From the February 2013 issue of Car and Driver

The asphalt amoeba down at the ­bottom of Old Dominion, known as Virginia International Raceway (VIR), differs from the famed Nürburgring in Germany in several important respects. First, VIR is not bankrupt. Second, at 4.1 miles long, the configuration of VIR that we use for our annual Lightning Lap speed-a-palooza is considerably shorter than the Nordschleife, which is 12.9 miles around and has something like 18 trillion turns. Also, at the 'Ring you can't get Mountain Dew from a vending machine. No wonder business is bad.



Otherwise, VIR is North America's best facsimile of the famously formidable German speedway, which is why we come here to risk life, livelihoods, reputations, and other things breakable and precious to set benchmark lap times for the slickest new sheetmetal we can lay our greasy digits on. In this, our seventh Lightning Lap, we have gathered 20 vehicles ranging in price from a $26,600 Fiat 500 Abarth to a $379,575 Lexus LFA—indeed, the third LFA ever built and the first to reach North America. That means our Lightning Lap master database now encompasses 136 vehicles with not a sour apple in the bushel.



The event is simple in that finishing order is ranked purely on the best lap time for each vehicle over three days of testing. However, as in years past, the cars are grouped into classes based on price, which makes economic comparisons easier.



This year, while we had no entrants in LLT (trucks and SUVs) or LLU (unclassified), we added another special class. The source of its name, LLOINK, becomes groaningly obvious when you see the two contenders: the new Dodge Charger Pursuit and the new Chevrolet Caprice Police Patrol Vehicle (PPV). Attention, all esteemed law-enforcement professionals: We, the rest of the staff, were not allowed to vote on the class name, which is at least ­better than LL THE PO-PO TOOK ALL MY WEED AND SMOKED IT, which was one suggested alternative.







Each morning we reset the tire pressures to the cold-inflation recommendations on the doorjamb stickers and topped off the fuel tanks. We recorded parameters such as ­vehicle speed, lateral g, and sector and overall times using a windshield-mounted, GPS-based Racelogic VBOX. Editors were assigned various cars, and at least two editors drove each car. It was left up to the individual how to extract the best time, but it usually involved running alternate cold and hot laps to keep the tire and brake temperatures in check, though some cars, such as the bawling Ferrari 458 Italia, were able to run multiple hot laps with no diminution in performance.



This year's competition was thick with big-bore cars. No fewer than 12 entries sported various iterations of the tried-and-true V-8. Head-to-head matchups included the Camaro ZL1 against the Shelby GT500, the BMW M5 versus the Audi S6, the ­Charger and Caprice coppers, and the ­Ferrari 458 and the Lexus LFA, two cars that ostensibly don't compete unless the Ferrari factory has, as in this case, piled on almost $100,000 in options. Bottle rockets such as the Abarth, the Subaru BRZ, and the Ford Focus ST breathed lots of life into the bottom price class.



We had to dodge some rain, but the sun returned and with our Arai buckets still reeking of that fresh, new-helmet smell, we motored down pit road in the service of ­science and the generation of pretty graphs. Some days, it just doesn't seem like work.



LLOINK (Cop Cars)

Chevrolet Caprice PPV – LLOINK, 3:32.0

There are definitely echelons of need in law enforcement. At the top is the highway patrol, which gets hot cars for hot situations. The Caprice strikes us as being more for the fine men and women who do other important police work, such as meter-reading and patrolling airport perimeters.



Less powerful than the Charger, the Caprice isn't much lighter, so its time around the track is about five seconds longer. Attribute part of that gap to a stability-control system that can't be fully deactivated. Lapping becomes an exercise in pushing right to the threshold where the anti-disaster computer wakes up. Once you cross over, the Caprice all but parks itself and the lap is blown. Thus, the times are hemmed in by electronics.



The Chevy isn't slow. In some sections, such as the hairy, off-camber downhill left after the esses, a predictable chassis kept the Caprice's four paws firmly planted, and its speed through the corner was the same as or better than the Charger's. But in the slower corners, such as the infield horseshoe, the stability control refused to butt out and the squirmier tires fought savagely but sometimes unsuccessfully for grip. While the transmission lacks the Charger's intuitive programming, its sport setting does hold the gears longer. The Caprice makes a fine if somewhat cozy cop car, but if your perp has just jacked a BMW or, indeed, a Charger, then you might want to call in the helicopter.



Dodge Charger Pursuit – LLOINK, 3:17.8

Attention, all you highway Ben Hurs: If you're thinking of running, forget it. Any cop in this baby will stay glued to your six o'clock. Good enough for government work? Frankly, a little too good. We're concerned.



At 4417 pounds, this lawman was the second heaviest car at Lightning Lap but not the slowest. The 370-hp Hemi has a lot to do with that, as does a surprisingly capable and predictable chassis. It rolls, but not too much. It understeers, but not if you're ­brazen with the pedals. Cycle the throttle and the brake, and it'll tuck in and turn itself sharply, something Hazzard County's Dodges never did. Nail the gas, and it'll power oversteer with easy control. A cop who knows how to drive this thing could run down and arrest a grid of Spec Miatas.



The column-shift automatic has a toggle switch for manual control, but it's useless in a pursuit since you have to station one hand well off the wheel. Not a problem, because the five-speed's electronic brain learns your mood quickly and starts holding lower gears and downshifting under braking, so the V-8 is always loaded and cocked for exit.



Running a 3:17.8 lap, the Pursuit couldn't touch the full-zoot Charger SRT8 we tested last year (3:10), but you wouldn't expect it to. Of course, we ran our laps with the siren and the light bars going. Who wouldn't? Unburden the alternator and you might get a better time. And the best thing about tracking a cop car is that you can go bashing over all the curbs with stupid abandon and not worry about anything. It's got cop tires, cop ­suspension, cop shocks . . .

Less powerful than the Charger, the Caprice isn't much lighter, so its time around the track is about five seconds longer. Attribute part of that gap to a stability-control system that can't be fully deactivated. Lapping becomes an exercise in pushing right to the threshold where the anti-disaster computer wakes up. Once you cross over, the Caprice all but parks itself and the lap is blown. Thus, the times are hemmed in by electronics.The Chevy isn't slow. In some sections, such as the hairy, off-camber downhill left after the esses, a predictable chassis kept the Caprice's four paws firmly planted, and its speed through the corner was the same as or better than the Charger's. But in the slower corners, such as the infield horseshoe, the stability control refused to butt out and the squirmier tires fought savagely but sometimes unsuccessfully for grip. While the transmission lacks the Charger's intuitive programming, its sport setting does hold the gears longer. The Caprice makes a fine if somewhat cozy cop car, but if your perp has just jacked a BMW or, indeed, a Charger, then you might want to call in the helicopter.Attention, all you highway Ben Hurs: If you're thinking of running, forget it. Any cop in this baby will stay glued to your six o'clock. Good enough for government work? Frankly, a little too good. We're concerned.At 4417 pounds, this lawman was the second heaviest car at Lightning Lap but not the slowest. The 370-hp Hemi has a lot to do with that, as does a surprisingly capable and predictable chassis. It rolls, but not too much. It understeers, but not if you're ­brazen with the pedals. Cycle the throttle and the brake, and it'll tuck in and turn itself sharply, something Hazzard County's Dodges never did. Nail the gas, and it'll power oversteer with easy control. A cop who knows how to drive this thing could run down and arrest a grid of Spec Miatas.The column-shift automatic has a toggle switch for manual control, but it's useless in a pursuit since you have to station one hand well off the wheel. Not a problem, because the five-speed's electronic brain learns your mood quickly and starts holding lower gears and downshifting under braking, so the V-8 is always loaded and cocked for exit.Running a 3:17.8 lap, the Pursuit couldn't touch the full-zoot Charger SRT8 we tested last year (3:10), but you wouldn't expect it to. Of course, we ran our laps with the siren and the light bars going. Who wouldn't? Unburden the alternator and you might get a better time. And the best thing about tracking a cop car is that you can go bashing over all the curbs with stupid abandon and not worry about anything. It's got cop tires, cop ­suspension, cop shocks . . .

LL1 (Up to $29,999)

Fiat 500 Abarth – LL1, 3:27.3

With the Fiat 500 Abarth having the least amount of horsepower in this year's event and a last-place 16.0-pounds-per-horsepower ratio, we didn't expect miracles from it. But we did expect something fun, based on the growl of the 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder. Observers in the paddock mistook the sound for an approaching V-8 until the diminutive Italian trundled past the start/finish line on the way to a 110-mph peak speed (the lowest in the test by 6.6 mph). It's a case of more sound than fury, though, as the Abarth landed in the bottom two spots for all but one sector and predictably ended up with the slowest time of this year's test.

The hopped-up 500's size and relatively light weight make it easy to place on the track, but, under braking, major corrections from the oversized steering wheel are needed to keep it on-track. And the short wheelbase and uneven brake balance contribute to Weeble-wobble braking behavior. A high driving position—with pedals that are too close and a steering wheel that is too far—emphasizes the tippy feeling.



Relatively low speeds keep the barking Abarth from biting or being at all intimidating at its cornering limits. Through the uphill esses of sector two, the Fiat posted an entry speed lower than its average speed, which indicates that the throttle stayed pinned through the entire uphill section, something that only happens if you're not feeling threatened. Without the perils of speed, power, or grip, the driver is free to concentrate on precisely following the ­racing line, a task that the Abarth tackles with surprising ease, at least when it's not dancing around under braking.



Like most LL1 cars, the Fiat is best at street performance. Even with its shortcomings clearly exposed by VIR, its sound and a lemme-at-'em attitude put smiles on our faces.



Ford Focus ST – LL1, 3:21.4

This car should be quicker. What held back the Focus ST, ultimately, was not any performance or design limitation, but a keyless ignition system that allowed one of us to drive off with the key left on the roof. The fob fell off and ended its life in several small pieces, so the ST missed the second day of lapping when we often log the quickest times. The perpetrator has been consigned to a '92 Taurus with a broken driver's doorhandle until we deem otherwise. This car should be quicker. What held back the Focus ST, ultimately, was not any performance or design limitation, but a keyless ignition system that allowed one of us to drive off with the key left on the roof. The fob fell off and ended its life in several small pieces, so the ST missed the second day of lapping when we often log the quickest times. The perpetrator has been consigned to a '92 Taurus with a broken driver's doorhandle until we deem otherwise.

We did divine during our limited exposure that the Focus ST is a blast. Steering, at 1.8 turns lock-to-lock, is lightning (lap)-quick, but the chassis responds even faster than a thunderclap. It's so neutral that you can attack corners almost as you would in a rear-drive car. It allows you to apply post-apex throttle so much earlier than in other front-drivers that it feels as if the ST were tuned specifically for our impatience.



Even so, the Focus surprised us with its lack of pace in the early rounds. Two shortcomings stand out. First, the brake-based limited-slip differential doesn't hold up to track abuse. On numerous corners, the ST would spin its inside front wheel, signifying time being lost due to the power bleeding off in wheelspin. A traditional, purely mechanical limited-slip might work better. Second, the ST's maximum torque of 252 pound-feet is due in part to a temporary overboost function that lasts a maximum of 20 seconds. Over the course of a 201.4-second lap, the Focus spends most of its time with lower midrange power that results in slower acceleration than its peak output ratings suggest. Taken all together, we believe the ST's ultimate potential is at least a few seconds quicker. Maybe next year. The hopped-up 500's size and relatively light weight make it easy to place on the track, but, under braking, major corrections from the oversized steering wheel are needed to keep it on-track. And the short wheelbase and uneven brake balance contribute to Weeble-wobble braking behavior. A high driving position—with pedals that are too close and a steering wheel that is too far—emphasizes the tippy feeling.Relatively low speeds keep the barking Abarth from biting or being at all intimidating at its cornering limits. Through the uphill esses of sector two, the Fiat posted an entry speed lower than its average speed, which indicates that the throttle stayed pinned through the entire uphill section, something that only happens if you're not feeling threatened. Without the perils of speed, power, or grip, the driver is free to concentrate on precisely following the ­racing line, a task that the Abarth tackles with surprising ease, at least when it's not dancing around under braking.Like most LL1 cars, the Fiat is best at street performance. Even with its shortcomings clearly exposed by VIR, its sound and a lemme-at-'em attitude put smiles on our faces.We did divine during our limited exposure that the Focus ST is a blast. Steering, at 1.8 turns lock-to-lock, is lightning (lap)-quick, but the chassis responds even faster than a thunderclap. It's so neutral that you can attack corners almost as you would in a rear-drive car. It allows you to apply post-apex throttle so much earlier than in other front-drivers that it feels as if the ST were tuned specifically for our impatience.Even so, the Focus surprised us with its lack of pace in the early rounds. Two shortcomings stand out. First, the brake-based limited-slip differential doesn't hold up to track abuse. On numerous corners, the ST would spin its inside front wheel, signifying time being lost due to the power bleeding off in wheelspin. A traditional, purely mechanical limited-slip might work better. Second, the ST's maximum torque of 252 pound-feet is due in part to a temporary overboost function that lasts a maximum of 20 seconds. Over the course of a 201.4-second lap, the Focus spends most of its time with lower midrange power that results in slower acceleration than its peak output ratings suggest. Taken all together, we believe the ST's ultimate potential is at least a few seconds quicker. Maybe next year.

Subaru BRZ – LL1, 3:18.6

There is one thing the BRZ lacks. It's not power, though it wouldn't hurt to have more. It's not grip, though we wouldn't turn down stickier tires. It's brakes. We could barely crack off a single flying lap before the middle pedal had all the firmness of a goose-down pillow. Otherwise, though, the BRZ jukes like a vehicular Adrian Peterson. ­Evidence of the killer chassis can be found in the climbing esses (sector two), where the Subaru, shod with narrower, lower-perform­ance tires, beat the more powerful



The BRZ forces you to take the proper line exiting the infield in sector four, or its neutral handling may dissolve into oversteer. But the Subaru is predictable, even lenient, when driven less than perfectly. It's the kind of car that gently instructs you, that tells you when things are right and gets slowly loose where you have it wrong. A perfect driving position is a bonus. The BRZ reminds us of the





Hyundai Genesis 3.8 R-Spec – LL1, 3:13.9 There are few problems that horsepower cannot solve, but the Genesis 3.8 R-Spec is one of them. Despite an additional 42 horsepower, the revised Genesis gains no time over its previous version. The engine itself is excellent, with plenty of power throughout the rev range, but it's more than this chassis can handle. Power oversteer is just a toe-squeeze away, a fact that leaves drivers fighting to keep the Hyundai on the pavement. Where the BRZ is pleasantly neutral and easily driftable, the Genesis never feels settled and struggles to go where it's aimed, so a tidy lap is difficult to achieve. Flat through the climbing esses? Not in this baby.

The Hyundai's R-Spec trim, with a firmer suspension, 19-inch wheels and tires, and larger brakes (Brembos all around), suggests track-readiness. Our experience says otherwise. As with the chassis, the rest of the Genesis feels disjointed and unprepared for lapping. The brakes began to give up halfway through the first lap of a session. And an inexplicable power sag happened after stabbing at the numb shift lever and releasing the clutch on upshifts. The most fun we had in the Genesis this year was not from driving it, but in watching the face of a frantic corner worker as he rushed to remove from the rear bumper a melted microphone lit on fire by the Hyundai's exhaust. The Genesis 3.8 R-Spec was the fastest car in this year's LL1 group, but it was far from the favorite. LL2 ($30,000–$59,999)





There is one thing the BRZ lacks. It's not power, though it wouldn't hurt to have more. It's not grip, though we wouldn't turn down stickier tires. It's brakes. We could barely crack off a single flying lap before the middle pedal had all the firmness of a goose-down pillow. Otherwise, though, the BRZ jukes like a vehicular Adrian Peterson. ­Evidence of the killer chassis can be found in the climbing esses (sector two), where the Subaru, shod with narrower, lower-perform­ance tires, beat the more powerful Hyundai Genesis R-Spec by half a second.The BRZ forces you to take the proper line exiting the infield in sector four, or its neutral handling may dissolve into oversteer. But the Subaru is predictable, even lenient, when driven less than perfectly. It's the kind of car that gently instructs you, that tells you when things are right and gets slowly loose where you have it wrong. A perfect driving position is a bonus. The BRZ reminds us of the Mazda Miata in the way it responds intuitively to the driver's whim, but the BRZ feels more directly connected to our brains and is faster around the track. We wish the BRZ had its own spec series. That is, as long as the brakes could be upgraded.The Hyundai's R-Spec trim, with a firmer suspension, 19-inch wheels and tires, and larger brakes (Brembos all around), suggests track-readiness. Our experience says otherwise. As with the chassis, the rest of the Genesis feels disjointed and unprepared for lapping. The brakes began to give up halfway through the first lap of a session. And an inexplicable power sag happened after stabbing at the numb shift lever and releasing the clutch on upshifts. The most fun we had in the Genesis this year was not from driving it, but in watching the face of a frantic corner worker as he rushed to remove from the rear bumper a melted microphone lit on fire by the Hyundai's exhaust. The Genesis 3.8 R-Spec was the fastest car in this year's LL1 group, but it was far from the favorite.

BMW 335i – LL2, 3:13.2 Putting this bone-stock lawyer's taxi on the track reminds us why a BMW 3-series continues to warm our cockles, whatever cockles are. Compact and crouched on a wide stance, the 3's balance is sublime and the power is exquisitely matched to the chassis and delivered in one swift, linear rush. From the throttle to the brake to the steering wheel, the controls are so fine-tuned and piano-wire tight that it's easy to take this car right to its limit and hold it there for an enthralling hot lap.



Consistency is the 3-series story at VIR, its best daily lap times varying by less than a second over three sessions. And the new F30 generation's overall best, 3:13.2, is 0.6 second slower than



The 3-series is such a steady runner because you simply don't throw laps in this car. You don't blow turn-in points because you can't properly modulate the brakes. You don't overshoot apexes or track out too wide because the chassis hides the shudders of tires pushed past their limit. You don't lose the tail at the exit because the tail simply refuses to get lost. You know exactly when the 3-series is giving you its all, which is saying a lot in an era of increasing electrification and insularity.



The 335i, here with a fast-shifting paddle-controlled automatic, makes a strong claim for being all the sedan you'll ever need. You can always spend more money for more elbowroom, or to go a bit faster, but it's difficult to find more driving pleasure at any price.



Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE – LL2, 3:01.5 Without a complete redesign, Chevrolet couldn't change the fact that the Camaro is huge, heavy, and struck blind by its poor outward visibility. But Chevy could change the chassis, and—fortunately—it did. Some serious suspension magic (option code 1LE) has transformed the



Much of the credit goes to the 285/35R-20 rubber at all four corners that replaces the narrower, staggered setup of the base SS. Wider front tires provide instant bite that corresponds perfectly with the slightest turn of the quick (2.5 turns lock-to-lock) steering. Thanks to a revised shock, spring, and anti-roll-bar tune, the old SS's slightly soggy initial compliance is gone. In its place is tighter, but more graceful, body and wheel control.



The car gained a full second over the regular SS in the uphill esses of sector two, where confidence and grip led to an entry speed of 126.1 mph. Still more impressive is the 1LE's 115.8-mph average speed through the sector, a number that nearly matches the SS's peak sector speed of 116.2 mph. Very fast fact: The 1LE was only a tenth of a ­second slower than the Ferrari 458 through the uphill esses.



Other changes include a shorter final drive (to 3.91:1 from 3.45:1) and tighter spacing between the first three gears. The result is an energized Camaro that flies out of ­corners. A shorter shifter shared with the ZL1 snicks into gear with conviction.



Almost nothing upsets this chassis, though we did manage to waste a second or so with a poorly timed three-two downshift at the end of sector three, causing a bit of predictable oversteer on hot, well-worn tires. Remove that one regrettable slip-up and add a fresh set of Goodyears, and you have a sub-three-minute car for the low, low price of $37,930.



Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 – LL2, 2:57.5

Is the Camaro ZL1 a more powerful SS 1LE? Or is the 1LE a slower ZL1? We pondered that philosophical matter while pounding both Camaros at VIR. We still don't know the answer, but we do know that the ZL1 provides the same spectacular ­stability, predictability, and control of the 1LE, it's just that the experience is sped up.



To handle the extra power, Chevy gives the ZL1 more rubber in back than the 1LE. Wider 305/35R-20 rear tires help the ZL1 put its extra 154 horsepower to the ground,



A look at the sector times reveals that the ZL1's power advantage allows it to exit corners at higher speeds than the 1LE. We did notice that the ZL1 was slower than the 1LE through the uphill esses despite posting significantly higher entry and exit speeds. To explain, the ZL1 enters the esses at more than 130 mph and requires a brief whiff of braking before the second transition. Confession: We probably held the brakes a bit too long on our hot lap.



The ZL1 weighs 236 pounds more than the 1LE, and more mass and velocity mean that the ZL1's chassis and, consequently, the driver have to deal with greater forces. But, thanks to its resolute stability, those forces are easily controlled in this hottest Camaro. Putting this bone-stock lawyer's taxi on the track reminds us why a BMW 3-series continues to warm our cockles, whatever cockles are. Compact and crouched on a wide stance, the 3's balance is sublime and the power is exquisitely matched to the chassis and delivered in one swift, linear rush. From the throttle to the brake to the steering wheel, the controls are so fine-tuned and piano-wire tight that it's easy to take this car right to its limit and hold it there for an enthralling hot lap.Consistency is the 3-series story at VIR, its best daily lap times varying by less than a second over three sessions. And the new F30 generation's overall best, 3:13.2, is 0.6 second slower than our best in an E90-generation 335is coupe last year , which makes sense considering they are very similar cars. Both are powered by turbocharged inline sixes though the single-turbo F30 has 300 horses versus the twin-turbo 335is's 320. The F30's curb weight is only five pounds lighter.The 3-series is such a steady runner because you simply don't throw laps in this car. You don't blow turn-in points because you can't properly modulate the brakes. You don't overshoot apexes or track out too wide because the chassis hides the shudders of tires pushed past their limit. You don't lose the tail at the exit because the tail simply refuses to get lost. You know exactly when the 3-series is giving you its all, which is saying a lot in an era of increasing electrification and insularity.The 335i, here with a fast-shifting paddle-controlled automatic, makes a strong claim for being all the sedan you'll ever need. You can always spend more money for more elbowroom, or to go a bit faster, but it's difficult to find more driving pleasure at any price.Without a complete redesign, Chevrolet couldn't change the fact that the Camaro is huge, heavy, and struck blind by its poor outward visibility. But Chevy could change the chassis, and—fortunately—it did. Some serious suspension magic (option code 1LE) has transformed the Camaro SS into a track delight.Much of the credit goes to the 285/35R-20 rubber at all four corners that replaces the narrower, staggered setup of the base SS. Wider front tires provide instant bite that corresponds perfectly with the slightest turn of the quick (2.5 turns lock-to-lock) steering. Thanks to a revised shock, spring, and anti-roll-bar tune, the old SS's slightly soggy initial compliance is gone. In its place is tighter, but more graceful, body and wheel control.The car gained a full second over the regular SS in the uphill esses of sector two, where confidence and grip led to an entry speed of 126.1 mph. Still more impressive is the 1LE's 115.8-mph average speed through the sector, a number that nearly matches the SS's peak sector speed of 116.2 mph. Very fast fact: The 1LE was only a tenth of a ­second slower than the Ferrari 458 through the uphill esses.Other changes include a shorter final drive (to 3.91:1 from 3.45:1) and tighter spacing between the first three gears. The result is an energized Camaro that flies out of ­corners. A shorter shifter shared with the ZL1 snicks into gear with conviction.Almost nothing upsets this chassis, though we did manage to waste a second or so with a poorly timed three-two downshift at the end of sector three, causing a bit of predictable oversteer on hot, well-worn tires. Remove that one regrettable slip-up and add a fresh set of Goodyears, and you have a sub-three-minute car for the low, low price of $37,930.Is the Camaro ZL1 a more powerful SS 1LE? Or is the 1LE a slower ZL1? We pondered that philosophical matter while pounding both Camaros at VIR. We still don't know the answer, but we do know that the ZL1 provides the same spectacular ­stability, predictability, and control of the 1LE, it's just that the experience is sped up.To handle the extra power, Chevy gives the ZL1 more rubber in back than the 1LE. Wider 305/35R-20 rear tires help the ZL1 put its extra 154 horsepower to the ground, giving it a distinct advantage over the even more powerful Ford Shelby GT500 , which has narrower tires. Also, unlike the GT500, the ZL1's directional stability isn't disrupted by full use of the powertrain's thrust.A look at the sector times reveals that the ZL1's power advantage allows it to exit corners at higher speeds than the 1LE. We did notice that the ZL1 was slower than the 1LE through the uphill esses despite posting significantly higher entry and exit speeds. To explain, the ZL1 enters the esses at more than 130 mph and requires a brief whiff of braking before the second transition. Confession: We probably held the brakes a bit too long on our hot lap.The ZL1 weighs 236 pounds more than the 1LE, and more mass and velocity mean that the ZL1's chassis and, consequently, the driver have to deal with greater forces. But, thanks to its resolute stability, those forces are easily controlled in this hottest Camaro.

LL3 ($60,000–$119,999)

Audi S6 – LL3, 3:09.8

Here is cruel proof of what a track can do to an otherwise estimable sports sedan. Fresh out of the box, Here is cruel proof of what a track can do to an otherwise estimable sports sedan. Fresh out of the box, the new S6 bested the Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG and the BMW M5 in a comparison test . Then we sent this example, as white as coconut meat and freshly shod with new tires, out on VIR's evil asphalt. The result was a wince-inducing horror show of understeer and lap times that didn't come close to the M5's.

Because all-wheel-drivers tend to understeer, a certain iron fist is often required to hustle them around a track. It's best to storm up to a corner, hit the brakes hard, jump off the brakes abruptly to tease the car into rotating, and then stomp on the gas in the hope it'll provoke the rear axle to do something useful. But the Audi, even fitted with a torque-vectoring rear differential, proved immune to our cattle prodding. We also tried to be gentle, but the S6 just wouldn't bite. It took achingly long to get through the slower turns as the front tires squealed their arias of woe. And at 4369 pounds, the S6 could only make it to 136 mph on the straight.



Once straightened out, the twin-turbo V-8 quickly boiled up its steam and the S6 left a thrilling, big-bore sound in its wake. The dual-clutch transmission makes up in lightning shifts and downshifting throttle blips what the rest of the chassis lacks in track aptitude. In our estimation, however, the Audi leaves the event as it entered—as the market's best big, fast, luxury car—even if it's a machine that can't be what it wasn't intended to be.



BMW M5 – LL3, 3:05.2

If there is a hero in the M5's 3:05.2 lap, it's the twin-turbo 4.4-liter V-8. It's a war horse that pulls the wagon and refuses to yield under fire.



But braking, as most racers know, is often what puts a car on pole. The M5's brake pedal lacks tactility, so we struggled to find the ideal braking points. One lap would feel great. Then, on the next, we would be braking way too late, and then on the third lap, the anchors somehow revived again. The brakes never failed, but their inconsistent performance shook our confidence.



Whether the M5 is braking or turning, this car weighs 4425 pounds. There is only so much you can ask of its Michelin Pilot Super Sports—maybe a few laps of good grip, but then the rubber greases up and the understeer sets in fully.The thick-rimmed steering wheel is a track rat's dream. The large diameter and the squishy rim reduce grip fatigue. However, the good marks stop there. Little is communicated up the column from the contact patches and the weighting seems pointlessly hefty, especially in the sportiest of the three settings.



Not one single sector highlighted any particular M5 strength. All its skills were just so-so, both by the clock and by the seat of our pants. The engine is ultimately what drives the lap time down below the



BMW M6 – LL3, 3:04.7

The M division's big twins couldn't be more similar. There were moments when we struggled to recall which car we had just vacated. "Was it the M5 or the M6?" We'll make sure to remember that the M6 is the quickest BMW in Lightning Lap history, within a mere 0.5 second of the Cadillac CTS-V coupe.



As with the M5, understeer and a general lack of feedback from the braking and steering systems soured our confidence and the M6's lap time suffered. The BMW's back end moves around under braking, and, even with the M6's $10,000 carbon-ceramic brakes ($8700 for the hardware plus $1300 for the required 20-inch wheels), slowing down two tons of German sports coupe requires faith in the engineering.



Because it's so big and heavy, the M6, which tops out at 142 mph, feels every bit as fast as the 158-mph Ferrari while hauling the mail down the straightaway. However, the bulkiness sensed from behind the wheel, thanks to the high, broad dash and long hood, also makes it difficult to place the M6 exactly on the apex.



As in the M5, the engine is the real story here. The car will get away from you if you don't keep close tabs on the speed, as one adventurous and, fortunately, damage-free 115-mph off-track event taught us. With a ­little attention to the brakes and steering systems, BMW's M GmbH could transform a fantastic touring car into a truly satisfying track animal.



Audi RS5 – LL3, 3:04.3

Of all the sub-3:10 cars we've subjected to VIR, nothing has felt as slow as the RS5. Maybe it's the high-revving and peaky 4.2-liter V-8, which doesn't press you into your seat like the twin-turbo V-8 in the BMW M5 and M6.



Not that a 3:04.3 lap is slow by any stretch. But Turn One exposes the RS5's major weakness: understeer. With 57.7 percent of the RS5's 4053 pounds on the front axle, we could see it coming.



The RS5 doesn't shine until the second half of the track, after the back straight. It matches both Camaros and the Boxster S in sector three, through the downhill corkscrew; in sector four, though, where the flowing uphill combinations seem purpose-built for this car, the RS5 actually proved slower than the Chevy V-8s. Even so, it felt better on these fast, open corners than it did in sector three, where the tight radii summon Mr. Plow. The RS5 becomes fun on the wider turns, where managing speed with full- or part-throttle loads the rear and alleviates some stress on the front tires. It allows the RS5's torque-vectoring differential to do its thing, helping the car rotate. Carrying a lot of speed, at least 65 mph, through the last corner aids a major Audi-on-Audi victory by crossing the line 0.3 second before



Porsche Boxster S – LL3, 3:04.2

Porsche has completely transformed the on-track demeanor of its



Down five horses to the Spyder and weighing 154 pounds more, the S is such a close match to the old Spyder because, despite the S's liveable ride, it is nearly as sharp. The Boxster's platform sports a ­significantly wider front track and a slightly wider rear track. The front grip is tenacious. Shockingly, for a car with stability control that can be fully disabled, and in a country where drivers can't discern between the brake and the accelerator, the handling ­balance is tilted slightly toward oversteer. Like a racer, the Boxster's rear end is especially susceptible to load transfer. Brake too deeply, and the rear tires slide wide. Lift gently to reduce understeer, and the tail swings. Keeping oversteer at bay requires a consistent and gentle throttle, especially when the tires are hot and greasy. At least two days of on-track driving school should be the prerequisite to disabling the stability control.



Typical of a Porsche, the brake strength and pedal feel are the envy of the industry. On corner exit, the speed isn't limited by grip, but by the 3.4-liter flat-six's 315 horsepower. So the 2013 Boxster S is nearly as quick as the 2012 Boxster Spyder. Naturally, we can't wait for the new Boxster Spyder.



Because all-wheel-drivers tend to understeer, a certain iron fist is often required to hustle them around a track. It's best to storm up to a corner, hit the brakes hard, jump off the brakes abruptly to tease the car into rotating, and then stomp on the gas in the hope it'll provoke the rear axle to do something useful. But the Audi, even fitted with a torque-vectoring rear differential, proved immune to our cattle prodding. We also tried to be gentle, but the S6 just wouldn't bite. It took achingly long to get through the slower turns as the front tires squealed their arias of woe. And at 4369 pounds, the S6 could only make it to 136 mph on the straight.Once straightened out, the twin-turbo V-8 quickly boiled up its steam and the S6 left a thrilling, big-bore sound in its wake. The dual-clutch transmission makes up in lightning shifts and downshifting throttle blips what the rest of the chassis lacks in track aptitude. In our estimation, however, the Audi leaves the event as it entered—as the market's best big, fast, luxury car—even if it's a machine that can't be what it wasn't intended to be.If there is a hero in the M5's 3:05.2 lap, it's the twin-turbo 4.4-liter V-8. It's a war horse that pulls the wagon and refuses to yield under fire.But braking, as most racers know, is often what puts a car on pole. The M5's brake pedal lacks tactility, so we struggled to find the ideal braking points. One lap would feel great. Then, on the next, we would be braking way too late, and then on the third lap, the anchors somehow revived again. The brakes never failed, but their inconsistent performance shook our confidence.Whether the M5 is braking or turning, this car weighs 4425 pounds. There is only so much you can ask of its Michelin Pilot Super Sports—maybe a few laps of good grip, but then the rubber greases up and the understeer sets in fully.The thick-rimmed steering wheel is a track rat's dream. The large diameter and the squishy rim reduce grip fatigue. However, the good marks stop there. Little is communicated up the column from the contact patches and the weighting seems pointlessly hefty, especially in the sportiest of the three settings.Not one single sector highlighted any particular M5 strength. All its skills were just so-so, both by the clock and by the seat of our pants. The engine is ultimately what drives the lap time down below the BMW M3's , and to just 0.3 second slower than the Mercedes-Benz CLS63 AMG. Interestingly enough, the Benz and the M5 carry nearly identical pounds per horsepower.The M division's big twins couldn't be more similar. There were moments when we struggled to recall which car we had just vacated. "Was it the M5 or the M6?" We'll make sure to remember that the M6 is the quickest BMW in Lightning Lap history, within a mere 0.5 second of the Cadillac CTS-V coupe.As with the M5, understeer and a general lack of feedback from the braking and steering systems soured our confidence and the M6's lap time suffered. The BMW's back end moves around under braking, and, even with the M6's $10,000 carbon-ceramic brakes ($8700 for the hardware plus $1300 for the required 20-inch wheels), slowing down two tons of German sports coupe requires faith in the engineering.Because it's so big and heavy, the M6, which tops out at 142 mph, feels every bit as fast as the 158-mph Ferrari while hauling the mail down the straightaway. However, the bulkiness sensed from behind the wheel, thanks to the high, broad dash and long hood, also makes it difficult to place the M6 exactly on the apex.As in the M5, the engine is the real story here. The car will get away from you if you don't keep close tabs on the speed, as one adventurous and, fortunately, damage-free 115-mph off-track event taught us. With a ­little attention to the brakes and steering systems, BMW's M GmbH could transform a fantastic touring car into a truly satisfying track animal.Of all the sub-3:10 cars we've subjected to VIR, nothing has felt as slow as the RS5. Maybe it's the high-revving and peaky 4.2-liter V-8, which doesn't press you into your seat like the twin-turbo V-8 in the BMW M5 and M6.Not that a 3:04.3 lap is slow by any stretch. But Turn One exposes the RS5's major weakness: understeer. With 57.7 percent of the RS5's 4053 pounds on the front axle, we could see it coming.The RS5 doesn't shine until the second half of the track, after the back straight. It matches both Camaros and the Boxster S in sector three, through the downhill corkscrew; in sector four, though, where the flowing uphill combinations seem purpose-built for this car, the RS5 actually proved slower than the Chevy V-8s. Even so, it felt better on these fast, open corners than it did in sector three, where the tight radii summon Mr. Plow. The RS5 becomes fun on the wider turns, where managing speed with full- or part-throttle loads the rear and alleviates some stress on the front tires. It allows the RS5's torque-vectoring differential to do its thing, helping the car rotate. Carrying a lot of speed, at least 65 mph, through the last corner aids a major Audi-on-Audi victory by crossing the line 0.3 second before the mid-engined R8 we tested in 2007 Porsche has completely transformed the on-track demeanor of its new 911 , but the latest Boxster's lap times barely budge this year despite being on a new ­platform. But since we're comparing this stand­ard Boxster S to the lowered, raw, lightweight, and sub lime Boxster Spyder we had two years ago, this is actually a huge accomplishment. The Boxster S is only 0.4-second slower than the more radical Spyder over the 4.1-mile lap.Down five horses to the Spyder and weighing 154 pounds more, the S is such a close match to the old Spyder because, despite the S's liveable ride, it is nearly as sharp. The Boxster's platform sports a ­significantly wider front track and a slightly wider rear track. The front grip is tenacious. Shockingly, for a car with stability control that can be fully disabled, and in a country where drivers can't discern between the brake and the accelerator, the handling ­balance is tilted slightly toward oversteer. Like a racer, the Boxster's rear end is especially susceptible to load transfer. Brake too deeply, and the rear tires slide wide. Lift gently to reduce understeer, and the tail swings. Keeping oversteer at bay requires a consistent and gentle throttle, especially when the tires are hot and greasy. At least two days of on-track driving school should be the prerequisite to disabling the stability control.Typical of a Porsche, the brake strength and pedal feel are the envy of the industry. On corner exit, the speed isn't limited by grip, but by the 3.4-liter flat-six's 315 horsepower. So the 2013 Boxster S is nearly as quick as the 2012 Boxster Spyder. Naturally, we can't wait for the new Boxster Spyder.

Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 – LL3, 3:00.6

At 662 horsepower, the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 is the most powerful car we've tested at VIR. So why couldn't it put down a sub-three-minute lap? Why didn't it beat the heavier and less potent Camaro ZL1? It comes down to two related reasons: balance and traction.



Yes, the GT500 is lighter than the ZL1, but that's not the full story. Look at where it carries its weight—the GT500 puts 56.6 percent of its 3896 pounds over its front wheels. The ZL1 achieves a better balance with 52.9 percent of its mass resting up front. Nose-heavy, powerful, and rear-drive is a combination that makes putting power to the ground difficult. Just ask anyone driving a two-wheel-drive pickup in the snow.



As a result, with just 43.4 percent of its mass over its powered rear wheels, the GT500 couldn't accelerate as hard out of corners as the ZL1, couldn't get its full power down, couldn't turn its impressive horsepower into miles per hour. Still, the Shelby's turn-in grip is strong. In sector one, the GT500 matches the ZL1's peak roadholding. But at the corner's exit, the GT500 is 4.6 mph slower. Balance is part of the problem, and the GT500 also has narrower wheels and tires than the ZL1. On the track, the rear contact patches feel dime-sized.



Quick transitions upset the GT500 more than the ZL1 and cost time in the uphill esses. Good brakes are a plus, but the GT500 is a car that is not comfortable ­cornering at the limit. VIR proves, once again, that handling can trump a superior power-to-weight ratio.



Porsche 911 Carrera S – LL3, 2:58.9

It didn't take long to dial in the new 911's lap time. Unlike its immediate predecessor, the new 911—or 991 in Porsche Sprache—is comfortable at the limit. And, once you find that limit, it's easy to stay there. Much of the credit has to go to the 991's four-inch-longer wheelbase and its widened front track.



The 911 is a car taken off its toes and put on its feet. Porsche smoothed out the 911's dartiness and jumpiness, and directional changes are less frantic than before, making it a more settled, more capable track car.



Comparing the 400-hp Carrera S with its predecessors is telling. Through the uphill esses, the 991 is fractionally quicker than the previous-gen, 530-hp 911 Turbo S despite entering the sector at a speed that was 6.5 mph slower than the Turbo's. Stability pays a big dividend in this section, and the new 911's poise makes it easier to put the power down sooner out of a corner. Witness how the 991 exited the sector-two esses 5.3 mph faster than the Turbo S.



Pointed downhill in sector three, the 991 proved to be a tenth of a second quicker than the race car–like 911 GT3 RS.Here again, improved stability and the greater confidence it bestows allow for higher speeds. The rear end remains planted and the grip is easy to manage. Beating out the track-hungry GT3 RS in this section is all the more shocking considering the Carrera S's street-friendly tires and relatively compliant, daily-driver ride.



Through a full lap, the Carrera S couldn't quite match the GT3 RS or the Turbo S, but a time of 2:58.9 is quicker than the



Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG Black Series – LL3, 2:58.0

Yes, the seatbelts are red and the carbon-fiber spoiler looks like it may have been ordered for a Honda Civic, but the C63 AMG Black Series is no poseur. For an extra $43,570, AMG completely changes the on-track demeanor of the $64,005 C63 AMG coupe. Wider tires, broader shoulders and hips, massive vents, a front splitter, jaw-mounted canards, larger brakes, a completely recalibrated suspension, and 510 horsepower combine to chop 8.5 seconds off the standard C63's lap time and match the VIR time of the SLS AMG.



Without sacrificing extravagances such as a glass roof and the usual raft of luxury equipment, AMG has dialed up feedback and grip to make the C63 feel much wieldier than its 4044 pounds might suggest. Quick steering warns of imminent slip, a solid brake pedal scrubs off speed over and over again with no change in feel. "Trust me," says the Black Series as it pounds into the uphill esses at 132.3 mph. The front tires bite into the off-camber left of sector four at 75.3 mph, 2.2 mph faster than the Ferrari 458.



We gave up on trying to time upshifts with the car in manual mode. Fail to get the upshift perfect, and the heavy-handed rev limiter shuts down power for what feels like an eternity. We opted for sport-plus mode. That mode obeys downshift requests and upshifts happen right at the redline without any need for driver intervention.



Great track cars seem to read your mind, anticipate commands, and speak affirmations. By that measure—and by its lap time—the Black Series is a great track car. At 662 horsepower, the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 is the most powerful car we've tested at VIR. So why couldn't it put down a sub-three-minute lap? Why didn't it beat the heavier and less potent Camaro ZL1? It comes down to two related reasons: balance and traction.Yes, the GT500 is lighter than the ZL1, but that's not the full story. Look at where it carries its weight—the GT500 puts 56.6 percent of its 3896 pounds over its front wheels. The ZL1 achieves a better balance with 52.9 percent of its mass resting up front. Nose-heavy, powerful, and rear-drive is a combination that makes putting power to the ground difficult. Just ask anyone driving a two-wheel-drive pickup in the snow.As a result, with just 43.4 percent of its mass over its powered rear wheels, the GT500 couldn't accelerate as hard out of corners as the ZL1, couldn't get its full power down, couldn't turn its impressive horsepower into miles per hour. Still, the Shelby's turn-in grip is strong. In sector one, the GT500 matches the ZL1's peak roadholding. But at the corner's exit, the GT500 is 4.6 mph slower. Balance is part of the problem, and the GT500 also has narrower wheels and tires than the ZL1. On the track, the rear contact patches feel dime-sized.Quick transitions upset the GT500 more than the ZL1 and cost time in the uphill esses. Good brakes are a plus, but the GT500 is a car that is not comfortable ­cornering at the limit. VIR proves, once again, that handling can trump a superior power-to-weight ratio.It didn't take long to dial in the new 911's lap time. Unlike its immediate predecessor, the new 911—or 991 in Porsche Sprache—is comfortable at the limit. And, once you find that limit, it's easy to stay there. Much of the credit has to go to the 991's four-inch-longer wheelbase and its widened front track.The 911 is a car taken off its toes and put on its feet. Porsche smoothed out the 911's dartiness and jumpiness, and directional changes are less frantic than before, making it a more settled, more capable track car.Comparing the 400-hp Carrera S with its predecessors is telling. Through the uphill esses, the 991 is fractionally quicker than the previous-gen, 530-hp 911 Turbo S despite entering the sector at a speed that was 6.5 mph slower than the Turbo's. Stability pays a big dividend in this section, and the new 911's poise makes it easier to put the power down sooner out of a corner. Witness how the 991 exited the sector-two esses 5.3 mph faster than the Turbo S.Pointed downhill in sector three, the 991 proved to be a tenth of a second quicker than the race car–like 911 GT3 RS.Here again, improved stability and the greater confidence it bestows allow for higher speeds. The rear end remains planted and the grip is easy to manage. Beating out the track-hungry GT3 RS in this section is all the more shocking considering the Carrera S's street-friendly tires and relatively compliant, daily-driver ride.Through a full lap, the Carrera S couldn't quite match the GT3 RS or the Turbo S, but a time of 2:58.9 is quicker than the 2007 GT3 and the 2009 Carrera S . Porsche fans, it's time to get used to a bigger (and better) 911.Yes, the seatbelts are red and the carbon-fiber spoiler looks like it may have been ordered for a Honda Civic, but the C63 AMG Black Series is no poseur. For an extra $43,570, AMG completely changes the on-track demeanor of the $64,005 C63 AMG coupe. Wider tires, broader shoulders and hips, massive vents, a front splitter, jaw-mounted canards, larger brakes, a completely recalibrated suspension, and 510 horsepower combine to chop 8.5 seconds off the standard C63's lap time and match the VIR time of the SLS AMG.Without sacrificing extravagances such as a glass roof and the usual raft of luxury equipment, AMG has dialed up feedback and grip to make the C63 feel much wieldier than its 4044 pounds might suggest. Quick steering warns of imminent slip, a solid brake pedal scrubs off speed over and over again with no change in feel. "Trust me," says the Black Series as it pounds into the uphill esses at 132.3 mph. The front tires bite into the off-camber left of sector four at 75.3 mph, 2.2 mph faster than the Ferrari 458.We gave up on trying to time upshifts with the car in manual mode. Fail to get the upshift perfect, and the heavy-handed rev limiter shuts down power for what feels like an eternity. We opted for sport-plus mode. That mode obeys downshift requests and upshifts happen right at the redline without any need for driver intervention.Great track cars seem to read your mind, anticipate commands, and speak affirmations. By that measure—and by its lap time—the Black Series is a great track car.

Track-testing is serious business, so of course there were rules. As usual, the cars were all in unmodified street condition, just as your local Subaru or Ferrari dealership might deliver them. Where applicable, the cars were fitted with the highest performance options available to the buyer (or vomit-proof upholstery and shotgun racks, as the circumstances dictated).







LL4 ($120,000–$239,999)



Jaguar XKR-S – LL4, 3:02.1

It's sobering to think that a car is trying to kill you. But lapping the XKR-S, Grim Reaper black and bristling with aero blades, was nothing less than a death match. Rubber and grass and mud flew. Here is one Brit that lives by Mr. Churchill's wartime credo: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.



What? A Jaguar? You wouldn't experience this on a fast run down to Saint-Tropez, but a track pushes a car to extremes and, like war, sometimes unleashes inner demons. The XKR-S has a lot of horsepower—550 in fact—and a lot of braking power. Plus, it shifts smartly and offers an evenly balanced suspension tune that holds the body flat and makes it pivot with lift-throttle steering through turns.



What this hellcat doesn't have is much steering feel. Grab the wheel, and it's as if your hands have been amputated and replaced with prostheses. Also, no matter how much they were cooled ahead of time, the grip of the big Pirellis tended to soften and become unreliable after only one hot lap. The tail went unnervingly wide, and the car suddenly wouldn't turn as sharply or hold a line as doggedly.



But on this track, crucial tenths-of-a-second were at stake as we blasted up the hill through the esses, the right foot trembling on the mighty gas pedal while the hands, butt, and brain were in a huddle over whether the grip was good enough to hold through that final, terrifying, off-camber dogleg. Agreement was rare, and the XKR-S made our stomachs tighten and our knuckles blanch. But we fought it at the apexes and on the sweepers; we fought it on the straights and in the kinks; we never surrendered. There was lots of sweat and some tears, but ultimately, thankfully, no blood. Just one decent lap time.



Ferrari 458 Italia – LL4, 2:49.9

We never set out to intentionally damage a car, but accidents do happen and manufacturers begrudgingly accept this. Which is why we were flabbergasted when Ferrari engineer Luca Torre announced, "Is-a okay if you crash-a de car." Come again? "As-a long as you get a good lap-a time," he added. According to Ferrari, "good" was "a fortee-nine," per the factory's computer simulation, handed out from an 18-wheel air-conditioned race-support truck that came equipped with its own barista.



If the seats were hand-carved out of ­English oak to fit, they still wouldn't be as supportive and form-fitting as the optional $7781 carbon-shelled racing seats in the 458. The brake pedal, the steering wheel, and even the carbon-fiber shift paddles feel like organic extensions of your nervous system. Thus, placing the fast-moving 458 where you want it on the track is easier than expected.



Still, working down to a sub-2:50 lap is more of a challenge to your mind than to the car. We know the 458 is a screamer. It's also mistake-resistant. The chassis isn't fazed by mid-corner upshifts, and the back end never snaps around abruptly, but rather oozes sideways in one lurid, lovely drift. The steering jumps to your touch, and the magnetorheological dampers with their magically changing fluid absorb bumps while keeping the body as stable as Superman's coif.



The 458's data speaks volumes. The Italia was quickest in every sector this year, blasting down the front straight at 158.0 mph (third fastest in our LL record book), and it pulled 1.08 g's in the first corner (fourth-highest of all time). We just barely hit Team Ferrari's simulation target with a 2:49.9. That's 4.7 seconds quicker than the 430 Scuderia from 2008, and it's the fourth-fastest lap on record. More important, the three faster cars were all on R-compound tires, whereas the 458 rides on "everyday" Michelin Pilot Super Sports. Another car that is more capable on-track and as comfortable on-road is, as yet, unavailable.



It's sobering to think that a car is trying to kill you. But lapping the XKR-S, Grim Reaper black and bristling with aero blades, was nothing less than a death match. Rubber and grass and mud flew. Here is one Brit that lives by Mr. Churchill's wartime credo: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.What? A Jaguar? You wouldn't experience this on a fast run down to Saint-Tropez, but a track pushes a car to extremes and, like war, sometimes unleashes inner demons. The XKR-S has a lot of horsepower—550 in fact—and a lot of braking power. Plus, it shifts smartly and offers an evenly balanced suspension tune that holds the body flat and makes it pivot with lift-throttle steering through turns.What this hellcat doesn't have is much steering feel. Grab the wheel, and it's as if your hands have been amputated and replaced with prostheses. Also, no matter how much they were cooled ahead of time, the grip of the big Pirellis tended to soften and become unreliable after only one hot lap. The tail went unnervingly wide, and the car suddenly wouldn't turn as sharply or hold a line as doggedly.But on this track, crucial tenths-of-a-second were at stake as we blasted up the hill through the esses, the right foot trembling on the mighty gas pedal while the hands, butt, and brain were in a huddle over whether the grip was good enough to hold through that final, terrifying, off-camber dogleg. Agreement was rare, and the XKR-S made our stomachs tighten and our knuckles blanch. But we fought it at the apexes and on the sweepers; we fought it on the straights and in the kinks; we never surrendered. There was lots of sweat and some tears, but ultimately, thankfully, no blood. Just one decent lap time.We never set out to intentionally damage a car, but accidents do happen and manufacturers begrudgingly accept this. Which is why we were flabbergasted when Ferrari engineer Luca Torre announced, "Is-a okay if you crash-a de car." Come again? "As-a long as you get a good lap-a time," he added. According to Ferrari, "good" was "a fortee-nine," per the factory's computer simulation, handed out from an 18-wheel air-conditioned race-support truck that came equipped with its own barista.If the seats were hand-carved out of ­English oak to fit, they still wouldn't be as supportive and form-fitting as the optional $7781 carbon-shelled racing seats in the 458. The brake pedal, the steering wheel, and even the carbon-fiber shift paddles feel like organic extensions of your nervous system. Thus, placing the fast-moving 458 where you want it on the track is easier than expected.Still, working down to a sub-2:50 lap is more of a challenge to your mind than to the car. We know the 458 is a screamer. It's also mistake-resistant. The chassis isn't fazed by mid-corner upshifts, and the back end never snaps around abruptly, but rather oozes sideways in one lurid, lovely drift. The steering jumps to your touch, and the magnetorheological dampers with their magically changing fluid absorb bumps while keeping the body as stable as Superman's coif.The 458's data speaks volumes. The Italia was quickest in every sector this year, blasting down the front straight at 158.0 mph (third fastest in our LL record book), and it pulled 1.08 g's in the first corner (fourth-highest of all time). We just barely hit Team Ferrari's simulation target with a 2:49.9. That's 4.7 seconds quicker than the 430 Scuderia from 2008, and it's the fourth-fastest lap on record. More important, the three faster cars were all on R-compound tires, whereas the 458 rides on "everyday" Michelin Pilot Super Sports. Another car that is more capable on-track and as comfortable on-road is, as yet, unavailable.

LL5 ($240,000 and above)



Lexus LFA – LL5, 2:55.1

Ferrari might have shrugged off a 458 crash, but this LFA—the third ever built and the first delivered to the U.S.—belongs to a private owner, so the rules were, well, different. Medical-device inventor and entrepreneur Roy Mallady has bounced between Ferraris, Maseratis, Audis, Astons, and Lamborghinis for decades. When he plunked down a deposit for an LFA, the car was quoted at a quarter of a million dollars. By its delivery last year, the price had swelled to nearly $400,000. Mallady expected to keep his newest exotic for a year and then sell it to trade up to another exotic, as he had done in the past. But something clicked between him and the LFA. He's grown so fond of it that he's buying another one.



One appeal might be that there's no hint of Toyota or Lexus in the entire car, save the infotainment control knob. The turn signals, the window switches, the seat controls, and the floor-hinged brake and gas pedals are all special. Lexus had to use a computer-generated tachometer in place of a mechanical one because no mechanical tach can spin as fast as the Formula 1–inspired V-10 can rev. Proof of how fast it spools up: In low gears we had to shift at the first audible warning at 8500 rpm, 500 rpm short of redline, or we'd lose time as the engine stuttered on the rev limiter.



For us, the LFA clicked at the end of the back straight, where the brakes practically force your head into your lap. Its stability under braking is as good, if not better, than the 458's. The steering, too, is worthy of a Ph.D. in driver communication.



Subconsciously, we might have left something on the table in sector two, the uphill esses where maneuvers that go awry end fast and ugly. Still, we didn't feel particularly nervous in the moment, because the LFA's limits are so approachable.



A 2:55.1 seems tame for such an expensive car; we had very high hopes for the LFA. It's a carbon-fiber masterpiece, albeit a surprisingly heavy one. With nearly the same power as the aluminum-framed 458, the LFA carries an additional 244 pounds. The max speed on the straight, therefore, was 7.9 mph slower. The LFA lost a little bit of time to the 458 in each sector, too, which could have come down to the less sticky Bridgestone Potenza S001 rubber underfoot.



If you're curious what Mallady is going to do with two LFAs, he's selling this one to finance the LFA he's planning to keep forever. Unless he doesn't. Rich folk are like that. Meanwhile, Lexus says it has a





The Circle of Life What looks like a sinus-clearing sneeze is in fact a plot of the acceleration data points that comprise the six class winners' best laps. Each color-keyed circle is one data point taken at 0.1-second intervals. The heart-shaped traces connecting the outermost data points are often called friction circles because tire traction is the primary factor determining a car's performance limits.



1. The super-thick cluster of points just above the center of the graph is the product of sustained acceleration over three long, full-throttle events: front- and back-straights, and entering snake. As velocity increases, acceleration decreases.



2. This quadrant has, by far, the tightest cluster of data points because Horse Shoe, Oak Tree, Bitch, and Hogpen are all fairly long-duration right-handers. The 458's longitudinal acceleration spike of 0.75 g occurred at the exit of Oak Tree.



Ferrari might have shrugged off a 458 crash, but this LFA—the third ever built and the first delivered to the U.S.—belongs to a private owner, so the rules were, well, different. Medical-device inventor and entrepreneur Roy Mallady has bounced between Ferraris, Maseratis, Audis, Astons, and Lamborghinis for decades. When he plunked down a deposit for an LFA, the car was quoted at a quarter of a million dollars. By its delivery last year, the price had swelled to nearly $400,000. Mallady expected to keep his newest exotic for a year and then sell it to trade up to another exotic, as he had done in the past. But something clicked between him and the LFA. He's grown so fond of it that he's buying another one.One appeal might be that there's no hint of Toyota or Lexus in the entire car, save the infotainment control knob. The turn signals, the window switches, the seat controls, and the floor-hinged brake and gas pedals are all special. Lexus had to use a computer-generated tachometer in place of a mechanical one because no mechanical tach can spin as fast as the Formula 1–inspired V-10 can rev. Proof of how fast it spools up: In low gears we had to shift at the first audible warning at 8500 rpm, 500 rpm short of redline, or we'd lose time as the engine stuttered on the rev limiter.For us, the LFA clicked at the end of the back straight, where the brakes practically force your head into your lap. Its stability under braking is as good, if not better, than the 458's. The steering, too, is worthy of a Ph.D. in driver communication.Subconsciously, we might have left something on the table in sector two, the uphill esses where maneuvers that go awry end fast and ugly. Still, we didn't feel particularly nervous in the moment, because the LFA's limits are so approachable.A 2:55.1 seems tame for such an expensive car; we had very high hopes for the LFA. It's a carbon-fiber masterpiece, albeit a surprisingly heavy one. With nearly the same power as the aluminum-framed 458, the LFA carries an additional 244 pounds. The max speed on the straight, therefore, was 7.9 mph slower. The LFA lost a little bit of time to the 458 in each sector, too, which could have come down to the less sticky Bridgestone Potenza S001 rubber underfoot.If you're curious what Mallady is going to do with two LFAs, he's selling this one to finance the LFA he's planning to keep forever. Unless he doesn't. Rich folk are like that. Meanwhile, Lexus says it has a track-focused LFA Nürburgring Edition headed for its U.S. press fleet. Think we'll get a damage waiver for it next year?What looks like a sinus-clearing sneeze is in fact a plot of the acceleration data points that comprise the six class winners' best laps. Each color-keyed circle is one data point taken at 0.1-second intervals. The heart-shaped traces connecting the outermost data points are often called friction circles because tire traction is the primary factor determining a car's performance limits.1. The super-thick cluster of points just above the center of the graph is the product of sustained acceleration over three long, full-throttle events: front- and back-straights, and entering snake. As velocity increases, acceleration decreases.2. This quadrant has, by far, the tightest cluster of data points because Horse Shoe, Oak Tree, Bitch, and Hogpen are all fairly long-duration right-handers. The 458's longitudinal acceleration spike of 0.75 g occurred at the exit of Oak Tree.

3. Note the wide, flat array of C63 data points at the bottom of this graphic, which reveals that car's exceptional stability under braking and cornering. Few cars can stay on the track while braking at -1.1 g and cornering at 0.5 g.



Spiking beyond -1.2 g's, the LFA was the hardest-braking car this year. The C63 Black Series shows tremendous left-turn g's in the slow corner called left hook, just before snake.