The mark 6 GTI has been shown to have a ton of improvements over the old (i did a lot of research on this one in the past, was thinking about getting one for a DD) The diff is actually XDS, an electronically controlled one. There are also improvements in suspension and actual wheel horsepower.

The reason I mention the TT-S was because I was asking about it - I think Migs pulled up a site with a number of laps from both cars which actually showed the TT-S to be quicker even on a short course. There seems to have been a huge improvement in chassis, suspension, and 4wd engineering because if you look at recent results the TT-S has been doing extremely well. Despite its power "disadvantage" it actually accelerates as well as any stock Evo. That, in addition to a dual clutch tranny.. shrug. the test said they were impressed with the car, and how easy it is to drive - a factor that shouldn't be ignored.

Going on to some of the points mentioned -

the 2006 C6 corvette had actually 400hp, not the 6.2L 43x hp - on a chassis that has been around since 1997, a carryover from the C5 - though obviously there were enhancements and the suspension was overhauled since the C5. This, compared to the 2009 Camaro's similar 420 hp, with completely new independent suspension, chassis, etc. I'm not saying the C6 is slow, not at all. but i AM saying that there have been a ton of improvements to the C6 since it's introduction. Nurburgring lap times with totally different drivers cite the C6 vette as 5 seconds faster - 8:15 to the the Camaro's 8:20.. on the RING - with DIFFERENT drivers - is it possible for the cars to be quite close on a much shorter, easier track? I won't rule it out.

what else..

In that same test the 190hp Lotus Elise actually bested the Corvette by .1 seconds.. Safe to say that won't happen to a 2009 C6 Vette. That same Lotus also beat the 2006 Cayman from the same test.. Is a 2009 Cayman S going to be faster than a 2006 Cayman? On a 4 mile course? Absolutely. It was 4 years after that car came out.. what do you think Porsche has been doing? There have been improvements year after year.. Is it worth 1 second a year? .25 seconds/mile of VIR? I won't rule that out either.

Which brings us to the 2007 911 Turbo.. a car described by them as "it wasn't happy around VIR" and "was a touch underwhelming" "making us wonder where the model fits into the 911 range, now that the Carrerra S is so good" - and that was all from the 2007 test. When they compared the Carrera S, they commented about the 911s unsettling oversteer from the heavy rear end, compared to the planted feel of the mid engined Cayman.. Not to mention the 911 Turbo, even before the 2010 update has had a number of upgrades.

The rest of the car stuff, I mean who can comment on. The other cars are all pretty much new. One thing to add is how much improved the Mustang GT got from 2006, basically almost it's introduction, to the 2009 (basically the bullit mustang or w/e from the prior year) with track package etc. They also commented from the 2006 Mustang about how it's brakes gave up after 2 laps and how it's soft suspension completely hindered the car through the S's - all of which has been revised since 06

Whew - I mean in all, I'm not saying the numbers are exact - as I've already said, I'm sure there is 1 or 2 seconds variance. Do I believe a TT-S could beat an Evo? I wouldn't have believed a 190hp Elise would have beat a 400hp Vette, esp on this course - but it did. On the same day


:also:
I wasn't just picking out information that supported me - I just didn't want to write all this crap out. I don't think I will "fear"
a Mustang owner or a Genesis owner. Do I have a little more respect for the cars? Absolutely. However, Evos are way easier to drive and easier to mod. And the TT-S - I'll definitely be keeping my out for them at auto-xs. Also, classification by SCCA isn't exactly speed - though it has kind of is that way, it's more grouped by car similarity from what I understood. A Mustang (that's not a special series one) won't move from FS to BS or AS because it got faster

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, I guess.

This debate got me wanting to go test drive a TT-S. Then I saw the pricing. Ouch! That's not terribly far from E90 M3 money.

PS: What's your take on the Genesis automatic being within a second of the IX?

Edit: electronic braking diffs SUCK. I had one in my 135i. The fastest time in the GTI they said was without any intervention from the e-diff.

 

I have a hard time reading the LL article each year. I think they have 8 drivers that cover a certain chunk of cars. Even with 2 or 3 drivers overlapping some cars, you are going to have wildly different results.

Some drivers may be much better at AWD vs RWD vs FWD applications, some might be more used to front weighted bias cars, etc. That is assuming all things equal as far as their ability. I guarantee they don't all drive the same as you would likely find they brake differently, accelerate out of corners differently, and many other minor differences that would equate to changes in lap times.

Unfortunately I don't know how they could do this any other way because the LL shootout covers a wide range of cars and they only have so much time to dedicate to making the article. I guess you just have to take the shootout with a grain of salt.

 

yea tt-s is high priced for real.

I mean I'm not saying that these times are exactly comparable - I do say that a couple seconds of variance are reasonable, for sure. I don't think the Genesis Coupe V6's times aren't unbelievable. IXs really aren't that quick in stock form - especially with long sweepers.

When looking at the other competition the Genesis about where it should be in terms of time. Take the evos out of the equation and the lower tier times don't seem that unreasonable at all, save for a few cars. I think we're just biased. And I'm in no way saying Evos are slow or anything.. These cars have monster tuning potential that almost no other car can match. Just noting that other cars are getting quicker and quicker at a rapid pace.

The XDS diff and the undefeatable stability control are two different things, it's the stability control they were talking about that didn't interfere with the fastest lap.

+1 also the new 911 turbo uses a braking diff.. there's gotta be something good about it, I heard this new system works rather well

 

Do you have info on that? Just curious. Again, I am saying there's gonna be a couple seconds variance but it's more of a reference rather than saying, 'oh this car is exactly xx.xx seconds faster than this other car.' The case is they pick the fastest lap clocked period, whichever driver they use, however many drivers try the cars. They do take a couple days to do this test.

 

And like kyooch and I have gone over, it largely depends on the track in question. Virgina is a very long fast track.

 

Look at the progression of cars from 1992

Lancer Evolution

CD9A (I)
RS - 2580lbs, 247bhp
GSR - 2735lbs, 247bhp

CN9A (IV) - 1996, introduction of AYC on GSR models
RS - 2780lbs, 276bhp
GSR - 2975lbs, 276bhp

CP9A (V, VI, VI TME) - 1998 to 2000, wheel increase from 16" to 17", 4pot front 2 pot rear brembo brakes, supposedly underrated power figure, should be just under 300ps
RS - 2780lbs, 276bhp
GSR - 3000lbs, 276bhp

CT9A (VII, VIII, VIII MR, IX, IX MR) - 2001 to 2007, introduction of S-AYC from VIII MR model (8.5), introduction of MIVEC from IX model, supposedly underrated power figure, should be up to about 320ps for IX
RS - 2910lbs, 276bhp
GSR - 3130lbs, 276bhp

CZ4A (X, X facelift) - 2008+, introduction of S-AWC, TC-SST (dual clutch), supposedly underrated power figure, should be about 320ps
RS - 3130lbs, 296bhp
GSR - 3370lbs, 296bhp
GSR TC-SST - 3420lbs, 296bhp, 6 speed automatic
GSR Premium TC-SST (same as USDM MR) - 3525lbs, 296bhp, 6 speed automatic

One should add about 70lbs for RS models to equip with GSR wheels and brakes to make it competitive. The brakes are pretty much unchanged for 12 years. Starting from CP9A (evo 5), they should run about the same lap times especially if equipped with the same tires and equal trim level.

Its main competition:

Subaru Impreza WRX (WRX STI for 2010)
1992 - 237bhp, 2690lbs (2580lbs for Type RA)
2010 - 304bhp, 3265lbs (3155lbs for Spec C with 17 inch wheels)


Other performance cars, you should read about their brakes, suspension, tire upgrades as well as below provided power and weight figures:

BMW M3 (Euro spec)
1992 - 286bhp, 3220lbs
2010 - 414bhp, 3650lbs

Chevrolet Corvette
1992 - 300bhp, 3225lbs
2010 - 430bhp, 3215lbs

Chevrolet Corvette (ZR-1 for 1992, ZR1 for 2010)
1992 - 375bhp, 3465lbs
2010 - 638bhp, 3325lbs

Dodge Viper (RT/10 for 1992, SRT-10 for 2010)
1992 - 400bhp, 3475lbs
2010 - 600bhp, 3430lbs

Ferrari Mid engine V8 (348tb for 1992 and F430 for 2010)
1992 - 300bhp, 3305lbs
2010 - 483bhp, 3195lbs

Honda Civic (Si-R for 1992, Type R for 2010)
1992 - 167bhp, 2295lbs
2010 - 222bhp, 2800lbs

Mercedes-Benz C AMG (C36 for 1995, C63 for 2010)
1995 - 268bhp, 3390lbs
2010 - 451bhp, 3925lbs

Nissan Fairlady Z (Japan Spec)
1992 - 276bhp, 3330lbs
2010 - 332bhp, 3265lbs (351bhp, 3350lbs for Nismo)

Nissan GT performance coupe (Skyline GT-R for 1992, GTR for 2010)
1992 - 276bhp, 3265lbs
2010 - 480bhp, 3835lbs

Porsche 911 Carrera 2
1992 - 247bhp, 3030lbs
2010 - 345bhp, 3120lbs

Porsche 911 Turbo
1992 - 315bhp, 3275lbs (RWD)
2010 - 500bhp, 3460lbs (AWD)

 

This is definitely a big point to drive home.. The Evo hasn't really "evolved" all that much in terms of outright speed -

In the mid 90s, and even up to early 2000s these cars were known practically as super car killers. Now the higher end cars have seriously upped their game. Honestly I think it was the high performance japanese cars that forced the euros to up their game a bit - revising suspension, adding power etc. I remember the old 911 carrera used to be compared to the Evo 8 earlier when the Evos first came to the USDM.

However, I will say that it seems a little to be a resistance to add power to the stock car - one from the unspoken gentleman's agreement, and it's a bit of a pride thing. Evo 6 was underrated from the factory, and 7-10 could have easily made 350 crank from the factory.

One things for certain, cars from outside of Japan are definitely getting better. It's just that these cars have been so good from the mid 90s that the competition is finally starting to catch up (and maybe surpass).

Is it that hard to believe that a car, any car, with similar acceleration could outpace an Evo on a track? If you're having a hard time with that, that's nothing but straight up bias. The evo's been top dog for so long that we can't even think of another car within 20, 30k that can deliver the same performance, not to mention do it with less power/acceleration.

 

yep too many variables here... i really dont see a mustang being that fast or camaro for that matter... I have seen cd cars that are 13.5 on the show or mag and then they pull a 15.2 at moroso... so whatever!

 

Yes the 280ps (276bhp) gentlemen's agreement was just recently started being ignored and only notable cars are IS-F (420ps) and GTR (485ps). Evo has just recently changed to 300ps when X had its facelift in 2008, and WRX STI started with 308ps rating. The Z was one of the first cars to ignore and started from 280ps -> 294ps -> 313ps -> 336ps (for VQ37).

Although people generally say 'weight gain is due to stricter safety and emissions requirement and demand for more comfort and features', but notice that the listed sports cars barely gained any weight, and some even lost their weight in the past two decades. It seems the sinners are all entry level sedan or midsize sedan based, whether premium or not, ie. Civic, Lancer, 3 series, C class, Skyline, Impreza, on average of about 500lbs each.

Also we are comparing car vs car, not 'which car would beat which car given an average driver, since some cars are easier to drive'. This leaves too many variables to get a definite answer and gives unfair advantage to cars like evo, sti, gtr and 911 turbo, whereas twitchy cars like viper/z06 and even an S2000 would have serious disadvantage. Also, some cars tend to have more enthusiastic and talented buyers than the others (there are jokes like _____ owners track their cars while _____ owners wax theirs in a garage)

As someone mentioned above, some drivers feel very comfortable with certain cars, while not so much with the others, and sometimes the weather condition affects too much that it is the decision maker. The only way for a good comparison would be to pick the best time ever recorded with a verified stock car at each course.

Now even midsize sedans come with very potent 3.5 to 3.8l V6's and lots of gears these days so they can embarass you on the highway if they catch you off guard in a stock evo or an sti.

 

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..."

 

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.

I thought that the agreement had been officially canned back in 05 or so? Surprisingly, it was a Honda minivan or something. Everyone knows that that 276 number was just to save face anyways.

 

Mr tim I do agree that on paper we do barely keep up or lose... Paper can hold whatever ink you decide to put on it... Meaning, C&D says a gtr runs 5 sec 1/4 miles, but would that be true?

I find it funny because I have never been close to losing to a cobalt or 350 ever... Lets say landslide

 

I do not doubt you. However, according to your sig, you are atleast TTP tuned. All my comments are only directed at stock comparisons. I do fully understand that the gloves come off with anything done to any of these cars. There are many variables that can change the outcome of these times. But those variables apply to those cars too.

 

Yes I am so definitely wont be beat by those two cars any time soon... Yes the variables are equal to both sides as you stated, but what most people have a problem understanding is how come; the domestics known for poor circuit track performance end up on the plus side of it?

Me personally I have always thought that C&D is very biased on their testing and they are probably getting some under the table from GM, Ford, Dodge,etc... to boost sales...

Evo ix is roughly 3200 lbs , 4wd, 286hp, brembo brakes

Mustang is roughly 3500 lbs, 2wd, no brembo brakes, and no independent rear suspension

On paper that is complete mismatch, however they have similar times?? C&D ftl