Car and Driver Lightning lap Test Falsified?
Oct 20, 2008, 06:46 AM
#46
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DE
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The numbers do look screwy, but since they used an MR it's hard to directly compare. From the last track day I had at Watkins Glen where both HP and handling are needed to navigate the track, I can tell you that even my friend in his brand new stock Evo X was moving around the track at a brisk pace.
Where these cars really shine is once they are tweaked with some well placed mods. I had more brakes thanks to the excellent Raybestos pads that were recommended by Girodisc and I was out braking everything in my run group besides maybe a Z06 on slicks. When it came to power, even running lower 23 psi of boost at the low to mid range I managed 140 mph on the back straight which amazed me. Static handling through the turns was also quite good considering the stock tires and only slightly modded suspension and I was only marginally better than my friend's Evo X in that category.
Overall a GT3 was able to keep pace with me and the Z06 on slicks was passing everyone due to 500 HP and insane traction, besides that I was blowing past every single other car out there it was almost like cheating. Now granted this was just a track day lapping event but it was very easy to keep this car moving around the track safely within limits with the tires singing but not over driven. I would be very amazed if a Cobalt SS could keep pace with my friend's Stock Evo X and once you look at future potential after mods the gap opens wider. Without testing two nearly identically prepared cars I guess there will be far too many variables but those skidpad numbers don't add up just as the OP stated.
Where these cars really shine is once they are tweaked with some well placed mods. I had more brakes thanks to the excellent Raybestos pads that were recommended by Girodisc and I was out braking everything in my run group besides maybe a Z06 on slicks. When it came to power, even running lower 23 psi of boost at the low to mid range I managed 140 mph on the back straight which amazed me. Static handling through the turns was also quite good considering the stock tires and only slightly modded suspension and I was only marginally better than my friend's Evo X in that category.
Overall a GT3 was able to keep pace with me and the Z06 on slicks was passing everyone due to 500 HP and insane traction, besides that I was blowing past every single other car out there it was almost like cheating. Now granted this was just a track day lapping event but it was very easy to keep this car moving around the track safely within limits with the tires singing but not over driven. I would be very amazed if a Cobalt SS could keep pace with my friend's Stock Evo X and once you look at future potential after mods the gap opens wider. Without testing two nearly identically prepared cars I guess there will be far too many variables but those skidpad numbers don't add up just as the OP stated.
Where are the O.G. VIII haters at? 
Oct 20, 2008, 07:31 AM
#48
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you can take away from this article is that the EVOs entry and exit speeds to corners where faster than all the cars in LL2, but the Z51. It matches or beats every car in the curves except for the Z51. It even beats some of the more high powered cars in an uphill section that does take some grunt. The article does state that the particular SST they had felt squishy and partly blames it on the 3:13 lap time as well as weight. They stae if shifting would have been better and a little wieght loss and the car would run well into 3:10s Im not making a negativre comment about SST either, but not all of them are created equal yet some are having issues and arent performing as well as others. This isnt a bad article for the evo. It just says if you add power to it you will have a M3, AMG killer on your hand. You buy an EVO to mod or atleast I do, and this article shows almost exactly what I want to see. A car that out handles everything that just needs some power. Its much easier to make power than handling. The X may be a $600 tune away from beating the AMG and M3. Not to mention all the 911s on the track minus the turbo and GT versions.
Oct 20, 2008, 08:26 AM
#49
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Interesting, I see what you're saying. However, even if it were true that the driver was sandbagging, how much faster do you honestly think it should have gone? It was already .2 seconds faster than the IX MR, and no matter how much reasonable decrease in time you give it, it will still be very close to the cobalt. Don't you think this theory could tie in with your assumption that the Evo X SHOULD be faster (superior)?
In the motortrend test though, they gave data on the whole course and it showed the evo pulling higher G loads on every corner than the cobalt and it gave up speed only on some of the straights. Although what's strange with this test is the fact that the EVO was faster on a couple of the up hill sections which begs the question of where the cobalt in fact gained ground, which points to the corners and that's impossible.
The cobalt can't do that and that's not an opinion it's a fact. So, if the cobalt did gain ground in the corners then it means that the EVO wasn't pushed to it's limits around the turns, either through driver error or just infamiliarity with the car's capabilities, and that makes for a bunk comparison.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Oct 20, 2008 at 08:33 AM.
Oct 20, 2008, 08:39 AM
#51
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
We're talking about the lap times and road course data, not the actual ratings for the cars based on how much the driver liked them. Although the X beat the cobalt in both FWIW.
Oct 20, 2008, 08:52 AM
#52
I see what you are saying. I think I was looking for a couple of tenths that could've been squeezed out of the car seeing as how it didn't seem to be pushed to it's limits around at least the one turn that data was given for. Again, since there isn't data for more than turn 1, it's hard to say.
In the motortrend test though, they gave data on the whole course and it showed the evo pulling higher G loads on every corner than the cobalt and it gave up speed only on some of the straights. Although what's strange with this test is the fact that the EVO was faster on a couple of the up hill sections which begs the question of where the cobalt in fact gained ground, which points to the corners and that's impossible.
The cobalt can't do that and that's not an opinion it's a fact. So, if the cobalt did gain ground in the corners then it means that the EVO wasn't pushed to it's limits around the turns, either through driver error or just infamiliarity with the car's capabilities, and that makes for a bunk comparison.
In the motortrend test though, they gave data on the whole course and it showed the evo pulling higher G loads on every corner than the cobalt and it gave up speed only on some of the straights. Although what's strange with this test is the fact that the EVO was faster on a couple of the up hill sections which begs the question of where the cobalt in fact gained ground, which points to the corners and that's impossible.
The cobalt can't do that and that's not an opinion it's a fact. So, if the cobalt did gain ground in the corners then it means that the EVO wasn't pushed to it's limits around the turns, either through driver error or just infamiliarity with the car's capabilities, and that makes for a bunk comparison.
Ok, I'm not sure I exactly understand the sector times here. Are the total times supposed to add up to the course lap time? Because they don't, unless I'm missing something. Either way, like I said, this is the car that can run the Nurburgring as fast as the e46 M3. I'm nothing but impressed, and I don't question the Cobalt's time, anyway.
::nevermind:: I see. All the yellow parts are where they didn't take data for the cars: They picked 5 "sectors" to gather information from, but as you guys can see from the data panel that leaves a huge area left throughout the entire courseway where the Cobalt probably made it's ground.
Oct 20, 2008, 08:52 AM
#53
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks with stock Evo raise your hands...
Anyway, American cars were always decent at strait line performance, why is everybody surprized?
And being that the whole car industry here is in the sh1tter, they uped the ante a bit. If the gvmnt didn't take our money to bail them out, they'd be gone and none of these discussions would matter
Maybe you folks should get one SS before they become antique.
So enjoy your cars, there will always be someone faster. Heck, you can come to track day events and get beat by a 94 Civic.
I remember on my first event, a guy with a Nissan 100NX went flying by me out of the corner and I couldn't keep up. Stock suspension on Evo is great for the street but it no so great on the track. Yeah, it's better than a Honda Accord, hell better than most other stock cars but compared to coilovers it's nothing special. Same with stock engine. I couldn't pick up speed after 100mph. Car felt like it couldn't accelerate anymore. On a fast track, like Nürburgring's Nordschleife mentioned here, power is almost everything (but then if you have a good driver
).
Enjoy the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1pklvKKnd0
Anyway, American cars were always decent at strait line performance, why is everybody surprized?
And being that the whole car industry here is in the sh1tter, they uped the ante a bit. If the gvmnt didn't take our money to bail them out, they'd be gone and none of these discussions would matter
Maybe you folks should get one SS before they become antique.
So enjoy your cars, there will always be someone faster. Heck, you can come to track day events and get beat by a 94 Civic.
I remember on my first event, a guy with a Nissan 100NX went flying by me out of the corner and I couldn't keep up. Stock suspension on Evo is great for the street but it no so great on the track. Yeah, it's better than a Honda Accord, hell better than most other stock cars but compared to coilovers it's nothing special. Same with stock engine. I couldn't pick up speed after 100mph. Car felt like it couldn't accelerate anymore. On a fast track, like Nürburgring's Nordschleife mentioned here, power is almost everything (but then if you have a good driver
).Enjoy the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1pklvKKnd0
Oct 20, 2008, 09:02 AM
#54
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cobalt loses more than 2 secs in the corners according to thre break down, and even loses on a uphill part of the test with a decent straight by 0.5 secs. It is hard to believe that is makes up 2 seconds on the rest of the track, but it does somewhere. Also the EVOs top speed was 114 and the cobalts was 124mph. The 124 matches the top speed of the EVO IX top speed in test, but the IX loses out to both cars. Something else note worthy about the test is the 135 is 3 seconds slower than its heavier 335 in the test that ran in the 3:10s on the same track in a previous test, and the 135 is wicked fast in the straights.
I see what you are saying. I think I was looking for a couple of tenths that could've been squeezed out of the car seeing as how it didn't seem to be pushed to it's limits around at least the one turn that data was given for. Again, since there isn't data for more than turn 1, it's hard to say.
In the motortrend test though, they gave data on the whole course and it showed the evo pulling higher G loads on every corner than the cobalt and it gave up speed only on some of the straights. Although what's strange with this test is the fact that the EVO was faster on a couple of the up hill sections which begs the question of where the cobalt in fact gained ground, which points to the corners and that's impossible.
The cobalt can't do that and that's not an opinion it's a fact. So, if the cobalt did gain ground in the corners then it means that the EVO wasn't pushed to it's limits around the turns, either through driver error or just infamiliarity with the car's capabilities, and that makes for a bunk comparison.
In the motortrend test though, they gave data on the whole course and it showed the evo pulling higher G loads on every corner than the cobalt and it gave up speed only on some of the straights. Although what's strange with this test is the fact that the EVO was faster on a couple of the up hill sections which begs the question of where the cobalt in fact gained ground, which points to the corners and that's impossible.
The cobalt can't do that and that's not an opinion it's a fact. So, if the cobalt did gain ground in the corners then it means that the EVO wasn't pushed to it's limits around the turns, either through driver error or just infamiliarity with the car's capabilities, and that makes for a bunk comparison.
Oct 20, 2008, 09:06 AM
#55
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the ideas mentioned might be true to some degree, but my opinion is that the MR is especially slow due to its greater weight and softer damping...and the 10 awhp deficit due to the trans...that's 3 things against it. A fast track like VIR doesn't let the SST gear ratios and fast shifting come into play.
maybe a GSR would have been slow too, but i doubt it. I will say that mistu should have had a 320 hp factory tune though. We have to tune these cars ourselves and void the warranty.
maybe a GSR would have been slow too, but i doubt it. I will say that mistu should have had a 320 hp factory tune though. We have to tune these cars ourselves and void the warranty.
Oct 20, 2008, 10:03 AM
#56
Oh my god, are you serious? Listen to what I'm actually saying: I never said that the magazines should choose a track that favors the evo, I'm just saying that when you have supercars in the test that are going to destroy everything else on the straights and high speed sweepers, you need to choose a track that is ballanced to show the OVERALL capabilities of all of the cars being used. This is the point of a comparison test. It has nothing to do with the evo, it's about all of the cars below the supercars. It's about choosing a track that exploits the full potential of all of the cars being tested to show how they truly compare to one another.
They should choose a track that has a balance of turns and straights rather than a lot of one and not much of the other. Second, my main point was the fact that since the rest of the cars achieved maximum grip in the corners and pulled similar G loads to thier respective skidpad tests that it seemed strange that the EVO and Lotus (2 of the most highly acclaimed cars for their handling capabilities) didn't seem to be pushed to their limits, at least not on the turn that the data was given for. If the rest of the turns had data to compare then this probably wouldn't even be a discussion.
Anyway, I acknowledge that the possibility of car and driver taking a bribe is pretty ridiculous, but I do think that magazines tend to sway to one side sometimes and it does raise questions. In any case, if you stop putting words in my mouth and making sarcastic comments you'll see that my points are in fact quite valid, even if you disagree with them.
They should choose a track that has a balance of turns and straights rather than a lot of one and not much of the other. Second, my main point was the fact that since the rest of the cars achieved maximum grip in the corners and pulled similar G loads to thier respective skidpad tests that it seemed strange that the EVO and Lotus (2 of the most highly acclaimed cars for their handling capabilities) didn't seem to be pushed to their limits, at least not on the turn that the data was given for. If the rest of the turns had data to compare then this probably wouldn't even be a discussion.
Anyway, I acknowledge that the possibility of car and driver taking a bribe is pretty ridiculous, but I do think that magazines tend to sway to one side sometimes and it does raise questions. In any case, if you stop putting words in my mouth and making sarcastic comments you'll see that my points are in fact quite valid, even if you disagree with them.
The Evo posted a G number close to that found in other tests. Remember, they are using an MR not the GSR. The GSR posts higher numbers than the MR.
As I said before, this idea that the magazine would be biased isn't valid because the very reasons why they might be biased are the very reasons why they can't be biased.
Oct 20, 2008, 10:37 AM
#58
The cobalt loses more than 2 secs in the corners according to thre break down, and even loses on a uphill part of the test with a decent straight by 0.5 secs. It is hard to believe that is makes up 2 seconds on the rest of the track, but it does somewhere. Also the EVOs top speed was 114 and the cobalts was 124mph. The 124 matches the top speed of the EVO IX top speed in test, but the IX loses out to both cars. Something else note worthy about the test is the 135 is 3 seconds slower than its heavier 335 in the test that ran in the 3:10s on the same track in a previous test, and the 135 is wicked fast in the straights.
Also, I as I did mention the IX's time, it was simply for reference, not for direct comparison, and I do not think the IX or the 335i's time really factor in here for comparison. It was a year ago. They may run faster or slower; I've no idea. Especially if they did not use the same driver, and even if they did that driver has one more year of experience on his belt anyway. Maybe if it were a day after with similar conditions. A year is too much. Not saying that the IX or 335i would have ran faster. They really honestly could have ran slower. Just depends on a million factors.
I can't think of any reason why the 135i would not have ran at least as fast as the 335i. Maybe the driver last year was better with rwd cars. I.e., that nismo Z posted some great times.
Oct 20, 2008, 11:24 AM
#59
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DE
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The track was fairly balanced, if they wanted to purely favor supercars they would have used something longer with far more straights. Moreover, it's irrelevant anyways since the cars were compared within their classes. It still doesn't change the fact that the SS performed well outside of its class. No matter what, there will be some cars that will be at a disadvantage because of the course. If you had a super tight course, the Viper and Corvette people would be complaining because their car wouldn't be able to use even a fraction of the power they have. If you used a course based on all out power, the Lotus people would be complaining. The course they used had a nice mixture of straights and a variety of turns and they even broke it down into sections so you could see where the car made time and where it lost it. In this case, the SS was simply great all-around.
The Evo posted a G number close to that found in other tests. Remember, they are using an MR not the GSR. The GSR posts higher numbers than the MR.
As I said before, this idea that the magazine would be biased isn't valid because the very reasons why they might be biased are the very reasons why they can't be biased.
The Evo posted a G number close to that found in other tests. Remember, they are using an MR not the GSR. The GSR posts higher numbers than the MR.
As I said before, this idea that the magazine would be biased isn't valid because the very reasons why they might be biased are the very reasons why they can't be biased.