Wheels Handling Olympics 2007: Rankings
Wheels Magazine 
July, 2007
Benchmark -
HOLDEN COMMODORE OMEGA - $34,490
3.6-litre V6, RWD, 180kW, 330Nm, 1,690kg, 4-speed automatic
Tyres: Bridgestone Turanza ER300 225/60R16
The Suzuki Swift Sport nearly prised the wooden spoon from its grasp - it finished behind Omega on four of the tests - but deadheated the Commodore for cornering speed in Turn 2, and was ranked subjectively inferior by McKay.
The Omega's moment in the sun occurred during the slalom test, when the mighty HSV GTS finished behind it by 0.14 seconds. Was the result an anomaly? There was a great deal of wheel-wrenching during McKay's three Omega slalom runs, but if we look at all three passes by both cars, the averages were: Omega, 9.37 and GTS, 9.42. Incredible, for a car less than half the GTS's price.
Conclusion? The GTS is a potent car that has a hard time coping with all 1829kg of its inertia. The Omega is almost 140kg lighter on its feet.
Tyres obviously contribute massively to the Omega's pedestrian performance in tests such as acceleration, braking and the main straight. Its 60-series rubber is up against the best the tyre industry can offer here (the nexttallest profile is the Swift's, at 50) and its 225mm section width is identical to that of the Exige S - a vehicle that weighs roughly half what the Omega does and runs a grooved slick to boot. In the context of driving on the limit, its tyres are eclipsed by its 180kW output.
In practical terms, based on our derived lap times, in a hypothetical 20-lap time-trial of the figure-of-eight circuit, 13 vehicles (the Mazda 3 MPS and everything ahead of it) will lap the Omega.
So does that make it a dynamic dud? Not at all. It's a reflection of the performance focus of the main field, and evidence of the Holden's role as a value-biased all-rounder.
17th - SUZUKI SWIFT SPORT - $23,990
1.6-litre inine 4 cylinder, front drive, 92kW, 148Nm, 1,100kg, 5-speed manual
Tyres: Dunlop SP Sport Maxx 195/50R16
For the cost of a single Porsche 911 Carrera S, you could probably buy enough Swift Sports for a one-make race series - and you'd qualify for a fleet discount. Alternatively, somewhere between these two vehicles, an equitable balance between composure and price may be struck.
The Suzuki is even $10K cheaper than the Commodore Omega used to benchmark the field and, overall, it's marginally better, too. Brilliant stopping performance aided in no small part by its light weight (1100kg) enabled it to secure sixth spot under brakes. Compared with the Commodore, the Suzuki stops its own body length shorter from 100km/h - 37.57 metres versus 42.02 metres. The best of the brakers was only about two metres better.
The Swift also proved itself to be resoundingly stable in outright cornering, managing ninth place and, with 0.903g, almost bang-on the average for the field (0.91g). It could even hold its head up in the slalom, looking down on heavyweight contenders like the Z4 M Coupe, HSV GTS, FPV Typhoon F6 and the rorty Subaru Impreza WRX STi.
These performances are no doubt aided by decent tyres and low mass - that, plus the fact that engine output is irrelevant to them. The only thing the Swift Sport is not is, well, swift. Poppitt's clothes weren't real flash to start with, but they were out of fashion by the time he saw 100km/h in the acceleration test (10 seconds flat). We could have done its quarter-mile time with a sundial...
Its outputs - 92kW/148Nm - are the numbers grown-up cars remember from their childhoods. Compare the GTS, with more than three times the power and four times the torque. Okay, it weighs 729kg (66 percent) more. The Exige S, though, makes twice the power and weighs 200kg less. If you seek an explanation for the Swift's lacklustre performance in every lap-based test, it's down to the missing ingredient: zing.
16th - MAZDA 3 MPS - $39,990
2.3-litre inline 4 cylinder turbo, front drive, 190kW, 380Nm, 1,430kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A 215/45R18
The hot hero of the Mazda 3 stable torque steers like a maniac, and promises to change not just lanes but postcodes in the wet. But it punches well above its weight in the Wheels Handling Olympics. Compare it with our Omega benchmark, and you'll see it takes just 10kW and 50Nm more to go from bland to ball-tearer - provided you stuff that extra grunt in a body that's 300kg less lardy (and run it on 45-series rubber, compared with the Omega's 60s). For all these reasons, plus the easy two-second a lap advantage, your accountant will hate the 3 MPS and you'll love it. And there's a lot to love, considering its $40K price, which is just $5K more than the Omega.
Thirteenth place in lap time is not the stuff of glowing press releases, until you look at what it beat: the 3 MPS lapped quicker than the $55K all-paw Golf R32, which it also beat to 100km/h and (albeit only just) under brakes from 100km/h. The MPS is three-quarters of a second per lap faster than the $63K BMW 130i. It also out-points the 130i and the $60K FPV Typhoon F6 in lateral grip. In the slalom, it blasted not only the three-times-more-expensive $127K BMW Z4 M Coupe, but the FPV, WRX STi and the HSV GTS into the bargain.
McKay was less effusive. It seems that the subjective impression of wringing the MPS's neck is somewhat less than the sum of its times and speeds. He ranked it the subjective equivalent of the Suzuki Swift Sport; inferior to the Omega. Fair enough - he was the one at the tiller.
Put this to one side, however, consider only the vehicle's numbers-derived performance, and it would have come in 15th, one spot ahead of its official position. The MPS represents German hot-car performance at a price that's still clearly in the Japanese ballpark. What you don't get, and shouldn't expect since you're effectively getting a $20K discount, is a generous helping of Euro-spec refinement.
15th - MAZDA MX-5 ROADSTER COUPE - $47,660
2.0-litre inline 4 cylinder, rear drive, 118kW, 188Nm, 1,152kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Michelin Pilot Preceda 205/45R17
Mazda's Roadster Coupe is 46kg heavier than the ragtop MX-5, and this is, sadly, additional mass the package can ill afford to lug about. It betters only the base Commodore and Swift Sport in power-to-weight ratio. And that means each test which relies even partly on accelerative ability - such as every lap-based test - is affected.
When it's good, the MX-5 is a star. Even a cursory glance at its performance in the slalom tells you that. This is one environment where the MX-5 trounces the Porsche 911 Carrera S every time, despite the massive price disparity.
McKay liked it, too, ranking it fourth for on-limit sizzle. One thing is certain: if you're on the pace in an MX-5, you're a damn good steerer. It offers no opportunity for the less accomplished to gloss over their at-the-wheel hamfistedness with prodigious engine output and plenty of right boot on the straights. The 911 Carrera S will impress everyone; maybe it's just you who'll be impressed driving the MX-5, provided you can bring sufficient finesse to play.
Apart from the slalom, the MX-5 also impressed in the outright lateral g-force test, ahead of the HSV GTS (just) as well as the Z4 M, Caterham SV 1.8, FPV Typhoon and BMW 130i. Here, it took the Mazda's comparatively diminutive 205/45R17s to achieve a marginally better result than the massive 275mm rears and 245mm fronts managed beneath the HSV GTS. The two vehicles couldn't be more different culturally if they tried - the GTS was third-fastest over the flyover; the MX-5 was 16th - however, both vehicles rounded the following bend (Turn 2) at the same speed.
The most disappointing element of the MX-5 is its braking ability. With a low 1152kg kerb weight, the twoseater should rip into a high-speed stop like an egg hitting the pavement from a third-floor balcony. Yet the big GTS stops marginally better, while the Swift shows what can really be achieved through light weight and finesse.
14th - VOLKSWAGEN GOLF R32 - $56,490
3.2-litre V6, AWD, 184kW, 320Nm, 1,510kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Continental SportContact 2 225/40R18
On paper the R32 and the Audi TT V6 might as well be twins. They share the same engine, both employ AWD, and their weight is within 100kg of each other (the R32 is 80kg heavier). The Audi runs 20mm wider rubber, but otherwise the same tyre spec, too. In the flesh … we just expected more of the R32. At least it demonstrates there's something more than mere branding to justify the sizeable $34,000 price hike from the R32 to the TT V6.
The R32's capability in the slalom and peak lateral g-force tests (it ranked seventh in both), didn't translate into any of the lap-based assessments, 0-100km/h time or braking tests. McKay concurred, ranking it in subjective terms exactly where it lay overall: 14th.
Still, in the slalom it equalled the $109K BMW 335i Coupe and out-classed the 350Z, 130i, Z4 M Coupe and TT V6, all of which eclipse it on price. Same in the g-force test: it ran rings around the 335i, WRX STi, MX-5 and Z4 M.
Unfortunately, not much of that demonstrated potential for grip translated into tangible mid-corner benefit in any of the figure-of-eight's four corners. It did, however, perform marginally better than its overall average of 14th in Turns 2, 3 and 4 - and might have been helped by gearing to a decent top speed on the short straight.
In marketing, much is made of the R32's straight-line performance. In truth it offers the fourth-poorest powerto- weight ratio in the field - including the Omega. And for once theory and practice drew the same conclusions - fourth-last is where it stood in the 0-100km/h test. The TT finished four places higher (equal 10th with the 350Z), clearly exploiting its weight advantage, and, we suspect, the fast shifts offered by its DSG transmission.
But that's nothing compared with the disparity in their emergency stopping performance. The R32 finished a mammoth 10 places (and 1.8 metres) behind the TT.
13th - BMW 130i - $63,200
3.0-litre inline 6 cylinder, rear drive, 195kW, 315Nm, 1,375kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Pirelli Eufori 225/45R17 (run-flat)
People swing both ways on the 130i's aesthetics, but anyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature falls for that 3.0-litre inline six instantly. Nobody does straight sixes as well as BMW, which is why the 130i is so gloriously engaging and entertaining on every short straight separating the last corner from the next one.
But as the lateral grip test and the average corner speed analyses show, cornering is not this car's forte. Seventeenth slot in peak lateral g meant only the Commodore Omega mustered less outright cornering force.
Its average speed in the turns was well below its final position in the handling hierarchy (16th, 14th, 17th and 15th in Turns 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively). And yet it still managed a couple of comparative blinders on the main straight and the flyover (11th for both).
This is all the more impressive because it wasn't assisted by a high exit speed on the way out of the preceding corner, and it needed to brake comparatively early to achieve appropriately low entry speeds for the subsequent turns. Thankfully, its brakes are very impressive (though not quite so impressive as the Suzuki Swift Sport, it must be noted). The 130i ran ninth under brakes, the vehicle's highest single place in any one test.
What it lacks in grip, it compensates for in grunt and brakes. The 0-100km/h ranking - 12th - is also more impressive than the 130i's overall performance. Yet it sits 10th in terms of power-to-weight, meaning it has the potential to hook up even better than it does.
Inherent twitchiness on the ragged edge meant McKay was kept busy through the slalom, but it finished 11th, and he ranked it 7th subjectively - substantially higher than the sum of its actual performances would suggest. It's easy to like twitchy, rear-drive cars that have the potential to either reward or bite the hand that feeds them. Compare the R32, a vehicle that performed just ahead of the 130i based on performance tests alone. McKay ranked it 14th, subjectively.
Remove the subjective assessment, and their positions are reversed.
12th - FPV F6 TYPHOON - $59,810
4.0-litre inline 6 cylinder turbo, rear drive, 270kW, 550Nm, 1,850kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Dunlop SP Sport Maxx 245/35R19
Straight-line squirt is what this car delivers best, period. The brilliantly boosted evolution of Ford's competent 4.0-litre inline six, and FPV's renowned engineering development work, allowed the Typhoon to achieve eighth for maximum speed down the main straight and ninth to 100km/h. It makes as much torque as the HSV's 6.0-litre V8, so you know its rolling acceleration is going to be demonstrably wicked.
Double-digit positions elsewhere pretty much spell out its strengths and weaknesses. It ranks sixth for power-toweight (behind Caterham, 911, Z4, Exige S and GTS) but could get to 100km/h even faster, potentially, if only it could hook up. Getting off the line cleanly in the Typhoon is a delicate affair. The over-enthusiastic are punished by traction-sapping wheelspin. Those who are too timid merely bog down. The margin between the two, the 'window' for a clean launch, is extremely limited.
A string off 11th and 12th placings elsewhere around the track see the Typhoon scoring in line with its position overall in the test. Peter McKay's subjective assessment was likewise completely in line with where the Typhoon ultimately sat: with or without the subjective score forming part of the total, the Typhoon came 12th.
Three things really hurt it: the slalom (15th), maximum lateral g-force (16th) and brakes (17th). Of these, one might excuse it the slalom. It's a big car, after all. But peak lateral g? There's nothing wrong with the quality or size of its rubber. Yet everything else bar the BMW 130i and Commodore Omega out-cornered the Typhoon. More worryingly, the full field (apart from Omega) out-braked it. A full car-length - 12 percent of the FPV's braking distance - separated the FPV from the winner under brakes. Its 40.35-metre braking distance from 100km/h was two metres below average for the entire field.
11th - HSV GTS - $74,990
6.0-litre V8, rear drive, 307kW, 550Nm, 1,829kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A 275/30R20 (r) 245/35R20 (f)
The GTS is the biggest bouncer outside the baddest nightclub in the worst part of town. Without uttering a sound it says 'don't mess with me' louder than any other car here. Like the F6 Typhoon, you could drive it across the country without breaking a sweat, losing a filling or needing emergency chiropractic intervention (and the same can't be said of many that ranked above it). If you can stump up the $75K, it offers the biggest engine,the biggest rubber and the most power. Serious bragging rights.
It's also the heaviest here (if only just - the F6 is 24kg lighter), but this doesn't seem to upset it in a straight line. It sits fifth on the power-to-weight hierarchy, and that's where it performs, with those massive 20-inch 275/30 rear Potenzas helping it hit 100km/h in just 5.5 seconds.
It's even better down the main straight. Despite running 10th through Turn 3 onto the straight, it manages the fourth-highest main-straight speed. It's third fastest on the flyover despite being only 13th fastest out of Turn 1 onto the flyover. (Compare the Evo and STi in seventh and eighth respectively; they carry more speed through Turn 1.)
The GTS's performances on the main straight and the flyover are even more impressive when you factor in the brakes, which are far from its strongest asset. Here, it ranked a comparatively unimpressive 15th, ahead of only the MX-5, FPV and Omega. Opt for, say, a Walkinshaw brake upgrade, and you could theoretically brake later, leaving more time to increase speed between turns.
The GTS also features MRC dampers. Selecting 'track' makes the car subjectively firmer in spirited driving, but does it make a difference? Taking actual lap times, best lap with MRC on 'track' was 37.63 seconds. Best lap on the 'road' setting was 37.81. Call it 0.2 seconds - a significant margin under race conditions. One last thing: the slalom really knocked it around. The base Commodore was faster.
10th - PORSCHE CAYMAN - $118,000
2.7-litre flat 6 cylinder, rear drive, 180kW, 273Nm, 1,300kg, 5-speed manual
Tyres: Continental SportContact 2 265/40R18 (r) 235/45R18 (f)
The Cayman beat the HSV GTS by a fraction over one percent when the final scores were tallied. They're close, on paper, but vastly different in the flesh. The Cayman is fast when the GTS isn't, and vice-versa. The GTS breathes fire down the main straight and across the flyover; the Cayman pootles along ... then takes it under brakes, and struts its stuff in the corners.
The result is 0.35 seconds quicker per lap - Cayman's way. It's just slower (by 0.17sec) over one figure-of-eight lap than the STi, and fractionally faster (by 0.06sec) than the Audi TT V6.
In fact, the base-model Cayman is better in many disciplines than its overall ranking appears. The only thing it genuinely lacks is grunt, and this explains why we really wanted to test the (sadly unavailable) 217kW/340Nm Cayman S. Lacklustre performances in the straight-line disciplines - 13th to 100km/h flanked by 12th on the main straight and 15th on the flyover - consigned the entry-level Cayman to the back half of the pack, despite the blistering performances it delivered everywhere else. It was comfortably in the front half of the pack in all but three tests, but when it dropped the ball it tended to stumble badly.
Trivia time: the Cayman is the first car so far to beat the Suzuki Swift Sport under brakes. Thankfully. There's been some fairly exotic - not to mention expensive - hardware under the bridge this far, and the Swift Sport has been blowing raspberries at all of them, at least under brakes. Until now. Cayman pulled out a blistering 37.5-metre stop, which ranks it just two metres behind the winner - and 100mm ahead of the 'mighty' Swift.
For subjective on-limit zing, McKay rated only the BMW 335i Coupe, Lotus Exige S and Porsche 911 Carrera S in front of the Cayman. Even if you discount the Silver Fox's score in the overall results, its position remains tenth.
9th - NISSAN 350Z TRACK - $67,990
3.5-litre V6, rear drive, 230kW, 358Nm, 1,542kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A 245/45R18
Heroic brakes pulled the razor-sharp 350Z up ahead of all but the 911 Carrera S, a vehicle with unimaginable stopping power. The Porsche's brakes (not to mention the price) are in a different universe to everything else here, making the affordable 350Z's performance even more credible. Under brakes, the Zed eclipsed other highpriced rivals like Exige S (3rd), TT V6 (4th) and Cayman (5th) - two of which cost around $50K more. People who rag on performance cars should look at braking distances, because the 350Z managed to shave four metres from the baseline Commodore's 100km/h stopping distance.
But despite a killer engine and respectable 245/45R18 Potenzas, the 350Z failed to inspire off the line. It sits seventh on the power-to-weight hierarchy, and yet managed only 10th from 0-100km/h. Compare it with the WRX STi and you'll see the reverse situation in play (STi was 12th in power-to-weight; 5th to 100km/h). Evo IX is a similar, though less pronounced, deal. Conclusion? If you drive just one end, it's harder to get off the line even if you're helped - as rear-drivers are - by weight transfer.
Compare the 350Z with the STi around the track and you'll see how jaw-droppingly different they are. Sure, they're not direct competitors, but they cost around the same and certainly represent the hottest thing on offer from each manufacturer. The 350Z has a better power-toweight ratio, carries more absolute cornering potential (4th in peak lateral g-force against the STi's 10th), and beats the STi under brakes. Yet the STi is almost 0.6 seconds faster - 36.77sec versus 37.16sec. The STi carries more speed through three corners and every straight. The only hypothetical overtaking spot for the Nissan would come in Turn 4, where the Rex is slow and the 350 is fast. It's the slowest corner and at the end of the main straight … where the 350Z's killer brakes would be an advantage.
8th - BMW Z4 M COUPE - $127,500
3.2-litre inline 6 cylinder, rear drive, 252kW, 365Nm, 1,430kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Continental ContiSport Contact 255/40R18 (r), 225/45R18 (f)
If performance means more to you than anything else, it will disappoint to learn that McKay ranked the two-seater, six-cylinder Z4 M just 14th for the on-limit touchy-feely stuff. You can see why: its performances are an evil mix of the blisteringly excellent and the exceedingly mundane.
On performance criteria alone, the Z4 M ranked fifth. It's a blinder, generally, but it has a twitchy dark side to contend with. It's a car that, like George W. Bush, can bring excessive power to bear very quickly. With the electronic stability control turned off (not partly disabled, but fully turned off; a button push-and-hold operation in BMWs), things could become horribly unglued faster than you could say, "I really hate Chris Bangle".
This is the only car in the field that managed to intervene between the even less practical but stonkingly faster Exige S and a string of firsts and seconds in every figure-of-eight track-based test. The Z4 M kept the Exige S honest by nudging it to third spot not once, but twice around the circuit - albeit by the smallest of margins. First, down the main straight (138.9km/h versus the Exige's 138.6km/h) and then along the short straight (115.5km/h versus 115.3km/h). The HSV GTS nudged the Z4 aside on the flyover, pulling a top speed of 127.1km/h against the Z4 M's 126.9km/h.
Only a fraction (just two measly kilowatts for every kilogram) separates the Exige S and the Z4 M on powerto- weight, yet the notionally lesser of the pair - the Exige - is a tenth quicker to 100km/h. Only the Porsche 911 Carrera S and the Caterham SV 1.8 out-point the BMW on power-to-weight.
Turns 2 and 3, leading onto the main straight, upset the Z4's composure and relegated it to (incredibly) 17th and 14th places, a result that doubtless conspired to relegate it to ninth spot overall on lap time. It also failed to inspire in the slalom (14th) and in peak lateral g-force (13th).
The Z4 M is utterly gorgeous from the rear, and yet clubbed incongruously with the ugly stick from the front. In this respect its capacity to perform mirrors Chris Bangle's design brilliantly.
7th - AUDI TT V6 QUATTRO - $88,900
3.2-litre V6, AWD, 184kW, 320Nm, 1,430kg, 6-speed sequential
Tyres: Continental SportContact 2 245/40R18
Theoretically, the TT Coupe is snookered behind its power-to-weight ratio. It ranks just 14th in the present company. However, in the real world it acquits itself as much more than just a fashion statement with a trumpedup Volkswagen engine. It is, in fact, anything but. The most elite of TT variants proves to be almost everything dynamic that the previous model TT purported to be, but wasn't. These days, at least in V6 quattro spec, the TT punts almost as briskly as its styling purports.
Superb brakes and a blinding average speed through Turn 1 on the figure-of-eight - ranking fourth in both tests - were its signature performances. Solid sixth places in the peak lateral g-force test, and the flyover and short straight speed tests, helped nudge the TT V6 into the pointy end of the rankings, too. When it's quick, it honks (although Audi owners would rather lose a limb than use that term in reference to their vehicle's capabilities).
Let's not forget that the short straight, Turn 1 and the flyover are sequential segments of the track, flowing one into the other, making the TT a rocketship over this part of the circuit. Several competitors were quicker elsewhere, but few could match its pace here.
The TT uses finesse to better the lap times of the ninth-placed Z4 M Coupe (by 0.17 seconds) and eighth-placed 350Z (by 0.16sec), despite both slower entrants bringing substantially more poke to the party. It's worth remembering that the TT and Z4 M weigh exactly the same (1430kg), while the Z4 M hurls 70kW and 45Nm more at each lap - to no avail. And it costs $40K more.
Off the line to 100km/h in 6.1sec (10th), the TT managed to beat the Mazda 3 MPS (6.6sec, 14th), Porsche Cayman (6.4sec, 13th) and BMW 130i (6.3sec, 12th) - all of which out-point its power-to-weight ratio. It also dead-heads the 350Z, which is 16 percent more potent, in power-to-weight terms. The TT's four paws are doing something really right off the mark, considering the comparatively little squirt they have at their disposal.
McKay agreed - subjectively, the TT V6 is a goer. He put it sixth overall, ahead of the Caterham, 130i, Evo, 350Z and GTS for on-limit driver engagement.
6th - SUBARU WRX STi - $56,990
2.5-litre turbo flat 4 cylinder, AWD, 206kW, 392Nm, 1,495kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE070 225/45R17
The vehicle du jour of the car-jacking and ram-raiding set uses utter brutality to achieve its objectives - if that's okay with you. One could strap an Al-Qaeda operative in the passenger's seat, and he'd be giving you those pesky WMD coordinates and Osama's address after eight laps.
With the STi you get nearly all the performance of the BMW 335i Coupe, and absolutely none of the refinement. But it is $50K more affordable, goes like a cut cat and approaches its (high) limit of adhesion with predictability.
It would really be something to see a 20-lap race between the STi and the 335i on this track, with two equally heroic drivers. They're so close - five-hundredths of a second separate their theoretical best laps.
The 335i clocked only a 1.1km/h advantage on the main straight. The margin was down to 0.5km/h on the short straight, and up again to 0.9km/h on the flyover. But the STi has better brakes - if only just - and it carries more speed in all the turns. The margins were 0.4km/h, 2.7km/h, 0.6km/h and 1.1km/h for Turn 1 to 4, respectively. After 20 laps, however, the BMW punter will emerge stirred; the STi driver will likely be shattered.
Nobody in their right mind would shop the one car against the other. The obvious comparison here is between the STi and the Evo IX. Bottom line? Evo IX is quicker everywhere. It's 0.63sec quicker per lap, 1.8km/h faster on the main straight, 0.2km/h quicker on both the short straight and the flyover, and 0.4km/h, 0.7km/h, 1.6km/h and 2.0km/h quicker through Turn 1 to 4, respectively. The STi does, however, outaccelerate and out-brake the Evo IX.
There are two anomalous results: the slalom and lateral g-force. In examining the figures and probable cause, it's likely the centre diff lock was engaged - certainly it proved closer to the Evo in last year's Handling Olympics.
McKay was unimpressed. He ranked the STi 12th, and this skewed its score substantially. Considering only the performance tests, the WRX STi finished fourth behind Evo IX in third position.
5th - CATERHAM 7 SV 1.8 VVC - $88,000
1.8-litre inline 4 cylinder, rear drive, 123kW, 176Nm, 575kg, 5-speed manual
Tyres: Avon 223 205/45R16
The boulevard of broken dreams is littered with tales like this. It was 10 tests down; two to go ... then the Caterham lunched its throttle cable, leaving us bereft of braking or acceleration data. Three letters sum it up: DNF.
A hardcore testing Nazi would have been tempted to get out the red pen, and start ruling lines all over the shop. We, however, felt a softer approach was warranted. After all, this vehicle promised V8-killing accelerative ability and a Colin Chapman-esque pure driving experience.
We compromised thus: to get its performance in some semblance of perspective, we ran with the manufacturer's claimed (and red-hot) 5.1 seconds 0-100km/h figure, which (like all factory figures) you might like to take with a grain of salt or not, depending on your personal cynicism quotient. Then, because its braking ability really was anyone's guess, we ran the field's average - 38.39 metres.
Another factor to ponder is tyres. The Avon 223s on the test car supplied were hard-wearing touring rubber, not the Avon VZ1s specified by Caterham for more serious work. This, plus the DNF-based assumptions, boils down to too many variables for serious conclusions to be drawn.
What we can tell you is this: it beat the MX-5 in a fair fight over the slalom, securing equal second place with the Evo IX in that discipline. That's quick. Unfortunately, the Exige S, with which it shares arguably the same mainstream, practical appeal (read: none) also thrashed it by a blistering 0.33sec - a four percent margin. The Exige is also 31 percent pricier, however.
On the circuit the Caterham seemed more accomplished in the turns than on the straights and, as for purity of driving experience, there was very little technological intervention - its highest-tech driver aid is an audible indicator-on warning beep. McKay called the experience as he saw it: seventh for subjective sizzle in this field.
4th - BMW 335i COUPE - $108,900
3.0-litre twin-turbo inline 6 cylinder, rear drive, 225kW, 400Nm, 1,525kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A 255/35R18 (r), 225/40R18 (f)
There is one civilised car left this high up in the pecking order, and you're looking at it. A mad, raving affair with any of the top three that await would be understandable, but this is the one car you'd be better off settling down with, and owning for the three-year term. There is some subtlety built into the 335i, some inherent concessions to comfort and practicality. The top three are, starkly, weapons. You pull the pin; they go off.
On performance, the 335i was sixth - behind the WRX STi and Z4 M Coupe, both of which it out-ranks here. With the 335i, gestalt theory is alive and well - the whole being significantly greater than the sum of its performances. McKay was blown away by it, ranking it second for subjective sizzle (incredibly, in front of the 911, but behind the mind-bendingly single-minded Exige S). Hence the 335i's rapid elevation in the ranks, late in play.
That impossibly refined twin-turbo straight six begs continuously for a merciless flogging, and rewards unbelievably when you administer one - particularly considering its 225kW output is shackled within a 1500kg shell. Around the circuit it managed a best lap of 36.72 seconds, trumping the WRX STi, Cayman and Audi TT V6. Yet it appeared not to embrace the corners - especially Turns 2 and 4 - with unbridled passion. The straights were more its kick. Its sixth-placed maximum speed down the main straight is entirely in tune with its overall ranking on performance criteria alone. And its fourth-placed lap time is a consequence of all-round poise.
The Z4 M out-pointed the 335i on performance criteria, by the narrowest of margins - 0.06 points overall (out of 100). The 335i brakes better, by 0.7 metres from 100km/h, but loses on acceleration by a hefty 0.6sec. The 335i carries five percent more lateral g-force in corners, and is much quicker through Turns 2 and 3 leading onto the main straight … at which point the Z4 M murders it. The Z4 detests the slalom; the 335i slotted in, credibly, in seventh.
3rd - MITSUBISHI LANCER EVO IX - $56,789
2.0-litre, inline 4 cylinder, turbo, AWD, 206kW, 355Nm, 1,410kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Yokohama Advan A-046 235/45R17
Despite heroic performances again this year, the BMW M3-killing 2006 Handling Olympics champion was unceremoniously dethroned. By two cars. It changed from gold to bronze in a heartbeat. And it didn't win any one of the 12 categories assessed here. Its highest individual place was second, and it achieved that only once.
It wasn't even close. There's a gulf between bronze and the top two. Five cars tallied with 91-point-something percent. Two scored in the 92s. The Evo gasped its last just shy of 94. The top two basked in the 97s - a lead of infinity, in performance car terms.
That is, of course, until you count the cost. The sub-$60K Evo IX is half the price of the second-placed Lotus Exige S. You could doubtless buy four Evos for the price of the solid-gold 911 Carrera S. In terms of bang per buck, the Evo is unbeatable. It beat three other cars costing twice as much, too. So it can do one thing the harder, faster pair cannot: be purchased by mere mortals.
Let's say you were to spring for the Evo. What do you trade off against the winning performances? In lap time, the margin is substantial - 0.81 seconds. In peak speeds between the turns, it's hamstrung by its power-to-weight ratio. Here, it ranks ninth, but its AWD system and clever chassis tuning mean it actually performs better than that (7th place to 100km/h). But against the 911, which nailed everything on both straights and the flyover, the Evo stands not a snowball's chance in Hades of proximity.
It does, however, corner. The Evo IX clean-swept every turn on the figure-of-eight circuit for third place. Here, its margins behind the winners were: 3.2km/h in Turn 1 (Exige S the victor), 2.6km/h in Turn 2 (the 911 won), 1.5km/h in Turn 3 (Exige S) and 3.3km/h in Turn 4 (Exige S).
If you were to put all those cornering speeds into a blender and compare the lateral g-force loads of the winner in each turn with the Evo IX, there would be a 7.1 percent average deficit in the Evo's lateral cornering load. (To do this you must remember that cornering load varies with the square of speed.)
Sadly, the Evo IX cannot hold a candle to the 911 under brakes, either. The margin is 2.86 metres from 100km/h, with the Evo IX way back in 10th spot.
It would however be a mistake to conclude the Evo IX is a dud based on the above cornering comparison. If you were to perform a similar hurling-into-blender exercise to the one above, but this time between the Evo IX and the Commodore Omega (the most popular variant of the best-selling car), you would find that the Evo carries 18.7 percent more cornering load on average in one lap - the difference between night and day.
Evo's crowning glory came in the slalom, in which it head-butted the 911 and dashed it to the floor. The margin - two percent - aided and abetted by the Caterham and MX-5, punted the Porsche back to the ignominy of fifth.
Thrilling to drive? McKay didn't think so. From behind the wheel, it seems the Mitsubishi Evo IX on the limit is only an average exhilarator.
2nd - LOTUS EXIGE S - $114,990
1.8-litre supercharged inline 4 cylinder, RWD, 163kW, 215Nm, 935kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Yokohama Advan A-048 LTS 225/45R17 (r); 195/50R16 (f)
A normal sized, able-bodied person cannot enter or exit a Lotus Exige S quickly, or with even vestigial dignity. It's a brilliant one-make race series car; the perfect Biggest Loser consolation prize. But once ensconced in its spartan, snug-fitting cockpit, you're in a rarefied place where the seemingly impossible becomes mundane.
In the 2006 Handling Olympics, first-place performance results were split between four contenders. This year the Exige S and 911 Carrera lapped them all up prolifically. The Elise took line honours in five of the 12 performance tests - the flyover (across which it tied with the 911), Turns 1, 3, 4, and the slalom. It deserved the silver medal overall, separated as it was by daylight to third place.
This was a position that McKay pretty much endorsed, if vicariously. He called it third, subjectively, but never got to see the final tallies before casting his feelings-based aspersions. (His decision to put the BMW 335i second with 8.4 against the Exige S's 8.3 only altered the final tally by a tenth of one percent.) With or without the subjective score included, the Exige S sat second overall. Half of a percent was the margin to first place.
Second places in lap time, Turn 2, lateral g-force and 0-100km/h were backed by third spots in the rest. The the Exige S didn't dip any lower than that, yet even the superhuman 911 stumbled once (for fifth in the slalom).
If you have the money, which is the better bet? The Exige S has, arguably, more esprit, and is somewhat less known, except among car-culture cognoscenti,and definitely a hardcore choice. It's ultra quick, and impossible to justify to anyone who doesn't get it instantly. Almost nobody, statistically, will have the faintest what it was that just carved them up at escape velocity. It is, as mentioned, ridiculously impractical. It is not, for example, compatible with a McDonald's drive-through. And the centre rear-view mirror, an ADR requirement, gives a bird's-eye view of only the supercharger air intercooler plumbing. What's the point in looking behind you when almost nothing can keep up?
You have to spend twice the dough to go, essentially, imperceptibly faster. For that, you could have the Exige S and a BMW 335i - a real Jekyll and Hyde garage - to satisfy even the most polarising of mood swings.
Buy the Carrera S and here's what you get for the extra $110K: 0.15 seconds off each lap, 3.8km/h more down the main straight and 2.5km/h more out of the short straight. In the one corner where you can beat the Exige S (Turn 2) you are 2.1km/h faster. That's six percent more lateral g-force. On the skidpan, however, you get just 0.002g more. You'll be 0.1sec faster to 100km/h and you'll slash 1.54 metres from a 100km/h emergency stop.
Buy the Exige S and there are some positives, however. You'll be able to kick sand in the 911's face in three of the turns - Turns 1, 3 and 4, by 0.9km/h, 0.1km/h and 2.1km/h respectively. You'll also be six percent (0.51sec) faster in the slalom. And Lotus may even reimburse your chiropractic bills for the term of the warranty. Or not.
1st - PORSCHE 911 CARRERA S - $224,400
3.8-litre flat 6 cylinder, RWD, 261kW, 400Nm, 1,420kg, 6-speed manual
Tyres: Michelin Pilot Sport 295/30R19 (r); 235/35R19 (f)
The visceral thrill of tipping this car into on-limit mode is impossible to beat - at least without adding to our trade deficit with Italy. If the 911 Carrera S were an Olympic athlete, the tabloids would be alive with purported drug test scandals. How else could it achieve such excellence? In the real world away from the track, the 911 puts your performance as a driver right under its microscope - not the other way around. It shrugs off your attempts to wring its neck and begs the question of your performance: 'is that all you've got?'
The Carrera S demands some trade-offs when employed as a daily driver. It's not a luxury car, and both engine and tyre noise do intrude. It tramlines on real roads and is not well suited for runs to the building supplies depot. And rear passengers over the age of 10 need to be above-theknee amputees. But when it's under the hammer ... well, just don't get in its way.
The Wheels Handling Olympics tests were designed to simulate extreme acts at real-world Australian driving speeds - which must approximate to driving on Valium compared to the vehicle's overriding brief. For example, the average speed for the 911's lap of the figure-ofeight track was 95km/h. The peak lateral g-force test is played out below 60km/h. This is pure speculation, but at even higher speeds it feels like it would be even more breathtakingly capable.
A string of first places - including McKay's subjective assessment (read: blown away) - secured its solid-gold ranking. The 911 was monotonously first in nine of the 13 categories assessed. It was second only three times (in Turns 1, 3 and 4; nudged aside by the ultrauncompromising Exige S).
Incongruously, the 911 made its way comparatively ponderously through the slalom in fifth place, behind the Exige S, Evo IX, Caterham and MX-5 Roadster Coupe. In looking for mitigation for this result, ask yourself this: how rapidly do you really want a car capable of almost 300km/h to change direction? Surely a balance must be struck between high-speed stability and twitchiness at 48km/h (the 911's average speed through the slalom)? Even the relatively worst aspect of its performance measured in these tests makes some sense.
This is a car designed to do just one thing - perform as a virtuoso on the ragged edge. It offers just enough fruit on the side to convince the well-heeled daily driver that they weren't ripped off. A hot lap with McKay at the helm is disheartening at a personal level, and at the same time an impossibly thrilling experience. It's a tremendous shame that only those who stick the 911 Carrera S on a racetrack and throw caution to the wind will ever discover the incredible depth of capability lurking behind its iconic fashion-accessory status.
THE WRAP
Driving home from two days of track Values added testing, you leave behind a little highperformance rubber and some brake dust, and you exchange it for 37 megabytes of logged GPS data, and five handwritten A4 pages of scores, times and notes. Then comes three days of calculations, cross-referencing, double-checking and analysis. That's right: for each day of track time, there's a day and a half spent flogging Microsoft Excel, also on the limit. Here's what we really learned.
Relating to the real world
This was a test only of on-limit handling; a barometer of extreme ability tested in 12 rounds of a game played at conventional road speeds. But real-world handling is much more than that. It's about sublimit feel and feedback. The response of a chassis, and the feedback from the controls comfortably below the limit, is vitally important to daily driving satisfaction - seeing as how the majority of real-world driving (even a spirited punt) in any car is performed below its limit. It's impossible to conclude anything in the Wheels Handling Olympics about this important subject - that's the part Wheels road tests play.
But the best cars tested here have the highest margins of safety ... provided they are not being exploited for performance at the time it goes wrong. Another way of looking at this is that however many average motorists might carelessly label a Porsche 911 Carrera S driver a tosser, few realise he or she is actually driving around with a safety reserve of more than a car length should a high-speed emergency stop be required.
Subjectivity
McKay's score - 10 percent of the total - didn't really alter the final outcome too much. The top three cars were unchanged by his input, as were the bottom two, plus three in the middle. The BMW 335i and Audi TT V6 copped the biggest 'assists' from subjective input; the BMW Z4 M was penalised relatively harshly. The other moves were inconsequential in the main. And if you don't like the subjective rankings, disregard them. We've included all the details to make that easy.
Can you believe it?
One thing is certain: this is the most robust Wheels Handling Olympics the magazine has ever completed. It was the most tightly controlled, and aided by the most appropriate technology. There were also many checks and balances in place, such as multiple runs to ensure consistency, and using the Commodore Omega as a 'control' car to monitor the evolution of the track and ensure we maintained experimental control. We also used a lap timer to verify GPS-based lap time measurements, and a radar gun to verify speed readings.
You can be sure that the best car won.
Read more on the Wheels Handling Olympics:
Pt.1 - The contenders: Our annual track-fest is all about on-the-limit prowess...