Lightning Lap 2015!!!!

[12,000 RPM]

Trying not to do spoilers but it's a good'un. Some upsets too. Actually, a huge upset for Z06 haters.

[giant_mtb]

[280Z Turbo]

This thread will come in handy when we have something to talk about.

[MX793]

Definitely some unexpected results, and a solid showing by GM across the board (Z06, ATS-Vs, CTS-V).  GM's performance group definitely has the recipe figured out.

Mustang Ecoboost further demonstrates its inferiority to the V6 it is supposed to be a step up from.

ND Miata shows you don't need more power to be way faster than the car you replace.

GTI demonstrates that real limited slip > brake-based simulated limited slip.

[GoCougs]

Uff da. Let's work on that title - should be "Lightening Lap 2015!!!!"

I think LL is one of the best running auto mag features. C&D is loathsome when it comes to delivering my issue on time but I found a scan: Car and Driver 2015 Lightening Lap.

Meh, to hell with spoilers . The Z06 pastes the AMG GT, Huracan, 911 GT3, McLaren 650, and every other car ever tested save for the $900k Porsche 918 from last year. People who hated the Z06 are and have always been jelly yo. Also note they said track temp was 100F.

Another standout is the CTS-V - lol right there with the ZL1, LFA and R8 V10.

GM is absolutely crushing it with its performance cars. The Camaro is gonna be monster.

[MX793]

Also, GM apparently uses VIR extensively for their performance vehicle development, so it shouldn't be too surprising that their cars did exceptionally well at that track.

[12,000 RPM]

Uff da. Let's work on that title - should be "Lightening Lap 2015!!!!"

One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....

[MX793]

One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....

I think that speaks more to AMG's recent progress, particularly in building cars that are more well-rounded rather than expensive, luxo-muscle cars, than BMW necessarily falling from grace.  The M4 they tested last year was hugely faster than any E9x M3 they had run in previous years.  Though the M235i was a bit off the pace from the 1M they previously ran a few years back.

[12,000 RPM]

I think that speaks more to AMG's recent progress, particularly in building cars that are more well-rounded rather than expensive, luxo-muscle cars, than BMW necessarily falling from grace.  The M4 they tested last year was hugely faster than any E9x M3 they had run in previous years.  Though the M235i was a bit off the pace from the 1M they previously ran a few years back.

Their cars are more well rounded, but also faster... at least around VIR. I'd prefer the M3 to the C63 and definitely the M235i + LSD to the CLA43, but I wouldn't want to line up with either at a stoplight or try and chase one around a track. I guess in that way BMW kind of makes more well rounded cars for enthusiasts. But it wasn't long ago that the concept of a Benz giving a Bimmer the business anywhere but on a drag strip was "inconthievable"

[GoCougs]

Not quite so fast. Not only have the AMG cars been besting the M cars in performance numbers if pretty much all mag comparos are to be believed many are also better drivers' cars. The M/T comparo of the AMG GTS vs. GTR vs. 911 Turbo put the AMG GT first even though the 911 Turbo had better performance specs (of HUGE note the AMG GTS bested the GTR on the track, albeit it was a "base" GTR).

[MX793]

Not only a base GT-R, but fitted with run-flat tires that are inferior to what the other two cars were running, which was probably the #1 reason it put in the slowest lap times.  There's only so much the GT-R physics-defying AWD system can do.

[MexicoCityM3]

One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....

Considering that a C63S is about 15K more than an M3 and that the M3 is coming out in months with an upgraded comp package which will include some more power, the slight < 2 sec advantage of the C63 S isn´t that impressive.

The ATS-V performs similarly while having an econocar dash so I don´t think BMW is in that much trouble.

The gap is wider in the M5 vs. CTS-V category. But it´s similar as to when the previous CTS-V outperformed the E60 M5, so nothing very new there. BMW won´t have an answer until the next gen M5 which is 2-3 years away.

[GoCougs]

Not only a base GT-R, but fitted with run-flat tires that are inferior to what the other two cars were running, which was probably the #1 reason it put in the slowest lap times.  There's only so much the GT-R physics-defying AWD system can do.

Well, the 2:51.00 of the AMG GT S this year beats ALL Lightening Lap GTR times listed (I saw at least three, and the fastest was 2:53.2).

[MX793]

Well, the 2:51.00 of the AMG GT S this year beats ALL Lightening Lap GTR times listed (I saw at least three, and the fastest was 2:53.2).

GT-R Nismo ran a 2:49.4 in last year's LL.  Fairly small margin; the GT-S is certainly right in the same neighborhood.  Right there with track-focused monsters like the 911 GT3 and Z/28, as well.

[GoCougs]

Considering that a C63S is about 15K more than an M3 and that the M3 is coming out in months with an upgraded comp package which will include some more power, the slight < 2 sec advantage of the C63 S isn´t that impressive.

The ATS-V performs similarly while having an econocar dash so I don´t think BMW is in that much trouble.

The gap is wider in the M5 vs. CTS-V category. But it´s similar as to when the previous CTS-V outperformed the E60 M5, so nothing very new there. BMW won´t have an answer until the next gen M5 which is 2-3 years away.

That additional cost though is in luxuriousness. Save for a bit better power/weight ratio, the C63 S actually on paper has lower cost/performance tech - the C63 S has a torque converter AT (the M3 has dual clutch tranny), the C63 S only has carbon ceramic brakes on the front (the M3 has 'em at all four corners), the C63 S has smaller tires front and rear (245/265 vs. 255/275), and the C63 S weighs ~450 lbs more.

[MexicoCityM3]

That additional cost though is in luxuriousness. Save for a bit better power/weight ratio, the C63 S actually on paper has lower cost/performance tech - the C63 S has a torque converter AT (the M3 has dual clutch tranny), the C63 S only has carbon ceramic brakes on the front (the M3 has 'em at all four corners), the C63 S has smaller tires front and rear (245/265 vs. 255/275), and the C63 S weighs ~450 lbs more.

Fair points. Just remember the V8 vs the M3s inline 6 with almost 20% more power.

[GoCougs]

GT-R Nismo ran a 2:49.4 in last year's LL.  Fairly small margin; the GT-S is certainly right in the same neighborhood.  Right there with track-focused monsters like the 911 GT3 and Z/28, as well.

I see, missed that. Well, the GTR NISMO is a special edition with ~$50k of add ons.

[GoCougs]

Fair points. Just remember the V8 vs the M3s inline 6 with almost 20% more power.

True, but then again the C63 S weighs almost 4,000 lbs (3950/503 vs. 3,500/425).

[MexicoCityM3]

True, but then again the C63 S weighs almost 4,000 lbs (3950/503 vs. 3,500/425).

Yes. Which is why in some same day, same driver, back to back tests the M3 has been faster (EVO did one very recently).

In any case, for any real world scenario it's a driver's race between the 3 cars (ATS-V, C63S and M3)

I am much more impressed by the CTS-V. That performance is outrageous for a car in that segment. For perspective, that's a full 10 seconds faster than an M5 and 5 seconds faster than an E63S. And without the low rent interior of the ATS.

And the Z06 is out of this world. And for this test (at 100 degrees ambient temp) no mention of overheating.

[Xer0]

I just finished reading the issue on my plane ride from Miami.

I liked that they put the FIT on the test track and it did respectably well considering what it is; more real world cars would be fun to see.

The Ecoboost Mustang continues to disappoint and I'm surprised Car and Driver didn't even bother to mention the 3 second faster, last gen V6PP car in their write up.  Maybe Ford kindly suggested against it?

The AMG GTS looks amazing and performs about as well as it looks.  I want one, bad.

GM is kicking ass and taking names in everything performance lately.

The Golf R continues to not be worth the price increase from the GTI, especially now that the LSD makes the difference like 2 seconds.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[12,000 RPM]

And the Z06 is out of this world. And for this test (at 100 degrees ambient temp) no mention of overheating.

To be fair, the Z06 track time was limited by its tires. They said they were basically good for 1 lap, suggesting a couple of things. 1, they might have had multiple tires on site for the Z06 (wonder how many other cars had the same???). Two, its 2:44 time is conservative.

I do have to give it to GM though. They pretty much cleaned up across the board. Their chassis tuning and traction control systems are first rate. They just need to work on the cars and engines connected to said chassis and TC systems

[12,000 RPM]

I just finished reading the issue on my plane ride from Miami.

I liked that they put the FIT on the test track and it did respectably well considering what it is; more real world cars would be fun to see.

The Ecoboost Mustang continues to disappoint and I'm surprised Car and Driver didn't even bother to mention the 3 second faster, last gen V6PP car in their write up.  Maybe Ford kindly suggested against it?

The AMG GTS looks amazing and performs about as well as it looks.  I want one, bad.

GM is kicking ass and taking names in everything performance lately.

The Golf R continues to not be worth the price increase from the GTI, especially now that the LSD makes the difference like 2 seconds.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also agree that it was cool to see what the Fit could do. I'd love for them to take out some Camry V6s and stuff (if for no other reason than to put Cougs' fanboyism to sleep).

FWIW the Golf R only has the XDS+ "E-LSD" at the axles. I bet it's the same story with the S3. Mechanical LSDs are critical for putting power to the front wheels.

[MX793]

To be fair, the Z06 track time was limited by its tires. They said they were basically good for 1 lap, suggesting a couple of things. 1, they might have had multiple tires on site for the Z06 (wonder how many other cars had the same???). Two, its 2:44 time is conservative.

I do have to give it to GM though. They pretty much cleaned up across the board. Their chassis tuning and traction control systems are first rate. They just need to work on the cars and engines connected to said chassis and TC systems

The Lambo and McLaren had spare sets on hand, per the article.  I expect a number of others did as well.

[MX793]

I also agree that it was cool to see what the Fit could do. I'd love for them to take out some Camry V6s and stuff (if for no other reason than to put Cougs' fanboyism to sleep).

FWIW the Golf R only has the XDS+ "E-LSD" at the axles. I bet it's the same story with the S3. Mechanical LSDs are critical for putting power to the front wheels.

E-lsd is a real limited slip with electronically controlled clutch packs.  It's not a brake-based faux lsd.

[12,000 RPM]

E-lsd is a real limited slip with electronically controlled clutch packs.  It's not a brake-based faux lsd.

My mistake then. Point was Golf R distributes traction at the axles through braking.

[Char]

So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?

[MexicoCityM3]

So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?

IIRC the Cadillacs and the Merc C63 are on Pilot Super Sports (same as the relevant bimmers).

I don't know about the AMG GTS, the Z06 and the exotics.

They did mention that the Z06 tires began losing grip after a single lap though.

But you make a good point. I believe on such a long track R compounds can be worth as much as 5 or 6 seconds. Maybe even more.

[12,000 RPM]

So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?

Yes, along with the cars with more HP, less weight, better aerodynamics, better brakes etc.

[Char]

Golf R is still slower than a 350z, Mustang V6 and an Infiniti G. Why does this car exist...why do people buy it?

[12,000 RPM]

Golf R is still slower than a 350z, Mustang V6 and an Infiniti G. Why does this car exist...why do people buy it?

S3: 3:11.3
Golf R : 3:12.3
350Z Track: 3:12.5
Mustang V-6: 3:12.5
Infiniti G37: 3:17.5

Not to mention it's cheaper equally equipped and/or more practical than any of the other 3 cars you listed. At least make some kind of effort