Laguna Seca Lap Times For 449 Cars (And Counting!)

[MidFieldMaven]

I had a 2008 Fit before I got my MX-5. Knew a guy who had one of the first K20 swaps in the USA. Mine just had intake and exhaust...

 

[MidFieldMaven]

The regular AE86 is 7.5 seconds slower than the S.Shigeno Version and ties with the Eunos Roadster J-Limited '91

The non-turbo MkIV Supra is as quick as the turbo Aristo!

1:54.852 - 411 - Toyota Supra SZ-R '97
1:54.921 - 434 - Toyota Aristo 3.0V '91

 

[MidFieldMaven]

2.8L V6 Nissan vs. Toyota battle!

280Z '78
142 hp / 5,200 rpm
166 ft-lb / 4,000 rpm
1,225 kg
364 pp

Celica 2800GT '81
167 hp / 5,500 rpm
174 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,235 kg
379 pp

The Celica has +25 hp and +8 torque over the 280Z, but weighs 10 kg more. On paper, it would seem the Celica is superior. This is not the case, however, at Laguna Seca.

1:59.329 - 364 - Nissan Fairlady Z 280Z-L 2seater (S130) '78
1:59.992 - 379 - Toyota Celica XX 2800GT '81

 

[MidFieldMaven]

1:47.800 - 456 - Subaru Impreza Coupe 22B-STi Version '98
1:47.831 - 456 - Nissan Skyline GT-R V*Spec II (R32) '94

Subaru
2.2L
289 hp / 6,200 rpm
281 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm
1,270 kg

Nissan
2.6L
306 hp / 6,800 rpm
289 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,500 kg

Skyline has +17 hp, +8 torque, and a massive +230 kg but STILL manages to tie with the 22B.

I do prefer the 22B. It handles almost like RWD and just feels faster than the Nissan.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added:

Subaru Impreza Sedan WRX STi '94
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution GSR '92
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution II GSR '94
Honda Prelude Si VTEC '91

The Subaru wiped the floor with the Evo's...In fact, Mitsu couldn't match the performance of the original STi until the Evo IV in 1996...

 

[sirjim73]

Thank you for uploading all these lap times @SuzukaStar !!!

Here's some old Laguna Seca footage which you might like...



Keep up the great work!

 

[MidFieldMaven]

The 22B is a great car, but a year later Subaru released Version VI of the STi, the last of the GC generation, and it was faster, with 200 fewer cc's.

1:47.431 - 458 - Subaru Impreza Sedan WRX STi Version VI '99
1:47.800 - 456 - Subaru Impreza Coupe 22B-STi Version '98

How about a Mini Cooper comparison?

1:54.830 - 403 - Mini Cooper S '11
1:54.923 - 389 - Mini Cooper S '02
1:55.561 - 390 - Mini Cooper S Countryman (R60) '11
1:55.601 - 391 - Mini Cooper S '05
1:55.982 - 395 - Mini Cooper S '07

That '02 is something else...It's the lightest in the group, and I prefer supercharged Minis over the turbocharged ones.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

The Chevrolet SSR '03 is the WORST 400+ pp car in the roster. Chevy should be ashamed of its performance.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added:

Shelby Series One Super Charged '03
Pontiac GTO 5.7 Coupe '04
Honda NSX '90

Hungry for a time trial challenge? Try to beat 1:51 in the NSX '90 on CH tires. Just buy the car, install the tires, and get on the track!

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Well this is pretty cool.

1:45.760 - 468 - Honda NSX Type R '02
1:45.762 - 488 - Lotus Elise Sport 190 '98

 

[ALB123]

Well this is pretty cool.

1:45.760 - 468 - Honda NSX Type R '02
1:45.762 - 488 - Lotus Elise Sport 190 '98

See, this is a perfect example of why the PP system is FUBAR, in my opinion. The Lotus is rated 20 PP higher, and the times are basically identical. I contend that on a track like the Nurburgring Nordschleife the NSX would dust the Lotus.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

A tale of two Cities. Well, one City and one CR-X, both from 1983...

2:00.124 - 363 - Honda Ballade Sports CR-X 1.5i '83
2:00.699 - 381 - Honda City Turbo II '83

The City is powered by a 1.2L turbo producing 107 hp / 5,500 rpm and 118 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm. It weighs 735 kg.
The CR-X uses a 1.5L engine producing 108 hp / 6,000 rpm and 100 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm. It weighs 815 kg.

Both cars are almost too much fun to drive, although I found the City to be more enjoyable due to its low-end torque and 80 kg advantage. I'm surprised it's not faster than the CR-X.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added:

1:45.163 - 472 - Mazda Atenza Touring Car
1:53.689 - 411 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 Infiniti III (FC) '90

Let's see how the FC RX-7's compare...

1:53.689 - 411 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 Infiniti III (FC) '90
1:54.405 - 406 - Mazda RX-7 GT-X (FC) '90
1:55.831 - 389 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85

Very nice!

 

[JMoney]

I thought about testing the cars at Laguna Seca for GT6 but instead went with Cape Ring Periphery, and probably ended up with a course favoring speed over turning capability. I use bone-stock cars with the tires being whatever the car came with and aides turned on, with automatic transmissions. With the aides off the times would probably be more "pure" (best representing the ability of the car), but if you were shifting manually wouldn't there be more room for driver error?

Interesting that Subarus were faster than the Mitsubishis for you. My times were generally favoring the Evos, usually by about a half a second over the Imprezas.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

if you were shifting manually wouldn't there be more room for driver error?

You can get a faster time with a manual than you can with an automatic.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added:

Audi S4 '03
Audi S4 '98
Audi S3 '02
Audi RS 4 '01
Audi RS 6 '02
Audi RS 6 Avant '02
BMW M3 GTR Race Car '01
Mitsubishi Lancer EX 1800GSR IC Turbo '83

Of all the Audi's besides the R8, the S4 '03 impresses me most. It's faster than the RS6's except for the newest one, and only just barely slower than the RS4. It's not disgustingly heavy like the RS6's are, nor obscenely overpowered. It's perfect, the ultimate all-rounder 4WD Audi.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added:

Nissan Skyline GT-R (R32) '89
Amuse S2000 R1 '04
Mitsubishi FTO Super Touring Car
Toyota Vitz F '99
Peugeot 206 RC '03

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Added

Renault Sport Megane Trophy '11
BMW 320i Touring Car '03
Volkswagen Scirocco GT24 (Volkswagen Motorsport) '08

And this one that tried to KILL me...

Renault Sport R5 Turbo Rallye '85

I had to hold my breath for the entire lap. I managed a 1:46 best lap on CH tires. Can you beat it?

 

[Thematic]

Renault Sport R5 Turbo Rallye '85

I had to hold my breath for the entire lap. I managed a 1:46 best lap on CH tires. Can you beat it?

Not even close, but a bit of advice that might be of use to anyone risking this: generally countersteer really early, manage throttle in second for a smooth third, and apply both brakes and throttle when approaching the corkscrew (you can brake much later like this).

 

[M3BIMMER 2012]

I was thinking Suzuki, maybe you should try a stock Corvette ZR1 LM, that is, if it is a premium? that should come top of your leaderboard. Great work mate, I can see now what you mean about testing on this track, great time and effort!

 

[MidFieldMaven]

^ I'll give that Corvette a go next time I get on. Should definitely be capable of under 1:40

 

[ALB123]

Added:

1:45.163 - 472 - Mazda Atenza Touring Car
1:53.689 - 411 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 Infiniti III (FC) '90

Let's see how the FC RX-7's compare...

1:53.689 - 411 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 Infiniti III (FC) '90
1:54.405 - 406 - Mazda RX-7 GT-X (FC) '90
1:55.831 - 389 - Mazda Savanna RX-7 GT-Limited (FC) '85

Very nice!

What does "FC" mean?

 

[Thematic]

What does "FC" mean?

Second generation RX-7. The previous is FB but I don't know if it's an abbreviation.

 

[M3BIMMER 2012]

^ I'll give that Corvette a go next time I get on. Should definitely be capable of under 1:40

great, cant wait to see lap time

 

[MidFieldMaven]

Comfort Hards don't do the Corvette LM justice. It has over 800 hp and weighs 1,100 kg. The tires don't stand a chance. The best I could manage was a 1:40.366 and it felt like I was skating on ice the entire time. Not fun at all. Anything over 600 PP is just not meant to be raced on CH tires.

Also tested RUF 3400S '00 with a best lap of 1:47.988

 

[M3BIMMER 2012]

Comfort Hards don't do the Corvette LM justice. It has over 800 hp and weighs 1,100 kg. The tires don't stand a chance. The best I could manage was a 1:40.366 and it felt like I was skating on ice the entire time. Not fun at all. Anything over 600 PP is just not meant to be raced on CH tires.

Also tested RUF 3400S '00 with a best lap of 1:47.988

I expected the corvette result, my corvette is terrible aswell! I just bought that RUF and havnt tried it yet, now you put me off lol

 

[MidFieldMaven]

The RUF is only a tenth slower than the M3 '04 and has the same PP. They are basically identical, performance-wise.

 

[ManicDan]

Comfort Hards don't do the Corvette LM justice. It has over 800 hp and weighs 1,100 kg. The tires don't stand a chance. The best I could manage was a 1:40.366 and it felt like I was skating on ice the entire time. Not fun at all. Anything over 600 PP is just not meant to be raced on CH tires.

Also tested RUF 3400S '00 with a best lap of 1:47.988

the new z06 does it in 1:30 in real life, im curious if you can find out 'about' how good those tires are compared to GT6 tire options. I imagine CS is close.

 

[MidFieldMaven]

the new z06 does it in 1:30 in real life, im curious if you can find out 'about' how good those tires are compared to GT6 tire options. I imagine CS is close.

The new Z06 hasn't been tested at Laguna Seca yet, unfortunately. You're thinking of Road Atlanta. For all Corvettes except for maybe the ZR-1, Comfort Softs are most true-to-life for stock tires.

 

[ManicDan]

The new Z06 hasn't been tested at Laguna Seca yet, unfortunately. You're thinking of Road Atlanta. For all Corvettes except for maybe the ZR-1, Comfort Softs are most true-to-life for stock tires.

woops, major fail on my part. i guess them having close enough lap times my mind went right to Laguna.