M3 CSL v 911 GT3/RS's, how quick is it really ?
Discussion
was on a recent track day I was impressed by the pace of the M3 CSL but it runs on those nice and sticky Michelin Sport Pilot Cups tyres, no doubt the car is quick but the tyres don't really give it a like for like comparison time wise..
so the question here is of the Top Gear power laps (updates added) and Nurburgring times, are any of those 911's also on special tyres rather than just the normal stuff us morals runs.... and if they weren't then how much faster would they be in order to get a proper like for like comparison?
Top Gear power laps : clearly the normal carrera and turbo were on normal roads tyres on very wet laps
although the other problem with the top gear laps is the 'differing' quality of the 'various STIG's or the 'do we really see the entire lap which gives us the bbc conspiracy fix theory !
I've added the tyres, from what I recall ? so please tell me if some need changing if not correct !
Porsche GT3 RS - 1.22.3 : dry lap on ?? tyres
Porsche Cayman - 1.26.2 : dry lap on normal road tyres
Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2 : wet lap on normal road tyres
BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0 : dry lap on Michelin Pilot Sport Cups Tyres
Porsche 911 Carrera S - 1.28.9 : very wet on normal tyres
Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0 : very wet on normal tyres but with Mk1 STIG who appeared to be slower (!)
Nurburgring Nordschleife lap times :
which means these times are more comparable ? i.e. done by the best of the best, i.e. Walter Rohl batting for Porsche verses BM's best
Porsche 911 GT2 ( 6/2001) 7:46
Porsche 911 GT3 RS ( 3/2004) 7:47
Porsche 911 GT3 Cup ( 2/1999) 7:49
BMW M3 CSL ( 8/2003) 7:50
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 6/2003) 7:54
Porsche 911 Turbo ( 6/2000) 7:56
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 8/1999) 8:03
Porsche 911 Carrera ( 1/1998) 8:17
what I find interesting is how much closer the CSL is on the ring which is in theory is a more accurate reflection of time, as the final conditions would have been on a dry and perfect day.. although the ring IIRC is all medium-high speed and no slow speed stuff, so ideally you need them all to go around a fixed grand prix race track that has a mix of all speed elememts, such as Spa or even the Nurburgring GP circuit !
so with this in mind, the top gear power board is based on a track (even as limited as it is) with slow-medium-fast elements and the 996 is 6 secs quicker on a 1.5 mile track (a guess) but only 3 secs on the 13 mile ring ????
just wondering..
>> Edited by Sundeep on Thursday 22 December 23:07
so the question here is of the Top Gear power laps (updates added) and Nurburgring times, are any of those 911's also on special tyres rather than just the normal stuff us morals runs.... and if they weren't then how much faster would they be in order to get a proper like for like comparison?
Top Gear power laps : clearly the normal carrera and turbo were on normal roads tyres on very wet laps
although the other problem with the top gear laps is the 'differing' quality of the 'various STIG's or the 'do we really see the entire lap which gives us the bbc conspiracy fix theory !
I've added the tyres, from what I recall ? so please tell me if some need changing if not correct !
Porsche GT3 RS - 1.22.3 : dry lap on ?? tyres
Porsche Cayman - 1.26.2 : dry lap on normal road tyres
Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2 : wet lap on normal road tyres
BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0 : dry lap on Michelin Pilot Sport Cups Tyres
Porsche 911 Carrera S - 1.28.9 : very wet on normal tyres
Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0 : very wet on normal tyres but with Mk1 STIG who appeared to be slower (!)
Nurburgring Nordschleife lap times :
which means these times are more comparable ? i.e. done by the best of the best, i.e. Walter Rohl batting for Porsche verses BM's best
Porsche 911 GT2 ( 6/2001) 7:46
Porsche 911 GT3 RS ( 3/2004) 7:47
Porsche 911 GT3 Cup ( 2/1999) 7:49
BMW M3 CSL ( 8/2003) 7:50
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 6/2003) 7:54
Porsche 911 Turbo ( 6/2000) 7:56
Porsche 911 GT3 ( 8/1999) 8:03
Porsche 911 Carrera ( 1/1998) 8:17
what I find interesting is how much closer the CSL is on the ring which is in theory is a more accurate reflection of time, as the final conditions would have been on a dry and perfect day.. although the ring IIRC is all medium-high speed and no slow speed stuff, so ideally you need them all to go around a fixed grand prix race track that has a mix of all speed elememts, such as Spa or even the Nurburgring GP circuit !
so with this in mind, the top gear power board is based on a track (even as limited as it is) with slow-medium-fast elements and the 996 is 6 secs quicker on a 1.5 mile track (a guess) but only 3 secs on the 13 mile ring ????
just wondering..
>> Edited by Sundeep on Thursday 22 December 23:07
Normally the Nordschleife "reference" times that have been put on the public record were all done by Horst von Saurma for Sport Auto magazine. He is not as quick as Rohrl or a professional racer, who would be - at a guess - eight to ten seconds faster. On the other hand, the industry times exclude a bit of the circuit at T13, which reduces the lap time by about three seconds.
Sport Auto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory unless none is made available. There is a view that the factories sometimes send out cars that are a bit special.
CSLs came straight from the factory with Cup tyres (for qualified customers). Porsches usually come with Pilot Sports, but the RS sometimes came with Corsas, including the car that did the 7:47 at the 'ring. There is not much difference between a Cup and a Corsa, whereas the Pilot Sport would be 10 sec/lap slower.
Even with the same driver, lap times at the 'ring will vary by 10 sec depending on air temp, surface temp, etc. You should therefore not place too much emphasis on a car's lap time there.
Sport Auto normally will use cars as supplied by the factory unless none is made available. There is a view that the factories sometimes send out cars that are a bit special.
CSLs came straight from the factory with Cup tyres (for qualified customers). Porsches usually come with Pilot Sports, but the RS sometimes came with Corsas, including the car that did the 7:47 at the 'ring. There is not much difference between a Cup and a Corsa, whereas the Pilot Sport would be 10 sec/lap slower.
Even with the same driver, lap times at the 'ring will vary by 10 sec depending on air temp, surface temp, etc. You should therefore not place too much emphasis on a car's lap time there.
I thought the Top gear CSL time was actually in the wet on cup tyres?
There isn't much in it between a standard GT3 and a CSL on similar tyres, RS is quicker and ultimately the Porsches have more scope for improvement. I'm guessing that the CSL is easier to drive meaning an average driver (ie me) will be quicker than in a GT3 in which the difference between an average and great driver is much more pronounced.
There was about 4-5 seconds between a GT3RS on Corsa systems and one on Corsa R tyres at the 'ring when tested by sport auto (Dan H will be along to correct I'm sure) so not that much difference.
There isn't much in it between a standard GT3 and a CSL on similar tyres, RS is quicker and ultimately the Porsches have more scope for improvement. I'm guessing that the CSL is easier to drive meaning an average driver (ie me) will be quicker than in a GT3 in which the difference between an average and great driver is much more pronounced.
There was about 4-5 seconds between a GT3RS on Corsa systems and one on Corsa R tyres at the 'ring when tested by sport auto (Dan H will be along to correct I'm sure) so not that much difference.
My view.
My last car was a CSL, updated to a GT3.
Test drove an RS and really couldn't see much advantage for road use.
In practice the CSL and GT3 are in my hands very similar. The GT3 is faster but, you have to work for it.
But, I do love the tactility of the GT3, I adore the robustness against which the CSL feels a little fragile ---- and more than anything, I love the fact that what the GT3 does is down to me rather than just smart electronics.
Would I change the GT3 for an M6 or ? No. There's no way back !
The other car's an old Boxster. Fab.
My last car was a CSL, updated to a GT3.
Test drove an RS and really couldn't see much advantage for road use.
In practice the CSL and GT3 are in my hands very similar. The GT3 is faster but, you have to work for it.
But, I do love the tactility of the GT3, I adore the robustness against which the CSL feels a little fragile ---- and more than anything, I love the fact that what the GT3 does is down to me rather than just smart electronics.
Would I change the GT3 for an M6 or ? No. There's no way back !
The other car's an old Boxster. Fab.
m12_nathan said:
I thought the Top gear CSL time was actually in the wet on cup tyres?
There isn't much in it between a standard GT3 and a CSL on similar tyres, RS is quicker and ultimately the Porsches have more scope for improvement. I'm guessing that the CSL is easier to drive meaning an average driver (ie me) will be quicker than in a GT3 in which the difference between an average and great driver is much more pronounced.
There was about 4-5 seconds between a GT3RS on Corsa systems and one on Corsa R tyres at the 'ring when tested by sport auto (Dan H will be along to correct I'm sure) so not that much difference.
To be honest I've lost track. Pretty sure there was a 7.40 for the RS claimed as stock but with the Corsa Motorsports. Even then the Michellins are meant to have a little more grip ultimately. There's more info on this thread, and a few scans although the pertinent one is missing :
www.rs6.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=5577&perpage=17&pagenumber=1
You'll note the CSL is quicker than the RS was*
* It was equipped with "OHLINS dampers and expensive brakes, is super lightweight, plus a 3.91 diff and of course the Pilot Sport Cup tires."
(super lightweight appears to be only 36kg lol)
Do people really care about these things? The CSL and RS are different cars with different dynamics, weight distributions, gear shifts & etc. Does 5-10 secs at the ring really make any odds? I bought the RS because it has a proper gearbox, is more of an occasion to drive, doesn't need new front callipers, has harnessess & cage etc. The fact that a CSL with mild tinkering beats the best RS time I've seen just shows how some expensive dampers setup for the job in hand can make a huge difference. Or as flemke mentions, it could all be down to track conditions when the lap was performed.
Remember those 'ring times are not only going to be with different drivers, but you have no idea of the conditions. Even if they are all clear, dry laps, the track temperature is going to make a massive difference to grip, especially with sticky semi-slicks. Unless you have the same driver on the same day, this stuff really isn't that comparable. And a lap-time as long as the 'ring will make a small grip difference look like a huge time difference - the lap times of the GT2 down to the Turbo are spread by 10 secs, but that's only a 2% difference..
>> Edited by pjm on Friday 23 December 09:49
>> Edited by pjm on Friday 23 December 09:49
michael_jcws said:
the TG lap time for the CSL was in the wet.
Cheers
Michael
Yep, the CSL times on the TG track were in wet conditions (puddles, with a patchy damp surface) whereas at least the GT3 was on Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tyres.
Also please bear in mind when comparing times that the CSL runs on a comparativley 'puny' footprint compared to the GT3. Only 9.5K rear rims running 265 tyres rather than the 295 tyres on a 11J rim in the GT3. What slows the CSL down on track is ultimately a lack of front end grip. It runs conservative amount of negative camber (actually below the mimimum recommended by Michelin for the Cup tyres) and all it takes is 2-3 degrees of negative camber plus slightly wider front tyres and the CSL will lap Donington Park 2-3 seconds quicker than standard.
Ultimately the GT3 Mk2 is quicker in a straight line (although the Mk1 is not) so all things being equal, on a suitable track the GT3 Mk2 should be quicker, but tracks that play the CSL's strengths of poise and stability under braking will turn the tables.
The Cayman S doesn't stand a chance. It is much, much slower than a GT3 and compares favourably with the CSL in terms of poise and stability but again it's noticeably slower in terms of acceleration and power/weight (227 vs 260).
p.s. putting things in perspective, isn't it brilliant that in this day and age we have such cars to choose from?
>> Edited by DoctorD on Friday 23 December 17:57
A gree 100%.
Which is why I am most interested in a Cayman RS ?
That would be a car.
As an aside. Power to weight ratios. The CSL engine struggles for it's 360 (355 bhp ?), whilst most of the late GT3 engines are giving almost 400 bhp for their specified 381. Is this Porsche probing the limits for the new GT3 which will have the same engine ?
Which is why I am most interested in a Cayman RS ?
That would be a car.
As an aside. Power to weight ratios. The CSL engine struggles for it's 360 (355 bhp ?), whilst most of the late GT3 engines are giving almost 400 bhp for their specified 381. Is this Porsche probing the limits for the new GT3 which will have the same engine ?
I owned both and drove both on the same circuits. There's no doubt in my mind that my CSL is at least as quick in a straight line as my Mk1 GT3. Many Mk1's you see on circuits these days are tuned for 380+bhp. There's nothing surprising about that given they both weigh the same and produce the same power. A good CSL engine on the dyno by the way produces between 360-370bhp, the GT3 has less transmission losses but then their torque curves are different so it's swings and roundabouts. My CSL has achieved an indicated 193mph on the autobahn north of Koln and will reach just under 150mph on the back straight at Bedford Autodrome, so they're not slow...
Even if an MS is close to GT3 quick - surely it is just a tricked up rep car at the end of the day and not a proper Sportcar.
An also you can of course put bigger an bigger (width and height tyre on for more grip) - but then you can do that with any car.
If I was gonna have either - I would not evem consider a BMW. 911 (particularly a stiff GT3) type should and would win every time.
Even all this CSL lightening stuff - it is still a heavy car.
An also you can of course put bigger an bigger (width and height tyre on for more grip) - but then you can do that with any car.
If I was gonna have either - I would not evem consider a BMW. 911 (particularly a stiff GT3) type should and would win every time.
Even all this CSL lightening stuff - it is still a heavy car.
jellison said:
Even if an MS is close to GT3 quick - surely it is just a tricked up rep car at the end of the day and not a proper Sportcar.
An also you can of course put bigger an bigger (width and height tyre on for more grip) - but then you can do that with any car.
If I was gonna have either - I would not evem consider a BMW. 911 (particularly a stiff GT3) type should and would win every time.
That strikes me as a rather ignorant comment. I'm not sure I can even be bothered to dignify it with a retort. We've debated many times what makes a sports car (or not) and we can all throw dumb comments around about 'tricked up rep car' or 'posh beetle', but it serves no purpose in furthering the debate. Neither cars are 'tricked up' and both are exquisitely developed by some of the best engineers in the business. They feel special, use genuinely unique engineering advances and are amongst a 'handful' of cars that can be driven to Spa/Ring driven hard all day and not show a sign of wilting.
jellison said:
Even all this CSL lightening stuff - it is still a heavy car.
Check your facts. The CSL weighs the same (if not slightly less) than a GT3, so in what context are you describing it as 'heavy'? Oh, and if you're comparing it to TVR it might be wise to realise that many TVRs are nowhere near as 'light' as advertised. (It took a very expensive carbon fibre tub for TVR to get anywhere near the weight target for our Typhon and even then it was over 1100kg (DIN))
>> Edited by DoctorD on Sunday 25th December 12:13
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff