, the Porsche 944 S2, 6.77 s becomes 11.02 s. The worst affected is the Porsche 917/10 Spyder, which loses 2.89 s (158.9%). The least affected is the Mercedes-Benz ML 430, which gives away 0.00 s (0.0%).

Simulated, not measured. Every car is run twice under identical rules — once at 20 °C on dry asphalt at sea level, once on a wet surface — and the difference is what is reported here.

Why it happens

Wet asphalt cuts the grip the tyres have to work with. A car that was never traction-limited in the dry loses little; a powerful rear-drive car that was already struggling to put its power down loses a great deal, because the thing holding it back got worse.

Worst affected

#	Car	Year	Normal	Wet	Lost	Worse by
1	Porsche 917/10 Spyder	1971	1.82 s	4.71 s	+2.89 s	158.9%
2	Donkervoort F22	2023	2.17 s	5.25 s	+3.08 s	142.0%
3	Koenigsegg CCX Edition	2008	2.34 s	5.65 s	+3.30 s	140.9%
4	9ff GT9-R	2009	2.46 s	5.92 s	+3.46 s	140.8%
5	Dauer Porsche 962 LeMans	1994	2.32 s	5.59 s	+3.27 s	140.6%
6	Koenigsegg CCXR	2007	2.50 s	6.00 s	+3.50 s	140.3%
7	Hennessey Venom GT	2010	2.54 s	6.08 s	+3.54 s	139.3%
8	Mclaren MCL39	2025	2.22 s	5.32 s	+3.10 s	139.1%
9	Donkervoort GTO RS	2016	2.34 s	5.58 s	+3.24 s	138.2%
10	Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 C8	2024	2.41 s	5.73 s	+3.32 s	138.0%
11	9ff GT9 Vmax	2013	2.64 s	6.27 s	+3.63 s	137.7%
12	Koenigsegg One:1	2014	2.65 s	6.28 s	+3.64 s	137.5%
13	Koenigsegg Agera	2010	2.60 s	6.17 s	+3.57 s	137.4%
14	Koenigsegg Agera R	2011	2.63 s	6.24 s	+3.61 s	136.9%
15	Koenigsegg Regera	2016	2.56 s	6.03 s	+3.48 s	135.9%
16	Ariel Atom 4R	2023	2.22 s	5.22 s	+3.00 s	135.2%
17	Mclaren 788HS	2026	2.48 s	5.81 s	+3.33 s	134.2%
18	Brabus Bodo	2026	2.50 s	5.86 s	+3.36 s	134.2%
19	Mclaren W1	2025	2.43 s	5.68 s	+3.25 s	134.1%
20	Ferrari 296 Speciale A	2026	2.51 s	5.87 s	+3.36 s	134.0%
21	Mclaren 765LT Spider	2021	2.51 s	5.86 s	+3.35 s	133.7%
22	Mclaren 750S	2023	2.51 s	5.85 s	+3.35 s	133.5%
23	Ferrari 296 Speciale	2025	2.51 s	5.85 s	+3.34 s	133.4%
24	Mclaren 750S Spider	2023	2.50 s	5.84 s	+3.34 s	133.3%
25	Mclaren Speedtail	2019	2.71 s	6.31 s	+3.60 s	132.9%
26	Ferrari Daytona SP3	2022	2.54 s	5.92 s	+3.37 s	132.8%
27	Ferrari F8 Tributo	2019	2.54 s	5.90 s	+3.36 s	132.4%
28	Ferrari Monza SP1	2018	2.53 s	5.89 s	+3.35 s	132.2%
29	Jaguar XJ220S TWR	2015	2.79 s	6.47 s	+3.68 s	131.8%
30	Mclaren 720S Spider	2018	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.8%
31	Ferrari 488 Pista Spider	2018	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.5%
32	Lotus 3-Eleven Race	2016	2.73 s	6.31 s	+3.58 s	131.3%
33	Ferrari F12 TDF	2016	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.1%
34	Ariel Atom 500 V8	2010	2.00 s	4.62 s	+2.62 s	131.1%
35	Mclaren 765LT	2020	2.69 s	6.22 s	+3.53 s	131.0%
36	Mclaren 675LT Spider	2016	2.56 s	5.91 s	+3.35 s	130.9%
37	9ff GT9	2008	3.08 s	7.11 s	+4.03 s	130.9%
38	Mclaren 675LT	2015	2.69 s	6.20 s	+3.51 s	130.5%
39	Ferrari F8 Spider	2019	2.73 s	6.26 s	+3.53 s	129.5%
40	Donkervoort D8 GTO-40	2018	3.01 s	6.89 s	+3.89 s	129.1%
41	Mclaren Artura Spider	2024	2.70 s	6.18 s	+3.48 s	128.9%
42	Mclaren 600LT Spider	2019	2.74 s	6.26 s	+3.52 s	128.7%
43	Ferrari 488 Spider	2015	2.58 s	5.89 s	+3.31 s	128.4%
44	Lotec C1000	1991	3.43 s	7.82 s	+4.39 s	128.3%
45	Mclaren GTS	2023	2.74 s	6.25 s	+3.51 s	128.0%
46	Audi R10 TDI	2006	2.32 s	5.28 s	+2.97 s	128.0%
47	Mclaren Artura	2022	2.72 s	6.19 s	+3.47 s	127.9%
48	Lamborghini Huracán STO	2020	2.60 s	5.92 s	+3.32 s	127.7%
49	Koenigsegg Agera RS 1MW	2015	3.11 s	7.09 s	+3.98 s	127.7%
50	Ultima Can-am	2015	2.99 s	6.81 s	+3.82 s	127.7%
51	Caparo T1	2007	2.36 s	5.36 s	+3.00 s	127.4%
52	Ferrari Amalfi	2025	2.92 s	6.64 s	+3.72 s	127.3%
53	Ferrari Roma	2019	2.99 s	6.76 s	+3.77 s	126.3%
54	Praga Bohema	2023	3.06 s	6.93 s	+3.87 s	126.3%
55	Saleen S7 Twin Turbo	2005	3.48 s	7.88 s	+4.40 s	126.2%
56	Lotec Sirius	2015	3.37 s	7.62 s	+4.25 s	126.0%
57	Lamborghini Huracán Evo RWD	2020	2.94 s	6.64 s	+3.70 s	125.6%
58	Pagani Zonda C12-F Clubsport Roadster	2015	2.69 s	6.08 s	+3.38 s	125.6%
59	Mclaren 570GT	2016	2.90 s	6.55 s	+3.65 s	125.6%
60	Brabus EV12	2015	3.20 s	7.22 s	+4.01 s	125.3%

Ranked by how much of its own 0-60 each car gives away, not by seconds — otherwise the list would simply be the slowest cars in the set.

Least affected

#	Car	Year	Normal	Wet	Lost	Worse by
1	Mercedes-Benz ML 430	1999	7.86 s	7.86 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
2	VW Touareg V6 Mk I	2005	10.42 s	10.42 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
3	Audi V8 Quattro 3.6	1988	9.12 s	9.16 s	+0.04 s	0.4%
4	Porsche Cayenne Mk I	2005	9.24 s	9.32 s	+0.08 s	0.9%
5	Subaru XT Turbo	1985	8.97 s	9.06 s	+0.09 s	1.0%
6	Audi 90 2.3 E 20v Quattro B3	1988	8.04 s	8.15 s	+0.11 s	1.4%
7	Honda Civic Shuttle 1.6i 4WD Mk IV	1990	9.41 s	9.55 s	+0.14 s	1.5%
8	Mercedes-Benz GL 320 CDI X164	2006	9.86 s	10.04 s	+0.18 s	1.8%
9	Mercedes-Benz R 350 BlueTEC 4Motion	2009	9.35 s	9.54 s	+0.19 s	2.0%
10	Lamborghini LM002	1985	8.15 s	8.39 s	+0.24 s	3.0%
11	Toyota Celica GT-Four ST165	1986	7.58 s	7.81 s	+0.23 s	3.0%
12	Alfa Romeo 33 S 16 V - Permanent 4	1990	8.22 s	8.48 s	+0.26 s	3.2%
13	Nissan X-Trail 2.2 dCi	2004	10.69 s	11.05 s	+0.36 s	3.4%
14	Citroen BX 4TC	1985	6.90 s	7.15 s	+0.25 s	3.6%
15	Subaru SVX LSL	1991	7.32 s	7.60 s	+0.27 s	3.7%
16	Ford Sierra XR4x4	1987	7.89 s	8.21 s	+0.33 s	4.1%
17	Toyota bZ4X	2023	6.50 s	6.77 s	+0.27 s	4.1%
18	Jaguar X-Type 3.0	2002	7.98 s	8.31 s	+0.34 s	4.2%
19	Alfa Romeo 164 Q4 3.0 V6 24v	1993	7.24 s	7.56 s	+0.33 s	4.5%
20	Porsche 911 Carrera 4 Cabrio 993 272 PS	1994	6.29 s	6.57 s	+0.28 s	4.5%

Porsche 917/10 Spyder Donkervoort F22

The two that suffer most, on the line together. Set the surface and the weather yourself and watch what it does.

Questions

How much slower is a car in the wet?: The middle car of 2,929 is 62.9% slower to 60 mph, simulated on a wet surface — for that car, the Porsche 944 S2, 6.77 s becomes 11.02 s. That is the middle of the losses, not the middle of the field: the spread is very wide and the median is the honest number here: the Porsche 917/10 Spyder loses 2.89 s while the Mercedes-Benz ML 430 loses 0.00 s, so an average would be pulled a long way from anything a reader is likely to be driving.
Which car is worst affected?: The Porsche 917/10 Spyder (1971): 1.82 s to 60 mph normally, 4.71 s on a wet surface — 2.89 s worse, or 158.9%.
Which car is least affected?: The Mercedes-Benz ML 430 (1999), which loses only 0.00 s (0.0%), going from 7.86 s to 7.86 s.
Does it hit turbocharged and naturally aspirated cars differently?: Yes. Simulated on a wet surface, forced-induction cars lose 64.9% on average against 65.7% for naturally aspirated ones and 63.3% for electric cars. That gap is the point: a spec sheet quotes one number per car and cannot show it.
Are these real measured times?: No. Both the normal and the wet figure are produced by the same physics simulation, each car modelled from its published mass, power, drivetrain and gearing and trimmed to its own published acceleration figures. What is meaningful here is the difference between two runs of the same car under rules that differ in exactly one respect.

Figures regenerated 2026-09-01. Every number on this page is computed by the simulator at build time, so the page and the app can never disagree.