Does TwistFace work? Three testers put it to the test. Carbon crown : Frees up inefficient mass high in the head. Aerodynamic head: Improves airflow over the head, improving club speed.
Speed pocket: Helps retain ball speed on off-centre hits. It went down a storm on Tour, too. Half the amount of back weight 22g compared to 41g in M4 is a brilliant set-up for lots of golfers. HammerHead Slot: Increases ball speed from a larger portion of the club face. Carbon crown: Five layers thick, it frees up inefficient mass high in the head.
Full TaylorMade M4 review here. Our test pro used an Aldila Rogue shaft when hitting both the M2 and M4 and you can see how closely the pair are matched. M4 encompasses everything TaylorMade has learnt about making drivers uber-forgiving and powerful, yet sound and look great. You only get all that knowledge by making and learning from previous models.
See our drivers test here. Gains have been made, but improvements are pretty small. We reckon the biggest advance is in forgiveness, which is better with the latest models thanks to more weight being positioned to influence MOI. We know they make a difference — but how much? Carbon composite crown: Freed up weight and saw Callaway collaborate with Lamborghini.
Movable sole weights: 12g and 2g weights could be swapped to deliver a draw or fade bias. Callaway went through a tough time before their current CEO Chip Brewer came on board in and came up with a five-year plan to take them back to the top of the market. TaylorMade might have come out all guns blazing about carbon crowns in with the M1 , but Callaway had been playing with the idea for several years beforehand. Speed frame: The start of designing drivers as a skeleton structure to remove mass from undesirable areas.
All titanium head: After years of playing with carbon composite heads it gave golfers the sound they wanted. So it could be said X Hot, which had an all-titanium head, was fighting an uphill battle, which is a real shame as even now we loved the look and feel of it.
In fact, the back end is about as playful as they come from the factory—and the oversteer is most certainly not of the power variety.
This demonstrates a penchant of tuning for enthusiasts rather than for the safety of the lowest-common-denominator driver, which is refreshing considering the litigiousness in this country. At Waterford, counting just the cornering sections, the lithe RX-8 astonishingly matched the mighty Bimmer despite having less skidpad grip—the second-lowest in the group, in fact—from its Bridgestone REA summer tires. Plus, the suspension shrugged off midcorner impacts and showed excellent body and wheel control during our street driving.
Add in excellent steering, and the RX-8 was easily the best front-engine, rear-drive entrant, serving up a scalpel-like demeanor on both road and track. The steering has an enviable combination of straight-ahead calmness and eager turn-in, and it weights up nicely off-center with linear responses, although some nuances felt in the Lotus and the Porsche are filtered out here. Our reservations were minor ones. But overall, the RX-8 remains a brilliant, relatively lightweight four-seat chassis in search of class-competitive power and fuel economy.
A lack of steering-wheel buttons turned out to be an excellent predictor of handling in our test; only the Lotus and the Porsche were unencumbered with these ancillary controls. Of course the Elise also stands out because of its diminutive size and weight—more than pounds less than the next-lightest Boxster.
Zero slop on-center, and the effort, though significantly heavier than any of the others, builds up naturally from there. LOWS: Tramlines, unspectacular lap times, will hurl rear-heavy posterior, loose-fit seats.
And the rest of the car is similarly revelatory, with a mechanical feel unmatched among street-legal machinery. Not a single dynamic event of any kind is kept secret from the driver. Its best-in-test lane-change velocity astonished no one, although the Elise did come with a few surprises, such as having the most body roll, by far, in the group it was the only car lacking a rear anti-roll bar. As with the RX-8, however, the body roll is managed so fluently that it avoids being a liability.
More importantly, why do the seats in such an elemental sports car have so little lateral support? And why does the brake pedal have a significant dead spot before it bites?
Significant understeer—unless you apply power extremely early—seemed to hold it back, as did an unwillingness to rotate when using the brakes. And having the most rear-heavy weight distribution likely contributes to the fact that if and when the rear end does break loose, it tends to be dramatic.
In the end, separating first and second place came down to stability and confidence. The mid-engine, lightweight Spyder had to be in this test. LOWS: Brakes go soft with extreme use; a seatback-angle adjustment would be nice. We had a small beef with the brakes. And on the track, things got a bit too soft.
Remember what we said about handling and driver confidence? Everything in the Porsche harmonizes to instantly convey its unflappability, leading to unsurpassed and immediate driver assuredness.
It lets go with warning and recovers seamlessly. A big piece of this magic is its steering, which is exceedingly accurate, responsive, and communicative. Made up mostly of engineers who had careers in ride and handling at Ford, Cayman Dynamics was founded in as a provider of vehicle-dynamics expertise to automakers, suppliers, tire companies, and aftermarket manufacturers. For this test, the Cayman team performed a subset of its usual dynamics-testing regimen, and we decided to forgo objective ride testing altogether that, alone, would have taken about a day of testing per car.
Through a tangle of wires, all the equipment was connected to a data recorder—taking readings times per second—and to a Panasonic Toughbook laptop. The most interesting and relevant results are illustrated in the accompanying graphs.
Tadge Juechter is currently the Corvette chief engineer and vehicle line director but has been an engineer on the famous fiberglass sports car for at least 20 years. How does he define good handling?
You can have good handling without high limits, but it gets harder with high limits. Most people associate handling with tires, springs, and shocks, but Juechter starts with the basics.
So I start with the weight distribution, the center-of-gravity height, the polar moment of inertia, its mass, and the stiffness of the structure. Tight tolerances and low friction produce feedback as well.
Computer-aided design really helps here. Great handling has always been a Lotus hallmark. He also puts stock in progressiveness. Though Lotus uses objective handling tests, Becker relies a great deal on subjective evaluations.
The human brain is still a lot more clever than people give it credit for. At BMW, handling is pursued with a mix of big-company resources and plenty of individuality, according to M3 chassis engineer Uli Phundmeier. And, I might add, with very good reason. I should also add that, while comparison tests by their nature need a last-place car as much as a winner.
The Lotus Evora S will excite and delight anyone who values performance and sportiness over everything else. It really does drive quite well.
But we happened to round up 10 cars that drive better. Lots of positive ink was spilled in sacrifice to the Evora S. Problem was there was even more negative ink choking the notebooks. I'm going to start off with technical director Frank Markus' take on the Evora S, because, while he had some nice things to say about the mid-engine balance, good turn-in, and great brake pedal feel, his bad list began with, "Everything else! And did I mention that the supercharged Evora S is the slowest car here?
One thing the best driver's car cannot and will not have is an awkward seating position. Well, guess what? In the Lotus, the brake pedal is where you'd expect the throttle to be; the gas pedal's under the center console; and the clutch pedal is not only too far to the middle, but there's absolutely no room to the left of it.
Which means you're constantly riding the clutch. Speaking, as Frank did, of "cornball ergonomics," the Lotus' "crappy" Alpine head unit is at least 10 years out of date.
And the traction-control light was permanently stuck on, so we never knew if we were in Sport mode or not. More than one of us noted that the Lotus felt less robust than the rest of the competition. Justin Bell was less than impressed with the overall build quality of the Evora S, worried that he was about to knock something loose.
And he's British. As associate editor Scott Evans put it, "Feels delicate, like any kind of manhandling is going to break something expensive. I want to drive it hard, but I don't want to pay the price. Randy Pobst, one of our professional race-car drivers for BDC, found the car's handling particularly odd. The Evora S would oversteer on turn-in, and then understeer to the point of pushing on turn-out.
As he stated, "It's a car where it actually pays off to go to the throttle pretty early in the corner, which is something I'm usually trying to tell my students not to do when I'm teaching driving. My mother said no, arguing that the hair rock masters are, "so stupid they can't even spell their name right. Remember when cars were called Roadmaster and Superfast Coupe? What does this have to do with Best Driver's Car? Not much, though if BMW can't even get the name right, where else did it pull punches?
Front-end bite, for one. The sharply orange Bimmer tested out with the highest degree of understeer of our group. It just plowed. But don't take my word for it. Noted Randy, "Between you and me, I hate it. It won't turn. It's almost like it was built by safety engineers. But only until you get on the power, and then, getting on the power, it's not really good at putting the power down, either. I'm just not impressed with this car. I like the M3 so much that I find the 1M to be very, very disappointing, though the M3 understeers too much, too.
The real world tells a different story. Even with the relatively poor steering, the 1M is fun to toss around, because when you do hammer down, the back end is all too eager to break free. I'm not very good at drifting, but even I was able to make the little BMW's rear end slide about. Lago added, "It's a fun-size M3 that's just as fast and costs far less.
Still, there was something half-baked, not fully formed about the smallest current M Division product. Compared with the other contenders, the 1M didn't feel serious.
It felt more like a puppy, frisky, eager but not as accurate or graceful as it might be. Sadly for 1M fans, we know the car's not going to grow up. BMW basically built it with spare parts on a very limited basis. While the handling was nobody's favorite, at least the 1M was predictable, unlike the Evora S.
Turning in meant a lot of wheel work, but it did the same thing every time. Still, the brakes faded every time you really got on it. Especially on the track, where the stoppers felt good for less than a lap. This is surprising considering they're the same discs as on the M3, but we think we had to use them more frequently because of the car's unsorted behavior. Randy found that getting on the middle pedal in a hurry would exacerbate the 1M's constant understeering.
Moreover, the brakes warped badly during our canyon run, the only car here to fail in any way. Despite its fun-first nature and pretty decent numbers, the 1 Series M Coupe just isn't a great driver's car.
Back to Randy: "You know, I hate to pick on what obviously overall is a pretty good car, but in today's world there are not very many cars I hate I hate this car. I still find it perplexing that the Lexus LFA is the most exotic car here. After all, it's a Toyota at heart. But think about it. Carbon fiber everything. A psycho-revving V that sounds just like an old F1 motor from the outside, and like an F1 engine stuffed in each ear from within. That front-mid-mounted humdinger sits so low below the tops of the wheels!
It manages to be better than the sum of its parts, most of which individually are flawed. There's the fussy transmission that shifts slowly, overheats after one run, lacks a "park" feature, and has to be put in neutral to start.
Then there's the horrendous ergonomics and flinty ride quality. Finally there's the excessive noise and utter lack of isolation from mechanical chatter and transmission gears moving around, tire noise, etc. Back to the nervous and twitchy part. The LFA has some of the most powerful brakes I've ever experienced. Anchors, literally. However, under heavy braking, the back end starts vibrating and shaking. It is totally disconcerting.
For me, the Lexus was the most difficult car to get around the track. I just never felt comfortable. Unlike many of the higher-finishing vehicles, the LFA gave me no confidence that I wasn't going to go spinning off the track. I just couldn't push it.
Lexus might be aware of this, because Randy noted that two or three times the supposedly disabled stability control switched back on.
He could feel the brakes grab for just a split second when he'd released them pre-turn-in. Those same brakes were also smoking when he pulled into pit lane. The flipside is that I sat next to Justin Bell, our other pro driver, as he gracefully danced with the Lexus around each corner. His performance was masterful. It was like sitting in a practice room while Steve Vai ran arpeggios. Beyond impressive, and well beyond the average Joe's abilities.
Thing is, to really appreciate Vai, you need to be a guitar prodigy yourself. And while Justin loved the LFA, our other pro driver had gripes.
When I think a car is really handling the way I want it to, when I go the fastest on a racetrack, I don't have to think about driving it. It was like work. And for me, that's less enjoyable that something I can just haul ass in, like, oh, I don't know, the Mustang.
Horse's mouth, people. The horse's mouth. That's right, eighth place. So much so that if you threaten to cancel your subscription for the third time in as many months over this massive automotive injustice, we understand.
After all, it's a true and stunning Grand Tourer, with a hood so long you could practice curling. The new Gullwing is also a future Concours d'Elegance contender, and those mesmerizingly pointless doors make for a real automotive objet d'art. Moreover, after a particularly hot, stand-in-the-sun-for-three-hours video shoot in the Central Valley, the team had to drive miles south to our testing facility in Orange County. Instantly I asked for the SLS, because, hey, supercars with backbreaking rides are neat in small doses, but three hours in a straight line demands luxury and comfort.
I was dismayed to learn that the big man himself Angus had already snatched up the Merc's keys because he was thinking the exact same thing. I wound up in a Ford Transit Connect with a busted door sensor that mercilessly chimed at me for the entire journey. But as far as our little Best Driver's Car competition goes, big bird here has some issues.
As mentioned, I got to drive all 11 cars around Mazda Raceway as fast as I possibly could, with every nanny in the off position.
You've been warned: Huge power and tail-happy handling may result in some bad behavior. In the car's defense, I decided to flatfoot it coming out of turn 11, which resulted in my spin a small one, at that; like a quarter spin, really. Still, a rose by any other name Breaking down the numbers helps reveal why. While every car in the competition understeered, the Gullwing did so the least, and by a good margin. If you like smoky powerslides, that's a good thing.
However, couple that tendency with not only the highest apparent slip angle of the bunch 8. Said Randy after his three laps, "It's a lot of fun, but not a terribly well-behaved car. But why are we concentrating on the bad? The SLS is an absolute blast. The engine, the best iteration of the going-away N 6. The Mercedes stood out in this group as most potent, with hp and lb-ft of torque.
Which caused Justin and me to gurgle like idiots every time one of us goosed the throttle. There's just so much top end. The new Gullwing really is a modern, wonderful take on the classic Grand Touring concept. Sure, I could feel it pushing, but Audis always push. And it was very predictable. Only a handful of cars made me feel overconfident around Mazda Raceway. Only a few filled me with a sense of "hey, this is easy.
But, obviously, I wasn't pushing the R8 GT hard enough. That said, it's doubtful that in the real world anyone will ever push the horse Audi as hard as I did on the track. But perhaps the car wasn't set up properly? But that felt very wrong to Randy. So we took 4 pounds out of the front tires, sent Randy on his way, and he drove off the track at turn 6. His only off. What's lovely about the "regular" Audi R8 is it's everyday supercarness. Want to run up and down a canyon like your hair's on fire and take your wife out for a nice dinner?
No problem. But the GT version? Not so much. For one thing, the ride is dismally rough. It's just hard. Which is a forgivable sin in a good driver's car. As are the concrete-stiff seats. The seatbelts, however, are not. The R8 GT comes equipped with four-point harnesses. On a racetrack, five-point harnesses hold the driver in place, especially the submarine belt that loops up over your crotch and prevents you from sliding out and under the belts.
But with a four-pointer you can slide down in your seat, defeating the point of such a movement-limiting harness. I suppose if you were perfectly buckled in, you'd be OK. But no one is strong enough to tighten his own shoulder belt.
Worse, imagine taking it out on a date.
0コメント