I’d love to see performance data for the hawk to see the comparison.
Here are the performance stats for the 1992 Hampton Hawk GT 5.0, as you have requested. As you can clearly see, those are formidable figures indeed:
That ought to set a high bar for the Katsuro Vatina - why don’t you also post its performance data, just so that I can see how the two cars compare to each other?
1 Like
These are some very close figures. I wonder how they compare with regards to lap times.
Automation Test Track: 2:18.12
Airfield: 1:23.38
The Hawk is incredibly light compared to the Vatina… based on the performance data i’m suspecting it turning out roughly 300 hp. But with that weight difference the Vatina is outmatched in almost all parameters except for top speed, body roll, and 200m radius cornering test.
1 Like
After carefully examining the performance stats of the Vatina, this is what I’ve learned:
The Vatina has a very similar top speed to the Hawk, and virtually matches it for skidpad grip. However, it lags behind in acceleration, both from 0 to 60 mph and through the quarter-mile - part of it is because of the Vatina being a heavier car, and the rest can be blamed on the Hawk having 355 horsepower on tap (from its naturally aspirated 5.0L V8), which was heady stuff back in 1992. More worryingly, the sportiness brake fade level of 1.3% (compared to the Hawk’s 0%) suggests that it is genuinely under-braked and/or has insufficient brake cooling (I’m suspecting it’s just the latter).
Oh, and for good measure, the Hawk recorded a lap time of 2:14.92 around ATT, and 1:21.52 at the Airfield Track - clearly an improvement on the Vatina in both cases. As for the increase in body roll, I chalk that up to the Hawk having softer suspension, to avoid compromising on comfort too much.
That sums up the performance part of the comparison, but what about the stats (as shown in the Markets tab)? I’d like to see those compared as well. For reference, here are the base stats of the Hawk GT 5.0:
The estimated price of $48,000 AMU when new would have placed the Hawk firmly in premium territory, but it would have easily held its head high in such exalted company - 0 to 60 mph in just 4.8 seconds would have been incredibly fast for the time, and competitive with contemporary supercars such as the Lamborghini Diablo, Ferrari 512 TR, Porsche 964 Turbo and Dodge Viper RT/10, among others. Even so, I reckon the Hawk still has more potential to give later on in its lifespan.
By the way, the Hawk’s closest real-life equivalent would have been the TVR Griffith (although the Hawk is a more civilized proposition), while the Vatina is more reminiscent of the Nissan Skyline GT-R R32, but with a front end more similar to the A80 Supra Turbo.
1 Like
The Vatina’s weight is it’s main detriment, and also the lack of power compared to the Hawk. The Vatina only has 330 hp on tap. More weight, less power means it’s outmatched. You won this round and considering the weight and power difference I think the Vatina performed relatively well.
I’ll post other stats in the morning, but just by glancing over the hawk’s stats the Vatina is way less expensive, with similar drivability and sportiness scores.
FYI
Also, As you indicated the GTR R32 was the benchmark car. And I intentionally allowed for some amount of brake fade to be more realistic. It’s well known that the stock GTR R32 did have brake fading issues as the AWD system meant that the car was heavy, and as such punished the brakes. As for racing versions, that’s another story.
This is a classic case of cheaper JDM sports cars taking on more expensive European rivals. 
From what I’ve seen so far, the Vatina’s stats make it a formidable competitor to the Hampton Hawk GT 5.0, especially at its lower price. Its only real weakness is its lack of comfort; other than that, it’s such a worthy entry into the 1990s sports car sector that I have no choice but to commend you for building it.
I also found out that the Vatina is more practical than the Hawk, but has less cargo volume. I suspect that it could be down to the Vatina being a 4-seater or 2+2, whereas the Hawk is strictly a two-seater.
Thank you for that. From what I’ve seen the Hawk is quite a force to be reckoned with, especially when it comes to straight line performance and track times. The next version of the Vatina will have to be revised significantly.
Can I join with my T.D.F. SS38i?
By all means.
Powered by a 3.8L 24 valve SOHC V8, the SS38i is the most analogue TDF yet. It has 312hp going to the rear wheels via 6-speed manual.
Great handling, good speed but holy mother of brake fade! Your car is critically underbraked for a performance car. The baseline so far shows potential but could be improved by optimizing your brakes, aero and efficiency.
What year is this btw? 6 speed manuals are quite rare for the 90s.
Oh wait, I never checked the brakes…
It’s a 1992-1997 model, as all the most legendary TDFs.
I love the look of the Vatina, they make it seem underpriced at 40 grand. The Hawk sort of touches all my buttons- simple look, RWD, throaty V8. I would choose either of yours over the TDF.
Thank you. The rear of the TDF reminds me of some TVR models. I’m assuming by the name and designs that your brand is Italian. Let me see the front.
Braking and optimizations aside, I think the TDR would sit dead in the middle of the Hawk and Vatina, both in performance and price.
Edit: Yea, it’s quick and unforgiving. That’s quite a good benchmark for the 1995 Vatina to match.
2 Likes
My time is 2:15.82 with bigger brakes, (forgot to test it on last post). The brand is sorta just european, and it is owned by a french automaker, owned by an american one.
(edit: I am still working on fixtures, the front is currently pretty bad.)
You could the .car file to me and i’d add a few touches if you’d like.
WIll take a look right now