Porsche Carrera GT specs

The fact of tires progress was always a point that must be take in account during lap time comparison but very neglected by enthusiasts. That's in a grater way when we compare times with old gen cars.

Personally I wonder what an XJ220 would do with modern tires and suspension, considering how breathtaking its laptime was way back in the 90s.

That's exactly what I mean looking at fit just modern tires considering its record time was done around a full lap of the NRing. So on 20.8 km track.

I'm guessing easy 7:20s

I don't expose myself but could be!

I would just throw this test into face of all those to kept away how much forces due to improvement of tires affect acceleration, braking and lap times I read in past into that argument.

15 Year ago I remember how much time, pages and pages spent treating on Nissan records neglecting how attitude of factory spent on effort behind, car setting and alignment and tire development was to get into those goals. Ridiculous how people it gave meaning to the product but did not give value to the refinement to achieve the goals.

Yeah, it's really interesting how much more effort some makers put into laptimes than the others. Who knows what some older 90s cars would be capable of in these conditions.

Anyway, nice to see you here again.

7:20 the XJ220? So what would a Ferrari F40 do?

At the fact the Enzo and Carrera GT were not as fast as their factory claimad as average. Maybe this was due to the fact that test mule cars were used were not as close as the production specification was. I own a Alfa Romeo 4C test mule car and as supposed it was produced with sligltly pre production differences.

"heavy weight with manual transmission". what are smoking??? 1380kg with a 600+hp 5.7L v10 = heavy weight?

Thats heavy!

"not as fast as their factory claimad as average"

what do you mean as average?

I mean that looking at how much these two car made acceleration figures on press around the world, figures indicate that cars tested were not as so close as Ferrari and Porsche indicate to be fast on omologated figures. Or close to be fast as promised just in few occasions.

On the other way there are so many cars that made consistently faster acceleration figures around press than claimed by them self.

Coming back into argument, this test that SportAuto made confirm to us that technological progress of the car itself was there but in a proportionately less resonant way than charlatans think it really is lol.

they used to report ideal condition performance figures (Ferrari still do). Isn't that the whole point??? You tell people what it CAN do, not what it can do every time, especially when it's a manual transmission. Only the recent past 10 years did they report conservative numbers, and predominantly, turbo cars only.

name me a world homologated production car today that has over 600hp and a curb weight of less than 1380kg.

There, probably is! Partially, not sure. Due to differences of built process from mules to production units. Example early engines fitted on the Enzo's mule were particulary powerful. I suspect was that for the CGT also. It's not rare that cars were homologated still during details development. Not for second the detail of curb weight, pretty sure that mules were parlucilary light cars infact looking at how press weighed those cars, figures were usually higher than promised. Put the package together and the repeatability of results goes away.

I would like to point out that if I had said 15 years ago a XJ220 could be fast as a Nissan GT-R today if tested with modern tires, I would have been stoned by members in most forums (Scars.net as main).

One of the argument was that GT-R was not just faster than 911 Turbo (997) but still faster than Carrera GT.

They would be able of contradicting themselves today? lol.

CGT is still a light car, today that most are massive cars and battery provided.

Koenigsegg Jesko and McLaren 765LT will be close. Enough.

Jesko is at 1420kg.

The 765lt even with weight saving MSO options and nearly ZERO fuel in the car still came in at over 1380kg.

hard to say the the CGT is heavy when 99% of other supercars weigh more. The only cars that weigh less is the T50, Valkyrie, and Senna.

faster around a track? no. an XJ220 is not faster than a GTR. you'd need to deal with turbo lag, you'd need to deal with the suspension, and you'll need to deal with the brakes. That CGT leaned and wobbled so badly around the track with those cup2 tires. The time improvement wasn't just from better tires, but a faster track, as well as a better driver. You are not going to find 30s around the ring with the XJ220 from just changing the tires.

The GTR was faster than the 997 turbo indeed as well as the CGT on their original tires for a combination of reasons: racier tires, tricked AWD, short geared gearbox, state of the art tuned suspension (for the time).

Post deleted.

Wait a minute. What does we have on hand that confirm the fact that XJ220 on modern tires couldn't be fast as an early specification of the GT-R on the NRing? Do you remember the early laps that Suzuki did? I do remember. It seems you didn't. At first approach at the track Suzuki did a very carefully 7:38 on a dampy track. Later he did 7:29 and 7:26 with more effort and just few mods on the car. No need for new tires to give you 30 seconds per lap on the Jaguar with Nielsen driving. But something like a DOZEN of seconds or so. These aren't just details because Jaguar team was intersted to test their car on the full lap at that period. It was early 90s. Also we cannot know how much effort did Nielsen for the fast lap. Sukuzi did records pushing much effort than before he said later the 7:26 lap, record done behind weeks and weeks spent lapping the track. For sure we know Jaguar record was done with very older tires and running the track for a very shorter session.
Let's be honest, or we fall into the usual preconcepts.

curb weight of Jesko aboslut is 1390kg.

if you're going to use 80% fuel for the Koenigsegg, then the CGT would also weigh less than that if it had just 80% fuel. what kind of logic is that?

The SSC Tuatara? the car that claimed 331mph? you said the CGT is heavy, you should be listing a BOAT load of cars that are lighter. where are they?

Post deleted.

7:26 was the third lap record Nissan claims with Suzuki driving. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The XJ220 was almost a DOZEN of secs slower than the 2nd Nissan record on the same lenght lap, or 7.29 lap. That's with all the considerations to do listed above:
• very older tires
• very shorter lap session
Nothing more. Nothing less.

Post deleted.

Anything around 1400 kerb is world class weight.

Modern cars that weigh sub 1400 or are around the 1400 mark with a FULL tank :

McLaren 675LT - 1356kg by Autobild (72l tank)
McLaren Senna - 1345kg as per Autocar (72l tank)
McLaren 765LT - 1404kg by SportAuto (72l tank)
Koenigsegg One:1 - 1360kg according to Koenigsegg (80l fuel tank)
Aston Martin Valkyrie - 1313kg by SportAuto (50l fuel tank)
Porsche Cayman GT4 RS - 1431kg by SportAuto (54l fuel tank)
Huayra BC Roadster - 1384kg by Car and Driver (84l fuel tank)

No offense, but anybody who says that the ballpark of 1400kg kerb is any sort of heavy shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a totally hilarious statement, espcially when 80% of cars that weigh that much are walking carbon and alcantara pieces. Yes it's not as light as back in the days, but 1400 today is obviously NOT heavy...

NOBODYCARES2024

Modern cars are using light meterials but are structurally massive.

"nowadays thats possible to assemble a fairly agile car without exceeding even 1300 kilograms with all the stuff"

"many modern sports cars weigh more than 1350 kilograms, just because of the reinforcement of the frame"

many? what an understatement. more like 98% of sports cars weigh more than 1350kg, and that includes 300hp cars, let alone 600+hp cars

yes, the 675lt is another car that really was lighter than that mark too. I'm sure the Elva is too. But the Koenigsegg One:1 isn't. 1360kg is with only 50% fuel tank. with biofuels, that would put it at 1388kg at 90% fuel tank.

The Valkyrie has to be the most impressive, 6.5l V12 as well as having electric motors and batteries. incredible.

Post deleted.

NOBODYCARES2024

Who is Suzuki for you? Are you aware who is?

Do you have never know the difference running full lap or just 20.6 kms lap at Ring?

you seem to.

sorry, I definitely misread something.

So the XJ220 did 7:46.36 on the 20.6km configuration, according to a stopwatch, claimed by Jaguar in a non road legal prototype
The GTR 480ps version, did a 7:26 on the same configuration.

That's 20s difference. I still do not see the XJ220 making up 20s of difference with just a tire change to an equivalent tire of what the GTR had. And if you are going to use ultra modern semislicks, well, that GTR is also some 15 years old too, it would also improve considerably if it had the same new tires.

An XJ220 is just NOT faster than a GTR around a track.

7:46 for the XJ220 is a full ring 20.8km, so about 7:40 for 20.6.
As for the GT-R, as I recall, they originally tested it on homebrew Bridgestone tires and couldn't get a time better than 7:30. Then they switched to Dunlop Sport max semislicks and gradually improved the time to 7:26.7 (at 20.6km).
I.e. if you take 7:30 for Nissan and 7:40 for Jaguar, it's pretty understandable to assume that in 15 years there could be a 10 second difference in the ring between the Bridgestone Expedia and RE070 tires?
Personally, I think that on the same tires, if XJ220 has any chance of competing with the GT-R anywhere, it's at the Nordschleife.

7:40 was definitely not a stock attempt. I can tell you that. That's what a Ferrari F50 would do, and that car is much better on any track than an XJ220. Even an F40 would not do that, and that car is still faster than an XJ220 in every measurement except top speed.

That was the prototype car #005 very close to production spec I believe.
Probably slightly lighter.
And why do you think F40 can't do it?

And on non-road-legal tires. Don't forget that part.

I mean that looking at how much these two car made acceleration figures on press around the world, figures indicate that cars tested were not as so close as Ferrari and Porsche indicate to be fast on omologated figures. Or close to be fast as promised just in few occasions.

I would rephrase that a bit: "most testers around the world have failed to replicate the claimed figures for the Carrera GT and the Enzo."
I think this can be partly explained by the specificity of manual gear shifting on engines with power concentrated close to the red line. And also the fact that the stated figures seem to have been taken as the best results in optimal conditions, while most testers test with a full tank, a passenger, on the Nardo ring, etc.
On the other hand, we have MT test where both cars trapped 214 kph in low 11 on 402m, that most likely equals 0-200 in under 10 seconds.

every source I've seen is the 20.6km for the XJ220, including this very website.
Even if it were the full distance, the difference would be no more than 5s.

The GTR does have dunlop optional tires right?

if you're going to be so adamant of the GTR time on the correct tires, whats that about the XJ220? it was just a claim by Jaguar using a stop watch. When Jaguar set the world record for nearly hitting 220mph, they had removed the cat and rev limiter, predicted to be about 40-50hp difference. how do we know they didn't do that for the nurburgring time?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and you'll correct me, but I think from the video it's a full Nordschleife.

It's all in the past now, and we can't say for sure. The XJ220 certainly has its shortcomings compared to modern cars. But still it's a car built on a racing technologies, not a wobbly GT. It is clear that it will in any case have difficulties in competing with the GT-R on twisty sections and on braking zones, but using the same level of tires the gap will be smaller. To what extent, it is difficult to estimate until we see the actual test, but it will definitely be a serious difference, because in the early 90's track tire technology for road sportscars was still in its infancy, and by 2007 had already developed quite decently.
Besides, on such tracks as Nordschleife or Spa XJ220 would be definitely faster on straight sections and wide sweepers. Who knows, maybe the GT-R would still be faster in terms of total lap time, but the gap would certainly not be big. I mean, not with rookies behind the wheel, of course. Almost anyone can go fast in a GT-R, but the old Jaguar needs a competent driver familiar with this kind of machinery.
Relatively recently, Pirelli released a batch of new P Zero Corsa tyres specifically designed for the XJ220. It would be insanely curious to see how much it improved lap times on the track.
I'm guessing very much.

Concerning XJ220 lap time, modern sources are misleading Even SportAuto referred their lap times on the full 20.8 kms lap of the Nordschleife till mid 90s. Souces of the 7.46 lap time printed in the period referred to the full lap, starting from official comunnicate to press. Evo mag said 12.9 miles track. Autocapital mag said around the long Nordschleife. Short 20.6 km track was used later than the 1991.

@196ss
Agree. It would be fine to look at some articles testing tires during years.

Interesting.
So laptimes like 8:44 for 930 Turbo or 8:46 for Esprit S4 were most likely done on 20.8km layout?

7:40 was definitely not a stock attempt... Even an F40 would not do that...

Let's make some speculations.
In the Sport Auto supertest, Porsche 997.1 Turbo and Ferrari F430 at the ring showed 7:54 and 7:55 respectively, with +/- close times on the other tracks.

https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/dn5edfp4m0k9

In the factory attempt with Walter Rohrl at the wheel, Turbo clocked 7:38. Accordingly, we can assume that in the factory attempt the F430 could have done something like 7:40, right?
Now, if you compare F40 and F430, the early lightweight uncatted version of the F40 lapped Fiorano in 1:27, i.e. exactly the same time as F430. The later versions went in 1:29, which isn't much slower either. On the Bedford circuit the tested F40 was almost 20 years old, and was only about a second behind F430.

https://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/5ra427b77agd

And we should take into account that F430 is much better at technical curvy sections, on high-speed sections the 430 is slower A LOT. And in this regard, the Nordschleife suits F40 much better than slow and twisty Bedford or Fiorano.
Agree, when you take all that into account, 7:40 doesn't seem so unrealistic in a factory attempt even on 80's tires?

https://porschecarshistory.com/porsche-964-carrera-rs-vs-porsche-964-turbo-sport-auto-mag-111991-deutsch/
Nordschlife layout 20.8 km, SportAuto 11/1991

https://porschecarshistory.com/porsche-993-gt2-by-shk-motorsport-sport-auto-mag-12-1999-deutsch/
Gemballa 993 GTR 11/1995, layout Nordschlife 20.8 km, lap time 7:52.

The 7:46 of the XJ220 means to be translated in ~7:41 tacking count of the shorter 20.6 km layout. That's why XJ220 lap time was said to be untouched untill 00s.

That looked very much like the 20600m lap because he turned onto the circuit during that 232m stretch and came in during that stretch as well.

Video could not be referred to a single lap. And it could not be referred to the very record lap. Jaguar stay there at the Ring for one week, they made also promotional videos included in their track sessions.

From the video (6:06 min) Alastair McQueen was timing the lap from the entrance of the pits! So what was the reference if not an entire lap?

Interesting.
So laptimes like 8:44 for 930 Turbo or 8:46 for Esprit S4 were most likely done on 20.8km layout?<

The first Sportauto Supertest was 3/1997 with Bmw M3 E36. I think that was the start with official 20.6 km use of the track by the magazine.

I still do not see the XJ220 making up 20s of difference with just a tire change to an equivalent tire of what the GTR had. And if you are going to use ultra modern semislicks, well, that GTR is also some 15 years old too, it would also improve considerably if it had the same new tires.
An XJ220 is just NOT faster than a GTR around a track

Well, on second thought, maybe you're right.
If we talk about the 20.6km layout on modern semislicks XJ220 is still hardly close to Carrera GT and probably could show 7:20-7:25 at best, while the 07' GT-R on modern tyres could go down to about 7:15-7:18.

Ok so you are talking with the point to test both cars with nowadays semislicks tires.

I think Porsche 993 tested in 1994 8:28 laptime was mentioned as 20.6km layout. I'm not sure, I'll check

Yes, there does seem to be some confusions in the early SA Nurb laptimes taking place.
The Carrera 993 test itself doesn't say 8:28 for which layout, but in the Carrera 996, NSX and Corvette supertests, where the 993 is listed for the reference, it says 20.6km.
There are also oddities with the F355. The 10/94 issue lists a time of 8:13 for the 20.8km configuration, but the 06/97 supertest lists 8:18 for 20.6km.
It's still quite possible, even if Sport Auto didn't use the 20.6km configuration in the first half of the 90s, it could well have been used by other testers like Best Motoring for example. Wikipedia says that for safety reasons full uninterrupted flying laps could only be done in closed sessions and racing events. It's hard to say if the Jaguar tests were closed sessions, the video seems to show other cars on the track.
Anyway, whether the configuration was 20.6 or 20.8, it was a record that stood for more than 10 years if we don't count the 7:44 from Bugatti, about which there is very little info. It's not clear how close that EB110 was to a road car.

Yes.
The same reason why I always thougt the 993 GT2 did just a 8:09 as a slow lap time. Horst Von Saurma didn't make enough effort driving it at that time but also track layout was the longest, for me. I believe the car was able to lap around 8 min flat 20.6 km layout, daily..
When Horst Von Saurma lapped the SHK 993 GT2 was able to run 7:50 constantly and just 7:46 when the lap was almost pusched at the limit at dusk of the day. I'm still impressed for the 7:52 of the Gemballa 993 GTR if was made on the long layout.

According to Roland Kussmaul's published notes, with Rohrl behind the wheel 993 GT2 factory laptimes were:
430 ps version - 8:02
450 ps version - 7:57.
Don't know was it a full lap of 20.8km or not, but I assume full.
So von Saurma's time wasn't so bad in this case.

https://ibb.co/PwXnLg0

"...covered the 12.9 miles circuit in an astonishing 7min 46 secs.."
"...and close to 200 mph on the main straight that runs towards the old start/finish area.."

Coming back to the XJ220 the UK Evo claims that the car was tested the long 20.8 km layout and I believe close to 320 kph down the hill of the Antoniusbuche (even if top speed seems to me very high). I think more like 305 kph.

Yeah, I remember that article. I think there was also about GT3, Caterham and Skyline GT-R)
To be honest I always thought the record lap of the XJ220 was set at a 20.8 layout, however now I see arguments for either 20.8 or 20.6 and I'm not 100% sure.
Anyway, in both cases it's massively faster than the previous record holder Ruf CTR.

One more point. If this was not taken for a spectacular shot, but really measurements were made by a stopwatch manually, then:
Firstly, the time of 7:46.37 could hardly be recorded with such accuracy, manual measurements are accurate to tenths at best.
Secondly, the lap time is set on the 20.8 configuration. If 20.6 layout was used, you would have to travel 230m over the pits for each measurement, which is not very convenient, and since there were probably a lot of measurements, such a method would have been quickly abandoned.

By the way, do you know when the first attempt time of 7:56 was set in May 1991 behind the wheel was still Nielsen or some another pilot?

One more point. If this was not taken for a spectacular shot, but really measurements were made by a stopwatch manually, then:
Firstly, the time of 7:46.37 could hardly be recorded with such accuracy, manual measurements are accurate to tenths at best.
Secondly, the lap time is set on the 20.8 configuration. If 20.6 layout was used, you would have to travel 230m over the pits for each measurement, which is not very convenient, and since there were probably a lot of measurements, such a method would have been quickly abandoned.<

Agree, that's what I mean, infact on the book it was rounded at 7:47. I think the 7:46.37 was just the time McQueen found in the stopwatch without particular accuracy but they take that for official measurement. On the other way, It would have made no sense to travel 230 meters over the pits every time.

By the way, do you know when the the first attempt time of 7:56 was set in May 1991 behind the wheel was still Nielsen or some another pilot?<

I have no info on that attempt, neither on the book.
I think it was part of the reason to make the 25000 miles of durability?

Another poit. An XJ220 that reached over 300 kph on the main straight of the Nordschleife was not a car like Jaguar provided for Autocar test, but it was faster. I had always the sensation that Jaguar game the play to use paticular faster engines on certain occasions. I don't believe with the solution decatting a car like they did at Nardò but using the solution to use fast units starting from the engine properly.

The car was claimed at 20,3s on the standing km, on more than one source.
Prototype #005 was the blue car tested at Millbrook with Correvit fitted on the back, it was used for durability certification testing and the NRing for lap sessions. Paradoxically its seems that McQueen was timing the metallic red car prototype #004 by the video, so both units were used for the same reasons. Promotional video shows also another red car, denoted to be a very early prototype by lots of details #002, but not exacly definitive as a production car and slower than the others (#002 did just 186 mph at Brunthingthorpe).

My question is now if they used an higher specification engines between standard to S version or these were just cars provided of engines with accumulated milage and fast due to a well broken-in engines. Something is saying me that last assumption could de no bad.

I think it was part of the reason to make the 25000 miles of durability?

Did I understand correctly, you mean that between the attempts at the Ring in May and September 1991, the 005 prototype drove 25,000 miles?
In the video, the 005 has 5851 miles (kilometers?) on the odometer.

No, I mean that #005 was involved in the accumulation miles and 25000 mile durability.
It's evident the car was finisched to be assembled the 26 April, they started their test at NRing in May I suppose.
Paradoxically McQueen timed #004 in the video. Not sure the fastest lap at NRing from which car came from. The book said to be #005 car that was used for the lap.
5851 miles on the #005 odometer published by the video is the double size of the car tested by Autocar #007. I'm asking, that could be the reason why it was faster than Autocar's XJ220? It could be interesting to accumulate more info as possible on these detalis.

I think the record is still set by the 005 car, at least all official sources like your book and press release say so. The episode with the red car is probably staged. Although the 004 car apparently also had a strong engine (judging by the fact that it hit 212 mph in hot weather at Port Stockton), the record runs at the ring were made by the 005. And it was used twice, in May and September 1991. I think a possible reason for 005 being faster could be brake and suspension settings more favorable for the Nurburgring.

Car 007 also participated in the Nardo speed record attempt together with 009, but apparently was slower, as its speed record wasn’t listed. Perhaps it could be explained by theory that it’s engine was weaker than 004, 005, 009.

If we think better about it, the Autocar test numbers aren't too bad. 150-160 mph in 3 seconds says a lot of power. If you remember my graphs, I was getting about 355 kW at the wheels there, so that's 560-580 hp at the flywheel. It's just that 004, 005 and 009 seem even more powerful.

Let me to return briefly to the previous conversation about comparing XJ220 and GT-R.
I’ve got bothered a bit and tried to carefully transfer the GT-R's Bedford Autodrome lap telemetry to a graph comparing XJ220 vs LP640 (red - jaguar, black - nissan).

The most noticeable thing that sticks out is the Nissan's significant advantage in braking intensity. The Jaguar driver has to start braking much earlier. On the same tires, this point would be somewhat mitigated, but it's unlikely to be offset completely. Michael Schumacher during the test in Mireval noted that the XJ220 brakes, deprived of electronic aids, was not easy to control and tend to lock.
The next thing that throws the XJ220 backwards is shifting from 2nd to 3rd gear on straights 1-2, 5-6 and 6-7. Nissan, with its DCT, loses nothing in the shifts. And the tires have no effect on this situation.
Curiously, the Jaguar accelerates more intensely at the exit of turns 5 and 6, despite the fact that the GT-R is AWD. Jaguar also has higher speed in the hairpin turns 1 and 5. This is probably because GT-R, due to its longer wheelbase and AWD, goes through them on a different trajectory.
On the only more or less fast corner on this track, #8, Nissan goes much faster - 130 km/h versus about 115. Here I think is a good potential for the XJ-220 with a grippie tires. At least narrow the gap for sure.
Forth corner isn’t comparable however, because it was changed, I believe.
The thing we caon't see on this track is high-speed corners, and this is where the XJ220 is supposed to shine. According to Nissan's statement, downforce generated by GT-R aero at 250 km/h is 50 kg, and the XJ-200, if we count the declared Cz=-0.25, should have about 120 kg of downforce at 250 km/h. In this case, the Jaguar's downforce/weight ratio is about three times higher. This should significantly add stability in corners and under braking at high speeds.

If we think better about it, the Autocar test numbers aren't too bad. 150-160 mph in 3 seconds says a lot of power. If you remember my graphs, I was getting about 355 kW at the wheels there, so that's 560-580 hp at the flywheel. It's just that 004, 005 and 009 seem even more powerful.<

I totally agree with you, always tought Autocar's XJ220 was around 570~580 hp. Faster cars tested around the press denoted to be fitted even with stronger engines. Maybe 600 hp or over.

Let me to return briefly to the previous conversation about comparing XJ220 and GT-R.<

Your point out on this comparison seems to me accurate and right.
I want to add that the Jag provided of modern grippy tires would tend to improve on corners where speed was closer to Nissan and it will tend to compensate on corners where the speed was slower than GT-R. This does will improve exit speed corners and consequently straight speed also.
Ok it will be forced to brake sooner, but I think that the scenario will be more inclined at Nurburgring than Bedford for the XJ220, due to the faster configuration of some part of the track where higher downforce improve stability on fast tortuos segments, fast corners, where throttle will be partially opened or just approaching the braking zones. Higher grippy tires here will further help the driver in driving sensibility and safety. I'm highly impressed how much improved the Carrera GT approaching fast braking zone at NRing with new modern tires. Kesselchen speed braking zone was improved by over 11%. This does means going faster due to faster exit corner and because the driver was able braking later.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the XJ220 peaking in the vicinity of 120 mph as top speed reached at Bedford. It's around 112 mph with its period tires.
On the other hand we must take count also that front engine cars like GT-R is, tend to helps approaching entrance on slow corners giving safety than mid engined cars. Physiological tendency due to the greater weight on the front axle Most corners at Bedford are slow corners.
Maybe in future we will have new tire comparisons from different era, who knows.

So sport auto got a faster Nurburgring time in a Carrera GT than a 918
On the same tires....

Fun fact! Unrelated but I got a 1:16 lap time in a 918 non-Weissach in Automation (that's on the Top Gear track), and a 1:19 in the Carrera GT as well as the 911 GT1. Both of the latter could theoretically do 1:16 but I think they would need much more modern tires to do a 1:16.

From my experience with lap time database, 1:20 around the Top Gear track is the equivalent to between 7:30-7:50 around the 'Ring, or around 1:10-1:15 around the "short" Hockenheimring track, depending on the car's straight-line performance.

Ford GT and Ferrari 360CS both coincidentally have comparable Nring and TG track times. I think even around the Hockenheimring they're quite comparable.

Horst Von Saurma is no Jörg Bërgmeister but its clear the 918 isn't that good around the bends

If 918 isn't good around the bends idk what is anymore

isn't ""that""" good

The Carrera GT is 500 pounds lighter which helps mechanical grip and everything else.

the problem with the young kiddies on fastestlaps is

more power = fastest shit that they start to worship and kiss everyones ass involved in developing the car

like i said before, hybrid and ev garbage is just a temporary bubble and it will burst in time.

if they did a 6 lap battle between a gt3 rs and sf90, the sf90s performance will start to deteriorate starting with brakes and tires, then comes the hybrid drivetrain failure, where it will ask you to slow down or the performance will drop automatically, if it doesn't overheat and break.

and lamborghini will not test the huracan sto with semi-slick tires for a good reason. it will upset many v12 owners.

Extremely rare dr. cosimo W

This post has received too much negative feedback and is hidden. Click here to show it anyway.

"check and see how many sf90 owners will tell you they've been to the track"

that's mostly true with most Ferrari owners. It's a luxury status car now, and much less to do with driving and tracking. They are selling WAY more cars today than they did 15 years ago, but I bet seeing a Ferrari on the track was more common then, than now. Aside from Ferrari's own private track days for their clientelle, where they have an even more exclusive department with $5 million 499P cars for rich folks who want to have serious track days, or at least a 296 challenge and other XX cars, road cars are assets that need to be babied.

I doubt many V12 owners care
Huracan LP610 did faster times than Aventador SV because of tires
Revuelto is slower than Huracan STO on it's only track test ever again because of tires

This post has received too much negative feedback and is hidden. Click here to show it anyway.

I do. So don't speak for me or anyone else here. Moron.

No space for such disrespect in FL!

IDK which version you're running but theres a CGT body as a mod on the Workshop

Automation.

This test was long time treated here, the car was provided from private and it was discussed was uncatted. The article shows 284 kph of speed trap on the 1000 meters and they are a very fast figure for a Carrera GT.