Lightning Lap 2009!
Jan 20, 2010 | 06:38 AM
#77
With everyone and every car involved on their A game...
Jan 20, 2010 | 07:54 AM
#78
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Lexus - September 2006 with LS460 @ 385ps
Mitsubishi - October 2008 with Lancer Evolution @ 300ps
Nissan - September 2005 with Fairlady Z @ 294ps
Subaru - October 2007 with Impreza WRX STI @ 308ps
Toyota - October 2005 with Crown Aristo @ 315ps
Technically Nismo 400R is the first in 1997, where they rated their cars at 400ps. But since Nismo is not really an official manufacturer and the production number was also too small (44 cars total).
Also Subaru had several 300 to 600 car production runs for the special edition STI's that broke the 'rule':
Impreza WRX S201 STi version @ 300ps - April 2000
Impreza WRX S202 STi version @ 320ps - June 2002
Impreza S203 @ 320ps - January 2005
Impreza S204 @ 320ps - January 2006
Impreza WRX STI Spec C Type RA-R @ 320ps - November 2006
Impreza R205 @ 320ps - January 2010
Apparently the 1998 22B or 2004 Spec C Type RA were still rated at 280ps.
Last edited by 4Trouble; Jan 20, 2010 at 07:56 AM.
Jan 20, 2010 | 09:07 AM
#79
Not sure if you mean in the past or present, but in the 08 Lightning lap, the Turbocharged Cobalt SS and the 350Z Track both beat the 08 and 06 Evo MR's. Prices as tested respectively were 23,785 and 35,865. Now the kicker - BOTH the 06 and 08 Evos tested were 36,924 and 41,465 respectively. For me, that puts in in perspective that the supercar slayer mentality, no longer applies. The Evo is no longer competing with cars out of its price bracket, its barely keeping up (and in some cases losing) to those within and slightly lower.
Jan 20, 2010 | 09:14 AM
#80
I dug into C&D.com and found the feature. I am pretty sure in the past they had more drivers, but this is how this year's was run:
"The four drivers were K.C. Colwell, Mark Gillies, Tony Quiroga, and Dave VanderWerp. Each driver cycled through his assigned cars at least twice."
Based on that, it looks like they are down to 4 drivers this year (again, I am pretty sure they utilized more drivers in the past, the first one in particular) but it references that they cycled through their assigned cars at least twice. In the earlier versions of the LL they had more details about how they cycled but from that sentence I'm assuming not all drivers are in all cars. In fact, there are 22 cars and it took them 2 days so I am quite certain they couldn't have had all 4 drive all the cars.
When you say "...couple second variance..." that is actually quite large in this grouping. That could easily put low level cars into the next level for instance.
I really agree with borievo and have a hard time believing the mustang and camaro going as fast as they did. I suppose it is a long track with a couple significant straights. I just think if this is an annual event and they use the data comparatively between the years (e.g. - consider a 2008 run as top of one of the groups) they should take more time and try to take as many changing variables out of the equation as possible.
BTW - I'm not being biased toward the Evo, I'm talking in general about times. When comments similar to 'The Z06 is so far on the jagged edge at all times while the GT-R felt right at home' hints toward the driver of the Z06 not being used to racing that vehicle while the GT-R is more of a civilized street car (the comment was from last year, and I'm paraphrasing) .
At the very least they should compare their times to known times by other drivers, if possible. The problem there is C&D gets stock vehicles from the factories. Their times could vary wildly for cars such as an older Z06 that had stability issues compared to possible lower variance driving something that is AWD and more of a street machine at heart.
As I said, I just take the reading with a grain of salt.
*edit - I just saw 4Trouble's post after I posted. I very much agree!
*edit2 - I found the older Lightning Lap features. The first one also had 4 drivers, but 3 of them were different. The middle two Lightning Laps (2007 and 2008) don't list the # of drivers. I believe in the first year they did this, they actually had listed which driver drove which cars when they did the breakdown of how the cars performed. The web doesn't show that but I think the mag did as captions under the pictures. Also, for 2006 they mention the below which corroborates what I was saying earlier about the drivers not driving all the cars:
"...each man was assigned to drive four or five cars. The driver cycled through the cars, running a session of three to five laps in each. Since there are testing variables that can skew data — a car will run faster when it's 70 degrees outside, for example, than when it's 90 — the drivers cycled through the cars a second time. The lap times on page 70 are the best each car produced that day..."
"The four drivers were K.C. Colwell, Mark Gillies, Tony Quiroga, and Dave VanderWerp. Each driver cycled through his assigned cars at least twice."
Based on that, it looks like they are down to 4 drivers this year (again, I am pretty sure they utilized more drivers in the past, the first one in particular) but it references that they cycled through their assigned cars at least twice. In the earlier versions of the LL they had more details about how they cycled but from that sentence I'm assuming not all drivers are in all cars. In fact, there are 22 cars and it took them 2 days so I am quite certain they couldn't have had all 4 drive all the cars.
When you say "...couple second variance..." that is actually quite large in this grouping. That could easily put low level cars into the next level for instance.
I really agree with borievo and have a hard time believing the mustang and camaro going as fast as they did. I suppose it is a long track with a couple significant straights. I just think if this is an annual event and they use the data comparatively between the years (e.g. - consider a 2008 run as top of one of the groups) they should take more time and try to take as many changing variables out of the equation as possible.
BTW - I'm not being biased toward the Evo, I'm talking in general about times. When comments similar to 'The Z06 is so far on the jagged edge at all times while the GT-R felt right at home' hints toward the driver of the Z06 not being used to racing that vehicle while the GT-R is more of a civilized street car (the comment was from last year, and I'm paraphrasing) .
At the very least they should compare their times to known times by other drivers, if possible. The problem there is C&D gets stock vehicles from the factories. Their times could vary wildly for cars such as an older Z06 that had stability issues compared to possible lower variance driving something that is AWD and more of a street machine at heart.
As I said, I just take the reading with a grain of salt.
*edit - I just saw 4Trouble's post after I posted. I very much agree!
*edit2 - I found the older Lightning Lap features. The first one also had 4 drivers, but 3 of them were different. The middle two Lightning Laps (2007 and 2008) don't list the # of drivers. I believe in the first year they did this, they actually had listed which driver drove which cars when they did the breakdown of how the cars performed. The web doesn't show that but I think the mag did as captions under the pictures. Also, for 2006 they mention the below which corroborates what I was saying earlier about the drivers not driving all the cars:
"...each man was assigned to drive four or five cars. The driver cycled through the cars, running a session of three to five laps in each. Since there are testing variables that can skew data — a car will run faster when it's 70 degrees outside, for example, than when it's 90 — the drivers cycled through the cars a second time. The lap times on page 70 are the best each car produced that day..."
I think any driver would comment about the Z06 being on the ragged edge and the GT-R feeling right at home.. Driving a very high powered, lightweight rwd car with a slightly dated suspension vs. driving a heavy, stable 4wd car with a whole bunch of electronic diffs...
How are you suggesting the Mustang and Camaro ran as fast as they did? Either they were that fast, or every other car ever tested ran slow. They take the best times lapped period from every car and throw them together. Of course there's going to be some variation, of course. But just because the cars are what they are doesn't mean anything about them.. A car with a dated suspension just has a longer way up to work to get it to a level of competency, which it seems Ford has reached. This isn't the first time a Mustang GT w/ track package ran this fast. On a separate course, in a different magazine I believe they clocked a Mustang GT w/ track package at just less than a second off pace from a 370z.. All these cars are within range now, is all I'm saying. Not that one car is .xx seconds faster than the other.
Jan 20, 2010 | 09:55 AM
#81
How are you suggesting the Mustang and Camaro ran as fast as they did? Either they were that fast, or every other car ever tested ran slow. They take the best times lapped period from every car and throw them together. Of course there's going to be some variation, of course. But just because the cars are what they are doesn't mean anything about them.. A car with a dated suspension just has a longer way up to work to get it to a level of competency, which it seems Ford has reached. This isn't the first time a Mustang GT w/ track package ran this fast. On a separate course, in a different magazine I believe they clocked a Mustang GT w/ track package at just less than a second off pace from a 370z.. All these cars are within range now, is all I'm saying. Not that one car is .xx seconds faster than the other.
I've done some digging on the Audi TTS, and I want to see a dyno graph. There was a R&T article where it trapped 105mph, which is the same as a BMW 135i. Those are rated at 300, but dyno numbers are high, showing they make 308-315 HP. And an Audi rated 260 is trapping the same with AWD?
The reason it traps higher than an Evo IX (that weighs the same) is because it makes more power. If the Audi really makes 325HP-330HP, all this stuff makes a lot more sense.
I want to drive one more than ever now, but have no interest in ever owning, so I can't string the dealer along like that. $54k for the one here. Sheesh.
Want to see something crazy? Look at the Lotus times. They are all over the map.
Jan 20, 2010 | 10:15 AM
#82
I think some of that is weather. Its not abnormal to have a much faster time in cold temps than hot temps, especially on a 3 minute fast course.
I've done some digging on the Audi TTS, and I want to see a dyno graph. There was a R&T article where it trapped 105mph, which is the same as a BMW 135i. Those are rated at 300, but dyno numbers are high, showing they make 308-315 HP. And an Audi rated 260 is trapping the same with AWD?
The reason it traps higher than an Evo IX (that weighs the same) is because it makes more power. If the Audi really makes 325HP-330HP, all this stuff makes a lot more sense.
I want to drive one more than ever now, but have no interest in ever owning, so I can't string the dealer along like that. $54k for the one here. Sheesh.
Want to see something crazy? Look at the Lotus times. They are all over the map.
I've done some digging on the Audi TTS, and I want to see a dyno graph. There was a R&T article where it trapped 105mph, which is the same as a BMW 135i. Those are rated at 300, but dyno numbers are high, showing they make 308-315 HP. And an Audi rated 260 is trapping the same with AWD?
The reason it traps higher than an Evo IX (that weighs the same) is because it makes more power. If the Audi really makes 325HP-330HP, all this stuff makes a lot more sense.
I want to drive one more than ever now, but have no interest in ever owning, so I can't string the dealer along like that. $54k for the one here. Sheesh.
Want to see something crazy? Look at the Lotus times. They are all over the map.
Jan 20, 2010 | 11:22 AM
#83
Here's an idea - learn how to drive it or hire someone that can. It isn't such a winning platform because it is hard to drive, and plenty of owners track these cars too with great results. Instead of complaining they should embrace the jagged edge and learn how to drive there. I don't hear the people tracking Z06's complaining about how the car is on the jagged edge after every race.
I suppose something could be said about C&D keeping things in perspective for the everyday person. However, the everyday person won't be buying something like the vette or the Lambo LP640, or the drophead they review on the next page that they gush about, etc.
I was just thinking about this and if their point to the Lightning Lap is to take stock cars and throw average/slightly above average drivers at them to see what happens, then they have done their job perfectly. If they want to truly test the cars against one another then they need to take strieds to fix the variable issues. I would bet that most readers are thinking C&D is after the latter while C&D never says they are after the former.
Jan 21, 2010 | 05:56 PM
#84
Why are you guys surprised that a car with a better power:weight ratio, better aerodynamics, wider tires, superior brakes and suspension, and 400 lbs less weight would beat the Evo X? Or the Evo IX for that matter? Look at the data from this year and last. Evo X exited turn 1 at 64.5 MPH, TTS exited turn 1 at 69.4. If it wasn't for the Evo making up ground in the long straights, the TTS would have pummeled it much more.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
Jan 21, 2010 | 06:58 PM
#86
Why are you guys surprised that a car with a better power:weight ratio, better aerodynamics, wider tires, superior brakes and suspension, and 400 lbs less weight would beat the Evo X? Or the Evo IX for that matter? Look at the data from this year and last. Evo X exited turn 1 at 64.5 MPH, TTS exited turn 1 at 69.4. If it wasn't for the Evo making up ground in the long straights, the TTS would have pummeled it much more.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
Jan 21, 2010 | 07:42 PM
#87
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
Why are you guys surprised that a car with a better power:weight ratio, better aerodynamics, wider tires, superior brakes and suspension, and 400 lbs less weight would beat the Evo X? Or the Evo IX for that matter? Look at the data from this year and last. Evo X exited turn 1 at 64.5 MPH, TTS exited turn 1 at 69.4. If it wasn't for the Evo making up ground in the long straights, the TTS would have pummeled it much more.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
Jan 22, 2010 | 06:10 AM
#88
Why are you guys surprised that a car with a better power:weight ratio, better aerodynamics, wider tires, superior brakes and suspension, and 400 lbs less weight would beat the Evo X? Or the Evo IX for that matter? Look at the data from this year and last. Evo X exited turn 1 at 64.5 MPH, TTS exited turn 1 at 69.4. If it wasn't for the Evo making up ground in the long straights, the TTS would have pummeled it much more.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
The Evo, any version, in stock form, is a crappy track car. Get over it.
Some of your math is fuzzy. Using Car&Driver's own results, the power:weight ratios of the TTS and Evo X are identical. Their braking tests have all three cars within 2 feet.
2006 IX: 3263 pounds, 286 HP, 70-0 braking 155 feet
2008 X MR: 3585 pounds, 291 HP, 70-0 braking 156 feet
2010 TTS: 3264 pounds, 265 HP, 70-0 braking 154 feet
The problem is that some of you guys are all taking the results of different years, different temps, different drivers, and accepting the laptimes of all that junk in a blender as absolute truth.
You win on the rubber, the IX has 235wide tires, the X 245, and the Audi 255. But on paper, the IX should walk away with this victory.
Those turn 1 exit speeds you showed prove that either the data from different years and drivers can't be matched up, that Audi sent a ringer making a lot more than 265 HP, or both.
Jan 22, 2010 | 07:53 AM
#90
