- 6,225
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
GT6 Duel of the Week #70: The Grand Finale (well, not really)
- Thread starter Cowboy
- 1,338 comments
- 185,376 views
- 1,147
- Maine
- LETS4000
I'll take part in duel of the week again as I have the PS Move Racing Wheel which works really well and I will have unique results and Ive been playing GT6 again lately
- 6,225
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
So, boys. Before I get down and dirty with my comparison this week I want to know if you will all be buying GT Sport. I'm totally down for a Duel of the Week club. We can represent our manufacturers while duelling each other.
Overall opinions on GT Sport for me: could be worse but I'll buy it anyways.
Overall opinions on GT Sport for me: could be worse but I'll buy it anyways.
- 1,231
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
Don't really know at that point. Depends on physics.
As for this week's duel, I'll be quite busy this weekend, so don't know if I'll be able to register times on the club event. Which is a shame since I'm really having hard times picking one over the other right now
As for this week's duel, I'll be quite busy this weekend, so don't know if I'll be able to register times on the club event. Which is a shame since I'm really having hard times picking one over the other right now
Last edited:
- 1,147
- Maine
- LETS4000
I'll be buying it. Special Edition and PS4 NEO (whenever or ifever it exists)
- 1,512
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
I cannot buy GT Sport, as I don't have a PS4, nor have the intention of buying one at this point in time.
- 2,254
- United States
- G_ASHER
Yea, me neither. I just dropped a bundle on an Asus laptop for PCars and Asetto Corsa, among other things.
- 328
- Canada
- HeyZeus666
I'll end up getting it, I just haven't decided which route I'm going - I'm waiting to see what happens with the vr googles. I'm hoping for a gt sport/ps4.5/vr bundle! Otherwise I'll prob get a used ps4, but not until sept when I can upgrade my internet speed.
- 93
- Netherlands
- ARP_273
👍 This!!
For this weeks duel I would prefer the looks of the Jag, but I can't because of all the jaggies
. (Edit: the lack of interior in cockpit view isn't helping either). Although the XFR sound is unique, I like the Challengers more.The XFR is faster, no doubt, it is also a handfull to drive. It's suspension movements look great in a replay. The Challenger is much more stable and easier to drive consistently. That can be good or bad depending on what you are looking for.
Today overall my choice is the SRT Challenger SRT8 '08.
Now gimme more infos on GT sport!
Last edited:
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Eckseffaar vs Essaartee Eight "Challenger"
Jaguar
503pp -120,000cr - Top Speed 212mph
5 litre V8 Twin Superchargers - 6 gears
502bhp/63.8 torques
1960kg - 54:46 - FR - Sports Hard
4970x1875x1460mm
8 chips (Including the Best Dark green in GT6 - Botanical Green Metallic)
4 Door Executive Saloon
Dodge
490pp - 40,027cr - Top Speed 195mph
6.1 litre OHV Hemi - 5 gears
425bhp/58.1 torques
1878kg - 55:45 - FR - Sports Hard
????x1923x1448mm
4 chips - Hope you like matt black stripes - as you have to have them. (Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl)
2 Door, 4 seat retro muscle car
-------------
...
Just moved a cluster of former fighters over to the stockyard... To make room for these two Behemoths.
The Essaartee Eight
(If you can dodge traffic, you can Dodge Challenger) -
Looks -
The Essaartee Eight is a strange looking car... It was a star in Nightcrawler (Literally a Jake Gylenhall Vehicle...) - Kind of reminds me of the late, great, American comic Joan Rivers... Iconic (Joan was excellent in The Wrestler) but the plastic surgery has a few lifeless areas of over stretched flesh to it when you compare her to the 60/70's period - And so to for the Essaartee Eight. A lot cheaper than you may think.
------------
The Jaguar Eckseffaar
Looks
The Jaguar has frumpy bulky look. 2 extra doors and rear seat comfort tends to translate to a less than sleek design (Cough - Porsche Panamera - Cough) - It has some nice bits; the Wire Mesh Grill - the recycled Supercharger vents on the bonnet from the XKR, The wire mesh Grill, The very optimistic for England Sunroof, did I mention that wire mesh radiator grill? Okay this car isn't going to win any beauty contest when it comes to looks. The Front Lamp cluster looks like a very badly cooked fried egg. It is pretty expensive - but fortunately we all have plenty of GT6 Kazulas to spend.
Some issues the Eckseffaar has. Snap Oversteer. This is down to brutal torque at low revs.. The car doesn't have a Torque Curve so much as it has Gabby Hayes Sandwich of it.
Pic - A Gabby Hayes Sandwich, Yesterday
Overworked rubber - So much weight and only Sports Hards makes the tyres work extra hard - Bolt in a V8 that wants to vulcanise the rears when ever you give the accelerator a squeeze means you need to keep your wits about you. Heading into a corner is just as fraught with perils as the huge mass requires alot of energy to slow it down, most of it is on the front brakes which can easily overwork the front tyres... leading to understeer into a corner.
It may not be an easy drive but it is fun once you drill into your head the car will not stop quickly unless you hit another car or something more solid off track.
Challenger
Much easier car to drive... The engine isn't trying to murder the rear tyres with an axe... The fronts get a hammering so the car feels like it has more understeer than the Jag, but that is mostly due to the way the Jag mauls its rear tyres and the Chally is abit more well mannered and respectful.
....Which to have?
This may seem hard. The XFR is much more involved (fun) to drive and was faster everywhere I drove it. The Chally was simple to drive, felt like it had a longer wheelbase.
I have to pick the Jaguar as it does everything. The Chally has an iconic look but gets sand kicked in its face by the Castle Bromwich 4 door which can do subtle as well as Maniac...
Maybe on comfort tyres the Chally would be more fun, but stock the Jag has the growl and feel like you are trying to control a rampaging battle-cat that hasn't been fed in a week. The harder you drive it, the more it fights and snarls.
Ryk Recommends the Jaguar Eckseffaar
(It comes in Dark Green paint, it is the only choice...)
Jaguar
503pp -120,000cr - Top Speed 212mph
5 litre V8 Twin Superchargers - 6 gears
502bhp/63.8 torques
1960kg - 54:46 - FR - Sports Hard
4970x1875x1460mm
8 chips (Including the Best Dark green in GT6 - Botanical Green Metallic)
4 Door Executive Saloon
Dodge
490pp - 40,027cr - Top Speed 195mph
6.1 litre OHV Hemi - 5 gears
425bhp/58.1 torques
1878kg - 55:45 - FR - Sports Hard
????x1923x1448mm
4 chips - Hope you like matt black stripes - as you have to have them. (Brilliant Black Crystal Pearl)
2 Door, 4 seat retro muscle car
-------------
...
Just moved a cluster of former fighters over to the stockyard... To make room for these two Behemoths.
The Essaartee Eight
(If you can dodge traffic, you can Dodge Challenger) -
Looks -
The Essaartee Eight is a strange looking car... It was a star in Nightcrawler (Literally a Jake Gylenhall Vehicle...) - Kind of reminds me of the late, great, American comic Joan Rivers... Iconic (Joan was excellent in The Wrestler) but the plastic surgery has a few lifeless areas of over stretched flesh to it when you compare her to the 60/70's period - And so to for the Essaartee Eight. A lot cheaper than you may think.
------------
The Jaguar Eckseffaar
Looks
The Jaguar has frumpy bulky look. 2 extra doors and rear seat comfort tends to translate to a less than sleek design (Cough - Porsche Panamera - Cough) - It has some nice bits; the Wire Mesh Grill - the recycled Supercharger vents on the bonnet from the XKR, The wire mesh Grill, The very optimistic for England Sunroof, did I mention that wire mesh radiator grill? Okay this car isn't going to win any beauty contest when it comes to looks. The Front Lamp cluster looks like a very badly cooked fried egg. It is pretty expensive - but fortunately we all have plenty of GT6 Kazulas to spend.
Some issues the Eckseffaar has. Snap Oversteer. This is down to brutal torque at low revs.. The car doesn't have a Torque Curve so much as it has Gabby Hayes Sandwich of it.
Pic - A Gabby Hayes Sandwich, Yesterday
Overworked rubber - So much weight and only Sports Hards makes the tyres work extra hard - Bolt in a V8 that wants to vulcanise the rears when ever you give the accelerator a squeeze means you need to keep your wits about you. Heading into a corner is just as fraught with perils as the huge mass requires alot of energy to slow it down, most of it is on the front brakes which can easily overwork the front tyres... leading to understeer into a corner.
It may not be an easy drive but it is fun once you drill into your head the car will not stop quickly unless you hit another car or something more solid off track.
Challenger
Much easier car to drive... The engine isn't trying to murder the rear tyres with an axe... The fronts get a hammering so the car feels like it has more understeer than the Jag, but that is mostly due to the way the Jag mauls its rear tyres and the Chally is abit more well mannered and respectful.
....Which to have?
This may seem hard. The XFR is much more involved (fun) to drive and was faster everywhere I drove it. The Chally was simple to drive, felt like it had a longer wheelbase.
I have to pick the Jaguar as it does everything. The Chally has an iconic look but gets sand kicked in its face by the Castle Bromwich 4 door which can do subtle as well as Maniac...
Maybe on comfort tyres the Chally would be more fun, but stock the Jag has the growl and feel like you are trying to control a rampaging battle-cat that hasn't been fed in a week. The harder you drive it, the more it fights and snarls.
Ryk Recommends the Jaguar Eckseffaar
(It comes in Dark Green paint, it is the only choice...)
Last edited:
- 1,231
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
Ok, since I don't think I'll be able to get lap times in the TT, I'm going to get something written quickly based on what I already done with them.
Trial Mountain lap times (comfort softs, ABS 1) :
Jaguar XFR >>> 1:40.677
Dodge Challenger SRT8 >>> 1:40.757
Then, I decided to use a point to point track with a globally faster pace (download it here). Still comfort softs, but with an oil change this time.
Jaguar XFR >>> 3:41.902
Dodge Challenger SRT8 >>> 3:42.362
In terms of times, both cars are pretty much on par here. Both have their strenght and weaknesses compared to each other, and some tracks might give an advantage to one of them, but I think they'll still be quite close on most.
The Challenger has great traction for its specs, and will exit slow corners more easily and a bit more quickly, but as soon as 3rd gear is on in the Jag', it will absolutely destroy the SRT8 in straights.
As for cornering, despite the understeer on entries, the Challenger is globally faster in longer and faster bends. Give it a heavy weight shift to the front and it will tuck in better, which can be useful in some sections even though you could deal with more entry speed, but that requires a perfect line since it is pretty difficult to change it when youve entered the corner. The Jaguar on the other end feels faster on entries, but it is at best marginally better in terms of entry speed in some corners. As I've ran this against the SRT8 ghost on my Death Valley track, apex speeds seemed still a little slower in a fair number of corners. The happier tail makes it more touchy, so it requires maybe a bit more focus, but you can use this in some situations to spend less time in the corner. But it is clearly less consistent in sections with repeated direction changes (especially the one you see at the top left corner of the map).
On the suspension side, the XFR Bilsteins feel higher quality than the SRT8 shocks in general, with no weird oscillations over "regular" irregularities. On the big jump featured around the middle of the course though, the Challenger is more stable at landing, and keeps the front planted there.
In the end, my personal taste would push me to vote for the Jaguar, as it is a bit more fun to go with, and I feel it gives you more "choice" : less understeer-biased, you can powerslide a bit through some corners which you can't with the Challenger, or shift up to keep more traction... Moreover, the Challenger disappoints me because it has high-potential basics. But the setup could have been altered to give it at least a more neutral stance, and the gearbox is not so good (probably meeting some weird american freeway speed limits needs rather than high-speed efficiency) and left me hungry. And I think there are less tracks where it can have a clear advantage over the Jaguar, while the british sedan can use its power to get away in straights.
Trial Mountain lap times (comfort softs, ABS 1) :
Jaguar XFR >>> 1:40.677
Dodge Challenger SRT8 >>> 1:40.757
Then, I decided to use a point to point track with a globally faster pace (download it here). Still comfort softs, but with an oil change this time.
Jaguar XFR >>> 3:41.902
Dodge Challenger SRT8 >>> 3:42.362
In terms of times, both cars are pretty much on par here. Both have their strenght and weaknesses compared to each other, and some tracks might give an advantage to one of them, but I think they'll still be quite close on most.
The Challenger has great traction for its specs, and will exit slow corners more easily and a bit more quickly, but as soon as 3rd gear is on in the Jag', it will absolutely destroy the SRT8 in straights.
As for cornering, despite the understeer on entries, the Challenger is globally faster in longer and faster bends. Give it a heavy weight shift to the front and it will tuck in better, which can be useful in some sections even though you could deal with more entry speed, but that requires a perfect line since it is pretty difficult to change it when youve entered the corner. The Jaguar on the other end feels faster on entries, but it is at best marginally better in terms of entry speed in some corners. As I've ran this against the SRT8 ghost on my Death Valley track, apex speeds seemed still a little slower in a fair number of corners. The happier tail makes it more touchy, so it requires maybe a bit more focus, but you can use this in some situations to spend less time in the corner. But it is clearly less consistent in sections with repeated direction changes (especially the one you see at the top left corner of the map).
On the suspension side, the XFR Bilsteins feel higher quality than the SRT8 shocks in general, with no weird oscillations over "regular" irregularities. On the big jump featured around the middle of the course though, the Challenger is more stable at landing, and keeps the front planted there.
In the end, my personal taste would push me to vote for the Jaguar, as it is a bit more fun to go with, and I feel it gives you more "choice" : less understeer-biased, you can powerslide a bit through some corners which you can't with the Challenger, or shift up to keep more traction... Moreover, the Challenger disappoints me because it has high-potential basics. But the setup could have been altered to give it at least a more neutral stance, and the gearbox is not so good (probably meeting some weird american freeway speed limits needs rather than high-speed efficiency) and left me hungry. And I think there are less tracks where it can have a clear advantage over the Jaguar, while the british sedan can use its power to get away in straights.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Jaguar XFR '10
5.0L
502 hp / 6,200 rpm
461 ft-lb / 2,500 rpm
1,960 kg (4,321 lbs)
503 pp
SRT Challenger SRT8 '08
6.1L
425 hp / 6,000 rpm
420 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,878 kg (4,140 lbs)
490 pp
The Dodge has an engine 1.1L bigger in size than the Jag, but makes 77 fewer horses and 41 fewer ft-lbs of torque. It does weigh close to 200 lbs less, so that makes up for the power deficit, but only slightly.
Maximum speed reached on track:
149 mph - XFR
143 mph - Challenger SRT8
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
70 mph - XFR
68 mph - Challenger SRT8
So the Jaguar is faster everywhere, despite being heavier and having a smaller engine. Amazing! I have to go with the big cat here. It surprised me.
5.0L
502 hp / 6,200 rpm
461 ft-lb / 2,500 rpm
1,960 kg (4,321 lbs)
503 pp
SRT Challenger SRT8 '08
6.1L
425 hp / 6,000 rpm
420 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,878 kg (4,140 lbs)
490 pp
The Dodge has an engine 1.1L bigger in size than the Jag, but makes 77 fewer horses and 41 fewer ft-lbs of torque. It does weigh close to 200 lbs less, so that makes up for the power deficit, but only slightly.
Maximum speed reached on track:
149 mph - XFR
143 mph - Challenger SRT8
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
70 mph - XFR
68 mph - Challenger SRT8
So the Jaguar is faster everywhere, despite being heavier and having a smaller engine. Amazing! I have to go with the big cat here. It surprised me.
- 6,225
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
Unfortunately I'm busy until 5pm, so my review will have to wait a little longer, maybe even after the final results
- 5,635
- North Dakota
- GTP_Cowboy
- RacingCowboy570
The Jag. The XFR came into the series in a more unknown way. I first seen it in GT5 and wondered why it was a standard model. That aside though, this car is a boat. The weight is tremendous, as is the power. However, the car fared somewhat decent on track. Sure it had understeer, but as @GT_Alex74 said, you could power slide or drift some of the corners efficiently. The car was fast on the straights as well, but the corners need a little focus.
The Challenger on the other hand isn't that much different. You may expect me to favor this car since it's American, but I'm stuck. He Challenger feels a little more planted than the Jag, but only a little. Only thing different is that the car isn't as tail happy, and it weighs a bit less along with less power. However, my vote goes for the Challenger because it surprisingly is not that hard to tune for races. Plus, I think it sounds better too.
Both cars tested at Midfield Raceway, no aids except ABS: 1, Sports Hard tires.
XFR: 1:20.392
Challenger: 1:21.422
And the votes:
XFR: 5
Challenger: 2
And the winner here is.....
The '10 XFR!!!
Congrats to @Draggon for setting the winning time of 1:18.875 in the Jag and to @pretend racer for setting a 1:20.261 in the Challenger! That's all for this week, so come back tomorrow for the next duel of the week!
The Challenger on the other hand isn't that much different. You may expect me to favor this car since it's American, but I'm stuck. He Challenger feels a little more planted than the Jag, but only a little. Only thing different is that the car isn't as tail happy, and it weighs a bit less along with less power. However, my vote goes for the Challenger because it surprisingly is not that hard to tune for races. Plus, I think it sounds better too.
Both cars tested at Midfield Raceway, no aids except ABS: 1, Sports Hard tires.
XFR: 1:20.392
Challenger: 1:21.422
And the votes:
XFR: 5
Challenger: 2
And the winner here is.....
The '10 XFR!!!
Congrats to @Draggon for setting the winning time of 1:18.875 in the Jag and to @pretend racer for setting a 1:20.261 in the Challenger! That's all for this week, so come back tomorrow for the next duel of the week!
- 5,635
- North Dakota
- GTP_Cowboy
- RacingCowboy570
This week's duel features two hot hatches. One is a hybrid sports car, the other an amped up version of an original. This week's duel is.....
The 2009 Abarth Grande Punto
vs
The 2010 Honda CR-Z !!!
This trial will be at Trial Mountain Reverse, which requires a different driving style than the forward version. With that, let the battle begin.
The 2009 Abarth Grande Punto
vs
The 2010 Honda CR-Z !!!
This trial will be at Trial Mountain Reverse, which requires a different driving style than the forward version. With that, let the battle begin.
- 328
- Canada
- HeyZeus666
Well this will be interesting, it will be the first time I have driven FF since progressing past that stage in the career mode.
Edit: I just barely remembered trying out some POS Barbie ride for car of the week - I did three corners before I sold it back!
Edit: I just barely remembered trying out some POS Barbie ride for car of the week - I did three corners before I sold it back!
- 1,231
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
Ok, this duel is definitely for me, since I took care for a few months of my dad's car :
It was part of the first two cars I bought in GT6 after the mandatory Fit RS, and I was blown away by how similar I found the reactions and feedback were to real life. Especially those little sensations that are pretty hard to describe with words, which will make you actually recognize it.
Damn, I need to recreate a local road on TPE for this one !
It was part of the first two cars I bought in GT6 after the mandatory Fit RS, and I was blown away by how similar I found the reactions and feedback were to real life. Especially those little sensations that are pretty hard to describe with words, which will make you actually recognize it.
Damn, I need to recreate a local road on TPE for this one !
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Bah - Front wheel drive.
... oh but we drive the track in reverse...so now we have a couple of Mid Engined rear wheel drive econobox hootpy cars... Sneaky clever thinking... I am sure there will be a sting in the tail somewhere...
What button do I press for rear view again?...
... oh but we drive the track in reverse...so now we have a couple of Mid Engined rear wheel drive econobox hootpy cars... Sneaky clever thinking... I am sure there will be a sting in the tail somewhere...
What button do I press for rear view again?...
- 1,512
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
So the Punto is a car I only knew about via Gran Turismo 2, and it was also the token foreign hatchback in Need For Speed Most Wanted that I never picked at the start. I tuned one that I got via some of the Gran Turismo 5 send-off challenges, and I was pleasantly surprised by how effective of a performer it was. The stock version leaves more to be desired however.
The CR-Z is a lot more fun to drive, and it's also a hybrid. Completely fine if you're driving something for fuel economy. The problem is, this test revolves around performance. So, which of these two has a more crippling weakness?
Reverse Trial Mountain Trial Mountain Mountain Trial Trial Mountain Trial Trial Mountain Mountain Trial... of the Mountain:
Punto - 1:53.829
CR-Z - 1:54.521
Rotenboden Trial:
Punto - 2:08.614
CR-Z - 2:10.591
SSR5 Trial:
Punto - 1:50.358
CR-Z - 1:51.126
Clear cut winner this week. The Punto was frustratingly numb in the corners, but at least the power on it was consistent. The CR-Z's effectiveness in the corners was dulled by its lack of power, and that's before you run out of battery charge. You have two full laps of charge at your disposal, and then every lap, you have to rely on the base-engine power, which is horribly ineffective on a car like the CR-Z. On a hybrid LeMans racer, you can easily recharge the energy about as quickly as you expend it. It falls flat on a consumer econobox slash sports car thing.
The Punto wins.
The CR-Z is a lot more fun to drive, and it's also a hybrid. Completely fine if you're driving something for fuel economy. The problem is, this test revolves around performance. So, which of these two has a more crippling weakness?
Reverse Trial Mountain Trial Mountain Mountain Trial Trial Mountain Trial Trial Mountain Mountain Trial... of the Mountain:
Punto - 1:53.829
CR-Z - 1:54.521
Rotenboden Trial:
Punto - 2:08.614
CR-Z - 2:10.591
SSR5 Trial:
Punto - 1:50.358
CR-Z - 1:51.126
Clear cut winner this week. The Punto was frustratingly numb in the corners, but at least the power on it was consistent. The CR-Z's effectiveness in the corners was dulled by its lack of power, and that's before you run out of battery charge. You have two full laps of charge at your disposal, and then every lap, you have to rely on the base-engine power, which is horribly ineffective on a car like the CR-Z. On a hybrid LeMans racer, you can easily recharge the energy about as quickly as you expend it. It falls flat on a consumer econobox slash sports car thing.
The Punto wins.
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
First thoughts.
Tuned up Fiat with red door mirrors versus a reanimated CRX on the chassis of a... Honda Insight.
*** Round 1 *** Looks ***
The Fiabarth Big Punto is a nice enough car, front end has some "Aston Martin" look to it that I find hard to explain.
The CR-Z is a quirky looker. the front end is strong the back end is odd with the split stepped rear window (Very Jaguar Pirana!) the Side windows are also odd. The doors have nice big panes of glass... but the backseat windows have huge black obfuscating (Great word!) edges. The CR-Z has a low sleek look in comparison to the very tall Punto.
CR-Z - 10 Big Punto - 9
*** Round 2 *** Cost ***
Honda - 24,980 kazulas
Abarth - 27,000 kazulas
The Abarth is more expensive - but it does come with softer tyres (Comfort Softs on the Punto, Comfort Mediums on the CR-Z)
*** Round 3 *** Weight ***
Honda 1130kg
Abarth 1240kg
110kg - 242lbs - That is Heavyweight K1 Kickboxer Alistair "London's own" Overeem bulk. Another famous Dutchman not born in The Netherlands - Like Max "Famous Belgian" Verstappen - he tips the scales at tiny. (67kg- 148lbs)
Honda 10(30) - Abarth 9 (27)
*** Round 4 *** Paint Chipage ***
This is a one sided affair, but as you can respray the Abarth not a huge thing. (Checks to see if you canget a pay and spray on the Italian hatchback... You can - Diamond Red please!)(I resprayed the CR-Z in CR-X del sol Samba Green.)
CR-Z - 7 Chips
Grande Punto - 1 chip
*** Round 5 *** Top Speed - Route X B-spec ***
1m36.5 -- 120mph at the 5k hilltop - 130mph max speed - 8m49.5 - CR-Z
1m33.9 -- 127mph at the 5k hilltop - 138mph max speed - 8m27.6 - Punto
The Punto has the edge on straight line performance...I'll give it two points as it did get drubbed in the paint chip round!
Honda 8(48) - Abarth 10 (44)
*** Round 6 *** Show me the Logo ***
One thing I noticed about the Abarth was it didn't want you to forget it wasn't a Fiat... How many Logos? Two name stripes on the door sills. Four Badges (front back and each side) One on the steering wheel, Another logo on each of the front seats. Two logos on the Dials. A Cheeky Silver Scorpion on the Passenger side dash - which are also found on every wheel hub ... so that is Four name logos, and twelve scorpions crawling over the Punto... 16 total logos - So I would be a dick if I were to call it a Fiat for the rest of this duel...
How about the Honda? One at the front of the car... One at the back and one on the steering wheel - And one on each of the Hubs - Total of 7.
Punto - 16 Logos
CR-Z - 7 Logos
Honda 8(56) - Abarth 10 (54)
*** Round 7 *** Wheel Lugnuts ***
The Fiat, whoops, sorry. The Abarth has four wheels with four lug nuts each - 16 nuts. Just like a TVR V8S - Now that is a car! Big V8, lovely rear wheeldrive...happy days...
The Honda has five lugnuts on each of its four wheel wheels - 20 nuts!
*** Round 8 *** Dork Handles / Door Candles?***
(Best round ever!)
The Punto has basic normal door handles... But the CR-Z has some funky jobs on the edge of the door frame. Rule of cool states that this is the winner.
*** Round 9 *** Fun to drive - Handling ***
(I Hate Front wheel drive cars)
The Punto was as nasty as I expected even with my trick set up of Comfort Hards at the Back, Comfort Mediums on the front - The car was horrible in turns.
The CR-Z? Same mixed tyres and I expected the worse - and it was better... Still painful to navigate in turns, but at least my Harder compounds rear tyres gave the car a much needed understeer vaccine! The Honda felt like it had a more punchy engine, the Fiat seemed to struggle over 50mph to get the grunt out of the engine - A Gearbox low rev turbo thing. I guess that a longer test and the battery in the CR-Z would run flat and you are left with a disadvantage - A track without corners every few hundred yards and the Fia... sorry, Abarth would drive ahead.
*** Round 10 *** Silverstone Speed Showdown (That would be the Stowe circuit - Freshman Cup... obviously!) ***
3m25.8 (1m07.9) - Grande Punto
3m22.4 (1m06.9) - CR-Z alpha
--------------------
If you like Scorpion Logo's there is only one car for you, That Fiat... erm Abarth has loads of them! But if you want a car that has the look of a Jaguar Pirana/Lamboghini Espada... then quint your eyes and try to ignore logic as you take in the CR-Z alpha from the back...
I can'r really recommend either car - but try mixing the tyre compounds (Soft at the front, harder at the back) if you want a teaspoon of fun in a Front wheel drive hoopty...
Ryk sort of recommends the love child of the Jaguar Pirana and Lamboghini Espada, the Honda CR-Z alpha.
Tuned up Fiat with red door mirrors versus a reanimated CRX on the chassis of a... Honda Insight.
*** Round 1 *** Looks ***
The Fiabarth Big Punto is a nice enough car, front end has some "Aston Martin" look to it that I find hard to explain.
The CR-Z is a quirky looker. the front end is strong the back end is odd with the split stepped rear window (Very Jaguar Pirana!) the Side windows are also odd. The doors have nice big panes of glass... but the backseat windows have huge black obfuscating (Great word!) edges. The CR-Z has a low sleek look in comparison to the very tall Punto.
CR-Z - 10 Big Punto - 9
*** Round 2 *** Cost ***
Honda - 24,980 kazulas
Abarth - 27,000 kazulas
The Abarth is more expensive - but it does come with softer tyres (Comfort Softs on the Punto, Comfort Mediums on the CR-Z)
Honda 10(20) - Abarth 9 (18)
*** Round 3 *** Weight ***
Honda 1130kg
Abarth 1240kg
110kg - 242lbs - That is Heavyweight K1 Kickboxer Alistair "London's own" Overeem bulk. Another famous Dutchman not born in The Netherlands - Like Max "Famous Belgian" Verstappen - he tips the scales at tiny. (67kg- 148lbs)
Honda 10(30) - Abarth 9 (27)
*** Round 4 *** Paint Chipage ***
This is a one sided affair, but as you can respray the Abarth not a huge thing. (Checks to see if you canget a pay and spray on the Italian hatchback... You can - Diamond Red please!)(I resprayed the CR-Z in CR-X del sol Samba Green.)
CR-Z - 7 Chips
Grande Punto - 1 chip
Honda 10(40) - Abarth 7 (34)
*** Round 5 *** Top Speed - Route X B-spec ***
1m36.5 -- 120mph at the 5k hilltop - 130mph max speed - 8m49.5 - CR-Z
1m33.9 -- 127mph at the 5k hilltop - 138mph max speed - 8m27.6 - Punto
The Punto has the edge on straight line performance...I'll give it two points as it did get drubbed in the paint chip round!
Honda 8(48) - Abarth 10 (44)
*** Round 6 *** Show me the Logo ***
One thing I noticed about the Abarth was it didn't want you to forget it wasn't a Fiat... How many Logos? Two name stripes on the door sills. Four Badges (front back and each side) One on the steering wheel, Another logo on each of the front seats. Two logos on the Dials. A Cheeky Silver Scorpion on the Passenger side dash - which are also found on every wheel hub ... so that is Four name logos, and twelve scorpions crawling over the Punto... 16 total logos - So I would be a dick if I were to call it a Fiat for the rest of this duel...
How about the Honda? One at the front of the car... One at the back and one on the steering wheel - And one on each of the Hubs - Total of 7.
Punto - 16 Logos
CR-Z - 7 Logos
Honda 8(56) - Abarth 10 (54)
*** Round 7 *** Wheel Lugnuts ***
The Fiat, whoops, sorry. The Abarth has four wheels with four lug nuts each - 16 nuts. Just like a TVR V8S - Now that is a car! Big V8, lovely rear wheeldrive...happy days...
The Honda has five lugnuts on each of its four wheel wheels - 20 nuts!
Honda 10(66) - Abarth 8 (62)
*** Round 8 *** Dork Handles / Door Candles?***
(Best round ever!)
The Punto has basic normal door handles... But the CR-Z has some funky jobs on the edge of the door frame. Rule of cool states that this is the winner.
Honda 10(76) - Abarth 9 (71)
*** Round 9 *** Fun to drive - Handling ***
(I Hate Front wheel drive cars)
The Punto was as nasty as I expected even with my trick set up of Comfort Hards at the Back, Comfort Mediums on the front - The car was horrible in turns.
The CR-Z? Same mixed tyres and I expected the worse - and it was better... Still painful to navigate in turns, but at least my Harder compounds rear tyres gave the car a much needed understeer vaccine! The Honda felt like it had a more punchy engine, the Fiat seemed to struggle over 50mph to get the grunt out of the engine - A Gearbox low rev turbo thing. I guess that a longer test and the battery in the CR-Z would run flat and you are left with a disadvantage - A track without corners every few hundred yards and the Fia... sorry, Abarth would drive ahead.
Honda 10(86) - Abarth 9 (80)
*** Round 10 *** Silverstone Speed Showdown (That would be the Stowe circuit - Freshman Cup... obviously!) ***
3m25.8 (1m07.9) - Grande Punto
3m22.4 (1m06.9) - CR-Z alpha
Honda 10(96) - Abarth 8 (88)
--------------------
If you like Scorpion Logo's there is only one car for you, That Fiat... erm Abarth has loads of them! But if you want a car that has the look of a Jaguar Pirana/Lamboghini Espada... then quint your eyes and try to ignore logic as you take in the CR-Z alpha from the back...
I can'r really recommend either car - but try mixing the tyre compounds (Soft at the front, harder at the back) if you want a teaspoon of fun in a Front wheel drive hoopty...
Ryk sort of recommends the love child of the Jaguar Pirana and Lamboghini Espada, the Honda CR-Z alpha.
Last edited:
- 328
- Canada
- HeyZeus666
Drove the Arbarth first, did two practise laps and then went for it. I never perfected my driving line with the FF cars on this track, so I left a bit of time on the table, but that doesn't matter when it comes to how I feel about each car.
I liked the heavy steering feel in the Arbarth you could sense when the wheels were spinning, and sliding - as soon as you turned the wheel they started squealing. So if you can deal with the massive understeer and the overall lack of speed, I suppose it would be a fun drive if your into that kinda thing.
The Honda got the same two lap warm up. I put CS tires on it. First impression was the steering was light and more direct and yet at the same time it felt more numb. I couldn't sense wheel spin, I'm not sure if that's because it didn't have enough power to cause the wheelspin or if the steering was just numb. The Honda was more settled in the turns, understeer wasn't as bad as the Arbarth, but you only get two laps to put your best lap in...
I like the looks of the Honda better, looks sporty compared to Arbarth which has that standard bubble econo box look. However, how good it looks doesn't matter on the track.
I vote for the Arbarth because of the more communicative steering. if I spent some time learning how to drive it the way it wants to be driven rather than my FR driving style, I would be significantly faster in it than the Honda. Even if the Honda pulls a gap in the beginning (doubtful), if the race is longer than 2 laps the Honda will lose...
I liked the heavy steering feel in the Arbarth you could sense when the wheels were spinning, and sliding - as soon as you turned the wheel they started squealing. So if you can deal with the massive understeer and the overall lack of speed, I suppose it would be a fun drive if your into that kinda thing.
The Honda got the same two lap warm up. I put CS tires on it. First impression was the steering was light and more direct and yet at the same time it felt more numb. I couldn't sense wheel spin, I'm not sure if that's because it didn't have enough power to cause the wheelspin or if the steering was just numb. The Honda was more settled in the turns, understeer wasn't as bad as the Arbarth, but you only get two laps to put your best lap in...
I like the looks of the Honda better, looks sporty compared to Arbarth which has that standard bubble econo box look. However, how good it looks doesn't matter on the track.
I vote for the Arbarth because of the more communicative steering. if I spent some time learning how to drive it the way it wants to be driven rather than my FR driving style, I would be significantly faster in it than the Honda. Even if the Honda pulls a gap in the beginning (doubtful), if the race is longer than 2 laps the Honda will lose...
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Honda CR-Z '10 (because they didn't want to call it the CR-Y)
1.5L
122 hp / 6,000 rpm
129 ft-lb / 1,500 rpm
1,130 kg (2,491 lbs)
356 pp
Abarth Grande Punto '09
1.4L
152 hp / 5,500 rpm
170 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm
1,240 kg (2,734 lbs)
376 pp
Abarth has more of everything than the CR-Z. 30 hp, 41 ft-lbs of torque, 243 lbs of mass, and 20 performance points.
Mid-Field Raceway. Comfort Soft. ABS-1.
So the Abarth is faster here, by 1.330 seconds.
Max speed on track:
112 mph - Fiat
108 mph - Honda
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
69 mph - Fiat
68 mph - Honda
Even if this Fiat came to the USA, I would rather drive the CR-Z. It's a better city car. It makes peak torque at just 1,500 rpms! The electric motor runs out of juice pretty quick. I can't remember if I had to restart after completing a lap but I definitely couldn't do 3 consecutive laps. The CR-Z is also faster than these other Honda's in GT6:
1:35.422 - 363 - Honda Ballade Sports CR-X 1.5i '83
1:35.785 - 350 - Honda Fit RS '10
1:35.940 - 381 - Honda City Turbo II '83
So yes, it's basically a modern CR-X, and that's a great thing. The Abarth on the other hand is heavy (IMO everything over 2,500 lbs is a pig
) and needs more power to make up for it. I will say the Punto looks much better than the Honda. However, I vastly prefer the gauges/interior of the CR-Z. Funny that I still think the old CR-X's look better than, well, most cars. I just love those things to pieces 
I'm voting for Honda
1.5L
122 hp / 6,000 rpm
129 ft-lb / 1,500 rpm
1,130 kg (2,491 lbs)
356 pp
Abarth Grande Punto '09
1.4L
152 hp / 5,500 rpm
170 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm
1,240 kg (2,734 lbs)
376 pp
Abarth has more of everything than the CR-Z. 30 hp, 41 ft-lbs of torque, 243 lbs of mass, and 20 performance points.
Mid-Field Raceway. Comfort Soft. ABS-1.
So the Abarth is faster here, by 1.330 seconds.
Max speed on track:
112 mph - Fiat
108 mph - Honda
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
69 mph - Fiat
68 mph - Honda
Even if this Fiat came to the USA, I would rather drive the CR-Z. It's a better city car. It makes peak torque at just 1,500 rpms! The electric motor runs out of juice pretty quick. I can't remember if I had to restart after completing a lap but I definitely couldn't do 3 consecutive laps. The CR-Z is also faster than these other Honda's in GT6:
1:35.422 - 363 - Honda Ballade Sports CR-X 1.5i '83
1:35.785 - 350 - Honda Fit RS '10
1:35.940 - 381 - Honda City Turbo II '83
So yes, it's basically a modern CR-X, and that's a great thing. The Abarth on the other hand is heavy (IMO everything over 2,500 lbs is a pig
) and needs more power to make up for it. I will say the Punto looks much better than the Honda. However, I vastly prefer the gauges/interior of the CR-Z. Funny that I still think the old CR-X's look better than, well, most cars. I just love those things to pieces I'm voting for Honda
- 1,231
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
So, here are my times with both cars :
Trial Mountain (offline, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:49.638
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:49.793
Trial Mountain reverse (online TT, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:50.473
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:50.928
Custom point to point track (oil change, comfort softs, ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 6:34.273
Honda CR-Z α >>> 6:40.824
A bit of personal background with those two cars :
The Grande Punto Abarth, the one and only which brought the revival of Abarth as a full brand. With it's Maserati 3200 like front-end styling and those raw plastic fender flares and side skirts, it was pretty incredible in the market, managing to bring in both a refined italian style along with that GTI look from the golden age. After a long streak of pretty boring cars (except maybe a Jaguar S-Type whose main feature was to tell you the engine was going to stop in a few seconds), my dad began to look back for something a bit more fun (driving my CRX was probably a trigger). Having spent his youth around some old Abarth, and thus being quite attached to them, he got pretty hyped up. We went to the local dealer, and there was this one standing in the middle of a special Abarth part of the showroom, and basically, as the salesman asked my dad what options he'd like, he just pointed at the car and said "I want this one right here". So the car was bought, and delivered with just a little delay as they had to get another one for the showroom first.
Lots of driving ensued, lots of rubber were burnt (he managed to burn a set down to the ropes in barely 400km one time, my mother was pretty unhappy about that ), several alignments were made (with the chief mechanic asking my dad how he was driving to be able to show up each time with a messed up alignment ), butts were kicked. I then got a couple months alone with it while my dad was recovering from herniated disks surgery, as I had no car anymore and just found a job (used the first paychecks to buy me my MX-5). In that period with this car, I had fun on snow, found out the brake fluid was not good anymore when I was left with no brakes at the end of a touge session and had to dirt drop and e-brake to make a u-turn and stop, narowly avoided an old man driving on the wrong side of the road just between two consecutive corners, drifted through the following corner with the rear left wheel in the ditch while both right wheels were off the ground and survived with no damage (has to e-brake not tu just understeer in the ditch after the avoidance of the old man). The car was then sold with 130.000+ km, and still running like day 1.
This car also marked the beginning of downsized turbo engines, everybody pretty much followed it. And that engine was doing a great job : lots of torque in the whole RPM range - except the last 500 RPMs, good throttle response, and it felt pretty brutal (more than in game, but this particular example seemed to be a bit healthier than others, the chief mechanic giving us the same feedback, I suppose as this was one of the first showroom cars it was handpicked on the line). It could also be surprisingly economical, achieving down to 6.5 liters/km when driving relaxed (and that's considering we NEVER deactivated the Sport mode, which unlocked full torque). Compared to what a CR-Z does and the respective power and weight, that engine might be even more efficient in that regard.
My main grip with the car is the lack of LSD, both IRL and in-game. 2nd gear corner exits will get you some wheelspin if you get too much throttle, while the steering loosen up (I find the game's steering feedback to be quite accurate considering the limits of GT6 and my DFGT). Second grip I had IRL was that the brake pedal was actually too sensitive, as those fat Brembo calipers with Ferodo pads were insanely powerful for such a car and made you eat some windshield bits quite easily (although this is not rendered in the game). Then, although the chassis was nice, it was not Clio RS level and I have a few nitpicks I could make towards the front axle (although most of these were improved with the following Punto Evo my brother bought after).
Note you could buy the SuperSport package (EsseEsse) from your dealer and get it fitted with a guarantee as long as your car had less than a year or 20.000 km, and have all of your parts in a big wooden box. The full version got you springs, perforated brake discs and pads, 18" wheels, new air filter, injectors and exhaust, along with a remap, to port it up to 180hp. But quite frankly, for roads, it was not really that much of an improvement : there was still no option for a LSD, so those 180hp would be even more stress to the front tires, the dampers were not really a good match for the springs on harsh road surface and the brake upgrade was overkill. This was more of a track oriented package. My dad remained very satisfied with the original specs, which were more than enough to troll some 200+ hp hatches.
The CR-Z, as a CRX owner at the time it began to hit motorshows, got me hyped as well. I followed that with great interest. Design was pretty nice, although I still think the rear looks too bulky for me. But the perspective of having a lightweight short wheelbase sports car in the new market was good. Sadly, talking with some guys at Honda got my hopes for a version that would really pay hommage to the CRX I knew killed. I was left pretty disappointed before a car that had a great potential to be a pure fun machine, which ended up not being exploited because of a silly marketing strategy and bad targetting. All people initially interested in that car were not in for the hybrid, and those who would look into a hybrid for economy / ecological purpose were rather interested in a more practical Insight or Prius. Sales in France ended up pretty poor, as mainly tech geeks and curious people bought some, those who wanted a car to stand out going after a Fiat 500 or a Mini for their stronger image. It seems it sold a bit better in Switzerland though, as I happen to see quite a few of them around with the Mugen bodykit (sadly, no supercharger version in EU). Personally, I was just seeing a car with 200+ kg more and 30 hp less than mine, and all these modern stuff probably made it less playful as well. I lost interest in it.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by how it performed in game. The chassis feels a bit more nimble, connected, but most of all more consistent than the Punto's. It can be a bit faster in some corners, and generally feels easier. The raer is not as lively as my good old CRX was, but it feels like a more modern version of it that won't try to kill a foolish beginner by swaping ends under hard braking. Then engine however, despite being pretty good, lacks that nervosity a B16A or a spiced up D16A9 like mine had, which makes that specific Honda signature. But quite frankly, I could have forgiven that, if only the batteries wouldn't just die on you after 8 km. When you have all the power available, even if it's a bit short of it, it's still a very nice package, especially when looking at the low difference in lap times on Trial Mountain. But once you lose the electric power, it just becomes too weak, especially for the chassis. And the fact it won't last enough time at full on attack for me to complete most of my favorite mountain roads is a big turn off. I can't complete a run on my custom track without losing the electric engine right before the downhill section. But even prior to that, the CR-Z is already a few seconds behind on this course, losing a lot of time on the standing start, where it gets obliterated. Hairpin exits are also a bit difficult for it, even with its good traction, because 2nd gear is too long and gets you to too low RPMs.
In the end, although it is very close to the Abarth in terms of lap time on Trial Mountain, I think it will be very difficult to find a track on which it could overperform it on a single lap (Streets of Willow may be the one). But the real shame is over the batteries autonomy. I don't know if that would be the same in real life in similar conditions, but taking what GT6 provides me into account, that is eliminatory in my book (full power available on only 2 laps, and getting into the pits won't help you charge it over). Quite frankly, I think if it wasn't for that issue, I would at least make it a draw, as the chassis is really enjoyable. But right now, the CR-Z just makes me hungry for a K20. Or even a lighter (sub 1000 kg ?) non hybrid version with the same engine, or a 120hp 1.6l going a bit higher in RPMs. It was a very interesting comparison to make though, very instructive for me.
The Abarth gets my vote.
Trial Mountain (offline, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:49.638
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:49.793
Trial Mountain reverse (online TT, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:50.473
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:50.928
Custom point to point track (oil change, comfort softs, ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 6:34.273
Honda CR-Z α >>> 6:40.824
A bit of personal background with those two cars :
The Grande Punto Abarth, the one and only which brought the revival of Abarth as a full brand. With it's Maserati 3200 like front-end styling and those raw plastic fender flares and side skirts, it was pretty incredible in the market, managing to bring in both a refined italian style along with that GTI look from the golden age. After a long streak of pretty boring cars (except maybe a Jaguar S-Type whose main feature was to tell you the engine was going to stop in a few seconds), my dad began to look back for something a bit more fun (driving my CRX was probably a trigger). Having spent his youth around some old Abarth, and thus being quite attached to them, he got pretty hyped up. We went to the local dealer, and there was this one standing in the middle of a special Abarth part of the showroom, and basically, as the salesman asked my dad what options he'd like, he just pointed at the car and said "I want this one right here". So the car was bought, and delivered with just a little delay as they had to get another one for the showroom first.
Lots of driving ensued, lots of rubber were burnt (he managed to burn a set down to the ropes in barely 400km one time, my mother was pretty unhappy about that
), several alignments were made (with the chief mechanic asking my dad how he was driving to be able to show up each time with a messed up alignment ), butts were kicked. I then got a couple months alone with it while my dad was recovering from herniated disks surgery, as I had no car anymore and just found a job (used the first paychecks to buy me my MX-5). In that period with this car, I had fun on snow, found out the brake fluid was not good anymore when I was left with no brakes at the end of a touge session and had to dirt drop and e-brake to make a u-turn and stop, narowly avoided an old man driving on the wrong side of the road just between two consecutive corners, drifted through the following corner with the rear left wheel in the ditch while both right wheels were off the ground and survived with no damage (has to e-brake not tu just understeer in the ditch after the avoidance of the old man). The car was then sold with 130.000+ km, and still running like day 1.This car also marked the beginning of downsized turbo engines, everybody pretty much followed it. And that engine was doing a great job : lots of torque in the whole RPM range - except the last 500 RPMs, good throttle response, and it felt pretty brutal (more than in game, but this particular example seemed to be a bit healthier than others, the chief mechanic giving us the same feedback, I suppose as this was one of the first showroom cars it was handpicked on the line). It could also be surprisingly economical, achieving down to 6.5 liters/km when driving relaxed (and that's considering we NEVER deactivated the Sport mode, which unlocked full torque). Compared to what a CR-Z does and the respective power and weight, that engine might be even more efficient in that regard.
My main grip with the car is the lack of LSD, both IRL and in-game. 2nd gear corner exits will get you some wheelspin if you get too much throttle, while the steering loosen up (I find the game's steering feedback to be quite accurate considering the limits of GT6 and my DFGT). Second grip I had IRL was that the brake pedal was actually too sensitive, as those fat Brembo calipers with Ferodo pads were insanely powerful for such a car and made you eat some windshield bits quite easily (although this is not rendered in the game). Then, although the chassis was nice, it was not Clio RS level and I have a few nitpicks I could make towards the front axle (although most of these were improved with the following Punto Evo my brother bought after).
Note you could buy the SuperSport package (EsseEsse) from your dealer and get it fitted with a guarantee as long as your car had less than a year or 20.000 km, and have all of your parts in a big wooden box. The full version got you springs, perforated brake discs and pads, 18" wheels, new air filter, injectors and exhaust, along with a remap, to port it up to 180hp. But quite frankly, for roads, it was not really that much of an improvement : there was still no option for a LSD, so those 180hp would be even more stress to the front tires, the dampers were not really a good match for the springs on harsh road surface and the brake upgrade was overkill. This was more of a track oriented package. My dad remained very satisfied with the original specs, which were more than enough to troll some 200+ hp hatches.
The CR-Z, as a CRX owner at the time it began to hit motorshows, got me hyped as well. I followed that with great interest. Design was pretty nice, although I still think the rear looks too bulky for me. But the perspective of having a lightweight short wheelbase sports car in the new market was good. Sadly, talking with some guys at Honda got my hopes for a version that would really pay hommage to the CRX I knew killed. I was left pretty disappointed before a car that had a great potential to be a pure fun machine, which ended up not being exploited because of a silly marketing strategy and bad targetting. All people initially interested in that car were not in for the hybrid, and those who would look into a hybrid for economy / ecological purpose were rather interested in a more practical Insight or Prius. Sales in France ended up pretty poor, as mainly tech geeks and curious people bought some, those who wanted a car to stand out going after a Fiat 500 or a Mini for their stronger image. It seems it sold a bit better in Switzerland though, as I happen to see quite a few of them around with the Mugen bodykit (sadly, no supercharger version in EU). Personally, I was just seeing a car with 200+ kg more and 30 hp less than mine, and all these modern stuff probably made it less playful as well. I lost interest in it.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by how it performed in game. The chassis feels a bit more nimble, connected, but most of all more consistent than the Punto's. It can be a bit faster in some corners, and generally feels easier. The raer is not as lively as my good old CRX was, but it feels like a more modern version of it that won't try to kill a foolish beginner by swaping ends under hard braking. Then engine however, despite being pretty good, lacks that nervosity a B16A or a spiced up D16A9 like mine had, which makes that specific Honda signature. But quite frankly, I could have forgiven that, if only the batteries wouldn't just die on you after 8 km. When you have all the power available, even if it's a bit short of it, it's still a very nice package, especially when looking at the low difference in lap times on Trial Mountain. But once you lose the electric power, it just becomes too weak, especially for the chassis. And the fact it won't last enough time at full on attack for me to complete most of my favorite mountain roads is a big turn off. I can't complete a run on my custom track without losing the electric engine right before the downhill section. But even prior to that, the CR-Z is already a few seconds behind on this course, losing a lot of time on the standing start, where it gets obliterated. Hairpin exits are also a bit difficult for it, even with its good traction, because 2nd gear is too long and gets you to too low RPMs.
In the end, although it is very close to the Abarth in terms of lap time on Trial Mountain, I think it will be very difficult to find a track on which it could overperform it on a single lap (Streets of Willow may be the one). But the real shame is over the batteries autonomy. I don't know if that would be the same in real life in similar conditions, but taking what GT6 provides me into account, that is eliminatory in my book (full power available on only 2 laps, and getting into the pits won't help you charge it over). Quite frankly, I think if it wasn't for that issue, I would at least make it a draw, as the chassis is really enjoyable. But right now, the CR-Z just makes me hungry for a K20. Or even a lighter (sub 1000 kg ?) non hybrid version with the same engine, or a 120hp 1.6l going a bit higher in RPMs. It was a very interesting comparison to make though, very instructive for me.
The Abarth gets my vote.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2018-honda-cr-z-rendered-may-ditch-hybrid-for-new-turbo-news
"Under the hood will be a detuned version of the Type R's turbocharged, 2.0-liter VTEC four-cylinder pumping out more than 280 horsepower. In fact, it looks as if the CR-Z will be positioned and marketed as a high-performance coupe version of the next-generation U.S. Civic, which means it may be called the Civic CR-Z."
"Under the hood will be a detuned version of the Type R's turbocharged, 2.0-liter VTEC four-cylinder pumping out more than 280 horsepower. In fact, it looks as if the CR-Z will be positioned and marketed as a high-performance coupe version of the next-generation U.S. Civic, which means it may be called the Civic CR-Z."
- 5,635
- North Dakota
- GTP_Cowboy
- RacingCowboy570
Wow, that's a lot of typing! Great reviewSo, here are my times with both cars :
Trial Mountain (offline, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:49.638
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:49.793
Trial Mountain reverse (online TT, comfort softs and ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 1:50.473
Honda CR-Z α >>> 1:50.928
Custom point to point track (oil change, comfort softs, ABS 1)
Abarth Grande Punto >>> 6:34.273
Honda CR-Z α >>> 6:40.824
A bit of personal background with those two cars :
The Grande Punto Abarth, the one and only which brought the revival of Abarth as a full brand. With it's Maserati 3200 like front-end styling and those raw plastic fender flares and side skirts, it was pretty incredible in the market, managing to bring in both a refined italian style along with that GTI look from the golden age. After a long streak of pretty boring cars (except maybe a Jaguar S-Type whose main feature was to tell you the engine was going to stop in a few seconds), my dad began to look back for something a bit more fun (driving my CRX was probably a trigger). Having spent his youth around some old Abarth, and thus being quite attached to them, he got pretty hyped up. We went to the local dealer, and there was this one standing in the middle of a special Abarth part of the showroom, and basically, as the salesman asked my dad what options he'd like, he just pointed at the car and said "I want this one right here". So the car was bought, and delivered with just a little delay as they had to get another one for the showroom first.
Lots of driving ensued, lots of rubber were burnt (he managed to burn a set down to the ropes in barely 400km one time, my mother was pretty unhappy about that
This car also marked the beginning of downsized turbo engines, everybody pretty much followed it. And that engine was doing a great job : lots of torque in the whole RPM range - except the last 500 RPMs, good throttle response, and it felt pretty brutal (more than in game, but this particular example seemed to be a bit healthier than others, the chief mechanic giving us the same feedback, I suppose as this was one of the first showroom cars it was handpicked on the line). It could also be surprisingly economical, achieving down to 6.5 liters/km when driving relaxed (and that's considering we NEVER deactivated the Sport mode, which unlocked full torque). Compared to what a CR-Z does and the respective power and weight, that engine might be even more efficient in that regard.
My main grip with the car is the lack of LSD, both IRL and in-game. 2nd gear corner exits will get you some wheelspin if you get too much throttle, while the steering loosen up (I find the game's steering feedback to be quite accurate considering the limits of GT6 and my DFGT). Second grip I had IRL was that the brake pedal was actually too sensitive, as those fat Brembo calipers with Ferodo pads were insanely powerful for such a car and made you eat some windshield bits quite easily (although this is not rendered in the game). Then, although the chassis was nice, it was not Clio RS level and I have a few nitpicks I could make towards the front axle (although most of these were improved with the following Punto Evo my brother bought after).
Note you could buy the SuperSport package (EsseEsse) from your dealer and get it fitted with a guarantee as long as your car had less than a year or 20.000 km, and have all of your parts in a big wooden box. The full version got you springs, perforated brake discs and pads, 18" wheels, new air filter, injectors and exhaust, along with a remap, to port it up to 180hp. But quite frankly, for roads, it was not really that much of an improvement : there was still no option for a LSD, so those 180hp would be even more stress to the front tires, the dampers were not really a good match for the springs on harsh road surface and the brake upgrade was overkill. This was more of a track oriented package. My dad remained very satisfied with the original specs, which were more than enough to troll some 200+ hp hatches.
The CR-Z, as a CRX owner at the time it began to hit motorshows, got me hyped as well. I followed that with great interest. Design was pretty nice, although I still think the rear looks too bulky for me. But the perspective of having a lightweight short wheelbase sports car in the new market was good. Sadly, talking with some guys at Honda got my hopes for a version that would really pay hommage to the CRX I knew killed. I was left pretty disappointed before a car that had a great potential to be a pure fun machine, which ended up not being exploited because of a silly marketing strategy and bad targetting. All people initially interested in that car were not in for the hybrid, and those who would look into a hybrid for economy / ecological purpose were rather interested in a more practical Insight or Prius. Sales in France ended up pretty poor, as mainly tech geeks and curious people bought some, those who wanted a car to stand out going after a Fiat 500 or a Mini for their stronger image. It seems it sold a bit better in Switzerland though, as I happen to see quite a few of them around with the Mugen bodykit (sadly, no supercharger version in EU). Personally, I was just seeing a car with 200+ kg more and 30 hp less than mine, and all these modern stuff probably made it less playful as well. I lost interest in it.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by how it performed in game. The chassis feels a bit more nimble, connected, but most of all more consistent than the Punto's. It can be a bit faster in some corners, and generally feels easier. The raer is not as lively as my good old CRX was, but it feels like a more modern version of it that won't try to kill a foolish beginner by swaping ends under hard braking. Then engine however, despite being pretty good, lacks that nervosity a B16A or a spiced up D16A9 like mine had, which makes that specific Honda signature. But quite frankly, I could have forgiven that, if only the batteries wouldn't just die on you after 8 km. When you have all the power available, even if it's a bit short of it, it's still a very nice package, especially when looking at the low difference in lap times on Trial Mountain. But once you lose the electric power, it just becomes too weak, especially for the chassis. And the fact it won't last enough time at full on attack for me to complete most of my favorite mountain roads is a big turn off. I can't complete a run on my custom track without losing the electric engine right before the downhill section. But even prior to that, the CR-Z is already a few seconds behind on this course, losing a lot of time on the standing start, where it gets obliterated. Hairpin exits are also a bit difficult for it, even with its good traction, because 2nd gear is too long and gets you to too low RPMs.
In the end, although it is very close to the Abarth in terms of lap time on Trial Mountain, I think it will be very difficult to find a track on which it could overperform it on a single lap (Streets of Willow may be the one). But the real shame is over the batteries autonomy. I don't know if that would be the same in real life in similar conditions, but taking what GT6 provides me into account, that is eliminatory in my book (full power available on only 2 laps, and getting into the pits won't help you charge it over). Quite frankly, I think if it wasn't for that issue, I would at least make it a draw, as the chassis is really enjoyable. But right now, the CR-Z just makes me hungry for a K20. Or even a lighter (sub 1000 kg ?) non hybrid version with the same engine, or a 120hp 1.6l going a bit higher in RPMs. It was a very interesting comparison to make though, very instructive for me.
The Abarth gets my vote.
- 1,231
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
@MidFieldMaven
Ha, didn't even knew there was a next gen planned for the CR-Z ! We didn't even get to have the facelifted version here in Europe as the sales were so poor. In fact, Honda axed all the hybrid cars around here
@Cowboy
Thanks, it got a bit out of control
Ha, didn't even knew there was a next gen planned for the CR-Z ! We didn't even get to have the facelifted version here in Europe as the sales were so poor. In fact, Honda axed all the hybrid cars around here
@Cowboy
Thanks, it got a bit out of control
