Car and Driver's Lightning Lap 2010

[Mr CLuTcH]

Corvette > Nissan GTR.

[rez333]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

That is precisely why many people ignore attempts to compare runs made on different days by different drivers, and why most enthusiasts look forward to seeing the lightning lap results. The cars get tested at the same time by the same driver, so the variable is the car itself. Its not about getting the best possible time (honestly, who relies on magazines for that?) but more about having a valid way to actually compare well different cars perform on the same track.

Not necessarily. It could be that the C/D drivers just don't how to maximize the Shelby's potential, and given it is a stick shift unlike some of the other cars, it could be harder for a non-Shelby expert to get right the first time. On the other hand, European and Japanese cars could be just easier to get right earlier on and the drivers may be used to those cars (especially with high rev limits). The article mentions that they had trouble shifting gears because they were hitting the rev limit around corners (or something like that) which indicates they didn't know how to use it the right way, unlike the Ford test driver who we presume has a lot of practice.

So it could be that the Shelby may simply not be an easy car to master quick.

Also - it's hard to compare lap times from different years. The results are only valid between the cars tested that day - not really against cars tested previous years. So one can safely say that the Shelby can at least do 2:58.5 given an experienced Shelby driver and certain climate conditions.

Remember this motortrend test: Mustang GT 5.0 vs BMW M3?:


How can the same driver on the same day track the Mustang virtually identical to the M3 (motortrend article), and then the C/D folks track the Mustang 5.0 3s slower than the M3? That coupled with the discrepancy with the Shelby GT500 lap times indicates to me that the conditions that day were not ideal for the C/D test.

[BigDan]

Originally Posted by rez333

Not necessarily. It could be that the C/D drivers just don't how to maximize the Shelby's potential, and given it is a stick shift unlike some of the other cars, it could be harder for a non-Shelby expert to get right the first time. On the other hand, European and Japanese cars could be just easier to get right earlier on and the drivers may be used to those cars (especially with high rev limits). The article mentions that they had trouble shifting gears because they were hitting the rev limit around corners (or something like that) which indicates they didn't know how to use it the right way, unlike the Ford test driver who we presume has a lot of practice.

So it could be that the Shelby may simply not be an easy car to master quick.

Also - it's hard to compare lap times from different years. The results are only valid between the cars tested that day - not really against cars tested previous years. So one can safely say that the Shelby can at least do 2:58.5 given an experienced Shelby driver and certain climate conditions.

Remember this motortrend test: Mustang GT 5.0 vs BMW M3?:


How can the same driver on the same day track the Mustang virtually identical to the M3 (motortrend article), and then the C/D folks track the Mustang 5.0 3s slower than the M3? That coupled with the discrepancy with the Shelby GT500 lap times indicates to me that the conditions that day were not ideal for the C/D test.

Well said.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by rez333

Not necessarily. It could be that the C/D drivers just don't how to maximize the Shelby's potential, and given it is a stick shift unlike some of the other cars, it could be harder for a non-Shelby expert to get right the first time. On the other hand, European and Japanese cars could be just easier to get right earlier on and the drivers may be used to those cars (especially with high rev limits). The article mentions that they had trouble shifting gears because they were hitting the rev limit around corners (or something like that) which indicates they didn't know how to use it the right way, unlike the Ford test driver who we presume has a lot of practice.

So it could be that the Shelby may simply not be an easy car to master quick.

Also - it's hard to compare lap times from different years. The results are only valid between the cars tested that day - not really against cars tested previous years. So one can safely say that the Shelby can at least do 2:58.5 given an experienced Shelby driver and certain climate conditions.

Remember this motortrend test: Mustang GT 5.0 vs BMW M3?:


How can the same driver on the same day track the Mustang virtually identical to the M3 (motortrend article), and then the C/D folks track the Mustang 5.0 3s slower than the M3? That coupled with the discrepancy with the Shelby GT500 lap times indicates to me that the conditions that day were not ideal for the C/D test.

The Motor Trend comparo was a different track so it is entirely possible that it suited the Mustang better, while VIR suits the M3 better. Whether its the suspension setup or the torque curve of the engine or the individual gear ratios. While the two cars are similar, they're still not the same. And those small differences will express themselves as you go from track to track.

Driver skill probably plays a role too, but finding someone who is an expert driver in each car they test is impossible. The next best alternative would to get a handful of experts with different backgrounds and have each of them do a couple hotlaps then average the results. Unfortunately, that would probably take about a weeks worth of testing. As for the driver they did use, I don't know who they use or what his experience is. I assume that it is a member of their staff who has some professional driving experience. If so, he would have a fair amount of wheel time in a large variety of cars - but an expert in none, which would be ideal for this type of comparison.

[BigDan]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The Motor Trend comparo was a different track so it is entirely possible that it suited the Mustang better, while VIR suits the M3 better. Whether its the suspension setup or the torque curve of the engine or the individual gear ratios. While the two cars are similar, they're still not the same. And those small differences will express themselves as you go from track to track.

Driver skill probably plays a role too, but finding someone who is an expert driver in each car they test is impossible. The next best alternative would to get a handful of experts with different backgrounds and have each of them do a couple hotlaps then average the results. Unfortunately, that would probably take about a weeks worth of testing. As for the driver they did use, I don't know who they use or what his experience is. I assume that it is a member of their staff who has some professional driving experience. If so, he would have a fair amount of wheel time in a large variety of cars - but an expert in none, which would be ideal for this type of comparison.

Actually VIR was hand selected as the track they used in the 2011 GT500 press launch due to its high speed smooth surface so I think its safe to say that the Mustang is just as well suited at VIR as it was at Willow.

I don't think it's that hard of a task to find another driver to pilot the GT500 around VIR in under 3 minutes, and can cleanly do a 2-3 shift w/o grinding or riding the rev limiter through the whole turn like this pathetic driver.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The Motor Trend comparo was a different track so it is entirely possible that it suited the Mustang better, while VIR suits the M3 better. Whether its the suspension setup or the torque curve of the engine or the individual gear ratios. While the two cars are similar, they're still not the same. And those small differences will express themselves as you go from track to track.

Driver skill probably plays a role too, but finding someone who is an expert driver in each car they test is impossible. The next best alternative would to get a handful of experts with different backgrounds and have each of them do a couple hotlaps then average the results. Unfortunately, that would probably take about a weeks worth of testing. As for the driver they did use, I don't know who they use or what his experience is. I assume that it is a member of their staff who has some professional driving experience. If so, he would have a fair amount of wheel time in a large variety of cars - but an expert in none, which would be ideal for this type of comparison.

I do not understand why these testers do not do something like you described here. I mean honestly, it would make for a lot more interesting race and maybe make its results actually... matter.

[BigDan]

Averaging lap time's of different drivers coming from different backgrounds doesn't sound very fair to me. Most driver's are not familiar racing with AWD's or FWD's so averaging times would hurt those niche car's. It would be most fair if you used the fastest lap times from a group of about 10 driver's who are familiar with the car's being tested, not a drifter testing a FWD.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I like reading things like this....but as always..."Your results may vary".

It's neat to see the CTS-V just a few ticks behind the Z06. And to see the ZR1 sitting comfortably up top.

Originally Posted by TOBY J

.... but Clarkson drives and owns a Lambo Gallardo
overplayed? you see hundreds of vettes on the road daily while you might be lucky to see 1-2 ferraris or lambos.

I think I'd agree with Fen. Lamborghinis and Ferraris are the commonly considered the super car "benchmark"....when it's clear that you can do much much more (more reliably, I might add) for much less. Rarity is hardly a measure of real value.

Sure, the ZR1 doesn't come with the exotic, stuck-up, nose-high stigma......but I'd rather not pay for that 'option'.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by BigDan

Averaging lap time's of different drivers coming from different backgrounds doesn't sound very fair to me. Most driver's are not familiar racing with AWD's or FWD's so averaging times would hurt those niche car's. It would be most fair if you used the fastest lap times from a group of about 10 driver's who are familiar with the car's being tested, not a drifter testing a FWD.

Personally, I'd keep drifters out of the ranks entirely as they'd throw off the times of every RWD car in the running. Running the car sideways usually hurts your time more than it helps, unless you're in a sprint car on dirt or something. Actually, I'd take sprint car drivers over drifters, at least their race is based around putting down the fastest lap and not getting points from judges.

As for whats 'fair', I don't think its fair to use an impossible time as the benchmark for a car. Sure, its fun to brag about for bench racing but thats about all its ever going to be good for. If its the best possible time, obtained by the best possible driver, no other person on the planet will be able to duplicate the results ... which doesn't exactly sound fair when comparing showroom stock vehicles to one another.

[SGOS252382]

It would have been nice if the Camaro SS was also tested on that same day.

Their are so many factors (Density Altitude, Track Temperature, etc) that could account for slower or faster times when cars are not tested on the same day.

If the 2010/2011 Camaro SS had been tested, it would have certainly run slower or faster than the previous time. That's why it kind of sucks it was not tested again.

But as mentioned, the Camaro SS could have actually run slower if the conditions were less favorable? But if the conditions were better, it could have shaved some time off its previous time.

[Fraxum]

Look at this:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...p_2011-feature

The C&D Lightning Lap. Even if you do no like the magazine's opinions this is a cool test.

Notice the new mighty Mustang GT Brembo 6 speed is .9 seconds or .0048 percent faster than the Camaro SS.

What this tells us is that we are trading that .0048 percent advantage for a more comfortable car. The cars handle about the same. The only real difference noted by anyone who has driven both cars is that the Mustang has a better driving feel.

So for those of you Camaro owners bashing the Camaro's handling and praising the Mustang, think again.

For those owners now regretting the decision to buy the Camaro, rejoice.

For those those of you Camaro shopping here consider the Camaro advantages.