Interesting lap times for all you speed freaks.We all love c

[300bhp/ton]

We all love comparisons and which car is quicker or slower than another. Top Gear power laps and Nurburgring times are all good and fun. So I thought I'd add these that I found today too. It's also nice to see a few unfamiliar cars listed along side some of PH's favourites.


Location:

"Grand West Course at Virginia International Raceway (VIR), near Danville, a serpentine 4.1-mile circuit that is the nearest the U.S. has to the ultimate racetrack, the Nürburgring Nordschleife in Germany."



This years results:



Some rather impressive cars I think

If you want to read the full article, which is actually rather good you can find it here: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q4/lightnin...



Here's a list of all the cars they've lapped VIR with. I've put them up in reverse order to maintain some suspense as you scroll your way down the list But also to get some of the slower (usually cheaper and more attainable) cars highlighted as these are likely more relevant to more of us.

(Where you see duplicates, that is because it is a newer version of the same model, but with some sort of revision)

Rank	Time	Car
94	03:29.3	MAZDA MX-5 MIATA
93	03:26.6	VOLVO C30 VERSION 2.0
92	03:26.5	HONDA CIVIC Si COUPE
91	03:25.1	VOLKSWAGEN GTI MkV
90	03:24.8	HONDA CIVIC Si MUGEN
89	03:22.9	MINI COOPER S
88	03:21.8	VOLKSWAGEN R32
87	03:20.9	FORD MUSTANG GT
86	03:20.8	DODGE CALIBER SRT4
85	03:20.6	CHEVROLET COBALT SS SUPERCHARGED
84	03:19.3	VOLKSWAGEN GTI MkVI
82	03:19.0	MAZDA RX-8
83	03:19.0	SUBARU IMPREZA WRX STI HATCHBACK
81	03:18.2	DODGE CHARGER SRT8
80	03:17.5	INFINITI G37 COUPE SPORT
79	03:17.1	MINI JOHN COOPER WORKS
78	03:16.7	MAZDA RX-8 R3
76	03:16.6	SUBARU IMPREZA WRX HATCHBACK
77	03:16.6	LOTUS ELISE SC
75	03:16.5	SUBARU IMPREZA WRX SEDAN
74	03:16.3	DODGE CHALLENGER SRT8
73	03:16.2	MAZDASPEED 3
72	03:16.0	MAZDASPEED 3
71	03:15.7	PONTIAC SOLSTICE GXP
70	03:15.0	HONDA S2000 CR
69	03:14.8	HYUNDAI GENESIS COUPE 3.8
68	03:14.6	AUDI S5
67	03:14.0	LEXUS IS F
65	03:13.8	HYUNDAI GENESIS COUPE 3.8 R-SPEC
66	03:13.8	SUBARU IMPREZA WRX STI SEDAN
64	03:13.7	BMW 135i COUPE
63	03:13.5	MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION IX MR
61	03:13.3	FORD MUSTANG GT
62	03:13.3	MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION MR
60	03:13.0	CHEVROLET COBALT SS
58	03:12.5	NISSAN 350Z TRACK
59	03:12.5	FORD MUSTANG V-6
57	03:12.0	NISSAN NISMO 370Z
56	03:11.7	BMW Z4 M COUPE
54	03:11.0	FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500
55	03:11.0	AUDI RS4
53	03:10.8	AUDI S4
52	03:10.6	MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION SE
51	03:10.5	BMW 335i COUPE
50	03:10.0	BMW M6
48	03:09.5	PORSCHE CAYMAN S
49	03:09.5	CHEVROLET CAMARO SS
47	03:09.3	CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51)
46	03:09.2	LOTUS ELISE
45	03:08.9	JAGUAR XFR
44	03:08.6	FORD MUSTANG GT 5.0
43	03:08.4	AUDI TTS
42	03:08.3	LOTUS EVORA
41	03:07.4	FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500
39	03:06.5	MERCEDES-BENZ C63 AMG
40	03:06.5	MERCEDES-BENZ E63 AMG
38	03:06.4	JAGUAR XKR
37	03:05.9	FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500
35	03:05.8	PORSCHE CAYMAN S
36	03:05.8	PORSCHE 911 TURBO
33	03:05.6	BMW M3 COUPE
34	03:05.6	PORSCHE 911 CARRERA S
31	03:05.4	BMW M3 COUPE
32	03:05.4	LEXUS IS F
30	03:04.5	LOTUS EXIGE S
29	03:04.2	CADILLAC CTS-V COUPE
27	03:04.0	CADILLAC CTS-V SEDAN
28	03:04.0	FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500
26	03:03.8	PORSCHE BOXSTER SPYDER
25	03:03.6	CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51)
24	03:01.8	PORSCHE 911 GT3
23	03:01.6	DODGE VIPER SRT10
22	03:01.2	CHEVROLET CORVETTE (Z51)
21	03:01.1	CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06
20	03:00.7	FORD GT
19	02:59.5	AUDI R8 5.2 FSI
18	02:59.0	NISSAN GT-R (all-season tires)
17	02:58.5	CHEVROLET CORVETTE GRAND SPORT
16	02:58.2	CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06
15	02:58.0	MERCEDES-BENZ SLS AMG
14	02:57.6	ARIEL ATOM 3
13	02:57.5	PORSCHE 911 TURBO S
12	02:57.4	DODGE VIPER SRT10
11	02:55.9	PORSCHE 911 GT3 RS
10	02:55.6	NISSAN GT-R
9	02:54.6	FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA
8	02:53.9	LAMBORGHINI MURCIÉLAGO LP670-4 SV
7	02:53.5	CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z06 (Z07)
6	02:52.3	KTM X-BOW
5	02:51.8	LAMBORGHINI GALLARDO LP570-4 SUPERLEGGERA
3	02:49.8	MOSLER PHOTON
4	02:49.8	CHEVROLET CORVETTE ZR1
2	02:48.6	DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR
1	02:45.9	MOSLER MT900S

Apologies for naff title, submitted before I'd finished Previewing...

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 20th January 08:26

[kambites]

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

[k-ink]

Naked Mosler...



Looks rather race car inspired

[roboxm3]

Crossbow quicker than an Atom?? I thought the the Atom was widely regarded as being a bit good...and the Crossbow not so much!?

[wackojacko]

Viewed a laptime thread rescently for Laguna Seca and the ACR Viper was also 1 of the quickest Road cars.

[Dimski]

wackojacko said:

Viewed a laptime thread rescently for Laguna Seca and the ACR Viper was also 1 of the quickest Road cars.

That was another 300bhp/ton thread I think.

The ACR does appear to be one fast car! I had only come across it in Forza 3 before. What exactly are they? Track day Viper?

The speed of the corvettes has me a little surprised too. Is a ZR1 really that quick?

Sorry 300bhp, but this does seem like point scoring to justify your adoration of American stuff!

Mind you, I do enjoy your threads. At least they aren't dull.

[dvs_dave]

Something is not right about that league table. A Mustang V6 quicker than any of the mitsi evo's?????!

Assuming similar conditions for the lap times, do C&D use different laws of physics to the rest of us?

Also can't help but note the blatant bias toward the artificially high ranking of seemingly all the US cars.

300bhp/ton, are you sure these are genuine numbers and not from your yank V8 dream factory?

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

I'm sure there was a reason, it's probably on their website in an article somewhere.

[AJI]

Have to bear in mind that the Corvette is very fast even in standard form.

[300bhp/ton]

dvs_dave said:

Something is not right about that league table. A Mustang V6 quicker than any of the mitsi evo's?????!

Assuming similar conditions for the lap times, do C&D use different laws of physics to the rest of us?

Ok point taken, but can you find any other lap times that say differently?

[300bhp/ton]

Dimski said:

wackojacko said:

Viewed a laptime thread rescently for Laguna Seca and the ACR Viper was also 1 of the quickest Road cars.

That was another 300bhp/ton thread I think.

The ACR does appear to be one fast car! I had only come across it in Forza 3 before. What exactly are they? Track day Viper?

The speed of the corvettes has me a little surprised too. Is a ZR1 really that quick?

Sorry 300bhp, but this does seem like point scoring to justify your adoration of American stuff!

Mind you, I do enjoy your threads. At least they aren't dull.

No offense, but did you miss all the Porsche and Merc lap times??

It's an American mag, sold in the American market. So of course it'll have cars sold in that market, that aren't sold here. It'd be pretty odd for them to have a Clio 200 in the listing when they aren't sold over there.

What makes you doubt the ZR1 one's speed? It weighs around 1450-1550kg and has 638hp!

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

I'm sure there was a reason, it's probably on their website in an article somewhere.

I'm sure there was, but if there is a reason for two cars to be massively out of place with respect to each other, then it's hard to believe any of the times are representative.

[Chris71]

A mate of mine works at VIR, and I know for a fact he lurks on here, so

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

I'm sure there was a reason, it's probably on their website in an article somewhere.

I'm sure there was, but if there is a reason for two cars to be massively out of place with respect to each other, then it's hard to believe any of the times are representative.

I think they are - at the end of the day, they had the cars, they photographed them, they drove them and produce a laptime.

If something was amiss that's not really the reviewers/drivers fault. Indeed in this article the Mosler had transmission issues, one time causing a spin at 120mph where it selected 3rd instead of 4th. And it had an error shifting from 4th to 5th.

The SLS AMG had tire issues, as in it ate through them in the first lap. So it should likely have been quicker. But if it's this heavy on tires then maybe it highlights it's real world ability better?

And the V6 Mustang had a 114mph top speed limiter, which they said it sat at for a good number of seconds over the entire lap. So in theory you'd expect it to be quicker had Ford supplied it without the limiter.


Here's some info about the Lotus Elise SC:

CandD said:

With 218 supercharged horsepower in a 2029-pound mid-engine sports car, we expected to see much better times than we achieved with the Lotus Elise SC. The naturally aspirated Elise (190 horsepower) that ran at VIR in 2006 scampered around the 4.2-mile course in 3:09.2 versus 3:16.6 for the supercharged version.

That earlier Elise was equipped with wider and stickier tires, which offset the SC’s extra punch. And we experienced gear-selection drama with the vague engagements of the six-speed manual gearbox, which also held this car back.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q4/the_lightning_lap_2008-feature2/ll2_3a_2430_2c000-_2460_2c000_page_5

So it would seem that semi-slicks helped the less Elise out, which I think is quite acceptable. Also and they didn't say, but if it was hot out I wonder how much heat soak and higher IAT's the Elise SC might suffer with? On paper it's only a 38hp advantage and must weigh a little more. On a hot day that might only be 20-25hp advantage.

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 20th January 09:47

[300bhp/ton]

roboxm3 said:

Crossbow quicker than an Atom?? I thought the the Atom was widely regarded as being a bit good...and the Crossbow not so much!?

FYI

CandD said:

For the first time, we brought a couple of track machines to our Lightning Lap bash. One, the Ariel Atom 3, can be bought in the U.S.; the other, the KTM X-Bow, can’t.

The Atom is a pared-down, no-nonsense track weapon powered by a supercharged, 300-hp Honda engine. It’s wickedly fast in a straight line, at least until its blocky aerodynamics come into play, and it brakes and corners like a two-seat formula car.

But it wasn’t quite as fast as we expected, simply because it’s a touch nervous. Back off the throttle too quickly while turning into a corner, and the back end jumps out in a hurry. Apply a touch too much power too early, and the tail also threatens to head off into the undergrowth. Judging braking distances is also tricky because it’s quite easy to lock a front wheel. Essentially, the Atom feels like a 1970s formula car, only with a little less finesse and gobs more horsepower. Still, it’s a blast—literally and metaphorically.

The X-Bow, by contrast, is more like a modern race car, a superbly stable platform that storms corners. Like the Atom, its aerodynamics kill top speed, but the downforce generated by the body shape keeps it far more planted in high-speed corners and under braking. Indeed, the X-Bow’s stopping and cornering are so good that, despite a peak speed down the straightaway that was 25.7 mph slower than the ZR1’s, it was just half a second off the über Corvette’s lap time and more than two seconds up on the Ferrari 430 Scuderia’s time from 2008.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/lightning_lap_2009-feature/llu_3a_ariel_atom_3_3e_2_3a57.6_and_ktm_x-bow_3e_2_3a52.3_page_22

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Thursday 20th January 09:47

[kambites]

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

I'm sure there was a reason, it's probably on their website in an article somewhere.

I'm sure there was, but if there is a reason for two cars to be massively out of place with respect to each other, then it's hard to believe any of the times are representative.

I think they are - at the end of the day, they had the cars, they photographed them, they drove them and produce a laptime.

If something was amiss that's not really the reviewers/drivers fault. Indeed in this article the Mosler had transmission issues, one time causing a spin at 120mph where it selected 3rd instead of 4th. And it had an error shifting from 4th to 5th.

The SLS AMG had tire issues, as in it ate through them in the first lap. So it should likely have been quicker. But if it's this heavy on tires then maybe it highlights it's real world ability better?

And the V6 Mustang had a 114mph top speed limiter, which they said it sat at for a good number of seconds over the entire lap. So in theory you'd expect it to be quicker had Ford supplied it without the limiter.


Here's some info about the Lotus Elise SC:

CandD said:

With 218 supercharged horsepower in a 2029-pound mid-engine sports car, we expected to see much better times than we achieved with the Lotus Elise SC. The naturally aspirated Elise (190 horsepower) that ran at VIR in 2006 scampered around the 4.2-mile course in 3:09.2 versus 3:16.6 for the supercharged version.

That earlier Elise was equipped with wider and stickier tires, which offset the SC’s extra punch. And we experienced gear-selection drama with the vague engagements of the six-speed manual gearbox, which also held this car back.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q4/the_lightning_lap_2008-feature2/ll2_3a_2430_2c000-_2460_2c000_page_5

So it would seem that semi-slicks helped the less Elise out, which I think is quite acceptable. Also and they didn't say, but if it was hot out I wonder how much heat soak and higher IAT's the Elise SC might suffer with? On paper it's only a 38hp advantage and must weigh a little more. On a hot day that might only be 20-25hp advantage.

Ah OK, so some of the cars weren't standard, or at least had performance altering options.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 20th January 09:52

[300bhp/ton]

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

300bhp/ton said:

kambites said:

That is a very odd set of times. The non-supercharged Elise is over seven seconds a lap faster than the supercharged one.

I think that's taken with either a huge range of conditions, or a huge range of drivers.

I'm sure there was a reason, it's probably on their website in an article somewhere.

I'm sure there was, but if there is a reason for two cars to be massively out of place with respect to each other, then it's hard to believe any of the times are representative.

I think they are - at the end of the day, they had the cars, they photographed them, they drove them and produce a laptime.

If something was amiss that's not really the reviewers/drivers fault. Indeed in this article the Mosler had transmission issues, one time causing a spin at 120mph where it selected 3rd instead of 4th. And it had an error shifting from 4th to 5th.

The SLS AMG had tire issues, as in it ate through them in the first lap. So it should likely have been quicker. But if it's this heavy on tires then maybe it highlights it's real world ability better?

And the V6 Mustang had a 114mph top speed limiter, which they said it sat at for a good number of seconds over the entire lap. So in theory you'd expect it to be quicker had Ford supplied it without the limiter.


Here's some info about the Lotus Elise SC:

CandD said:

With 218 supercharged horsepower in a 2029-pound mid-engine sports car, we expected to see much better times than we achieved with the Lotus Elise SC. The naturally aspirated Elise (190 horsepower) that ran at VIR in 2006 scampered around the 4.2-mile course in 3:09.2 versus 3:16.6 for the supercharged version.

That earlier Elise was equipped with wider and stickier tires, which offset the SC’s extra punch. And we experienced gear-selection drama with the vague engagements of the six-speed manual gearbox, which also held this car back.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q4/the_lightning_lap_2008-feature2/ll2_3a_2430_2c000-_2460_2c000_page_5

So it would seem that semi-slicks helped the less Elise out, which I think is quite acceptable. Also and they didn't say, but if it was hot out I wonder how much heat soak and higher IAT's the Elise SC might suffer with? On paper it's only a 38hp advantage and must weigh a little more. On a hot day that might only be 20-25hp advantage.

Ah OK, so some of the cars weren't standard, or at least had performance altering options.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 20th January 09:52

I believe they have a set criteria:

[RobM77]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to enter all the lap times 300

Regarding the Elise times, "gear selection dramas"?! I would expect a decent driver to be able to lap a race track in an Elise without missing gears! I'm quite suspicious of the driver/s user after reading that I know of one other publication that use a fairly poor driver to set lap times (not my judgement, but that of a racing coach I once spoke to, but to be honest it's easy to see if you ever watch the guy lapping), and whilst this is ok if the same driver does all the laps, it nevertheless produces some rather scewed times, typically where certain sorts of cars do better than others because they match the driver better.

There are some other times on there which aren't representative. The Z4M coupé for instance is slower than a 335i, a car which has considerably less power and more weight. There are other times too which seem a little odd, but I shan't bore everyone by going through all of them.

edited in respect of the extra info posted immediately above: if four drivers were used, then that rules out the driver variability. The odd times from the Elise are probably just as Kambites and 300 say above. As for the Z4M Coupé, there's not a chance it's slower than a 335i, so something equally strange went on there. Maybe it was snowing?

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 20th January 10:14

[kambites]

Well I'm sure that the 111R doesn't have any options that the SC doesn't, so clearly Lotus screwed up with the cars they supplied. That SC had neither the best wheels nor the most powerful engine options.

Does explain the oddity though.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 20th January 10:10

[anonymous-user]

So the Audi S4 is quicker than the RS4?

Hmmmmmmm

Regardless quite interesting if maybe not entirely accurate thanks 300