The Lightning Lap 2008

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,811
126
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...tning_lap_2008_feature

Best in respective class:

LL5 Mosler MT900S 2:45.9
LL3 Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR 2:48.6
LL2 Chevy Corvette Z51 3:01.2
LL1 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo 3:13.0

Some other notables.

Nissan GT-R 2:55.6
Ferrari 430 Scuderia 2:54.6
Cadillac CTS-V 3:04.0
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5
Lexus IS-F 3:14.0
Dodge Callenger SRT8 3:16.3
Lotus Elise SC 3:16.6
Subaru Impreza WRX STI 3:19.0

GTR is insanely fast but the Viper ACR is sick! The new WRX STI is a big disappointment and even loses to Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo which is in lower class.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,281
12,842
136
to be fair, the GTR is more driveable than the ACR, which is purely a track car. friggin amazing either way though :p
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
HAH! This is what I'm talkin bout!

Remember the controversy where Porsche says that Nissan 'cheated' to get a great 'ring time?

Well ... their time with the GT-R was supposedly 7:54 (instead of the 7:29 achieved by Nissan with .. a RACING driver, not an ENGINEER).

Now the CTS-V clocked at 7:59, which by anyone's standards is hugely fast for that class, and GM has been pulling out all the stops for speedy 'Ring times of late (Cobalt SS anyone?)

So, looking at this test, if a CTS-V is within such a tiny % on the 'Ring .. (4 seconds is microscopic on an course of that length), then why does the GT-R dominate the CTS-V on this little course?

Again :

'Ring

CTS-V 7:59
GT-R Nissan Test 7:29
GT-R Porsche Test 7:54

Lighting Lap Test
CTS-V 3:04
GT-R 2:55

A NINE second difference instead of a FIVE second difference, despite the course being only about a third as long.

EDIT : This is just the first bit of new evidence that will probably show Porsche to be spreading FUD on the 'cheating' angle. If there were any bit of evidence to show it to be even slightly probable, I would be more apt to believe.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Ah yes, Props to the wicked Viper ACR, I sincerely hope that's not the last of the V10 American Muscle.

 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,811
126
Remember last year, 911 Turbo ran it in 3:05.8. C6 Z06 held the record with 2:58.2 until it was smashed by 4 other cars this year.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Naustica
Remember last year, 911 Turbo ran it in 3:05.8. C6 Z06 held the record with 2:58.2 until it was smashed by 4 other cars this year.

That Z06 time sounds right-on considering the comparison to the 'Ring times of the various cars. The 911T time sounds strangely slow though, maybe there was something wrong with their car. AFAIK, a 911 Turbo shouldn't be slower than a CTS-V.
 

Kabob

Lifer
Sep 5, 2004
15,248
0
76
Mosler = unfair :p

Haven't read the article, I assume LL5 is for supercars though?
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: BouZouki
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.

Well, if you look at the power numbers, it's damned impressive for the M3 to be so quick. Imagine what the M3 chassis/handling would be capable of with the power of the C63 :)

I'd take an M5, CTS-V, or AMG CLS any day of the week over the M3 or C63 though. The M3 is a bit smallish, and the C63 is absolutely hideous. Other than the SUVs, I think the C-Class is the ugliest Mercedes, unless you count Smart.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: BouZouki
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.

You are just proving what a poor car the C63 is. A 6.2L 450HP engine versus a 4L 415HP engine and the 415HP engine is a full second faster. Impressive Benz. :roll: I guess stuffing that engine into a pig isn't a good idea, after all.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: BouZouki
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.

You are just proving what a poor car the C63 is. A 6.2L 450HP engine versus a 4L 415HP engine and the 415HP engine is a full second faster. Impressive Benz. :roll: I guess stuffing that engine into a pig isn't a good idea, after all.

Ever hear of power to weight ratio?

The Mercedes weights considerably more, your point would make more sense if they weighed the same. A Lotus probably beats both around a track, guess that makes them both pigs, along with a bunch of other cars! My point was, people overly exaggerate the handling differences of these cars and pick the M3 because it "handles so much better."

In reality, the C63 would be a more enjoyable daily driver, unless you must have that .9 second track time advantage which i'm sure you'll notice in your daily driving. 99.9% of anandtech's drivers wouldn't even notice that on a track. Hell, most drivers here probably couldn't take advantage of half of these car's potential on a track.

But hey, guess who wins in straight line performance and neck snapping pulls?

Don't get me wrong, the BMW is a nice car overall, but it's not god's weekend driver like some may think with no competition in sight.

-Edit: And your "stuffing an engine" statement is pure BS to me. If your a technical number junkie, go ahead and worship the M3's numbers on paper, I could car less what the numbers are on paper, just how it performs in real life. As long as the prices are the same, manufactures can do whatever they want to get the most out of their cars.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
^^ BouZ, 'more enjoyable daily driver' is all a matter of taste. Some would prefer the M3, some would prefer the C63, and still others might prefer a Miata.
 

fstime

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2004
4,382
5
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ BouZ, 'more enjoyable daily driver' is all a matter of taste. Some would prefer the M3, some would prefer the C63, and still others might prefer a Miata.

True Arkaign but like I said, people tend to exaggerate and little too much some times.

I've posted this before and I think this guy is right on the money.

This is my own review of the C63 AMG vs. E92 M3.

E92 M3 Writeup
I came to my local friendly dealership yesterday and asked a good friend of mine to test drive a new M3 coupe. 10 minutes later I hear a nice rumble outside and what do I see?.. an 08' Melbourne Red E92 M3. Everything I was hoping for in options I got in the car, so I laid it all out on the table, great looking interior but a little bland compared to the 335i as I am paying a lot of money extra and I don't really get all my money's worth comparing the interiors of the 335i and M3 but the steering wheel felt great and so did the paddles. While the motor was sitting there warming up, I start looking at the RPM gauge and admiring the 8400RPM limit and how elegantly the engine rpm limiter is slowing nearing and getting closer to it's advertised 8400RPM as it's warming up, and finally.. everything is set to my standards. I set the transmission to S5 and although S6 wasn't available I was fine with it. I set the EDC to Sport PLUS, pressed the POWER button, and was ready for flight.
Also to mention, there were 3 of us in the car.

I pulled out of the parking lot, checked my side mirrors and rode the car to about 5K in first and slammed the pedal to the floor, and my face just got slammed back against the comfortable headrest, I switch to 2nd gear at around 8300RPM and get the neck-snapping jolt of the amazing DCT transmission as it changes gears and continues to throw me back in my seat. After the adrenaline rush, we take a turn and were on to some curvy roads up ahead and let me tell you, the car handles insane. I had excellent response in the corners, the car just held up in every corner I threw it in, in short I put the car through it's paces.

After the exciting mountain-carving session we just had, we had to take it on the highway. It was quiet and nimble, overtaking other cars was a snap, and the sound system was great.

After the drive I reviewed it personally and came up with some pro's and con's of my own.

Cons:
-Low torque - Due to being used to 335i probably.
-Seats need more support IMO.
-Needs a louder exhaust.

Now, these are my opinions but the exhaust issue I had to talk about as I can hear the the motor but the exhaust is hard to hear in the mix of giving it some throttle.

Pros:
-Great responsive motor
-Comfortable and quiet
-Handles like it's on rails.

And that's my review of the E92 M3 and here are the options and specs for some of you that might ask.

Options of E92 M3
Melbourne Red
Comfort Access
Technology Package
M-DCT
19" wheels
Upgraded Audio
Black Novillo Leather

Stats of E92 M3
Power - 414 bhp / 311 KW @ 8300 rpm
Torque - 295 ft lbs / 400 Nm @ 3900 rpm
BHP/Liter - 104 bhp / liter
Power to weight - 0.25 bhp / kg
Top Speed - 155 mph
0-60 mph - 4.2-4.3 sec

Now onto the C63 AMG..

C63 AMG Writeup
As I park in the local MB dealer, I spot a Mars Red C63 with the full Performance Package, Navigation, and leather package, and the Carbon Fiber package and I get in the showroom and after some debate with one of the Salespeople, he decides to let me test drive it. I got excited as I remember to all the videos and sound clips I heard of the C63 exhaust, sitting there patiently, he comes back with the keys and continues to put them in the ignition and start up the car.. my next thoughts were . The sound was unimaginable, it was so throaty and insane sounding I couldn't believe it. He was driving it out of the show room as I continue to just look at the car, noticing the side vents in the front bumper, the "6.3 AMG" badge on the side of the car, the front and rear flares and especially the sound. He finally parks the car and makes his way to me and tells me to get in the driver side with an evil grin on his face. First thing I notice is the steering wheel, I like the design of it better than the M3 but the M3 steering wheel was slightly thicker and felt better. The seats though, no comparison they absolutely one of the best seats I have ever sat in, easily besting the M3's by a wide margin. Interior was great and had plenty of nice touches including the Navi pop-up, and the memory card storage in the middle of the dash.

Now onto the drive, as I sit there waiting to make the turn I hear the V8 rumble and was getting jittery as I was waiting to see what these car could do. Traffic clears, I switch it to Sport mode and gun it from 1st at around 2K rpm, the acceleration was unreal and absolutely mad. It changes gears quickly, although not as fast as the M3, and I go into 2nd and next thing I know I was going faster than a bat out of hell. I love the sound of the exhaust as well and as we turned into some mountain roads, I instantly though of the well-renown handling as being sorta crappy, but as I take the first corner, the first thought was "This is weird, the car is actually holds in the corners!". Don't get me wrong, the M3 handles better, but this car easily handles GREAT. I turn back as the salesperson didn't want me to put too many miles on it and drive casually back. I started noticing how quiet the car ride is, but at the same time very firm and not that soft, so that was another thumbs up and then after the small test drive, I turn back into the dealer and park the car, after some small talk I leave the dealership. I start thinking of what I should get because of my lease running out in July 09'.

After driving it thoroughly and seeing what it can do I came up with a small list of pro's and con's.

Cons:
-No free maintainence
-Gas guzzler, although the M3 is too but this is slightly more.
-Sometimes rides a little too firm.

Pros:
-Great sound and crazy acceleration.
-Comfortable and handles great.
-Cheaper than a comparably equipped M3 Sedan if I don't include the CF package.

That's my review of the C63 AMG and here are some specs and the options I had.

Options of C63 AMG
Mars Red
Carbon Fiber Package
Leather Package
Performance Package
Premium Package 1 & 2

Stats of C63 AMG
Power - 457 bhp / 341 KW @ 6800 rpm
Torque - 443 ft lbs / 600 Nm @ 5000 rpm
BHP/Liter - 74 bhp / liter
Power to weight - 0.26 bhp / kg
Top Speed - 176 mph with limiter, not drag limited
0-60 mph - 3.8-4.0 s

Conclusion
The M3 if you are strictly tracking your car, but the C63 is just better when it comes to get groceries, and just driving around town as you have a lot of torque and don't need to change gears at all. At this point I think I have my eyes set on getting a C63 but we will all see next year when the time comes..

So my decision is C63 AMG>M3 in daily driving and what I do with it.
 

Hyperlite

Diamond Member
May 25, 2004
5,664
2
76
i like this line:

"Where the GT-R simply goes out and does the job, the Viper gives the driver the perfect tools to do the job manually. Its friendliness is nothing short of amazing."
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
8,523
926
126
Cobalt SS time is crazy impressive!

Slap a $1000 tune from BSR on there and I'm sure you have could lop another 7-seconds off that time!

Beating the STI, EVO, G37, 135i!

Best bang for the buck car hands down!

Oh, and for arguemnts sake, I'd take a C63 over the M3. Usuable power without wringing the engine out for the win!


 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,688
2,811
126
Originally posted by: BouZouki
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: BouZouki
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.

You are just proving what a poor car the C63 is. A 6.2L 450HP engine versus a 4L 415HP engine and the 415HP engine is a full second faster. Impressive Benz. :roll: I guess stuffing that engine into a pig isn't a good idea, after all.

Ever hear of power to weight ratio?

The Mercedes weights considerably more, your point would make more sense if they weighed the same. A Lotus probably beats both around a track, guess that makes them both pigs, along with a bunch of other cars! My point was, people overly exaggerate the handling differences of these cars and pick the M3 because it "handles so much better."

Supercharged Lotus Elise came in at 3:16.6, a full ten seconds slower than C63 AMG and 11 seconds slower than M3. Even Chevy Cobalt was full 3 seconds faster than the supercharged Lotus. :laugh: Low weight is nice but you still need the power.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
Originally posted by: Naustica
Originally posted by: BouZouki
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Originally posted by: BouZouki
BMW M3 3:05.6
Mercedes C63 AMG 3:06.5

Lmao, where are the M3 fanboys, I can't wait them call out the C63 for being such a terrible handling car, I mean it was ALMOST a full second faster! Breathtaking, god bless those BMW engineers.

I mean, if its a .9 seconds fast on the track, imagine how much better it will feel in town on real roads. Too bad it will still lack that brute force power the C63 has which is more fun in day to day driving, and the nicer interior, and better back seats, but the M3 is....well a M3! There's still no comparison, right.

No wonder R&T put the C63 in front of the M3 in their second review of the cars, it all makes sense.

You are just proving what a poor car the C63 is. A 6.2L 450HP engine versus a 4L 415HP engine and the 415HP engine is a full second faster. Impressive Benz. :roll: I guess stuffing that engine into a pig isn't a good idea, after all.

Ever hear of power to weight ratio?

The Mercedes weights considerably more, your point would make more sense if they weighed the same. A Lotus probably beats both around a track, guess that makes them both pigs, along with a bunch of other cars! My point was, people overly exaggerate the handling differences of these cars and pick the M3 because it "handles so much better."

Supercharged Lotus Elise came in at 3:16.6, a full ten seconds slower than C63 AMG and 11 seconds slower than M3. Even Chevy Cobalt was full 3 seconds faster than the supercharged Lotus. :laugh: Low weight is nice but you still need the power.

C&D attributed this to the wimpy wheel/tire package that the Lotus was wearing. Even the regular Elise was significantly faster in previous years, mostly due to grip. Same car with less power, and it was still much faster, so that tells you how handicapped the SC was. Even the S2000 CR beat it despite weighing an extra 800 pounds or so and experiencing brake failure.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Originally posted by: BlackTigers
What the hell?

I want a Cobalt. lolol

It seems like it's the new Bang of the Buck Champ. Sad thing is people won't buy it cus it's a chevy. It really isn't a looker.
 

BlackTigers

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2006
4,491
2
71
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: BlackTigers
What the hell?

I want a Cobalt. lolol

It seems like it's the new Bang of the Buck Champ. Sad thing is people won't buy it cus it's a chevy. It really isn't a looker.

I don't care how it looks, and to me it looks fine. For the $25k it is, it offers quite a bit of umph.

I also am in love with the SRT in your sig. :p