kt22cliff

nope. two john doe's

timeToy

iTrader: (11)

Let's check how the IS-F stacks versus the E92 M3 and the C63 on other tracks and in other hands:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/raceways.html

Nordschleife: IS-F 8:18 | M3 (E92) 8:05 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 2.68%
Tsukuba: IS-F 1:07.087 | M3 (E92) 1:05.817 | C63 1:07.373 | IS-F/M3 1.93%
Vairano: IS-F 1:22.112 | M3 (E92) 1:20.910 | C63 1:21.641 | IS-F/M3 1.48%
Inta: IS-F 1:12.77 | M3 (E92) 1:12.36 | No C63 time | IS-F/M3 0.50%
Hockenheim Short: IS-F 1:15.8 | M3 (E92) 1:14.3 | C63 1:15.2 | IS-F/M3 2.00%
Hockenheim GP: IS-F 2:04.45 | M3 (E90) 2:02.71| C63 2:04.59 | IS-F/M3 1.42%

SportAuto: IS-F 1:30.9 | M3 (E92) 1:32.4 | No C63 time | IS-F 1.65% faster than M3

and the infamous C&D time:
VIR: IS-F 3:14.0 | M3 (E92) 3:05.6 | C63 3:06.5 | IS-F/M3 4.52%

As you can see the IS-F, albeit a bit slower than the M3, is always within 0.50% to 2.68% of the M3 time, except for the C&D test where it is 4.52% slower.

Based on this, the IS-F time at VIR should realistically be around 2% of the M3 time, or 3:09.3, which put the IS-F at the 19th place behind the Lotus Elise S2 and the C63 and in front of the Cayman S and M6. Definitely more where it should be !

kt22cliff

Those numbers are straight out of fastestlaps.com and that's not correct/fair way to judge the track performance % difference b/c most if not all except C&D were driven by different drivers on different days/conditions. 8:05 on one day is not same as 8:05 on another day. You look at all the C&D's sectional data M3 vs IS-F, and it tells you IS-F could not carry in speed into the corner and more importantly it could not exit any of the the corner with more speed than M3.

sec1 67.5 vs 64.2
sec2 100.1 vs 96.0
sec3 71.0 vs 67.9
sec4 83.3 vs 78.9
sec5 93.5 vs 91.8

So unless all 3 C&D drivers were ******* it only when they drove IS-F it'ss much fairer comparison than other laptime comparisons listed at fastlaps. I would say extra 300lbs + no LSD are killing IS-F

Pearlpower

iTrader: (2)

People have to keep in mind that these times are made by different drivers and in different conditions of which all can make a world of difference on the chart times. It does not mean that one car is better than another by any means. Does this mean that someone looking to purchase an IS-F will now go and purchase a Cobalt?
You also have to keep in mind that cars respond differently to different tracks which explains why many autocrossers will adjust their cars for various track events within the given limits. Some cars will respond to one particular track better today but not so well as the competitors at another track tomorrow.

They are just numbers which offer some sort of guidelines, none of which is a real accurate tool for ascertaining a car's overall performance potential. Too many variables unless they are done the same day by similar drivers and even then some drivers can drive car A better than car B as it may be better suited to their driving style.

We all have our preferences and not everyone will agree with our choices. Some like myself enjoy RWD V8's while others can get by with a well tuned FWD car.

Just because one car is lower or higher than others does not mean it is a better car unless you decide to tape that article on the rear window for everyone to read all day long.

335, IS-F, TL, Vette, Viper, 135 , GS400 (my favorite), etc. are all great cars in their own regard. Respect them for that and not by a chart.

Galaxy 40

Thanks for posting lap/track times....What a difference it is compared to the c&d time.I would go with lap/track times from different sources rather than just relying on c&d.

Did c&d really pick the m3 vs the GTR? In what aspect.

timeToy

iTrader: (11)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

It is more comfortable... (in a nutshell)

L&E

what? CTS-V beats 911 Turbo?