Sport Auto - Nordschleife laptimes

[Sunny]

That's pretty decent, but not impressive.

lol, Luv, you don't seem to be impressed much with SLS laptimes? I guess it depends on how you view it. Lot of people didn't expect it to match even the lap times of the lower rung of sports cars like 911 Turbo, GTR, R8 V10 which it does and kudos to Mercedes for that. But, yea, if you compare it to cars with similar power (like 458 or MP4, LP570) I guess it falls short.

 

[Centurion]

lol, Luv, you don't seem to be impressed much with SLS laptimes? I guess it depends on how you view it. Lot of people didn't expect it to match even the lap times of the lower rung of sports cars like 911 Turbo, GTR, R8 V10 which it does and kudos to Mercedes for that. But, yea, if you compare it to cars with similar power (like 458 or MP4, LP570) I guess it falls short.

Not only power but price. The performance would have been ample if the car was priced like the 997TT and R8 V10 but instead it cost Lamborghini, Mclaren and Ferrari money. Given the gullwing nick name, they could atleast have honored the ancestor by making the SLS a bit more ground breaking. Similar story to the SLR really: Stunning and fast but not fast or future proof enough in relation to the peers in the same price bracket. This performance would have been breathtaking in 2007 and 2008 but now when we're close to half way to 2011, it just doesn't dazzle me.

Oh well, there's always the cabrio which will look good on Rodeo Drive. A beauty queen it is!

 

[Sunny]

I don't think the comparison to SLR is fair. The complain with SLR was not it didn't match Enzo or CGT lap times, but it just never drove like a super car should - which definitely is not the case with SLS.

As for future proof, I agree, the shelf life will be short, very short with new 911 turbo around the corner. But then again what sports car is future proof these days, look at Enzo vs 458. Also I am guessing there will be a more powerful BS version of SLS in the future.

 

[Centurion]

I don't think the comparison to SLR is fair. The complain with SLR was not it didn't match Enzo or CGT lap times, but it just never drove like a super car should - which definitely is not the case with SLS.

As for future proof, I agree, the shelf life will be short, very short with new 911 turbo around the corner. But then again what sports car is future proof these days, look at Enzo vs 458. Also I am guessing there will be a more powerful BS version of SLS in the future.

The Enzo had a long life, it was manufacturered from 2002, so getting overtaken by the 458 in 2010 is just about right. But the SLS is already technically semi-out dated before it's even hit the dealership.

 

[LaArtist]

I like that time..
Was that a dry track time?

Its more than enough for me..proves its a damn good handling car..with a NA engine..
And its still luxurious as ever..and keeping with Mercedes tradition..

Win Win..

I wouldnt sacrfise its MB´ness for a couple of more seconds so it could match a 458..

 

[Guibo]

I find the SLS's time very impressive and here's why:
1) front engine, RWD means less weight over the driven wheels (Porsche and mid-engined Audi will be much better in this regard, and with AWD means you can put more of the power down more of the time)
2) apparently tested on relatively conventional tires, Continental Sport Contact 5's, which have treadwear rating of 280. And they're narrow, only 295mm at the rear. Audi V10 in test was on P-Zero Corsas and despite AWD grip advantage, it has slightly wider rear tires. Also despite the AWD and more weight on the primarily driven rear wheels, the R8 V10 was ~2s slower on the wet handling course.
3) more aero lift: 41kg on the front. The Audi's was only about 1/2 half that
4) this is HvS's first go in the SLS; with the others, he's previously supertested their variants before so should be a bit more familiar with how they perform.

As for pricing, the SLS is a more unique car than the Turbo. The Porsche is based on an existing steel body shell, and relies on forced induction to make its power (which is still less than the SLS).

To lap among the Lambos, Murcielagos included, ZR1, GT-R, and the Scuderia (which is a very track-focused car) is deeply impressive IMO.

 

[DeDe]

http://img28.imageshack.us/i/wiesmanngtmf5f900x600f4.jpg/

7.47 min - Wiesmann GT MF-5, 507 hp, BMW V10-engine

 

[DeDe]

7.48 min - BMW M3 GTS

 

[Mr Robert]

7:48 is a good time, but nowhere good enough for the pissing competition

 

[DeDe]

7:48 is a good time, but nowhere good enough for the pissing competition

Yeah, it's only 2 seconds faster than a 997 Carrera S PDK on Cup tyres... And 8 seconds slower than the 997.3 GT3 - the M3 GTS' closest rival.

 

[Zafiro]

GTS on R-tires? Its 2 seconds faster than CLS with R-tyres.

wonder what explanation Sportauto have about the laptime.

 

[bum-man]

I'm assuming you mean CSL? The reason behind that is because the CSL had Cup tires when it did the lap, that's as close as you can get to racing slicks without getting racing slicks. From the sound of it the GTS just had R-compound but with tread, so similar type of rubber as the Cup tires but less material touching the ground...Still kind of a disappointing time when it's a track focused car...

Pilot sport cup

Pilot sport

It's fairly easy to see which would be fastest in the dry.

 

[Sunny]

^I don't if you meant Pilot Sport is a R compound tire like cups, but with just more tread? If you did, that is not so, Pilot sport is just summer high performance tires, not DOT approved competition tires like cup (or cup+ offered as OEM on M3/911). They have much harder compound and treadwear rating is in the 200s vs < 100 for R compund tires like cup.

As for GTS lap time, if it is on non-R tires, it is very impressive, but I doubt that. I am sure it had R compound tires. The GTS that Autobild tested against GT3 RS had Pirelli P Zero Corsas, which again is a R compound tire.

 

[bum-man]

All I was saying is the GTS probably had treaded performance tires as apposed to the CSL's near slicks. Which would explain the rather lackluster performance gain.

From the sound of it the GTS just had R-compound but with tread, so similar type of rubber as the Cup tires but less material touching the ground...

Perhaps you should read a little closer next time.

 

[Sunny]

All I was saying is the GTS probably had treaded performance tires as apposed to the CSL's near slicks. Which would explain the rather lackluster performance gain.



Perhaps you should read a little closer next time.

I don't know what you are worked up about, you posted a pic of pilot cup and pilot sport tires and I just stated the difference between the two is more than just tread pattern.

From the sound of it the GTS just had R-compound but with tread, so similar type of rubber as the Cup tires but less material touching the ground...

From the sound of what?


If the GTS is in the supertest had the same tires as the one in the Auto Bild - Pirellie Corsas, they are as "slick" as the cups.

 

[DeDe]

If the GTS is in the supertest had the same tires as the one in the Auto Bild - Pirellie Corsas, they are as "slick" as the cups.

It had. Probably. So both CSL and GTS were on semi-slick tyres. And the difference is just 2 seconds... after 7 years. Not too good job BMW or Mr. von Saurma.

 

[Sunny]

It had. Probably. So both CSL and GTS were on semi-slick tyres. And the difference is just 2 seconds... after 7 years. Not too good job BMW or Mr. von Saurma.

And 80 more HP and way more torque -even more respect to CSL. Of course a few secs this way/that could be conditions and the difference could as well be a bit bigger. But whatever, big to CSL.

 

[Mr Robert]

And 80 more HP and way more torque -even more respect to CSL. Of course a few secs this way/that could be conditions and the difference could as well be a bit bigger. But whatever, big to CSL.

...or smaller...

I guess the CSL could almost be regarded as unbeaten.

By the way, Swedish AMS reported that BMW claimed that the GTS would be 20 seconds faster than the CSL. That must have been a misintertpretation, as the GTS turned out to be about 20 seconds faster than the regular M3 E92.

 

[bum-man]

It had. Probably. So both CSL and GTS were on semi-slick tyres. And the difference is just 2 seconds... after 7 years. Not too good job BMW or Mr. von Saurma.

Wow super disappointing especially when it was said that the GTS was able to go around in ~7:40. I guess the ironing board fast and furious style wing didn't work the way BMW expected it to.

 

[DeDe]

7.24 min - Porsche 911 GT2 RS, 1405 kg