- 5,174
- Manila
- Filracer
These two were rivals in GT3.
GT6 Duel of the Week #70: The Grand Finale (well, not really)
- Thread starter Cowboy
- 1,338 comments
- 191,674 views
- 415
- Boston, MA
- littleregret265
I'm going to have a nice little write up when I'm done with this.
I think it may have been either the first or the second time I ever played GT when I first saw these beauties. The year was probably 2002, and my brother and I had just gotten Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec. We immediately dove headfirst into the two-player battles, going for the S-Class racers, with my brother immediately going for the big red Oreca Viper. I slowly skimmed the list until I stumbled upon the yellow beauty that was the C5-R. We duked it out, over the first few tracks the game had to offer, time and time again with those cars for around a month or two, with a fairly evenly matched round record. That is actually the story of how I began playing Gran Turismo over 13 years ago: a rivalry within a rivalry over a game.
I'd love to get him to do this review with me, as he was still pretty decent at Forza a year ago and even though he never gamed the way I did, he always loved a purpose-built race car. But I must return to the here and the now: They might be (close to if not the) same cars that they were, but I have evolved plenty since those humble days. And I must know: if I had picked the Viper on day one, would I still be able to boast about whooping my older brother? I really think I'm going to like this thread.
I'll drop the whimsical tone and get to the facts and figures on this one because I'm sure you all are tired of hearing about my nameless brother. Just like last week, I have a bit of personal bias, but I always try to leave that as an aside.
2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5 R
Displacement: 6,997 cc
Peak Power: 609 HP (in garage) @ 6,500 rpm
Peak Torque: 494.8 ft-lbs. (in garage) @ 5,000 rpm
Weight: 1,139 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
2000 ("SRT") Viper GTS-R Team Oreca (#91)
Displacement: 7,986 cc
Peak Power: 587 HP (in garage) @ 6,500 rpm
Peak Torque: 519.3 ft-lbs. (in garage) @ 3,500 rpm
Weight: 1,150 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
You likely know the stakes and the history: both race cars were designed with LM in mind. I'll spare you the details and inch towards testing them. The 3 tracks I will be using are Laguna Seca, Daytona, and of course, the Circuit de la Sarthe, because these are Le Mans GT cars, after all, right? I'll be taking them out to see how they fare in efficiency (across all three tracks), then going for a flying lap on each. And since they are largely adjustable machines, I will try to get them tweaked for each course where I can, though it won't be an exhaustive job.
I would first put the C5R out on the track to get a sense of where the base setup was and also test the endurance of the tires and fuel. After just 5 laps, I could already feel a large sense of understeer in the chassis, which could be offset through extensive means of power, but not enough to get rid of all that push. It felt very buttoned down the entire time, and I could tell that loosening up the car would do wonders. It was already quite quick, and I hoped to extract more out of the car after some tuning. After a quick spruce up, I found the car to still exhibit some understeer, but it was much less, and more easy to counteract with the throttle (though not super easy to kick out).
The Viper just felt so much more... right, despite my prejudices. The chassis had a much more considered character to it, and though it had the ever-slightest touch of understeer, it was no trouble at all to will the 600 horses to bring around the back end, though breaking it loose was also a bit easy. I can understand why ORECA was untouchable way back when, as this machine seems undeniably well-balanced. Tweaking the setup got it to feel even better, with great turn in and an eagerness to be steered by the throttle.
However, I would also find that it was not as well equipped for high-speed as the C5R, suffering from a little more drag, with a horsepower deficit to make matters worse. After my initial testing at Laguna, where I was ready to say that the C5R had practically nothing on the Viper, I came to Daytona and found that the C5R was doing much better, more stable at high speed and under braking, and capable of even higher speeds than the Viper.
Endurance Testing:
5 Laps of Laguna on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/7/9/9
Fuel: 51 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 9/8/9/8
Fuel: 52 liters remaining
5 Laps of Daytona Road on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/7/9/9
Fuel: 31 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/8/9/8
Fuel: 31 liters remaining
3 Laps of La Sarthe 2005 on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 7/8/9/9
Fuel: 5 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/8/8/8
Fuel: 6 liters remaining
Lap Times:
Laguna
C5R: 1:20.248
GTS-R: 1:20.087
Daytona
C5R: 1:41.602
GTS-R: 1:42.806
La Sarthe
C5R: 3:51.600
GTS-R: 3:51.046
At the end of the day, you have two very venerable racecars from venerable marquees and I love them both. I've had a great pleasure working with these two this week, and I think if you get the opportunity to go with either, you'll be quite satisfied.
I absolutely am enamored with the C5R. It was one of my first hands on steps into racing games, racecars, a big milestone for me in my personal GT Life. It performed admirably across the week, being able to overcome its own limitations and show me how strong of a performer it is and always has been (though now I can appreciate it more). The whole way through, the Vette was never far behind at all. I had a blast with it, especially after learning its strengths and weaknesses. As I got to the final tests, its higher top speed (which was invisible at Laguna Seca) proved useful in netting valuable time, and its inherent understeer characteristic truly aided its general stability down the road in braking zones. I would be hard pressed not to choose the Corvette.
But I'd be even more hard pressed to put aside the Viper after all its shown me today, not mentioning its incredible aesthetic (I mean look at it!). Even though I noted it being a bit more prone to drag, (I'm lead to believe that) it actually has more effective aero that gives it more downforce and grip even at the bare minimum level of downforce (despite the settings sheet claiming their numbers to be the same). It has only just as much wear and fuel burn as the lighter, smaller engined, lower coefficient-of-drag C5R, sometimes even less, with just as much speed on track, being particularly excellent when the going gets technical (which you don't hear everyday about a Viper). It could be a little bit skittish at times with its rear end, but its very easy to dial that out of the setup, or better yet to just let it teach you to be gentle. It WILL reward you. I was a bit slower at Daytona, and I believe that had a lot to do with the speed difference on the oval, with not enough actual road course to split the difference (I may re-run that one and come back with an update). Nevertheless, the pedigree, the look, the speed, relative efficiency, and especially the badass (though I could say the same of the Vette on that last one) make this a winner. Which it historically was. Many times. And still is today. In my book at least, and also many of your guys' as well.
TLDR: The Viper edges it out with outright SPEED. I highly recommend both for a drive.
I think it may have been either the first or the second time I ever played GT when I first saw these beauties. The year was probably 2002, and my brother and I had just gotten Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec. We immediately dove headfirst into the two-player battles, going for the S-Class racers, with my brother immediately going for the big red Oreca Viper. I slowly skimmed the list until I stumbled upon the yellow beauty that was the C5-R. We duked it out, over the first few tracks the game had to offer, time and time again with those cars for around a month or two, with a fairly evenly matched round record. That is actually the story of how I began playing Gran Turismo over 13 years ago: a rivalry within a rivalry over a game.
I'd love to get him to do this review with me, as he was still pretty decent at Forza a year ago and even though he never gamed the way I did, he always loved a purpose-built race car. But I must return to the here and the now: They might be (close to if not the) same cars that they were, but I have evolved plenty since those humble days. And I must know: if I had picked the Viper on day one, would I still be able to boast about whooping my older brother? I really think I'm going to like this thread.
I'll drop the whimsical tone and get to the facts and figures on this one because I'm sure you all are tired of hearing about my nameless brother. Just like last week, I have a bit of personal bias, but I always try to leave that as an aside.
2000 Chevrolet Corvette C5 R
Displacement: 6,997 cc
Peak Power: 609 HP (in garage) @ 6,500 rpm
Peak Torque: 494.8 ft-lbs. (in garage) @ 5,000 rpm
Weight: 1,139 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
2000 ("SRT") Viper GTS-R Team Oreca (#91)
Displacement: 7,986 cc
Peak Power: 587 HP (in garage) @ 6,500 rpm
Peak Torque: 519.3 ft-lbs. (in garage) @ 3,500 rpm
Weight: 1,150 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
You likely know the stakes and the history: both race cars were designed with LM in mind. I'll spare you the details and inch towards testing them. The 3 tracks I will be using are Laguna Seca, Daytona, and of course, the Circuit de la Sarthe, because these are Le Mans GT cars, after all, right? I'll be taking them out to see how they fare in efficiency (across all three tracks), then going for a flying lap on each. And since they are largely adjustable machines, I will try to get them tweaked for each course where I can, though it won't be an exhaustive job.
I would first put the C5R out on the track to get a sense of where the base setup was and also test the endurance of the tires and fuel. After just 5 laps, I could already feel a large sense of understeer in the chassis, which could be offset through extensive means of power, but not enough to get rid of all that push. It felt very buttoned down the entire time, and I could tell that loosening up the car would do wonders. It was already quite quick, and I hoped to extract more out of the car after some tuning. After a quick spruce up, I found the car to still exhibit some understeer, but it was much less, and more easy to counteract with the throttle (though not super easy to kick out).
The Viper just felt so much more... right, despite my prejudices. The chassis had a much more considered character to it, and though it had the ever-slightest touch of understeer, it was no trouble at all to will the 600 horses to bring around the back end, though breaking it loose was also a bit easy. I can understand why ORECA was untouchable way back when, as this machine seems undeniably well-balanced. Tweaking the setup got it to feel even better, with great turn in and an eagerness to be steered by the throttle.
However, I would also find that it was not as well equipped for high-speed as the C5R, suffering from a little more drag, with a horsepower deficit to make matters worse. After my initial testing at Laguna, where I was ready to say that the C5R had practically nothing on the Viper, I came to Daytona and found that the C5R was doing much better, more stable at high speed and under braking, and capable of even higher speeds than the Viper.
Endurance Testing:
5 Laps of Laguna on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/7/9/9
Fuel: 51 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 9/8/9/8
Fuel: 52 liters remaining
5 Laps of Daytona Road on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/7/9/9
Fuel: 31 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/8/9/8
Fuel: 31 liters remaining
3 Laps of La Sarthe 2005 on VF wear.
Corvette C5R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 7/8/9/9
Fuel: 5 liters remaining
Viper GTS-R
Tires (LF/RF/LR/RR): 8/8/8/8
Fuel: 6 liters remaining
Lap Times:
Laguna
C5R: 1:20.248
GTS-R: 1:20.087
Daytona
C5R: 1:41.602
GTS-R: 1:42.806
La Sarthe
C5R: 3:51.600
GTS-R: 3:51.046
At the end of the day, you have two very venerable racecars from venerable marquees and I love them both. I've had a great pleasure working with these two this week, and I think if you get the opportunity to go with either, you'll be quite satisfied.
I absolutely am enamored with the C5R. It was one of my first hands on steps into racing games, racecars, a big milestone for me in my personal GT Life. It performed admirably across the week, being able to overcome its own limitations and show me how strong of a performer it is and always has been (though now I can appreciate it more). The whole way through, the Vette was never far behind at all. I had a blast with it, especially after learning its strengths and weaknesses. As I got to the final tests, its higher top speed (which was invisible at Laguna Seca) proved useful in netting valuable time, and its inherent understeer characteristic truly aided its general stability down the road in braking zones. I would be hard pressed not to choose the Corvette.
But I'd be even more hard pressed to put aside the Viper after all its shown me today, not mentioning its incredible aesthetic (I mean look at it!). Even though I noted it being a bit more prone to drag, (I'm lead to believe that) it actually has more effective aero that gives it more downforce and grip even at the bare minimum level of downforce (despite the settings sheet claiming their numbers to be the same). It has only just as much wear and fuel burn as the lighter, smaller engined, lower coefficient-of-drag C5R, sometimes even less, with just as much speed on track, being particularly excellent when the going gets technical (which you don't hear everyday about a Viper). It could be a little bit skittish at times with its rear end, but its very easy to dial that out of the setup, or better yet to just let it teach you to be gentle. It WILL reward you. I was a bit slower at Daytona, and I believe that had a lot to do with the speed difference on the oval, with not enough actual road course to split the difference (I may re-run that one and come back with an update). Nevertheless, the pedigree, the look, the speed, relative efficiency, and especially the badass (though I could say the same of the Vette on that last one) make this a winner. Which it historically was. Many times. And still is today. In my book at least, and also many of your guys' as well.
TLDR: The Viper edges it out with outright SPEED. I highly recommend both for a drive.
- 4,864
- Kentucky
- barrett5
- BarrettMopar
To me the Viper is the better all around car. It's faster than the Corvette, has better styling and sounds a lot better.
At 625 pp the Viper is this
much faster than the Corvette.
At 625 pp the Viper is this
much faster than the Corvette.
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Good duel this week, so let's get this under way.....
The Viper. One of the most legendary vehicles in the GT series makes a return for GT6 as the #51 and #91 variants. Driving it was an absolute blast (depending on the track). On the Daytona Road Course and Apricot Hill it could take anything thrown at it but at the more bumpy and more elevated tracks it tended to jump around a little bit. But I've seen a few of these online and the people say it it such a great underrated car in GT6 to use.
The C5R. Came into the series at the same time as the Viper (#91 and #51 variants) and it proved to be a monster upon arrival. How is it in GT6? Same price as the Viper, so does it have the same performance? Not exactly. This one tends to have a decent amount of understeer but that can be useful on the bumpier tracks. I have also seen this car online and the guy who tuned it blew away the competition. These two cost the same, have about the same PP rating, so how did they compare on the track?
3 laps at Apricot Hill, RH tires, no aids except ABS.
Viper: 1:17.988
Corvette: 1:19.137
The Viper beats the Vette by just over a second. Which would I choose? Well.....
I choose Viper.
And your guy's votes:
Viper GTS R: 11
C5R: 0
And by unanimous vote, the winner is.....
Don't cry Corvette, you still have your fans, plus you're tuneable. Anyways, great duel this week, so be sure to stop here tomorrow for the next duel of the week.
The Viper. One of the most legendary vehicles in the GT series makes a return for GT6 as the #51 and #91 variants. Driving it was an absolute blast (depending on the track). On the Daytona Road Course and Apricot Hill it could take anything thrown at it but at the more bumpy and more elevated tracks it tended to jump around a little bit. But I've seen a few of these online and the people say it it such a great underrated car in GT6 to use.
The C5R. Came into the series at the same time as the Viper (#91 and #51 variants) and it proved to be a monster upon arrival. How is it in GT6? Same price as the Viper, so does it have the same performance? Not exactly. This one tends to have a decent amount of understeer but that can be useful on the bumpier tracks. I have also seen this car online and the guy who tuned it blew away the competition. These two cost the same, have about the same PP rating, so how did they compare on the track?
3 laps at Apricot Hill, RH tires, no aids except ABS.
Viper: 1:17.988
Corvette: 1:19.137
The Viper beats the Vette by just over a second. Which would I choose? Well.....
I choose Viper.
And your guy's votes:
Viper GTS R: 11
C5R: 0
And by unanimous vote, the winner is.....
The Viper GTS R Team Oreca '00!!!
Don't cry Corvette, you still have your fans, plus you're tuneable. Anyways, great duel this week, so be sure to stop here tomorrow for the next duel of the week.
Last edited:
- 3,202
- Philippines
- skygrasper_550--
Isn't that supposed to be you're? Just saying
Anyway, wow. I don't think we ever had a landslide victory like that before, let alone a unanimous vote. Just goes to show you part of Team Oreca's amazing resumé. I don't know what kind of witchcraft they did on the car, but damn. I really hope PD gives this car the Premium treatment in GT7, I think that would do this magnificent racing machine the justice that it deserves. 👍👍
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Fixed 👍Isn't that supposed to be you're? Just saying
Pete05
Premium
- 7,068
- Melbourne, Australia
I agree that the Viper needs the premium treatment. Good call 👍Isn't that supposed to be you're? Just saying
Anyway, wow. I don't think we ever had a landslide victory like that before, let alone a unanimous vote. Just goes to show you part of Team Oreca's amazing resumé. I don't know what kind of witchcraft they did on the car, but damn. I really hope PD gives this car the Premium treatment in GT7, I think that would do this magnificent racing machine the justice that it deserves. 👍👍
I'm hoping in GT7 we get the actual C6 & C7 Corvette race cars in premium, and, that they sound authentic. Not some random sound from the PD 15 year old archives
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
This week I decided to venture overseas and seen two well known vehicles that were looking for a fight. So this week's duel is.....
The 2008 Ferrari California
vs
The 2008 BMW M5!!!
Two premiums, one winner. Take these for a spin and tell me which one you prefer and with that, let the battle begin!
The 2008 Ferrari California
vs
The 2008 BMW M5!!!
Two premiums, one winner. Take these for a spin and tell me which one you prefer and with that, let the battle begin!
- 3,202
- Philippines
- skygrasper_550--
This week I decided to venture overseas and seen two well known vehicles that were looking for a fight. So this week's duel is.....
The 2008 Ferrari California
vs
The 2008 BMW M5!!!
Two premiums, one winner. Take these for a spin and tell me which one you prefer and with that, let the battle begin!
A grand tourer sports car vs. a mid-sized sedan on steroids. This should be fun
I hope I can post videos of hot laps with these two cars on the weekend
XtremeEdward
(Banned)
- 46
- Salt Lake City
Easy. The BMW is faster at half the price. Also, who doesn't like M powered cars? I love them
- 415
- Boston, MA
- littleregret265
Interesting...This week I decided to venture overseas and seen two well known vehicles that were looking for a fight. So this week's duel is.....
The 2008 Ferrari California
vs
The 2008 BMW M5!!!
Two premiums, one winner. Take these for a spin and tell me which one you prefer and with that, let the battle begin!
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Post-purchase specs:
BMW M5 '08
5.0L
500 hp / 8,000 rpm
384 ft-lb / 6,000 rpm
1,855 kg (4,090 lbs)
Ferrari California '08
4.3L
453 hp / 7,500 rpm
355 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,630 kg (3,594 lbs)
So the M5 makes 47 more horses and 29 more ft-lbs of torque than the California. The BMW also carries just under 500 lbs more than the Ferrari.
Best laps at Mid-Field Raceway on Comfort Soft tires:
1:19.452 - 522 - Ferrari California '08
1:19.598 - 513 - BMW M5 '08
They are almost dead-even. BMW sees 155 mph on the front straight, to the Ferrari's 152 mph.
I would rather drive a Ferrari than a BMW, but I don't like the idea of showing off in public, so I'd probably rather own the BMW. It's a little less flashy.
BMW M5 '08
5.0L
500 hp / 8,000 rpm
384 ft-lb / 6,000 rpm
1,855 kg (4,090 lbs)
Ferrari California '08
4.3L
453 hp / 7,500 rpm
355 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,630 kg (3,594 lbs)
So the M5 makes 47 more horses and 29 more ft-lbs of torque than the California. The BMW also carries just under 500 lbs more than the Ferrari.
Best laps at Mid-Field Raceway on Comfort Soft tires:
1:19.452 - 522 - Ferrari California '08
1:19.598 - 513 - BMW M5 '08
They are almost dead-even. BMW sees 155 mph on the front straight, to the Ferrari's 152 mph.
I would rather drive a Ferrari than a BMW, but I don't like the idea of showing off in public, so I'd probably rather own the BMW. It's a little less flashy.
Last edited:
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Wow, Amazed people instantly prefer "Edna from Munich" - (Big hands like a Goalkeeper)
My first impression was Ferrari - My first "test" had the California easily going faster on Kent's favourite Grand Prix Circuit.
The Ferrari has a number of advantages over the Beemer.
1 - 27 paint chips - One of which is Verde Abetone. The Beemer doesn't even have Red... in its tight firsted collection of only 6 chips.
2 - The Beemer looks like Dame Edna Everage - Very talented - but a Bloke in Dress.
3 - Ferrari handles better. This is down to a number of factors, being 450 pounds lighter, a wider stance and having Magical Aero Grip (150/200 clicks). The Beemer is good fun - for a big old Aussie bloke in a dress.
4 - The Ferrari eats up 236,000 credits... the Beemer only 137,000 - so you'll have to fill the boot with 99,000 credits - Yet more weight for the Munich Banker mobile.
5 - Ferrari sounds better.
Then again the Ferrari means you look like a Hairdresser.
Presently the Ferrari is better - but is it worth 99,000 Kazulas more? That would be the Ferrari badge - maybe 50,000 less call it a Maserati....
Bit unfair as the Beemer is a good car, but the Cali is a good Sportscar.
California for me.
Daily Use - The Kids can learn to ride a bike.
My first impression was Ferrari - My first "test" had the California easily going faster on Kent's favourite Grand Prix Circuit.
The Ferrari has a number of advantages over the Beemer.
1 - 27 paint chips - One of which is Verde Abetone. The Beemer doesn't even have Red... in its tight firsted collection of only 6 chips.
2 - The Beemer looks like Dame Edna Everage - Very talented - but a Bloke in Dress.
3 - Ferrari handles better. This is down to a number of factors, being 450 pounds lighter, a wider stance and having Magical Aero Grip (150/200 clicks). The Beemer is good fun - for a big old Aussie bloke in a dress.
4 - The Ferrari eats up 236,000 credits... the Beemer only 137,000 - so you'll have to fill the boot with 99,000 credits - Yet more weight for the Munich Banker mobile.
5 - Ferrari sounds better.
Then again the Ferrari means you look like a Hairdresser.
Presently the Ferrari is better - but is it worth 99,000 Kazulas more? That would be the Ferrari badge - maybe 50,000 less call it a Maserati....
Bit unfair as the Beemer is a good car, but the Cali is a good Sportscar.
California for me.
Daily Use - The Kids can learn to ride a bike.
Last edited:
Chikane_GTR
Premium
- 8,086
- Heaven
The 2008 Ferrari California or The 2008 BMW M5 
- 1,806
- Belgrade
- FrancSRB
BMW M5 for me...
- 610
- Low Head, Tasmania
- Kembro45
I thought the M5 had this in the bag. Took them out on the Matterhorn. BMW went first, sounding great with that spirited engine.
I run no abs or traction control on SS tyres and found the BMW snappy and tail happy.
Jumped in the California and was blown away with more grip, better balance and running a second quicker. Plus it felt easier to drive. Both would be a joy IRL. Ferrari wins for me in GT.
I run no abs or traction control on SS tyres and found the BMW snappy and tail happy.
Jumped in the California and was blown away with more grip, better balance and running a second quicker. Plus it felt easier to drive. Both would be a joy IRL. Ferrari wins for me in GT.
- 3,202
- Philippines
- skygrasper_550--
Funny thing is that I drove both cars at Midfield Raceway as well, but I didn't change their tires (S:H stock). The only setting I changed are the brake balances (3/3) so that I could trailbrake more easily. And, to my surprise, the California sets the faster lap time as well. I will be testing them on about 2 more tracks to see if the M5 could put up a good fight.
- 415
- Boston, MA
- littleregret265
Alright. I know my write-ups have been somewhat lengthy, so I'll try to pare it down a little. Still long though.
Two great contenders, a convertible GT up against the sports sedan to beat. Who will walk away with this week's title?
2008 Ferrari California (Cr. 236,000)
Displacement: 4,279 cc V8
Peak Power: 453 HP @ 7,750 rpm (dealership); 476 HP @ 7,500 rpm (as tested after OC)
Peak Torque: 372.8 ft-lbs. @ 5,500 rpm (as tested after OC)
Weight: 1,630 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
2008 BMW M5 (Cr. 137,000)
Displacement: 4,999 cc V10
Peak Power: 499 HP @ 7,750 rpm (dealership); 525 HP @ 8,000 rpm (as tested after OC)
Peak Torque: 384 ft-lbs. @ 6,100 rpm (dealership); 403.2 ft-lbs. @ 6,000 rpm (as tested after OC)
Weight: 1,855 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
A couple quick things. That purchase price difference is serious. Translating to the real world for a second, that is a serious implication. Especially when you consider that if you wanted either of those today in the real world, you could get an M5 with 20,000 miles for around $35,000 US (with 70k miles, you could probably knock off at least $5,000 more). That's a steep price for a used car, but you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of California from the 2008 model year up for less than $100,000. Of course, these aren't with many miles on them, but huge gap no less.
Also that weight difference is no joke. Almost 500 lbs, as noted by some others.
I put them on Comfort Soft tires to put them in a more realistic range of grip (and to show the chassis handling character a bit better) and set off to perform my usual tests.
Now to see how they performed in a racing environment, I entered both of them in the Willow 20-mile race. Both posted respectable times around the circuit, with the overall times being two seconds apart, favoring the BMW. However, I did run off course at turn 3 in the Ferrari, costing me about 5 seconds in the long run. I also saw that the massive heft of the M5 put a huge strain on the tires (though the handling was very lean, giving the illusion that the car was far lighter than it actually is) as the race went on, and it drank the fuel more heartily than the California, though that was to be expected with 2 extra cylinders. The Ferrari could actually be said to be more economical in this specific regard of tire wear and fuel consumption. It makes me want to laugh.
But we want to see these cars perform at their BEST, right? So I took them a little ways over to the Streets of Willow and unleashed the beasts. On a more technical track, the application of power and overall handling balance became even more crucial. The Ferrari for starters, was a great spectacle. It felt cool, though a bit reserved. It made me a happy driver. I did catch what felt like understeer at first, though it would bring the tail around if I gave it enough gas. I did have to do a little more work at the wheel with this car in particular though. The throttle would steer the car, but it needed steering input more so than the M5. I felt a lot of pride within the car, a proud stallion riding the trail at breakneck pace with something to prove.
The BMW was an exciting ride. Such is to be expected from the renowned crown jewel of the 5-series range, but I was surprised by how quickly it let down its unassuming facade to command that power. Astonishing. But I also noticed that the gear changes, those weren't as snappy as our Ferrari friend (it shows in the data logger). And that weight transfer was all the more critical. It took me less work at (turning) the steering wheel to drive the M5, but more pedal work and concentration in order to keep up with the prancing horse, where in the GT car I felt more consistent. On the minute plus side, I highly prefer wheel mounted paddles to column mounted paddles like you find in the Ferrari. The BMW exuded joy, as the car maker would have you expect. Freude am Fahren, nein? (Please excuse my poor grammar)
Right. The laps.
Streets of Willow
California - 1:20.782
M5 - 1:20.806
Rome
California - 1:18.506
M5 - 1:19.295
Nürburgring Nordschliefe
California - 7:47.353
M5 - 7:51.961
I'm about ready to say that this is a great duel in that it is indeed such a marginal one: each car has plenty of redeeming qualities that make them shine in their own right. Both loud, smoky, and pricey ways to get your fill of adrenaline.
Now I would also be ready to say that since the cars are fairly even, that I'd consider external factors into the mix, such as their worth and their practicality. With this in play, it almost immediately turns it from a fair fight to a matter of no contest. The M5 is not only a crazy track machine, but also a very civil and refined road car, that can even handle a family, shuttling people and groceries and dreams and ambitions all the live long day in swaddling comfort. It is remarkable that this car exists to speak to both the left and right brains, making the school run on one hand and trying for the lap record on the other. I don't even need to mention how much cheaper the thing is, with a variety of settings and options to suit the driver and the occasion. Why would I spend $70,000 USD (Cr. 99,000) more for something that is lesser in life?
Because sometimes less is more, and the pantomime and experience of a Ferrari is universally recognizable in car culture. And it shows on the track. The brand may not be as glorious as it once was, but they still know how to make a car go fast, point blank period. Both cars were plenty fun at the end of the day, but the Ferrari felt more intuitive in my hands on the racetrack. Small wonder, the car is actually easier on tires and gas, which is a big factor if you want to continue to drive this car hard. But I love it because it maneuvered very well, without riding the ragged edge: the traction in the rear made all the difference. I wish they would let you choose to drive it with the top down, but nonetheless I was immensely satisfied. Within the world of GT, I think that the little details and the better balance and the quicker shifts fail to justify that price gap. Nay, it is the confidence that those traits give you when combined that makes it all worthwhile, and the Ferrari might not be as good as a daily, but it knows how to get round the track evermore passionately.
TLDR: Ferrari is quicker and better driving. Outweighs difference in value from the sports sedan.
Two great contenders, a convertible GT up against the sports sedan to beat. Who will walk away with this week's title?
2008 Ferrari California (Cr. 236,000)
Displacement: 4,279 cc V8
Peak Power: 453 HP @ 7,750 rpm (dealership); 476 HP @ 7,500 rpm (as tested after OC)
Peak Torque: 372.8 ft-lbs. @ 5,500 rpm (as tested after OC)
Weight: 1,630 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
2008 BMW M5 (Cr. 137,000)
Displacement: 4,999 cc V10
Peak Power: 499 HP @ 7,750 rpm (dealership); 525 HP @ 8,000 rpm (as tested after OC)
Peak Torque: 384 ft-lbs. @ 6,100 rpm (dealership); 403.2 ft-lbs. @ 6,000 rpm (as tested after OC)
Weight: 1,855 kg
Drive/Aspiration: FR/NA
A couple quick things. That purchase price difference is serious. Translating to the real world for a second, that is a serious implication. Especially when you consider that if you wanted either of those today in the real world, you could get an M5 with 20,000 miles for around $35,000 US (with 70k miles, you could probably knock off at least $5,000 more). That's a steep price for a used car, but you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of California from the 2008 model year up for less than $100,000. Of course, these aren't with many miles on them, but huge gap no less.
Also that weight difference is no joke. Almost 500 lbs, as noted by some others.
I put them on Comfort Soft tires to put them in a more realistic range of grip (and to show the chassis handling character a bit better) and set off to perform my usual tests.
Now to see how they performed in a racing environment, I entered both of them in the Willow 20-mile race. Both posted respectable times around the circuit, with the overall times being two seconds apart, favoring the BMW. However, I did run off course at turn 3 in the Ferrari, costing me about 5 seconds in the long run. I also saw that the massive heft of the M5 put a huge strain on the tires (though the handling was very lean, giving the illusion that the car was far lighter than it actually is) as the race went on, and it drank the fuel more heartily than the California, though that was to be expected with 2 extra cylinders. The Ferrari could actually be said to be more economical in this specific regard of tire wear and fuel consumption. It makes me want to laugh.
But we want to see these cars perform at their BEST, right? So I took them a little ways over to the Streets of Willow and unleashed the beasts. On a more technical track, the application of power and overall handling balance became even more crucial. The Ferrari for starters, was a great spectacle. It felt cool, though a bit reserved. It made me a happy driver. I did catch what felt like understeer at first, though it would bring the tail around if I gave it enough gas. I did have to do a little more work at the wheel with this car in particular though. The throttle would steer the car, but it needed steering input more so than the M5. I felt a lot of pride within the car, a proud stallion riding the trail at breakneck pace with something to prove.
The BMW was an exciting ride. Such is to be expected from the renowned crown jewel of the 5-series range, but I was surprised by how quickly it let down its unassuming facade to command that power. Astonishing. But I also noticed that the gear changes, those weren't as snappy as our Ferrari friend (it shows in the data logger). And that weight transfer was all the more critical. It took me less work at (turning) the steering wheel to drive the M5, but more pedal work and concentration in order to keep up with the prancing horse, where in the GT car I felt more consistent. On the minute plus side, I highly prefer wheel mounted paddles to column mounted paddles like you find in the Ferrari. The BMW exuded joy, as the car maker would have you expect. Freude am Fahren, nein? (Please excuse my poor grammar)
Right. The laps.
Streets of Willow
California - 1:20.782
M5 - 1:20.806
Rome
California - 1:18.506
M5 - 1:19.295
Nürburgring Nordschliefe
California - 7:47.353
M5 - 7:51.961
I'm about ready to say that this is a great duel in that it is indeed such a marginal one: each car has plenty of redeeming qualities that make them shine in their own right. Both loud, smoky, and pricey ways to get your fill of adrenaline.
Now I would also be ready to say that since the cars are fairly even, that I'd consider external factors into the mix, such as their worth and their practicality. With this in play, it almost immediately turns it from a fair fight to a matter of no contest. The M5 is not only a crazy track machine, but also a very civil and refined road car, that can even handle a family, shuttling people and groceries and dreams and ambitions all the live long day in swaddling comfort. It is remarkable that this car exists to speak to both the left and right brains, making the school run on one hand and trying for the lap record on the other. I don't even need to mention how much cheaper the thing is, with a variety of settings and options to suit the driver and the occasion. Why would I spend $70,000 USD (Cr. 99,000) more for something that is lesser in life?
Because sometimes less is more, and the pantomime and experience of a Ferrari is universally recognizable in car culture. And it shows on the track. The brand may not be as glorious as it once was, but they still know how to make a car go fast, point blank period. Both cars were plenty fun at the end of the day, but the Ferrari felt more intuitive in my hands on the racetrack. Small wonder, the car is actually easier on tires and gas, which is a big factor if you want to continue to drive this car hard. But I love it because it maneuvered very well, without riding the ragged edge: the traction in the rear made all the difference. I wish they would let you choose to drive it with the top down, but nonetheless I was immensely satisfied. Within the world of GT, I think that the little details and the better balance and the quicker shifts fail to justify that price gap. Nay, it is the confidence that those traits give you when combined that makes it all worthwhile, and the Ferrari might not be as good as a daily, but it knows how to get round the track evermore passionately.
TLDR: Ferrari is quicker and better driving. Outweighs difference in value from the sports sedan.
- 1,513
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Close matchup in terms of timing. The Ferrari is less temperamental than the BMW though.
Mountain Trial:
California - 1:46.087
M5 - 1:46.689
City Trial:
California - 1:33.088
M5 - 1:33.719
The California felt more stable in the corners without being too understeery. (Except on that major downhill section on Matterhorn Rotenboden) The BMW felt considerably heavier and tended to be more tail happy where it wasn't warranted.
The Ferrari California wins for me.
Mountain Trial:
California - 1:46.087
M5 - 1:46.689
City Trial:
California - 1:33.088
M5 - 1:33.719
The California felt more stable in the corners without being too understeery. (Except on that major downhill section on Matterhorn Rotenboden) The BMW felt considerably heavier and tended to be more tail happy where it wasn't warranted.
The Ferrari California wins for me.
