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

dkstz

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!

Click to expand...

Trust me, it didn't just "feel" good.

I had decided to continue the STi vs NSX thing on my own, going to my 2 main testing tracks - Laguna and the 'ring. I was testing each car on N3 and S2 tires, and the STi at 35/65 and 50/50 torque split on both tire types. (in case anyone is curious, the STi was faster at both tracks on S2s, but slower on N3s)

Meanwhile, in another thread, someone said the C4 GS was "hopless". So I got a stock one, changed the oil, refreshed the chassis, and headed off. Ran it at Tsukuba, Laguna and the 'ring.

It was faster than both cars at the first 2 tracks, and faster than the NSX (by about 2 seconds, running an 8 minute dead lap) on the 'ring.

In stock trim, it's geared too tall for it's power, since it is a road car, and fuel economy is a consideration. (CAFE laws)

Change that to a fully tunable 6 speed and tweak it, and it'll monster the NSX. Even just changing the rear would be enough (though not quite as good). But in either case, be careful of wheel spin. It can already light up S2's in high revs in 1st and 2nd, and get the tail out.

As requested, here is the Ford SVT 150 Lightning compared to the Chevrollet SSR



Bhp - 379
Torque - 449.88 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FR
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.532
Weight - 2132 Kg
Price - 35,050

400 Meters Time - 14.231 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 147.79 Mph

Midfeild Raceway Time - 1'29.702


For a Pick Up Truck which weighs over Two Tons, the Ford was very nice through the corners, and if you keep it at the perfect speed, it won't understeer at-all.

At the Test Course, I thought that the Ford gave a very promising 400 Meters Time, and a quite surprsing Max Speed of 147 Mph.

The brakes on the Lightning are pretty good, the turning could be lighter, but it gets the job done.

Chevrolet SSR​

Bhp - 289
Torque - 324.75 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FR
Power To Weight Ratio - 7.645
Weight - 2248 Kg
Price - 44,560

400 Meters Time - 15.940 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 136.98 Mph

Midfeild Raceway Lap Time - 1'35.467


Looking at the Chevrolet, you'll probaly think it's much lighter than the Ford, the Chevrolet dose'nt look heavy at all really.

Well, the Chevrolet is well over 200 kg heavier than the Ford, probaly because of all the roof stuff (the Chevrolets a softop).

At Midfeild the Chevrolet sucked compared to the Ford, the Chevrolet did'nt feel fast at all, I did the best driving I could to get a lap time close to the Ford's, but I could only make a time of 1'35.102, 6 Seconds slower than the Ford. But then, the Chevrolet is heavier, has less Bhp and less Torque . . .

The brakes are quite good, not amazing, not cra, but not as good as the Fords either, I never lost control over them, but they are'nt as strong as the Fords.

On the Handling front, it's got pretty good handling, but it's sometimes hard to keep all that weight under control.

To Conclude . . . .​

If you had to choose one, choose the Ford, infact if you had to choose any Pick Up Truck, choose the Ford.
It dominates every other Pick Up Truck, Especilly the Chevrollet SSR, which take me to talk about it . . .

The Chevrolet is the worst Pick Up Truck in my opinion, not just because of this test, but because of it's price, the Ford is much better and cheaper than the Chevy, unless you want a good looking Pick Up Truck, I say Ford all the way .

Hope this helps the one who requested it and everybody else, enjoy and please comment

Why don't you compare the SSR and the Toyota Tacoma X-Runner. The SSR is slightly more powerful I think, but the Toyota is much lighter. It would be a good test.

xjr-9

I followed the cars that wanted to be compared

The SSR is a retractable hardtop, not a softtop.

Thats what I meant .......

Here's my latest idea, the under 5,000 car challenge, the only 2 cars I could find in the used car garage that I thought would make a challenge were the Honda Ballade Sports CRX and the Honda Civic 1500 3 Door 25I



Bhp - 98
Torque - 91.05 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 815 Kg
Drivetrain - FF
Year - 1983
Price - 4,444 - Used Car Lot 80's

400 Meters Time - 18.320 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 33.011 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 124.83 Mph

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'45.189


The Honda CRX was much faster than I thought at the Test Course, no wheelspin, although at 115 Mph, it became slightly unstable, I lost no speed.

I was surprised at Autumn Ring aswell, after 4 Laps, I had'nt made any Major mistakes.

The CRX has good brakes aswell, it's not hard at-all to keep the car under control when braking hard, and it has nice handling, maybe this is because it's a very light car, under a ton.

Although, I'm thinking the 'Sports' pack will give an advantage over the Civic.

Honda Civc 1500 3 Door​

Bhp - 89
Torque - 86.14 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 815 Kg
Drivetrain - FF
Year - 1983
Price - 4,161

400 Meters Time - 18.958 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 33.770 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 116.25 Mph

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'46.902


The Civic felt much quicker than I had expected at the Test Course, it looked set to produce a fast speed, it was only a few Mph slower than the CRX, and around half a second slower at the 400 and 1000 Meters.

At Autumn Ring, the Civic felt very similar to the CRX, but in the end, was over a second slower than the CRX.

Conclusion​

The Civic and CRX are two very similar cars, exept from the fact the CRX is slightly faster.

I'd choose the CRX over the Civic, even though it's onlt marganly better than the Civic, and it's the slightest bit more expensive.


Sorry, but these cars are so similar, I don't have as much to say, please comment though

In this comparison, I will be comparing the Nissan R89C to the Nissan R92CP

Nissan R89C​

Year - 1989
Bhp - 788
Torque - 578.63 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 900 Kg

400 Meters Tme - 9.405 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 16.608 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 231.45 Mph

Fuji Speedway 2005 GT Lap Time - 1'26.502



The Nissan was faster than I expected at Max Speed Test, the Mph was slowly going up when it was at redline, and reached 230 Mph.


The Nissan R89C is extremmelly fast and sometimes hard to control when accelerating out of corners, it's great if you kept it at the right speed, but a few Mph faster and you could be into the sand pit.

The R89C has very good brakes in the way they stop you soon, but brake to hard and you could loose control.

The Nissan can be quite a tyre eater aswell, and braking to hard could badly damage your tyres, this could be bad in an Edurence Race.

Of course, to get the Nissan though, you have to complete Driving Mission 34 . . . . .

Nissan R92CP​

Year - 1992
Bhp - 788
Torque - 578.63 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 900 Kg

400 Meters Time - 9.554 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 16.583 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 237.08 Mph

Fuji Speedway 2005 GT Lap Time -1'24.949


At the Test Course, the R92CP blew the R89C away at Top Speed, 7 Mph faster.
But, the R89C was better at 400 Meters, only by a few tenths though.

At Fuji, both Nissans were extremelly similar, after a few laps, the R29CP's best was 1.5 Seconds faster than the R89C's best.

These two cars are extremelly similar in nearly every way, same Bhp, same Torque, they share the same engine, exept the Nissan R92CP is 3 years newer than the Nissan R89C.

How to win.

Nissan R89C - Complete driving missions 30-34
Nissan R92CP - Win the Fuji 1000Km Endurence.

This test was a request. Ford Mustang GT - Holden Monaro



Bhp - 295
Torque - 319 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FR
Weight - 1568 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.230


400 Meters Time - 14.876 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 26.396 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 157.08 Mph

Laguna Seca Lap Time - 1'45.918


The Mustang was much quicker than I thought, I was expecting around 145 Mph, it was going 155 Mph, speed slowly rising, by the end of the lap.

I knew the Mustang would be a handful at Laguna Seca, in 6 Laps, I went wide sevral times, I worked out, in thw Mustang, it's either going to be a great corner, or a crap corner, no in-between, if you can pull of every corner perfectly, you'll be performing fast laps.

The handling is'nt bad at high speeds, I was still very stable at around 140 Mph around the corner, but, on the track, the Mustang goes very wide if you accelerate out of the apex at the wrong time.

The brakes are'nt bad either, they are'nt the best brakes, but they could be worse, it's not very easy to loose control over tham, and they stop quite qucikly.

Holden Monaro​

Bhp - 328
Torque - 342 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FR
Weight - 1658 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.054

400 Meters Time - 14.064 Seconds

1000 Meters - 25.039 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 169.67 Mph

Laguna Seca Lap Time - 1'44.753


I was amazed at the Holdens Test Course Speed, a tad away from 170 Mph, destroying the speed previously set by the Mustang, and it did'nt wobble one little bit, that was'nt all, the Holden also beaten the Mustang at both the 400 and 1000 Meter tests, not by much though, a few tenths at 400, and just over a second at 1000.

I was slightly let down at Laguna Seca though, the Holden is great through lighter turns, but when it comes to tighter corners, it's either very slow or very wide.

Despite that, the Holden still managed to beat the Mustangs time by 1.2 Seconds, this is probaly because the Holden was making up lots of time on the straights.

High speed handling is great, it's track handling is quite similar to the Mustangs, exept the Holden is a bit heavier to handle.

When to buy​

High Speed - Holden
Fast Accleration - Holden
Light Conrer Handling - Holden
Tight Corner Handling - Ford
Looks (In My Opinion) - Ford
Less Money - Ford (25,000) Holden 47,000
Most Power - Holden

A celica GT-Four vs. A Honda S2000 would be interesting I think 👍

Which Celica GT4 - There are so many

As requested the Toyota Celica GT-Four will take on the Honda S2000




Bhp - 185
Torque - 176 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - 4WD
Weight - 1350 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 7.307
Price - 10,450

400 Meters Time - 16.316 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 29.454 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 150.85 Mph

Fuji Speedway 90's Lap Time - 159.596



The GT-Four is quite a fast car, with 185 Bhp, it can go 151 Mph, 400 Meter time 16 Seconds.

It's very good handling aswell, 4 Laps of Fuji 90's, no major mistakes, it did'nt understeer at-all, I was able to keep it fast through the corners, and control it on the straights very easily.

The brakes are good aswell, very easy to keep control of, and quite powerful.

All of this costs just over 10,000 from the used car lot, very good value for money as this car is also great at rallying.

Honda S2000​

Bhp - 246
Torque - 160 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FR
Weight - 1250 Kg
Power To Weight Ratio - 5.064
Price - 35,000

400 Meter Time - 14.711 Seconds

1000 Meter Time - 26.782 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 160.70 Mph

Fuji Speedway 90's Lap Time - 1'49.774


From the time the 400 Meter run time came up, I knew that the GT-Four was going to loose badly to the S2000. I was right, the S2000 was 2 seconds fast at the 400 Meters, and 3 Seconds faster at the 1000 Meters, then, it's top speed test was 10 Mph faster than the Toyota, and to round it all off, the Honda was just over 10 Seconds faster than the Toyota at Fuji Speedway.

It's speed, the Toyota looses out lots on speed and accelration.

The Honda's brakes are very stable, but have'nt got any power, I had to brake early for most corners, and had a bit of trouble at the chicane on a few laps.

The handling makes up for the brakes though, it's brilliant, it never understeered, it's light, so its easy to control. I got every corner apex perfect, accelrated out, I did'nt go onto the grass at-all either.

When to buy​

Speed - Honda
Acceleration - Honda
Weight - Honda
Looks (In My Opinion) - Toyota
Value For Money - Toyota (10,450) - Honda 35,000
Handling - Honda

Hope you enjoied reading

You made a huge mistake here, the Celice GT-FOUR is the 4WD model with 260 HP, not the FF model with 185 HP

Sorry, I was wondering why you chosen those cars

Next request gets chosen... and I'll get it right this time

Ok this is kind of a off the topic question but on the TC isnt a decently fast car under 0.58 seconds?

Under 58 Seconds?
Sorry don't understand.

Any requests?

Ok, after reading a paticular thread, and recieving no new requests, I decided to make a comparison myself, the Nismo 400r will take on the Mazda RX-8 Type S Supercharged

Mazda RX-8 Type S Supercharged​

Bhp - 246 - 386 With Supercharger
Torque - 159 Ft.Lbs - 260 Ft.Lbs with Supercharger
Weight - 1310 Kg
Drivetrain - FR
Price - 27,500 - 41,000 With Supercharger Added

400 Meter Time - 13.436 Seconds

1000 Meter Time- 23.449 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 184.04 Mph

Motorland Lap Time - 48.000 Seconds


Wow, I never expected the Supercharger would make that much of a speed diffrence, when the Mazda had reached 180 Mph, it was still very stable, and I thought the Mazda would beat the Nismo so much, I may as well stop now.

The Motorland lap was quite fast, I went wide 4 times on the last bend in 9 laps, but not many 350+ Bhp cars are easy to keep control of all the time at Motorland.

The brakes are quite powerfull, I did'nt loose time from sliding around when braking hard, there's quite alot of that on Motorland.

Overall, the Mazda RX-8 Supercharged is a great car, extremmely fast in the straight line speed catagory, and even better, it costs only 13,000 to turn the Mazda into a complete beast.

Nismo 400R​

Bhp - 401
Torque - 345 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 1550 Kg
Drivetrain - 4WD
Price - Won from completing Japan 90's Cup

400 Meters Time - 13.108 Seconds

1000 Meters Time - 24.074 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 179.87 Mph

Motorland Lap Time - 47.553 Seconds


After retesting the Nismo at the Max Speed test, it acheived 179 Mph, 8 Mph faster than before, but 5 Mph slower than the Mazda.



At Motorland, the Nismo was staying on the line very well, not going wide very often at-all, it has more power and torque than the Mazda, but is over 200 Kgs heavier, lighter cars perform well at Motorland.

Despite it being heavier, the Nismo was 0.5 Seconds faster than the Mazda after 9 Laps.


The Nismo is won, so it wont cost anything to buy, but this dose'nt mean the Mazda is worse than it.
I still think the Mazda is marganly better, but there are better Skylines than the 400r.



Thanks for reading, please comment and request

interesting comparson IMO i think the RX8 is better because I THINK it handles better than the nismo

Wait, so you messed up and got a worse top speed in the Nismo and you didn't redo it to make it right?

Heres some requests
VW Golf V GTI vs Honda Civic Type R
RX-8 vs RX-7
Honda Integra Type R (DC2) vs Honda Integra Type R(DC5)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 8 MR GSR vs Subaru Impreza WRX STi Spec C (could be a name war )

Ebiggs

Wait, so you messed up and got a worse top speed in the Nismo and you didn't redo it to make it right?

Click to expand...

No, I am doing though...

VW Golf V GTI vs Honda Civic Type R

Click to expand...

That shall be the next comparison

Another request, the Honda Civic Type R will take on the Volkswagen Golf GTI in another, Hot Hatch Battle.





Bhp - 212
Torque - 148 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FF
Weight - 1190 Kg
Price - 23,310
Year - 2004

400 Meter Time - 15.785 Seconds

1000 Meter Time - 27.949 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 152.32 Mph

Opera Paris Lap Time - 1'41.945


The Civic was the average Hot Hatch at Test Course, 15 Second 400 Meter Time, and a Top Speed just over 150 Mph, not much wheelspin of the line, but that classic controller vibration which you get on most FF cars.

The Civic felt like quite a good car at Opera Paris, after 4 laps I learnt that if you go wrong, the Civic will understeer lots, but if you keep it right, it can produce very fast laps.

Handlingwise is the same as lots of FF's, it has great handling, but it an change quickly when you make mistakes such as going wide.

The brakes are powerful, but it's not always easy to keep the Civic under control when braking hard for the tight corners on Opera.

Volkwagen Golf V GTI​

Bhp - 197
Torque - 206 Ft.Lbs
Drivetrain - FF
Weight - 1336 Kg
Price - 32,750
Year - 2005

400 Meter Time - 15.784 Seconds

1000 Meter Time - 28.319 Seconds

Max Speed Test - 145.00 Mph

Opera Paris Lap Time - 1'42.691


At 400 Meters, despite the Volkswagen having around 30 Meters (my estimate) of wheelspin at the start, it still beaten the Honda Civic by 0.001 Seconds, that feel apart though when the Volkwagen was slower by around 0.4 Seconds at 1000 Meters and acheived a Top Speed of 145 Mph, it seemed to stay at that for nearly the whole back straight.

At Opera Paris, the Volkswagen had a tendancy to want to go wide much easier than the Honda, it needed lighter and a not as aggressive driving style as the Honda to be staying in line and making the corners as fast as I could. After 4 laps, the Volkswagens best was just 0.7 Seconds slower than the Hondas best, a time of 1'42.691 secured the Honda the victory.

Despite the Honda beating the Volkwasgen in all tests but the 400 Meters, the Honda is 9,000 less than the Volkswagen, and, in my opinion, the Honda is a better all round car.

So, needing a Hot Hatch? Out of these two I reccomend the Honda Civic Type R, avalible from the Honda showroom, thanks for reading, I hope you enjoied it, please comment

This is a special comparison which is based on track day cars, so far the following will be tested on Autumn Ring.

Caterham 7 Fireblade
TVR 350C
BMW M3
RUF RGT
Gathers Civic Race Car

Of course the majority of cars at track days have at least a few modificatons added to give them a small boost.

Catherham 7 Fireblade​

Stock Bhp - 160
Stock Weight - 359 Kg
Stock Torque - 89 Ft.Lbs

Added Parts.

Stage 1 Turbo
Stage 3 Weight Reduction
Fully Customable Gears

Stage 1 Turbo Bhp - 186 Bhp
Stage 1 Turbo Torque - 103 Ft.Lbs
Stage 3 Weight Reduction Weight - 335 Kg

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'33.137

The Caterham is a great track car, espcilly when powered up slightly with a Stage One Turbo, but after the modifications made, the brakes were still bad, I did'nt add a Racing Brake set because I thought it'd be a tad to much.

You'll need to brake early for the turns, and if you accelrate out to early, the rear will sometimes slide outwards slightly like a drift.

There was no point buying Fully Customable Gears if I was going to leave them stock, so I auto set the Gears to 6, this made a big diffrence since when stock, the gears are quite long.

Like I do with all cars on Autumn Ring, I drive over the rumble strips at the 'long chicane' style part of the track. Doing this with the 335 Kg Caterham made me fly, so I avoided doing that on future laps.

The Handling is great if you learn to keep it under control at 'dodgy' moments, as said before though, the brakes are'nt very good, and it's quite easy to loose control over them.

Still more cars to test

TVR 350C​

Bhp - 350
Torque - 289 Ft.Lbs
Stock Weight - 1187 Kg

Added Parts.

Stage 2 Weight Reduction

Weight After Stage 2 Weight Reduction - 1080 Kg

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'28.122


The Tvr 350C is great at tracks such as Autumn Ring and Trail Mountain etc, this is because of it's very short stock gearing, and light body.

3 Times heavier than the Caterham, but also 3 time more Bhp, but I somehow sensed the Tvr would be faster.

It has very good stock brakes, and is very easy to turn into corners how you want it to, it also has a very good exit speed, and great accelration between corners.

In the end after 6 laps, the TVR was able to beat the Caterham by 5 seconds, this is probaly because of it's exellent turning abilities and great accelration.

RUF RGT​

Bhp - 379
Torque - 276 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 1330 Kg

Added Parts - Racing Brakes Kit

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'27.125


The RUF already had the power, but it needed new brakes, the stock ones are terrible. After they were fitted and I was on the track, it was great, much better brakes helped me keep in control and brake later.

And if you can accelrate out at the perfect time, the accelration out will be very fast.

As I glided round 4 laps, my best time was 1'27.125, just a second faster than the TVR.

If I was to shorten the gars I'm sure it would lap much faster, the key to Autumn ring is short gears and good cornering, the TVR has both, but not enough power, the RUF needs shorter gears.

BMW M3​

Stock Bhp - 338
Stock Torque - 269 Ft.Lbs
Weight - 1570 Kg

Added Parts - Stage 2 NA Tune

Modded Bhp - 394
Modded Torque - 304 Ft.Lbs

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'27.192


First things first, the BMW is very heavy, but I went for more power over less weight, a stage 2 NA Tune added nearly 60 Bhp to it.

The brakes are very good stock, I could enter turns easily, but if you accelerate out to early, the BMW likes understeer, and will go wide if you go wrong.

It has great handling also, this can be made even better with weight reductions and a GT Auto Wing.

I driven 5 laps, the first 2 mainly to get more used to driving the M3, I have M5 experience, but not much M3.

Once I got used to it, the BMW was great, despite the understeer, I learnt how to control it, and the faster laps were coming in.

Lotus Motorsport Elise​

Stock Bhp - 200
Weight - 700 Kg

Added Parts

Stage 2 Turbo
Fully Customable Gears

After Parts Had Been Added

Bhp - 262
Weight 700 Kg

Gears Auto Set 5

Autumn Ring Lap Time - 1'29.959




The Lotus Sport Elise, many people think this is the biggest track car on GT4, but could it face up to the others and beat their lap times?

Of course, 200 Bhp would'nt be enough, so I jacked it up to 262 with a Stage 2 Turbo, I also added Fully Customable Gears so I could adjust ratios.

The first thing I learnt about the Lotus was that it's brakes were rubbish, I had to brake very early for many turns, this is were the Lotus was loosing time against the others.

Despite bad brakes, the Lotus has good turn in to corners and good exiting aswell, and with gears auto set to 5, it had good accelration on Autumn Rings short straights.

After 7 Laps, I recored the best which was 1'29.159, slower than all exept the Caterham, but I'm sure with Racing Brakes and Racing Tires, the Lotus can perform alongside supercars.


Fastest Laps

1st. RUF RGT
2nd. BMW M3
3rd. TVR 350C
4th. Lotus Motorsport Elise
5th Caterham 7 Fireblade

Thank you for reading my comparison, please comment and enjoy

I'd hold a three-car-comparison with the Golf and Civic as the Corolla T-sport is a big competitor of these two.

I've always wondered about the Aston Martins. The DB9 and the Vanquish are extremely similar - they look almost the same and there isn't much difference in power (DB9 has only ten fewer hp and 20 ft-lbs more torque). Also, the Vanquish is around 74,000 credits more expensive.

So how do they compare? It might work a little better as a three-way comparison with a similar car from a different manufacturer to contrast with the two Astons. How about the Dodge Viper GTS?

Also, as one person mentioned, it might be fun to compare the Impreza STi C with the Lancer Evo VIII MR since they're such obvious rivals.

Another fun rivalry might be the Honda Prelude SiR vs. the Toyota Celica SS-II (ST202). Very similar stats.

First, I have to finish my track comparison, only the BMW M3 and Garther Civic to go.

George your doing a great job on these comparisions. Keep up the good work.

Oh yeah you need to get a Lotus Exige in your track day car comparison! Well, the Exige isn't in there but the Motorsport Elise is, and that ought to do it. It's definitely a purebred track car.

I completly forgot about the biggest track car in GT4!

Ok now I have the Motorsport Elise, M3 and Garthers Civic to do.