European Road Tests and Engineering
8. EUROPEAN ROAD TESTS AND ENGINEERING
There are actually charts, graphs and pictures in this section and you can view them on the original thread located here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=133342&page=5
Let’s look for a second on what the engineers have to accomplish for our streets car (often cursed for “bad” handling)….
Little bit background here: In Europe (for those who do not know) things are little bit different when it comes to car magazines and doing tests for new cars on the pages of those magazines. It is little bit controversial, because in America safety is always advertised so much, it would seem that it is really priority number one for the American buyer, yet the magazines (Car and Driver, Road and Track and you name it) barely include “safety” tests in their reviews. I put the “safety” in comas, as I did not mean the safety crash tests they perform, but tests that would show how safe a car is in panic situations, trail braking, lift over steer, etc. After all, those are the things we have to deal with almost every day and if it is not every day, then perhaps it is once in a five years time, but at that one time yours (and other’s) life can be on the table. So, in Europe, it is a lot more about how fast the car can go with the pedal to the metal, what is the fuel consumption (very important the poorer you are!), what is the power, etc. Only these days the safety talks are going more and more into people’s heads and only these days the big billboards that advertise cars start talking about safety, airbags, bla, bla – before was just some nice chick on the hood and there you go. I even remember few years ago some friends had to replace their older cars with newer models and were afraid of buying something that has airbags, because those things with the mini-explosive inside sounded just scary to have. At one point there was even this “wave” among young German guys, to go and steal a “modern” car that had airbags and go and smash the thing into a tree as to experience what it is like to have an airbag explode in your face. But even back then (more than 10 years ago), the European magazines were already performing all sorts of tests that show the true colors of the tested cars in every day situations that we have to deal with. And here are some of those tests, that they continue performing till today (and I hope will continue performing in the future), so we can put all the talks in this thread into a few scenarios, etc….
So, this first test I wanted to talk about is pretty interesting and speaks so much about why the makers set the cars the way they are. It is from an Italian magazine (called “Quattroruote”, which means “Four wheels”) and is perhaps the benchmark magazine for cars in that country. Comes out every month, but it is thick stuff, about 400 pages and every month they have few new cars to test, but the tests are pretty serious stuff, usually covered on about 10-14 pages, and when it comes to the “handling” tests, here is part of what they do:
Test 1.
Below we have the scene. It is curve with 170 meters of radius, set with cones as shown in the picture. The car drives on the outside of the curve (right) and goes through a photocell (it says there “Fotocellula”). Then it has another 5 meters till the last cone after which has only 20 meters to change lane and move to the left line (as to avoid the diagonal cones on the right lane). Once the cones are avoided, the car has to also remain in the left lane and not touch the series of cones that are on the extreme left border of the lane. It is basically a quick left and then quick right to align. Here is the scene and below an Opel later generation (Signum) negotiating the task (and for the records, the Opel manages 102 km/h max speed and that is with ESP, which in the car is impossible to switch off):
Now, the task here is this – To go through the photocell at the highest speed possible, after which the drive lifts the throttle and also manages to go through the cones without knocking down even one. (Those diagonal cones on the picture are all down, so the cameras can get good details on the tires, etc during every centimeter of the test). Basically, the driver has to do all he wants, but the highest speed at the photocell has to be achieved before cones start flying…… So, in reality, what we have here is a typical lift-throttle, obstacle avoiding situation. What makes this test interesting is that they have kept the piece of track for like 20 years now and nothing had ever changed, so all cars go on the exact same surface and configuration, making the tests a lot more reliable when it comes to comparing different cars through the years….
I have to go back and look for numbers, so you all see some interesting results, but on top of my head I remember that the Golf had been shining for years on that test. The A4 platform was a bench mark for its class for years and the rest of the manufacturers had to come out with electronics as to get even close to what the Golf A4 was offering! Later in the game some of them managed to get close (but with a lot more sophisticated suspension solutions!), but then VW introduced the Golf V, and guess who’s leading this test again! And it is not only in its class, but the Golf V is actually ahead of very well known cars for their “handling” capabilities. I will dig the numbers later as it is really interesting to see the ranks….
Then there is another one, a lot more simple (at first glance) but where the big mess happens from time to time:
Test 2.
This one is called (translated directly) the “The Elk Test”. If I am not wrong it was originated in the Scandinavian countries, where you would drive on this small two lane road in the night and suddenly there would be an elk in front of you, so you have to go quickly left-right-left and avoid the elk, without going out of the road. Here is the scene and a Lexus SUV pictured below going through the actual test:
This, by the way, is the very famous test on which the famous Mercedes Class A failed badly (rolling over!) and then the sky felt down, but I would love to give the microphone to Winston as I remember he had some interesting stories to tell about that Mercedes fiasco. Fact is, there are few cars that failed this test through the years. The very recent one being the Dacia Logan (a Romanian made Renault, econo car for the masses, which is really not bad for the money, as you better have a car than nothing, but who’s suspension I guess was made compromising too much, to fit a budget I am sure, so the car rolled in this test). Here is a picture of that same Dacia Logan at the same exact test:
Why all of the above? Because these two scenarios (and many others) are actually what really matters when it comes to a street car, meant for the masses, just like our cars are. Those guys in Wolfsburg spend years of developing the cars and it is really years, it is not something I made up. All that time goes so our cars can go through those cones above in the best possible way, at the highest possible speed and with the least trained driver behind the wheel. Those are the real tasks that safe life. I am sure they know very, very well how to make the A4 Golf (for example) be a lot more “fun” to drive, with a lot less under steer, etc – but a Golf like that perhaps will fail the above tests so badly, in the hands of the untrained driver, and so the corporate decision is to go with plan “B” – a car which the enthusiasts will not love, but in which everyone is going to be safe, regardless of their driving skills, road conditions, etc. And when looking at those tests above, our A4s and A5s are actually top performers, so it is not quite true that they “suck” in handling – they can actually “handle” those situations very, very well and car like that can not be called a bad handling car.
It will take some time for me to gather all the numbers as they are all in different magazines, so I have to go through them one by one, but here are some I got so far. This was a comparo among 11 SUV through the "Elk Test". Here is the way the got classified, but note how the ranking is not in order of the highest speed and I will explain later why:
1. Land Rover Discovery - 62.7 km/h
2. Porsche Cayenne - 59.3 km/h
3. BMW X5 - 58.9 km/h
4. VW Touareg - 61.4 km/h
5. Lexus RX 300 - 61.4 km/h
6. Nissan Murano - 59.8 km/h
7. Mistubishi Pajero Pinin - 60.0 km/h
8. Nissan Super Terrano - 58.8 km/h
9. Jeep Cherokee - 58.8 km/h
10. Volvo XC 90 - 58.5 km/h
11. Toyota Rav4 - 57.8 km/h
Now, as you can see, the Touareg (and Lexus) have the second best speed through the test, but only placed 4-th and 5-th (The Mistrubishi is in similar situation, performed well but placed behind). This because the ranking is based not only on the number, but also on the evaluation from the test driver. Basically, the car is capable to go with such high speed (comapred to the rest) but the tester felt that it takes extra skills for the final touch and in some cases the average driver may not be able to cope with what it takes to go at that speed through the test. For example, in one of the cars the ESP got little bit more brutal than the necessary, so the tester said "That could induce hesitation in the driver, which could lead to trouble", etc. So, that car performed well in the hands of the experienced tester, but they would place it lower on the list for the above mentioned reason.
To put these numbers in perspective, the Dacia Logan that rolled over from my previous post did so at 60.8 km/h and the New Mercedes Class A is (funny enough!) now one of the leaders in this test and goes through at about 65 km/h.
Another interesting thing is that the same magazine said (time ago) that the Jeep Cherokee actually rolled over during an American magazine test, doing simply 700 ft slalom (those tests that Car and Driver usually do, but they did not say the name of the magazine!), but the same car then performed pretty well (as you can see from the list above) in the Elk Test in Italy.
We have been talking for quite some time how tires are the best (and most of the time – the only!) real performance enhancer when it comes to speed in curves, road holding, grip, etc. So, I ran across an interesting article on the new FIAT Panda. The car was also put under the “Elk Test” and there is something interesting that happened. The basic model had some sort of ordinary tires (all season) and performed quite well actually (for such small car, pretty tall too). Then they tested the upper tier model, which was basically the same car (suspension wise) but had performance tires, which is a trick many car companies do – just put bigger wheel and sticky tires on their “sport package” and that is it. Anyway, due to the stickier tires, not the car has actually issues in the Elk Test as it started to lift BOTH inner wheels (!) It did not roll over, but perhaps because experienced driver were behind the wheel and knew how to take care of that, but guess what could happen if the average Giovanni drives the car? Here is a pix that supports the story (The Panda on two wheels from the test):
Then there was another interesting piece, on a Honda Minivan, where they tested both the basic model and the high tier model together. They both had all season tires, the exact same brand and model, but the basic model had them H rated and the high tier model had them V rated. The basic H model did very well in the lift-throttle and change lane test (the one we were talking earlier in this thread) and went through at speed of 102 km/h. The V rate tire model, thought, barely passed at only 100 km/h and the tester was commenting that due to the soft suspension and specific geometry on such vehicle, the car rolls a lot more (it is a minivan!) and at that point the softer tire wall H rated tires actually help a lot more (work a lot better) than the stiffer side wall V rated tires, therefore the higher tier car could not go as fast as the lower tier counterpart.
P.S: By the way, if a vehicle lifts both inner wheels during the Elk Test, it is considered a failure, even if the car does not roll over.
This so much reminds me of my favorite thread ever! (Too bad the data was not really what people wanted to see/read/hear so it did not get so popular. Funny how most of the time folks say they want the truth, but when the truth comes out, it somehow no one wants to accept it as it is not as comfortable as they thought it would be). So, here is a copy-paste from that thread, basically bringing the essential for you. I spent a full weekend back then to gather this data and it was one of the best wasted weekends as it made me reflect so much on aftermarket parts and on your question in the quotes above – what really makes a car fast, what really works. Here is the original post from back then, unmodified:
….. We always wanted to see the "Big Test" happen, so to know once and forever which suspension is the best, which tires are the best, which anti-roll bar is the best, etc. I have been thinking myself about possible scenarios, so this big test could happen, but it is not going to be easy if we want to do it in a professional way, so for everyone to accept the results. Apart from the fact that if we do it right, it will cost a lot, etc ...... Then I was looking at the Tire Rack the other day and basically it came out that they have already done all the work for us! All we need to do is gather and evaluate the data. I do not even think we could do it better than them, as they use the same vehicles (Lexus IS300 and BMW 32X), and most of all on the same track, same day, same drivers, so the results from each test are pretty darn good if we are interested in the delta. Of course, those are not results with VWs, but the goal here is to have an idea about what gives what, and most of all to try to somehow quantify the different parts we al spend so much money on.
Let's start with the tires. Almost everyone here would agree that the best upgrade for our cars is tires. But the question is, by how much an expansive max. performance tire will be better than the "crappy" stock tire that I already have? The Tire Rack has done pages of comparisons, in all categories, but I think this one is kind of one of the most interesting and wraps it pretty well. They tested the Good Year RS-A in 205-50-17 (they use this as "base tire" so to be able to have starting and common point for majority of the tests) against three of the most popular Max. Performance tires, in 225-45-17, so those are wider tires as well! Here are the results from their web site:
Looking at the times, it comes out that the difference between the known Good Year RS-A (OEM on some VWs as well, and pretty much well known as"crappy tire"on these boards) and the best performer from every test is as follows:
- About 3.7% difference in the Dry Slalom (time wise).
- About 5% difference in the Wet Slalom (time wise).
- About 3.6% difference in Lap Times (dry)
- About 6% difference in Lap Times (wet)
Funny, isn't it? We upgrade tires and we feel that we can go twice as fast, but turns out is not the case Keep in mind that the Max. Perf. tires in this test were also wider (225 vs. 205) than the "crappy" OE tire!
Springs next..... They have done a comparo between OE Sport Springs, then Eibach Pro-Kit and H&R Sports on the same BMW328i. Lap Times difference between the slowest (OE) and fastest (H&R Sport) is an "amazing" 1.8% (!) Now, we know that on our cars the situation may be slightly different as we have little bit different geometry that does not react too well on lowering, so who knows, the OE in our case may even come out as a winner,you never know. But even if the OE "loses", the 1.8% difference in lap times is really less that what many of us thought an aftermarket suspension of this caliper would offer....... Here is a link to the full test. For the results go directly at the end of the page:
http://www.tirerack.com/suspen...d.jsp
Now.... Dampers! This one is even more incredible. =) They equipped three equal cars with equal tires, one with OE dampers (Lexus IS300), one with Koni Sport on full soft and one with Koni Sport on full stiff. Here are the Slalom and Lap Times:
- About 1.6% difference between OE and Koni Soft. (Slalom times)
- About 0.8% difference between Koni Soft and Stiff (Slalom times)
- About 1.3% difference between OE and Koni Soft (Lap Times)
- About 0.4% difference between Koni Soft and Stiff (Lap Times)
Who would have thought? When we drive it feels that the difference between soft and stiff is much more than those 0.4%
Next two are about aftermarket spring and then anti-roll bars too. The numbers look more or less the same, here are the links. Scroll down for the data:
http://www.tirerack.com/suspen...1.jsp
So, dear Daniel, looks like the tires do really the trick, and by far, and the rest are perhaps just confidence inspiring parts, which YES do help some in lap times, but it is not any near what we all have been thinking/feeling, etc. Now of course someone may come and say that on a race even 0,01 sec matters and that is sometimes the difference between the winner and the loser. That is so, so true, but I would like to make an important note here – we are talking purely street as all these gizmos tested above are sold to folks who drive their cars on the street and who expect to improve their cars on the street, and my point is that 1% of improvement in real life gains on the street is simply pathetic, especially if you consider the money spent and even more – if you consider the possible safety reduction of your new setup! Yes, safety! We have all driven lowered cars, cars with bars, stiff rides, etc and we could all swear that such cars are more stable and would be safer in emergency situation, but I am not quite so sure. When they do the Elk Test and the Lift Throttle in a Corner Test on cars with modified suspension by the aftermarket suppliers, then we will only know how those things really work in real life safety scenario. But I am guessing no one will dare to do such test and publish the data….
But let’s keep going with the funny data. There are two more things I would like to bring in here from another two threads that again did not get so popular, but it is real life data published there, so it is what we would like to work with when possible. For the following, data from “Road & Track” was used, so it is pretty reliable source right here in America. I spent some time to go through their slalom tests and put the data together, so to compare the tested by them Jetta V6 GLX Wagon and Beetle Turbo S. (By now they have tested few more models, but this info is from 2004, so let’s stick with those two cars. It was a thread with the title of “Slalom Speed – Why are we (Mk IV) doing better?”. It was inspired by the fact that if we look at the numbers given by these tests (7 cones, each at 100 feet apart, so it is 3 left and 3 right turns as fast as possible) – our bone stock VWs do not look bad at all in comparison to some cars that “should” be a lot better or at least we have always heard they are a lot better. So, here are the numbers we put together:
700 ft Salom Speeds (by Road & Track):
NB 1.8T Sport - 64.5 mph
Jetta VR6 GLX Wagon - 64.0 mph
These above are the numbers “our” VWs generated, both on All Season tires.
Here is a list of some well known cars that do equal or worse than out two VWs above:
Audi 3.0 A4 Quattro …………………… 64.1
BMW Z8 …………………………………...... 62.3
Chevrolet Corvette 50th Anni ….. 62.4
Ford SVT Mustang Cobra ………….. 63.5
Lexus IE 300 …………………………...… 64.5
Maserati Coupe Cambiocorsa ….. 64.7
Mazda MX-5 Miata LS ………………… 62.7
Mercedes C32 AMG …………………... 64.0
Mercedes CLK 55 AMG …………….… 62.8
Mercedes E 55 AMG ……………….….. 64.5
Subaru Impreza WRX ……………..…. 62.8
Toyota Celica GT-S …………………..… 63.6
Toyota MR2 ……………………………..... 62.6
I suspect (do not have hard data to prove it) that all of the above vehicles come to the marked (therefore, as tested) with tires that are “better” than the tires we get when purchasing Jetta GLX Wagon VR6.
You want to know the “champs”? Here are the Best:
Ferrari Enzo ……………………………........ 73.0
Porsche Boxter S ……………………....... 71.6
Saleen S7 ...................................... 70.6
Mini Cooper S …………………………......... 69.5
Also, according to the magazine’s test:
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 2003 ……. 68.9
Subaru Impreza WRX STI ……………...... 68.4
If we can trust this data, our cars do not look any near as bad as we “paint” them sometime, no?
Then back then someone pointed that Front Wheel Drive cars are actually doing better in this specific type of test, but do worse on the skidpad. So, here some more number from well known FWD cars only:
Acura 3.2 CL Type S ……………….. 60.1
Acura 3.2 TL Type S ………………… 64.0
Dodge SRT-4 …………………………. 64.8
Ford SVT Focus ……………………… 65.2
Honda Civic Si ……………………….. 64.6
Mitsubishi Eclipse GT ………………. 61.3
Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V ……….. 64.6
Volvo S 60 T5 ................................. 61.8
Volvo V40 ...................................... 62.4
The funny thing? There is this $1,130,000 Ameritech McLaren F1 has slalom speed of ... 64.5 mph, same as out NB Turbo S.