AERO FILES: GT2

[AERO_HDT]

THE AERO FILES

Welcome to the AERO FILES, a progressive, week by week build up of everything you need to know about your favourite Gran Turismo 2 cars!

Each week the team at PureGT will be bringing you indepth reviews and statistical data on the various legends and lemons of your favourite game. Included will be purchase prices, acceleration times, chassis data and a quick-lap summary.

We will also be including valuable historical information about each and every car featured, the circumstances around their design and success and in some instances, their miserable failure. We aim to provide both a factual and subjective opinion on some of the cars featured in GT2 and in time, hope to build up a respectable reference file for all you hardcore fans out there who can't get enough of the Real Driving Simulator.

Each car herein will have been tested using real life spec tyres and are completely unmodified to bring you the rawest, most real-to-life feedback that you could expect.

Enjoy!

MAZDA DEMIO GL-X '98

BMW 328Ci '99

LOTUS EUROPA '70

TVR CERBERA 4.5 '97

1970 PLYMOUTH 'CUDA

1987 TOYOTA STARLET TURBO S

NISSAN SILVIA Q's 1800cc '88

MITSUBISHI GALANT VR-4 '99

AUDI S4 '98

ALFA ROMEO 155 2.0 T-Spark

[AERO_HDT]

MAZDA DEMIO GL-X

Year:                         1998               
Price:                        14,660cr

Driveline:                  FF               
Weight:                    960kg
Engine:                    4 Cylinder overhead cam         
Capacity:                 1.5 litre
Max. Power:             98bhp @ 5900rpm            
Max. Torque:            127.5Nm @ 4500rpm
Quarter Mile Best:     18.759 seconds @ 121km/h         
0-100km/h:               12.9 seconds
Top Speed:               197.72km/h            
Tyre Type:                Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:   1'58.455

Review:   The bread-and-butter model of the Mazda lineup is the Demio, a baby car that was introduced between the micro 121 and the small 323 hatch and since its release in 1996, has become one of the companys most prolific sellers. The GL-X represents the 'all options ticked' edition and for the rather pricey sum of 14,660cr you can enjoy a single cam 1.5 litre 4-potter, alloy wheels, multiple airbags, ABS and a host of other goodies that many manufacturers tend to skimp on when it comes to their smaller cars. Mazda are not conventional-engine maestros though and without the aid of a turbo, the Ford-sourced engine can barely huff out 100bhp.

The influence of mid 1990s design for hatchback cars is perhaps more evident in the Demio than any other car. There is nothing inventive, original or distinguishing about the Demio and if many thought that the Honda Civic had the bland stakes covered, it was clear that they hadn't laid eyes on the staid Demio. The low shoulderline, massive glass surfaces and tall-brow roofline with van-styled rear takes boredom to new heights, making it a surprise that the Demio found favour with the buying public. And if the visuals weren't there, then the mechanical package certainly wasn't either. The single cam engine couldn't get the 960 kilo chassis to 100km/h much quicker than a leisurely 13 seconds and the quarter mile was dispatched in Kei like fashion, the GL-X nearing on 19 seconds to travel 400m from a standing start. If you were brave enough, you might take the boxy 4 door hatch for a run at the double ton, but once again, the 1.5 litre motor runs out of puff just shy of that figure.

Everything about the drive around Trial Mountain was exactly as I expected. The GL-X was not quick enough to get my pulse racing and the only thing I had to be sure of was to pick my braking markers at the right moment because the Demio exhibited a fine line between steering and bob-sledding. My first standing lap was in the high 2'15s and my optimism was far from high, but I really wanted to give the GL-X the proper treatment in terms of lap speed and four laps later, I reeled off a very tidy mid 1'58 which is about where I hoped it would be and it didn't disappoint.

There really is nothing about the Demio that will get your heart racing and some of you may wonder why is the Demio whispered with such enthusiasm amongst experienced Turismans when the car comes across as a complete and utter lemon. Although not featured in GT2, the Mazdaspeed Demio A-Spec was a prize car in the original Gran Turismo and it quickly became the hatch to own, thanks to sporty suspension, beefed up bodykit and some gorgeous alloys. Power standard but the weight was dropped by 60 kilos and this made the A-Spec Demio a nimble item in the right hands and many drivers can go on for hours about the numerous A-spec battles that they partook in (back in the day). The spectre of the Mazdaspeed Demio haunts many players, and lemon or not, this car ranks up there with the Silvia Q's, Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Viper, because the deeper you dig into the Demio the more intriguing it becomes and the fact that it really isn't anything special actually gives it the underdog shine that many of us will come to love, win or lose.

But without an A-spec hero model, I believe the Demio may have already had its 15 seconds of fame.

[AERO_HDT]

BMW 328Ci



Year:                        1999               
Price:                       50,690cr

Driveline:                 FR               
Weight:                   1460kg
Engine:                   Inline 6 cylinder twin cam         
Capacity:                2.8 litre
Max. Power:           188bhp @ 5500rpm         
Max. Torque:          281.4Nm @ 3500rpm
Quarter Mile Best:   15.816 seconds @ 146km/h         
0-100km/h:              7.6 seconds
Top Speed:             249.94km/h            
Tyre Type:              Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:    1'52.253

Review:   Perhaps the term 'Pure Driving Pleasure' was far more effective than some of us thought and although I personally hold as much respect for a 3-series BMW as I do a C-class Merc or an A4 sedan, the incredibly boring and perhaps even ugly E46 series BMW Coupe holds a measure of awe about it that neither of it's rivals can muster. Why? Well I'm not a fan of BMW build quality for starters - I've seen more door handles and interior trim items fall off these German legends than I have any other and I've also been first hand witness to poor body fit on brand new vehicles, weather-prone leakeages and stupendous repair quotes too. Ten years in and around luxury vehicles invariably shows up flaws. But one thing I will attest to and that's the BMW driveline and I couldn't care less about whether you're talking about a 500,000km 1971 BMW 2002 or a 2002 BMW 3-series, the engines in these machines are as reliable as ever. I won't say 'bulletproof' because such cliches are far too overused these days, but when I say that I have faith in a 328Ci to get me from Perth to Sydney, I know that I won't be needing BMW Assist on the 2,500km trip.

The 328Ci is not quite a 330Ci and its a fair way short of an M3. So at 188bhp and with 280Nm of grunt, I don't expect this car to be a road warrior. But when it sprints to 100km/h in only 7.6 seconds, I figure that it's no slouch either and what I'm really hoping for is the legendary BMW straight six engine to set my world on fire. The adjectives about BMW sixes have been endless over the years, to the point that the German engine may very well be the most refined six cylinder in the world. Couple it with a five speed transmission, rear wheel drive layout and 17"  multispoke alloys wearing 225 series rubber, then I suppose you may be thinking that this is as close to M3 heaven as you're ever likely to get in GT2

I've always rivalled BMW against Mercedes Benz and with the 3 series coupe, I can't help but feel that the 328 is about as near a match-up as I can get against the CLK series Benz. But the 328Ci gives away a great deal in outright horsepower against the CLK320 Sport and with 36bhp shy of the Merc, the BMW struggles to compete on equal footing.  The car is slower everywhere, in a straight line, in braking and most importantly, in handling. A few back-to-back trials about the Mountain highlights just how very different the two cars are and how much BMW are lacking serious firepower in Gran Turismo 2.

In terms of handling, the 328Ci lacks rear-end poise which has become somewhat typical of sedan-based coupes recently and whilst they're built for aesthetic appeal, they really lack proper grip through cornering and become Ford-like in their feel. The corner approach is sure and stable but the brakes quickly turn things into a state of mild understeer on the verge of apex clipping and if the gas is held through a corner, this develops into fully blown exit understeer that's hard to get out of. Getting off the gas mid-corner restores balance for a brief moment before oversteer takes over and once this happens, getting back on the gas results in the inevitable 180-degree spin. If anything the 328Ci is even more prone to spinning than the CLK320 and this tenderness makes the car less enjoyable to drive. Add to that the lack of silkiness in the top end of the rev range (best sixes in the world? -Ed) and I'm left with the overwhelming impression that the 328Ci isn't really a driver's car at all, but a pretender.

It's a shame because the BMW M3 E39 one of the best coupes in the world and with the new E46 M3 sporting more power than ever (339bhp) I think I'll have to take my BMWs in the form of 840Cis in the interim and leave the 3-series to the wannabes.

[AERO_HDT]

LOTUS EUROPA




Year:                       1970               
Price:                       80,000cr

Driveline:                 MR               
Weight:                   730kg
Engine:                   Twin Cam 4 Cylinder         
Capacity:                1.6 litre
Max. Power:           125bhp @ 6300rpm         
Max. Torque:          153Nm @ 5200rpm
Quarter Mile Best:  16.576 seconds @ 139km/h         
0-100km/h:             9.0 seconds
Top Speed:             245.6km/h            
Tyre Type:               Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:  1’49.738

Review:   The true genius of Lotus founder Colin Chapman can be seen perhaps at its clearest in the Europa. The world’s first mass-production mid-engined car (Lotus also pioneered the first mid-engined Formula One car) is initially something of a strain on the eyes. By all appearances, it could pass for a utility vehicle, but the lengthy, flat rear end is home to a Renault 1.6 litre engine (as found in the Alpine A1600V). The bodywork is bonded plastic, a feature that was first shown on the 1953 Corvette,  although Lotus later discovered that plastic was not the best item to use for structural rigidity. It helped keep chassis weight to a minimum but the steel backbone chassis needed further reinforcing for high cornering loads and the plastic was prone to massive amounts of flex and wasn’t a kind recipient of paintwork. Lotus soon realized that aluminium was the best material for lightweight bodywork, but by then, the Europa was already receiving harsh press treatment.

Even still, the Europa was Lotus’ fastest production car of the time and being considerably bigger than the miniscule Elan, it needed to push the boundaries in more than one way. The tugboat exhaust burble was deeper and more pronounced than the Elan, even though both cars shared the same engine but it was where the engine was mounted that made all the difference. Acceleration was surefooted and reasonably swift and the Europa’s ability to corner was something that would send the automotive world in a spin and put the benchmark factor at new heights. Ferarri, Porsche, Lamborghini and Maserati were quick to jump onto the mid-engined bandwagon, but Lotus had done it first - their biggest problem was that they had done it in the ugliest manner possible. And so the Europa was quickly swamped by vastly more powerful and more stylish designs within the space of a year. By 1975, the Europa was flailing and desperately needed an overhaul. It's replacement was the very first Lotus Esprit, a car that went on to even greater claim to fame. The Europa nameplate lay dormant for more than two decades.

The fact that Europas are somewhat rare these days  only makes them more collectible and if you were to get your hands on one, you'd be no doubt itching to drive it. To be honest, it  feels more like driving a rear-engined machine, as it has very little grip at the back tyres. The pendulum feel is more pronounced than mid-engined cars of today, although the Europa didn’t have the horrific handling of some other so-called supercars of the same era. The Muira needed lightning quick reflexes to keep it all in check, Maserati’s Bora was equally temperamental and although Porsche spectacularly failed with their 914-6, the stage still came back to the Europa and the direct, almost simplistic nature of the car. It was ultra light, didn’t have an overbearing engine and in the hands of a mid-level driver, was astonishingly quick around a circuit. The Europa happily presented itself as unassuming, doleful even and whilst the heavily enclosed engine was prone to rapid overheating, the lack of huge ventilation ducts kept the lines clean and free of the usual mid-engined clutter.

But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find a remarkably capable car that can tackle corners with the best of them and to put that into perspective, the Europa can lap within a second of a late model '98 Audi S4 with twice the horsepower, twice the driven wheels and twice the technology. You couldn’t imagine the red-faces that an old girl like this would cause and although the Europa fell into obscurity for decades, it is enjoying a resurgence in recent times as being a highly desirable classic with more chassis than most people know what to do with. Trying to figure out which of the early Lotus cars rules the roost is a bit of a hit and miss affair but between the Elan and the Europa, it still isn’t clear which one is the superior machine, but make no mistake, it requires a higher level of skill and commitment to take a Europa to the edge.

The only downside? The price...

[AERO_HDT]

TVR CERBERA 4.5




Year:                        1997               
Price:                       81,290cr

Driveline:                  FR               
Weight:                   1100kg
Engine:                    Pushrod V8            
Capacity:                 4.5 litre
Max. Power:            428bhp @ 5200rpm         
Max. Torque:           516.8Nm @ 5500rpm
Quarter Mile Best:   13.839 seconds @ 194km/h         
0-100km/h:             6.5 seconds
Top Speed:              321.28km/h            
Tyre Type:                Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:  1’41.650

Review:   A stretched development of the 2-seater Griffith, the Cerbera was shown in concept form in 1994 and three years later, was a full blown reality, a hugely clever move by the company that sought to move away from the ‘Performance Rover’ image that it had acquired in the late 1980s. Even Australia, the arse end of the world had heard about Rover's woeful reliability and their English V8 was often used as a paperweight in the front office of an outback mechanic's garage. Mind you, most of those yellow-toothed spanner monkeys would have no idea that the aluminium tooling used to build the 8 cylinder was also once the same casting used for Chevrolet V8's in the 1950's and early '60s.

The Cerbera was only marginally heavier than the outgoing Griffith, had similar styling and was typically a British GT, albeit without the fancy technology found in the likes of Jaguar and Aston Martin. Local press had decried the TVR as being animalistic, with little refinery and sub-standard engineering, but the Cerbera was a car that did away with basic Rover engines and made do with in-house development on V-configuration eight cylinder blocks. They already had the hairy-chest market locked down, but TVR wanted to compete with Jaguar and Lotus and the Cerbera was their answer.

The ultra sleek body is a highly attractive item, long bonnet and sixties-inspired front end treatment with a gaping oval air intake. The cabin is nicely proportioned, hidden A and B-pillars which culminate into a curvaceous rear C-pillar accompaniment  which is cleverly faired into the rest of the bodyline. The doors are suitably lengthy, low-slung and devoid of handles, the frontal door panel gaps ingeniously tucked underneath the front guards. The short boot looks chunky enough to be able to hold some suitable luggage and the cats-eye styled rear brake lenses have since become trademark TVR. The deep side sills, twin exhaust outlets and bootlip spoiler add just enough edge to prevent the Cebera from looking soft and although the car comes with measly 16” alloys as found on the Griffith, they appear to do a nice job of filling the guards.

Underneath the bonnet, the real magic is spun, TVR’s hand-built 4.5 litre Speed Eight engine  spitting out enormous power which encroaches on Honda’s VTEC territory in terms of horsepower-per-litre. Power is undeniably excessive for a car of only 1100 kilos and considering the Cerbera only has 16” tyres front and rear, trying to harness 516Nm of torque is a near impossible task. Quarter mile drag racing was nothing more than a smoke show as the Cebera would launch away from the start line and scorch the tyres for fully half of that distance in 3rd gear! Launches in 4th gear would result in the car near stalling, but even still, the Cerbera 4.5 was able to hit the triple in 6.5 seconds. Blah, I hear you say, Skylines and WRXs can do the 100km/h dash a full second quicker. It’s what happens after the car hooks up that makes the Cerbera so special, as the engine piles on speed at a phenomenal amount of rates, crashing through the speed traps only 7.4 seconds later and the terminal speed has almost doubled!. Yes folks, the Cerbera is not afraid of speed and once the relatively skinny 235 series tyres get traction, you had better hang on for dear life, because this British bulldog will easily carry you over the 300km/h mark, making it one of the fastest factory cars Gran Turismo has ever seen.

It takes a superb level of skill to handle one of these brutish machines simply because they pile on incredible speed in very short order. Therefore the Cerbera needs longer braking distances and when you pounce on the brakes with a car that has 225mm front tyres, it can be prone to lockups if the driver isn’t careful. To be honest, the Cerbera is one of those cars where cornering is a touch-and-go affair and trying to muscle the TVR through a turn of any sort is bound to end up in tears. Let the car drive itself, keep the balance neutral and power away when you have plenty of room to clear the exit. It requires a patient driver, a respectful one because the TVR is a car that demands piety - it’s power is simply godlike and those who snub their nose at 428bhp are bound to feel the wrath of a machine that refuses to be manhandled.

Get it right though, show the Cerbera its proper dues and the laptimes will tumble as quickly as stones in a landslide - I didn’t have the faith that the TVR would be the equal of Chevrolet’s fearsome ZR-1 Corvette, but it knocked the ’Vette into the stone age by nearly 1.6 seconds over the course of a single lap. TVR are here to stay and dare I say it, but the Cerbera may be the quickest, white-knuckle rear wheel drive road car I’ve ever driven.

Image Credits: Netcarshow.com

[AERO_HDT]

PLYMOUTH ‘CUDA




Year:                        1970               
Price:                        24,140cr

Driveline:                  FR               
Weight:                    1621kg
Engine:                     Pushrod V8            
Capacity:                  5.5 litre
Max. Power:              288bhp @ 5000rpm         
Max. Torque:             478.5Nm @ 3000rpm
Quarter Mile Best:     14.557 seconds @ 161km/h         
0-100km/h:                6.0 seconds
Top Speed:                219.6km/h            
Tyre:                          Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap: 1’53.205

Review:   The pony car war was in full swing by the late 1960s as manufacturers sought their own piece of the lucrative market which had blossomed due to the incredible success of the Mustang and Camaro. The Plymouth ‘Cuda nameplate had been around since the early 1960's as a ground-breaking coupe, but was never really considered a muscle car until 1967. Redevelopment in 1969 saw it share the B-body platform with the Dodge Challenger and this was where things started to get serious. It had a wide body, coke bottle rear guards and (at the time) fat, sticky rubber with a suitably hefty V8 upfront. Plymouth already had the GTX which was hastily developed off the Belvedere platform and pushed onto the market  in 1967, but the Cuda was the car that got everyone talking.

The 340ci V8 was enough for 288bhp and almost 400Nm of torque - hardly ground-shattering stuff, especially when the Cuda weighed over 1600 kilos. But performance was jaw-dropping, the car blitzing speed trials with such ease that many journalists considered Plymouth’s “288bhp” quote to be very conservative and the actual output may have been closer to 320bhp. This could have been a marketing ploy by the company to help boost the image of the range-topping 440 Hemi ‘Cuda which had “375bhp“.

Whatever the truth may have been, the ‘Cuda 340 is an acceleration monster. The long-ratio 4-speed gearbox launches the car away from the lights in an awesome display of hellish noise and frazzled rubber. The imperial speedo clocks 60mph in six seconds flat and with the foot planted, I’m hanging onto the wide, plastic rimmed steering wheel as hard as I can. It takes a concerted effort to drop the massively heavy clutch and jam the stick up into 3rd as the revs creep towards six grand - like most long stroke, big-cube V8s of the time, they lack top end breathability, so its not long before I have to ram the ‘box up into 4th. The engine is on full song, the pistons screaming a disjointed, unholy chord at 4000rpm whilst the exhaust belches a primeval roar - every one of my senses is alive as the ‘Cuda shrinks about me like a steel demon.

The quarter mile marker flashes past and the Correvit on the dash bleeps. 14.557 seconds - 95.6mph. I haven’t much time to process the trial as I realize that the ‘Cuda is still pulling hard and the needle on the speedo has just edged past 100mph - the readout maxes at 120. Thankfully the radar gun confirms the ‘Cuda’s incredible pace, topping 133mph, or a shade under 220km/h. The aerodynamics at those speeds are not exactly stable and you can feel the nose lighten as the rush of too much air starts to lift the car. I can’t help but agree that the ‘Cuda 340 is too quick in a straight line for its own good and 288bhp is a little short of true power. But the car had yet to be tested around Trial Mountain and it was here where I’d get to see the true Plymouth legend.

Muscle cars have always been renown for being softly sprung and although the main reason for this was the American love of comfort and supple ride quality, it also had the added benefit of being good for traction under full acceleration - the greater the weight transfer to the rear wheels, the better the tyre contact patch and hence limited wheelspin without the hassles of axle tramp. European sports car makers didn’t have to worry about stupendous torque from large engines, so their cars were generally stiffer in the suspension stakes and coupled with their good chassis weight, were better at handling.

But the Cuda was not meant for track work and it clearly showed at Trial Mountain. It exhibited plenty of bodyroll, excessive pitch and everything from brake lock ups to torque steer to power oversteer. There was little, if any predictability in the Cuda’s handling and it was a frustrating car to drive around such a demanding course. I was fool enough to spin once and understeered into a barrier a few times, making me lose faith in the Plymouth and ease away from the ‘Cuda’s limit which wasn’t good for lap times, but necessary to extract a clean one. The overall result was slow - slower than even I expected and I ended up being somewhat disappointed by Plymouth’s legend.  How a 440 Six Pack Hemi Cuda can now be worth over $1,000,000US is a mystery to me, especially when a 340 ‘Cuda is nothing more than a red-light warrior. I prefer the Dodge Challenger, simply for its cleaner body, but splitting the two is near impossible.

[AERO_HDT]

TOYOTA STARLET 3 Door TURBO S




Year:                       1987               
Price:                        2,432cr

Driveline:                   FF               
Weight:                     790kg
Engine:                     Four cylinder overhead cam         
Capacity:                 1.3 litre
Max. Power:              99bhp @ 6000rpm            
Max. Torque:            150.03Nm @ 3500rpm
0-100km/h:              11.4 seconds            
0-160km/h:              32.3 seconds
Quarter Mile Best:   17.931 @ 126km/h            
Standing 1000M:     32.819 seconds @ 161km/h
Top Speed:              203.8km/h            
Tyre Type:                Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:   1’56.373

Review:   Toyota were really pushing boundaries back in 1987, having been spurred on by the European hot hatch battle that had been raging since the early part of the decade. With VW, Peugeot and Renault in a pitched war for supremacy, the engineers at Toyota got whiff of customer demands (before they turned soft and became a bunch of vegetable consuming hippies) and decided to give its local domestic market its own car to fulfil their desires. The technology for turbo charging was beginning to become more accessible to production models and it was natural that it would eventually filter down onto some very unassuming cars.

One of those cars was the Toyota Starlet, the bread-and-butter fare for the manufacturer and one of it’s cheapest cars on the market. Whilst many lamented the shift to front wheel drive (previous generation Starlets were rear wheel driven), there were three stove-hot turbo models produced, each had the rare 2E-TELU engine with beefier internals, stronger pistons, aggressive cam profile and of course a turbo that fed a mild 8psi through a top mounted intercooler. The Turbo S was the public production variant, with the Turbo R and Ri models earmarked for racing and were not street legal.

The Turbo S created a buzz on the streets of Japan as it was essentially a base-model car with a worked engine and a body kit. The suspension settings were neither stiffened nor uprated to cope with the extra grunt and the braking system still remained as discs up front and drums under the rear. It was still quick enough to assert a healthy dominance over the usual riff-raff and Kei cars in Tokyo, but it wasn’t met favourably by the media who criticised the half-baked approach of Toyota, as they saw the Starlet as being much more capable than a wandering hairdryer with four wheels.

Handling issues almost killed the Turbo S, as criticism began to emerge of an underdone chassis with too much power being fed to the tyres. Understeer and soft suspension gave the car less than ideal handling characteristics and the Starlet would fry the front tyres in first gear on full boost. Even still, it could run the standing quarter in under 18 seconds, which put it on par at least with similar offerings from Europe. But where the European cars could tackle a corner like no other, the Starlet was never engineered to such standards and soon came to be regarded as a poor-mans GTi.

Driving the Starlet takes a while to get used to, especially on the Control tyres - it initially feels very chuckable, light and responsive, just the way you’d expect, there’s no sign of understeer and the short gearing makes acceleration rather easy and fuss-free. But after a few laps of acquaintance, you start to push on, braking a little later and tackling corners a little quicker and this is where the Starlet starts to unravel.

The front tyres give up the ghost very early, the steering turns icy and unresponsive and you find yourself struggling to get the nose pointed at the apex. Brake late, crank the wheel and cringe as nothing happens. The Starlet stubbornly refuses and spears ahead like Susan Boyle on ice. Unusually I would have suspected the pocket-rocket of being something of a torque-steerer, where you could get into a corner with little fuss and the bugger would insist on aiming for the nearest brick wall after an apex, but strangely enough, the Turbo makes exits rather easy.

It’s just the part before the apex that doesn’t work, a lot like SuBo's face on telly.

This is where truly falls to bits, because you’re essentially forced to get on the brakes early, slow the car down far too much, and get back on the gas and throttle your way through the entire corner. The Starlet doesn’t like weight shift under braking and the tyres only seem to respond well when you’ve got some semblance of acceleration happening.

Pulling off a 1’56 is not going to earn the Turbo S any accolades. To be honest, the Starlet was a huge let-down. I was expecting a great deal more but then again, I’ve learned to moderate my expectations with Toyota as it seems they’ve been building middle-of-the-road cars for more decades than most. Once in a while they might build a gem, but the Starlet Turbo S certainly isn’t one of them and I'm sure in twenty more years, they'll be one of those little remembered cars that only vegetarians talk about.

Image Credits: superstreet.com

[AERO_HDT]

NISSAN SILVIA Q’s 1800cc




Year:                        1988               
Price:                        2,331cr +

Driveline:                  FR               
Weight:                    1090kg
Engine:                    Inline 4 cylinder twin cam         
Capacity:                 1.8 litre
Max. Power:            131bhp @ 6400rpm         
Max. Torque:           158.8Nm @ 4900rpm
0-100km/h:              9.9 seconds            
0-160km/h:              25.2 seconds
Quarter Mile Best:   17.196 seconds @ 135km/h         
0-1000M:                   30.987 seconds @ 176km/h
Top Speed:              233.42km/h            
Tyre Type:               Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap: 1’53.812

Review:   Ten years after it was first released to the Japanese domestic market, the S13 Silvia still looks as good today as it did then. Unlike many other contemporary rivals such as the RX-7, the Silvia has aged gracefully and its relevance hasn’t been lost amidst the current crop of turbocharged warriors. It’s rare that Japanese cars hold onto their good looks for so long, as its no secret that most Japanese designers have pulled their architecture from European or US-inspired sources, meaning by the time it hits the street, styling has often moved on.

Not so with the S13 Silvia which has emerged from the dark days of the 1980s almost unblemished. I say ‘almost’ because most of today’s offerings are bastardized wild-childs, aggressively styled and powerful by comparison, leaving the S13 to it’s feminine lines and delicate appearance, ergo Errol Flynn as Robin Hood. Two and a half decades later, the Silvia still has a modern feel and presence to it, which is of course nothing like Errol Flynn at all, as he was dead less than two decades after having shot his most famous film.

The Q’s model is regarded very much as the mid-spec option, and received a naturally aspirated 1.8 litre engine that delivered up a relatively stress-free 131bhp at 6400rpm. With torque just a shade under 160Nm, the Q’s certainly wasn’t a white-knuckle ride, but it was enough to give the Silvia the necessary squirt to make it feel like sportscar. Nissan kept the weight of the car to 1090kg, light enough to endow it with impressive cornering abilities to further its capabilities.

So what is it then that makes the Silvia so special? After the release of Gran Turismo, many drivers found favour in the Silvia Q’s as a perfect starting point for their career. It was cheap, affordable, good-looking and most importantly, very tuneable. When you put those ingredients together with a chassis that doesn’t require a lot of skill to handle, you end up with a car that caters for everyone’s tastes. And thus it became the perfect trainer.

In GT2 however, the goalposts had moved. A long way. The Q’s was cheaper than ever, but there were more cars contending for your first bite of cash. The resurgence of the AE-86 amongst the newly-formed drift fans, the popularity of Honda’s Prelude, the falling prices of MX-5s and even the availability of some insane hatchbacks with heavily boosted engines clouded  the scene. As quickly as the Silvia had come into favour many now saw it as old-hat and were itching at trying something new, something different.

It didn’t change the Silvia however. With full control tyres on, it still felt every bit as nimble and manoeuvrable as it had in GT1 and around Trial Mountain, it was still able to attack the course with ease, pushing the Q’s to within a second of Mazda’s superb ‘89 MX-5. The nose points where you want it to go, the rear end is unfazed at the rough Trial Mountain surface and the silky smooth Nissan four potter does its best to get you out of the slower corners and up the backhill straight as fast as it can. With only 158Nm of torque though, you needn't worry about creasing the back of your shirt against the velour driver's seat, and this leaves you free to enjoy exploring the limits of the car and bask in its finely balanced capabilities as a worthy rear wheel drive coupe.

But… it has lost its shine. For some reason, there simply isn’t the same thrill in the Silvia Q’s as there used to be and I have to admit that I’d rather be behind the wheel of a manic Starlet Turbo S or a Micra SuperTurbo for some reason. Perhaps the realisation that the Q’s has already been tried and tested and it’s old-hat might have something to do with it, but Gran Turismo is simply too big to limit yourself to the same experience over and over again. If you’ve never driven a Silvia Q’s, by all means do, but there are some grin-inducing cars out there that deserve the same consideration and sometimes it’s nice to broaden your horizon and try something different, rather than sticking to what’s already proven. But if you're a sucker for the bang-for-buck factor, the Silvia is mighty hard to pass up on, simply because there are no other cars in the game where you can buy horsepower so cheaply, or with as much flair. Errol would have been proud.

[AERO_HDT]

MITSUBISHI GALANT VR-4




Year:                        1999               
Price:                        29,810cr

Driveline:                 4WD               
Weight:                   1460kg
Engine:                   V6 Twin Cam            
Capacity:                2.5 litre
Max. Power:            267bhp @ 5900rpm         
Max. Torque:           349.1Nm @ 4000rpm
Quarter Mile Best:   14.446 seconds @ 151km/h         
0-100km/h:             5.8 seconds
Top Speed:             261.65km/h            
Tyre Type:               Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap:   1’47.987

Review: The Galant is to Mitsubishi what the Chaser is to Toyota - a large 4 door sedan built for spacious comfort and long distance travel. The Galant nameplate has been around since the late 1970’s, although back then the car was more of a compact performance coupe rather than the handsome sedan it is today. The VR-4 nameplate can be traced back to the late 1980s when it was applied to the Galant which has since become something of a cult car in the Oceanic region.

No wonder too, because the 1989 Galant VR-4 sported a two litre turbocharged engine which pumped out over 200bhp and could be considered the forebear of the Evolution series Lancer. For the 1999 model, Mitsubishi cleverly kept away from the overbearing presence of too much fibreglass and added tasteful bodywork to help enhance what is already a good-looking silhouette. Skirt panels all around, mild rear wing help fill out the body, whilst lowered suspension and fat 17” alloys fill out the wheel arch wells. Twin chrome exhaust tips, fog lamps and discreet boot-mounted badges add the finishing touches.

The current Galant has grown in size and power and the VR-4 is in its second incarnation, having made a name for itself when featured in the first Gran Turismo instalment. The 2.5 litre engine is good for nearly 270bhp, enough to get the car to 100km/h in a serious hurry and will hustle the big sedan down the quarter in record-breaking time. To be sure, the VR-4 isn’t in the same league as the awesome Evo VI or superb 3000GT, but it's not far down the performance tree and what’s all the more impressive is that this machine does it all with ease. The all-wheel drive system is an incredibly sharp piece of equipment and keeps the Galant pointed exactly where you want it to go at all times with only a hint of oversteer present through most corners.

The Galant has some rivalry in the sedan stakes though and it comes in the form of Audi’s S4. Both cars share a similar engine, similar power and similar weight but the VR-4 is arguably better looking and has a more aggressive feel to it against the S4’s soft body. The S4 is quicker in a straight line, but that’s about as good as the German gets because Mitsubishi have sorted their VR-4 for a better driving experience and it shows on a circuit like Trial Mountain. The Audi has a tendency to understeer when pushed hard - the Galant refuses to lose the front end and will happily ease into a controlled drift, waiting until all 4 wheels can hook up before taking off again. It’s a brilliantly easy car to sink your teeth into and it doesn’t feel at all like a heavy sedan; Mitsubishi have engineered a superb car with the Galant and I always try to make room for one in my garage, simply because its one of Mitsubishi’s best-kept secrets - few people are aware of the Galant’s capabilities. This makes it an ace up the sleeve in battles against other Turismans and dare I say it, but this is certainly one of the greatest B-class cars ever in Gran Turismo. Not to be underrated.

Image Credits: Autowp.ru

[AERO_HDT]

AUDI S4




Year:                        1998               
Price:                       39,730cr

Driveline:                 4WD               
Weight:                   1510 kilos
Engine:                    Twin cam V6            
Capacity:                 2.7 litre
Max. Power:            269bhp @ 7000rpm         
Max. Torque:           402Nm @ 2000rpm
Quarter Mile Best:   14.151 seconds @ 156km/h         
0-100km/h:             5.6 seconds
Top Speed:             270.8km/h            
Tyre Type:               Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap: 1’49.077      

Review: When Audi had such great success with their S3 and S8 lineup, they decided to cash in on the burgeoning luxury performance market in an attempt to steal some thunder from rivals Mercedes and BMW who had been boxing it out for some years with their AMG and M-series lineup. Audi were booming with their A4 sedan, so the natural progression to the S4 was a matter of common sense.

However that sense ended as soon as the conception was born and the actual creation of the S4 was more lunacy than anything else, with Audi deciding to stuff a twinturbo 2.7 litre six-cylinder into the A4 body shell. The unit developed an impressive 269bhp (claimed) at a heady 7000rpm and whilst many would consider this far too powerful for front wheel drive use, Audi lithely circumvented the problem, mating the V6 to their famed Quattro all-wheel drive system, with a heavy duty 6-speed gearbox given the nod for cogswapping duties. Suspension was also heavily revised with massive anti-roll bars, lowered springs and stiffened dampers to keep the tyres on terra firma. Wheels were gorgeously crafted six-spoke items measuring 18x8 inches and wore 225 series rubber all-round and brakes were solid rotors incorporating 4-pot calipers, ABS and crafty electronic brake distribution which helped haul the 1510 kilo chassis up to a standstill as rapidly as possible.

Performance from the S4 was imposing, taking down triple figures in 5.6 seconds and hitting the speed traps at the other end of the strip at 14.1 seconds. Top speed was electronically limited to 255km/h (national regulations), but the S4 was able to scream on to a ball-tearing 270km/h if the limiter was removed. The twin turbos provided a healthy dose of torque, 400Nm of creamy surge that was available from a ridiculously low 2000rpm and ensures the S4 is ready for a sprint at every opportunity.

The S4 was designed at a time when German engineering was encompassing the minimalist ideals that saw very minor additions to bodywork to distinguish a run-of-the-mill model to a performance variant and the S4 was no different, lacking even a bootlip spoiler. The S4 badges front and rear and 18” wheels were enough for Audi and gave the car a very discreet attitude that found favour with many high-level company execs looking for something different to the usual Mercedes and BMW offerings. For Audi, it was the start of a whole new era of performance and many arguably credit the S4 as the weapon that pushed the company closer to Mercedes and BMW than anything before it. The purists however, still have fond memories of the S2 and legendary Quattro...

Driving the S4 around a demanding circuit like Trial Mountain in factory spec tyres was a difficult experience and the Audi was stubborn and mule-like with its steering and entry turn-in, feeling distinctly heavy and unresponsive. It felt planted and surefooted, but the big-body feel was a constant reminder of just how this car was a mid-sized sedan and not a sports car. Turn in was far from sharp as the S4 would take a moment to respond and you could feel the weight shift onto the outside front tyre. A moment's indecision before the follow through occurred meant that it seemed the car was always second-guessing your inputs. Mind you, once an agreement was reached, the front end would bite with assurety and it wouldn't argue, but the hesitancy at every corner destroy's the feel. The engine was happy to pull the S4 to 195km/h down the back straight and the brakes were under pressure to haul up the 1510 kilo chassis at the famous Trial Mountain bowl, but not once did the Audi feel seriously quick. Brisk, yes, but quick… no. A bit then like Pam Anderson's boobs - the goods are there, but you have to get past the silicon to get to the best bits.

Which is of course a shame, because in real life, this car was applauded with accolades that heralded the S4 as the best performance sedan out of Germany for years. It wasn’t as quick as the all-new E55 and it struggled against the 400hp might of BMW’s M5, but the Audi was far easier to drive and could tackle a tight and twisty road miles better than its competitors. But unfortunately in Gran Turismo, what really matters is how it stacks up globally against cars of similar performance and class. And those rivals are of course the Japanese. And unlike Pamela Anderson, they don't bother with silicon.

The WRX and Evo won’t have much to fear from this German heavyweight and I’m quite confident the Skyline will continue on it’s merry path as giant-killer but I now wonder where the S4 slots into the bigger scheme of things. Mercedes CLK320 is easily able to match the Audi and Mitsubishi’s Galant VR4 positively slaughters the Bavarian in terms of lap speed and driveability. Whether or not the S4 becomes a classic cult car like the Lancia Delta or the Celica GT-Four remains to be seen, but with performance that’s more frustration than exhilaration, the S4 may well be remembered with a snigger rather than a grin. Let's hope that in years to come, the S4 makes some big improvements.

Image Credits: Ultimatecarpage.com

[AERO_HDT]

ALFA ROMEO 155 2.0 TS 16V




Year:                        1998               
Price:                        11,860cr

Driveline:                  FF               
Weight:                     1300kg
Engine:                    Twin Cam 4 Cylinder         
Capacity:                 2.0 litre
Max. Power:            148bhp @ 6300rpm         
Max. Torque:           187.3Nm @ 3500rpm
Quarter Mile Best:   17.284 seconds @ 133km/h         
0-100km/h:              9.4 seconds
Top Speed:              223.6km/h            
Tyre Type:                Control

Trial Mountain Best Lap: 1’54.472

Review:   Alfa Romeo were nearing the end of their very popular 155 model series and the success that they had with their ‘Cloverleaf’ 75 cars had the company looking in new directions. Alfa have always been serious about performance, even if their cars don’t always deliver and the mid-90’s weren‘t regarded as golden years for the company. Their 80’s legends were all but dead and to face the future, they had three lineups to try and take the company into the new millennium. The 155 2.0 T-Spark was standard fare for Alfa in 1998 and although 2.0 litre engines are quite sizable by Euro standards, the staidly proportioned 155 didn’t have a chassis light enough to make the engine anywhere near exciting and nearly spelled the end of their performance aspirations. We’re it not for the 155’s stunning Touring Car successes, Alfa may have been looking at a much different profit margin sheet in Europe.

The FF layout incorporates a twin cam, naturally aspirated item, somewhat characterless for an Alfa engine and delivers up a grimace-bearing 148bhp. Honda managed to pull 50 brake horsepower more out of smaller 1.8 litre engines which showed just how hard the Italians were trying with their bread and butter fare and when they stuffed this into a porky, four door shell weighing 1300 kilos, it seemed to be a recipe for ordinary driving. To be honest, the 2.0 litre Twin Spark engine had been around since 1987 and had changed very little over the years. 100km/h sprints were dispatched with at a leisurely 9.4 seconds and the quarter mile was 17.2 seconds down the track. Top speed was a cruisy 223km/h and overall, the 155 was a car that simply didn’t have the goods to perform. The 2.5 litre V6 was the real performance option, but critics said that the extra 15bhp of the V6 was offset by the increased weight.

The boxy, sharp-edged looks of the 155 were at odds with some, especially when curvy styles were highly popular in the mid 1990s. Yet the 155 may very well have been ahead of it’s time, as ten years after it’s last sale, the world is again looking to sharper creases designs in their automobiles. However the 155 will never be remembered like the 156, arguably Alfa’s most popular car since the 75, but the 155 did introduce the razor-sharp 2.1 turns lock-to-lock steering, which although novel, did endow the 155 with the turning circle of a small truck, a problem that was only remedied with the much later 159.
   
On factory simulation tyres, it’s very evident that the 155 isn’t intended for seriously sporty driving and is best left in amongst the traffic light sprints of mundane day-to-day chores. Being front wheel drive lends the Alfa a measure of heavy turn-in understeer that always has your heart in your mouth. The engine, so untypically Alfa-ish, is thrashy and short of breath when revved hard and the gearbox is a chore, having to ream through the rubbery shifts to maintain the asthmatic engine in a narrow power band of 5000-7000rpm. The wooden steering seems to take ages to respond to any sort of input and feels nothing like the ‘razor-sharp’ 2.1 turns lock-to-lock that the 155 pioneered. The 1’54 lap time will be well off Alfa’s best and may even be regarded as the slowest Alfa in the game, but the thing that really hurts this particular car is the drive layout and lousy steering, coupled with an engine that’s perpetually short of puff and a body that just can’t manage the twisty stuff. Yes perhaps the 155 Touring Car was an Italian legend, but that’s like comparing a V8 Supercar to a six cylinder taxi-pack Ford Falcon. The 155 is a really poor car and if Alfa used that model to develop the sexier 156 then the 156 is in a whole lot of trouble…