2010 C&D Lightning Lap

[sportyaccordy]

I think if LL has shown anything, it's that weight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power

[68_427]

I'm still pretty impressed with the cobalt at a 3:13

[Rupert]

I'm impressed by the Mustangs, the Corvette, and the Boxster, and unimpressed with the WRXs.

[the Teuton]

faster than an STI!  LOL

Subaru puts a softer suspension on the STI than Mitsubishi puts on the Evo. The difference comes into play on dirt or soft terrain where the STI absolutely spanks the Mitsu.

[Laconian]

Subaru puts a softer suspension on the STI than Mitsubishi puts on the Evo. The difference comes into play on dirt or soft terrain where the STI absolutely spanks the Mitsu.

Ah, you mean it beats the Mitsubishi on 0.0000% of paved public roads.

[the Teuton]

Ah, you mean it beats the Mitsubishi on 0.0000% of paved public roads.

Well, it does on the gravely ones.

Motor Trend did a winter weather comparo a few years back with a snow rallycross comparo. The lesbian wagon beat the shitty TV maker.

[Xer0]

I think if LL has shown anything, it's that weight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power

I would also add a well sorted suspension to that too as seen by the Vette and IS-F.  But ya, agreed.

[GoCougs]

WRXs aren't so good from a roll - there are myriad Youtube links of WRXs getting beat from a roll by anything from a V6 Camrys to the 305 hp S197 Mustang GTs, and the higher the start speed the worse the WRX performance. Not sure if it's aerodynamics or Subaru AWD system has more drag than other systems or what, but yeah, poor mediocre track performance isn't a surprise.

[the Teuton]

WRXs aren't so good from a roll - there are myriad Youtube links of WRXs getting beat from a roll by anything from a V6 Camrys to the 305 hp S197 Mustang GTs, and the higher the start speed the worse the WRX performance. Not sure if it's aerodynamics or Subaru AWD system has more drag than other systems or what, but yeah, poor mediocre track performance isn't a surprise.

But for those who think it is, Subaru will gladly sell you a 400 hp Cosworth version that will do 60 mph in 3.7 seconds...in England.

[SVT666]

But for those who think it is, Subaru will gladly sell you a 400 hp Cosworth version that will do 60 mph in 3.7 seconds...in England.

Fuck England.

[r0tor]

I think if LL has shown anything, it's that weight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power

I think it shows power is king at vir -shrug-

[sportyaccordy]

But for those who think it is, Subaru will gladly sell you a 400 hp Cosworth version that will do 60 mph in 3.7 seconds...in England.

It will still trap in the low 90s though

[Nethead]

Motor Trend had a head to head comparo between the Mustang GT and the M3 Coupe Competition.  With the author of the article behind the wheel the Mustang finished half a second ahead of the M3 and with a pro driver behind the wheels,t he M3 beat the Mustang by 0.09 seconds on a lap of Willow Springs.  Same drivers, same day, same conditions.

SVT666:  The Braying Ass has ignored that same day, same drivers (one a pro), same track comparo, so it did not happen.  Got it?

[SVT666]

SVT666:  The Braying Ass has ignored that same day, same drivers (one a pro), same track comparo, so it did not happen.  Got it?

What I found most interesting is that in the hands if the author ofnthe article, the Mustang was faster than the M3 Competition.  It was essentially tied in the hands of the Pro driver.

[Nethead]

...by .2 seconds. Basically a tie.

hotrodalex:  Yeah, pretty much...the difference is about twenty-three-and-a-half feet per lap, which is something over a one car length advantage for the GT500.  But then the Cadillac cost just under $16,000 more than the GT500 as tested, which gets you 414 more pounds of car than you get in the GT500.  If we knew what the $4995-over-base options in the CTS-V Coupe were, we could see if they were fluff that added weight.  I mention this only because the GT500 was only $340 over base as tested which was probably the charge for the stripes so we know the GT500 had no fluff.  

Great comparo!  I wish they had deactivated the V6 Mustang's speed limiter so it wouldn't have been limited to 114 MPH for fifteen seconds per lap!  C&D thinks that mighta gotten its lap times under the Nissan Z's times, and that's fast company for these bucks ($28,690 for the Mustang V6 as tested):
"We have little doubt that it could have unseated the co?class-champ 2006 Nissan 350Z Track if the Ford hadn?t been equipped with a 114-mph governor, which the car banged into for more than 15 seconds per lap."

Last year, the Camaro SS 6.2L lapped in 3:09.5 and this year the $28,690 Mustang 3.7L V6 lapped in 3:12.5 while hitting its speed limiter for over 15 seconds per lap.  I'm not thinkin' that deactivating the speed limiter would have increased top speeds sufficiently to gain three seconds per lap, since the speed limiter was in effect for less than sixteen seconds ("more than 15 seconds" is presumably less than sixteen seconds, but not necessarily so...).  It would be tough physics to compute the speed needed to be attained in those roughly fifteen seconds in order to lap at 3:09.5 or less.  But an EcoBoost V6 Mustang would shatter 3:09.5 easily (sans the 114 MPH limiter, of course!) and might push the Mustang GT's 3:08.6 really, really hard...

Interesting...

 

[Tave]

Subaru puts a softer suspension on the STI than Mitsubishi puts on the Evo. The difference comes into play on dirt or soft terrain where the STI absolutely spanks the Mitsu.

The STi is optimized for rally conditions. The STi does the job it was supposed to, the Mitsu sacrifices a little bit in exchange for more on-road prowess.

[MrH]

The STi is optimized for rally conditions. The STi does the job it was supposed to, the Mitsu sacrifices a little bit in exchange for more on-road prowess.

How often does the average joe race around dirt roads?

I never understood the appeal of Subarus...

[Nethead]

What I found most interesting is that in the hands if the author ofnthe article, the Mustang was faster than the M3 Competition.  It was essentially tied in the hands of the Pro driver.

Yeah, a difference of nine hundredths of a second at these speeds is slight--maybe a half fenderlength.  And that was a GT Premium, IIRC, and may have had the glassback roof--items that woulda added weight over a standard GT without the glassback roof--they wanted to add options to the Mustang to get it as close to the equipment found in the M3 as the order sheet would allow.  Fair enough!

[SVT666]

No glass roof.  It also worked out to be 9.4 feet IIRC.

[Tave]

How often does the average joe race around dirt roads?

I never understood the appeal of Subarus...

Don't know and don't really care. How often does the average joe enjoy the fact that the EVO beats the Subaru by a slim margin around a concrete racetrack?

They're rally cars. Logic tells us they should be good at rally racing, otherwise why even make them?

[Onslaught]

How often does the average joe race around dirt roads?

I never understood the appeal of Subarus...

How often would the average joe race a sports car on a track? With that logic we'd all need a Camry.
If I lived up in the mountains I'd have two cars. A MX-5 for the summer and a STi for the winter.

[MrH]

Don't know and don't really care. How often does the average joe enjoy the fact that the EVO beats the Subaru by a slim margin around a concrete racetrack?

They're rally cars. Logic tells us they should be good at rally racing, otherwise why even make them?

How often would the average joe race a sports car on a track? With that logic we'd all need a Camry.
If I lived up in the mountains I'd have two cars. A MX-5 for the summer and a STi for the winter.

But you drive on a paved road nearly 100% of the time!  I'd much rather have a suspension designed for road use over one that considers driving over dirt roads.

You don't need to be racing on a race track to appreciate the car being designed for paved road use.

[Rupert]

... I don't think the STi has exactly got a truck suspension, know what I'm saying?

[r0tor]

As a daily driver is rather have the sti because it rides much better then the evo but still handles very well...

[Tave]

But you drive on a paved road nearly 100% of the time!  I'd much rather have a suspension designed for road use over one that considers driving over dirt roads.

You don't need to be racing on a race track to appreciate the car being designed for paved road use.

1) The difference is negligible WRT street driving.

2) If rally holds no allure for you, and you drive on pavement 100% of the time, then why are you purchasing a compromised rally car over one of the many available traditional sports cars?

[sportyaccordy]

1) The difference is negligible WRT street driving.

2) If rally holds no allure for you, and you drive on pavement 100% of the time, then why are you purchasing a compromised rally car over one of the many available traditional sports cars?

FWIW, not too many sports cars can legitimately hold 4 grown adults

That and needing AWD are pretty much the only reasons I would ever get either car. LOL @ people talking about these cars rallying prowess when they come equipped with all season or summer street tires. Who's actually buying these cars to go mudbogging? I'd rather a 3-series sport.

[the Teuton]

FWIW, not too many sports cars can legitimately hold 4 grown adults

That and needing AWD are pretty much the only reasons I would ever get either car. LOL @ people talking about these cars rallying prowess when they come equipped with all season or summer street tires. Who's actually buying these cars to go mudbogging? I'd rather a 3-series sport.

This is the "old Jeep/Land Rover" complex. No one off-roads in a new vehicle or rallycrosses. Heck, with warranties the way they are, you can't do much spirited driving in anything.

You want to have fun in a Corvette? Go to the Skip Barber racing school. Otherwise, you might void your warranty for reckless driving.

That said, once the warranty expires, there's a fantastic amount of hoonage.

See also:

Maybe you'd rather have a 3er, but for anyone who likes to do 4-wheel snow drifts on days where you're told that no one should be on the roads, better options exist.

[Raza]

The STi is optimized for rally conditions. The STi does the job it was supposed to, the Mitsu sacrifices a little bit in exchange for more on-road prowess.

Useful if you live on a rally track. 

[Raza]

1) The difference is negligible WRT street driving.

2) If rally holds no allure for you, and you drive on pavement 100% of the time, then why are you purchasing a compromised rally car over one of the many available traditional sports cars?

The difference is not that negligible.  Top Gear slammed the new STI when comparing it to the Evo X. 

[Tave]

The difference is not that negligible.  Top Gear slammed the new STI when comparing it to the Evo X. 

Top Gear is a terrible source for objective reviews.