- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
Congrats @ThrasherDBS for winning the TT two weeks in a row đź‘Ť
GT6 Duel of the Week #70: The Grand Finale (well, not really)
- Thread starter Cowboy
- 1,338 comments
- 192,887 views
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Alright, so in an effort to make this thread more fun (something that seems to lack a bit), I am now going to start picking others to name future duels because you guys have ideas too.
Alright @Draggon, you're up...
Don't mention it
. What have we this week good sir?
Ooh goody, rally cars for the street. This week's duel is.....
The 1984 Ford RS200
vs
The 2001 Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac!!!
This week's trial will be at Chamonix West, because tarmac is too mainstream
đź‘Ť
Alright @Draggon, you're up...
Don't mention it
. What have we this week good sir?Ooh goody, rally cars for the street. This week's duel is.....
The 1984 Ford RS200
vs
The 2001 Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac!!!
This week's trial will be at Chamonix West, because tarmac is too mainstream
đź‘Ť
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Ford RS200 '84
1.8L
246 hp / 6,900 rpm
215 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,180 kg (2,601 lbs)
432 pp
Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac '01
1.5L
225 hp / 6,000 rpm
222 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm
1,200 kg (2,646 lbs)
434 pp
On paper, these two are about as even as it gets. A difference of 21 hp, 7 ft-lbs of torque, and 20 kg. The Mitsubishi is heavier but has a tiny bit more torque to make up for it.
Maximum speed on track:
133 mph - Ford
130 mph - Mitsubishi
The RS200 barely out-accelerates the CZ-3. Which one corners faster?
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
71 mph - Mitsubishi
70 mph - Ford
I like the looks, design, and performance of the RS200 a bit more than the CZ-3, so it gets my vote.
1.8L
246 hp / 6,900 rpm
215 ft-lb / 4,500 rpm
1,180 kg (2,601 lbs)
432 pp
Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac '01
1.5L
225 hp / 6,000 rpm
222 ft-lb / 3,000 rpm
1,200 kg (2,646 lbs)
434 pp
On paper, these two are about as even as it gets. A difference of 21 hp, 7 ft-lbs of torque, and 20 kg. The Mitsubishi is heavier but has a tiny bit more torque to make up for it.
Maximum speed on track:
133 mph - Ford
130 mph - Mitsubishi
The RS200 barely out-accelerates the CZ-3. Which one corners faster?
Minimum speed through Turn 1:
71 mph - Mitsubishi
70 mph - Ford
I like the looks, design, and performance of the RS200 a bit more than the CZ-3, so it gets my vote.
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
I like the concept behind this duel. What happens when the homologation models of rally cars, new and old were to race against each other? Who would end up on top? And we've got some interesting cars here to provide some answers that those questions.
Enter the Ford RS200, a car that ran in the legendary Group B series in the WRC during the 1980's where loads of power and turbocharging made for some amazing displays of speed and manuvering. The racing counterpart to this car has a fair bit under twice the amount of power, but because of the low weight, it can still be pretty zippy.
The other one? It's a concept car based off the Mitsubishi Colt but with the Lancer Evolution's drivetrain. Mitsubishi did pretty well in the late 90's, especially with an amazing flying Finn behind the wheel. This concept, as a good handful of concept cars tend to do, looks pretty goofy and doesn't quite have the charisma of the Lan Evo it borrowed its running gear from. But, at the same time, looks aren't everything.
Chamonix (W) Trial:
RS200 - 2:28.863
CZ-3 - 2:26.700
Rotenboden Trial:
RS200 - 1:51.537
CZ-3 - 1:50.863
SSR5 Trial:
RS200 - 1:37.764
CZ-3 - 1:37.974
Because I'm not quite as familiar with the off-road tracks as I should, (Where on earth did the GT4 version of Chamonix go, anyway?) I took a Mitsubishi Airtrek for a lap or two around Chamonix West to familiarize myself with the track without giving an unfair advantage to either car. Let me just say, this track is certainly where the RS200 showed its age. Case in point: the tight punishing corners toward the beginning of the track. Do not let the RS200 drop around or below 2000 rpm otherwise the turbo lag will make it very sluggish, almost like the power drops from 246 to 90.
The RS200 also has a problem with understeer and washing out in corners. It's hard to really magnify that on a course where you're sliding around. On hills though, the Rotenboden made this car cry because of how close it wound up near the walls.
By contrast, the CZ-3 was a lot more responsive, both in acceleration and in maneuverability, much like what I could expect from a Lancer Evolution. I'm willing to bet this borrowed the same drivetrain and suspension setup from the Tommi Makinen Edition Evo VI, because that car was also set up for tarmac rallying right off the line. It came in handy during online lobbies with dirt and snow tracks in GT5 becoming part of my elite in both GT5 and GT6, and I appreciate that the CZ-3 behaves like it... even if it's not quite as easy on the eyes.
Winner is the CZ-3. I think the new definitely triumphs over the old in this scenario.
Enter the Ford RS200, a car that ran in the legendary Group B series in the WRC during the 1980's where loads of power and turbocharging made for some amazing displays of speed and manuvering. The racing counterpart to this car has a fair bit under twice the amount of power, but because of the low weight, it can still be pretty zippy.
The other one? It's a concept car based off the Mitsubishi Colt but with the Lancer Evolution's drivetrain. Mitsubishi did pretty well in the late 90's, especially with an amazing flying Finn behind the wheel. This concept, as a good handful of concept cars tend to do, looks pretty goofy and doesn't quite have the charisma of the Lan Evo it borrowed its running gear from. But, at the same time, looks aren't everything.
Chamonix (W) Trial:
RS200 - 2:28.863
CZ-3 - 2:26.700
Rotenboden Trial:
RS200 - 1:51.537
CZ-3 - 1:50.863
SSR5 Trial:
RS200 - 1:37.764
CZ-3 - 1:37.974
Because I'm not quite as familiar with the off-road tracks as I should, (Where on earth did the GT4 version of Chamonix go, anyway?) I took a Mitsubishi Airtrek for a lap or two around Chamonix West to familiarize myself with the track without giving an unfair advantage to either car. Let me just say, this track is certainly where the RS200 showed its age. Case in point: the tight punishing corners toward the beginning of the track. Do not let the RS200 drop around or below 2000 rpm otherwise the turbo lag will make it very sluggish, almost like the power drops from 246 to 90.
The RS200 also has a problem with understeer and washing out in corners. It's hard to really magnify that on a course where you're sliding around. On hills though, the Rotenboden made this car cry because of how close it wound up near the walls.
By contrast, the CZ-3 was a lot more responsive, both in acceleration and in maneuverability, much like what I could expect from a Lancer Evolution. I'm willing to bet this borrowed the same drivetrain and suspension setup from the Tommi Makinen Edition Evo VI, because that car was also set up for tarmac rallying right off the line. It came in handy during online lobbies with dirt and snow tracks in GT5 becoming part of my elite in both GT5 and GT6, and I appreciate that the CZ-3 behaves like it... even if it's not quite as easy on the eyes.
Winner is the CZ-3. I think the new definitely triumphs over the old in this scenario.
- 2,455
- Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece
- VLX_CJohn
Magic colours!
Today it is...
So I will start with the RS 200.
The car that many will think: "U STOOPID CAR U ENDD GROOP B HISTORIEZ!!1!!!1!!1!one1!1one1!1!" since it was the car in which a driver and co-driver died in the incident that ended Group B history.
Okay let's be more mature. Finally!
So the car competed in only 3 or 4 races in 1986. 5-speed manual transmission. Two colours to select, red and white. You can customise it with a wing you like, you can also change the rims.
PROs: Fun to drive, manual transmission, brakes, Group B.
CONs: Long gear ratios, not that good traction, most power at middle rpm and then going extreme downfall.
Test at Eiger Nordwand K. 4m 13s! Nearly a second faster than a NSX Race Car.
Then I tested the Colt clone.
So I thought that the RS200 would win the duel for me. Let's see.
5-speed CVT which has much faster changes than the RS 200. I thought the Colt would be lighter, but no. The gap from 1st to 2nd gear kills the acceleration at low-speed corners. Only one colour to select. No customisation options.
PROs: Faster shifting due to CVT, stability, brakes, 4WD system of a Lancer Evolution.
CONs: Designed like a cube with lines, gap between 1st and 2nd gear, non-existent car.
And a lap at the Eiger K...
4 minutes... US Americans hope the Colt is slower.
16 seconds! The US Americans must be happy. The Japanese is 3 seconds behind. There was a bunch of slow corners which, as I said above, were a nightmare (or daymare?
excuse my silliness) as the car there was as slow as- you get it.
Customisation options: RS 200 (1) vs Colt clone (0)
The RS 200 can have a wing and its rims changed but the Colt clone cannot have any of these done. Silly.
Stability: RS 200 (1) vs Colt (1)
The Colt was easier to control than the RS 200. Well, look at their age difference.
Brakes: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (1.5)
Do not know what to say about their brakes. Both of them performed well at Eiger K.
Gearing: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (2.5)
At least the Colt has faster gear changes, but the RS 200 has a manual transmission, so it logically upshifts slower.
Turbo lag?: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (3)
The Colt was better to keep all the power in a reasonable place, and put out evenly, not like the Ford, in which I did not know when to shift.
Power / Torque: RS 200 (2.5) vs Colt (3.5)
The Ford has more power but the Colt has more torque. Hmmm, hmmm, which to choose? Power or Torque? Neither of them are diesels, so the power will get lé point.
Lap times: RS 200 (3.5) vs Colt (3.5)
More power and less weight: better lap times, but not always. Here, the stronger and lighter Ford beat the car with more torque, Mitsubishi CZ-3.
The RS 200 participated in only 3 races before Group B was permanently banned by the FIA (game says FIFA in car description!).
The CZ-3 Tarmac (3 needless spaces in the car name there Mitsubishi) is not even existing, however it is based on the Colt, which did not participate in any rally race.
Here is a tune of our/my winner.
Today it is...
The Ford RS200 vs
The Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay I stop
Holy mother of rallying!.. USA vs Japan, Manual vs CVT, Group 2 vs... unknown!The Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay I stop
So I will start with the RS 200.
The car that many will think: "U STOOPID CAR U ENDD GROOP B HISTORIEZ!!1!!!1!!1!one1!1one1!1!" since it was the car in which a driver and co-driver died in the incident that ended Group B history.
Okay let's be more mature. Finally!
So the car competed in only 3 or 4 races in 1986. 5-speed manual transmission. Two colours to select, red and white. You can customise it with a wing you like, you can also change the rims.
PROs: Fun to drive, manual transmission, brakes, Group B.
CONs: Long gear ratios, not that good traction, most power at middle rpm and then going extreme downfall.
Test at Eiger Nordwand K. 4m 13s! Nearly a second faster than a NSX Race Car.
Then I tested the Colt clone.
So I thought that the RS200 would win the duel for me. Let's see.
5-speed CVT which has much faster changes than the RS 200. I thought the Colt would be lighter, but no. The gap from 1st to 2nd gear kills the acceleration at low-speed corners. Only one colour to select. No customisation options.
PROs: Faster shifting due to CVT, stability, brakes, 4WD system of a Lancer Evolution.
CONs: Designed like a cube with lines, gap between 1st and 2nd gear, non-existent car.
And a lap at the Eiger K...
4 minutes... US Americans hope the Colt is slower.
16 seconds! The US Americans must be happy. The Japanese is 3 seconds behind. There was a bunch of slow corners which, as I said above, were a nightmare (or daymare?
excuse my silliness) as the car there was as slow as- you get it.Customisation options: RS 200 (1) vs Colt clone (0)
The RS 200 can have a wing and its rims changed but the Colt clone cannot have any of these done. Silly.
Stability: RS 200 (1) vs Colt (1)
The Colt was easier to control than the RS 200. Well, look at their age difference.
Brakes: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (1.5)
Do not know what to say about their brakes. Both of them performed well at Eiger K.
Gearing: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (2.5)
At least the Colt has faster gear changes, but the RS 200 has a manual transmission, so it logically upshifts slower.
Turbo lag?: RS 200 (1.5) vs Colt (3)
The Colt was better to keep all the power in a reasonable place, and put out evenly, not like the Ford, in which I did not know when to shift.
Power / Torque: RS 200 (2.5) vs Colt (3.5)
The Ford has more power but the Colt has more torque. Hmmm, hmmm, which to choose? Power or Torque? Neither of them are diesels, so the power will get lé point.
Lap times: RS 200 (3.5) vs Colt (3.5)
More power and less weight: better lap times, but not always. Here, the stronger and lighter Ford beat the car with more torque, Mitsubishi CZ-3.
The Author's Opinion timez!!!!
Guess I am the only one who did not find a good time guessing what car is better. Let's see the cars' history.
The RS 200 participated in only 3 races before Group B was permanently banned by the FIA (game says FIFA in car description!).
The CZ-3 Tarmac (3 needless spaces in the car name there Mitsubishi) is not even existing, however it is based on the Colt, which did not participate in any rally race.
Here is a tune of our/my winner.
Last edited:
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Not for nothing, but even though the RS200 is an American car in game, it was actually more Ford Europe's thing.
Like the first three iterations of the Ford GT40 in the '60s.
Like the first three iterations of the Ford GT40 in the '60s.
- 3,144
- Lancashire
- Ryk_BRM
Ford RS200 vs. Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac
Both cars held a lot of promise. The Ford looked like it was set to take on the most brutal era of Rallying, only for the rules to outlaw the group before it could really get
sorted. BUT it did turn in sterling real life performances with everyone's favourite Norwegian Racers, Martin Schanche (I can't spell his name but it sounded like "San-Cher") when he was on the TV and National Treasure Murray Walker was going ten to the dozen in the commentary box.
The Tarmac - Looked hopeful in Gran Turismo games - was this going to foreshadow the future WRC car to replace the out dated Lancer Evolution? I seem to remember it being quite capable in GT4.
Now I will have to drive these two, and I've driven the RS200 was a nice drive, Mid engine and 4 wheel drive are a very happy mix, Even on Asphalt it is a fun drive. And on loose surfaces, it should be good.
The Tarmac is a Lancer with a hot hatch Coltish body plopped on it . (Like the Renault Espace F1 isn't really a Espace MPV)
Very rushed so let's have a go at Autumnringmini
***Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac***
comfort softs... a bold choice!
...What's this AYC business... Anti Yaw Control... Bigger numbers let you drive with more throttle through corners... Lets leave it at 30, for now.
44.5 (4m09.7) CZ-3 at AYC at 30
Car felt unique - the down changes were quite almost suppressed and the up changes were so fast - different and nice.
Looks - High window line makes it a sort of Bart Chrysler (*) 300C, but in hot hatch form. It also has high front lamps which Isee a lot of in the Nissan Juke - I actually was quite pleased with its looks.
44.8 (4m13.1) CZ-3 AYC at 130
Well with the AYC as close to off as you can manage you can slide this little red like a supermarket trolley! - I was way slower but that was because I was fooling about like
a total Maldonado - Bliss!
*** Southgate RS 200 by Ford ***
44.7 - (4m11.0)
Much more natural feel to the car - Easier to balance the car in a drift out of the box compared to the Electronical/mechanical dark magic in the differentials of the
Mitsubishi. The car felt "wider" to drive - hard to describe it more than that - more square and solid and easy to rotate in corners.
44.2 (4m06.9) -
When you drive with a smidge of practicality... I was still able to get the win and do this...
I liked the Mitsubishi - BUT I had to muck about with the AYC to get a hoot of a drive... which feels a bit cheaty (Even if I was basically turning it off!) - The Southgate RS200 was just "right" nice balance - Mid engine but with 4WD - As much fun as Chocolate covered (Insert your own joke as applicable).
My vote goes to... The Ford RS200
It was just more of a natural fit to drive on the limit, the CZ-3 felt a lot more pushy in corners and having to muck about with the electronic differential felt a lot like cheating.
The CZ-3 was good fun though, but the RS200 just felt like more fun to drive.
(*) (Bert Kreisher - "The Party Machine" Comedian)
Both cars held a lot of promise. The Ford looked like it was set to take on the most brutal era of Rallying, only for the rules to outlaw the group before it could really get
sorted. BUT it did turn in sterling real life performances with everyone's favourite Norwegian Racers, Martin Schanche (I can't spell his name but it sounded like "San-Cher") when he was on the TV and National Treasure Murray Walker was going ten to the dozen in the commentary box.
The Tarmac - Looked hopeful in Gran Turismo games - was this going to foreshadow the future WRC car to replace the out dated Lancer Evolution? I seem to remember it being quite capable in GT4.
Now I will have to drive these two, and I've driven the RS200 was a nice drive, Mid engine and 4 wheel drive are a very happy mix, Even on Asphalt it is a fun drive. And on loose surfaces, it should be good.
The Tarmac is a Lancer with a hot hatch Coltish body plopped on it . (Like the Renault Espace F1 isn't really a Espace MPV)
Very rushed so let's have a go at Autumnringmini
***Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac***
comfort softs... a bold choice!
...What's this AYC business... Anti Yaw Control... Bigger numbers let you drive with more throttle through corners... Lets leave it at 30, for now.
44.5 (4m09.7) CZ-3 at AYC at 30
Car felt unique - the down changes were quite almost suppressed and the up changes were so fast - different and nice.
Looks - High window line makes it a sort of Bart Chrysler (*) 300C, but in hot hatch form. It also has high front lamps which Isee a lot of in the Nissan Juke - I actually was quite pleased with its looks.
44.8 (4m13.1) CZ-3 AYC at 130
Well with the AYC as close to off as you can manage you can slide this little red like a supermarket trolley! - I was way slower but that was because I was fooling about like
a total Maldonado - Bliss!
*** Southgate RS 200 by Ford ***
44.7 - (4m11.0)
Much more natural feel to the car - Easier to balance the car in a drift out of the box compared to the Electronical/mechanical dark magic in the differentials of the
Mitsubishi. The car felt "wider" to drive - hard to describe it more than that - more square and solid and easy to rotate in corners.
44.2 (4m06.9) -
When you drive with a smidge of practicality... I was still able to get the win and do this...
I liked the Mitsubishi - BUT I had to muck about with the AYC to get a hoot of a drive... which feels a bit cheaty (Even if I was basically turning it off!) - The Southgate RS200 was just "right" nice balance - Mid engine but with 4WD - As much fun as Chocolate covered (Insert your own joke as applicable).
My vote goes to... The Ford RS200
It was just more of a natural fit to drive on the limit, the CZ-3 felt a lot more pushy in corners and having to muck about with the electronic differential felt a lot like cheating.
The CZ-3 was good fun though, but the RS200 just felt like more fun to drive.
(*) (Bert Kreisher - "The Party Machine" Comedian)
Last edited:
- 1,233
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
Only Trial Mountain times this week as I haven't managed to find the time to run these cars. Note that the CZ-3 has ABS on 1 and the RS200 had no ABS.
Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac >>> 1:41.285
Ford RS200 >>> 1:41.864
I have quite some experience racing online with these though, and both are quite capable and fun. I like them. The Mitsubishi has a pretty unique way to pivot under braking, and the AYC, which I usually have hard time working with in GT6, allows the throttle to be smashed early after this. It also has a pretty high global grip level.
The Ford feels more like a dancer, always kinda on the edge of grip, but really fun and not really hard to keep on the road : you just have to refrain from getting too drifty if you want your best lap times in. The front can get light sometimes, especially on dirt and snow, but the RS200 responds very well to mid-corner left foot braking - really, some short and small brake inputs makes all the difference on rally tracks with this car. I think it would really gain from a shorter final drive though.
Choice is not easy on this one, the CZ-3 being one of the best 4WD chassis in the game, the RS200 being a legend and lots of fun. Based on the sole Trial Mountain experience and PP to performance value, the Mitsu should get it, but there's something special about that RS200, maybe a more pure driving experience, I'm not sure, but I used to look forward to take it on the track a bit more often that the cheaty-concept. So purely subjective from the heart vote : the RS200.
Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac >>> 1:41.285
Ford RS200 >>> 1:41.864
I have quite some experience racing online with these though, and both are quite capable and fun. I like them. The Mitsubishi has a pretty unique way to pivot under braking, and the AYC, which I usually have hard time working with in GT6, allows the throttle to be smashed early after this. It also has a pretty high global grip level.
The Ford feels more like a dancer, always kinda on the edge of grip, but really fun and not really hard to keep on the road : you just have to refrain from getting too drifty if you want your best lap times in. The front can get light sometimes, especially on dirt and snow, but the RS200 responds very well to mid-corner left foot braking - really, some short and small brake inputs makes all the difference on rally tracks with this car. I think it would really gain from a shorter final drive though.
Choice is not easy on this one, the CZ-3 being one of the best 4WD chassis in the game, the RS200 being a legend and lots of fun. Based on the sole Trial Mountain experience and PP to performance value, the Mitsu should get it, but there's something special about that RS200, maybe a more pure driving experience, I'm not sure, but I used to look forward to take it on the track a bit more often that the cheaty-concept. So purely subjective from the heart vote : the RS200.
- 93
- Netherlands
- ARP_273
Soo.. not a lot of time this week. Tested the cars at my hill climb like CM track. It's very narrow so good fun in passing the AI. The 4WD grip of both cars is great. The RS200 is looser and can be played with while the CZ-3 has some sort of magic going on.. There is no match in outright speed, the RS200 is the clear winner, mostly due to that is has SH tire while the CZ-3 has to make do with CS, but is also feels and sounds like it has a more powerfull engine (it has a little less weight and torque, but more hp, how does this have a lower pp?). I love the long but usable gearing. It does loose both power and torque in the high revs so shift before red line.
The CZ-3 was great fun against the AI, had some real battles because some AI cars were actually faster on straights and were in the way in the narrow corners. The RS200 past them all on lap 1 and after that it was rally style time trial for the remainder. Also good fun.
My main gripe with the CZ-3 is you feel it is holding you back, I would describe it as "muted" while the RS200 is rocking out loud. It is fantastic that PD has managed to capture the feeling of the AYC, so kudos for that. I'm still gone vote for the Ford RS200
The CZ-3 was great fun against the AI, had some real battles because some AI cars were actually faster on straights and were in the way in the narrow corners. The RS200 past them all on lap 1 and after that it was rally style time trial for the remainder. Also good fun.
My main gripe with the CZ-3 is you feel it is holding you back, I would describe it as "muted" while the RS200 is rocking out loud. It is fantastic that PD has managed to capture the feeling of the AYC, so kudos for that. I'm still gone vote for the Ford RS200
- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
I'm thinking the same thing. I'm a long time fan of the RS200, which makes the choice more difficult. What I love about the CZ-3 is that chassis and the automatic ( ? ) trans that it comes with out of the dealership. Zero loss of boost from the turbo as you go up through the gears gives it a significant advantage over similar cars. During a Car Of The Week event a couple weeks ago, I managed to stay ahead of @Vic Reign93, perhaps our most dominant driver on dirt, at Eiger Norwand due only to the Mitsubishi's trans and the chassis' amazing ability to rotate so well.
Love that Ford, but I've gotta pick the Mitsubishi CZ-3.
Last edited:
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
I've been thinking, and I'm going to change my test lap format to always have
a large, fast circuit like RBR, Laguna or Monza
a small, short and twisty circuit like Tsukuba, City tracks etc.
where applicable I will also conduct rally tests on dirt/snow tracks
Now excuse me while I fix my review up.
a large, fast circuit like RBR, Laguna or Monza
a small, short and twisty circuit like Tsukuba, City tracks etc.
where applicable I will also conduct rally tests on dirt/snow tracks
Now excuse me while I fix my review up.
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
GT6 Duel of the Week Episode 60: Ford RS200 '84 vs Mitsubishi CZ-3 Tarmac '01
"Group B vs Group GT"
In the Red corner, we have the Ford RS200, a dangerous and blisteringly quick rally car that spits fire from the 80s, the best time for rallying. In the other slightly darker Red corner, we have the CZ-3 Tarmac. The CZ-3 Tarmac is a Lancer Evo disguised as a hatchback, lots of technology and control were poured into this concept from the new millennium. Let's see which car can pull a victory here.
Here I took the new lap time format from last week and decided to keep it yet again. First we start off with a long, fast world circuit with lots of straights.
Monza:
Ford: 2.16.684
Mitsubishi: 2.17.545
Round two is a short track with lots of twists:
Tsukuba:
Ford: 1.05.274
Mitsubishi: 1.06.348
Round three was obviously a dirt track, these are rally cars after all.
Eiger Nordwand W Trail:
Ford: 1.08.737
Mitsubishi: 1.10.726
I will elaborate more on driving dynamics in my final thoughts, but the Ford won this round pretty easily with its mid-engine layout and amazing handling. Not to mention the gearing that's much better than the Mitsubishi's.
Typical almost 4km drag strip, this place lets cars open up fully and reach their top speed, this test hasn't failed me before.
Ford: 0.58.536 @ 254km/h
Mitsubishi: 0.59.126 @ 240km/h
The gearing on the Mitsubishi caused it to loose speed before the finish line, and the Ford RS200 kept on steaming towards the finish line with it's much better top speed.
For Paint Chips, the Mitsubishi only has one, the Ford has Red and White while the CZ-3 only has Red.
For customization, the Mitsubishi has no parts able to be changed, not even wheels can be customizes. The Ford can have both wheels and wings, giving the car an aerodynamic benefit over the Mitsubishi
Tuning on both cars is about the same, but the Ford is better overall because of its ability for a higher stock top speed. The Ford should be easier to tune than the Mitsubishi because of this, not having to delve too much into gear ratios and such.
For sound, it's a pretty clear win for the Ford, nice and raspy. The Mitsubishi is pretty typical GT standard Japanese 4WD Turbo exhaust sound.
For design, the Ford has it all from the classic rally car of the 80's. Beside the Starion, it's my favourite 80's rally car. The frog-like headers look pretty nice, the vents on the rear glass look nice in a rally sort of way. The blocked-out rally headlamps are a classic too.
The CZ-3 looks like some sort of hatchback demon, very love it or hate it design here. Very aggressive front with a futuristic and angular design all-around. The chrome wheels are also pretty wild.
All around, the RS200 is a very classic design that has aged well.
Now it's time for drifting and online poularity. The RS200 and CZ-3 are pretty much absent from both categories, I've never seen the CZ-3 used online before, with only one or two RS200s showing up during my playtime. Neither pulls a win here.
After that complete blowout, it's time to give my final thoughts on both cars, including history, performance, feel and such.
Honestly, I'll begin by saying I think there's no real reason to pick the CZ-3 over the RS200, it's not as fast in the test, isn't as fast in top speed and doesn't have much in the way of customization or looks over the RS200. This concept rally car was created by Mitsubishi as a what-if? project to see what a hatchback Lancer would be like. It's a nice car for sure, it's decently fast and it handles fine. But the problem is in all respective categories, the car is just outclassed by the RS200. More power to you if you can find more enjoyment out of the CZ-3, but for me it just doesn't catch the legendary RS200 off-guard in any aspect. It just isn't as good of a car, even though it still is a decent choice.
The Legendary RS200, the finisher of Group B, if that unfortunate accident didn't happen, this car might have had an amazing race pedigree. It was developed as an insane machine on and off the Tarmac, the race model is a fire-spitting monster of a machine, requiring a precise and level-headed driver to control its mental power. They made a road car as required like other Group B cars. The road car only sports a modest amount of power but it retains the boxy rally looks and features. You may even find a few historic examples stretching their legs every so often, even today.
In Gran Turismo, the road car is pretty good at handling, it even slides a bit unlike the CZ-3. It's more fun to drive and it's faster, and at the end of the day that's what counts in Gran Turismo. I have a better time driving the RS200, so it wins this duel and gets my pretty late vote.
And the verdict is:
Try and get your rally car to last at least five years, please.
See you next week!
"Group B vs Group GT"
In the Red corner, we have the Ford RS200, a dangerous and blisteringly quick rally car that spits fire from the 80s, the best time for rallying. In the other slightly darker Red corner, we have the CZ-3 Tarmac. The CZ-3 Tarmac is a Lancer Evo disguised as a hatchback, lots of technology and control were poured into this concept from the new millennium. Let's see which car can pull a victory here.
Here I took the new lap time format from last week and decided to keep it yet again. First we start off with a long, fast world circuit with lots of straights.
Monza:
Ford: 2.16.684
Mitsubishi: 2.17.545
Round two is a short track with lots of twists:
Tsukuba:
Ford: 1.05.274
Mitsubishi: 1.06.348
Round three was obviously a dirt track, these are rally cars after all.
Eiger Nordwand W Trail:
Ford: 1.08.737
Mitsubishi: 1.10.726
I will elaborate more on driving dynamics in my final thoughts, but the Ford won this round pretty easily with its mid-engine layout and amazing handling. Not to mention the gearing that's much better than the Mitsubishi's.
Typical almost 4km drag strip, this place lets cars open up fully and reach their top speed, this test hasn't failed me before.
Ford: 0.58.536 @ 254km/h
Mitsubishi: 0.59.126 @ 240km/h
The gearing on the Mitsubishi caused it to loose speed before the finish line, and the Ford RS200 kept on steaming towards the finish line with it's much better top speed.
For Paint Chips, the Mitsubishi only has one, the Ford has Red and White while the CZ-3 only has Red.
For customization, the Mitsubishi has no parts able to be changed, not even wheels can be customizes. The Ford can have both wheels and wings, giving the car an aerodynamic benefit over the Mitsubishi
Tuning on both cars is about the same, but the Ford is better overall because of its ability for a higher stock top speed. The Ford should be easier to tune than the Mitsubishi because of this, not having to delve too much into gear ratios and such.
For sound, it's a pretty clear win for the Ford, nice and raspy. The Mitsubishi is pretty typical GT standard Japanese 4WD Turbo exhaust sound.
For design, the Ford has it all from the classic rally car of the 80's. Beside the Starion, it's my favourite 80's rally car. The frog-like headers look pretty nice, the vents on the rear glass look nice in a rally sort of way. The blocked-out rally headlamps are a classic too.
The CZ-3 looks like some sort of hatchback demon, very love it or hate it design here. Very aggressive front with a futuristic and angular design all-around. The chrome wheels are also pretty wild.
All around, the RS200 is a very classic design that has aged well.
Now it's time for drifting and online poularity. The RS200 and CZ-3 are pretty much absent from both categories, I've never seen the CZ-3 used online before, with only one or two RS200s showing up during my playtime. Neither pulls a win here.
After that complete blowout, it's time to give my final thoughts on both cars, including history, performance, feel and such.
Honestly, I'll begin by saying I think there's no real reason to pick the CZ-3 over the RS200, it's not as fast in the test, isn't as fast in top speed and doesn't have much in the way of customization or looks over the RS200. This concept rally car was created by Mitsubishi as a what-if? project to see what a hatchback Lancer would be like. It's a nice car for sure, it's decently fast and it handles fine. But the problem is in all respective categories, the car is just outclassed by the RS200. More power to you if you can find more enjoyment out of the CZ-3, but for me it just doesn't catch the legendary RS200 off-guard in any aspect. It just isn't as good of a car, even though it still is a decent choice.
The Legendary RS200, the finisher of Group B, if that unfortunate accident didn't happen, this car might have had an amazing race pedigree. It was developed as an insane machine on and off the Tarmac, the race model is a fire-spitting monster of a machine, requiring a precise and level-headed driver to control its mental power. They made a road car as required like other Group B cars. The road car only sports a modest amount of power but it retains the boxy rally looks and features. You may even find a few historic examples stretching their legs every so often, even today.
In Gran Turismo, the road car is pretty good at handling, it even slides a bit unlike the CZ-3. It's more fun to drive and it's faster, and at the end of the day that's what counts in Gran Turismo. I have a better time driving the RS200, so it wins this duel and gets my pretty late vote.
And the verdict is:
Try and get your rally car to last at least five years, please.
See you next week!
Last edited:
- 6,281
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
As if rallying wasn't enough for Mitsubishi, they went ahead and made a half Lancer, half Colt speedy hatch. I for one haven't really payed much attention to the CZ-3 just because it seems left out from a ton of others in its class. It does have a resemblance to the Colt in looks, at least on the front, whereas on the rest it looks fairly Mitsubishi like. Driving it was a pleasant suprise, being able to have fun with and such. I did notice just a little understeer, but all in all, its a pretty stable contraption to use. It doesn't suffer from gear change lag, and has the AYC control stuff going on that I have never even heard of before......
While modern technology can be an advantage over retro stuff, the RS200 has a place in a lot of peoples hearts. Being a brutal Group B competitor in the '80s, this road going car from Ford's European side doesn't dissapoint anywhere. Looks are quite classic like, having round headlights with Hella light covers, a roof scoop for when your tearing up the high speed backwoods of Finland, and a more boxed rear with an interesting spoiler. Performance wise, it was a blast. I was able to thrash it around quite a lot without having to worry about losing control, and with the sound of the engine, it made the experience second to none. So my vote this week goes to.....
The RS200
Both cars tested at Chamonix West, no aids except ABS 1, snow tires:
CZ-3: 2:27.323
RS200: 2:27.738
And the votes:
CZ-3: 2
RS200: 7
And the winner is......
The '84 RS200!!!
Congrats to @ThrasherDBS for once again going like hell by setting a winning time of 2:26.700 in the CZ-3 and setting a winning time of 2:28.863 in the RS200! (Come on @Draggon, step it up!)
While modern technology can be an advantage over retro stuff, the RS200 has a place in a lot of peoples hearts. Being a brutal Group B competitor in the '80s, this road going car from Ford's European side doesn't dissapoint anywhere. Looks are quite classic like, having round headlights with Hella light covers, a roof scoop for when your tearing up the high speed backwoods of Finland, and a more boxed rear with an interesting spoiler. Performance wise, it was a blast. I was able to thrash it around quite a lot without having to worry about losing control, and with the sound of the engine, it made the experience second to none. So my vote this week goes to.....
The RS200
Both cars tested at Chamonix West, no aids except ABS 1, snow tires:
CZ-3: 2:27.323
RS200: 2:27.738
And the votes:
CZ-3: 2
RS200: 7
And the winner is......
The '84 RS200!!!
Congrats to @ThrasherDBS for once again going like hell by setting a winning time of 2:26.700 in the CZ-3 and setting a winning time of 2:28.863 in the RS200! (Come on @Draggon, step it up!)
- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
No kidding, @ThrasherDBS has gotten the best of me 3 weeks in a row now!
Well, I guess you can say I was...
...lucky?
Nah, but I'm pretty sure Draggon will dust me in the next duel like a bookcase in an old lady's house.
Pretty sure I won the past three because:
Zonda vs FXX: Lack of competitors and also lucky
Mustang vs R32: Predilection for both cars and the track
RS200 vs CZ-3: I guess I have a knack when it comes to off-road tracks?
Next one has gotta be Draggon's win. Eager to see the next matchup.
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Well now that i'm fully recovered from all that off-roading last week, and now that i'm done with work for the summer, I can finally get more down and dirty with this stuff. So let's get it on shall we......
That's your call @Arp 273
Whoa there sir, that's a few too many questions for this guy. Watcha got for us?
The 2001 Spyker C8 Laviolette
vs
The 1987 RUF CTR Yellow Bird!!!
This week's trial will be at Nurburgring............GP D, because I don't hate you guys that bad
That's your call @Arp 273
Whoa there sir, that's a few too many questions for this guy. Watcha got for us?
The 2001 Spyker C8 Laviolette
vs
The 1987 RUF CTR Yellow Bird!!!
Being Dutch I could not ignore the Spyker - please paint it orange and ignore the jaggies. It will face fierce competition from an older classic, the RUF Yellow Bird. They have exactly the same pp. Let's see which is faster, more furious or the most fun to drive!!
This week's trial will be at Nurburgring............GP D, because I don't hate you guys that bad
Last edited:
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
You can't tell me what to do! You're not my real dad!
So with this duel, this kinda throws a wrench in a duel that I was thinking of doing regarding 80's sports cars when it came my turn, but I've got plenty of time to rework it if necessary. Still need to test them out, and see if they're reasonably competitive, see how understeery vs. oversteery they are, the works.
But, since the Yellow Bird is busy fighting off the C8, I should probably talk about this, yeah?
Nurburgring GP/D Trial:
C8 - 1:41.722
CTR - 1:40.612
Rotenboden Trial:
C8 - 1:45.077
CTR - 1:46.712
SSR5 Trial:
C8 - 1:34.515
CTR - 1:34.326
So I wasn't necessarily informed that understeer would be an issue in this particular match, but lo and behold, understeer did play a part in this duel! Specifically, the understeering car was the Spyker C8: the car guilty for all the understeer. No, it did not understeer the entire time. The car would understeer in corners all over the place. The understeer would only cease as soon as you breathed on the gas pedal. Until then, it would understeer and wash out in corners, until the gas pedal flicked the back end of it so you're nearly spinning around. The braking on this car felt like you were stopping a runaway semi, which also contributed to a little bit of understeer on the downhill section of the Rotenboden. Yes sir, the C8 does have understeer, despite being known for having nasty oversteer under acceleration.
The CTR Black Bird (yes I painted mine black, not because of Wangan Midnight, but because I usually have both cars "switch" colors) was one of the more fun cars I've driven recently, much like the Viper GTS and the Shelby Cobra. It's got a nice charm to it when going around corners, as I can expect from a car based off an older Porsche. Unlike the Spyker, this one, true to Ryk's warning, did not have any understeer. This made the car easier to deal with than the Spyker. With this car, you only have the oversteer to deal with, unlike the Spyker which made you find a delecate balance between the understeer and the oversteer.
Yes, the Spyker soured me with its understeer. Driving this leaves you in a quandary when going around corners because you need the precise amount of throttle to prevent the understeer from taking you to the outside wall, and not spinning you around in circles. The CTR with no such understeer problems, was a lot more responsive and had more turn in through corners, and it was also such a fun pleasure to drive.
Vote clearly goes to the CTR. I love it, and it won two out of three of my trials.
Understeer.
- 1,233
- VS & 74 (France)
- GT-Alex74
Haha same here (because of previous team colors). The Spyker in my garage I use for racing is violet, because the name says it.
- 328
- Canada
- HeyZeus666
This summer has really been messing with my schedule but I managed to squeeze this duel in.
I started off in the spyker and the first thing I noticed was the brakes seem pretty weak. I overshot a few corners before I learned to adjust for their lack of strength. Kinda surprised by the lacklustre brakes.
Then I noticed the corner entry understeer, which, when combined with the poor brakes makes getting the spyker to turn in, a chore. Of course, on corner exit, delicate throttle control is required to control the inherent power oversteer. So it's a difficult car to retain high corner speed in. It does have pretty good acceleration and the gearing matched the track pretty well.
By the end of my TT I was really enjoying driving the spyker, it responds really well to precise control inputs and I could find the limits of its grip and stay there consistently. That made me smile.
So then I drove the Ruf. The yellow bird dove into the first corner and I ended up cutting through the grass! I was expecting it to push like the spyker but it didn't. So it turns in really well, but it's harder to control the power oversteer on corner exit than the spyker. I never felt confident in the cars ability to accelerate hard when not almost perfectly straight. I couldn't put the power down as early in the corner as I could with the spyker. So even though the Ruf's brakes were better and steering was better than the spyker, which meant I was quicker entering the corner, I was quicker exiting the corner in the spyker cause I could put the power down earlier. I think this where the gearing on the Ruf just didn't quite suit the track because in a few of the slower 2nd gear corners, there was too much power(oversteer) if you left it in second and it would bog down too much if you up shifted early into third. Either way, the exit speed suffered, and so did the lap time.
Overall, my vote goes to the spyker, it suited my driving style better than the Ruf. I like a little corner entry push so that I know how fast to enter a corner and the power oversteer ability lets you "steer" with backend of the car.
The Ruf just didn't make me smile like spyker did when driving it, it's much harder to keep on the limit, and that's why it didn't get my vote this week.
I started off in the spyker and the first thing I noticed was the brakes seem pretty weak. I overshot a few corners before I learned to adjust for their lack of strength. Kinda surprised by the lacklustre brakes.
Then I noticed the corner entry understeer, which, when combined with the poor brakes makes getting the spyker to turn in, a chore. Of course, on corner exit, delicate throttle control is required to control the inherent power oversteer. So it's a difficult car to retain high corner speed in. It does have pretty good acceleration and the gearing matched the track pretty well.
By the end of my TT I was really enjoying driving the spyker, it responds really well to precise control inputs and I could find the limits of its grip and stay there consistently. That made me smile.
So then I drove the Ruf. The yellow bird dove into the first corner and I ended up cutting through the grass! I was expecting it to push like the spyker but it didn't. So it turns in really well, but it's harder to control the power oversteer on corner exit than the spyker. I never felt confident in the cars ability to accelerate hard when not almost perfectly straight. I couldn't put the power down as early in the corner as I could with the spyker. So even though the Ruf's brakes were better and steering was better than the spyker, which meant I was quicker entering the corner, I was quicker exiting the corner in the spyker cause I could put the power down earlier. I think this where the gearing on the Ruf just didn't quite suit the track because in a few of the slower 2nd gear corners, there was too much power(oversteer) if you left it in second and it would bog down too much if you up shifted early into third. Either way, the exit speed suffered, and so did the lap time.
Overall, my vote goes to the spyker, it suited my driving style better than the Ruf. I like a little corner entry push so that I know how fast to enter a corner and the power oversteer ability lets you "steer" with backend of the car.
The Ruf just didn't make me smile like spyker did when driving it, it's much harder to keep on the limit, and that's why it didn't get my vote this week.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
I'm excited to re-test these two, but from what I remember and can see via my current best lap replays, I was more consistent with the Spyker. They're both pretty difficult to master entire laps with, but I tried the best I could with my trusty DS3.
Both cars cleared 160 mph on the front straight at Mid-Field Raceway, while the RUF was only 1 mph slower through Turn 1 with a minimum speed of 68 mph.
Spyker C8 Laviolette '01
4.2L
448 hp / 7,500 rpm
354 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,070 kg (2,359 lbs)
526 pp
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
3.4L
462 hp / 6,000 rpm
408 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,150 kg (2,535 lbs)
526 pp
About even in horsepower with only 14 hp between them, but the RUF makes 54 more ft-lbs of torque at the same peak rpm than the Spyker. Then again, the Spyker weighs 80 kg (176 lbs) less than the yellow birdy.
So they ended up pretty even at Mid-Field. Spyker is less than two tenths faster, and the lap looks pretty solid to me. The RUF is more hardcore, and shows its age a bit, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. My choice between these two depends on my mood. RUF stirs the senses, but Spyker stirs the soul. I'll go with Spyker today. I'll try not to change my mind in the next two days
Oh yes, the lap replays! Of course.
Other cars within 0.500 seconds:
1:18.782 - 537 - RUF CTR2 '96
1:18.791 - 521 - BMW M5 '05
1:18.803 - 509 - Toyota WedsSport Celica '03
1:18.931 - 522 - Pozzi MotorSports Camaro RS
1:18.959 - 516 - SRT Viper GTS '02
1:18.987 - 499 - RUF RGT '00
1:18.988 - 501 - Toyota Superautobacs Apex MR-S '00
1:19.080 - 510 - Subaru BRZ R&D Sport '12
1:19.197 - 521 - Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
1:19.200 - 496 - Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71
1:19.235 - 502 - Nismo Fairlady Z Z-Tune (Z33) '03
1:19.270 - 526 - Spyker C8 Laviolette '01
1:19.273 - 511 - Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88
1:19.396 - 485 - Honda S2000 LM Race Car
1:19.406 - 510 - BMW M4 Coupé
1:19.452 - 522 - Ferrari California '08
1:19.454 - 558 - Ford Shelby GT500 '13
1:19.460 - 477 - Opera Performance S2000 '04
1:19.461 - 526 - RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
1:19.551 - 512 - Mine's Lancer Evolution VI '00
1:19.573 - 497 - BMW M3 GTR '03
1:19.593 - 486 - Shelby Series One Supercharged '03
1:19.598 - 513 - BMW M5 '08
1:19.743 - 493 - Lotus Esprit Sport 350 '00
1:19.780 - 505 - Lexus Weds Sport IS350 '08
1:19.842 - 505 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04
1:19.880 - 490 - BMW M3 CSL '03
1:19.885 - 531 - High End Performance G37
1:19.890 - 483 - Spoon S2000 Race Car '00
1:19.894 - 500 - TVR Tuscan Speed 6 '00
1:19.900 - 497 - TVR Tamora '02
1:19.918 - 532 - Jaguar XKR-S '11
1:19.952 - 504 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '00
Notice two other RUF cars in the mix!
Both cars cleared 160 mph on the front straight at Mid-Field Raceway, while the RUF was only 1 mph slower through Turn 1 with a minimum speed of 68 mph.
Spyker C8 Laviolette '01
4.2L
448 hp / 7,500 rpm
354 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,070 kg (2,359 lbs)
526 pp
RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
3.4L
462 hp / 6,000 rpm
408 ft-lb / 5,000 rpm
1,150 kg (2,535 lbs)
526 pp
About even in horsepower with only 14 hp between them, but the RUF makes 54 more ft-lbs of torque at the same peak rpm than the Spyker. Then again, the Spyker weighs 80 kg (176 lbs) less than the yellow birdy.
So they ended up pretty even at Mid-Field. Spyker is less than two tenths faster, and the lap looks pretty solid to me. The RUF is more hardcore, and shows its age a bit, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. My choice between these two depends on my mood. RUF stirs the senses, but Spyker stirs the soul. I'll go with Spyker today. I'll try not to change my mind in the next two days
Oh yes, the lap replays! Of course.
Other cars within 0.500 seconds:
1:18.782 - 537 - RUF CTR2 '96
1:18.791 - 521 - BMW M5 '05
1:18.803 - 509 - Toyota WedsSport Celica '03
1:18.931 - 522 - Pozzi MotorSports Camaro RS
1:18.959 - 516 - SRT Viper GTS '02
1:18.987 - 499 - RUF RGT '00
1:18.988 - 501 - Toyota Superautobacs Apex MR-S '00
1:19.080 - 510 - Subaru BRZ R&D Sport '12
1:19.197 - 521 - Aston Martin V12 Vantage '10
1:19.200 - 496 - Ferrari 365 GTB4 '71
1:19.235 - 502 - Nismo Fairlady Z Z-Tune (Z33) '03
1:19.270 - 526 - Spyker C8 Laviolette '01
1:19.273 - 511 - Lamborghini Countach 25th Anniversary '88
1:19.396 - 485 - Honda S2000 LM Race Car
1:19.406 - 510 - BMW M4 Coupé
1:19.452 - 522 - Ferrari California '08
1:19.454 - 558 - Ford Shelby GT500 '13
1:19.460 - 477 - Opera Performance S2000 '04
1:19.461 - 526 - RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
1:19.551 - 512 - Mine's Lancer Evolution VI '00
1:19.573 - 497 - BMW M3 GTR '03
1:19.593 - 486 - Shelby Series One Supercharged '03
1:19.598 - 513 - BMW M5 '08
1:19.743 - 493 - Lotus Esprit Sport 350 '00
1:19.780 - 505 - Lexus Weds Sport IS350 '08
1:19.842 - 505 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '04
1:19.880 - 490 - BMW M3 CSL '03
1:19.885 - 531 - High End Performance G37
1:19.890 - 483 - Spoon S2000 Race Car '00
1:19.894 - 500 - TVR Tuscan Speed 6 '00
1:19.900 - 497 - TVR Tamora '02
1:19.918 - 532 - Jaguar XKR-S '11
1:19.952 - 504 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (C5) '00
Notice two other RUF cars in the mix!
- 2,833
- Lincoln
- Victory_Reign93
- Linthium Reign
So I decided to take my Yellowbird (nicknamed MatteBird due to the Matte Black finish.) out to the Ring and without giving the whole game away, let's just say that @ThrasherDBS's possible hat trick of wins might be in jeopardy, at least with the Yellowbird. 
I'm quite familiar with the Yellowbirds over steering tendencies as I used it as a base for my go-to drift animal.
Stopping it from going sideways too much did require me sawing at the analogue stick like it was a quick time event, but you don't buy a Yellowbird for its ability to be civilised now do you?
Both the Spyker and the RUF were past Car Of The Week picks and held their own quite well to boot, but there's a reason I chose the RUF back then, it suits my driving style to a tee, good old fashioned fun. đź‘Ť
Now you know how tricky it's to drive stock, what do you get when you add almost 800hp fully tuned + Nos + Comfort Hard tyres + a ridiculous track?
You get something that I call, Spiral Tap.
I'm quite familiar with the Yellowbirds over steering tendencies as I used it as a base for my go-to drift animal.
Stopping it from going sideways too much did require me sawing at the analogue stick like it was a quick time event, but you don't buy a Yellowbird for its ability to be civilised now do you?
Both the Spyker and the RUF were past Car Of The Week picks and held their own quite well to boot, but there's a reason I chose the RUF back then, it suits my driving style to a tee, good old fashioned fun. đź‘Ť
Now you know how tricky it's to drive stock, what do you get when you add almost 800hp fully tuned + Nos + Comfort Hard tyres + a ridiculous track?
You get something that I call, Spiral Tap.
- 1,515
- Pacific NW
- ThrasherDBS
- ThrasherDBS
Hate to disappoint you @Vic Reign93 but I've already lost it. @pretend racer already topped my times in both cars by a few seconds. No way in hell am I able to beat that.
- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
And I was hoping to get the win in the Spyker but @pretend racer has got me beat by a bit over a second. I don't think I can chop that much off of my time.
- 93
- Netherlands
- ARP_273
Spend quite some time this week with the Spyker and the RUF. Most of it was in a cloud of smoke from the Yellowbird making pirouettes that would make Sanne Wevers proud..
I love the looks of both cars, unfortunately the modeling of the Spyker doesn't do it justice. The RUF was upgraded to semi premium and it shows. Also love that you can see the rear tires spinning through the air intakes. They each have a distinctive sound, the CTR sounds racy while the C8 sounds relaxed with lots of low end.
For me the C8 is faster, easier to push and get away with a small mistake. The Yellowbird is brutal when you get it slighty wrong. The strange thing is that is has much better brakes, handles bumps a lot better and has fantastic front grip and turn in. However all this doesn't lead to faster laps.
The C8 suits my driving style, while I feel I have to baby the CTR just to not crash. It's great fun though when it all comes together and for a brief moment you feel how it's meant to be driven. And then there is that cloud of smoke again..
My vote goes to the Spyker C8 Laviolette
I hope you guys enjoyed this duel. Can't wait to see what next week will bring!
I love the looks of both cars, unfortunately the modeling of the Spyker doesn't do it justice. The RUF was upgraded to semi premium and it shows. Also love that you can see the rear tires spinning through the air intakes. They each have a distinctive sound, the CTR sounds racy while the C8 sounds relaxed with lots of low end.
For me the C8 is faster, easier to push and get away with a small mistake. The Yellowbird is brutal when you get it slighty wrong. The strange thing is that is has much better brakes, handles bumps a lot better and has fantastic front grip and turn in. However all this doesn't lead to faster laps.
The C8 suits my driving style, while I feel I have to baby the CTR just to not crash. It's great fun though when it all comes together and for a brief moment you feel how it's meant to be driven. And then there is that cloud of smoke again..
My vote goes to the Spyker C8 Laviolette
I hope you guys enjoyed this duel. Can't wait to see what next week will bring!
- 2,270
- United States
- G_ASHER
My vote goes to the Spyker C8 Laviolette as well. The Spyker felt like it was in control most of the time, rather than me, at least I was able to get somewhat of a handle on it after a dozen or so laps. Then theres the Yellowbird. It craps in it's nest. Beautiful brakes, good speed, nice handling......but that "cloud of smoke" @Arp 273 points out. After testing in arcade mode for a half hour or so, and being utterly frustrated I gave up.
I'm looking forward to this week's duel. Either I'm way off my game, or the rest of you have really stepped things up! And for those of you who don't know, @ThrasherDBS and I had a very close competition. He had me in the Spyker by a half second or so and then popped into my room in the lobby. The pressure of him watching me helped me to get "up on the wheel" so to speak and I improved my time to get, for the moment, the top spot. Thanks buddy đź‘Ť
I'm looking forward to this week's duel. Either I'm way off my game, or the rest of you have really stepped things up! And for those of you who don't know, @ThrasherDBS and I had a very close competition. He had me in the Spyker by a half second or so and then popped into my room in the lobby. The pressure of him watching me helped me to get "up on the wheel" so to speak and I improved my time to get, for the moment, the top spot. Thanks buddy đź‘Ť
