Ford Racing Puma vs Integra Type R (old Top Gear test)
Discussion
Morning all.
Who wants the job of explaining to me why a Ford Racing Puma lapped Pembrey almost 2 seconds a lap quicker than an ITR in an old Top Gear test (13 years old lol)
http://www.itr-dc2.com/resource/itr_puma_172.pdf
I've just come across it on another forum, and to say I'm surprised is an understatement.
How exactly does a heavier, less powerful Puma, handle that well, that it out performs one of the all time great FF cars, to the sum of almost 2 seconds?
Call me a disgruntled fan boy but I'm struggling to believe this. And I'm making myself look silly on another forum because of it
So the facts are, two excellent front drive cars, with amazing chassis, one with 168bhp/tonne, another with 134bhp/tonne
How is it nearly 2 seconds quicker?
Who wants the job of explaining to me why a Ford Racing Puma lapped Pembrey almost 2 seconds a lap quicker than an ITR in an old Top Gear test (13 years old lol)
http://www.itr-dc2.com/resource/itr_puma_172.pdf
I've just come across it on another forum, and to say I'm surprised is an understatement.
How exactly does a heavier, less powerful Puma, handle that well, that it out performs one of the all time great FF cars, to the sum of almost 2 seconds?
Call me a disgruntled fan boy but I'm struggling to believe this. And I'm making myself look silly on another forum because of it
So the facts are, two excellent front drive cars, with amazing chassis, one with 168bhp/tonne, another with 134bhp/tonne
How is it nearly 2 seconds quicker?
I remember that mag article.
Don't read the Autocar Annual Handling tests either then - some unexpected results in those.
A 328 BMW that was about 300kg heavier than an ITR but with roughly the same quoted power beating it on track .....or the CAR test where a 2.8 Z3 almost matched an ITR at Combe ( about half a second ).
I suspect a combination of sheer mechanical grip, circuit being 'suited' to a particular car, test driver familiarisation or a combination of other factors are all at play.
Nice cars though the ITR, I've only driven one at Bruntingthorpe though
Don't read the Autocar Annual Handling tests either then - some unexpected results in those.
A 328 BMW that was about 300kg heavier than an ITR but with roughly the same quoted power beating it on track .....or the CAR test where a 2.8 Z3 almost matched an ITR at Combe ( about half a second ).
I suspect a combination of sheer mechanical grip, circuit being 'suited' to a particular car, test driver familiarisation or a combination of other factors are all at play.
Nice cars though the ITR, I've only driven one at Bruntingthorpe though
doogz said:
Didn't the Puma have 153bhp, and weigh a fraction over a tonne. Don't think your figures are quite right.
And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
Yes it had 153 bhp, but it weighed about 100 kg more than a standard Puma at 1150 kg IIRC (standard one was 1035 kg).And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
Not sure on the LSD, but it does have a shorter wheelbase making it more agile on the tight stuff...
But the main thing was, they had EPIC levels of grip, and EPIC brakes.
doogz said:
Didn't the Puma have 153bhp, and weigh a fraction over a tonne. Don't think your figures are quite right.
And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
Puma is 1040 by most sites (well they seem to say the FRP is the same weight as the normal 1.7, which I'm not sure is exactly true)And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
I did indeed, the puma has 147bhp/tonne (I accidentally put 1140 instead of 1040) IF it weighs the same as a normal 1.7 (doubtful)
Still 20 less than the Integra! Come on...
DanielJames said:
Puma is 1040 by most sites (well they seem to say the FRP is the same weight as the normal 1.7, which I'm not sure is exactly true)
I did indeed, the puma has 147bhp/tonne (I accidentally put 1140 instead of 1040) IF it weighs the same as a normal 1.7 (doubtful)
Still 20 less than the Integra! Come on...
To be honest, with the exception of braking, and the straights, a standard Puma, let alone a Racing will give a DC2 a run for its money [on the road], and I'm not just saying that, they really are very, very good for what they are.I did indeed, the puma has 147bhp/tonne (I accidentally put 1140 instead of 1040) IF it weighs the same as a normal 1.7 (doubtful)
Still 20 less than the Integra! Come on...
A FRP will out-grip and out-brake a DC2 any day of the week.
Don't get me wrong, I love the DC2, and it's a fine handling car, but massive mechanical grip ain't its forte (and mine was a 98-spec with 16" wheels shod with 205 mm tyres, so more grip than the UKDM model).
CAPP0 said:
DanielJames said:
Still 20 less than the Integra! Come on...
If it was simply all about power then a V8 luxobarge would beat a Caterham round a go-kart track. However...... Toys/pram/out
DanielJames said:
How exactly does a heavier, less powerful Puma, handle that well, that it out performs one of the all time great FF cars, to the sum of almost 2 seconds?
Could it be that fun isn't directly linked to lap time?The ITR is a hoot to drive. It's lap time anywhere doesn't change that.
TameRacingDriver said:
To be honest, with the exception of braking, and the straights, a standard Puma, let alone a Racing will give a DC2 a run for its money [on the road], and I'm not just saying that, they really are very, very good for what they are.
A FRP will out-grip and out-brake a DC2 any day of the week.
Don't get me wrong, I love the DC2, and it's a fine handling car, but massive mechanical grip ain't its forte (and mine was a 98-spec with 16" wheels shod with 205 mm tyres, so more grip than the UKDM model).
Not a chance, bring your Puma up to Yorkshire, we'll find a "abandoned airstrip" and I'll leave you for dead A FRP will out-grip and out-brake a DC2 any day of the week.
Don't get me wrong, I love the DC2, and it's a fine handling car, but massive mechanical grip ain't its forte (and mine was a 98-spec with 16" wheels shod with 205 mm tyres, so more grip than the UKDM model).
Also, the Integra out braked the FRP in the Top Gear test...
Which makes it even more unbelievable!
TameRacingDriver said:
doogz said:
Didn't the Puma have 153bhp, and weigh a fraction over a tonne. Don't think your figures are quite right.
And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
Yes it had 153 bhp, but it weighed about 100 kg more than a standard Puma at 1150 kg IIRC (standard one was 1035 kg).And they had a LSD, as well as the Honda.
The Puma is also a bit wider, is it not?
Not sure on the LSD, but it does have a shorter wheelbase making it more agile on the tight stuff...
But the main thing was, they had EPIC levels of grip, and EPIC brakes.
The way I've always seen it (and I'm happy to be corrected), is the 'Teg is all about the engine, and the FRP is all about the handling.
CAPP0 said:
If it was simply all about power then a V8 luxobarge would beat a Caterham round a go-kart track. However......
Yes but DC2 Integra's are reknowned to be one of the best handling FWD cars ever because of it's traction. Along with the straight line speed advantage. It seems a bit odd that it would be beaten round a track by the FRP, as good as they are.Bear Phils said:
CAPP0 said:
If it was simply all about power then a V8 luxobarge would beat a Caterham round a go-kart track. However......
Yes but DC2 Integra's are reknowned to be one of the best handling FWD cars ever because of it's traction. Along with the straight line speed advantage. It seems a bit odd that it would be beaten round a track by the FRP, as good as they are.
Also, that test was a blast from the past! I remember reading it back in 2000 before I could even drive, then I downloaded it just after I bought my FRP. I was always puzzled as to why the 172 was included in the past, but now owning a 182 I can understand it's inclusion to a point. I still don't think the Renault is anywhere near as special as the FRP or Integra though, despite it's many plus points.
DanielJames said:
TameRacingDriver said:
To be honest, with the exception of braking, and the straights, a standard Puma, let alone a Racing will give a DC2 a run for its money [on the road], and I'm not just saying that, they really are very, very good for what they are.
Not a chance, bring your Puma up to Yorkshire, we'll find a "abandoned airstrip" and I'll leave you for dead Also, the Integra out braked the FRP in the Top Gear test...
Which makes it even more unbelievable!
An abandoned air field is not a road.
However, on a slalom course, I honestly think I'd have you
The brakes on the DC2 are VERY good indeed, but the brakes on the FRP are phenomenal. The brakes on mine however, are utter s
te!Bear Phils said:
Yes but DC2 Integra's are reknowned to be one of the best handling FWD cars ever because of it's traction. Along with the straight line speed advantage. It seems a bit odd that it would be beaten round a track by the FRP, as good as they are.
Not because of its traction, although that helps, the DC2 will still understeer in the right circumstances, no, it's the cars behavior at the limit which dictates how good handling it is.Ultimately, as great as it is, it's a relatively long wheelbase car with moderate levels of grip, and as such, is not going to be as fast on a corner as something with much higher levels of grip, and with that wheelbase, certainly not as agile as the 'stumpy little wheel in each corner Puma'.
I have a sequence of tight little roundabouts interjected by straights on my way to work each day, and I've never had a car that goes around them as well as the Puma (the 172 I had before paled in comparison).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff