Autocar Britain's Best Drivers Car 2005

[Erik]

Rankings (plus score out of 100 - 50/50 road & track):

1st: Porsche 911 Carrera S = 89 (44/45)
2nd: Noble M400 = 84 (40/44)
3rd: Ford GT = 80 (39/41)
4th: Ferrari 430 = 79 (40/39)
5th: Aston Martin V8 Vantage = 78 (40/38)
6th: Nissan Nismo 350Z = 76 (37/39)
7th: BMW M5 = 76 (39/37)
8th: Porsche Boxster S = 75 (40/35)
9th Lotus Exige 240R = 72 (33/39)
10th: Mitsubishi EVO IX = 71 (36/35)
11th Renault Clio Trophy = 70 36/34)
12th: VW Golf Gti = 69 (38/31)
13th: BMW 330i = 66 (36/30)
14th: Nissan 350Z convertible = 65 (33/32)
15th: Ford Fiesta ST = 64 (29/35)
16th: Mercedes CLS 55 AMG = 60 (31/29)
17th: Chevrolet Corvette C6 = 56 (29/27)
18th: VX Astra VXR = 48 (26/22)
19th: Morgan Aero 8 Mk2 = 35 (10/25)

Dry/Wet Lap times/Peak lateral G (Rockingham)

1st: Porsche 911 Carrera S = 81.4secs/94.7secs/1.05
2nd: Noble M400 = 76.6secs/98.0secs/1.22
3rd: Ford GT = 80.7secs/93.6secs/1.04
4th: Ferrari 430 = 81.1secs/101.5secs/na
5th: Aston Martin V8 Vantage = 84.4secs/100.0secs/1.00
6th: Nissan Nismo 350Z = 84.7secs/102.5/1.02
7th: BMW M5 = 84.4secs/98.3secs/0.98
8th: Porsche Boxster S = 82.7secs/99.1secs/1.09
9th Lotus Exige 240R = 81.8secs/94.7secs/1.07
10th: Mitsubishi EVO IX = 82.5secs/98.4secs/1.01
11th Renault Clio Trophy = 87.0secs/101.2secs/0.95
12th: VW Golf Gti = 88.8secs/103.8secs/0.93
13th: BMW 330i = 88.1secs/106.5secs/0.95
14th: Nissan 350Z convertible = 85.9secs/103.9secs/1.00
15th: Ford Fiesta ST = 89.1secs/105.0secs/0.97
16th: Mercedes CLS 55 AMG = 86.4secs/98.9secs/0.93secs
17th: Chevrolet Corvette C6 = 84.0secs/94.7secs/1.02
18th: VX Astra VXR = 88.0secs/103.8secs/0.96
19th: Morgan Aero 8 Mk2 = 84.0secs/103.9secs/1.04

Film http://www.autocar.co.uk/popups/video.asp?ar=217161

[k2]

Disappointed in the Exige?

The times are among the best. Although I don't disagree with the verdict, I do wonder about an unbiased test where the driver is wearing a sponsors shirt.

It is also interesting that the C6 was so low on the ranking ... in fact it is ranked less trackable than a CLS55. That does surprise me.

And no clips of the Noble ... just a very bizzare video me thinks.

k2

[Klint]

Roads in GB are unforgiving and are unique (as what many manufacturers suggest) so one car maybe ace somewhere but perform pooly at Rockingham/GB.

Rockingham is a test track to simulate what the cars will encounter on a varied mix of British roads during it's life time.

[Benman]

What? No Audi!:p

Come on people! They can have a FORD!!!! Fiesta (RS or NO RS, it's STILL a Fiesta!!!) and NO AUDI! I call rigged...:( :D

Ben:addict:

[k2]

So Klint,

I hear what you are saying, but the results don't seem to really follow that logic.

For instance ... why does a CLS55 rank lower in road handling than the Exige ... on british roads I assume the Exige is total crap expecially in DT London. The M5 is more trackable than the C6... given it was slower around?

I thought Rockingham was a relatively good surface without the typical pots and grooves (never been there just book smart on it). I did know that a majority of British manus test on Rockingham, but I'm surprised the C6 didn't impress the testers. Maybe front weight biased cars don't feel right because of the heavy breaking into corners (but then you have the vantage)?

I guess the one thing that makes total sense is the Morgan ... are the brits still making those from decommissioned wooden ships ... confused

:doh:

[Benman]

Originally posted by k2
The M5 is more trackable than the C6... given it was slower around?

The M5 was only a little slower around in the dry than the C6 Vette, but check out the wet times! The C6 whomps it!

Originally posted by k2

I'm surprised the C6 didn't impress the testers. Maybe...
:doh:
Maybe... because the Brit testers have NEVER liked Vettes OR Vipers. They are extremely biased against them for their lack of refinement... yet always compliment the TVRs?:trash:

Ben:addict:

[exE46M3]

Originally posted by Benman
They are extremely biased against them for their lack of refinement... yet always compliment the TVRs?:trash:

Enough said...

[S3 freak]

I would like to hear from the user exE46M3 what are the excuses for the M5 lap times, and how a FWD Golf with 50 hp less than the NA RWD BMW 330i with 50/50 weight distribution managed to be almost 3 sec faster than the BMW in the wet??
I heard some BS in another forum that the M5 time was not so good because it was supposedly wearing contiport tires, not the MPS2 specially made for it... there´s always an excuse :vhmmm: :vhmmm:

[exE46M3]

S3 Freak,

You seem to suffer from a bad case of narcisism... You should go check yourself out.

Now, onto your question. To me the M5 times are pretty darn good. The difference between dry and wet shows that the car is actually 2s faster than the almighty EVO, which incidentally was 0.1s slower in the wet. Go figure.

Some tire related remarks were actually made to justify the EVO's times. No objections there.

The fact that the ContiSports suck is well known.

As far as the GTi goes, more power to FWD cars, I guess (chances are you WON'T get what I just said, so read it 10 times if needed).

Anyway, looks like the 330i is no contender.

PS: Regardless of what you heard, please, don't drag these fine people into your mess. Show them you can act like a grown man.

[M&M]

S4 Freak, what are you on about? The M5 was almost as fast as the Noble in the wet. Did I miss something?

[Angellus]

@M&M are you by any chance from South Africa? The CarToday forums mean anything to you? AudiClubSA?

[Klint]

err....I wouldn't take S3 Freak's posts personally. Probally just a simple mis-understanding.

[Benman]

Originally posted by Klint
err....I wouldn't take S3 Freak's posts personally. Probally just a simple mis-understanding.
Agreed. I don't think there was anything personal in there.

That said, M&M and exE46M3 could always come back with: "Well, I don't even SEE an Audi on that list!".:trash: :D

Ben:addict:

[exE46M3]

Not at all Ben. Lots of other fine cars never made it into that list either.

[S3 freak]

Originally posted by exE46M3
S3 Freak,

You seem to suffer from a bad case of narcisism... You should go check yourself out.

Now, onto your question. To me the M5 times are pretty darn good. The difference between dry and wet shows that the car is actually 2s faster than the almighty EVO, which incidentally was 0.1s slower in the wet. Go figure.

Some tire related remarks were actually made to justify the EVO's times. No objections there.

The fact that the ContiSports suck is well known.

As far as the GTi goes, more power to FWD cars, I guess (chances are you WON'T get what I just said, so read it 10 times if needed).

Anyway, looks like the 330i is no contender.

PS: Regardless of what you heard, please, don't drag these fine people into your mess. Show them you can act like a grown man.

It´s nice to hear stuff like that from a fanatic like you that has always said that AWD cars - like the :rs4addict - need at least 100 hp more than a M3 to keep up with it. I bet it´s hard to admit that the AWD Evo, that has 200 hp less and costs half the price of the BMW, is as fast as the Bimmer :harass: :harass: despite the fact that it lacks some refinement.

PS: Enough with arguments like tires, track and weather conditions

[S3 freak]

Originally posted by Benman
Agreed. I don't think there was anything personal in there.

That said, M&M and exE46M3 could always come back with: "Well, I don't even SEE an Audi on that list!".:trash: :D

Ben:addict:

Well, I don´t know about M&M, but the user exE46M3 said that in another forum ... :hihi: .... but here he is more civilized.

[exE46M3]

Originally posted by S3 freak
It´s nice to hear stuff like that from a fanatic like you that has always said that AWD cars - like the :rs4addict - need at least 100 hp more than a M3 to keep up with it. I bet it´s hard to admit that the AWD Evo, that has 200 hp less and costs half the price of the BMW, is as fast as the Bimmer :harass: :harass: despite the fact that it lacks some refinement.

PS: Enough with arguments like tires, track and weather conditions

See, you're just confused...

Go look at lap times and tell me if a stock RS4 B5 can hang out with an E46 M3 around a track... Heck, to this day no one still knows for sure the B7 can... Now, take that same RS4 B5, TWEAK it and go do the same thing again... :doh: See, it's not just a matter of sheer power... Some of us can see past that...

The EVO can keep up with P-cars that cost 3 times as much... So, what's so hard to admit? Now, if you wanna "kid" (wow, perfect word) yourself into thinking that all of a sudden P-cars are crap because an EVO can keep up with them, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!

Tires, track, weather... All valid points... Otherwise, why test cars in the wet? Anyway, since those are not valid points, "englighten" us then... At the very least, that will raise your post count... :doh:

[exE46M3]

Originally posted by S3 freak
Well, I don´t know about M&M, but the user exE46M3 said that in another forum ... :hihi: .... but here he is more civilized.

How can you tell? If I remember right, you got banned, did you not? :rolleyes:

It's actually quite easy to be civil when reading informative stuff posted by people without an agenda... Next time you "borrow" something and post it somewhere else, just do that. Be civil.

[S3 freak]

Yeah... I was banned from the other forum because a BMW freak did not like the results of this test, and decided to kick me off the forum.... but I can still read what he posts.. :bye2:
but I can leave without that... I would not be missing anything

[S3 freak]

Just correcting: I can live without that

[Erik]

Whatever...

I, and probably 99.9% of the rest of the readers here, can live without this type of discussion.

Cars anyone?

[Benman]

Originally posted by Erik


Cars anyone?
Yes Sir!

Debates are fine, aurguments, not so much. Problem is knowing when one is transforming from one to the other. :D

Ben:addict: