Predict the Nurburgring Lap Time for the FT-86

[bofa]

Since we started talking about this in the other thread, I figured this might be interesting to compare our predictions to what we actually see by release.

[bofa]

Alright I'll go first, with a bit of optimism. 8:30-8:39. If it can't beat the 01 Civic Type R by 8 seconds, they went wrong somewhere.

Here's the wiki page if you need some points of reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring_lap_times

[Midship Runabout]

Whatever the best gt5 time is plus 16 seconds.

[farugah]

Originally Posted by bofa

Alright I'll go first, with a bit of optimism. 8:30-8:39. If it can't beat the 01 Civic Type R by 8 seconds, they went wrong somewhere.

Here's the wiki page if you need some points of reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring_lap_times

I cant see a NA FT86 doing it quicker than a lotus Exige... i put 8:40

[Spaceywilly]

8:30, optimistically. There is a long straight at the end and lots of other top speed sections where it will lose lots of time to more powerful cars. Honestly though it doesn't matter. People put too much weight into things like lap times. There are too many variables. What matters to me is how fun it is to drive, and how it handles. It seems like they are doing a good job of ignoring things like hp, 0-60 times, and lap times and focusing on making it a great driver's car.

[Neutral_Eyes]

Going with 8:39.

The Cobalt SS turbo is an eyesore on that list. And I'm hoping it's a tad better off than an HHR SS. If they're benching the Cayman, it'd be nice if it were pretty close, I just don't have much faith left.

[bofa]

Originally Posted by farugah

I cant see a NA FT86 doing it quicker than a lotus Exige... i put 8:40

I thought about that too, but the Exige mentioned there is the MK1, 11 years ago. 176bhp, 1730 pounds. I bet that same car with some recent tech would do much better. I also remember it topping out at around 125mph, which I'm hoping wont happen to the FT, but who knows.

[bofa]

Originally Posted by Spaceywilly

8:30, optimistically. There is a long straight at the end and lots of other top speed sections where it will lose lots of time to more powerful cars. Honestly though it doesn't matter. People put too much weight into things like lap times. There are too many variables. What matters to me is how fun it is to drive, and how it handles. It seems like they are doing a good job of ignoring things like hp, 0-60 times, and lap times and focusing on making it a great driver's car.

Yeah but lap times and those individual stats are there for comparison purposes, which is how many of today's buyers shop. I don't think they are ignoring those stats at all. They aren't testing it at the ring for the scenery. I agree everyone will weigh the overall package differently though.

[bofa]

Originally Posted by Neutral_Eyes

Going with 8:39.

The Cobalt SS turbo is an eyesore on that list. And I'm hoping it's a tad better off than an HHR SS. If they're benching the Cayman, it'd be nice if it were pretty close, I just don't have much faith left.

Hah yeah I keep seeing that HHR there and cringe at the thought of this car being slower.

[n2oinferno]

I voted who cares. I mean, it'd be neat to see, but I'm not too concerned with it. The only thing these times are really used for in the community sense, for the most part, is to say "neener neener my car is better than yours, even though I don't drive that well and therefore could never match that time myself."

[Maxim]

For the base version, I'm guessing right at the 9 minute mark, maybe a touch quicker.

[Dimman]

With me driving... DNF.

[1660]

I say it will better the Boxster, 8:29. They're using a Cayman as their benchmark.

[Maxim]

Originally Posted by 1660

I say it will better the Boxster, 8:29. They're using a Cayman as their benchmark.

Keep dreaming. That's 370z territory. This car will get annihilated by those cars.