Lightning Lap 2009!
Dec 30, 2009, 10:30 AM
#1
Lightning Lap 2009!
Just got my C&D with the latest lightning lap results, pretty interesting stuff!
No evos in this test, but the times can be used somewhat as a frame of reference from the past results -
2008 Test - 2008 LL2 Evo X MR - 3:13.3
2006 Test - 2006 LL1 Evo IX MR - 3:13.5
(before anyone argues about this one, the tests were done 2 years apart with different drivers. let's leave this result as 'negligible')
I won't post all the results, or the winner but some interesting ones -
Audi TTS - 3:08.4 - no matter the conditions on this one, that is pretty much stomping both evos, with only 265hp, @ 3285lbs. twin clutch auto was used.
Ford Mustang GT - 3:13.3 - 315hp, 3552 lbs.. also very impressive, Ford's come a long way! (still solid rear though)
Audi S4 - 3:10.8 - 333hp, 4093 lbs, very impressive considering the weight. Audi's active rear diff included
Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 - 3:14.8 - 306hp, 3500 lbs. automatic transmission.
Chevy Camaro SS - 3:09.5 - 426hp, 3859 lbs. nice time, similar price to current evo
Both the Cayman S and the 911 Carrera S hit a 3:05.8, stomping the evo.. weren't they once considered on par with the evos? =/
and the M3 ekes over them with a 3:05.4
Lotus Exige S 206 Sport makes up for the last Lotus' performance, with a 3:05.0!
Pretty nice results overall for this year's Lightning Lap!
No evos in this test, but the times can be used somewhat as a frame of reference from the past results -
2008 Test - 2008 LL2 Evo X MR - 3:13.3
2006 Test - 2006 LL1 Evo IX MR - 3:13.5
(before anyone argues about this one, the tests were done 2 years apart with different drivers. let's leave this result as 'negligible')
I won't post all the results, or the winner but some interesting ones -
Audi TTS - 3:08.4 - no matter the conditions on this one, that is pretty much stomping both evos, with only 265hp, @ 3285lbs. twin clutch auto was used.
Ford Mustang GT - 3:13.3 - 315hp, 3552 lbs.. also very impressive, Ford's come a long way! (still solid rear though)
Audi S4 - 3:10.8 - 333hp, 4093 lbs, very impressive considering the weight. Audi's active rear diff included
Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 - 3:14.8 - 306hp, 3500 lbs. automatic transmission.
Chevy Camaro SS - 3:09.5 - 426hp, 3859 lbs. nice time, similar price to current evo
Both the Cayman S and the 911 Carrera S hit a 3:05.8, stomping the evo.. weren't they once considered on par with the evos? =/
and the M3 ekes over them with a 3:05.4
Lotus Exige S 206 Sport makes up for the last Lotus' performance, with a 3:05.0!
Pretty nice results overall for this year's Lightning Lap!
Last edited by kyoo; Dec 31, 2009 at 09:34 AM.
Dec 30, 2009, 06:28 PM
#4
Evolved Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think the truly remarkable results are the Hyundai with automatic!, and, the mustang. the fact that an Exige, or an M3 is fast, is no surprise, and shouldnt be shocking by any means!
as far as the IX and X, keep in mind, the factory cars only have 286, and 291hp respectively! for good reason or bad, Mitsu limits the power output of the evo. so FWIW, with just bolt-ons, both of the evos' results would have been far better, while the other cars in this list are already maxed out coming from the factory (i.e. you cant get more power without significantly altering the engine).
as far as the IX and X, keep in mind, the factory cars only have 286, and 291hp respectively! for good reason or bad, Mitsu limits the power output of the evo. so FWIW, with just bolt-ons, both of the evos' results would have been far better, while the other cars in this list are already maxed out coming from the factory (i.e. you cant get more power without significantly altering the engine).
Dec 30, 2009, 07:16 PM
#5
The competition is very tough. I am very aware of the VIP lighting lap for the fact that I owned a few cars that are/were tested on this comparo.
Like I said, left and right other car manufacturers are also making decent cars, Brembo brakes are no longer a Mitsubishi Evo thing, so many manufacturers are using them on even cheaper cars(Cobalt SS).
I have been saying it year after year, the dual clutch transmission and even the auto tranmission started leaving in the dust its manual transmission counterparts and this is getting more and more obvious, the best example perhaps is the Audi TTS.
The tide is shifting in the other direction car will rule with the dual clutch transmissions and fast acting autos. Look at the Porsche Boxter S test on Edmunds, 3.9 sec 0-60 sec with its PDK transmission and only low 300 hp.
Happy new year.
Carlos
Like I said, left and right other car manufacturers are also making decent cars, Brembo brakes are no longer a Mitsubishi Evo thing, so many manufacturers are using them on even cheaper cars(Cobalt SS).
I have been saying it year after year, the dual clutch transmission and even the auto tranmission started leaving in the dust its manual transmission counterparts and this is getting more and more obvious, the best example perhaps is the Audi TTS.
The tide is shifting in the other direction car will rule with the dual clutch transmissions and fast acting autos. Look at the Porsche Boxter S test on Edmunds, 3.9 sec 0-60 sec with its PDK transmission and only low 300 hp.
Happy new year.
Carlos
Dec 30, 2009, 07:50 PM
#6
Good points, one thing most standard car mags can't test is tuning potential.
I'm still waiting on the technology of dual clutches to increase - there are still overheating issues on the track that simpler manual trannies just don't have. in any case, i don't think i'll ever personally enjoy a dual clutch more than a manual (and I have driven dual clutch)
I'm still waiting on the technology of dual clutches to increase - there are still overheating issues on the track that simpler manual trannies just don't have. in any case, i don't think i'll ever personally enjoy a dual clutch more than a manual (and I have driven dual clutch)
Dec 30, 2009, 09:26 PM
#7
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that too yesterday. My thought was sort of " revenege of the domestics". The Mustang now kills the WRX and how fast will it be next year up 100 HP with Brembos from the 09? The Camaro beats the S4, and if I recall the Grand Sport Vette was not much off the R8 (or faster, article not in front of me) and faster than the Carrera. My other take away is that I still think AWD is somewhat overated at stock power levels as the MS3 was as fast as this years WRX and last years STI (as was the cobalt BTW) and only 3 seconds off the EVO.
Trending Topics
Dec 31, 2009, 09:01 AM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: From Ohio, now in N. Virginia
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, CD = Car and Driver?
My 2-cents:
I haven't read the article, but track layout is very important in these tests. Track with a long straightaway will benefit high HP cars, super tight twisties and short tracks will benefit light and AWD cars. That said, there's no excuse for the X MR slower than the TTS, they both have similar weight, power, and transmissions. The difference may be attributed to the condition of the tires used on the Evo?
Also with the Porsche comment, the Evo was only made to maybe compete against the standard 996 Carrera (320 HP, 3200 lbs). The S models especially the 2010 997 models are in a different league. (385 HP, 3300 lbs), add in PDK and Sport Chorno package, and it's on a different level of performance.
The standard Cayman back in 2005 was comparable and may have been slower than the Evo. But again the 2009 Cayman S model is in a different league (295 HP, PDK includes the LSD option, probably had a
Sport Chorno package?).
My guess is the magazine chose the top of the line models with all the options with each car, and the Evo X MR cannot compete when you got Porsches with all the bells and whistles attached.
Again this is not an excuse to why MR is slower than the TTS by a considerable margin, I still think it may be tire quality.
I'm interested in buying a 2008/9 M3, that car is very special combo of performance and comfort for the price. I think it'll be as coveted in the future by M3 enthusiats as the Evo 9 MR models are to us.
My 2-cents:
I haven't read the article, but track layout is very important in these tests. Track with a long straightaway will benefit high HP cars, super tight twisties and short tracks will benefit light and AWD cars. That said, there's no excuse for the X MR slower than the TTS, they both have similar weight, power, and transmissions. The difference may be attributed to the condition of the tires used on the Evo?
Also with the Porsche comment, the Evo was only made to maybe compete against the standard 996 Carrera (320 HP, 3200 lbs). The S models especially the 2010 997 models are in a different league. (385 HP, 3300 lbs), add in PDK and Sport Chorno package, and it's on a different level of performance.
The standard Cayman back in 2005 was comparable and may have been slower than the Evo. But again the 2009 Cayman S model is in a different league (295 HP, PDK includes the LSD option, probably had a
Sport Chorno package?).
My guess is the magazine chose the top of the line models with all the options with each car, and the Evo X MR cannot compete when you got Porsches with all the bells and whistles attached.
Again this is not an excuse to why MR is slower than the TTS by a considerable margin, I still think it may be tire quality.
I'm interested in buying a 2008/9 M3, that car is very special combo of performance and comfort for the price. I think it'll be as coveted in the future by M3 enthusiats as the Evo 9 MR models are to us.
Last edited by mdosu; Dec 31, 2009 at 09:24 AM.
Dec 31, 2009, 09:11 AM
#10
sorry, CD = Car and Driver?
My 2-cents:
I haven't read the article, but track layout is very important in these tests. Track with a long straightaway will benefit high HP cars, super tight twisties and short tracks will benefit light and AWD cars. That said, there's no excuse for the X MR slower than the TTS, they both have similar weight, power, and transmissions. The difference may be attributed to the condition of the tires used on the Evo?
My 2-cents:
I haven't read the article, but track layout is very important in these tests. Track with a long straightaway will benefit high HP cars, super tight twisties and short tracks will benefit light and AWD cars. That said, there's no excuse for the X MR slower than the TTS, they both have similar weight, power, and transmissions. The difference may be attributed to the condition of the tires used on the Evo?
the track is VIR. To me, there simply is no explanation other than the TTS is a faster car. The X's time is about right to what it should be, but the gap between that and the tts is just too big to attribute to anything that they would have been overlooked, like tires
Dec 31, 2009, 09:36 AM
#11
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: From Ohio, now in N. Virginia
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^indeed very interesting b/c the last Road and Track test of the TTS with DSG yielded very same figures as the Evo 9 and 10 in 1/4 mile, braking and slalom.