George's Car Comparisons - Mercedes E55 AMG - Pictures And Styling Review Added!

Tests​

Information​

I would also go for the NSX because I like cars that oversteer a bit.
Unless your a Subaru fan go for the NSX.
Great comparision!

Could use a little more detail in your driving impressions. Adjectives like "great" are pretty weak, and don't explain what you think is great. You say the cars "went wide" which I assume means understeer, but under what conditions? Corner entry? During trailing throttle sweepers? Under heavy throttle after the apex? In tight transitions?

Also, what convinced you to pit to cars that are only similar in their country of origin against each other?

I'm not trying to attack you here; it's just that a lot more information is needed for these comparisons to become really worthwhile. Give it another shot with some very detailed descriptions of the cars' behaviour.

Now I feel like I should'nt of bothered.

Ok well if you want it in more detailed terms when your in a NSX you can brake later and get more speed out because of the higher acclateration.
In the Subaru Impreza you have to brake earlier and out of the corner there is understeer. Bottom line get the NSX

What was the impetus for this comparo? Just curious because it seems odd to put a front engined 4 cylinder AWD sedan against an MR V6 supercar wannabe.

More power and better aero for the NSX should allow it a higher top speed. Better balance from being an MR should allow it better poise in corners, particularly on tracks with sweepers.

However.... in terms of potential. That's a dicey one. The boxer is a real low CG engine, with great internal balance, capable of some impressive numbers. The powered front wheels of AWD does cause a bit of understeer at the limit, but below that AWD seems to actually help in handling. And it allows you to put the power down sooner and harder, as well as being good at rough conditions like snow, dirt, and water. Plus with a VCD and suspension tuning, the tendency to plow can be mostly tuned out.

Depending on where the powere tops out on each, and depending on the track, I'd bet on the STi on tighter tracks, and the NSX on faster tracks (where it's aero can really play an advantage).

If I were buying with my own money... it would be ab STi without a doubt. It may be a sedan, but.... when looking at the alternative..... even if you push the top of the H together to make it look like an A, it's still a honda. heh heh

The STi is more practical. More cargo space, cheaper, better in bad weather, and with enough power, it's (comparative) lack of handling can be counteracted somewhat. (like an Trans Am vs an Elise. If the track is large enough (bigger than an auto-x course), the T/A can simply out muscle the Elise. It's slightly worse handling becomes an non-issue - that and I've seen an Evo keep up with a Murcielago, and that has a transverse mounted V engine, so it's worse balance than the STi)

George Morley

Now I feel like I should'nt of bothered.

Click to expand...

Duke

Give it another shot with some very detailed descriptions of the cars' behaviour.

Click to expand...

That's why I said this - you've got a good start; it just needs to be punched up a little with some solid, specific information.

Duke - I've added extra information, please judge it better or worse

you should do this with the million dollar race cars that way people dont get dissapointed.

I'm not Duke (obviously, I know... lol) but I hope you don't mind my input.

"might of" should be "might have", or more likely, the contraction "might've" (the one I think you were probably thinking of). Ditto for "shouldn't of" in your other post - "shouldn't have", or "shouldn't've". The last isn't quite "proper", AFAIK, but it's more syntactically correct.

I don't mean to pick on you for grammar, and I'm hardly a gammar-commie, it's just that "of" used where "have or 've " is intended is a bit of a pet peeve.

On the content, the MR configuration shouldn't really slow the car down. What are the P:W ratios for each? How were you launching? What were your TCS/ASM settings? All those would have an impact on the results.

MR will certainly help with braking though. You still get weight transfer to the front, allowing more friction on the front tires, but you also have the engine hanging much futher back, leading to more weight in back, even with weight transfer in effect. This more evenly spreads the load.

And as you also noted, the MR config allowed for not only later braking, but crisper exits.

However, it's also interesting to note that despite more total power, higher top speed, better aero, _and_ better balance, the NSX only managed a half second advantage.

The Subaru 'Got Torque'.

290 ft lbs vs 224 ft lbs is a big difference. And the honda has to rev higher (as is normally the case with them). The 'area under the curve' is greater for the Subaru. This gives it more grunt where it's needed, down low, and allows it to power it's way to nearly the same time as a more poised and technically better balanced car.

A friend of mine has an 04 (or is it 05? I forget) STi, IRL, and it has a VCD from the factory. With that, you could tune out some of the tendency to plow on corner exit by reducing the power sent to the front wheels. Of course, IRL, we don't need to spend 17 grand on a full suspension just to get new sway bars, but, I digress.... lol

Overall, a good write up. An odd mix of vehicles to compare, but it lead to a fun discussion at least.



EDIT - doh! Don't mind me. It's friday. lol

George Morley

Subaru Impreza Sedan WRX STI


276 Bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 290.76 ft/lbs @ 4400 rpm
Weight - 1440 kg


Acura NSX

289 Bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque - 224.21 ft/lbs @ 5500 rpm
Weight - 1430 kg

Click to expand...

So that's 3168lbs for the STi, and 3146lbs for the NSX. 22lbs difference. That could easily be accounted for just by putting different drivers in the car.

At peak, it's 11.49 lbs per HP for the STi, and 10.89 lbs per HP for the NSX. Only .6 lbs worse for the STi. Very close.

And when looking at Torque, the STi has 10.9 lbs of weight for every ft/lbs, while the NSX has 14.03.

And we also see that the torque peak for the Subaru is 1100 rpm lower, and the HP peak is 1100 rpm lower as well.

More torque overall, with the peak coming in at lower revs implies what I mentioned earlier, more area under the curve. This translates to more grunt down low in the rev range, and the ability to use taller gear ratios. Coupled with AWD, the greater acceleration is not surprising at all.

But, on a track where one is accelerating a lot, wider gear ratios and more grunt down low mean having to change gears less frequently, and being able to stay in the power band longer in each gear.

This is why the STi came within .5 seconds of the NSX.

It would be interesting to see how that plays out on other tracks. On Suzuka, I would imagine the NSX would crush the STi. But at Laguna, it might be a difference story. The 'ring would be very interesting as well.

And if you factor in initial cost, and upgrade potential.... I'm still leaning toward the STi. More bang for the buck, and no apparent overall performance handicap.

GotTorque

An odd mix of vehicles to compare

Click to expand...

Thats what I thought at first, but some aspects (weight, 400 meters) are pretty close.

I've added P/W, it's something I forgot at the start and you reminded me, thanks 👍

you should do this with the million dollar race cars that way people dont get dissapointed.

Click to expand...

A very detalied comparrison about 100bhp cars would be better than a not detailed one with 600bhp Race Cars, not to be rude, but I find that a very strange comment.

+REP, great idea, and terrific first effort. Excellent feedback from Duke and others as well.

I will definitely be looking forward to reading your future detailed comparisons. 👍

I would like to hear some comparos on similar-priced cars, personally. I really like NSXs, mainly because they're rare, expensive, and one of the few Japanese supercars still in production. But it would be more realistic and worth your hard-earned money (I'm talking about IRL here) if you went and spent it on the WRX STI, because it costs...around $30,000, more or less? Thats about a third of the NSX price, with similar power output, more torque, AWD, well balanced chassis (because of the low-placed Boxer 4), and if you plan on tuning it, aftermarket parts are abundant and usually cheaper than NSX parts. It may not handle as well as an NSX, but if you're just someone who drives it daily and probably go on the freeway occasionally but still wants to go fast, there aren't many occasions where you'll need to put your car into Autocross limits. But hey, if you got the money, go for the NSX.

George Morley

Infiniti G35 Coupe

Click to expand...

If you're goign to get the G35 in this comparison, you might as well compare it to a 350Z (Z33) model , I'd be really attracted to that since I created a thread about which one was better but in real life; a comparison in GT4 wouldn't be bad at all


Ciao!

This just seemed like a fun thing to mess around with. Particularly when I was bored at work. lol

So tonight I gave it a shot myself, and got some rather interesting results.

I already had an '02 STi, and as it had no undoable mods (no weight redux or balancing or polishing), I stripped it bare of all parts, and set off.

Unfortunately, it has had an oil change, and also has 80 miles on it. But I wouldn't think that to be all that big of a deal. And yet.... the power figures on it are *way* high.

I also had to actually go buy a honda.... :/ Ah well, nothing lasts forever I guess. lol

Since I knew the STi had the benefit of an oil change, I gave the NSX one as well. And decided to let the Stig have a go at it. Put some miles on it, break it in, and try to re-seat the original power balance a bit.

So...

First up was the STi. I was the only one to run this. I decided, just for kicks, to get some N3s as well.

On the N3s, I ran it as hard as I could, and the best I could manage was 1:08.115.

The understeer was really bad at times. However, good hard braking while turning would kick the tail out and it was very controllable.

With the S2s fitted, it was a whole new beast. I ran a 1:04.753 with it. That's a huge difference. The understeer was largely (but by NO means, entirely) eliminated, and so was the ability to kick the tail out under hard braking (no e-brake use, I'm not very good at that lol).

Then I got the NSX. Post oil change, with N3s on it, I let the Stig run the track about 7 laps to get used to it. I coached him as best I could, and he put in a pretty good 1:06.583.

So next up was me. This car was completely different from the Subaru in nearly every respect. Gear changes were slow. Acceleration down low was poor, but not quite as bad as I expected. Once in a set, it would hang on very well. Almost 7mph faster in that last sweeper just before the line. However, it would lock up the wheels under hard braking, and would understeer if pushed too hard.

The best I could manage was 1:06.475. It took me about 10 laps. lol I was determined to beat the B-Spec driver's time, no matter how long it took. lol (normally I smoke his times, but on occasion, he surprises me)

N3 Tires (supposedly, super stick street tires)
NSX - 1:06.475
STi - 1:08.115

Quite a difference. Larger than I expected actually.

So next up was S2 tires.

Once again I was surprised. As mentioned above, S2 tires transformed the STi, and really improved lap times substantially. The surprise was that I expected the same from the NSX, and it just wasn't to be.

The best I could manage with it (and I was really pushing, gave it about 7 or 8 laps too to make sure I wrang it out entirely), was 1:04.482.

Still a substantial improvement, it stopped locking up the brakes, allowed deeper, later braking, and held on for more speed in the large corners, and understeered a bit less. Just, not to the same degree that the STi was changed.

So in the end -
S2 Tires
NSX - 1:04.482
STi - 1:04.753


I'm convinced there is more in both cars. Particularly the Subaru. That track really favors MR cars though. Those turns are long enough that they tend to induce understeer, and front engined cars are going to end up suffering more.

When I looked in my garage, I found the STi does in fact have a VCD from the factory. And it's set at 45 by default. Turning that down should really help that car at that track. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see it tie or beat the NSX with a little tweaking. (and on my friends, it's a switch right on the center console, so it's not a mod or cheating. )


On a side note, the Stig managed only a meager 1:05.483 with S2s on the NSX.

I found that interesting too. Seems as though he's better with N3 tires. Not sure how to explain that one. lol


Oh, the power, the STi had 326 HP and 342 lb ft of TQ, while the NSX had 295 HP and 235 lb of TQ.

That's what I was mentioning earlier. Seems odd that an oil change would be that drastic for only one car. But, I have heard that they did in fact have more than 300HP from the factory. (here at least) Dunno.



Edit / Update -

I got the HP and TQ figures for the STi reversed. I fixed it above, so it's correct now.

Wanting to play with the VCD, I went back and re-fitted the N3 tires. What I found was interesting. It seemed that moving it forward actually helped times.
N3 :
35/55 - 1:07.xxx (forgot the last bit and it fell off the top 10 board)
50/50 - 1:06.729

Then back to S2s again to see if the results were the same.
S2 :
35/55 - 1:04.232
50/50 - 1:04.096

They were... just. With N3 tires, 50/50 was acutally easier to drive, and more drift-y, of all things. With S2 tires, 35/55 felt easier to drive, but, 50/50 was somehow able to hang on just a hair more in long corners and edged out by .136 seconds.


Tsukuba was never really a favorite track of mine, and so I never used it much. I wondered if the improving lap times were in part due to the constant lapping. So I re-tried the NSX to keep things fair. Of course it should be said that 1:04.096 is actually faster than the previous best NSX time by nearly 4 tenths of a second. Impressive IMO.

Also, I wanted to add more mileage to the NSX to help break it in and maybe bring the power up a bit, I lapped about 14 times on N3s in 1 go. I was eventually able to manage a 1:05.863, after several very, very low 1:06 laps. A total improvement of .612 seconds. And there was nothing to adjust on the car. It was just familiarity with the track, and the car, and experimenting with different lines and shifting methods. (Also interesting to note that with 50/50, the STi was able to come within .254 seconds of the original NSX N3 time)

On S2s, the story was the same as before. A massive improvement in feel, but a small improvement in time. 1:03.849 was the best I could manage (after about 8 straight laps). A .633 second improvement.

But in the end, the NSX was .866 seconds faster with N3 tires, and .247 seconds faster with S2 tires.

Still the faster car, entirely due to it's poise, balance, and braking potential (on S2s at least), but, only _just_. With any mods, I think the STi would in fact be the faster car. At least on that track. And probably on Laguna, and the Nürburgring. But slower on La Sarthe and Suzuka.


What I found was happening on N3s with the VCD split 50/50 (in the STi), was that the front wheels were actually pulling the car through the turn, while the back was more likely to slide. Pretty much the opposite of what I expected. It dialed down the understeer quite a lot. But the effect was, as I mentioned, much less pronounced, and almost inverted, with S2 tires.


BTW - if I'm breaking ettequette or stepping on any toes with my contributions, let me know.

Next Comparison wll be written down and posted in a few days.

Ok,I've made a few comparisons I'm going to do.

Infiniti G35 Coupe - Nissan 350Z Gran Turismo Edition.
Renault Clio 16V Phase II - Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport.
Nissan Skyline Speed 8 - ?????

Ok, heres the Infiniti - Nissan Comparison



256 Bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 259.66 flt/lbs @ 4800 rpm
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.773
Weight - 1513 kg
Price - 30,720
Drivetrain - FR
Year - 2003

400 Meters Time - 14.519 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 26.275 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 157.48 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Lap Time - 1'07.012


The Infiniti surpirsed me on Tsubuka, it, being a big and heavy car, I was expecting it to understeer alot, but, it taken every corner very smoothly, it's brakes are good aswell, I did'nt loose control of the Infiniti while braking, once in 7 Laps.
So, the Infiniti has good handling, but the two things it lacks most are speed and acceleration, when you rev it up for the 400 Meters, it sounds feirce, but, you end up getting a time near the 15 Seconds mark.
If your going to race on tracks such as Autumn Ring, this would'nt be a bad car to choose, but if your racing on Test Course or another track with lots of long straights, then it wont be such a good choice.
Its quite a fair price at 30,720, not to expensive, but could be slightly cheaper, you could buy a Subaru Impreza for less money.







295 Bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque - 259.66 ft/lbs @ 4800 rpm
Power To Weight Ratio - 4.792
Weight - 1440 kg
Price - 36,000
Drivetrain - FR
Year - 2005

400 Meters Time - 14.079 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 25.289 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 175.65 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Time - 1'05.288



The Nissan had some small wheelspin off the line in the 400 and 1000 meters, this slowed it down slightly as it produced a 400 Meter time a few hundreths fast than the Infinitis of 14.079 Seconds.


At Tsubuka the Nissan was the best, it cruised through the corners with ease, I did'nt go wide once in the 7 Laps of practise. It's brakes were very good aswell, I did'nt loose control over them anywhere on the track.

The Nissan is quite a bit lighter than the Infiniti aswell, this was probably one of the reasons why the Infiniti was beaten by 2 Seconds over the Nissan.

Conclusion​

Ok, I've come to the conclusion that the Nissan rules over the Infiniti, despite it being 6,000 more than the Infiniti, it can munch a 2 second lead per lap on Tsubuka, it also has a much faster top speed, and is marginly faster acceleration.

So, I reccomend the Nissan all the way, in each test it beaten the Infiniti.
One thing though, the Nissan was a special Gran Turismo Version, maybe the Infiniti would have a fairer chance against the original Nissan Z . . . .

Hello,

Here I am comparing two Japanese, high perfromence road cars, the Acura NSX (2004) and the Subaru Impreza Sedan WRX STI (2002)
I hope this comparison will help you if your deciding on a car to buy.

Both cars are 100% stock (No Oil Change) and run on S2 (Sports Medium) tires.


Subaru Impreza Sedan WRX STI


276 Bhp @ 6000 rpm
Torque - 290.76 ft/lbs @ 4400 rpm
Power To Weight Raito - 4.568
Weight - 1440 kg
Price 28,950
Drivetrain - 4WD
Year - 2002


400 Meters Time - 12.889 Seconds.

1000 Meters Time - 24.193 Seconds.

Max Speed - 167.38 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Lap Time - 1'05.739


The acceleration on the Subaru is very shakey, but still, a promising time from the Impreza.

On the Max Speed Test, I found the Impreza slightly unstable at speeds of over 155 Mph, it acted slightly like a my Toyota Supra with Drving Aids turned off. It started sliding slightly, but I could control it through and out of the corner without massive speed loss.

On Tsubuka, the Subaru understeered when I tried to accelerate out of the corners, the cure for this is to go at a neutral speed for slightly longer going out of the corner, so instead of going om to the grass on exit, you go onto the rumble strips.

Since I have'nt driven the Impreza much before these tests, I did'nt know about its braking, when you come to brake, the DS2 started vibrating alot, the Impreza can sometimes be a handful to control when braking hard.









Acura NSX

289 Bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque - 224.21 ft/lbs @ 5500 rpm
Power To Weight Raito - 5.023
Weight - 1430 kg
Price - 94,440
Drivetrain - MR
Year - 2004


400 Meters - 14.012 Seconds

1000 Meters - 25.249 Seconds

Max Speed - 174.55 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Lap Time - 1'05.231


The Acura was somewhat slower than the Impreza both in the 400 and 1000 Meter Tests, that was made up for when it acheived a speed of 174.55 in the Max Speed Test. There was'nt any wheelspin off the line, but the NSX has less Torque than the Impreza and is an MR, which might of slowed it down slightly.

On Tsubuka, the Acura was great, I could accelerate out of corners earlier than the Impreza, and it was funner to drive.
It was much smother through the corners aswell, the Impreza was quite bumpy at times.

The braking and acceleration on the Acura is much smoother than the Subaru's, this is good for long distance races to help save tire wear, and it helps the driver to have more control over the car, so you can enter corners with a better line.










Conclusion

The Acura is a very good car, good through corners, and on straights once it's sped up, I highly reccomend it over the Impreza. The only big thing holding it back is its price, its over 50,000 more than the Impreza, but it could be classed as a Sub - Supercar.

If your aiming for quick accelration over short distances, go for the Impreza, anything else, go for the Acura (unless you have'nt got much money).


Unless you don't have the money, I reccomend the Acura all the way, I hope you enjoied reading this Comparison, please comment

nice comparos, George! comparing cars that seem to be from different category can bring surprising results. thus, I suggest that you'd compare the NSX against MR2 SC'86 on El Capitan, just to see which one is better.

but shouldn't this be in race reports like the rest of comparisons are?

Heres my next comparison, I was going to use the used Renault Clio + Chevrolet Grand Sport, but then decided to do a hot hatch battle using a Renault Clio Phase II and Alfa Romeo 147 GTA

Renault Clio Sport V6 Phase II​

Bhp - 251 @ 7150 Rpm
Torque - 221.32 Ft/Lbs @ 4150 Rpm
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.375
Weight - 1400 Kg
Drivetrain - MR
Price - 53,720
Year - 2003

400 Meters - 13.964 Seconds

1000 Meters - 25.529 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 156.09 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Lap Time - 1'05.917


At the 400 and 1000 Meter Tests, the Renault was great, straight off the line and crossed the goals very quickly and smoothly with no fuss.

When it came to the Max Speed Test, the Renault was great, until it reached speeds of over 145 Mph, then it became very unstable and hard to control.

The Renaults turning abilities are great in 5 Laps, the Renault did'nt understeer at all.

But the braking could be better, at one or two times, I lost control over the brakes, causing the car to skid slightly, loosing me time.















Bhp - 246 @ 6200 Rpm
Torque - 221.32 Ft/Lbs @ 4800 Rpm
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.439
Weight - 1360 Kg
Drivetrain - FF
Price - 48,040
Year - 2002


400 Meters Time - 15.372 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 27.122 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 156.38 Mph

Tsubuka Circuit Lap Time - 1'08.969


The Alfa is very bumpy and quite slow off the line, the Renaults 400 Meter Time was over a second faster than the Alfa's.

At the Max Speed test, the Alfa just got in a faster time than the Renaults, 0.3 Mph faster.

At Tsubuka, the Alfa Romeo understeered lots, I had to take the corners quite alot slower than I could take them in the Renault, this made it's Lap Time over 3 Seconds slower than the Renaults.

The brakes are'nt bad, I slipped a few times in 5 Laps, this was mainly when I was braking hard for the last hairpin.



The Renault is 5,000 more than the Alfa, but it's worth it, it's better than the Alfa in nearly every way.

Slap a spolier on the Renault and add downforce and It'll be much easier to handle at high speeds.

The fact that the Alfa is FF makes it unsteer alot, and it looses 3 Seconds per lap to a heavier car with 5 more Bhp, and Tsubuka is a very short track.

I hope you enjoied reading

Hey could anyone test any NSX against the Corvette Grand Sport?? I ran the 'ring with this odd blue car and it fel very good!! I was impressed!

Nice comparsions from George Morley and GotTorque
Very nice topic!

dkstz

Hey could anyone test any NSX against the Corvette Grand Sport??

Click to expand...

I will, the Chevrollet need a rival.

Edit - Just realized I don't have the Grand Sport, I'll use the next least powerful one up unless it comes into the car lot next . .

Hi George, I think it's a great idea that your writting yout own car comparisons, i do the same thought of thing all the time and it's half the reason why i play GT4. I have actually just started a small 'backyard' type website that gives reviews on specific GT4 cars i own and i would also like to venture into writing comparisons also.

Keep up the good work

I had this idea to make a Jeep comparison, the 4WD Honda Element will take on the FF Toyota Voltz in this one off battle to be crowned the king of low powered Jeeps.

Honda Element​

Bhp - 157 @ 5500 Rpm
Torque - 160.57 Ft/Lbs @ 4500 Rpm
Weight - 1560 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 9.701
Drivetrain - 4WD

Length - 4300 Cm
Width - 1815 Cm

Price - 25,900
Year - 2003


Additional - I added 1 set of HKS Dirt rally tires.



400 Meters Time - 21.369 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 111.77 Mph

Cathedral Rocks Trail I Lap Time - 2'20.786


The Honda Element has extremelly long gears, this caused it to be very slow at the 400 Meters Test, it crossed the 400 Meters line in the time some 260 Bhp cars could cross the 1000 Meter Line.

Things wer'nt going to get much better at Cathedral Rocks either, the Hondas long gears held it back, again. If your going to use a Honda Element for rallies, dont bother changing gear, it'll slow you down even more.

Toyota Voltz S​

Bhp - 130 @ 6000 Rpm
Torque - 125.12 Ft.Lbs @ 4200 Rpm
Weight - 1250 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 9.384
Drivetrain - FF

Length - 4365 Cm
Width - 1775 Cm

Price - 17,880
Year - 2002


Additional - I added 1 set of TOM'S, Rally Dirt Tires


400 Meters Time - 18.036 Seconds

Max Speed - 116.54 Mph

Cathedral Rocks Trail I Lap Time - 2'22.575



In the 400 Meters Test, the Toyota beaten the Honda by 3 Seconds, it has the same 4 Gears as the Honda, but they're no way near as long.

The Voltz also beaten the Element at the Max Speed test, reaching 116.54 Mph.

When it came to the lap of Cathedral Rocks, I was possitive the Toyota would win over the Element because of their gearboxes, I was wrong, the Toyota lost to the Honda by 2 seconds.

Conculsion​

The Voltz has much better acceleration than the Element, but looses out when it comes to rallying, if your buying either cars for Tarmac Racing, I reccomend the Toyota all the way, if your using it for Rally Racing, I reccomend the Honda.

The Toyota Voltz is also much cheaper than the Honda, 8,000 cheaper infact, and, it's a better overall car in my opinion.


Rally Racing = Honda Element
Tarmac Racing = Toyota Voltz

I hope you enjoied this comparison, please leave comments

George, the Voltz is not an off-road car...or an SUV. It is a rebadged Pontiac Vibe.

Oh well, dose'nt matter that much

Nice work George; very informative reading here in this thread. If I may make a suggestion for a comparison? Perhaps the Shelby 427 Cobra vs. the AC Cars 427 S/C? I was thinking of doing this recently, but I had to start the game over so I've no access to them right now. Well, keep up the good work!

If I can get enough money Dude maybe I will . . ..

Since I'm low on ideas, I shall now accept requests (sounds weird I know )

I will compare 2 cars of another members choice if you post the cars in this thread.

A few rules though.

The combined car value cannot exeed 250,000.
No race cars.
No modifications allowed.

The Chevy SSR and Ford F150 Lightning. See how they fare.