Rams Eye The Track Guy

Recently, Chevrolets seem to have been punching far above their weights and a lot of people (myself included) are impressed. Sure, Corvettes have always been formidable track cars, but they're low, light, purpose-built, and didn't blow expectations - just provided excellent value. Now, all  +Chevrolet   track cars, especially Camaros, seem to be overreaching and, combined with excellent chassis tuning, have been doing wonders for GM's chassis engineers' image. I decided to take the time and do some research to try and figure out what GM is doing that others aren't (or can't). Before I start, I'd like to point out that this is based only on my own understanding and research, not an interview or publication by GM, so take that for what it's worth. Since I haven't posted about the latest of Chevy's track-focused models/trim packages, I thought I'd first take this opportunity and talk about what you get. Whether you're looking at a Cam

Where did the time go? I unfortunately missed last year's feature. I did intend to post about it this year but haven't had the chance and it's already time for this year's feature. I thought I'd get this one done first and then go back to last year's (hopefully). The full article for this year's LL is here:  Car and Driver - Lightning Lap 201 6 . As always, my car picks aren't necessarily very quick or slow. They simply did much better or much worse than I excepted them to.  The Highs BMW M2 - 3:01.9 : Last year, a BMW M4 did 3:00.7. 1.2 seconds is all that separate the iconic M4 (an M3 coupe, really.. doesn't that sound better?) from this M2. And that one had the dual clutch transmission and carbon ceramic brakes. Opt for the manual, and you could very well be neck and neck. But you save *ahem* about $30,000 in the process, a little more if you're in Canada. That's what you need to get an M4 with the competition package, dual

If you've come here for a new instrument head-to-head test, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Although, for the sake of those who do want numbers, here they are from the most recent Car and Driver comparison test: 2016 Camaro SS 2016 Mustang GT 0-30 mph 1.6 s 1.7 s 0-60 mph 3.9 s 4.4 s 0-100 mph 8.9 s 10.5 s 1/4 mile 12.3 s @ 116 mph 13.0 s @ 112 mph braking 70-0 mph 147 ft 157 ft 300-ft dia.skidpad 0.98 g 0.94 g 610-ft slalom 43.9 mph 43.3 mph For some reason, Car and Driver tested an 8-speed auto Camaro and a 6-speed manual Mustang, so figure you'll lose a tenth or two with a manual; the gap is still clear. The new Camaro SS out accelerates, out brakes, and out grips the new (now almost two years old) Mustang. And I'm not here to tell you otherwise. If you're reading this, chances are, you'v

Earlier this month, I introduced the cars that we'll be testing in a comparison. The cars included a Focus RS, a Mk7 Golf R, a 4th gen WRX STI and an Evo X. Unfortunately, the Evo X will not be making it, but the other three are still in, so I thought I'd take some time to post the update and shed more light on the cars. I wanted to have a 100% stock car comparison. I really did. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. Well, for most of the cars anyway. The Golf R and the STI are modified, whereas the RS is stock. If you're curious, the Evo X was also modified. All have very few modifications. The Golf R went the way that seems to be very popular - tune and exhaust. It also has an intake. I asked the owner to return the tune to stock, which he agreed to do, and said he might take the intake out too. Exhaust, though, is a lot tougher to get out. He has a full turbo back exhaust so he didn't want to take it out. I can't blame him. As a result, the car wi