Which car is worst affected?

The Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032 (2007): 2.30 s to 60 mph normally, 5.61 s on a wet surface — 3.31 s worse, or 144.0%. These are theoretical times from a physics simulation, not measured runs.

Which car is least affected?

The Opel Calibra 2.0 116 Man (1986), which loses only 0.00 s (0.0%), going from 10.04 s to 10.04 s. These are theoretical times from a physics simulation, not measured runs.

Does it hit turbocharged and naturally aspirated cars differently?

Yes. Simulated on a wet surface, forced-induction cars lose 34.7% on average against 29.1% for naturally aspirated ones and 57.4% 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 14,963 is 22.3% slower to 60 mph — for that car, the Peugeot 206 SW 1.6 HDiF 110, 9.07 s becomes 11.09 s. The worst affected is the Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032, which loses 3.31 s (144.0%). The least affected is the Opel Calibra 2.0 116 Man, 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	Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032	2007	2.30 s	5.61 s	+3.31 s	144.0%
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	Donkervoort GTO RS	2016	2.34 s	5.58 s	+3.24 s	138.2%
9	Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 C8	2024	2.41 s	5.73 s	+3.32 s	138.0%
10	9ff GT9 Vmax	2013	2.64 s	6.27 s	+3.63 s	137.7%
11	Koenigsegg One:1	2014	2.65 s	6.28 s	+3.64 s	137.5%
12	Koenigsegg Agera	2010	2.60 s	6.17 s	+3.57 s	137.4%
13	Koenigsegg Agera R	2011	2.63 s	6.24 s	+3.61 s	136.9%
14	Koenigsegg Regera	2016	2.56 s	6.03 s	+3.48 s	135.9%
15	Ariel Atom 4R	2023	2.22 s	5.22 s	+3.00 s	135.2%
16	Mclaren 788HS	2026	2.48 s	5.81 s	+3.33 s	134.2%
17	Brabus Bodo	2026	2.50 s	5.86 s	+3.36 s	134.2%
18	Zenvo TS1 5.8 V8 1118	2017	2.45 s	5.73 s	+3.28 s	134.1%
19	Mclaren W1	2025	2.43 s	5.68 s	+3.25 s	134.1%
20	Ferrari LaFerrari 6.3 V12 963	2013	2.45 s	5.72 s	+3.28 s	134.0%
21	Ferrari 296 Speciale A	2026	2.51 s	5.87 s	+3.36 s	134.0%
22	Mclaren 765LT Spider	2021	2.51 s	5.86 s	+3.35 s	133.7%
23	Koenigsegg One:1 5.0 V8 (1,360 HP)	2014	2.45 s	5.72 s	+3.27 s	133.6%
24	Mclaren 750S	2023	2.51 s	5.85 s	+3.35 s	133.5%
25	Ferrari 296 Speciale	2025	2.51 s	5.85 s	+3.34 s	133.4%
26	Mclaren 750S Spider	2023	2.50 s	5.84 s	+3.34 s	133.3%
27	Koenigsegg Agera R 5.0 V8 (1,115 HP)	2011	2.45 s	5.72 s	+3.27 s	133.2%
28	Koenigsegg Agera R 5.0 V8 (1,140 HP)	2011	2.45 s	5.72 s	+3.27 s	133.2%
29	Koenigsegg Agera 5.0 V8 910	2010	2.45 s	5.72 s	+3.27 s	133.2%
30	Mclaren Speedtail	2019	2.71 s	6.31 s	+3.60 s	132.9%
31	Ferrari Daytona SP3	2022	2.54 s	5.92 s	+3.37 s	132.8%
32	Ferrari F12tdf 6.3 V12 780	2015	2.54 s	5.89 s	+3.36 s	132.4%
33	Ferrari F8 Tributo	2019	2.54 s	5.90 s	+3.36 s	132.4%
34	Ferrari Monza SP1	2018	2.53 s	5.89 s	+3.35 s	132.2%
35	Ferrari LaFerrari Aperta 6.3 V12 963	2017	2.44 s	5.67 s	+3.23 s	132.1%
36	Ferrari F8 Tributo V8 Turbo 710	2019	2.53 s	5.88 s	+3.35 s	132.0%
37	Ferrari FXX 6.3 V12 800	2005	2.62 s	6.08 s	+3.46 s	131.9%
38	Jaguar XJ220S TWR	2015	2.79 s	6.47 s	+3.68 s	131.8%
39	Koenigsegg Agera S 5.0 V8 (1,130 HP)	2013	2.54 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.8%
40	Mclaren 720S Spider	2018	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.8%
41	Ferrari 488 Pista Spider	2018	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.5%
42	Lotus 3-Eleven Race	2016	2.73 s	6.31 s	+3.58 s	131.3%
43	Ferrari F12 TDF	2016	2.55 s	5.90 s	+3.35 s	131.1%
44	Ariel Atom 500 V8	2010	2.00 s	4.62 s	+2.62 s	131.1%
45	Zenvo ST1 6.8 V8 1104	2009	2.63 s	6.08 s	+3.45 s	131.1%
46	Mclaren 765LT	2020	2.69 s	6.22 s	+3.53 s	131.0%
47	Mclaren 675LT Spider	2016	2.56 s	5.91 s	+3.35 s	130.9%
48	9ff GT9	2008	3.08 s	7.11 s	+4.03 s	130.9%
49	Pagani Huayra Roadster 6.0 V12 764	2017	2.63 s	6.07 s	+3.44 s	130.9%
50	Mclaren 675LT	2015	2.69 s	6.20 s	+3.51 s	130.5%
51	Ferrari 296 GTB 3.0 V6 PHEV 830	2022	2.53 s	5.81 s	+3.28 s	130.0%
52	Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 5.2 V8 770	2019	2.73 s	6.28 s	+3.54 s	129.5%
53	Ferrari F8 Spider	2019	2.73 s	6.26 s	+3.53 s	129.5%
54	Donkervoort D8 GTO-40	2018	3.01 s	6.89 s	+3.89 s	129.1%
55	Mclaren Artura Spider	2024	2.70 s	6.18 s	+3.48 s	128.9%
56	Mclaren 600LT Spider	2019	2.74 s	6.26 s	+3.52 s	128.7%
57	Ferrari 488 Spider	2015	2.58 s	5.89 s	+3.31 s	128.4%
58	Lotec C1000	1991	3.43 s	7.82 s	+4.39 s	128.3%
59	Mclaren GTS	2023	2.74 s	6.25 s	+3.51 s	128.0%
60	Mclaren Artura	2022	2.72 s	6.19 s	+3.47 s	127.9%

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	Opel Calibra 2.0 116 Man	1986	10.04 s	10.04 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
2	Opel Astra Sedan 1.6 75 Auto	1998	14.81 s	14.81 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
3	Opel Astra Caravan 1.6 75 Auto	1998	15.47 s	15.47 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
4	Opel Astra Cabriolet 1.6i 75 Auto	1995	15.47 s	15.47 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
5	Opel Astra 3dr 1.6 75 Auto	1998	14.81 s	14.81 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
6	Opel Astra 1.6i 75 Auto	1994	15.46 s	15.46 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
7	Mercedes-Benz VIANO 2.2 CDI 163 (2003)	2003	11.71 s	11.71 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
8	Mercedes-Benz E-Class (W211) 240 V6 4MATIC 177	2002	9.71 s	9.71 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
9	Mercedes-Benz C-Class T-Modell (W203) 240 4MATIC 170	2004	9.49 s	9.49 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
10	Mercedes-Benz C-Class T-Modell (S203) 240 4MATIC 170	2001	9.49 s	9.49 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
11	Mercedes-Benz A-Class Coupe (C169) 160 CDI CVT 82	2008	13.80 s	13.80 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
12	Mercedes-Benz A-Class (W169) 160 CDI CVT 82	2008	13.80 s	13.80 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
13	Audi A6 Avant 2.8 V6 quattro 193 Auto	1998	9.60 s	9.60 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
14	Audi A6 Avant 2.6 V6 quattro 150 Auto	1994	11.80 s	11.80 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
15	Audi A6 Avant 2.5 TDI quattro 180 Auto (1998)	1998	10.06 s	10.06 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
16	Audi A6 Avant 2.4 V6 quattro 170 Auto	2001	10.09 s	10.09 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
17	Audi A6 Avant 2.4 V6 quattro 165 Auto	1998	9.99 s	9.99 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
18	Audi A6 2.8 V6 quattro 193 Auto	1997	9.24 s	9.24 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
19	Audi A6 2.6 V6 quattro 150	1994	11.52 s	11.52 s	+0.00 s	0.0%
20	Audi A6 2.5 TDI quattro 150 Auto	1997	9.58 s	9.58 s	+0.00 s	0.0%

Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032 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 14,963 is 22.3% slower to 60 mph, simulated on a wet surface — for that car, the Peugeot 206 SW 1.6 HDiF 110, 9.07 s becomes 11.09 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 Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032 loses 3.31 s while the Opel Calibra 2.0 116 Man 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 Koenigsegg CCXR 4.7 V8 1032 (2007): 2.30 s to 60 mph normally, 5.61 s on a wet surface — 3.31 s worse, or 144.0%. These are theoretical times from a physics simulation, not measured runs.
Which car is least affected?: The Opel Calibra 2.0 116 Man (1986), which loses only 0.00 s (0.0%), going from 10.04 s to 10.04 s. These are theoretical times from a physics simulation, not measured runs.
Does it hit turbocharged and naturally aspirated cars differently?: Yes. Simulated on a wet surface, forced-induction cars lose 34.7% on average against 29.1% for naturally aspirated ones and 57.4% 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 2026-10-12. Every number on this page is computed by the simulator at build time, so the page and the app can never disagree.