350Z Track beats an MR around VIR?
Oct 7, 2006, 11:52 PM
#107
Evolved Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Ford GT - 3:00.7
2) Z06 - 3:01.1
3) Viper SRT10 - 3:01.6
4) Lotus Elise - 3:09.2
5) Corvette - 3:09.3
6) Cayman S - 3:09.5
7) BMW M6 - 3:10.0
8) Shelby GT500 - 3:11.0*
9) 350Z Track - 3:12.5
10) Lancer Evo MR - 3:13.5
11) Charger SRT8 - 3:18.2
12) Mazda RX-8 - 3:19.0
13) Cobalt SS - 3:20.6
14) Mustang GT - 3:20.9
15) VW GTI - 3:25.1
16) Civic Si - 3:26.5
17) Mazda MX-5 - 3:29.3
The cars in bold were faster -- deal with it
If any of the cars can make excuses, it's the Mustangs. The GT500 they tested experienced some ignition problems (bad coils and/or plugs) so it wasn't running 100% and will be retested at a later date. The Mustang GT was run on skinny all season tires whereas every other car got the best tires offered for the car (the GT only comes with crappy tires). The Z06 was also running on runflats -- it would've been #1 on better tires.
2) Z06 - 3:01.1
3) Viper SRT10 - 3:01.6
4) Lotus Elise - 3:09.2
5) Corvette - 3:09.3
6) Cayman S - 3:09.5
7) BMW M6 - 3:10.0
8) Shelby GT500 - 3:11.0*
9) 350Z Track - 3:12.5
10) Lancer Evo MR - 3:13.5
11) Charger SRT8 - 3:18.2
12) Mazda RX-8 - 3:19.0
13) Cobalt SS - 3:20.6
14) Mustang GT - 3:20.9
15) VW GTI - 3:25.1
16) Civic Si - 3:26.5
17) Mazda MX-5 - 3:29.3
The cars in bold were faster -- deal with it
If any of the cars can make excuses, it's the Mustangs. The GT500 they tested experienced some ignition problems (bad coils and/or plugs) so it wasn't running 100% and will be retested at a later date. The Mustang GT was run on skinny all season tires whereas every other car got the best tires offered for the car (the GT only comes with crappy tires). The Z06 was also running on runflats -- it would've been #1 on better tires.
Oct 8, 2006, 05:55 PM
#108
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: California
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sinister Subaru
Chuckle again. Funny how only one of them's still around.
Yeah, that's what I thought. The Supra was NEVER close to the C5's performance. The C5 ran a low 13 1/4 mile at nearly 111 mph, while the lazy Supra couldn't crack a 13.7 @ 105 mph. The 300 ZXTT ran in the 14s! The 3000 GT VR4 was lucky to run 14.20s!
And yeah, that's right, they weren't turning enough profit. Guess why. Oh, that's right, America, their #1 market, didn't want'em!
Yeah, that's what I thought. The Supra was NEVER close to the C5's performance. The C5 ran a low 13 1/4 mile at nearly 111 mph, while the lazy Supra couldn't crack a 13.7 @ 105 mph. The 300 ZXTT ran in the 14s! The 3000 GT VR4 was lucky to run 14.20s!
And yeah, that's right, they weren't turning enough profit. Guess why. Oh, that's right, America, their #1 market, didn't want'em!
http://mkiv.com/publications/car&dri...3/6-cd3-93.jpg
http://mkiv.com/publications/motor_t...d-Feb-95-4.jpg
http://mkiv.com/publications/motor_t...3/mt893_12.jpg
http://mkiv.com/publications/road&tr...3/rt393_06.jpg
Last edited by garrettjj; Oct 8, 2006 at 06:06 PM.
Oct 8, 2006, 07:29 PM
#112
Evolving Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: plymouth, MI
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motor Trend did a comparison between the BMW M3 Coupe and the Cayman S a while back. They ran them at Gingerman Raceway, among other things.
The fastest lap for the Cayman S was 1:41.59 (BMW 1:42.XX). I can run there easily in the 1:34's on RA1's and 1:36's on street tires (advans). I do have coilovers, cams and TBE.
The Evo likes MODS
The fastest lap for the Cayman S was 1:41.59 (BMW 1:42.XX). I can run there easily in the 1:34's on RA1's and 1:36's on street tires (advans). I do have coilovers, cams and TBE.
The Evo likes MODS
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
