Zoran

Crysler's lap time was 1:35.09

There's plenty of S2000's lapping Streets of Willow under 1:30 (speedventures.net). Boxster S should be about as fast or even faster than that.

oshp515

Jonboy you are 100% correct here...and it is a shame that unexperienced people like WarrenJDrew read magazine crap and they believe it....but let them believe it and let them go buy their SRT6...then some day on a windy road when a S2K or boxster smokes them they'll say damn I should've listened to the guys on the forum

no_really

You keep bringing that up, but in fact, the 350Z had the biggest engine. The Porsche and SRT had 3.2L sixes, compared to the 3.5L V6 in the 350Z. The SRT had a supercharger, which made it quite a bit more powerful than the other cars - that's how it won. You read a few subjective comments, and toss out all the objective criteria. What's with that? The Crossfire is not specifically designed for competing with a Boxster on a racetrack - if the two cars had comparable power levels, chaces are the porsche would come out on top. Give the 350Z 40 or so more horses, and it, too, might make up those four seconds which bother you so much. The Streets of Willow course is configurable into a number of different layouts, so it is hard to say what course they ran for these tests. I'd assume they had a decent straight or two for the more powerful car to make up some time.

The fact is, despite how much it sounds like it hurts some of you to admit it, the Crossfire is a capable sports car. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

pantyraider

Uhh no. The S2000's that are doing under 1:30 are majorly prepped. Some are stripped, and use slicks. Under 1:30 almost requires using a fancy suspension and race tires for an S2000. A 1:35 on street tires is pretty decent, but still I don't see how it's possible to be 3.7 secs faster....

Zoran

OK, I stand corrected.

I really don't have a problem with Chrysler offering up a competitive sports car. There's never too much of a good thing...

JonBoy

By "biggest engine", I meant "the most powerful engine". Sorry for not being more clear.

I quoted subjective comments? Understeer? Auto tranny? Fading brakes? Slow cornering? Street biased suspension? Those are subjective? Those are objective!

You say the Crossfire isn't meant to compete with a Boxster S on a racetrack, yet SOMEHOW it won by a HUGE margin (when it clearly shouldn't have). Perhaps the track was an oval....

Again, how can you call the Crossfire capable (in the relative sense, that is - it's certainly more capable than an Accord but not as capable, by the numbers, as a 350Z or Boxster S)? It only has a powerful engine. The brakes and chassis aren't up to the rigours of even moderate competition... So, it's moderately capable on the street.....yet somehow wins on the track.

Again, it only makes cents, not sense, that the car won.

alex s

Jonboy, the more i read and re-read the article and re-read your comments, your seemingly anti american-car sentiment shines right through. They say in the article themselves the Porsche is better for hot-lapping, but it will also bite you in the ass with sudden oversteer as one of the drivers experienced.

They aren't touting the article as "CHRYSLER OWNS PORSCHE & PORSCHE SUCKS BALLS ANYWAY." They're simply saying that between these particular models on this particular day the Chrysler came out on top despite it's shortcomings (which alllllll cars have). You just can't seem to accept that, because the car is American. If it had been a Honda, a Mitsubishi, a Subaru, i think you'd accept it a lot better.

no_really

because it made it around the course faster than two other "capable" sports cars? Seriously, the Crossfire is faster than the Boxster and the 350Z. It is. period, end of story, nothing more to say. It may feel different than those two cars in the process, but regardless, it was faster. Lest you forget, more power at a similar weight almost always equals faster. That's how it works. You may not like the fact that a magazine said that the more powerful car was faster, but thems the breaks. Why do you care at all? It's not like you have spent any significant time behind the wheel of any of the three, so you have no informed opinion, just a sense of righteous outrage that the faster, more powerful car won a race.

JonBoy

And yet somehow I absolutely love the C5/Z06 and have a lot of good things to say about the newest Mustang? Perhaps you've missed the threads where I comment on how I really like the looks of the supercharged SVT Cobra (plus its straightline performance)? Perhaps you're just seriously pro-American...? No! Couldn't be!

Right.

Anyways, back at the farm.

I quoted the article. I pointed out their sentiments about the handling of the car, yet somehow a strong motor overcomes all of the things that actually MAKES a sports car....a sports car. Manual tranny. Strong handling. Great brakes. Lots of grip (though the SRT-6 did fine there).

Bottom line is that they obviously struggled with driving the other two (perhaps they don't shift well?) and that led them to conclude that the SRT-6 was the better car.

It's my opinion. Get over it.

JonBoy

Yes, because it made its way around a course that apparently (speaking from the experience of others, not myself) gives the edge to handling, not power. I see that as an issue.

I have no problem with the straightline - I've said as much. It's the fact that it didn't handle so well, didn't brake so well, yet was somehow faster. Considering that the track probably didn't have more than a 1/2 mile straight (if that), that shouldn't add up to 3.7x seconds, especially when you equate in slower entry and exit speeds for the SRT-6.

Why do I care? It's not about care - it's about interest. I'm interested and wanted to see what others thought. You've let me know. You can move on....unless you care.

The article, to me, was completely contradictory. The SRT-6 was faster in acceleration and track time. It lost everywhere else, as far as I can see. Does that make it the best? I can't see how.

Again, it's my opinion. Let it go.