Is it wrong to judge new cars by their on-track performance?

[dd74]

The stuff I look for in cars is pretty much durability - i.e. if it will hold together under any form of stress.

Porsches aside, mostly because we know they are more or less engineered on the race track, other cars, in which I have held interest lately, have obtained very good track histories.

For example, you only need to google "Mazda RX-8 race car," or "Honda Si race car," and see that these two automobiles are very successful on the track. I'm sure it is the case with others, such as BMW 330i or M3 and various Audi, Honda, and Subaru and Volvos, to name a few.

My question is might this be the wrong criteria under which to judge an automobile. Is engineering under the duress of race track conditions not at all the arena in which one should consider their automobile.

All I simply would like to know about any so-called "performance vehicle" is if it will hold up under my style of performance driving.

[TerryBPP]

Have you been drinking?

Judging by dyno is wrong, judging by track is perfect.

[livi]

My grandparents owned only one car model during their lives. SAAB 93 - 96. Used up at least six or seven of them. My grandpa drove for almost 80 years without one single accident or incidence. His driving style probably had something to do with it - and believe me - it was not performance oriented. Hence his criteria for buying a car would arguably not lean toward racing roots, although certainly durability - of which the SAAB 96 evidently ranked highly. They were vastly used in the winter rallies all over Europe and certainly in Scandinavia.

But then, that was my grandpa..bless his soul.

[masraum]

I know that back in the day more or less stock parts were used, but I wonder these days. Are the cars that we see racing using stock parts or are they using aftermarket cranks, pistons, blocks, heads suspension, brakes, etc... In which case going by how they perform on the track would be mostly irrelevant.

[dd74]

Originally posted by masraum
I know that back in the day more or less stock parts were used, but I wonder these days. Are the cars that we see racing using stock parts or are they using aftermarket cranks, pistons, blocks, heads suspension, brakes, etc... In which case going by how they perform on the track would be mostly irrelevant.

Yes, that's a good question. I however believe that if they were using aftermarket parts, that officials might find this out. At worst (or best, depending upon how it's looked), the parts are probably stock, but handpicked out of the bins and balanced, blueprinted and hand-assembled in some fashion.

I do know that the Honda Civic Si race car was modified (but mildly), and put out an excess of 250 hp from its stock 197 hp.

As importantly, I would hate to think these as-told "stock" race cars are highly modified, particularly in the engine department. From a marketing standpoint, if these cars were highly modified, particularly with aftermarket parts, it would somewhat negate their campaign of "...race Sunday, sell Monday."

masraum - btw, the latest Grassroots Motorsports has a big write-up about what it takes to build a Spec Miata - if you're interested.

[kaisen]

Race tracks are controlled environments. The stresses a car sees are fairly predictable and replicateable. Tracks are mostly smooth, grades are mild, and temperatures limited. The specific stresses, while great, are very focused, and specific to the type of racing.

The 'real world' puts a car through many different types of stresses. Doors slamming, potholes, speed bumps, washboards, 30 below zero temps, full throttle at cold temps, etc.

Dynos and hot laps can help a manufacturer pinpoint a weak link. But if racing were the only 'proof' of a good car, then it would be the only 'proving grounds' a car manufacturer needed. We've all seen the robotic torture devices implemented by just about every manufacturer and oem. THEY can really test the durability of a car. Mercedes-Benz used to be the best, but their focus on R&D has elapsed over the last decade or more.

E

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by masraum
I know that back in the day more or less stock parts were used, but I wonder these days. Are the cars that we see racing using stock parts or are they using aftermarket cranks, pistons, blocks, heads suspension, brakes, etc... In which case going by how they perform on the track would be mostly irrelevant.

The #8 Monte Carlo that Junior drives on Sundays is just like the one you can buy on Mondays. All they do is put a cage inside and all kinds of stickers outside. Honest.

[hardflex]

I used to love the "Showroom Stock" class of racing, then you could really have bragging rights to the sportscar or Sport Sedan you bought, and see the durability of the drive train and brake systems.

But in my daily driver, those high dollar racing pieces usually mean high dollar repair costs and higher maintenance, and that's not what I want from an everyday car.

[dd74]

Originally posted by kaisen
Race tracks are controlled environments. The stresses a car sees are fairly predictable and replicateable. Tracks are mostly smooth, grades are mild, and temperatures limited. The specific stresses, while great, are very focused, and specific to the type of racing.

The 'real world' puts a car through many different types of stresses. Doors slamming, potholes, speed bumps, washboards, 30 below zero temps, full throttle at cold temps, etc.

Dynos and hot laps can help a manufacturer pinpoint a weak link. But if racing were the only 'proof' of a good car, then it would be the only 'proving grounds' a car manufacturer needed. We've all seen the robotic torture devices implemented by just about every manufacturer and oem. THEY can really test the durability of a car. Mercedes-Benz used to be the best, but their focus on R&D has elapsed over the last decade or more.

E

It seems, though, that so many cars are built with track-in-mind engineering. Selling point? Sure. Two cars I know of that campaigned this thought are the Cadillac CTS (partly engineered, supposedly, off laps done at Nurburing (sp?)), and the Honda S2000.

I drove a CTS, and the car, for all its inherent non-sport-like feel, had a very good amount of punch above 4,000 RPM to 6,500 RPM. The engine at least acted somewhat racy.

The S2000 I haven't driven - only heard testimonies from others that it's truly all race car - which makes it near unbearable in city driving.

[dd74]

Originally posted by hardflex
I used to love the "Showroom Stock" class of racing, then you could really have bragging rights to the sportscar or Sport Sedan you bought, and see the durability of the drive train and brake systems.

But in my daily driver, those high dollar racing pieces usually mean high dollar repair costs and higher maintenance, and that's not what I want from an everyday car.

Good point, Hardflex. Yeah, and "SS" was a very cool class of racing back in the day.

[masraum]

I remember seeing a showroom stock corvette race at the St Petersburg Grand Prix in 1988. The noise they made was amazing. I had never heard anything like the start of the race in my life.

[Moneyguy1]

I believe that the track is a synthetic environment. THe ability to handle the unexpected and retain stability and control is far more important.

[kaisen]

Originally posted by dd74
It seems, though, that so many cars are built with track-in-mind engineering. Selling point? Sure. Two cars I know of that campaigned this thought are the Cadillac CTS (partly engineered, supposedly, off laps done at Nurburing (sp?)), and the Honda S2000.

Every production car goes through tens of thousands of miles of laps at 'tracks'. Even mundane ones. Professional drivers (read washed-up race drivers) make really great feedback guinea pigs. They know how to tell engineers what the car is doing, and replicate the same situation after making a change. They eliminate the driver variables by being consistent. It would blow your mind to learn how many laps they do while trying to tweak suspension tuning or tire specs.

The Ring is/was really just real-world roads, so it is a great proving ground .... plus it has cache in advertising. It doesn't sound as cool to say that proving was done at TRW in Ohio, but the results may be similar. Every big manufacturer owns a private track. Some are pretty challenging.

No matter what type of car, tuning is a story of comprimise. A sedan tuned for benign (safe understeer) handling, and a smooth and quiet ride, might not make a great track vehicle. Does that mean it is less 'durable'? No. They could tune that same car for maximum cornering ability, neutral handling, road feedback, and less body roll.... but the intended buyer may not like the comprimises. A car like the aforementioned S2000 makes fewer comprimises, and it might make it tougher to live with as a daily driver. But the track-day guys sing its praises.

The key is for the manufacturers to know their intended audience and deliver the right set of comprimises.

E