Nismo Z vs Mustang Dark Horse vs GR Supra

[bk5]

why do track times even matter when these cars are driven 99% on public roads?

Lap times are a tool to compare the driving characteristics of similar cars. If a car like the Dark Horse has tons more power, stiff suspension, and tons more grip out of exceptionally sticky, super wide tires, yet it still gets its ass handed to it by a car that is lesser on paper, then that lesser car must have better fundamentals.

That mirrors my experience coming from several Mustangs. If you take away the crutch of great tires, the chassis flaws slap you in the face. That's why Ford was so adamant that the car be tested with the factory tires. If you threw the factory Supra tires on a Mustang, the result would be garbage handling, an inability to put the power down, vague steering, and all that would result in a even worse lap time. (This isn't even a crazy idea, regular Performance Pack Mustangs came with 255mm Fr/275mm Re tires)

This idea holds even for lightning lap times. A GR86 with 224HP and a Stinger GT with a twin turbo 3.3L and 365HP have the same LL time. And 9/10 people would say the GR86 is more fun to drive, even off the track, because it has the fundamentals of balanced performance and handling.

Sponsored

 

[noogie]

the darkhorse would be faster on larger tracks. you can tune the car to be more optimized at each track with different tires, shocks, springs, etc. the tuning is never ending.

this is why i dont agree with using aftermarket tires for these comparisons. it's not how the engineers tuned the car from the factory. for example, the re71rs may have made the supra feel 'worse' than the factory pilot super sports even though the car was faster.

tests should be done in showroom specs.

someone cross shopping a supra and a dark horse isn't going to realistically use lap times to be the deciding factor. lap times are just for entertainment purposes.

 

[PikkaGTR]

True but what @RenRed2 said is true also. That's why critical thinking is so important. Read everything, analyse, mix in your own experience and then make up your own damned mind.

And while we're here.. fuck all the Miata and 86 love: Most over-rated cars in existence.

I can't believe someone said this out loud

I have driven both gen GR86/BRZ and every Miata in existence
The last Miata I drove was the new RF with the brembos and track pack
It was one of the most boring drives
An old E92 328i with the Msport suspension and a MT is a lot better in almost every way
I don't see how it's fun to rev it to redline in 2nd just to get up to speed on a standard expwy and then redline 3rd to merge on the freeway so that 18 wheeler doesn't run you over

 

[concept]

If I were to buy an ND, I'd be tempted to install Ohlins and an Edelbrock supercharger , which is CARB-approved in CA on 2016-2018s.
Lightness is blessing on tight curves. Brian Goodwin of Goodwin Racing has challenged many BMWs on autocross setups. He is often undefeated.

 

[BMWAF]

So I just watched the video. Great example of how many different ways can you can take objective metrics and try and negate them with private agendas, biased opinions and what-ifs. Good production values but the same YouTube tripe really.

 

[MLG Tofu Shop]

Unfortunately, "driver's car" has become one of the those terms/words that have been severely misused by butthurt people that don't know anything about cars, for example Nissan fanboys .

If you want to follow the actual definition of driver's car a.k.a. something that's meant to and excels at being driven hard, in the case of these 3 cars, the Supra is the one that fits the bill, the other 2 are just marketing tricks at best.

 

[jchadwell]

this is why i dont agree with using aftermarket tires for these comparisons. it's not how the engineers tuned the car from the factory. for example, the re71rs may have made the supra feel 'worse' than the factory pilot super sports even though the car was faster.

tests should be done in showroom specs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but this could not be more wrong. I’ve been driving on a set of RE71RS tires this entire AX season. The only thing I “feel” is better cornering, better braking, and better acceleration. And this includes on the street and driving to and from events that are hours away. The car drives and feels awesome.

Improving the tires on a car is 1000% absolutely the best handling improvement/mod you can do to a car. Almost any car. Only time this isn’t true is when a car already comes with the most aggressive track tire that fits and I’ve yet to see a car come from the factory with Hoosiers.

Some of us have been swapping to the best performing tires available for a very long time. The car will not self destruct or actively try to run you into a ditch. The only thing that happens is improved performance and maybe in some cases a little firmer ride-depends on how lousy the factory tire was. Personally, I cannot tell any ride quality difference between the PSS and RE 71.

People often throw out comments like the engineers designed or tuned the car specifically for that tire. In a few, very rare cases there may be a little truth to this. Like some very small tuning differences in the highest performing (most expensive) models. However, this is by far a very rare exception. I guarantee you Toyota did not “tune” anything for the PSS. The tire was selected based on cost pure and simple.

I was re-reading one of Car and Drivers recent lightening laps and there was a car (maybe an RS3, can’t remember) that was previously run on a normal summer tire and then the next year came with optional Cup 2s ( or maybe it was Trofeo Rs, can’t remember that either) and the time difference was absolutely staggering, like almost 10 seconds faster.

Tires matter.

 

[BMWAF]

Tires matter.

Yes but I think @noogie was trying to say that cars should be tested as sold: Stock vs stock. While in some ways that isn't a level playing field, in many ways it is. All cars have different weights, power and torque figures but we don't feel the need to handicap those items.

If a manufacturer chooses to fit tyres that result in embarrassing track times, then stock vs stock car tests will show them up and might even encourage them to improve their tyre offerings.

 

[jchadwell]

Yes but I think @noogie was trying to say that cars should be tested as sold: Stock vs stock. While in some ways that isn't a level playing field, in many ways it is. All cars have different weights, power and torque figures but we don't feel the need to handicap those items.

If a manufacturer chooses to fit tyres that result in embarrassing track times, then stock vs stock car tests will show them up and might even encourage them to improve their tyre offerings.

I’m actually fine testing cars as sold. I’m smart enough to know that when a car coming from the factory on Cup 2s can barely corner or stop better than another car on PSSs that means the second car will outperform the first once an inclined owner (like me and many others) swap on similar tires. I actually prefer the way Toyota did this. I picked up a second set of factory wheels for cheap from the forums and now I use my PSS set when I know I’m just going to be cruising around but can quickly swap in the RE71s for AX and when I want to explore some good, rural roads.

What is not accurate is when people claim the tests should be on stock tires because the car was engineered or tuned for that tire. Although there’s a little truth in some unique cases, this is almost universally false. Manufactures will set a minimum performance standard and then contract with the least cost tire manufacturer meeting that minimum standard.

Also, weights, power and torque figures are inherent specs of a car whereas tires are consumables. That’s a big contextual difference for this discussion.

 

[BMWAF]

What is not accurate is when people claim the tests should be on stock tires because the car was engineered or tuned for that tire. Although there’s a little truth in some unique cases, this is almost universally false. Manufactures will set a minimum performance standard and then contract with the least cost tire manufacturer meeting that minimum standard.

Agreed. I think the bigger truth the majority of people car enthusiasts refuse to accept is that car manufacturers (unless its a very specific marketing ploy - I'm looking at you Honda) really couldn't care less about comparative track times. Manufacturer's build a car for as little as possible to extract the maximum amount of profit as possible (for it's shareholders). The delusion some have that Toyota Corporate gives two shits about what the new Nismo's performance metrics are compared to the Supra are at best idiotic!

Also, weights, power and torque figures are inherent specs of a car whereas tires are consumables. That’s a big contextual difference for this discussion.

This is all true but something about that argument doesn't sit right with me. And power and torque figures are often chosen by manufacturers rather than represent actual engine (reliability) limits.

The bottom line is that car comparisons are inherently subjective and in 2023 just thinly veiled advertisements. Next time you watch a MoronTuber, take note how they soften the blow on products they were gifted, no matter what the facts say: The brand new Nismo is more expensive; uses older technology in and out of the cabin; only comes in a poor automatic transmission and is slower than its direct competition in all metrics even compared to the manual transmission variants!

Instead of a failure, the Nismo is hailed as a "drivers car."

Now maybe if that driver suffered severe brain damage and didn't understand the concept of fiscal resposnibility, I could possibly agree with that statement.

 

[bk5]

I was re-reading one of Car and Drivers recent lightening laps and there was a car (maybe an RS3, can’t remember) that was previously run on a normal summer tire and then the next year came with optional Cup 2s ( or maybe it was Trofeo Rs, can’t remember that either) and the time difference was absolutely staggering, like almost 10 seconds faster.

13 seconds. Swapping tires caused the RS3's LL time to improve by 13 seconds.
A similar improvement in lap times for the Supra would put it right on the heels of the 911 Turbo S.

Tires make such a huge difference in performance. That's why I like that SG normalizes results by using the same tire compound. It seems like every manufactures realizes that people do shop lap times, and have begun offering cheater tires as an option. I doubt anyone is going to option the RS3 with Trofeos, because they'll be gone in a season, but just offering it makes the car do much better in reviews.

 

[Schang105]

Hmm, for Jack I don't think anything could ever measure up to his Z06, short of a McLaren or 911 GT3. To his credit, he really likes (and I agree) the B58. For Mark, I think he has warmed a lot more to the Supra than back in 2019. While he had many critiques, he seemed to understand the value for money argument the Supra has. In some ways, that's what the Civic Type R used to represent, but now is just as expensive IRL.

 

[LowRoller]

I think they have a lot of valid criticisms and they have a lot more seat time in many cars under conditons that many owners of this car have not experienced. And there is ofcourse the natural bias of being the owner of the car and arguing on the forum for said car.

The car in stock form is too soft in the rear, which does make it lag behind the sharp front end and pog around, causing instability. Personally, this was a draw for me. I like snappy cars that are a bit wild, exciting and difficult to drive. S2000 was like this (mostly do to aero), the viper is like this and older Porsches are like this. I would rather manage oversteer than understeer. The supra blew me away in this regard, a car this tail happy with this much power being solid to the public is a blessing and probably one of the last of its kind unless you have stupid money.

The supra is sharp, but it's not very communicative through the wheel. Those are separate qualities; raw speed =/= driver engagement. A part of that is a modern platform and a part of that is simply the budget constraints. In a car that talks to you about what it's doing you can get in and drive it hard right away. Well set up track cars and race cars are like this, the GT3 is like this, among other exotics. You can get in, drive it with slip angle right away because you have confidence in the feedback from the car. I do not get that from the Supra. However you do need some high performance driving experience to appreciate those qualities in communication with a car at the limit. And Im not talking about "racing" in the canyons.

Jack actually likes cars that are a bit more wild. Mark likes predictable, steady cars that are easy to drive consistently at the track. I can see why he takes some issue with the car. He's also a solid and experienced driver, a bit more so than Jack I believe. They both have extensive track experience in many, fast cars.

The supra is far from perfect and its certainly far from the best "drivers car". However it's a massive performance value proposition.

For my needs, in the 50-100k bracket there is no better sports car for the money.

 

[quikslipper]

At the end of the day, the Supra looks better regardless of times and performance. It's still a performing car, but to me, the Supra is a neck breaker vs a mustang you see almost every other car and Z.

 

[wilorichie]

cars should be tested as sold: Stock vs stock.

I'm with this 100%. I get annoyed whenever I see tyre swaps. Test them oem vs oem. Not oem vs almost oem...

Sponsored