MotorTrend Does Laguna Seca Laps

[Bodhii]

Laguna Lap

The Fastest Production Car Lap Times at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

Motor Trend

No caveats here. The lap times are supported by hard data and represent showroom stock cars -- no cheater tires or modifications allowed. Cars with adjustable suspension can be set-up for track conditions, as a customer would.

Lap Times:
• 1st: 2010 Dodge Viper ACR - 1:33.92
• 2008 Dodge Viper ACR - 1:35.12
• 2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 - 1:35.83
• 2007 Porsche 911 GT3 - 1:39.57
• 2009 Nissan GT-R - 1:40.45
• 2011 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG - 1:40.74
• 2009 Audi R8 - 1:40.75
• 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 - 1:40.92
• 2009 Audi R8 R Tronic - 1:40.92
• 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo - 1:42.51
• 2009 Porsche Cayman S PDK - 1:42.95
• 2008 BMW M3 - 1:42.96
• 2009 Cadillac CTS-V - 1:43.85
• 2010 Ford Shelby GT500 - 1:44.32
• 2008 Shelby GT500KR - 1:44.72
• 2009 Jaguar XFR - 1:45.37
• 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS - 1:45.72
• 2007 Lotus Exige S - 1:45.82
• 2009 BMW 135i - 1:46.01
• 2010 Nissan NISMO 370Z - 1:46.53
• 2006 Porsche Cayman S - 1:47.58

R8 manual
http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html
R8 rtronic
http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

[Z07]

That's some good comedy. An R8 V10 is 5s slower than a ZR1 and a Porsche 911 Turbo is 7s slower. A+ Wouldn't read again.

[wedouglas]

That's some good comedy. An R8 V10 is 5s slower than a ZR1 and a Porsche 911 Turbo is 7s slower. A+ Wouldn't read again.

That's the V8.

[Ruergard]

A V10 would be more interesting.

[chewym]

The SLS is surprisingly slow.

[Ruergard]

The SLS is surprisingly slow.

Yes, wonder where the V10 would place itself.

Anyone with a good guess?

[The Pretender]

I would say close to the Lambo LP560-4 but that's not up there.

[Z07]

Edmunds timed a 997 Turbo a whole 3 seconds faster round the same course??? Something is wrong here.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track16.html

And since when was a Cobalt SS faster than an Evo IX MR?

[Bodhii]

Z07, you forget that the Motor Trend tests were done with the stability aids turned OFF. Many experts believe that this is a much more proper evaluation of the actual car.

[Z07]

That doesn't equate to 3 seconds. With a good driver it shouldn't make any difference and there are no aids you can turn off in the Evo IX.

[Bodhii]

With a good driver it shouldn't make any difference and there are no aids

LOL,.. the driver was Randy Pobst. An extremely successful and well known race driver, and Laguna Seca is his home track.
Z07. Go teach him how to drive! That, I would love to see. Hahaha!
As far as not needing stability help,.. the Porsche turbo is described perfectly...

Porsche has taken the rear-engine layout further than most probably believed it could ever go, but even with all-wheel drive, there's still a lot of weight swinging around way out back. Both on the track and during our road drives, we observed a few lurid snaps of the tail. To win a best-handling test, a car has to be more predictable and stable than this 911 Turbo.

The hot-shoe's take: "Porsche still offers a totally unique driving experience," says Randy Pobst. "The Turbo, with all its stability systems turned off, demands full attention from the driver. The tail is far more active than any other car I've driven today. It's very different from the others. The more I drove it, the more I enjoyed it."
"I was busy driving it, but it was still rewarding because I like getting a car to drift, to use all four wheels. As I started to raise my entry speeds, the back started working more and more. I had to be right on top of the Turbo all the time; it took a lot of quick steering corrections. The Audi felt more modern, more peaceful at turn-in, while the 911 is an E-ticket ride. Steering was fabulous, quick and satisfying. Much as I love the Turbo, though, in terms of overall handling the R8 is a better car."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...#ixzz0YxgKcSTU

Sounds like 3 sec. to me.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

[Z07]

LOL,.. the driver was Randy Pobst. An extremely successful and well known race driver, and Laguna Seca is his home track.
Z07. Go teach him how to drive! That, I would love to see. Hahaha!

I think he knows how to drive, at least when he was driving Fords, GMs and Dodges.

As far as not needing stability help,.. the Porsche turbo is described perfectly...

Sounds like 3 sec. to me.

Really, so you think that even for a pro, turning the stability system off equals 2 football pitches down the start-finish straight? Some of the times set by non-american models are hideously slow and yes, I could probably beat them myself they're that far off the pace. 3 seconds is the difference between an inexperienced amateur and a pro, so either he was sandbagging or.... well....

There are cars which usually (spelt always) lose to the ZR1 by 1s that lost by 5 seconds in that test. It's a complete joke. I'd get a more accurate result if I ran the cars in Gran Turismo. I'm sure if the Shelby GT500 could lap within 2s of a 997 Turbo, it's sales would be about 500 times as high. I seem to remember an earlier test where Motor Trend actually beat a 997 Turbo with a GT500. Reading Motor Trend is like getting a history lesson in North Korea or listening to Best Motoring talk up Japanese cars or looking at Sport Auto times for 911s.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html

A work of pure fiction. When a FWD Cobalt SS with 260bhp can beat an AWD Evo IX MR that's the same weight and has 300bhp and world-renowned handling, I think everyone knows that the article is bollocks. And if you think I'm pushing an agenda you're wrong, I don't particularly even like Porsches or Mitsubishis, but I like bullshit even less.

[chewym]

Motor Trend did have the ZR1 beat the 599 (and others) in a drag race, but every other test I have seen shows the ZR1 about 3 mph slower in the quarter mile and certainly slower than the 599. They could have had a "hot" ZR1 once again. It wouldn't be the first time that magazine test cars aren't completely stock.

[Ruergard]

A work of pure fiction. When a FWD Cobalt SS with 260bhp can beat an AWD Evo IX MR that's the same weight and has 300bhp and world-renowned handling, I think everyone knows that the article is bollocks. And if you think I'm pushing an agenda you're wrong, I don't particularly even like Porsches or Mitsubishis, but I like bullshit even less.

I'd like to see that.. The EVO would run rings around and then run over it again.

[Z07]

I'd like to see that.. The EVO would run rings around and then run over it again.

I know, all possible in this Motor Trend test though.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/l...lap/index.html
Evo IX MR - 1:47.93
Cobalt SS - 1:47.75

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track16.html
997.1 Turbo with Motor Trend - 1:42.51
997.1 Turbo with Edmunds - 1:39.89
Shelby GT500 - 1:44.32

And since when is a 2008 911 Turbo 3s slower than a 2007 911 GT3?

2009 GTR (7:29 'ring car) with Motor Trend - 1:40.45
2008 GTR (7:38 'ring car) with Edmunds - 1:39.62

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track16.html
Lotus Exige 240R 2007 (240hp, 860kg) with Motor Trend - 1:45.8
Original Toyota Supra RZ 1993 (300hp, 1560kg) with Kurosawa Motoharu - 1:45.8

The results just don't make any sense to me. It's as if a pro drove the Fords, GMs and Dodges and a complete numpty drove the other cars.

Motor Trend did have the ZR1 beat the 599 (and others) in a drag race, but every other test I have seen shows the ZR1 about 3 mph slower in the quarter mile and certainly slower than the 599. They could have had a "hot" ZR1 once again. It wouldn't be the first time that magazine test cars aren't completely stock.

I'd have thought the ZR1 should beat a 599 in a drag race given power, torque and weight and the ZR1 lap time seems entirely plausible for stock it's just a shame that some of the other cars seem to be proveably 3s shy of what should easily be achieved by a pro and has been in the past. I can't buy 3s as a day-day variation unless there's water on the ground.