Originally Posted by MaxLTV

Disagree completely. OEM tires are about as relevant as what gas the dealer put in your tank before handing out the keys. They will be gone in few weeks or even days (or put in storage) and replaced with whatever tires you want. It's not an integral part of the car but purely a consumable. Changing tires is not equivalent to modding. On many cars you actually HAVE to change OEM tires to even be able to drive them on track reliably - does it make it a bad car? No, it's irrelevant, a non-issue.

Imagine if Porsche sold a "GT3 S", which is the same as GT3 but has Hoosiers and turns test lap times 3 seconds per minute faster than GT3 and costs $50K more because it's so much faster. Everyone with common sense would throw up all over it because you can buy hoosiers on your own if that's what you want, and it's the same car otherwise.

Or let's say Car A is sold on MPSS and does 1 minute laps, and Car B is sold on Premacy and does 1:05 minute laps. You would use either car on RE71Rs exclusively because that makes most sense, and on those tires Car B is actually 2 secs per lap faster than Car A. So which car is faster? Of course Car B.

That's not to say GT R is a great car - it probably is because GT S is already very good. We'll see. I just do not get this stuff about OEM tires defining how good the car is.

Originally Posted by Manifold

Thank you for taking the baton, I was getting tired.

I don't understand that argument either. For track use, who won't pick the best available tire in the class, considering grip, longevity, cost, etc.? And the available tire options continue to evolve. For that matter, the GT3 and GT4 came with both Michelins and Dunlops as OEM - two different tires - and it's rare to see anyone prefer the Dunlops for track use.

Originally Posted by Stgrt

Changing original equipment (or their equivalent) parts with non-original equipment parts skews the comparison. Why should one car get its OEM deficiencies made up for at the expense of another car?

If a car uses a lighter weight oil, giving it more usable power at the expense of engine wear, would you advocate that all cars use the same oil weight? Companies choose oil to balance a number of variables such as cost, engine wear, fuel economy, etc. Companies take the same approach with tires.

Changing the tires fundamentally changes the dynamics of a car and makes it no longer meet the manufacturer's intentions. One company may value wet weather performance, road noise, tire wear, operating costs. If one factory car does better in all of those metrics should it face a penalty?

We are not discussing monetary value or a car's specific attributes such as the suspension or chassis. I think we are arguing two different points. I agree if you want to pinpoint specific differences or judge a car's value, use the same tires. In a previous post I brought up the BRZ which uses non-aggressive tires in stock form. The BRZ provides an excellent value in terms of its chassis. With more aggressive tires it becomes a very capable car, but for a truly fair comparison between OEM cars, they need to use stock tires. You will only match the OEM driving dynamics and the performance metrics established by the manufacturer through the use of OE tires.

I just ask, when comparing cars in their factory form, how does changing the tires make the comparison more fair? Companies weigh different variables when selecting tires, why should one car get an unfair benefit or disadvantage? If you are comparing road noise, would you say the car with louder tires should get the benefit of quieter tires? If you are looking at value, perhaps it would make sense to do so. But when comparing manufacturers capabilities and design intentions making such a change would make the comparison irrelevant.

Comparing OEM cars gives insight into the car's intentions, manufacturer capability, manufacturer vision, and ultimately provides the experience the manufacturer wanted the user to have.

Also, in terms of consumables, modding, etc. where would you stand on switching to ceramic bearings or switching to stiffer bushings? Should those parts also be equalized in magazine comparisons?

Originally Posted by Guest89

+1

Too many fanbois can't accept that the AMG GT R is faster than a GT3 RS around the Nordschleife, and by a wide margin, even comparing a magazine time to Porsche's factory driver quoted marketing time!

Originally Posted by Guest89

+1

Too many fanbois can't accept that the AMG GT R is faster than a GT3 RS around the Nordschleife, and by a wide margin, even comparing a magazine time to Porsche's factory driver quoted marketing time!

Originally Posted by Stgrt

Changing original equipment (or their equivalent) parts with non-original equipment parts skews the comparison. Why should one car get its OEM deficiencies made up for at the expense of another car?

If a car uses a lighter weight oil, giving it more usable power at the expense of engine wear, would you advocate that all cars use the same oil weight? Companies choose oil to balance a number of variables such as cost, engine wear, fuel economy, etc. Companies take the same approach with tires.

Changing the tires fundamentally changes the dynamics of a car and makes it no longer meet the manufacturer's intentions. One company may value wet weather performance, road noise, tire wear, operating costs. If one factory car does better in all of those metrics should it face a penalty?

We are not discussing monetary value or a car's specific attributes such as the suspension or chassis. I think we are arguing two different points. I agree if you want to pinpoint specific differences or judge a car's value, use the same tires. In a previous post I brought up the BRZ which uses non-aggressive tires in stock form. The BRZ provides an excellent value in terms of its chassis. With more aggressive tires it becomes a very capable car, but for a truly fair comparison between OEM cars, they need to use stock tires. You will only match the OEM driving dynamics and the performance metrics established by the manufacturer through the use of OE tires.

I just ask, when comparing cars in their factory form, how does changing the tires make the comparison more fair? Companies weigh different variables when selecting tires, why should one car get an unfair benefit or disadvantage? If you are comparing road noise, would you say the car with louder tires should get the benefit of quieter tires? If you are looking at value, perhaps it would make sense to do so. But when comparing manufacturers capabilities and design intentions making such a change would make the comparison irrelevant.

Comparing OEM cars gives insight into the car's intentions, manufacturer capability, manufacturer vision, and ultimately provides the experience the manufacturer wanted the user to have.

Also, in terms of consumables, modding, etc. where would you stand on switching to ceramic bearings or switching to stiffer bushings? Should those parts also be equalized in magazine comparisons?