Slalom Speed by Road and Track

[z4mcoupe]

Acura
NSX: 65.8
RSX-s: 67.1
RL: 65.1

Aston Martin
DB9: 65.5
V8 vantage: 68.6

Audi
A3 2.0 T: 61.7
A4 2.0 T quattro: 69.2
A6 3.2 quattro: 61.6
A8 L: 65.5
S4: 67.2
RS4:68.9

Bentley
Continental GT: 63.8
Flying Spur: 64.1


BMW
Z4 M roadster: 68.7
Z4 M coupe: 70.5
X5 4.8 is: 63.7
M3 CS: 67.3
M5: 68.9
M6: 69.5
750: 67
330i: 66.6
550i: 65.3
545i: 66.1

Cadillac
CTS: 64
CTS V: 66
STS: 62.3
STS V: 65.8

Caterham
CSR: 79.8

Chevrolet
Colbalt SS: 66.9
Corvette: 70.2
Corvette Z06: 69.6
TrailBlazer SS: 60.9

Chrysler
300 C: 62.4
300 C SRT8: 66.5

Dodge
Viper SRT10: 71.4
Magnum SRT8: 66.3
SRT4: 67.3
Charger R/T: 61.4

Ferrari
Enzo: 73
F430 spider: 70.9
612 scaglietti: 66

Ford
GT: 69.5
Mustang GT: 64.9
Escape Hybrid: 58.6
Shelby GT 500: 65.3

Honda
Civic Hybrid: 64.1
Civic SI: 66.8
S 2000: 69.7

Infiniti
G35: 66.7
M45 Sport: 63.6
FX45: 63

Jaguar
XJ8: 64
XK Coupe: 67.5

Jeep:
Grand Cherokee SRT 8: 63.5

Lamborghini
Gallardo: 68.6
Gallardo Spider: 70.6
Murcielago: 65.7

Land Rover
Range Rover Sport Supercharged: 56.8

Lexus
ES 350: 61.4
GS 450h: 60.7
GS 430: 64.8
IS 350: 61.3
IS 250 AWD: 64.5

Lotus
Elise: 72.6
Exige: 71.2

Maserati
GranSport: 72.2
Quattroporte: 65.8

Mazda
RX-8: 68.4
Mazdaspeed6: 64.9
MX-5 miata PRHT: 67

Mercedes:
C350 Sport: 66.4
E350 Sport: 64.2
S550: 60.1
S600: 64.6
C55: 67.6
CLS 500: 64.7
E55 wagon: 62.9
ML500: 59.4
SL 65: 65.8
SLK 55: 68.3
SLK 350: 68.4
SLR: 69.6

Mini:
Cooper S: 69.5
Cooper S JCW: 66.2

Morgan
Aero 8: 70.1
Plus 8: 61

Nissan
350Z: 67.3
Maxima 3.5 SE: 63.7
Altima SE-R: 66.8

Pontiac
GT0: 64.1
Solstice: 67
Solstice GXP: 67
Grand PrixGXP: 63.2
G6 GTP: 64.2

Porsche
Boxter S: 73.9
CGT: 71.1
Caymen S: 71.7
Cayenne Turbo: 63.5
997 Carrera S: 71.7
997 Carrera 4S: 71.5
997 Turbo: 70.7

Rolls-Royce
Phantom: 57.9

Ruf
RK coupe: 70.1
Rturbo: 65.7

Saab
9-3 Convertable: 64.5
9-3 Aero: 63.3

Saleen
S7 TT: 69.9

Scion
tC: 64
tC TRD supercharged: 65
xB: 57.9


Subaru
WRX STI: 68.4
WRX limited: 64.8
Legacy 2.5 GT: 67.2

Toyota:
Se Sport: 61.8
Prius: 61.6
Camry hybrid: 60
Camry SE V6: 63.6

VW
GTI 2.0: 67.2
Beetle Turbo S: 64.5
R32: 66.1
Touareg V8: 62.3

Volvo
S40 T5 AWD: 62
S60 R: 67.2

[l4zy]

cool bit of info. if only i could do that speed.

[BTM]

2 different tests. 2 different days, 2 different drivers, 2 different sets of conditions.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by BTM

2 different tests. 2 different days, 2 different drivers, 2 different sets of conditions.

Too bad they didn't control for those variables. That kinda takes the fun out of it doesn't it?

[BTM]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Too bad they didn't control for those variables. That kinda takes the fun out it doesn't it?

Definitely. Both cars tested on the same day by the same driver would be awesome

[esqu1re]

I like how the cooper S did it faster than the Murcielago. =/

[ZStig]

because the Murcielago is a HUGE car, and tougher to navigate around tight cones at high speed

[mhughett]

Can someone explain how an Acura NSX is only 65.8, barely faster than the big 4-door RL sedan? I always thought that the NSX was one of the best handling cars around. It's light, mid-engine, low to the ground. Should be perfect for slalom. Granted, it was develped and sold in the '90's but still.....

[txz4]

Vette its faster than a zo6?

[gferil]

Hopefully this can shed some light to the people that are always so quick to say the american super cars are all power and no handling...cause that vette and viper sure did pretty well...but then again I'm sure they'll say "well if the Z4M had twice the power...blah blah blah"

[ZStig]

Nah, the viper and the vette have great mechanical grip

[esqu1re]

Originally Posted by mhughett

Can someone explain how an Acura NSX is only 65.8, barely faster than the big 4-door RL sedan? I always thought that the NSX was one of the best handling cars around. It's light, mid-engine, low to the ground. Should be perfect for slalom. Granted, it was develped and sold in the '90's but still.....

These numbers are all over the place for a bunch of reasons. Anyway, perhaps the RL was equipped with better (newer) tires and was able to utilize the AWD system. The NSX may have been tested in 1991, when it first came out and had tire technology from the same time. Who knows.

I always wonder how much better the times for the Z4m would be if it was tested with PS2 or equivalent tires, instead of ContiCrapContis.

[bhoch]

having owned a C5, and ride often with friends that have C6 standard and Z06 vettes, they really do handle well and have pretty good corning capabilities. It's not as "easy" to go around corners fast in a vette, as it's bigger (longer/wider) then the Z4 is, but don't think for a minute that they are not good at taking corners well.

[The HACK]

Cornering and slalom's not the same thing. A car can handle a corner well but may not necessarily translate to slalom numbers, because of multitude of factors. Sometimes when a car has stiffer suspension the weight transition happens too fast and slalom is all about managing the rate of weight transfer from one side to another.

[ZStig]

thats not true

[tarheel91]

Originally Posted by The HACK

Cornering and slalom's not the same thing. A car can handle a corner well but may not necessarily translate to slalom numbers, because of multitude of factors. Sometimes when a car has stiffer suspension the weight transition happens too fast and slalom is all about managing the rate of weight transfer from one side to another.

It also greatly rewards shorter wheelbases.

[spurto]

It's interesting to look through the data, but there are so many variables that it's important to take the info with a grain of salt. Plus, there's more to a cars handing than the slalom.

[CalRick]

Originally Posted by mhughett

Can someone explain how an Acura NSX is only 65.8, barely faster than the big 4-door RL sedan? I always thought that the NSX was one of the best handling cars around. It's light, mid-engine, low to the ground. Should be perfect for slalom. Granted, it was develped and sold in the '90's but still.....

R&T's explanation in the past for such things is that, in general, rear and mid engined cars don't do as well as front engined cars, all other things being equal, since they tend more toward oversteer and spend more time going sideways than forward.

[boondocksaint]

Slaloms reward shorter wheelbase cars and cars with stiff chassis. I'd like to cross-reference this list with the "chassis rigidity" numbers and see if there's any correlation. It's bench racing, but it's all in good fun.

Especially if I'm wrong.

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by boondocksaint

Slaloms reward shorter wheelbase cars and cars with stiff chassis. I'd like to cross-reference this list with the "chassis rigidity" numbers and see if there's any correlation. It's bench racing, but it's all in good fun.

Especially if I'm wrong.

No correlation, as Boxster S has higher slalom speeds than Cayman S according to R&T, and Gallardo Spider has higher slalom speed than Gallardo. As others have said, too many variables to apply any useful analysis to this info.

[tarheel91]

Originally Posted by CalRick

R&T's explanation in the past for such things is that, in general, rear and mid engined cars don't do as well as front engined cars, all other things being equal, since they tend more toward oversteer and spend more time going sideways than forward.

That's not really dynamically correct. Mid-engine cars are typically going to have the least amount of yaw inertia, and should rotate quicker than front engine or rear engine.

Oversteer vs. understeer is very tuneable. Wheelbase plays a much bigger role in slalom times than weight distribution.

[CalRick]

Originally Posted by tarheel91

That's not really dynamically correct. Mid-engine cars are typically going to have the least amount of yaw inertia, and should rotate quicker than front engine or rear engine.

Oversteer vs. understeer is very tuneable. Wheelbase plays a much bigger role in slalom times than weight distribution.

That is the classic textbook theory with which we are all familiar. Unfortunately, nature doesn't always read the textbook (and thankfully, neither do quite a few clever engineers, which is why we get 911s and Corvettes that don't quite follow the textbook.) I will take the opinion of the guys doing the tests as having some merit on the issue.

The dynamics tend to get a bit more complicated than basic weight distribution, even in a fairly steady state test as their slalom. Middies and rear enders tend not to turn in as well as front biased cars, for instance, unless you start artificially shifting the weight bias thru techniques such as trail braking, which are beyond the scope of that test. Likewise, tuning for over/understeer balance is beyond their scope - they're R&T testing factory supplied cars, not GRM tweaking for best autocross times.