Here is an interesting point...

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track53.html

The TT-S still did better on the short track... not by much though...

... anyone have any idea what the off the show room floor tuning capabilities of the TT-S is? I wonder if it's close to max??? Where the Evo X you can grab 70-80whp just with a tune.

 

Good site -

I know the potential of the motor is very high - it's a good motor. Once you start getting up there they're all goin to be built motors anyway so I think that's pretty moot.

A few other results from the TT-S seem to reflect it's capability. Very interesting

 

I spent some time compiling this:


Lightning Lap 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009

Mosler MT900S- 2:45.9 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR- 2:48.6 (2008)
Corvette ZR1- 2:51.8 (2009)
KTM X - Bow- 2:52.3 (2009)
Lamborghine LP670- 2:53.9 (2009)
Ferrari F430 Scuderia- 2:54.6 (2008)
Nissan GT-R- 2:55.6 (2008)
Chevrolet Corvette Z06- 2:58.2 (2007)
Corvette Grand Sport- 2:58.8 (2009)
Audi R8, 5.2- 2:59.5 (2009)
Ford GT- 3:00.7 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06- 3:01.1 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette Z51- 3:01.2 (2008)
Dodge Viper SRT10- 3:01.6 (2006)
Porsche 911 GT3- 3:01.8 (2007)
Chevrolet Corvette C6- 3:03.6 (2007)
Cadillac CTS-V- 3:04.0 (2008)
Lotus Exige S- 3:04.5 (2007)
Audi R8- 3:04.6 (2007)
Lotus Exiqe S 260- 3:05.0 (2009)
BMW M3- 3:05.4 (2009)
BMW M3- 3:05.6 (2008)
Porsche 997 Turbo- 3:05.8 (2007)
Porsche Cayman S- 3:05.8 (2009)
Porsche Carrera S- 3:05.8 (2009)
Ford Shelby GT500- 3:05.9 (2007)
Jaguar XKR- 3:06.4 (2009)
Mercedes Benz C63 AMG- 3:06.5 (2008)
Ford Shelby GT500- 3:07.4 (2009)
Audi TTS- 3:08.4 (2009)
Lotus Elise- 3:09.2 (2006)
Chevrolet Corvette C6- 3:09.3 (2006)
Porsche Cayman S- 3:09.5 (2006)
Chevrolet Camaro SS- 3:09.5 (2009)
BMW M6- 3:10.0 (2006)
BMW 335i Coupe- 3:10.5 (2007)
Audi S4- 3:10.8 (2009)
Ford Shelby GT500 3:11.0 (2006) [ECU issues slowed car]
Audi RS4- 3:11.2 (2007)
BMW Z4 M- 3:11.7 (2007)
Nissan Nismo 370z- 3:12.0 (2009)
Nissan 350Z Track 3:12.5 (2006)
Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged 3:13.0 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:13.3 (2009)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X MR SSTT (semi-auto)- 3:13.3 (2008)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX MR- 3:13.5 (2006)
BMW 135i (steptronic automatic)- 3:13.7 (2008)
Lexus IS F- 3:14.0 (2008)
Audi S5- 3:14.6 (2008)
Genesis Coupe 3.8- 3:14.8 (2009)
Honda S2000 CR- 3:15.0 (2008)
Pontiac Solstice GXP- 3:15.7 (2007)
Mazda Speed 3- 3:16.0 (2007)
Mazdaspeed 3- 3:16.2 (2009)
Dodge Challenger SRT8- 3:16.3 (2008)
Lotus Elise SC- 3:16.6 (2008)
Subaru WRX- 3:16.6 (2009)
Mini Cooper Works- 3:17.1 (2009)
Infiniti G37 Sport- 3:17.5 (2008)
Dodge Charger SRT8- 3:18.2 (2006)
Subaru Impreza WRX STI- 3:19.0 (2008)
Mazda RX-8- 3:19.0 (2006)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:19.3 (2009)
Chevy Cobalt SS (Supercharged)- 3:20.6 (2006)
Dodge Caliber SRT4- 3:20.8 (2008)
Ford Mustang GT- 3:20.9 (2006)
Volkswagen R32- 3:21.8 (2008)
Mini Cooper S (Turbo)- 3:22.9 (2007)
Honda Civic Mugen Si- 3:24.8 (2008)
Volkswagen GTI- 3:25.1 (2006)
Honda Civic Si- 3:26.5 (2006)
Volvo C30 T5 Version 2.0- 3:26.6 (2008)
Mazda MX-5- 3:29.3 (2006)

 

For whatever reason, the slow cars were a lot faster in 2009.

Kyooch, you need to use logic when you compare these. Several things stand out. Do you really think that:

-An automatic Genesis is only one second slower than the Evos?
-The modest track package and 15 horsepower has made the Mustang GT more than 7 and a half seconds faster from 2006 to 2009? BS.
-A Genesis coupe automatic is faster than an S2000 CR?
-A 997 turbo from 2007 is the exact same speed as a Carrera S of 2009 and a Cayman S of 2009? Seriously?? (This one should blow it out of the water for you)
-The 2009 Cayman S is a full four seconds faster than the 2006 Cayman S?
-A 2009 Camaro SS is as fast as a 2006 C6 Vette?

Do you really believe these things? If so, get real, dude!

These are just a few examples. The 2009 numbers have different test conditions, plain and simple. Using past years to say a TT-S can handle an Evo is funny IMO. Granted, this is a big track, and it showcases power:weight a whole lot more than handling as evidenced by the (same year) times.

All the Audi TT-S, 2010 and older Mustang GTs, Slowbalts, and Genesis coupes that think they can knock out an Evo are gonna be in for a world of hurt when they show up at the track.

 

I agreed right up until the end. That statement is hard to backup without an Evo being in the field for this particular Lightning Lap. That statement might be hard to backup at any track due to driver, car, track config, conditions ect....

 

My point is this - yes, of course there will be variation. C&D did what they could to minimize certain variables, like conditions etc. As I stated in the first post, the numbers are not exactly comparable. A few seconds variation is definitely not within question, but 5 seconds (in the case of the tt-s vs. the evos) - to me, that's more than within reasonable variation to show the potency of the tt-s.

As you stated, this is a big track - and when looking at times from the fastestlaps or whatever, actually the tt-s does perform on par with the evo on pretty much every track. what do YOU believe then? All these numbers should be bloated a few seconds? how many? No one had any problems using this data when comparing the X MR and the IX way back when (except for me), but when it's not to an evo owner's benefit, such as with the cobalt ss on the SAME day, track, conditions as the X MR, then foul play is involved or whatever.

My responses were of open-mindedness, curiosity for explanations in car ability, etc. all that resulted were calls into question about test validity


::in addition - just because evo's haven't been getting faster year after year doesn't mean other cars can't. After 4 years I would hope a Mustang GT would be much faster, especially on a 4.1 mile course. You call into question a 997 turbo's time, yet you say nothing about the fact that the cayman S and the 911 carrera S run the same time.. And regarding their times compared to the 2006 versions, I would hope after 4 years the car would be quicker. Especially after there have been increases in power with the models, on such a long course...

Seems to me you're assuming there's something wrong with the results because it's just a "mustang" or "genesis".

The kicker is that they ran an M3 this year with DCT, and an M3 last year with DCT (no changes with the car except visual ones). The M3 ran .2 seconds quicker this year. Only .2 seconds! fairly negligible on a 4.1 mil track... I dunno about you, but to me this seems to indicate that the conditions between this year and last were fairly similar.

 

finally read the entire article... seems that suspension and tires played a bigger role than anything else in most results...

 

here it is if anyone's looking for it -

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...eature?cid=327

like s6devil said, they attribute the car's time to it's good suspension, sticky tires (dunlop sp sport maxx gt), and awd and dsg. The X MR has better tires definitely and i couldn't say for sure but i THINK a better tranny.

Here is a quote from a Road and Track article "2009 Audi TT-S vs. 2009 BMW 135i - Comparison Test" regarding the TT-S:

"In fact, it devours twisties almost too easily. Audi's twin-clutch S tronic transmission shifts faster than humanly possible and the Quattro all-wheel drive determines best how the car's 265 bhp should be distributed, leaving the driver with the choice of when to pin the throttle. No need for dainty throttle application here. See the apex? Nail the gas. It's that easy. The TTS puts the power down so well that once the apex has been reached, the Sunburst Orange rocket picks up its exit trajectory and launches down the straight, burping upshifts as it goes."

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

already taken care of? read the rest of the thread

 

I did nice guy. And none of your posts made as much sense as that one.

 

It only makes "sense" because you've got preconceived notions of which cars should be faster than which, and by how much. You don't think cars improve after 3 years? They tested the same car back to back for a point .2 second difference

(ps, sorry i didnt mean for that other post to sound rude, i just thought the differences between the years had already been put to rest)

 

Improving cars is one thing, but a few of those improvements are a bit over exaggerated. Hence my quote of the other post. I see the Evo didn't improve at all. I'm just looking at the list and thinking about power to weight ratios and some of those cars seem out of place. I know there are other factors but I've been reading R&T and Motor Trend for like 5 years and these results do not seem to be something I would see from them. Some of those cars didn't even make major improvements in those years.

They should take 3 average guys and let them drive the cars instead of professionals. That would be a good comparo imo. RWD has some distinct advantages to someone who can use those, but most of us can not use those as well as the drivers the mags use so the times they pull are moot. I understand having a shoot out to see which car is capable of being the fastest, but I'd also like to see a real world test of which cars I would likely be the fastest in.

Me and my dreams lol

 

No I totally agree -

I'm not saying conditions were 100% the same - but I think it's fairly reasonable to say they were within a second or two of each other.. definitely not like 5 seconds though. These cars get updated every single year.. it's gonna add up a little bit at least

 

OK kyooch, I didn't mean to leave you hanging. I can see there's a little residual dissatisfaction going on from what you wrote in the XI thread. I'm sorry about that, so please let me expound...

First, I do not think the X is faster than the IX. On a big course like VIR, I believe the IX would easily win due to the fact it is 300 pounds lighter, and the handling differences are not that vast.

Back on point of the Lightning Lap itself, another issue I forgot to include was that the GTI improved a full six seconds over its last run virtually unchanged from last iteration (different sheet metal and suspension retuning). The 2009 GTI was also 2.5 seconds faster than the last R32 tested in Lightning Lap! Man, digest that for a second. The open differential GTI was faster than the R32.

I take a little bit of issue with you thinking that I'd say no other car can perform as well as an Evo. Obviously, I think that most of those cars in the Lightning Lap would smoke both Evos. But it is not a far stretch for me to know that the IX and X are faster than a TT-S, a pre-2011 Mustang GT, and a Genesis coupe, especially an automatic one. The one car that might be able in that list I made was the Cobalt SS, because it did pull it out in the same year, but I have to know it was not piloted by John Heinricy on that lap nor that it was a ringer.

Do you think a perfectly healthy stock IX would get beat by a perfectly healthy stock TT-S? The IX has the Audi on power:weight. I'd also wager the IX has better handling dynamics. But if you blindly accept Lightning Lap results, they say the TT-S is a full five seconds faster than the IX. The merged results also say that an automatic Genesis is only one second slower than that IX on a huge course that takes three minutes in a really fast car. Horse crap, man! You can't logically believe that. It is impossible to compare old results to new ones.

Let's look at the SCCA classifications of all these cars we are talking about. I realize fully that autocrossing is not running on VIR, but its a dang good yardstick that has an absolute analytical classifying of cars based on how competitive they are within groups. They know these cars are not competitive to the Evo and are classed accordingly. SCCA has all Evos in B Stock (BS), but the TT-S is in D Stock (DS) with the 135i, Integra Type R, and Cobalt SS. The Mustang GT and the Genesis are way down in F stock (FS).

My point to you is that magazines sell cars. Lightning Lap sells sports cars. It is not unheard of for manufacturers to send ringers to magazines. All the Lightning Lap cars this year were sent from the manufacturer and not procured through external means. All this to say that taking this test as Gospel is unwise.

You can choose to believe what you want to, but there is a pecking order. You're focusing on a small range of things (M3) to drive your point home, but I have given you a lot of data that states otherwise. You can process it or ignore it. Just know that I continue to be unafraid of stock GT Mustangs, Genesis coupes, and even your vaunted Audi TT-S for a reason. By the same logic, I know Evos are slower than Vettes, Elises, M3s, and the newest Porsches. I hope there are no hard feelings.