Pete McKay
10-01-2008, 02:10 AM
This morning I got my first 6 Lifelike cars I ordered from BRS, again, thanks for the quick service Brian. I got to put in about an hours worth of racing before I had to get to work, but I got another hour or so this evening to do a comparison. My apologies for the poor pictures but I'll get something up better in the future.
First, let's look at the 2000 Taurus vs. CoT Fusion.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-385S.jpg
The Taurus is a bit lower and shorter in the tail than the Fusion. it is just a shade longer in the nose but I noticed (as did a few others) that for some reason the splitter on the Fords are almost non-existent. On the track my Kenseth car ran consistent 1.04 second laps, a fast lap of 1.01 was recorded in a 100 lap solo run. After sanding the tires and some other tuning the Fusion was allowed 10 laps to warm up. I taped the tires and set off on 100 laps. Handling was about the same although it seemed on a few laps I could drive the CoT in deeper into the corners. Laps ranged in the 1.07 range with a fast of 1.04 seconds. Aesthetically speaking the Fusion looks more "real" than the Taurus, and this is a nice touch.
Next, the "square" 2002 Monte Carlo vs. Impala SS
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-386S.jpg
My 2002 Gordon car ran well in the last series and has been worked on since then. After the same pre-lap tuning and warm up I ran 100 laps with a quick lap of 1.03 seconds. This M/C handles every bit as good as the Taurus, the drawback being a slightly more square front end to push through the air. The CoT was prepped and ran a fast lap of 1.04, same as the Fusion. The splitter doesn't seem to make a difference on my short track but I'll be doing testing next week on the new track, which is longer and faster. Again the CoT looks more real, is taller and a touch longer on both ends.
Lastly, the "turtle" 2004 Monte Carlo vs. Impala SS
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-387S.jpg
These cars showed the biggest differences between any of the tested subjects. The 2004 M/C ran a relatively slow 1.08 fast lap, which was a full .03 faster than any lap it had run previously according to my records. I guess it had something to prove, but the CoT ran very consistent 1.05's and a fast of 1.03, making it the fastest of the compo cars raced. The round M/C is the second ugliest car (IMHO) Lifelike ever did, right behind their original Dodge R//T. It is longer in the nose and shorter in the tail than the CoT and roughly the same height.
The two Dodges I had were run without anything to compare them to since I sent off my "turtle" cars to Dave. Still, both Dodges ran consistent 1.06's and Sadlers car ran a 1.03 near the end of it's 100 laps. The Dodge splitter is present as it is in the Impala.
All 3 of the types I have in my possession seem to share just about everything except some minor hood and front end details and, on the Fords, a shorter splitter. Someone posted that Lifelike should have used the same mold for all of the cars and I have to agree; the rear quarter windows are identical, just the noses differ. The Fusion has the most pointed, the Impala and Dodge are about the same. I don't have a Toyota yet but those will be ordered next week barring another financial screw up on my part.
This is by no means scientific. My track is way too small to make an assumption of performance for any of these cars, but things happen fast and having a car that is quick out of the corners and can drive into the next one a little deeper is going to win here. If you crash at Sequoia, even in a 250 lap race, your day is going to be tough. You can lose 10 or more laps that fast. Being a few hundredths faster isn't as beneficial as having a good handling car.
..so far Smokey has not shown an interest in the Jimmy Johnson CoT thank God. It took me 3 days to find the 2004 car last week, it was in his hide-a-way again.
First, let's look at the 2000 Taurus vs. CoT Fusion.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-385S.jpg
The Taurus is a bit lower and shorter in the tail than the Fusion. it is just a shade longer in the nose but I noticed (as did a few others) that for some reason the splitter on the Fords are almost non-existent. On the track my Kenseth car ran consistent 1.04 second laps, a fast lap of 1.01 was recorded in a 100 lap solo run. After sanding the tires and some other tuning the Fusion was allowed 10 laps to warm up. I taped the tires and set off on 100 laps. Handling was about the same although it seemed on a few laps I could drive the CoT in deeper into the corners. Laps ranged in the 1.07 range with a fast of 1.04 seconds. Aesthetically speaking the Fusion looks more "real" than the Taurus, and this is a nice touch.
Next, the "square" 2002 Monte Carlo vs. Impala SS
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-386S.jpg
My 2002 Gordon car ran well in the last series and has been worked on since then. After the same pre-lap tuning and warm up I ran 100 laps with a quick lap of 1.03 seconds. This M/C handles every bit as good as the Taurus, the drawback being a slightly more square front end to push through the air. The CoT was prepped and ran a fast lap of 1.04, same as the Fusion. The splitter doesn't seem to make a difference on my short track but I'll be doing testing next week on the new track, which is longer and faster. Again the CoT looks more real, is taller and a touch longer on both ends.
Lastly, the "turtle" 2004 Monte Carlo vs. Impala SS
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z262/FresnoPete/MVC-387S.jpg
These cars showed the biggest differences between any of the tested subjects. The 2004 M/C ran a relatively slow 1.08 fast lap, which was a full .03 faster than any lap it had run previously according to my records. I guess it had something to prove, but the CoT ran very consistent 1.05's and a fast of 1.03, making it the fastest of the compo cars raced. The round M/C is the second ugliest car (IMHO) Lifelike ever did, right behind their original Dodge R//T. It is longer in the nose and shorter in the tail than the CoT and roughly the same height.
The two Dodges I had were run without anything to compare them to since I sent off my "turtle" cars to Dave. Still, both Dodges ran consistent 1.06's and Sadlers car ran a 1.03 near the end of it's 100 laps. The Dodge splitter is present as it is in the Impala.
All 3 of the types I have in my possession seem to share just about everything except some minor hood and front end details and, on the Fords, a shorter splitter. Someone posted that Lifelike should have used the same mold for all of the cars and I have to agree; the rear quarter windows are identical, just the noses differ. The Fusion has the most pointed, the Impala and Dodge are about the same. I don't have a Toyota yet but those will be ordered next week barring another financial screw up on my part.
This is by no means scientific. My track is way too small to make an assumption of performance for any of these cars, but things happen fast and having a car that is quick out of the corners and can drive into the next one a little deeper is going to win here. If you crash at Sequoia, even in a 250 lap race, your day is going to be tough. You can lose 10 or more laps that fast. Being a few hundredths faster isn't as beneficial as having a good handling car.
..so far Smokey has not shown an interest in the Jimmy Johnson CoT thank God. It took me 3 days to find the 2004 car last week, it was in his hide-a-way again.