Sunday, 20 September 2020

Car of the Week - Week 103: Volkswagen Golf I GTI '83

I'll admit, I'm not the biggest fan of Volkswagens, in an exercise of understatement and slowly easing readers into a review, which Esther the editor insists to me is important for some reason. You can imagine then, that I wasn't super thrilled to be told in the one-liner text message I got this week to go to Flat 4 Garage in Meguro, Toukyo, THE place in Japan to go for all your antique, air cooled, rear mounted Flat 4 Volkswagen needs. I was to be there on even shorter notice than usual to meet with and pick up both the car and Esther the editor. Oh, and just to spice things up, the message didn't mention what the car was, either.

Things always gotta be mysterious and dramatic in COTW, doesn't it? Then again, I really don't think words were designed to describe the sheer, unadulterated, appalling atrocity that at best vaguely describes this week's car.

"So... what the hell is this?", I ask, dumbfounded and aghast when I first laid eyes on the rancid lump of rusting metal before me, hoping Esther could tell me more about the car and its sorry condition, having arrived before me.

"This is a first generation Volkswagen Golf, more commonly known as the 'Mark I'. This car is of significant historical value as it marked a turning point where Volkswagen shifted their main vehicle lines from air cooled, rear engine, rear drive layouts, to water cooled, front engine, front drive layouts. Intended as a replacement for the Beetle, the Golf similarly enjoyed tremendous success in the market, thanks to its combination of packaging, pricing, and, in the case of this GTI model as well, performance. An icon now in its own right for its ubiquity, this car is very much a 'People's Car' - true to the name of Volkswagen."

Esther lecture slowed for a bit with uncertainty as she realised I wasn't easing up with my stare and scowl. "Is this a test?", she asks. "This is the third best selling car model in the history of the automobile... surely you know more about it...?"

"No, this is a shit car."

"How can you say that without having driven it?"

"How can I not say that after seeing THIS?!"

"Yes, well, it has quite the personalised flair..."

"Quite?! I think this 'people's car' has had way too much 'people' in it."

"Now, come on, Lee. I'd say you've been very lucky as far as car allocation goes in COTW. You've seen the rusted out cars found abandoned in barns others have had to drive against you. Please be an adult about this."

Against such adult logic dispensed to me by someone who looked way younger than I, all I could do was roll my eyes so far back, they might've done a full 360, and then some.

"Besides, this car is courtesy of an ardent fan of COTW reviews. They even have all these COTW stickers on the car, which you yourself hardly even use, if I'm to be completely fair here."

"That's because the cars I've been handed up to this point hadn't needed stickers to hold the bumpers together! We review the cars factory fresh, completely unmodified! How am I to offer a valid opinion on a car if it's in THIS state?!"

"Which is why you're picking up the car here instead of the car being delivered to you as usual." I detect a bit of a bite in her last statement, despite her objective word choice and completely flat tone. Something about this woman simply refuses to be written down. "Our mechanics have been hard at work all night long installing factory original parts on site, sourced at the last minute. We didn't have the time for the exterior... and really, the conversion cost combined would've surpassed the value of a new car entirely."

"So this is a shit car."

"This is a historic car, I'm told. It seemed like a real bargain; it costs way less than the historic cars we've raced... you know..."

I sigh. "I don't get the appeal. Any way you look at it, it's just a clapped out, old ass hatch."

In a reversal of the usual roles, Esther then goes on to tell me more about the car: how this first gen Golf alone sold more than a million units in its nine year production run, and how this car is widely considered to be the first "hot hatch", while we waited for the scurrying mechanics to put on the last of finishing touches in trying to revert this grandma car back into a virgin beneath the skin. Given its historical significance and how common they are, and in turn, what kids tend to do with them, I'm not sure if it belongs more in a scrapyard rusting and rotting, or polished to a showroom sheen on display in a museum. And it, mind bogglingly, seems like it would be right at home in either scenario.


Despite being a road going car (in theory), I'm told the owner of this car expressly forbade us to drive it on public roads in Japan. That might explain the lack of a Japanese plate conversion, but I suspect there were more reasons than that for the car not being legally allowed to be on public roads. Nonetheless, the Golf was loaded up onto a truck to be ferried over to Tsukuba Circuit for the first race of the week. As a result of the people's car not being able to ferry people, poor Esther and I have had to resort to another hatchback to get us there: my Amemiya FD that I drove here to Flat 4 Garage. Missing out on the historic holiness of the Golf for the two hour drive through the heart of Toukyo, we've had to make do with modern atrocities such as having air con, airbags, power steering, ABS, a locking differential, a speedo that actually read below 20km/h, and having to use all four wheels instead of just two. Urgh.

Life is so difficult and unfair!

*********************************************

A lot of people criticise the FD for being a claustrophobic car, and I agree. Compared to the FD however, the Mark I Golf was so tiny, it felt less like squeezing into a rabbit hole and more like putting on a jacket; you don't get into a Golf as much as you wear it. And just like putting on a jacket, you'll hardly see it once you wear it, giving a very natural and shockingly intuitive feel to be in the driver seat, with a commanding view of all that surrounds you. The car does such a good job of disappearing around you that it really did sometimes feel to me like everything on the road I saw before me, I could walk over and reach my hand out to grab, instead of operating a machine to drive over and then get out to touch.


Once the lights went green, everything got even better, and I forgot all about the looks of my car. I've always loved racing small, slow cars, because they promote the closest, most mega racing that would put to shame modern F1. Unlike the nonsensical hot hatches of today, the Golf doesn't destroy the driving experience with a twenty mile wheelbase, rack twisting torque steer, and understeering into the next country every corner exit, trying to prove a frankly stupid point. Rather, the charm of the GTI lies in the single most important ingredient in a sports car: simplicity, and in turn, lightness. Because the Mark I GTI lacked everything I pointed out on my way here to Tsukuba, it weighs in at only 890kg (1,962lbs). That's lighter than a NA Mazda Roadster while offering a whole row of rear seats, to give some context.

For as much as I bemoaned the lack of features in the Golf on public roads, that might end up being more praise than criticism on the track, as the Golf immediately wins drivers over with the sheer simplicity and ease of driving the moment they turn the wheel for a corner. True, there are no differentials, no ABS, no nothing at all to help you around a corner, but it is precisely because of the lack of these technological features that I find defines the charm and driving experience of the car: everything is barebones, dead simple, and as a result of that, not only do you feel everything in the car, but you and only you alone are in control. There aren't twenty million drive modes to choose from. There is no complication, nothing to think about. You get in it, belt up, turn the ignition, and drive. Launching it? Just drop the clutch and hammer the throttle pedal down as hard as you can. Watch and hear the wheels spin a little bit, and you're off. No traction control, no modulating clutch and gas, just... get in and go. Approaching a corner? You brake, you let off the brake, you turn the wheel, and you give it gas. There is no drama. There are no surprises. And unlike most raw, hardcore cars without aids like Vipers, Yellowbirds, and TVRs, there is truly nothing intimidating about the Golf, making it an easily accessible entry point to learn how to drive without all the modern electrical and mechanical bells and whistles. Every parameter of the dynamics of the car is within expectations. You drive it like a car, and it goes like a car, bells and whistles be damned.

And, you know what? The Golf might lack ABS, locking diffs, and all that. But that's because it really doesn't need any of that crap to keep itself in check, unlike modern hot hatches that try to cram 300 horses through the front wheels. Because a literal golf ball travels faster than this car, and because the front disc brakes are weak as hell as well, the lack of ABS really doesn't detract from dry driving at all, even with pedestrian Comfort Medium tyres. You can pretty much stand on the brake pedal and the tyres won't even complain - heck, you can still turn the car a bit even with full braking on Comfort Medium tyres, to give you an idea of how lazy the brakes on this thing are. I kid you not when I say that the only place where I've managed to get the tyres to even squeal under braking is down the tricky downhill off neutral braking zones of Bathurst, and even then, the tyres just complained; never locked. Thankfully, because the car is so lightweight, the brakes are perfectly adequate for the speed the car does, never once leaving you feeling wanting for more.

Oh, and of course, in the wet, the wheels WILL lock if you just stomped on them. There, now you can't sue me. Surprised what needs to be explicitly spelled out nowadays... sheesh.

Oh, and the open differential? Almost inconsequential as well, due to it's modest power output. You'll only notice the lack of a locking differential if you pull the car off centre on full throttle suddenly, which causes the soft car to lean laterally. You'll then notice the engine revs subtly rise, but like a passing fart in the wind, it passes so quickly, it's not worth much thought. You simply don't need a differential with only 111PS and FWD, and driving the Mark I in 2020 makes one seriously rethink what a car needs and ought to have, even if I know perfectly well that we can never have a car as simple as this again.

Truly, the single most attention grabbing and complicated thing on this car is perhaps its golf ball shaped shift knob, which lets you play with five forward cogs (and one reverse) in this car. That's right: this peasant 111PS hatchback actually has more forward gears than a top of the line, turbo 911 of its era. Let that sink in for a minute.

There's are two design philosophies in video games that are pivotal to create addicting and satisfying gameplay, that still serve as a backbone to video games today. They are, "easy to pick up, difficult to master", and "the better you do, the harder it gets." Just like a video game in the eighties like Contra, the Golf is easy to learn the basics of. And really, the basics are all you'll need to do amazing things with it. Try to get better at them, however, and that's when the fun truly begins.


The harder you drive the Golf, the more you try to squeeze tenths and hundredths of a second out of the car every lap, and the car discreetly comes alive. Just like a video game, the Golf sets out its own rules to the player up front and eggs the driver on. This car is wonderfully communicative, all without the complication and language barriers of words. With all the rules of the game spelled out for you non verbally, fairly, and intuitively, how finely and consistently can you hold your perfect line through a corner to squeeze every last thousandth of a second from it?

Get it wrong, and the car will duly bite, like a great teacher should. At speeds so low, it's unlikely to be anything that won't buff out. Because of the car's light weight, it never feels uncooperative or unable to do what you're asking of it. Rather, it's the finer things, like the suspension, the tyres, the throttle control - all wonderfully communicative things that are in your control and yours alone - that will make or break any given corner. Suddenly, all the farts in the wind become important. Suddenly, you need to be smooth with your inputs to prevent the open diff wasting power. Stomp on the brakes while the car is too off neutral, overcook a corner just a tad bit too much, and there is no power to help mask your mistake, and no rear wheel drive to help rotate the rear end out. And with only 111PS to get you to the next corner, you will be feeling that mistake for a long, long time.

Get it right, however, and it will truly feel as gratifying as learning how to tap dance on a tightrope. Just like a good video game, the Golf is its own reward for mastering it: it is INSTANTLY and INSANELY gratifying, leaving you wanting more and more of that same euphoria. Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Golf is an excellent, excellent teacher, due to its price, simplicity, and non intimidating nature. It will bite, but not debilitatingly so, at every mistake you make. And it will reward you in spades for getting it right, moreso than most other "sports" cars today. A lot of people claim that karting a great way to learn race driving - I disagree. You want to learn how to make a car go fast, buy a Golf Mark I. This has suspension, this has air in its tyres, this has gears. Most karts don't. And you won't learn how to maintain and take care of a car with a kart, would you? The Golf is not only an absurdly good teacher on track, but it is a good mentor in real life as well, I suspect. The road worthiness, extra seats, and trunk space are also nice bonuses.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how the "original hot hatch" fares against a modern "room temperature hatchback". Of course, when I wondered this, I hadn't yet been aware that several years ago in COTW, a Mark I GTI completely destroyed a Mark IV GTI somewhere in an American desert. Union Jacks, teeth punching, and aliens may or may not have been involved. Unbeknownst to this sorcery at the time, I indulged in my fleeting naïveté and innocence, and rented a fourth gen for myself, unwittingly poised to repeat a cursed cycle of events, as though I had just found myself the protagonist of an oddly motorsport oriented horror story. I rented myself... a Demio.

...Diesel.


Challenging VW to a race in a diesel? Not the brightest idea I've had.

Of course, the first race I did in the Demio, I was sandwiched between a comparatively inexperienced driver beside me who wouldn't back out, and Vic bump drafting me from behind ensuring I couldn't back out, either... on the entry to Dragon Trail Seaside's Chicane of Death... in reverse.

Some days, you just gotta admit that you're cursed and accept it raw in your backside.

Anyway, on paper, the modern Demio loses out significantly: it has seven less ponies than the Mark I, and the pony deficiency has to cope with a whopping 190kg more. The diesel engine in the Demio needs to be short shifted, which puts it at an immediate disadvantage to the petrol engine making all its power up top in the Golf. Truly, the only advantage I had for certain was that I had insurance covering the Demio, I had a pop up HUD displaying my speed, sat nav so I know where the track is, had better fuel economy so I had to pit less over the 4 lap race, and I have one more forward overdrive gear. If I were being optimistic, I could hope that a few of the horses in the Golf has gotten sick of the fake grass in the golf course and wandered elsewhere (can you tell I've no writing talent from my analogies?) (Editor's note: we didn't need your analogies.)

So, could a more modern, more practical, insurance covered, sensible small hatch you can actually buy (or rent from Times Car Rental) keep up with a near 40 year old grandma of a car? Has age made the Mark I completely irrelevant today?

Almost, actually.

In Jeremy Clarkson's voice: TONIGHT, two grey hatchbacks drive closely to each other...

Vic wins nearly every race...

and aliens in an American desert!

Despite the gigantic difference on the spec sheets, the Demio only loses out slightly to the Mark Is on the straights, thanks no doubt to its one extra forward gear, and heaps of torque from the SkyActiv-D diesel. You can make up most of it in the corners, because while the Golf is a strict test of driving skill, requiring its driver to baby it around a corner to extract the best from it, you can (and have to) rag on the more modern car around every corner to keep up with the Golf. You have to be more aggressive and sharper with all your inputs - stomp on the brakes, pull hard on the steering wheel, toss the car with reckless abandon into a corner and trust that the car will cling. The better composed suspension setup enables the driver to be much rougher with the car, though I find that it isn't nearly as communicative as the one in the Golf, nor do I find it to be as good a teaching tool. But, because it more tightly controls the body movements, it makes better use of the uprated Sports tyres we were running for the race, which is where I think the time difference comes from. On more appropriate Comfort tyres... I'm not so sure if the Demio can keep up.

I once said I would rather spend two hours in a Demio than five minutes in a LaFerrari. That's how much I love the Demio and the driving experience it provides. Hopping out of the Mark I and directly into the Demio however, I'm flabbergasted by how numb and insulated the whole driving experience is in the modern car. The Demio hadn't half the fidelity, half the sense of occasion, from every avenue of communication a car is capable of, be it tyre noises, pitching, rolling, engine noises, throttle response, steering feel... as surprised and flabbergasted as I am to say this... the Demio isn't half the driver's car of the Mark I. I'm not sure if you noticed, but I'm kinda a Mazda fanboy by the way.

At the end of our weekly excursion, I do have to admit I've been quite impressed by a Mark I GTI. But in the few days it has taken me to write up to this point, I'm still quite torn on whether I like it or not, and whether I would recommend it to anyone.

Again, I'll lay my biases out on the table: I'm not very drawn to Volkswagens. Yet, the Mark I GTI was genuinely impressive - surprisingly so. I've praised the car for its lightness, for the raw experience it can provide. The excellent visibility out the cockpit. The noises. The softness. The simplicity, the accessibility, its non intimidating factor, and the precision it trains you for by demanding at all times. But that to me sounds like praising the whiteness of rice... they ALL do that. All cars of its era share those same traits. Sure, I'm told it's stiffer than a standard Golf. I'm told it has more power. But it's hard to really feel that extra stiffness and power without the context of being in the seventies and eighties, because today, it just feels... basic. Soft. Powerless. Indistinct. And just like white rice, there isn't really inherently anything wrong or bad with it. In fact, entire nations depend on it. It's just... on its own, it's so hopelessly bland, it's nigh intolerable. And that perhaps is why this car's owner had to do what they did to it.

I'll admit, a big part of the reason why my heart isn't so swayed by the Mark I is that, by 1983, you already have way better options than the Golf. For 5K USD less when brand new in the eighties, you could've had more power. You could've had the same practicality. You could've had a more iconic engine that redlines WAY higher. You could've had the same five speed stick. You could've had a car that was stiffer sprung, more well put together in the twisties, without sacrificing ride quality. You could've lapped Bathurst a whole FIVE SECONDS faster. You could've had a perfect 50:50 weight distribution. You could've had rear wheel drive.

For 5k USD less in 1983, you could've bought an AE86.

If the Mark I is a great teacher in grade school, then the 86 is like a lecturer in college, offering you way more depth in coverage with the same fidelity in the little details. The 86 will put the same emphasis on driving smoothly. It will even teach you about weight transfer, balancing the car, and how to induce, hold, adjust, and retrieve a slide - something the FF Golf couldn't. It will excite and enthrall you like nothing else on the road, even today. If the Golf handles like a go-kart, the 86 is telepathic by comparison. It's stiffer sprung, it's more composed and better put together in the corners, and it will encourage you to play and make you feel like a superhero in seven seconds more than the Golf would in seven generations. It will utterly destrolish any lap time set by a Mark I around any track. Hell, the 86 out accelerates the Mark I in a straight line! When has that ever happened? An 86 outrunning someone in the straights is the automotive equivalent of the sun eclipsing the moon! And if all that isn't convincing enough an argument, the Trueno 86 has pop up headlights.

I get that, in 1983, it would make more sense to compare a Mark II to the 86, but I honestly can't forsee myself preferring any FF Golf over the 86. And in modern times, I'd like my hatchback to actually have five doors, air con, warranty, ABS, and parts readily available. And have wheels that don't require special tools to remove. And don't require Hazmat suits to drive. And have gearboxes that don't explode after 5 centimetres on the odometer. Truly, a modern Golf sounds to me as much of a maintenance nightmare as people think my FD RX-7 is.

I just don't see the point of a Mark I, or any Golf, in any time period after the seventies, is what I'm trying to get at. I can only recommend the Mark I if you own a race driving school. For anyone else, I opine that there are better packages as a whole out there than the Golf.

It therefore earns my first Neutral verdict.

Side note: My first attempt at a German plate. There MIGHT have been a detail or two wrong about it ;)

Friday, 11 September 2020

Car of the Week - Week 102: Nissan GT-R NISMO GT3 N24 Schulze Motorsport

GT-R

There perhaps is no letter combination, no word, no name, as deeply revered and iconic in motorsports. The GT-R badge has always had a rich heritage of motorsport domination, and even just listing the accolades for the current generation of "Godzilla", the R35, is a bit of an exercise. It steamrolled Super GT GT500 in its debut year, claimed Nürburgring lap records Porsche couldn't believe, is a renowned drag monster, aftermarket tuner darling, and even held the Guinness World Record for Fastest Drift. As hyperbolic as this all must sound, it still feels like it's impossible to oversell the success of the R35 GT-R in any and all areas of motorsports, and the effect it has had in the automotive landscape as a result, just as the Godzilla in the movie had.

It should come as a surprise then, that, in my opinion, the GT3 variant of the R35 we tested this week sucked hairy, oversized, radioactive lizard balls.


The specific car we got in Gran Turismo Sport is the "Nissan GT-R NISMO GT3 N24 Schulze Motorsport", a car which raced in the SP9 class of the 2013 24 Hours of Nürburgring, and finished 22nd in its class. All in all, a pretty forgettable result, and by extension, a very forgettable car. I'll say this with every race car review: It's very simple to judge a racing car; if it wins, it's good. If not, it's bad. Quite literally nothing else matters in a racing car. Truly, the only reason this car gained any mainstream attention at all, and continues to maintain any relevance, is because Kaminori Samauchi drove it in the aforementioned race.

I know I just said nothing else matters on a racing car, but I cannot get past how AWFUL this thing looks.


MY EYESSSS!!!

As irrelevant as aesthetics should be in a racing car, the car's UGLY AS SIN looks I think is rather telling. Being a 2013 car, it is among the older cars in Gr. 3, with only the Aston V12 being an older GT3 car. This age is reflected in the bodywork of the GT-R: more modern GT3s, such as the R8 LMS, RC F GT3, and Huracán GT3 all have fenders flared much wider, boasting ducts, air channels, stretched out and sawn off bodywork to accommodate bombastic diffusers, swan neck wing stands, and what have you, to aid them around a track. The original purpose built Gr. 3 cars of 2017 barely even resemble their production cousins with how much changes their bodywork underwent. Put this 2013 car beside almost anything else in Gr. 3, and the differences are as obvious as the car is ugly.

Nate's long time Manufacturer's weapon, versus mine!

The 2013 GT-R GT3 on the other hand, looks almost looks fresh out of a Nissan showroom, with the only telltale signs of it being a racing car the gutted interior, roll cage, racing slicks, dropped ride height, tasteless overabundance of vents, and the too much for road use lips, splitters, and wing. Really, this car looks more like a GT4 car than it does a GT3 by today's standards. And I'm sad to say that it shows on the track as much as it does in the livery editor.


For the first race of this week's meet, we were racing at the GP Layout of the Nürburgring. Even at the very track it was set up to run, the GT-R felt no less a fat fish out of water than it did any other track in my practice sessions prior the race. The suspension I find too soft for my liking, making this car feel like a sack of pigs to haul around corners despite being the exact mass Gr. 3 seems to be centred around: 1,300kg (2,866lbs), untouched by BoP currently. This soft suspension makes car feel ambiguous and numb, and it's not a fun recipe when mixed in with the torque spikes of a highly boosted engine. Most importantly, I feel as if the alignment of the wheels just... isn't right. On tight corners like the Turn 7 hairpin, it was always the INSIDE front wheels that were scrubbing and screaming instead of the outside. That's just... not right, come on. I highly suspect the "one size fits all" suspension settings of this stupid "simulator" has fucked up the performance of this GT-R more than its Gr. 3 rivals, and it's... stupid, because the in-game description of this particular car claims that "the driving data gained from this machine did succeed in bringing new advancements to the simulation engine of Gran Turismo", in the copy and paste description from Gran Turismo 6. Why and how then, is it allowed to be so god-awful in GT Sport? Kaz himself drove this! How could he let this atrocity happen?


Below are the default setting sheets for the suspension of the car, from Gran Turismo 6 and Gran Turismo Sport, respectively:



Even quickly glancing over the most atrocious of differences, it's clear that GTS has Fucked UBeyond All Recognition the car's suspension setup, and it therefore is no surprise that the car is horrid to drive as a result.

Ride Height (GT6)
Front: 67mm Rear: 73mm
Front: 2.63in Rear: 2.87in

Ride Height (GTS)
Front: 70mm Rear: 80mm
Front: 2.76in Rear: 3.15in

Spring Rates (GT6): Front springs are nearly 61.5% stiffer than the rear.
Spring Rates (GTS): LEL ALL SPRINGS ARE THE SAME

Toe Angles (GT6)
Front: -0.50° Rear: 0.63°
Toe Angles (GTS)
Front: -0.25° Rear: 0.50°


Because of the FUBAR suspension setup, the car struggles immensely with the tight first two sectors of Nürb GP, squirming under every command and struggling for grip through every corner. It always feels heavier than what it weighs, even with uprated Racing Medium tyres. It has immense trouble tucking its nose into apexes, from initial turn in all the way to apex. It's a painful chore to drag and wrestle this heap of materialised lethargy through switchbacks and chicanes, such as Turns 5 and 6, and the Schumacher S.


Part of this is perhaps due to the weight balance of the car: even with the front driveshaft delete and a full 100 litres of fuel on board aft the cockpit, the GT-R GT3 feels very nose heavy. Gran Turismo 6 claims a weight distribution of 54/46 F/R, which might be okay for a road car with AWD, but are disproportionate, lopsided pig figures for a GT3 car. Yeah, imagine giving players weight distribution figures in a racing simulator! Metric units for measurements! What novel concepts, eh PD?



Needless to say by this point, the car struggles to put down its 594PS, at an eyeball widening, cold sweat inducing 108% of its original 550PS with Balance of Performance applied. The boosted to hell and back VR38DETT struggles with moderation as well, either giving you everything or nothing depending on the revs and its mood, thanks also in part to Gran Turismo Sport's non-linear throttle pedal, adding yet more nails to a coffin that is already more nails than wood. This car feels so uncertain, numb, and snappy in corner exits, and it lets go with such suddenness, it really did feel like the rear tyres sporadically run over loose floor mats strewn across the track every corner exit.


That said, I do have 1,525km on my GT-R GT3. That's because, for a very long time, the GT-R GT3 was an absolutely necessary evil in Gr. 3. It had such ridiculous power in a straight line and top end performance, nothing else could come close to it on power inclined, or even top speed exploring tracks, such as Monza, Bathurst and Suzuka. This meant that, for a very long time when the GT-R was the king of straight line missiles, anyone who wanted to do well in races at these tracks had to learn the very specific way to drive a GT-R GT3 that didn't upset the moody car. It was so bad at its worst, with numbers so far beyond what it was originally intended to cope with, it didn't feel like a GT3 car at all, true to what its looks would suggest. When one thinks of GT3 racing cars, they most likely have a baseline of expectations of how they should handle and drive. The GT-R GT3 falls WAY below that threshold of reasonable expectation for a GT3 car, especially in its prime when BoPped to carve out its competitive niche.


With BoP as it is now, the straight line missile award seems to be split between the Aston V12 GT3 and Viper GT3-R, with the GT-R nowhere to be seen, meaning the ONE thing it was good for, others do better now. I really struggle to find a single good thing to say about the GT-R GT3. It handles like sliding on shit, feels like its suspension is stuffed with shit, and looks as awful as if Godzilla had shat it out. Where it differs from shit is that shit is actually useful for something in the right applications; the GT-R GT3 is quite literally good for nothing, both in real life and virtually. Hell, the only comparison I can draw with this car that favours it is that, of Nissan's two Manufacturer Series cars, this is actually the more competitive of the two.


You know I'm sick of the car when I hop into something else over the course of the week's meet to try and beat the given week's car. I did a grand total of ONE race in the GT-R, just as a formality, before hopping into other Gr. 3 cars to soundly whoop any GT-R not driven by Vic, and even then, I was actually putting up a fight with our resident Stig. I drove over the course of the meet, the RC F, Atenza, and AMG GT3, all previous Cars of the Week (and also the RX-Vision, THAT car's turn might come soon enough ;) ). These are all front engine cars that aren't leaderboard darlings. And all of them will soundly whoop a GT-R GT3 around any given track. The Atenza and RX-Vision are by no means easy drives by Gr. 3 standards, but I could at least find a rhythm and groove in them. I could trust them. They were consistent and even predictable (in the Atenza's case) by comparison. Hell, compared to the GT-R, both were as easy to drive as shitting into a diaper.

HOWE is he so fast?!

You have SO MANY other options in the by now finely balanced Gr. 3, that there is truly no reason you ever have to bother with this... thing. It is a spiteful, necessary evil at its best, and simply disdainful rubbish at its worst. You really have to be either a masochist, or a Nissan fanatic to ever want to bother with this long since decomposing piece of shit.



I recognise that most of its shortcomings I felt in my testing are direct results of the disservice this rubbish game does to the car, with its stupid suspension settings and non-linear throttle. As valid as I feel those complaints are, it also feels like making excuses for the car. Car of the Week tested this exact car, along with other variants of GT3 R35s in Gran Turismo 6's Car of the Week thread, and the opinion back then seems to be unanimous that this car just... sucks.

Across both real life and different versions of virtual realities, it's consistently a Beater and binner.

Remember when we used to think Kaz loved his GT-Rs?




I've only one video for this week. We didn't have very good races this week, due to spotty connections, bad drivers who refused to brake for corners and refused to leave, and some bad driving on my part as well.


For some context, this was how bad the connection this week had been:


IYAA YAMETE URUSHITE KUDASAI DEKASUGI ANTA NO KODOMO WA HOSHIKUNAI NAZE NEITO SAN NO ME NO MAE NI SURU NO NEITO NO TAME NI MAMOTTE IRU NONI GOMENNASAI~!

Monday, 7 September 2020

Car of the Week - Week 101: Subaru WRX Gr. B Road Car

My phone rings. It's rare that it does, especially when it isn't some dubious unknown number trying to spam and scam someone.

"'sup?"
"Hey Dino. I'm going to need a bit of help with this week's car."
"What is it?"
"It's... a blue car."
"Oh come on, even you're more descriptive than that!"
"That's the thing, I don't know what it is!"
"Does it have no badging? What does it say on the car?"
"Symmetrical AWD... and I'm not sure if it's the owner's idea, but... it says a bad thing on the back."
"Oh, yeah. Those've been around a long time. Several different generations and trims. Could you send a photo?"
"Of the STI?! *gasp*"
"Yeah."
"Dino, what are you asking?!"
"What?"
"I don't have...! I'm clean!"
"Oh my g- THE CAR!"
"Tsk... See, this is why you need to be a lot more professional in your mannerisms, your speech, your choice of words, and... urgh, look, can you just... open your front door?"

Oh for f...

"Please stop doing this, EsthURGGGH!", I opened the door to immediately be cut off mid sentence to shield my eyes and stumble back, as though a vampire leaving his lair in daylight. It wasn't the sunlight that stung my eyes and caused me to recoil, however. Rather, it was the monstrosity that's being unloaded onto my driveway: a... blue... car... Frankenstein... thing.

"What in the blue hell is THIS?!", I exclaimed in shock, yes, but mostly disgust: a widebody, tuner boy racer wannabe gangster mobile was being lowered down onto my driveway.


"So... you don't... know, what this is, either?", asks Esther timidly.

"I mean, I- yes of- no I mean- no. I mean, WHAT THE HELL?!"
"Lee, you're scaring me."
"I thought we at COTW review stock! Unmodified! Why this?"
"This is unmodified, apparently... I have the certification papers from the technicians of COTW right here."

A stock WRX that looks like this? Now that she insists on it, I think I'm starting to recall some funky homologation models both Subaru and Mitsubishi pumped out for the resurgence of "Group B", revived by the FIA-Gran Turismo partnership. Though, it's hard to really think of these as homologation models, seeing as these cars were never put up for sale publicly - only distributed within inner circles of the FIA-Gran Turismo and their racers. In fact, I think they called it the... uh...

The "Subaru WRX Gr. B Road Car."


And with that, I think I've hit my irony quota for this year.

Almost as attention grabbing as its bombastically flared fenders is its rally car suspension kit, true to the nature of the racing car it was meant to homologate. You wouldn't guess it however, just by looking at the spec sheets: this thing has a ground clearance of 135mm (5.31in), which is exactly the same as my bone stock Spirit R RX-7, and let me be the first to tell you that it's no All Japan Rally Car. Rather, where it has clearance is between the wheels and the fenders, which look to allow for way more suspension travel than it has ground clearance... needless to say, it's entirely stupid, and hence why I thought this was some 19 year old's toy car financed by their unbeknownst parents' credit cards than something a sensible and practical manufacturer like Subaru would've put out on the street.


Further, this car, if not for its sky scraping suspension setup, would look almost too much for a GT3 spec racing car, with fenders flared to comically bulbous levels, then lavished unsparingly with clear carbon fibre parts: Carbon fibre wing stands, skirts, the freaking window frames, interior trim, and what looks like the entire underbody as well. Many of these woefully expensive carbon parts, such as the diffuser and front lip, are perfectly poised to smash into the ground with all the weight and momentum of the car in a rally stage, which is why rally cars DON'T use carbon fibre parts, and you need look no further than the very Group B WRX that this thing homologates to find proof of this. For something that screams "RALLY!", it doesn't even come with mud guards.


Even as a poser car for some angsty, rebellious teenager seeking validation from the opposite sex, this car's looks just doesn't work. No one wearing a skirt would be able to step across the chasms between the flared fenders and side skirts, meaning this car isn't even good as a poser car. Flared fenders usually make a car look squat and poised to strike, with performance implications of a lower centre of gravity to help better cornering speeds. Yet, as previously mentioned, this thing looks like a school boy who barely was able to afford the cheapest seats in a Nickelback concert: tiptoeing, chin up, and waving its hands up in the air. The height and width of this thing just looks excessive, and it's hard to even imagine any practical application for either. The base WRX was never a looker, granted, but the body kit on this just takes it to tragically comical levels, destroying any preexisting semblance of proportion. I think the worst angle of this car is easily dead on from the rear: the overcompensating man bulge fenders look like fish gills, or knife holders, and the car almost feels castrated, plugged up, and gagged, with only one exhaust pipe, down from the FOUR of the WRX STi.


I haven't even gotten into the car yet, and I'm already suffering a migraine from this week's awful car. I'm not even done complaining yet!

Most... egregious... confounding... flabbergasting... whatever big word that means "appalling" you can find in a thesaurus to put in here, wouldn't be big enough to describe the atrocity that is the rear occupancy of this car: It retains the rear row of seats of the perfectly sensible and capable base WRX, complete with all the upholstery, amenities, and even seatbelts to allow this car to carry approximately 3.6 adult passengers in terrified comfort... except, the rear doors of this damn thing DON'T OPEN. Get this: the rear door panels are bespoke, as they are part of the GINORMOUS haunches of the rear fenders. As a result, the door handles of the rear are drowned out in the bulge, and aren't replaced. So you think, "okay, a bit of a pain in the rear, quite literally. I'll just open the front doors, bend over the side skirts and door sills and reach in from the front to-". Yeah, I'll stop you right there. The rear door handles of this "sedan" have been axed, too. What really rubs salt in the wound from the loss of the rear doors is that the bespoke rear door panels of this car are their own, separate panels, not integrated or welded shut to the rest of the B Pillar, with panel gaps big enough suggest that they open. I don't know why Subaru wouldn't just make a coupé version of the WRX, like they did with the 22B, and homologate THAT instead. Would it be too much trouble to engineer bespoke door handles for the rear in addition to the bespoke ENTIRE REAR DOOR PANEL?! And if there was never any intent for the rear doors to open, why not axe the entire rear row of seats and use the space to, oh, I don't know, mount a 6 point harness, and install a roll cage? Why, of all the more conventional, cohesive, simpler, and sensible of alternatives, was THIS the outcome?


"So... do you know what this is or not?", asks Esther.

I'm not sure what sort of twisted regulation in the homologation rules of Group B that has twisted an otherwise sensible, massively capable, everyday car that's easy to recommend anyone into this exacting monstrosity of bad teases and contradicting messages, that looks to be good for precisely NOTHING. To recap: this car's name says it's both a rally car and a road car. It's suspension travel area and aerodynamic tweaks scream rallying, but the ground clearance, and the materials its constructed out of begs for the sanity of paved roads. This car has the silhouette of a 4 door sedan, the requisite five seats, panel gaps for the rear doors, but... it has no rear door handles, making this a 2+3 coupé?. What IS this car? How would one classify and define it? What is it meant to be, what is it meant to do?

"This is...

a blue car."

*********************************************

The WRX Gr. B Road Car isn't any less confused on the track, either. The interior of this homologation car is largely left unmodified from the original STi, aside from swapping some plastic panels for carbon fibre replacements, furthering that cheap, desperate, ruined by a 19 year old look as these look almost like fake CF wraps rather than a purposefully lightened and gutted interior. The largely original interior makes the digital dash identical to the one found on the rally car SUPER conspicuous. It's surreal to see such a modern, digital dash, complete with shift lights, operated by a leather wrapped steering wheel and a stick shift. I don't know, if I had to choose between proper racing buckets and harnesses, throwing out the rear seats, or a fancy dash, the last on the list would be the lowest in priority...


It has to be said though, that visibility out of the cockpit of this modern day WRX is superb. Part of that is due to the interior being nearly identical to the road car, yes, missing roll cages and not having the seat sunk deeper into the car. I had expected a car with bulbous fender flares to be difficult to place, but it's quite easy to find the edges of the car on the track, actually. I just wouldn't want to be the valet that has to navigate a tight parking lot in this car though, let's just say.

The WRX Gr. B Road Car (THAT'S a mouthful...) behaves and handles well enough on a narrow, winding mountain circuit like Bathurst, offering tons of grip for days, with the bad road surfaces, bumps, and off camber turns barely registering through the car. Yes, it's soft and compliant, but somehow, it also manages to retain a high degree of agility and response rivaling those of sports cars, in spite of that softness and compliant setup, which is something I've always admired the Subaru wizards for. Initial bite under braking and turning of the wheel is excellent: the car feels light on its feet, and nimbler than its 1,425kg (3,142lbs) mass would suggest. For some context, it uses roughly the same braking points of my lighter and slower FD RX-7 round Bathurst, and that's really saying something.


However, try to get it to bite a little more, try to tuck in the nose a little more for a deeper apex, and the front end goes completely numb and limp from the overly soft suspension, offering no real feedback and squandering weight transfer to delays. It gives a very odd sensation, like most of the weight is wasted trying to compress the suspension rather than pressing on the wheel. I might be mistaken about this, but there was nothing at all I could do to get the car to bite into corners with deeper apexes. This means that, while the car excels at a narrow, winding mountain pass like Bathurst, it completely falls over and dies at any wide open racing tracks that has you turning across the entire width of the track to find an apex - tracks wide enough to hold 6 cars side by side. It has good enough initial response, but just doesn't follow up with trail braking, or mid corner adjustments into deeper corners. On tracks like these, the WRX Gr. B Road Car becomes an unruly, unwilling beast you need to wrestle and wrangle around every corner. You need to brake early, turn the wheel hard, and hold onto that stiff steering wheel fighting back, preparing to turn it some more and to utter some choice words in the process. It's a workout to drive this thing on a proper, paved racetrack, and one that isn't very gratifying.


Long time WRX loyalists and enthusiasts will no doubt rejoice in the fact that this car uses a highly tuned EJ207 Boxer 4 cylinder, now outputting 479PS and 542.6N-m (400.2ft-lb). That's right, this homologation car is based off the JDM Spec VA WRX, which has the old as hell- I mean, proven EJ20 Engine that has been the heart of Imprezas and WRXes since the earliest examples. This fourth gen WRX is noteworthy for being the last car to carry that engine, which was only available in its home market of Japan. Too bad it has to exhale and make its Boxer rumble through only ONE exhaust pipe in this car.


The EJ20 not only has had its peak power increased as well, but was given a WALL of torque spiking up at around what looks to be 2,000rpm, but in practice, feels more like 3,000. This wall of torque continues with almost a table top flatness until slightly tapering near the redline of 8,500rpm. This means the car bogs at launch, is completely undriveable on public roads despite the phrase "Road Car" being explicitly stated in its name, and will require slight short shifting to make the most of on the track. Thankfully, the gear ratios on this homologation car have been suitably shortened and made closer together to reflect and complement the rally focused engine characteristics. Despite not being in the car's name, this homologation car is THANKFULLY based on the STi version of the car, meaning it has a proper 6 speed manual instead of the "oh god why hath thou allowed this to happen" CVT on the base WRX. The drivetrain pairing on this car is really, really good: you can shift almost whenever and wherever, and you will ALWAYS have torque to not only get you going, but to break out the rear tyres and hold drifts as well as and when you desire - signs of a bona fide rally car. The ratios work with and hide the deficiencies of the engine really well - you won't find faults of the engine on the track unless you specifically go out of your way to look for them. I've heavily criticised many aspects of this car, but this marriage of drivetrains is one made in heaven, and whoever set it up is very clearly a professional of experience.


While strangely barred from fiddling with the torque split of the centre diff in the paddock, I could freely adjust the centre torque split from the centre console as I drove. Default torque split is a rather safe and conservative 40 Front 60 Rear, but it allows you to choose from NINE settings in increments of 5%, ranging from 10 Front, 90 Rear, to an even 50-50 split, otherwise known as "don't". On dry paved roads, I find my happy place to be 30-70, though I've had to raise it a notch to 35-65 in heavy rain. And this, I think, really says a lot about this car: out of the box, it tries to convey to you that it can do everything really well, but has had the unfortunate side effect of making itself look like a bit of a clown. It's massively capable, and has the hardware for doing impressive things, such as running circles around Group 3 homologation cars, ironically. But, for every application, it will require serious fiddling with to make it do what it can. Torque split, suspension settings, brake bias... you really need to put in the time and effort to set it up for every purpose and every event, from launch, circuit, rally, wet, or even doughnuts in a parking lot, as otherwise it will just crumble in the sad, forgettable place of "in the middle of nowhere".


Invest the time and effort into setting it up however... it will give you a sensational time that nothing else can hope to match. Nowhere is that clearer than at a rally stage.

"Lee, I know the flight connection to Italy got cancelled and you only got two races with the crew, so I thought we should arrange for more individual testing. There's this big, promising looking track in America that hardly anyone uses, but is recognised and sanctioned by FIA-GT..."
"Fisherman's Ranch?"
"Bing bong! How'd you know?"
"It's a dirt track though... I'm no rally driver, Esther."
"Come on, can't you just drive around for a few photos?"
"These cars don't rally, Esther. They'll destroy their underbodies and it'd be a nightmare to clean before returning to their owners, and besides-"
"It was a request from the owner of these cars, actually."
"What?"
"Apparently some expensive parts of the cars need replacing, and since these are rally cars, regular wear and tear on a dirt track is covered under our insurance, so..."
"Ripping a hole through the underbody of the car isn't 'regular wear and tear', Esther..."
"Tsk... Are you doubting my legal prowess? I have the signed forms right here."
"You're asking me to go out there and deliberately wreck these cars, Esther!"
"Mm hmm. The owner let us test his cars for free, with the condition that we must wreck them on a rally track so that insurance will buy him brand new replacements. You seem really good at wrecking expensive cars."
"Esther... too soon."
*giggle*
"Sounds like a totally sheet deal. How'd you get insurance to agree to it?"
"That's a trade secret!"
*sigh* "I'll give it a go."


Ploughing Fisherman's Ranch with the diffuser of an Evo X.


*SCRAAAAAPE*


We'll be right back.

Meanwhile, in Italy...


Is that... a CORVETTE?!



Group jump! Look at all these buttholes having all this fun without me!
(See Vic, the problem with being faster than light is that you can only live in complete darkness.)

Now that both cars have been destroyed, along with most of my anatomy from the lack of proper support and restraints in these cars, we can end the review, but not before I tell you how FLIPPING GLORIOUS these cars were to drive on the dirt.

I've only had a brief crash course (emphasis on "crash") in the Group B Lan Evo Rally Car to learn the track with a very British sounding instructor whose name I didn't catch, so safe it is to say that, again, I'm no rally driver. However, what I can readily tell you is that these Gr. B Road Cars offer the complete experience of the lighter and more powerful race cars. They have the assuring grip and balance, they have the same centre torque split controller, the same ability to break the rears out, the same ability to drift, and the same ability to stop well, the same short gearing, the same plateaus of torque, and the same feedback. In fact, power and mass deficiency aside, I'd argue that these Road Cars provide an experience more raw and engaging, just because you're operating three pedals and a stick you can hardly leave alone on the track, instead of the flappy paddles of the racing car.


Setting the centre differential to a suicidal looking 20-80 split, and knocking the brake bias rearwards, I soon found myself with the most exhilarating time on a track I never could've fathomed. The cars will grip for days, even on dirt, when equipped with the same dirt tyres as the racing cars. However, the rear end can be swung out on whim, even without resorting to the handbrake lever, which I can't pull in any car due to *cough* physical inability *cough*. All it takes is being sharp and sudden with either pedal and the accompanying wheel movement to get the rear out to play, and you can initiate slides with angles so ridiculous, at speeds so high in these cars, it's mind boggling to someone who only grip drives on paved roads.


These cars are so malleable as tools, as toys, and adapts to a wide range of driving styles and habits almost effortlessly, as I unwittingly tested for with my inexperience with dirt driving. The cars' responses are delightfully sharp and proportionate. What was once a wrestling act on a paved track now becomes almost like a juggling act, as you can effortlessly slide a car into and out of an apex, adjusting your grip of the steering wheel and your steering inputs several times a second as though juggling five apples with your hands and feet, all while the undulations, jumps, and loose earth work to break the car away from you. And you will feel EVERY. SINGLE. THING. that's going on with the car and road.


Yes, my lines are ugly and inconsistent as all hell. Yes, I might've broken more than the cars. But it's not everyday that you get to experience something truly new and unique, and while not under the pressure of a race or a stopwatch, I had the most fun frolicking around the dirt in these two cars, learning, exploring, all while being hit in the face with the most ridiculous, adrenaline filled fun no road or racecar has given me. I really wish FIA-GT did more with Group B and the rally tracks they sanction, perhaps renovate these dirt tracks to have a proper pit lane, because good GOD almighty this is RIDICULOUS fun!


You might have realised halfway into the review that I sneaked in an Evo Gr. B Road Car as well. That's because I find that these two cars are virtually indistinguishable from each other as far as on track performance goes. Everything I said about the WRX, applies to the Evo as well, from the stupid rear doors, understeer on wide tracks, right down to the lap times. They even share the exact same power and mass figures, and the similarities extend to even the 6 speed manual bit. That's right: you're looking at the only version of the Evo X with a 6 speed manual stick shift from the factory, though, true to the bottom of the barrel economy class cars Mitsubishi are seemingly hell bent on being known for nowadays, the engravings on the stick shift aren't updated to include a 6th forward gear, but are instead omitted entirely:

Evo X Final Edition:


Gr. B Road Car:


How are the two cars different? Well... they sound and look different... the Subie has its one exhaust on the left, and the Mitsu on the right. The coloured centre thing on the steering wheel is blue for the Subaru, and red for the Mitsubishi. They really want to make it clear that they are rivals, don't they? The Evo actually has mud guards, if only for the rear, and seems to come with AYC, though I can't even find an option to adjust it. I feel it slightly on corner exit, but it's set very mildly, if it's even there and not just my placebo. The Evo has its redline at 8,000rpm, 500 lower than that of the WRX, though, these cars are so similar that even their power curves up to that point are indistinguishable from each other's. The Evo actually comes with a third brake light in the middle, and cars missing those are a huge pet peeve for me. These two cars being nearly identical on the track means you can just pick whichever one you think looks or sounds best, or which brand you like more, and have a fair fight with the other. And that, I think, is a better outcome than being able to say one car is absolutely better than the other.


I don't even need to drive anything else to tell you that these two cars, right here, give anyone the most enthralling and comprehensive rally experience anyone can ask for. Nothing else can even fathom to come close to what these two cars can do and make you feel on dirt. It's just... for the love of all that you consider dear and holy, raise the ground clearance and swap out the expensive carbon bits for... whatever it is they use on the actual Group B cars. Trust me when I tell you that it's an experience you'll want more than once.



These two cars are both sleepers, for having the hardware and potential to be massively capable, and for being ridiculous BUCKETS of fun on dirt. It's just... I still think you really do need to be drunk, mentally challenged, high, hypnotised, and with a fresh concussion from blunt force trauma all at once to really want either car, though. It's the sort of car I wish a good friend of a friendly neighbour would have, just so I can borrow it for a bit of fun. But I don't want to have to live with it, I don't want to tolerate it on the roads, especially in an urban area. And most of all, I just don't want to be seen in something that looks as whack as either of these cars.