Kneejerk reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryk
  • 17 comments
  • 1,861 views
Ryk

Ryk

Messages
3,144
England
Lancashire
Messages
Ryk_BRM
I had a pondering thought as I looked at the Used Car area.

Which car is best out of these three used cars. -

Lotus Elise 190 Sport
Jaguar XKR Coupe
Toyota Supra RZ

First look - Just the name.

Just the names I thought - The Elise will be best, it is a pocket rocket nimble grippy. The Jag and the Supra are good but are boats that can't really get the power down and will struggle in the corners. Best one from what is left? Jag or Supra - Maybe the Jag down to a thicker engine with more Meat to it.

So in my head I had them in this order Elise/XKR/Supra

Second look - The Stats

The Elise had 475PP - 190bhp - 670kg - Level 8
The XKR had 469PP - 369bhp - 1640kg - Level 8
The Supra had 463PP - 276bhp - 1510kg - Level 7

This seemed to go well with what I thought - Close stuff but the Elise was "better" and the Toyota was last. The Elise I knew was very drivable. The Jag had almost a hundred extra horsepower and only a slight weight penalty... 130kilos verses almost an extra 100 horsepower - Yes the Jag had the edge.

Third look - Oh what have I done, I bought it!

Oh yes after you buy a used car then you remember that GT5 likes to play games on you... Thankfully it is only the power/torque numbers that are incorrect.

The Elise - 190bhp -> 174bhp
The XKR - 369bhp -> 359bhp
The Supra - 276bhp -> 307bhp

The English cars seemed to have lost a few horses since the advertisement was put up in the USD - But not too many really. The Supra however seems to have been a breeding Horses and magically gained an extra 31 ponies.

Was this enough to alter the result?

That all stops when the flag drops.

I ran a back to back to back run in each car. No driver aids, 3/2 brakes - Each had the stock SH tyres they were bought with.

I set a time of 1m43s361 (8m42s276) at Trial Mountain in the Elise
Car felt great - eager to turn in. The let down was 5th was a bit tall.

I then used the Jag. Ace engine note. Car had a big thick power band but a long lazy gearbox. I felt slow in it but once I dialled in I set a best lap better than I did in the Elise. (That surprised me.)
1m42s543 (8m41s663)

The Supra. Twin turbo straight six. Again the car was troublesome to find the front end. And felt slow and off the pace, Until the last few laps when I found how to get more from the car. After running it I was stumped as the car wasn't bad at all, no vices but not fantastic to chuck about.
1m42s368 (8m39s31)

So after running the cars, My initial thoughts were totally wrong. I suppose the odd thing was I still thought the Elise was faster during the test - until I saw the times the other two cars did. Maybe the Elise just feels faster (counter steering and otherwise being busy as you hurtle along compared to the more sedate drive you get in a FR car.)


Which car would you think was faster?
Which of them do you know is faster (Hey Maybe I can only squeeze 90% of the potential of the Elise but 95% of the potential of the Front engine cars.)

Final question.
If you had to pick one of the three to do an Enduro (Maybe the Grand Valley 300km) - Which would you plump for.

I still think I'd choose the Lotus after all that!
 
To get straight to the point and explain my reasoning: Grand Valley has too many semi-long up to very long straights and high speed corners for the nimble little lotus to be successful, in my opinion.. If you were at Tsukuba or or London I would recommend it all day long.. If you were at high speed ring or Monza (No Chicane) I would recommend the brute force and high torque of the Jaguar.

With that being said you need a combination of both, the Supra is faster than the Elise (but not as nimble) and slower than the Jaguar (but more nimble and easy to control) .. I'm not a Supra fan and it kills me to say this... Out of those three, that would be the car I would choose..
 
I would go with the Lotus, because i would enjoy the 300km more
 
jgancherjr
To get straight to the point and explain my reasoning: Grand Valley has too many semi-long up to very long straights and high speed corners for the nimble little lotus to be successful, in my opinion.. If you were at Tsukuba or or London I would recommend it all day long.. If you were at high speed ring or Monza (No Chicane) I would recommend the brute force and high torque of the Jaguar.

With that being said you need a combination of both, the Supra is faster than the Elise (but not as nimble) and slower than the Jaguar (but more nimble and easy to control) .. I'm not a Supra fan and it kills me to say this... Out of those three, that would be the car I would choose..
Click to expand...

Basically took the words right out of my mouth. Certain cars just seem to fit certain tracks almost like a glove. I would say the Supra would be the best choice for the GV enduro. The oversteer in the Elise would grow tiresome and though it's been a while since I was behind the wheel of the XKR, that sluggish gearbox sounds like a deal breaker.

Coincidentally I just ran the GV 300k yesterday using the prize GT 350Z RS. It was a good car for a long run. Comfy, yet had smooth and direct cornering ability. Ran the car completely stock with SH's. Completed the race in 2 hours 15 with over a minute on the field. In retrospect I probably could have chosen something a bit more competitive.
 
I did it in a fully tuned Scion FRS. Absolute blast.
 
For a medium to long race on Grand Valley -- Have to give it to the Supra. After you fully soup and tune all three the Supra will outlast and out perform the MR.
 
Had another play with these three... Comfort Soft tyres at R246 in Tokyo.

The Elise was "Such fun" - The Mid engine thing, it turns in and then you balance it in the corners/sweeps. All race it felt eager and you felt active driving it.

The Jag was harder to slow down and not too happy in the turns either. Not so much under steer as unwilling to turn in in the first place. On the exit of corners it did have some issues drifting out wider than I wanted...

The Toyota though, it was better on the lower grip, Better turn in and initial grip (Though it did have a nasty snap to it if you try to catch a loose rear end.) Compared to the Jag it just felt better. And it was much faster than the Elise.

Speeds? End of the R246 straight and the Elise was only pulling 132mph, the Supra and XKR were over 140, the Jag just edging the top speed stakes.

I've since added 4 new cars.

Baracuda (71)
NSX (97)
GTR V-spec (96)
GTO MR (98)

So just the Names... which is best, how will they compare to the initial three? The Musclecar I have already given a slight tweak... custom gearbox... and the same stock gear ratios but the new 5th gear I've added, so that the car can use some of the power and not batter the rev limiter to death at 125mph. (I'll just have to remember to use 5th gear)

The NSX, Skyline and GTO (3000GT) - It is like the good old GT(one) days of the 276bhp era...

I would pick the Honda every day of the week... But I don't drive 4wd cars very well. The R33 should have the edge over the Mitsubishi. The 'cuda? Should do well... With the new 5th gear it maybe better than the Supra.

I know the numbers. (USD BHP true BHP levels Weight PP scores)
Will add Sunday after I run a few laps.
I Predict...
Cuda-NSX-GTR-GTO I think the order will be.
GTR and GTO both slower than the Jag I guess.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to say then NSX or GTR come out on top.
 
Little tip regarding the Cuda. Find where it makes peak power and change gear at it or just after peak power. This is due to the power curve dropping like an anvil on the Cuda. You might have to stretch the gearing a bit to make the most of the power.
 
I predict the 'Cuda wins the beauty contest.
 
As much as I love European cars, and my choice would be the Jaguar, I would go with the most logical choice which would be the Supra, depending in what you need it for. Give it a weight reduction 1, add an LSD, ECU chip, Sports Cat, Sports Headers and Sport Hard tires. With 360HP and around 1300kg, that's enough to turn this grand tourer into a really nice and very well balanced sports car. It doesn't need more.

But yeah... I would probably choose the Jag. Not as fast in turns, but it has much more substance.


As for the second batch, I would go with the Mitsubishi GTO as the most logical option, even though I would struggle after for not getting the 'Cuda. The 'Cuda needs a bit more work to make it more drivable in long tracks, but being lighter and RWD gives it some advantage for the purist driver. The Mitsubishi only needs some adjusting in the ballast and the center differential to get rid of that understeery feel.
 
Tested three, Baracuda, GT-R and the NSX.


Plymouth Barracuda

And the new gearbox was good, it needed 5th but never quite topped out in it. However, the custom box had that nasty tranny whine and the exhaust seemed muted for a 7.2 litre V8.

And it was very slow. As suggested here, You need to shift up well before the red line to get the most from the engine which really is feeble at revs over 5000 and it only gets worse. Another issue is the inside rear spools up if you get a bit eager on the go pedal on the exit of corners.

Times?
SH - TMC - 1m46s418 - 9m00s081
CS - R246- 2m12s614 - 6m44s076
top speed 130mph

Ouch so off the pace.
--

Nissan Skyline GT-R V-spec 1996
interestingly has adjustable rear aero (3<->8) I left it at 3.
Torque split is 30/70
Engine is smooth thick power band.
Handling. Better than I expected. Very stable car. Deals with lumps well too.

Times
SH - TMC - 1m42s414 - 8m38s394
CS - R246- 2m09s906 - 6m49s???
top speed 140mph


---
Honda NSX 1997

Nice engine, thick with torque late in the revs.
Very racy fee, rotation is excellent oversteers a smidge, but that adds to the fun. If you go in too hard you can overheat the outside front and then get understeer - But you have to drive like a donkey to do that.

Times?
SH - TMC - 1m41s883 - 8m35s116
CS - R246- 2m07s290 - 6m27s522

...
So the 'cuda was not the superbeast I expected (So my kneejerk reaction was miles out!) Just way off the pace. And very un-fun to drive at tick over revs (4000)

The GTR was very good, for a 4wd car it wasn't as heavy as I remember in the corners. Perhaps the stability made it a bit dull at times. Safe choice though.

The NSX was great fun, if the Skyline was detached and safe, the NSX felt dangerous. the fast chicane at Tokyo was a huge rush as I had to balance the car steering and power. Nice high revs too. Felt faster. Also felt like it had a lot of potential to go faster if I had the guts to commit to a corner. Compared to the Elise better. 33PP less yet it was much faster than the Lotus.

GTR and Supra are close. I'd say the GTR has the edge if you are a neutral. If you are a fan of either, then you will probably wring more speed out of your favourite. (I prefer the Supra, but the R33 is my Favourite Skyline.)

3000GT to go - I don't have much hope for this car. I looked great, sleek low lines, Looks fast wide stance. But I know it is heavy and it overworks its tyres in corners.

Cheers for the input guys.

I've a Esprit V8 GT to run and I hope to get a fast RX7 into the mix, but I don't know if it can compete with the Supra/Skyline 276's

USD - Real BHP
384 - 357 Cuda
276 - 301 Skyline
276 - 275 NSX
276 - 293 GTO
190 - 173 Elise
369 - 359 XKR
276 - 307 Supra

So hats off to the Honda guys for not telling fibs about the engine power (Shame on you Nissan and Toyota, Shame on you both!)
 
That's why the NSX is the quickest, Honda stuck to the power agreement. So to counter the power disadvantage, they improved it's overall performance by improving everything else on the car.
 
Mitsubishi 3000GT (GTO) 98

I thought this car would be the runt, that good looker that lets things down when she opens her mouth... but I was (yet again it seems) proved wrong as the car was pretty competitive at Trial Mountain... Too competitive as it beat the Supra and the Skyline...

At Tokyo it was a bit behind, perhaps it was the comfort tyres but it felt a bit awkward in the long 180° sweeper after the Baseball stadia. That said it was very solid in the fast compression chicane. Fast planted loads of grip... Maybe I just found the right line here. Smooth easy ride - Constant power. the Engine just keeps on giving.
Times?
SH - TMC - 1m42s226 - 8m37s758
CS - R246- 2m08s824 - 6m30s631

The interesting thing was this car didn't come with Sports Hards... the dealership knew I was a fan of cross ply, bias cut tyres made from the rubber of melted down yellow bathroom ducks. Comfort Softs. - I fitted the correct tyres for each track just to be consistent.

Lotus Esprit V8 GT 98

I picked this as it was close to the Elise in terms of PP, would it underperform? It must be much faster than the 276's from the land of the rising sun? Well the Land of the rising Turnip didn't let me down and set times that were faster than anything else... but not by much. The R246 race time was not great as I failed a reflex check and clucked into the wall on the outside of the final hairpin... ruining that lap and hurting the next! Like the NSX it has more potential to go faster.

Times?
SH - TMC - 1m41s029 - 8m29s581
CS - R246- 2m06s732 - 6m26s838

----

The GTO/Supra/Skyline/NSX set are much closer grouped than I would have expected. the GTO (3000GT) has really gone up in my estimations now... after years of thinking it was a bit of a pup.

Next few cars?

Jensen Interceptor Mk 3

300ZX 2by2 98
The Jensen will be tricky with its Fred Flintstone gearbox.
The 300ZX - Longer wheelbase than the standard car, should hurt it in the twisty bits - but it is a 276'r so I guess when I get in it, it will have over 300 pony power and be comparable to the Supra (Front engine Rear wheel drive.)
Comparable but it can't be faster than a Supra, can it?
 
That Jenson will suffer a fate similar to the Cuda. Being it has a 426 Hemi and a chrysler Gearbox you will want to treat it much like the cuda in terms of shift points iirc it has a few more rpm's than the 440 but not 100%. But that said it is at heart an American Muscle car wrapped in a British GT heavy weight body.
 
Nissan ZX300 2by2 '98

3 litre v6 twin turbo with 276bhp... I was expecting a sandbagging number, but for some reason this engine was down on power. A shame as the engine itself was nice, but obviously down on grunt compared to the other 276'ers.

I also bought another Newey Fan car... so didn't have the money to fit Sport Hards for the first test at Trial Mountain.

I ran on Comfort SOfts... and had a really nice - race - with the grid. Only managed 2nd but it was nip and tuck wheel to wheel stuff. Shame the AI give up if you try for a pass on the outside.

Times?

CS - TMC - 1m47s259 - 9m03s688
SH - TMC - 1m44s695 - 8m50s303
CS -R246 - 2m10s930 - 6m39s213 (133mph)

Still have to run Tokyo.

Thanks to Outeke for sending me a Plymouth Cuda in Orange (Bahama Yellow) -
 
Last edited:
More runs.

Ruf 3400S
This seemed to slot in at the Toyota Supra area... but it must be better than a Supra... Mid engine, wide stand, big 3.4litre flat 6 engine that has been honed for decades...

Well short answer was yes.
The car was fast, guzzled the corners and was pretty swift on the straight bits. The oddball thing was the weight balance is 55/45... for a Mid Engined car that is ... amazeballs! Well it is certainly strange. Considering it is 1PP less than the Supra... it certainly punches well above its score.

Times
SH - TMC - 1m39s618 - 8m25s511
CS - R246- 2m05s080 - 6m19s477
(142 top speed at Tokyo)

Next up was a Mazda RS-R RX-7
This seems to fit the era (1997ish) I've been trying to test. But it is a rotary and well down on power compared to the other 276's BUT I've enjoyed the RX7, it seemed easy to drive.

Well it went well the car suffers from power oversteer. Which I guess is why the Drifters like the car. The car has good front end grip and is controllable which is useful as on Comfort Softs the car likes to get out of shape (Usually sideways).

Times
SH - TMC - 1m42s426 - 8m39s817
CS - R246- 2m09s374 - 6m33s803 (135mph top speed)

The odd thing is the car is close to the 3000GT/Supra/GTR cluster. but is wel down on the PP scale and the Cars Level is only 4 (Compared Level 6 for the GTO/GTR (Supra Is Level 7))

Next ...

Mugen S2000
Should be fun but can an Naturally aspirated, 4 pot, 2 litre in a small body compete with the 276 boys? I doubt it... maybe on paper it will compare to the RX7...

Subaru Impreza 22B
Best of the Impreza, great racey looks "normal" headlamps, a fatter engine wider stance... Can it step up to be a Skyline beater?

Benz CLK AMG 55
I don't enjoy Mercs, they seem very sloppy on the suspension wallowing about like a hospital bed with a fatbody that had to be lowered in with a hoist. The Engine is huge but the power seems very modest, Torque is thick... Weight isn't as dumpy as I would expect. Same PP level at the Supra? Can it beat it? 5.5 litre V8 Says yes. Agricultural Suspension says no way.

Jensen Interceptor Mk3
Not used yet as I know I need to fix the gearbox... and I want to repeat with the Cuda as well as I don't think I gave it a fair crack of the whip... though I doubt I can find a lot of time with it. Not a lot of hope for this car.
 
Back