CSR26 Reviews and Results, Part 1
My search for a supercar was a long time in the making, and it was now about to begin in earnest. Sitting on the opposite side of the parking lot were some of the fastest and most exclusive cars I had seen thus far ā or at least they claimed to be. Especially considering my demanding requirements, choosing a winner was no easy task. The reviews for each car are arranged in the order in which I received them. So, without further ado, here they areā¦
@Madrias - Storm Taipan GTXR
The first car I tested was the Storm Taipan GTXR, a low and long front-engined coupe finished in a sumptuous dark red and boasting full carbon fiber construction. While the shape is mostly quite attractive, even with a biplane active rear wing attached, the frontal aspect has too many vents and intakes for my liking. Thereās a reason why Storm provided so much cooling capacity, though. Under the hood is an 8.2-liter 48-valve twin-turbo direct-injected V12 developing an insane 1,557 bhp and 1,097 ft-lb, distributed evenly across both axles thanks to the Taipanās AWD system. It can run on premium fuel, and yet despite its immense power and 9000-rpm redline remains very reliable, thanks to copious use of positive quality sliders across the board. However, while the 0.3 points of unused octane are a very minor problem, a bigger issue is the brutal power delivery, since the turbos donāt deliver full boost until 3900 rpm, at which point the torque curve scales a cliff face and the whole world goes into reverse very quickly. Would it be too much for me? I had to find out.
On to the rest of the car, and its drivetrain is very sophisticated, with a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox, and electronically controlled differentials. Yet even this is insufficient to stop the immense amount of wheelspin this car experiences from a standing start, despite tall gearing. Widening the gear spacing would have helped slightly, though. Another culprit is tire width, or in this case, the lack of it; with just 295 mm-wide rear tires there is simply not enough traction to handle >1500 bhp, even with AWD and a full suite of driving aids. More disturbingly, though, the vented disc brakes, with 6-piston calipers up front and single-piston calipers at the rear, develop slight fade after heavy use, although this is more a symptom of the total absence of brake cooling rather than a criticism of the braking system itself. And even with a sport interior, this car still weighs nearly two metric tons. Still, despite the premium infotainment system, I found myself seeking more comfort, since the wheels were an inch or two too large for my liking, and yet all that didnāt deter me from testing the Taipan on the road.
As I drove it on the road I could not detect a discernible amount of bottoming out, and was reassured by the fact that the suspension (which incorporated active anti-roll bars) had been set up to provide mild understeer. Yet I was forced to exercise restraint much more often than I liked, due to the on/off nature of the turbos after 3900 rpm. On the Automation Test Track, where there were no other motorists to deal with, this was much less of an issue, and I recorded a best time of 1:54.12 as well as a top speed of 253 mph and a 0-60 mph time of just 2.3 seconds. Even so, itās hard for me not to conclude that the Taipan actually has too much power, and too many vents, for its own good. In fact, itās enough for me to rule out the Taipan as my first supercar. Thatās a shame, especially since it costs $175,000 after markups.
@TR8R - FOA Lime
Compared to the excessively aggressive-looking Taipan, the oddly-named FOA Lime is actually a good-looking car ā more conventionally beautiful than the Taipan for sure, especially in its bright green color - with its cab-forward, mid-engined shape, and an assortment of well-placed fixtures that generally complement the carās shape very well (except for its very undersized rear wing). Unlike the Taipan, it is purely RWD, and its engine sits behind the driver. Speaking of engines, a 4-liter, 60-valve, normally aspirated V12 hides under the rear deck, and in addition to sounding like an F1 car from a quarter-century ago, it develops a mere 484 bhp at 8500 rpm on premium fuel, just 200 revs shy of the limiter ā the redline could have been extended to 9000 or even 10000 rpm without losing too much reliability, especially since a lot of quality points were used everywhere but the exhaust system. And yet, despite having less than a third of the previous carās power output, the Lime, with its lower curb weight of 1.376 metric tons, should easily make the most of its relatively small engine.
I assumed as much after finding out that, like the Taipan, the Lime had a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox (albeit one with somewhat tall gearing) and an electronic LSD, but before I drove it on the road, a quick look at the wheel and tire sizes soon left me quite deflated. The front and rear tires were just 185mm and 255mm wide, respectively, which meant that despite the minimal body roll, it understeered a lot more than I liked, and combined with the rear-biased brakes (3-piston calipers and 270mm vented discs up front, single-piston calipers and 310mm vented discs at the rear, with more aggressive brake pads on the latter), I was forced to conclude that the high drivability rating of 63.9 was deceptive, and not in a good way. The oversized 24-inch wheels did not help ride comfort either, but at least it had a handmade interior (albeit with no quality points) and luxury infotainment, complete with a heads-up-display.
Still, despite being burdened with luxury trimmings, the Lime managed a lap time of 2:04.75 around the Test Track, and thanks to its light weight could reach well over 225 mph, as well as a 0-60 mph time of 3.1 seconds. Yet even with sophisticated active suspension, no amount of tuning could compensate sufficiently for the overly narrow tires or the awkward brake setup to earn it a place in my shortlist. Overall, the Lime showed plenty of on-paper promise, and yet somehow managed to under-deliver, especially since it costs $179700, which is not much less than my budget allows.
@Matti - Schack GT780
This is the second front-engined car I drove that day, and it had a menacing appearance, with its long hood and cab-backward profile; however, I felt that the warm gray exterior color was too dull for a car as prestigious as this. The design of the rear fascia was on point, although the pop-up headlights were at odds with the rest of the carās styling. Also, this one was even heavier than the Storm, at well over two metric tons. Thatās because it had a mixture of steel and aluminum panels on a glued aluminum chassis ā if the body panels were all made of aluminum, performance and economy would both have been improved considerably, as I would soon find out.
The 6-liter 48-valve normally aspirated V12 under the Schackās hood promised much, yet turned out to be a disappointment in practice for a couple reasons. The combination of a very mild cam profile and extremely aggressive VVL profile meant that the power delivery didnāt really excite me until around 6000 rpm ā there simply wasnāt enough low-end torque. Also, the RPM limit of 10000 was actually too high for the engine internals, stout as they are, and so the reliability figure of 70.3 was just barely enough for it not to be disqualified. At least it developed 778 horsepower at 9200 rpm, but I was not sure if that alone would prevent the car from making the final cut.
Like the Storm, the Schack is all-wheel drive, although here the torque split is 40/60 front to rear. However, I was relieved to find out that the tires were more than wide enough to cope with the carās massive power output, while the carbon-ceramic brakes (6 pistons up front and 1 piston at the rear) were clearly more than adequate. The high-quality handmade interior is clearly among the best so far, and a lot of quality points seem to have gone into the luxury infotainment suite as well. Also, the active suspension struck a nice balance between oversteer and understeer, while the downforce undertray and active rear wing kept the car stable even at high speeds.
At the test track I recorded a best time of 2:04.17, and with a top speed of 211 mph the Schack is a very fast car indeed. Yet even though it cost just under $150,000 with markups, I was again disappointed, and not just because of the poor reliability. With partial, rather than full, aluminum panels, it was heavier and slower than I wanted it to be. In fact, there was just enough room in the budget for carbon-fiber panels to be used instead, which would have improved the performance and handling even more. In short, the Schack should have been a great grand tourer, but fell short in too many key areas for me to consider it.
Unlike the three cars I had driven so far today, the Scarlet X is much smaller, and, at 1.445 metric tons, is also quite light, thanks to all-aluminum construction. Every aspect of the exterior design, from the overall shape to the placement of the fittings, is top-notch, even in the test carās subdued silver color. And, like the Lime, it was purely rear-wheel drive. I was anxious to find out what lay beneath the hood of this vehicle.
I popped the hood and found a normally aspirated, 32-valve crossplane V8 engine, but this was no ordinary V8; it was very oversquare, with a displacement of just 3.8 liters. Yet, the cam timing was so aggressive that it cranked out 507 bhp at 9100 rpm ā an amazing achievement for such a small engine. The RPM limit of 9700 rpm was also extraordinarily high for an engine of this type. On top of that, the engine was immensely reliable, although it required 98 RON super unleaded, whereas everything Iād previously drove only needed 95 RON premium unleaded.
The Scarlet continues the trend of using a dual-clutch gearbox, although this one has six speeds instead of the usual seven. The lack of a seventh gear, combined with the narrow tires (225mm up front and 255mm at the rear) and short wheelbase all contribute to significant, though manageable wheelspin; quite frankly, this car would have performed better with a seven-speed tranny. I canāt find much wrong to say about the braking system, though, which develops no fade at all even after heavy use due to the large front rotors (350mm wide, to be exact). After all this, I was expecting the car not to be a letdown, but I would soon be proved wrong.
Stepping into the sporty interior of the Scarlet, I realized that its infotainment system was just a standard setup plucked from a family car ā lighter than more expensive systems for sure, but not comprehensive or advanced enough for my needs. Ignoring that drawback for a moment, I took it out onto the road and was horrified to hear the suspension bottom out even on the smoothest surfaces, despite the active setup. The narrow front tires didnāt help either, as the car had a clear tendency to understeer. I was clearly shaken after the drive to the test track, where I set a lap time of 2:09 exactly, but I reluctantly concluded that, even without bottoming-out issues, and despite a low purchase price of $107800, this car feels too much like a lightweight sports coupe or track car instead of a bona fide supercar for me to purchase it.
@szafirowy01 - Zavir Volante GT12
This is a very elegantly designed car, highly reminiscent of the Aston Martin One-77, particularly when finished in deep midnight blue. Itās constructed entirely out of carbon fiber, which keeps the weight down to just 1.6 metric tons. The only things that break up the otherwise smooth body profile are the hood scoop and biplane active rear wing. Unsurprisingly, I began to fall in love with this car, especially after I popped open the hood and found a 6.3-liter normally-aspirated V12 developing an astounding 832 bhp on super unleaded and with a 9000-rpm redline. However, like the Schack, the Volanteās engine also has a cam profile which is much milder than its VVL profile, resulting in a flat power delivery until 4000 rpm, at which point the car really starts to gather speed. Reliability is great, but it could have been higher if the conrods were made of titanium instead of forged steel. In all honesty, though, this engine feels like it could last forever, and sounds very good as well, almost enough to make me overlook the somewhat high fuel consumption caused by its 13.5:1 AFR.
The rest of the car doesnāt exactly live up to the high hopes set by the styling, though. The gear spacing on the seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox is too wide, and the rear brake pads are not aggressive enough for my tastes, resulting in some understeer. And although the Volante has a luxury interior, it hasnāt been given enough quality, which is all the more glaring considering the fact that, like the Scarlet, its infotainment system seems to have been taken directly from a mass-market car. In addition, the active suspension has too much negative camber up front and excess positive camber at the rear, which leads to excessive tire wear in the long term.
For the most part, though, the Volante handles very well on the road, and does not bottom out at all even on the roughest surfaces. And at the test track it recorded a best lap of 1:57.89, faster than anything Iād driven up to this point, except for the overpowered Taipan. However, at $155400, this car suffers from under-investment in far too many areas to prevent me from cutting this car sooner than I originally wanted. Itās a crying shame, considering its untapped potential.
This car reminds me of the Taipan, with its deep red paint and front-engined layout. However, whereas all the previous cars were hardtop coupes, this is the first convertible I have tested this round. The body and chassis setup is almost identical to the Schack, except the AGT has double wishbone suspension at each corner. Styling-wise, itās minimalistic ā too minimalistic, in fact, up front, where the deep trapezoidal grille clashes with the four slit-shaped headlights. Also, the large rear wing seems at odds with such a simple design, but overall, this car will have no trouble standing out from a crowd of mass-market machinery.
The engine compartment houses a 6-liter twin-turbo V12 developing 1000 (metric) horsepower, which seemed nice until I discovered that all of it went to the rear wheels ā I was skeptical about whether or not this would be too much for a front-engined car. Also the exhaust, at just 3.75 inches, was too restrictive ā an extra inch would have given them more usable power at the top end, where it matters most. The power delivery, however, is disturbingly abrupt ā like the Storm, the boost comes in too late, at 4700 rpm, and when it does the torque spike is so huge that it causes lots of wheelspin. The thick profile of the tire sidewalls doesnāt help either. At least there is no brake fade and no problems with engine reliability.
A quick glance inside its cabin revealed a sports interior without an infotainment system. It certainly wasnāt what I was looking for when I set out to buy a supercar, let alone a hypercar. And as with the Scarlet, the AGTās suspension bottomed out, although not to the same extent as the Erin. Still, I gritted my teeth just to drive this on the road, and after a brutally uncomfortable drive to the test track, I recorded a best time of 2:05.6. Nevertheless, there was just too much wrong with it for me to even consider buying it; not only was the fuel economy slightly less than what I had stipulated, but at $124500 I felt that not enough had been done to make it a viable hypercar, especially since it doesnāt even have any form of in-car entertainment at all.
Now to one of the more unusual offerings in this test. Resplendent in the brandās signature color of bright blue, the Coyote is a shooting brake instead of a traditional coupe, although considering the fact that I have another car for more mundane tasks, Iām not sure if the car needs that extra luggage space. It does, however, provide some uniqueness to the lineup of cars I was presented with, although the tiny roof spoiler and even smaller hood-mounted spoiler are at odds with the Coyoteās long-roofed shape. And unusually for a hypercar, it has fiberglass bodywork ā very light for sure, but also as cheap-feeling as the steel rims, whereas everything else Iāve tested has alloy or even carbon-fiber wheels.
The engine compartment hides a huge normally aspirated 48-valve V12, displacing 8.1 liters and delivering more power than the Soulji. It requires super unleaded, but once again I am dealing with an extremely mild cam profile combined with a highly aggressive VVL profile, which ensures that the power delivery takes until 4000 rpm to get going, although the 9200-rpm redline seemed to allay that fear. Yet this is also responsible for the somewhat low reliability figure of 75.3 ā even its CNC-milled components canāt quite handle that many revs - and the straight-through exhausts, despite their weight savings, are noisier than the reverse-flow units found on everything else Iād driven previously. Nevertheless, it definitely sounds like a naturally-aspirated V12 should.
As I step inside I am greeted with a premium interior and infotainment system, but both are of average quality, and thatās not the only problem. Although the suspension is set up to deliver lively handling, it uses cheap, simple components such as progressive steel springs and conventional monotube dampers; even though they are less maintenance-intensive than more complex designs, I would have preferred a more sophisticated setup. Moreover, the excessively long gear spacing hinders straight-line acceleration, which is a pity considering that the Coyote uses a six-speed manual transmission ā a rare sight in this day and age.
On the road, that gearbox made it more fun to drive than I expected it to be, and at 9.47 L/100km on the combined cycle, it was surprisingly economical for a 1000-horsepower shooting brake. Yet despite a best time of 1:59.98 at the test track, I am bitterly disappointed by the rampant cost-cutting this vehicle has suffered from ā at $105,800 itās obvious that more money could (and should) have been spent to make it appeal more to my tastes. Itās different, for sure, but certainly no better than the opposition.
This is only the second mid-engined supercar I have tested this round so far, and it clearly has a minimalist feel to its exterior design, with small but well-placed intakes and vents, combined with slim headlight and taillight clusters; the fixtures were also finished to a very high standard. It even has a glass roof section for improved visibility, although the dark silver exterior color seems a bit too sober for my tastes. Unusually, it has a traditional steel space frame underneath its carbon-fiber bodywork, but its pushrod-actuated suspension allows for the fitment of wider rear tires. I couldnāt help but wonder, though, if this car would have been any better if it had a carbon-fiber tub to match its composite panels, but Iāll get to that point later.
Opening the rear deck reveals an unusual engine for a supercar: a 3.5-liter twin-turbo V6 delivering just 438 horsepower to the rear wheels. Itās not the most prestigious engine, and this is certainly the least powerful car yet, but the turbo spools up relatively early, at just 3400 rpm. The wide power band and flat torque curve make this engine more flexible than I expected. However, the 8200-rpm redline puts the engineās forged steel conrods under some strain, reducing reliability slightly, but not to the point of causing too much concern. Itās not the most efficient or tuneful engine around either, but at least it only requires premium unleaded.
Like most of the cars I was presented with this round, the romantically-named Bambino uses a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission. The gearing is long, but not too long, and the moderately spaced gears suit this car very well. In addition, the tires are the same size at both axles, being 275mm-wide items wrapped around carbon-fiber wheels, although there is clearly room for wider rear tires and/or some rim offset. The brakes are two-piston carbon-ceramic discs (325mm at the front, 265mm at the rear), providing consistently good performance in all conditions with not even the slightest trace of fade.
The Bambinoās interior reeks of quality, incorporating a HUD-based infotainment system and well-engineered safety features. The suspension is just as sophisticated, since it incorporates an active setup. However, during the road drive it tended to oversteer a bit, although it didnāt render the car undrivable. Nevertheless, the lack of body roll, combined with smooth, comfortable ride reassured me on the drive to the test track, where I set a best lap of 2:08.46. Not the fastest, but surprisingly, despite a top speed of 203.66 mph, not the slowest either, as I would find out. Yet the fast-spooling turbo, combined with wide tires and relative lack of power, make the Bambinoās performance easily exploitable on road and track despite those oversteer issues.
Overall, the Bambino is a surprisingly appealing supercar, and one that, makes the most of its relatively low power output, as well as being a very comfortable daily driver. At $133,800, itās also well under budget. Interestingly, even if the Bambino had a carbon-fiber monocoque instead of a steel space frame, it would still have been under budget, but only just ā the carbon tub would have increased the Bambinoās price to $179,000. As it is, despite a few idiosyncrasies and a lack of power, this car, against all the odds, will still be on my shortlist at the very least ā I am definitely considering buying one of these. Who wouldāve thought it?
This is another mid-engined supercar, and unlike the last two such cars here, it looks like a GT1 racer from the mid-late ā90s, long tail and all, which is nice. The front is adorned with three pairs of dive planes and a full-width rear wing is provided. In addition, the shape and placement of the vents and air intakes make it look and feel even more like a racer, especially since itās painted in a blindingly bright pearlescent white. At any rate, this vehicle promises a lot with its racy looks, but I am not sure if it will live up to my high expectations.
Lifting the rear clamshell reveals a 6.0-liter normally-aspirated V12 developing 770 horsepower at 8600 rpm thanks to an extremely aggressive VVL profile, although the mild cam profile creates a mild torque hole between 3500 and 5000 rpm. Itās a highly oversquare engine, which explains the high redline. It even runs on premium fuel, although the 13.6:1 AFR reduces efficiency somewhat. Still, itās not only reliable, but very operatic, and certainly an antidote to the prevalence of the small-displacement four- and six-cylinder turbo engines that dominate todayās automotive landscape.
Although the GT1760 is yet another of those cars which uses a dual-clutch gearbox, this one doesnāt have the excessively long gearing or unnecessarily wide gear spacing found in some of the other cars I tested. And like the Ventnor, it also has carbon-fiber wheels, albeit some rather small ones at just 18 inches across. Bizarrely, though, it uses low-rolling-resistance tires, and they clearly donāt suit the car ā a set of high-performance tires would have been much more appropriate considering the immense power output. Moreover, although it had 3-piston carbon-ceramic brakes at each corner, the front brakes were actually smaller than the ones at the rear, limiting stability under braking.
Most worryingly of all, the active suspension not only bottomed out at times, but also was improperly configured, with positive front camber and very high negative rear camber, leading to tricky handling characteristics and rapid tire wear, although at least the car had a full luxury interior and infotainment suite, which shouldāve been enough to keep the occupants comfortable if the suspension didnāt bottom out at all. However, the lack of tire grip, combined with the challenging handling, made setting a lap time almost as taxing as the drive to the track, and yet it did no better than a 2:05.4 from a standing start. Not even the top speed of 223 mph or the 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds could compensate for this carās shortcomings, especially at $177600, and the high fuel consumption of 12.62 L/100 km did not help either. So unfortunately I have to pass up this car, and move on to the next one.
I must admit that the Lightning is one of the best-looking hypercars I have ever seen. It certainly reminds me of an Acura NSX (the hybrid one) from the front, but otherwise it more closely resembles a McLaren P1, especially in its bright orange exterior paint. Unusually, though, its engine is mounted transversely, and drives all four wheels instead of just the rears. In fact, AWD wouldnāt be possible if the engine were mounted longitudinally. However, the Lightning SM V8 is built like a hypercar should ā pushrod-actuated suspension at each corner and with full carbon-fiber construction of the highest quality, although the fixtures seem to have been assembled and installed on the cheap by comparison. Thatās not enough of a concern to worry me, though, since I have other things to complain about, but Iāll get to that later.
Lurking within the engine bay is a 5.5-liter twin-turbocharged flat-crank V8 delivering nearly 1000 horsepower, yet the turbo doesnāt start spooling until after 3500 rpm and the full 1.1 bar of boost doesnāt arrive for another 1400 rpm. Combined with the 8300-rpm redline, this results in a narrow power band and some reliability issues with the internals. With a 13.5:1 AFR itās not the most economical engine either, but at least it sounds unlike any other engine Iāve heard so far in this test. And what about the rest of the car?
Well, for starters, the Lightning is AWD, with a torque split of 25/75 front-to-rear. However, this distribution, when combined with the closely-spaced gears, produces considerable wheelspin, even with extremely wide tires (325mm up front and 375mm at the rear). The Lightning also has carbon-ceramic brakes, but like the previous car, the front discs are smaller than the rears. Oddly, it has a flat floor instead of a downforce undertray, and this leads to considerable lift at high speeds. Even more incongruously, the premium interior is of average quality, while the infotainment system, much like the one in the Erin, is too simple and downmarket for my tastes.
A quick glance at the active suspension reveals that it has been configured for track work, with stiff anti-roll bars and large amounts of negative camber at both ends, leading to a rock-hard ride. This, combined with the narrow powerband, made me think twice about unleashing its full performance potential on the road. The test track was a different story: the Lightning set a best time of 1:55.37, which is the fastest one so far, and combined with the top speed of well over 250 mph and a 0-60 time of 2.3 seconds, itās an astounding performance package. Nevertheless, despite its striking performance and styling, this car just barely makes it onto my shortlist, especially since it costs $174,500. Itās clearly a device for setting the fastest possible lap times on any track, but the stiff ride makes it feel compromised on the road, though not to the point that it has lost too much daily usability. As such, I might actually want to come back to this car later.
