85Gold

+1 except I don't want a Camaro, friend has an SS 1LE which I have a lot of seat time in. The vision and seating dynamics aren't for me but impressive performance and handling. I will stick with my Rustang for now

Peter

robgts

"1. VIR is a HP track. Huge straights means a lot of lap time can be derived from HP. "

+1

tgavem

The Turbo is 4 wheel drive and has a lot more torque.
If data is compared, I bet the RS has shorter braking distance, higher entry and mid corner speed vs Turbo but the Turbo will exit corner much faster and be even further ahead about 200ft past the corner.
Add torque vectoring, PDCC, etc. for the Turbo and the Turbo is a Nissan GTR, drives itself.

High torque is also why the new 2018 GTS (4wheel steering, torque vectoring and PDCC) is faster than the current GT3, 100ft-lb advantage to the GTS and same hp as the GT3.

Airbag997

Spa is a huge HP track, so that doesn't surprise me. Laguna Seca should be the relative measurement track. No real HP advantage there.

MaxLTV

Laguna in an HP track as well, maybe even more so - it's just that there acceleration happens from slower speeds, but there is a lot of point-shoot-dragrace corners, way more than at Spa. Spa has high one big uphill straight where Turbo S HP shines (out-dragged R8 V10 Plus repeatedly), but it also has a number of very high-speed curves, where lack of aero really hurts the Turbo compared to RS.

It's amazing how different the strength of these cars are. Turbo wins on:

*Power and torque, but not nearly as much as it may seem because it's heavy and poorly geared (its first 5 gears span same or even bigger range than RS' 7 gears).
*AWD - it's actually pretty awesome in the .2 generation. Traditionally with AWD, you can get on the throttle earlier not worrying about gradual transfer of the weight to the rear end because front end will assume some of the torque. But then you pay for it by understeer once the weightdoes transfer to the rear. The .2 Turbo S will transfer the torque back to rear as well, so there is not much penalty. This makes for very high exit speeds and creates an impression of very high power but in reality its just that power can be applied effectively so early. You do have to adjust the shape of the curve to really take advantage of it, though.
*Active suspension - PDCC almost eliminated the situations where a car needs to "take set" when changing direction. This allows making chicanes and S-turns with one sweeping motion, almost as if it was a double-apex turn in one direction rather than two turns with direction change between them. It's similar to what super-stiff race cars can do, but without suspension being stiff and thus allowing to get on curbs without much of a traction penalty. It's a big advantage, and it can save a neewb from trouble, but exploiting it fully to go faster is hard and requires changing one's habits and building new skills.

RS wins on:
*Tire patch to weight ratio - it's a lighter car on wider tires.
*Better communication to the driver and being just more intuitive to drive. Working with the new tech on Turbo requires some re-learning, especially to really use it to advantage.
*Aero - huge difference, especially on fast tracks
*Brake feel - Turbo's brakes are overboosed and ABS is overly sensitive, making modulation very hard.
*Better stability control - in RS stability control interferes only when you are sliding or unbalanced enough to not be fast anyway, so it will not prevent you from setting a good lap. In Turbo, stability control actively works against any significant rotation, even when it's needed to actually go faster. Does not matter with stability off, but with stability on it's a detriment on Turbo while on RS it's a safety net potentially allowing drivers to be more committed.
*Adjustability - being able to play with roll bars, aero, ride height and alignment to get RS dialed in is a big deal. Turbo S comes set up for autobahn cruising, and not much can be changed without modding.

TM5

es, agree this type of comparo always has subjectivity

One of the real bargains toward the top of the time charts is the 2015 Z/28 - they can be had in the low $40's with low mileage and remaining warranty. i believe the car also faired well time wise at Laguna Seca against the GT3 as another data point. I have never been a real Camaro fan but its big bang for the buck with brembo carbon brakes DSSV dampers and a rock solid drivetrain

Its a great time to be a car enthusiast regardless of your brand preferences

Larry Cable

+1 & +1 = +2!

Airbag997

LS is a Go Kart track. It's tight, short, and very technical. Relatively flat lap times, across multiple vehicles. 40% of Spa is Autobahn. Look at the lap times with Randy Pobst at the wheel.

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna-seca-post-1988

SamFromTX

100% agree. I briefly owned my 991.1 TTS and tracked it 3-4 times, with STOCK ALIGNMENT and PSS in a very technical, non hp track (MSR in Cresson, TX) and my lap times where almost as fast as the 991.1 GT3 and 1-1.5 sec slower than the 991.1 RS that had track alignment and PSC2. The TTS lacks the soul of the RS but it is one hell of a car.

MaxLTV

It's a bit of a misconception. The distances are small because the track is short. Per minute distances are not that small. Also, short track does not necessarily mean non-HP track.

Laguna is indeed short and low speed, but it's a series of uphill drag strips connected by short turns. Very little time is acually spent turning, and most of the time you go full tilt limited only by the power available. Spa has some straights too, with one gigantic one, but much of the rest is high-speed sweepers where high-HP street cars are traction-limited and cannot go full-throttle anyway, so power does not matter as much. There it's all about tires and especially aero.

But enough explaining, let's just look at the data.

Exhibit 1 - I took two lap times, both on advanced amateur level, on Spa and Laguna and measured % of time above 85% throttle pedal position (full throttle is ~95% pedal position in my car)
Laguna - 54.5% (in other words, more than half of the time you are flooring it and your speed is limited ONLY by available power, or rather power to weight)
Spa - 46.1%
Same ballpark, rather high number for both tracks given GT3s high HP and low traction.

Exhibit 2 (less accurate) - I took lap time difference between GT4 and GT3RS (same tires, slightly better aero on RS, and mostly HP difference) at Laguna and at Nordschleife (also a known HP track - I did not have credible Spa times for both cars).
Laguna: 1:37.43 - 1:33.29 = 4.14 and 4.14/93.29*60=2.66 seconds per minue

NS: 7:42 - 7:20=22 and 22/440*60=3 seconds per minute

Again, almost the same difference, especially if you consider that RS gets more benefit from it's better aero at NS, so if you take that away, HP-caused difference would be identical.

So both Laguna and Spa benefit from high HP in these cars comparably. It's different in the world of real race cars, where high aero would allow going using full power probably 80%+ of the time at Spa, going flat out through Eau Rouge, Pouhon and Blanchimont, making it indeed an Autobahn.

kfmcmahon

I thought the Trofeo R's were the "full track day tire" from Pirelli? why not use those for track testing and offer them as a factory "option"?

ipse dixit

Wait, I thought no one here cared about lap times, or being faster?

Isn't it all about the experience? And more fun to drive?

#BecauseManualTransmissionCircleJerks

kfmcmahon

LOL


actually, it's about both

Jean

IMO a 0.2s difference between different tests/drivers/temps/track conditions is no indication of faster or slower whatsoever. What I gather from this is that the .2 turbo S is a fast multipurpose car. What I find very telling however is the 4.4s difference between the 991.1 and 991.2 TTS, that's a huge gap.

MaxLTV

Here, as requested - a lap time by Randy at Laguna. It's about 0.1s faster than .1 RS, which is within the margin of error


So roughly the same speed, which is impressive for a comfortable luxo-GT that the Turbo is.