Limit mode. Audi R8, Ferrari F430, Jaguar XKR, Lamborghini Gallardo and Porsche 911 Carrera S

I returned to the asphalt patch in the special roads sector of the proving ground, clumsily, without any grace, grabbed the front pillar and, grunting, climbed out of the Lamborghini Gallardo. That's enough for today. Then I got into a Fiat Bravo, started its diesel engine, and headed towards Moscow. What smoothness of ride, what visibility, what silence! It doesn't get thrown around in ruts, the steering wheel doesn't jerk, the tank lasts a week, and the price is just a bit more than the annual CASCO insurance for a Lamborghini. True happiness! And I deserved it, having spent three days among monsters. Friday — on the race track in Myachkovo, Saturday and Sunday — at the proving ground.

Why all this madness? Who needs these crazy engines on wheels? Who are they, these slaves of vanity?

In the morning, as usual, the world had changed. And when I didn't see the silver Porsche 911 under the windows, which I had driven for almost three years, a brief panic seized me: where?

It's all right. The car is at the proving ground, in safe hands. But I already miss it.

The start was unlucky. Four cars arrived at the race track in Myachkovo on their own, while the Lamborghini Gallardo was brought on a tow truck: the car was brand new, and the dealer and I were worried about its showroom condition. But we still damaged the rear bumper skirt. Not on the track and not at the proving ground, but during loading onto the tow truck. But even worse was that it started raining, which buried the idea of ranking the cars by "racing circuit" order. It became clear that those with better tires and all-wheel drive would be in the lead. Both were available on the Lamborghini Gallardo and Audi R8. The Jaguar XKR could boast relatively fresh tread, while the Ferrari F430 and Porsche 911 S had neither all-wheel drive nor new tires. Especially disappointing for Porsche: the honor of the brand in this test was supposed to be defended by the all-wheel-drive Porsche 911 Turbo with its 480-horsepower engine. But we couldn't get one. And without a Porsche, it's impossible here! So I came to Myachkovo in my "S", dooming it to failure: rear-wheel drive and the weakest engine in the test — 355 hp...

The "architecture" of the instrument panel is modeled after Audi. Although on the Lamborghini, the tachometer belongs in the center of the panel	The paddle shifters behind the steering wheel are convenient, but they feel too "plastic" to the touch
Next to the mirror adjustment knob is a button that allows you to raise the front end by 45 mm. We used it when loading onto the tow truck	The "sporty" instruments — oil pressure and temperature gauges, along with the electrical system voltage, are placed in the center of the front panel

In Myachkovo, we invited two young racers who had already participated in our tests — multiple Russian karting champion Kyrylo Ladyhin and Danylo Move, who currently competes in the World Series by Renault. They would each do four laps in each car: the first lap — "acceleration", two "scoring" laps, and the last — "braking" lap. To avoid chases and overtakes, we sent the racers out at half-minute intervals. We placed their impressions separately, and here we'll say that there were no surprises: the best results were achieved in the Audi and Lamborghini.

The Lamborghini's trunk is the smallest. If this opening can be called a trunk	A vivid example of inappropriate economy: you can't make handles out of plastic in such a car!
After you look into the trunk, the miniature glove box no longer surprises	Reverse gear is irrelevant for a Lamborghini! And so its activation button is placed on the periphery

And what did it look like from the outside? Oh, it looked and sounded!

The Jaguar grumbled laboriously, it was working: in eight cylinders, with the help of a supercharger, the Jaguar converted the chemical energy of 98-octane BP Ultimate gasoline into 420 horsepower and forward motion of the aluminum, but heaviest in the test, body. The Audi also worked. The voice of the naturally aspirated V8 also had low, bubbling tones. The power is the same, but less strain. The sound of the Porsche 911's flat-six, enhanced on the S version with a Helmholtz resonator, is higher and livelier: the acoustic ambiance perfectly matched the swift appearance and the smallest "official" weight. The orange Lamborghini also pleased with the harmony of sound and image. It didn't squeal, didn't growl, didn't groan, and didn't moan. It screamed. With a dry, angular, like the car itself, roar of the 520-horsepower V10. Very impressive. And the Ferrari F430... You look at the red Ferrari gliding over the wet asphalt, hear the jubilant, triumphantly ringing voice — and a puppy-like delight seizes you. Viva, Ferrari! Viva, V8! Here it is, the untainted by unification voice of a great breed! Beautiful. The power is 490 hp, but it feels like all 600...

The Lamborghini's interior is good in every way, if not for the strange, for a car costing 222 thousand euros, combination of luxurious leather and simple plastic. The apogee of this dissonance is the steering wheel: its chord-cut part is "wrapped" in slippery gray plastic, while the main part of the rim is upholstered in luxurious "friction" suede	The seats are hard, but the pliable top layer helps avoid "peak" loads on the body	These buttons set the transmission modes, and in the base version, there's a gear lever here

The runs, the rain, and the track rental time ended simultaneously. Again, we load the Lambo onto the tow truck, shake hands with the racers — and head to the proving ground, hoping for mercy from the heavens: just no rain! It's only a joke that if Moscow is the heart of the Motherland, then Dmitrov is its bladder. But in every joke...

The rain either poured or stopped, which dragged out the measurements on the dynamometer road for two days. Fortunately, the testers had plenty of other things to do. For example, the cars had to be weighed, which our instrumentation specialist Andrii Mokhov took care of. An interesting detail! Three cars — Audi, Lamborghini, and Jaguar — have "progressive" aluminum bodies, while two, Porsche and Ferrari, have "conservative" steel ones. And which are lighter? Porsche and Ferrari — 1490 and 1579 kg respectively! And the heaviest is the Jaguar, 1775 kg.

Now, knowing the true weight, we can anticipate the outcome in the sprint to 100 km/h. Dividing the power by the mass (not the one in the "specs", but the one in Mokhov's protocol!), we get the value of the so-called power-to-weight ratio. And we bet on the Lambo: 316.5 hp per ton. Then in descending order: Ferrari F430 (310.3), Audi R8 (253.8), Porsche 911 S (238.3), and Jaguar XKR (236.6). Will the forecasts match the measurement results?

We've seen this somewhere before... Those who drove any other Volkswagen Group car before the Audi R8 won't have to get used to it	The glove box is interesting not so much for its functionality as for its "button" opening mechanism. The passenger will gasp!
Not every "airplane" suitcase will fit here, but compared to the Lamborghini, this is already a trunk!	In addition to the Audi R8, "active" aerodynamic elements are also present on the Lamborghini Gallardo and Porsche 911

The sun came out, and work went into full swing. Uncle Vanya, together with Andrei Mokhov, headed off in a Ferrari to the dynamometer road — while they fiddle with the instruments there, the asphalt might just dry out. Yaroslav Tsyplenkov, meanwhile, was marking out cones on the special road section for the moose test. As for us, Alexander Divakov and I got the 'free' cars and all the test track routes. The plan is simple: rattle over the Belgian paving, brake on the 'mixed surface', scrub the tires on the mountain road, squeeze everything out on the 'dyno', then swap and repeat.

Ergonomics are not bad, but for a car aiming at serious sports cars, the interior turned out too glamorous and flashy	The large multimedia screen — and perhaps the most convenient interface	The seats are a bit softer than in the Lamborghini, but 'sportiness' is in full order here too
One complaint about the robotic gearbox control: it would be more logical to engage a lower gear by moving the lever forward, not backward, as is done in Audi	Our Audi had standard brakes, but ceramic composite discs will soon be available (they can also be ordered for the Ferrari)	This engine is also found in other Audi models, but the version for the R8 features a 'dry sump' lubrication system that prevents oil starvation under severe loads

First, we took on the Lamborghini. The seat is a bit hard, with pronounced lateral support, but the soft top layer adapts well to the body. To get at least some sense of the dimensions (right behind the lower edge of the huge windshield — immediately asphalt), you raise the seat, but the steering wheel won't go higher — the adjustment range is too small. Fine, we'll sit lower, and lower the center of mass at the same time. The steering wheel continues to surprise. The fact that it's flattened at the bottom is good — knees don't catch. But the flat section is covered not with Alcantara like the rest, but with cheap slippery plastic — that's a minus. The only consolation is that with such a steering ratio (less than three turns lock-to-lock), you won't have to 're-grip' the wheel often. The tiny, uncomfortable footrest for the left foot also puzzled me. Seriously?

The engine starts with a button, and transmission modes are also selected with buttons. Let me remind you: in the base Gallardo (like the Audi R8 and Ferrari F430) there's a regular six-speed manual, but ours has a robot for an extra charge. There's no clutch pedal, no gear lever either, but there are paddle shifters: left — down, right — up, and neutral engages if you pull both at once.

At idle, the engine growls promisingly, but there's almost no vibration. Foot on the brake, right hand pulls the paddle, the display shows first gear, I move my foot to the gas, release the handbrake, add throttle… and the Lamborghini stands still. I check the handbrake — it's released. More gas… And then the Lambo lunges, jumps! Sharply, impudently. Damn 'robots'! If they can't even set them up properly for a Lamborghini, then what complaints can we have about Opels!

The rocket-like acceleration lasted a second. The tachometer needle flew to 8000 rpm — and then everything stopped: the car just coasted, and my head jerked forward from the surprise. Maybe the automatic accidentally disengaged? And then it repeated: another push in the back, and off it went again… We didn't measure how many fractions of a second the thrust disappeared, but at first it seemed like betrayal. And so on every gear — third, fourth…

The Ferrari's metal paddles look serious, and the 'robot's' responses are the fastest	The lever on the steering wheel sets transmission modes ('snow', 'slippery', 'sport', and 'race') and disables the stability system. 'Sport' is considered the everyday mode… And on the center console — buttons for reverse, automatic mode, and Launch Control for a quick start

Maybe shift manually? That's even better: at least you know when the acceleration will disappear and can brace yourself against the wheel. But it's still annoying — especially against the backdrop of responses to the stiff but perfectly tuned gas pedal: it seems the engine's reactions outpace not only the movement of your foot, but even the very thought of acceleration! There's also a Sport mode where shifts are only via paddles. True, at the limit of 8000 rpm the gear will engage itself, but if you press the gas at low revs, there won't be a downshift. Foolproofing. Stability can only be turned off in Sport. Logical.

We drive hard, noisy, and bumpy. At first you only hear the engine, then, as speed increases, the engine and tires, and after 170 km/h — also the wind howling in the wipers. The steering is deliberately heavy, to the detriment of feedback. But the 'feel of the car' is still excessive. Reactions are precise, sharp, instantaneous. And after 200 km/h the connection weakens: the Lambo starts to dance, scaring with half-meter drifts left and right. You grip the wheel, and you no longer think about maneuvers — just hold the straight! The speedometer shows 320 km/h. God, don't let us take off on another bump, and there are almost all of them on the 'dyno', as it turned out! God save the aerodynamicists! And the brake specialists too.

The Ferrari seats are contoured, but the slippery leather doesn't hold the body well	The interior's refinement — large stitches of red thread. But the stereo panel, even with the Ferrari inscription, seems bought at a radio market. Look at the steering wheel: it's slightly 'square' — flattened at the top and bottom

We didn't take off. The brakes are brilliant, except for the blurred transition of the pedal from free play to working.

In honor of the next milestone of 300 km/h, everyone took the turnaround loop of the 'dyno' with a slide: here the all-wheel-drive Lambo is irresistible! Yesterday the racers talked about it, today we talk too, having already driven the mountain road.

The importance of the tachometer is emphasized both by its central position on the dashboard and the yellow scale. And not in vain: only the Ferrari engine revs up to 8500 rpm!	The start button on the steering wheel is a somewhat contrived solution, because you still need to insert the key into the ignition, and you can start the engine with it too
The secondary function keys are more stylish than convenient. And it's not always clear whether the function is on	The large glovebox lid deceives expectations: behind it is a tiny compartment

The car takes the desired arc instantly. Then, playing with the throttle, you can drift through the entire corner. Slides develop smoothly, are controlled almost intuitively, and the restoration of stability is smooth, without jolts. And if you misjudge the throttle and the slide threatens to become a spin, even the previously disabled stability system will wake up and help. The main thing is to have time to point the heavy steering wheel in the right direction. Sporty, exciting, and reliable. Magnificent!

The associations with 'Formula 1' turned out to be stronger than we expected: about the same way a couple of months ago the author pulled away at the Paul Ricard track when he tried himself behind the wheel of a race car (see AR No. 11, 2007). On the F430, first gear only started to engage after we had accelerated a bit… After that, everything fell into place

By the way, while we were gripping the Lambo's wheel on the dynamometer, a Ferrari flew by with its lights on: the road had already dried, so measurements could be taken. That means Tsyplenkov will now take on the 'lane change'. We hand him the Lamborghini, and we ourselves get into the Audi R8.

Now the Audi R8 looks right: black, and only black! All those plastic gills, Kevlar inserts, and other decor no longer seem like cheap trinkets. Thumbs up! But even in black, the Audi hasn't lost its striking resemblance to the Gallardo. Not surprising: the Audi is based on the same all-wheel-drive platform with a viscous coupling on the front axle, albeit stretched by nine centimeters. And when you start the engine, when you put the robotic gearbox lever into automatic mode and vainly try to pull away without jerks... It's a spitting image of the Gallardo! But so glamorous, so "civilian," with extremism trimmed by about 20 percent. There, ten cylinders — here, eight; there, 520 horsepower — here, 420; there, the steering wheel makes 2.75 turns — here, 3.25. And so it goes, point by point. Twin brothers. No, brother and sister. The Audi is more comfortable and more refined. And the "robot" seems to have been improved: the clutch engages more smoothly, and shifts are a bit quicker.

On the high-speed straight, the Audi doesn't bounce, the steering wheel doesn't shimmy, but the handling character in fast corners is almost the same as the Lambo's. The result — delight again. Minus twenty percent. But the driver's seat is better.

Ferrari. The brakes haven't cooled down after the dyno exercises, and the engine radiates heat. Everything here is red and black, including the interior. You look at it, and a smile spreads across your face on its own. You've got to live with skill, you've got to live playfully... Your gait becomes leisurely, your speech measured, your gaze veiled with indifference. But instant happiness didn't happen.

If you want, start the engine with a button; if you want, with a key. We pressed the button. R-r-roar! People turned around, birds scattered, and the body trembled with a fine vibration. Controlling the "robot" is almost like in the Lamborghini: buttons between the seats, paddles behind the steering wheel. Right paddle toward you, a bit of gas... Already taught by experience with the Lamborghini and Audi, I brace for the launch and grip the slightly "square" steering wheel. A little more... But instead of a furious start, the Ferrari just beeped. It turned out the horn buttons are right on the rim, under your thumbs. The car itself had no intention of moving, as indicated by the red letter N replacing the number one on the display. Right paddle again, number one again, gas again — and N again. I turn the little lever on the steering wheel, changing transmission modes: Snow, Sport, Race... No use. We call Uncle Vanya: maybe we're doing something wrong? No, he says, everything's right. And he advises letting the car cool down — maybe its brains will come to their senses. A true Italian car.

Worth the wait! It turns out the "robot" can work quite differently than in the Lambo and Audi! Of course, provided it works at all. Shifts — both in automatic and "manual" modes — are smoother and more responsive.

A furious, wheel-spinning start, 8,000 rpm, second gear, wheel spin again, third — and at about two hundred km/h we're flying toward the mountain road. The feeling of mind-blowing dynamics is amplified by the engine sound, rattling panels, and the light accelerator pedal.

Outwardly, Porsche seats don't look sporty, but no one complained about a lack of "connection with the car"	You can endure a short trip in the rear seats of the Porsche	The Porsche interior is laconic, expensive, and functional. Impeccable selection of materials in quality, texture, and color

Now I need to rein it in and remember that here it's not all-wheel drive but rear-wheel drive only, albeit with an E-Diff differential — with an electronically controlled lock. Ha-ha, you'll forget! In the first corner of the mountain road, the Ferrari steps sideways. But catching the slide with a light steering input restores confidence: reactions are no less precise than the Lamborghini's, and lighter efforts on all controls turn极限 driving from work into fun. Viva, Ferrari! How was it you're supposed to live? Playfully! But still with skill. And the fact that breakaways into slides (be it oversteer, understeer, or wheelspin from power) happen at unexpectedly low g-forces, we'll chalk up to worn Bridgestone tires. We don't rule out that the smart differential lock is also acting up. Stability control? Oh, in the context of Ferrari, it's tuned superbly! First, you get a scare from the slide, and then it comes to the rescue. It's a blast.

The analog tachometer combined with a digital speedometer is a very successful solution. But the speedometer with a needle on the left is useless. Especially since part of its scale is covered by your left hand

And on the high-speed section? No worse than the Lamborghini with its heavy steering! Fewer jumps, weaker impacts on the steering wheel, and even at speeds over 300 km/h, you can dare to make smooth lane changes. True, the already light steering wheel goes completely numb near the center.

Noisy? You bet! But would we reproach the Ferrari engine for its ringing, wound-up tenor? No, we'll reproach the Ferrari for the tires trying to drown out that song on rough asphalt. Aerodynamic noise appears after 120 km/h, and in a somewhat erratic way: bursts of whistle and hum. Ride comfort is predictably nonexistent, and yet in other cars' cabins, road "small stuff" is felt less.

But you want to forgive this passionate car its flaws! Is the fuel gauge lying? No problem: we know that five minutes ago the tank was filled to the brim! Is the tire pressure monitoring system warning light flashing on the display? Nonsense: Uncle Vanya just checked the pressure. Something knocking and creaking in the cabin? Oh, leave your spiteful nitpicking: a good knock will show itself. And if it does, we'll call another tow truck — we won't go broke. A Car-Sun. You've got to live playfully...

Stunned, we climb out of the Ferrari.

By the way, we did call a tow truck: even on a cooled-down car, first gear soon began to engage only if colleagues pushed the car to 10 km/h.

The Porsche has no less sensuality and elegance. But there's a chill in the air. A northern sea of dignity. Ergonomics, despite the seeming austerity of the environment, are nearly flawless. And I recall the words of one of Porsche's top bosses: "We monitor all innovations in the automotive industry, but new devices and systems will be applied to Porsche cars only when we have no doubts about their expediency and reliability." Everything is serious, everything is thorough.

The hoarse, metallic-tinged voice of the flat-six accompanies the assertive acceleration, reaching fortissimo at 7,300 rpm. The Porsche is the only car in the test with conventional gearbox control, and this doesn't put it at a disadvantage next to the "robotic" Lamborghini, Audi, and Ferrari. In fact, it has the most convenient speed control here. You only need to get used to the long-travel and heavy clutch pedal. And the brakes are the best. The ABS too: on the "mixed" surface — not a hint of yaw oscillations, and during full braking, the most adequate responses to steering input are maintained.

"I see you're driving this car more confidently on the mountain road than the others," comments Divakov, sitting next to me, after the first slight slide. "You'll drive more confidently too," I reply. And I'm wrong: on the mountain road, Divakov preferred the Lamborghini. But he insists that in terms of lateral g-forces the Porsche can withstand in corners, it can only be compared to the Lamborghini. But when you cross that limit, you need to be on guard: lifting off the throttle will result in a sharper and deeper slide, requiring instant correction. However, the chassis is tuned so that it's easier and more effective (if not more spectacular) to take a corner not in a slide but with understeer, controlling it with throttle.

Every little detail in the Jaguar's cabin is imbued with a love for details. It's flattering and endearing	You can also control the gearbox with paddle shifters, but that's a luxury: the "automatic" does everything brilliantly on its own	Previously, the lever slot was in the shape of a letter J, from the word Jaguar. Now it's a "mirrored" letter L. No, no, Lamborghini has nothing to do with it...

As soon as the speedometer needle passes 160 km/h, the steering wheel begins to tremble slightly on its own, and the car deviates a bit from the intended path. But you shouldn't be scared of this as you would in the Lamborghini: feedback through the steering wheel remains clear and informative. In terms of ride comfort, the car is only slightly inferior to the Audi, although light secondary oscillations are felt on bumps — a result of the 50,000 kilometers on the odometer.

Acoustic comfort also reminds me of the Lamborghini. At first, only the engine is heard, then tires join in, and then wind. True, if in the Lambo the wind starts making noise only at 170 km/h, here it makes itself known after 140 km/h. When speed exceeds 220 km/h, wind noise drowns out both the engine and tires and the voice of your companion. However, this isn't a problem: at speeds around 300 km/h, passengers usually fall silent on their own. And they turn off the music as unnecessary. So not a word about it.

<\/a><\/td>	<\/a><\/td>	<\/td><\/tr>
And who, finding themselves in this luxury, would think of screeching through corners? Only us. But even we quickly came to our senses...<\/td>	It would be a sin to reproach Jaguar's seats for insufficient lateral support. They are exactly what this car needs: not seats, but armchairs<\/td>	You can still squeeze in here, but sitting is only possible if the front occupant is a midget. But then it's better to swap places<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table> We were told from the very beginning that the Jaguar was an outsider in this company. Like, even with the XKR prefix (and 'R' stands for Race, doesn't it?), it's not a 'pure sports car' but a representative of the Gran Turismo class. Let's say. But where are the boundaries? Ask the people at Ferrari if they classify their cars as Gran Turismo? Of course! And they'll immediately recall many models with the GT index. And recently, it was announced that the Jaguar XKR would compete in the GT3 racing series — alongside our acquaintances — the Lamborghini Gallardo, Ferrari F430, and Porsche 911... Maybe the Jaguar doesn't suit us because of its classic layout — the engine is in the front, while in all others it's behind the driver? But if we had front-engined Dodge Viper or Chevrolet Corvette, we would have included them in the test without hesitation. And we look at the Jaguar — and feel awkward: there is, there is a stretch...<\/p> Maybe the Jaguar doesn't qualify as a pure sports car because of the rear seats? Well, the Porsche has them too. And if you can, with some contortion, get into the Porsche's rear seats and even make it to the nearest taxi stand, then in the Jaguar — only after dismemberment.<\/p> <\/a><\/td> <\/a><\/td> <\/a><\/td><\/tr>	The speedometer and tachometer are equal in size, and in the case of the Jaguar, this is quite justified<\/td>

The Jaguar is the only test participant with a real 'automatic', and it works flawlessly! So much so that even on the race track, the drivers ultimately chose the automatic mode over the sequential one. Shifts are smooth, fast, timely... Bliss! And if judged from the standpoint of traditional comfort, the Jaguar is beyond competition! Even if the top speed is electronically limited to 250 km\/h, there's no tension, no jumps, no struggle. The impression is spoiled only by light but sometimes sharp steering wheel kicks on uneven surfaces.<\/p>

The handling is hard to call sporty (with such a lineup!), but it's probably not bad. Despite noticeable body roll and the heavy front engine, the Jaguar enters corners easily. But if the speed is high, diagonal rocking leads to deviations from the trajectory. You could try faster, but... It doesn't pull you, it's not Jaguar's thing. By the way, the stability system (or rather, its anti-slip component) can be turned off only for a spectacular smoke show at launch, and then it turns back on. And that's fine.<\/p>

What did we predict for the 0-100 km\/h times? Get ready for surprises: Mokhov already has the test protocol ready!<\/p>

The fact that the Lamborghini would reach 100 km\/h faster than everyone else was beyond doubt. And so it is: 4.47 s. Although we note that this is almost half a second longer than promised. Second place goes to... no, not Ferrari, not Audi, but Porsche — with its rear-wheel drive only and 'officially' the weakest engine: 4.65 s. By the way, this is 15 hundredths faster than promised. Third place goes to the Audi R8: 4.83 s. Not bad, but still longer than the official 4.6 s. And fourth place was shared by the Jaguar and Ferrari: both hit 100 km\/h in five seconds. But if the Jaguar beat the factory standard (5.2 s), the Ferrari took a second longer.<\/p>

<\/p>

We won't mock the Ferrari: apparently, the electronic brains of the E-Diff system have cockroaches. And Uncle Vanya was also dissatisfied with the tires: lots of smoke, he says, but little use. No wonder: this is the very car given for test drives to those who haven't yet decided whether they want to buy a Ferrari or not. It's easy to imagine what tortures the transmission and tires undergo.<\/p>

And what about the other cars? Why, and sometimes quite noticeably, do our measurement results differ from the manufacturers' promises?<\/p>

The list of possible reasons can be long: different weather conditions, different fuel quality, road surface condition, engine break-in degree, tire wear, etc. Finally, one could also ask Shadrichev and Mokhov: are they doing everything right?<\/p>

The answer is given by Porsche and Jaguar. Our testers managed not only to meet the factory standard but also to beat it. And it's precisely when measuring acceleration dynamics of cars with 'manual' transmissions (the case of Porsche) that the level of professional skill is especially important. So, both the fuel and the dynamometric road surface are beyond suspicion...<\/p>

As for the Porsche, we can also recall our tests in the wind tunnel: the obtained drag coefficient practically coincided with what the manufacturer claimed. With other cars, this didn't work out. A coincidence?<\/p>

Let's refrain from categorical conclusions, but let's look at the results of top speed measurements. The smallest discrepancy with promises (both in absolute and relative terms) is for the Ferrari (–5.8 km\/h, 'degree of reliability' — 98.2%) and the Porsche (–6.3 km\/h, 97.8%). And this partly rehabilitates the Ferrari for its failure in the sprint and confirms our suspicions about transmission issues. We are ready to chalk up the Lamborghini's 'shortfall' (–13.4 km\/h, 96%) to an engine not fully broken in. But the Audi's mileage at the time of measurements was over 3000 km, and therefore it's hard to justify the largest discrepancy with official data (19.9 km\/h, 93.4%) by 'not being broken in'. Another coincidence?<\/p>

The Jaguar could also be called the champion of honesty — our measured top speed turned out to be 6.4 km\/h higher than the stated 250 km\/h, which would give an extreme degree of reliability of 102%, but this is merely a consequence of the electronic speed limiter's error.<\/p>

And by the sum of expert assessments, the leader of our test is the Lamborghini Gallardo. It's a pity, of course, that, unlike Ferrari and Porsche, the Lamborghini Gallardo diluted its pedigree by joining the Volkswagen group and sharing almost all components and units with Audi. But we don't give expert points for concern about the gene pool. Victory!<\/p>

In second place is the Porsche 911 Carrera S, third and fourth places are shared by the Audi R8 and Ferrari F430, and the Jaguar XKR, although formally in fifth place, is only in the 'sporting' context of this test. The Jaguar is different, and it creates a different mood. Let's be understanding.<\/p>

However, the balance of power among mid- and rear-engined cars, full-fledged sports cars, is also not indisputable. They generally can't be 'measured with a common yardstick'. But this time we seriously changed the 'yardstick' itself.<\/p>

The maximum score for design (and, as a result, its weight in the final assessment) was raised from the usual 160 points to 200. But it's precisely in the design assessment that we are ready to back down: you set your own scores! The maximum score for ergonomics was increased from 160 to 190 points, but here, speaking of the actual scores, the experts will stand their ground. The bar for ride comfort scores was sharply lowered — from 210 to 150 points. This is understandable: otherwise, among sports cars, the victory could go to the one that is more like a Mercedes S-class in comfort. Nonsense. But in the 'Dynamics' category, the bar was raised from 270 to 300 points. As for the actual 'dynamics' scores, we tried to completely cut off the emotional component. But it didn't disappear! We radically reduced the significance of interior comfort scores from 160 to 20 points, and gave the 'freed up' 140 points to emotions — for the feeling of dynamics and sporty handling.<\/p>

What we failed to do was answer the main questions. Why? For whom? And if we started looking for answers, we'd be up to our ears in moral and ethical debates, and along the way, in psychoanalysis. So let's drop it.<\/p>

But if you're curious about the opinion of the owner of one of the test cars, then...<\/p>

I have an alibi. I was choosing a car that would become a kind of benchmark for both me personally and my expert colleagues: like, this is what a car of the beginning of this century looks like. But I won't be disingenuous: I dreamed of the Porsche 911 long before joining Autoreview, and three years ago I simply took advantage of my position. Although, to give credit, the 911 handles the role of a 'reference' car excellently.<\/p>

At the same time, I'm ready to debunk a couple of persistent misconceptions.<\/p>

The most popular opinion is that such cars are unsuitable for our roads. Nonsense. If, of course, you remember that you're not driving an SUV or a tractor (this happened to me a couple of times). I drive a Porsche 911 all year round, without limiting myself in routes. Moreover, in winter, the instant cabin heating pleases me much more than the low ground clearance or lack of all-wheel drive bothers me. There were no issues with fuel either (unlike, say, the Ford Mondeo wagon with a two-liter engine that I drove before). And the trunk is quite enough for a business trip suitcase, a camera, and a laptop bag. On the way back, a couple of bottles easily fit there as souvenirs.

It's believed that such cars turn drivers into unbridled boors? Quite the opposite. When you know exactly what you and the car are capable of, the petty desire to prove something to someone disappears. You can afford the luxury of not participating in traffic light races and not darting between lanes. But in critical situations, the Porsche has saved me more than once. This is not only active but also preventive safety: you're constantly on your toes.

Social awkwardness? Perhaps it's even for the better? If I forget to turn on the low beams after starting the engine, I then deliberately wait for a moment so that the xenon flash isn't perceived as a demand to yield. In a Fiat, you wouldn't even think about that.

And one more — alas! — debunked myth. Owning a Porsche hasn't affected my success or lack thereof with women. At least with those who interest me. At least that's what it seems to me.

Kirill Ladygin
Ten-time Russian karting champion

What impressed me most was the Lamborghini Gallardo: not a car, but a beast! Stunning acceleration, excellent braking — and rain is no obstacle. In corners, it clings to the asphalt with all four wheels with a death grip, and at the limit, the front axle slides slightly. The handling is very convenient. And the suspension is simply brilliant: you fly over curbs without noticing! The only inconvenience was that when shifting, you had to hold the paddle shifters: the gearbox didn't have time to respond to a short press. Also, the steering wheel is a bit heavy and "sticks" during quick alternating movements.

The Audi R8 impressed me a lot — the car is slightly smoother and softer than the Lambo in every way. This applies to both the engine and the chassis, and the front end here doesn't slide as readily. And the brakes pleased me even more than on the Gallardo. For rain, this is probably the best car of all five. Among the inconveniences — the illogical algorithm of the floor-mounted lever: pull toward you — down, push away — up. I'd prefer it the other way around.

The Ferrari F430 captivated me with its angry engine, which revs above 8000 rpm. But on first and second gears, the extra power even gets in the way! And the sound… You press the gas in place — and immediately feel the power! Due to worn tires, the Ferrari yields to the Lamborghini in handling, but overall the balance is decent — the car can be easily adjusted on the arc. Because of the tires, braking on water was very unstable. I believe on dry roads the Ferrari will perform just wonderfully.

In the Porsche 911, I was bothered by understeer — on corner exits, the nose consistently "pushed" outward. I'd prefer the rear axle, loaded with the engine, to slide more actively. But this load helps acceleration, especially since the engine here is very lively. And when adjusting the brakes, I think the balance is shifted toward the rear axle — the car wavers during deceleration.

The Jaguar XKR is an excellent road car with a sporty engine and soft suspension. The main joy is the fastest and smoothest operation of the "automatic." The handling also pleased me — compared to the Porsche, the front-engine XKR loads the front axle more in corners and responds better to the steering wheel. But the brakes were alarming: you have to press the pedal to the floor with all your might — for rain, these efforts are enough, but on dry roads — hardly.

Daniil Move
Renault World Series driver

First, I got behind the wheel of the Audi R8 — and got out of the car beaming with happiness. I never would have thought that you could drive so fast and so easily in a non-racing car! I can turn on music, chat with a girl — and still maintain the same speed! Of course, when hunting for hundredths of a second, I'll strain, but still less than in other cars. The chassis balance is amazing! The car is almost neutral in any situation, only occasionally is the handling slightly understeering. It allows you to approach the limit, feel it without crossing it. Curbs? As if they don't exist! The engine has an even character, and the automatic rev-matching during shifts is very delicate. Interestingly, only on the R8 do you feel "aerodynamic" support in high-speed corners — with the rear wing raised, the car is noticeably more stable. Among the downsides — delays in shifting. And the seating position is the best. This is exactly what a city supercar should be!

Then came the Lamborghini Gallardo… An unreal car! In behavior, it resembles the Audi R8, but sharper and angrier — primarily the engine. It accelerates faster, brakes more effectively with the engine. But it also demands more from the driver — in corners, it's slightly more "oversteery" than the Audi, and the shifts and rev-matches are also sharper — this directly pushes the car during braking. The brakes themselves are great, but if you miss the braking point, consider yourself flown off. Also, there are sharper reactions to lifting off the throttle in corners, but they are exactly as they should be! Although for the city, the car is, of course, too extreme — both in visibility and comfort.

I expected more from the Ferrari. Although I understand that the tires are largely to blame. But not only them. I didn't like the seating position: the side support bolsters are too wide, and the aluminum pedals are slippery. Right after starting, all the windows fogged up: I turned the air conditioning to maximum, switched the airflow to the windshield — no use, I had to open the windows. The suspension is stiff and composed, but the handling is a problem — on corner entry, the Ferrari slides with the rear axle, at the apex, regardless of what happened on entry, with the front, and on exit — oversteer again. Chaos. Plus, the gearbox was glitchy — I drove through some corners "on the limiter" just to avoid losing time on shifts! But I'm sure if the Ferrari had fresh tires and the sun were out, everything would be more fun.

The Porsche 911 after the Ferrari is a song! A very understandable car: with oversteer on corner entry and pleasant understeer at the apex and exit. The stability control system doesn't interfere, activating only when you're about to fly off the track. But you need to know this car and not quite reach the limit — otherwise, you'll lose too much time correcting mistakes. The suspension is a bit soft for fast corners — on curbs, the Porsche becomes unstable. Maybe due to old shock absorbers.

The Jaguar XKR wins you over with its luxurious interior — it's very cozy inside. You can even adjust the degree of lateral support of the seats! But on the move, it's a very fast but still "civilian" car: a calm engine, light steering, a soft and pliable brake pedal. If the ABS activates on the track, braking quality sharply deteriorates — it's easier to release the pedal and press again. In rain, the soft suspension only adds confidence, calming reactions. But on hard curbs, the car gets lost. And what I definitely liked was the "automatic." Moreover, if I "downshift" manually, it remembers how many times I pulled the paddle, and immediately "drops," say, from fourth to second. At some point, I left the paddles alone altogether — the gearbox handles it perfectly on its own.

Moose test

The tests simulating avoidance of a suddenly appearing obstacle were conducted in two stages. First, five drivers, already familiar with the supercars in normal driving modes, attempted to "avoid the moose" on the first and only attempt at a speed of 65 km/h. Then an expert, in a series of runs, sought the maximum speed for the maneuver. Recall that the test includes an element of surprise in the form of traffic lights that set the direction of avoidance — right or left.

The most striking impression of the test was the Audi R8 — it also showed the best result in the "moose test," reaching 83.2 km/h. The suspension and handling here are simply magnificent. The faster you go, the less the reaction to steering inputs changes — the car behaves predictably and understandably. When a slight skid began, the stability control intervened gently and timely, without interfering with the process. As a result, the speed limit of the maneuver was limited by the physical capabilities of the driver — they simply didn't have time to turn the steering wheel to the required angles.

However, for random participants in the runs, the low sensitivity of the steering turned out to be a pitfall: four out of five drivers missed the trajectory precisely because of this.

On the Lamborghini, the expert posted the second-best result — 81.5 km/h. The main issue is excessive steering effort. Plus, as speed built, the response to steering inputs became increasingly sluggish. Nevertheless, the chassis tuning can confidently be called excellent.

Of the five "one-time" drivers, only two managed the maneuver, and all unanimously complained about the incredibly heavy and uninformative steering.

The Porsche in the expert's hands accelerated to 79.4 km/h — 1.8 km/h better than in a similar test two years earlier. Most likely, it's due to new tires. Steering effort here is also considerable, but still not as brutal as in the Gallardo. At极限 speeds, the car required the driver to make corrective steering inputs to counter oversteer, and the stability system was ready to assist. However, the "volunteers" liked the Porsche the most: everyone found common ground with the car, and the only "failure" blamed his mistake on overly sharp reactions.

The Ferrari nearly caught the Porsche — 79.2 km/h. Further acceleration was hindered by insurmountable understeer, which again raised doubts about the suitability of Bridgestone Potenza tires on this car. Meanwhile, drivers attempting the maneuver at 65 km/h were hampered precisely by overly sharp reactions: only two out of five managed to avoid the "moose."

The Jaguar lagged noticeably — just 75.3 km/h. Low sensitivity, oversteer, and, most importantly, a sharp spike in steering effort that was hard to overcome were the culprits. At the same time, three of the five "slowpokes" completed the maneuver on the first attempt.

Visibility

A common problem for all cars in the test is rear visibility. The door mirrors help only partially, and the worst performers are the Lamborghini and Ferrari mirrors: they were made too narrow in favor of style and, likely, aerodynamics.

In the Lamborghini, the problem is compounded by the mirrors being set far back, forcing the driver to constantly turn their head.

On such cars, a rear parking sensor is especially appropriate, although a front one wouldn't hurt either.

Ivan Shadrichev
Expert from Autoreview who conducted tests on the dynamometer road

I'll start alphabetically, with the Audi. For the launch, I chose the algorithm with the stability system disabled — with it, the car pulls away too sluggishly. I shifted at 8000 rpm, although the limiter only intervenes at 8200 rpm. I didn't like that gear changes were slow and jerky — we lost time on that. Approaching top speed, the steering began to tug at my hands, but the car, though it widened the dynamic corridor, never gave reason to doubt that the situation would remain under control.

The brakes pleased me. Results are consistent from run to run, and the car behaves decently. The only thing — during an emergency stop from 200 km/h, the front end wanders slightly, but no correction is needed. I won't fault the pedal for being too stiff in feedback during ABS operation either.

With the Ferrari, things didn't work out. I struggled for an hour trying to adapt, and the result was still a "C." In the end, I started in Race mode, disabling both the stability system and the useless Launch Control (it seems there's some malfunction in the system — the tires burn, but the car barely moves). And still I suffered: either I'd miss the revs, or I'd be scrubbing the tires on the asphalt. It seems the Ferrari got the wrong tires... As speed increases, things get more fun: soft, very quick shifts — at about 8500 rpm, with the rev limiter kicking in around 8700 rpm. It engages smoothly, without jerks.

But the closer to the "top speed," the less pleasure: the Ferrari starts darting from side to side like a stallion on its hood. And the steering wheel shakes violently. Not much joy, though I can't say I was scared — there was some margin to correct the trajectory.

Braking from 100 and 150 km/h went without serious complaints, but from 200 km/h the pedal started sinking too much, the ABS gave up (wheel lockups happened quite often), result stability disappeared, and once it even went into a skid. I don't know what to blame — the tires or the car.

I got into the Jaguar — and finally caught my breath. What a docile car! I tried pulling away both with the stability system on and off: the difference might go unnoticed, but the instruments showed that without the system it's better. Shifts — at 6200 rpm, and exceptionally quick and smooth! Bliss.

And at "top speed," the Jaguar is great! The car goes like on rails, doesn't dart, doesn't shake, and responds obediently to the steering.

During braking, longitudinal pitch, i.e., nose dives, are noticeable, but the results themselves are quite respectable, though slightly inferior to cars with mid- and rear-mounted engines. By the way, the Jaguar's brake pedal doesn't pulsate at all during ABS operation. A gentle car!

In the Lamborghini, I accelerated using the same algorithm as in the Audi, but the "robot" annoyed me even more, especially in "Sport" mode: the clutch engagement impacts are sharp, but the time for the actual gear change takes even longer than in the Audi, not to mention the Ferrari. There's aggression, but no benefit.

And what starts after 220 km/h... The steering wheel thrashes around like it's having a fit, and there's no strength to tame it. And the car bounces. If in the Ferrari you still feel like an accomplice in the process, here you start to doubt.

Braking results from all speeds are consistent. Lockup occurs only at the beginning of braking, although from 200 km/h it lasts noticeably longer — it's no wonder the tires get slightly "squared off." The car wanders during braking but within acceptable limits — no corrective steering needed.

Accelerating the Porsche with its regular gearbox was easy and pleasant. The clutch pedal is a bit stiff, but it works flawlessly. It seems the clutch is designed as a "weak link": you disable the stability system, rev the engine to maximum rpm, release the clutch, prepare to counter oversteer, and there's no oversteer — it's saved by the barely perceptible clutch slip. As a result, the car accelerates both rapidly and in a straight line. And the Michelin tires are good! I shifted at 7300 rpm, just slightly easing off the throttle.

At high speed, the Porsche also dances and tugs at the steering, maybe a bit more than the Audi, but less than the Ferrari, not to mention the Lamborghini.

The brakes deserve special mention — they are impeccable both in feel and in measurement numbers, from any speed. Moreover, the results are consistently repeated from run to run.

What's the price?

The most affordable in this company can be considered the Porsche 911 Carrera S (3.8 L, 355 hp), if "affordable" is even appropriate here: the starting price is 112,860 euros for the version with a manual gearbox, leather interior, and bi-xenon headlights. The list of options is huge, and even for "metallic" paint you'll have to pay extra.

The all-wheel-drive Carrera 4S modification costs at least 120,600 euros, and for the Porsche 911 Turbo (3.6 L, 480 hp) you'll have to shell out 172,600 euros.

The base version of the Porsche 911 Carrera with a 3.6 L engine producing 325 hp is priced at 99,600 euros.

Cars come with a 2-year warranty without mileage limit. The Porsche official dealer network in Russia includes 15 locations in 13 cities.

Jaguar XKR (4.2 L, 420 hp) costs 114,860 euros, but its options list is noticeably poorer than Porsche's. In essence, the buyer is only offered a choice of front seat type — comfort or sports. However, the XKR's standard equipment already includes a lot, including a navigation system.

The junior Jaguar XK model with a naturally aspirated engine (300 hp) starts at 101,430 euros.

Warranty — 3 years without mileage limit. Official Jaguar dealers — 15 companies in 12 Russian cities.

The Audi R8 coupe (4.2 L, 420 hp) costs 133,640 euros, but this is the price for the version with a manual gearbox; for the R-tronic robotic transmission you will have to pay an extra 9,170 euros. The rich standard equipment can be expanded, for example, with electronically controlled Magnetic Ride dampers and navigation.

Warranty — 2 years without mileage limit. Audi dealer network — 34 companies in 25 Russian cities.

Ferrari F430 (4.3 L, 490 hp) is offered in Russia exclusively with the F1 robotic gearbox, price — 220 thousand euros. The Italian's options list is wider than the Audi R8's — down to the choice of brake caliper color.

Warranty — 3 years without mileage limit. Ferrari sales in Russia are handled by just two dealers, both located in Moscow.

Lamborghini Gallardo (5.0 L, 520 hp) with a robotic gearbox costs 222 thousand euros. You can also order the Gallardo with a regular manual — the price will not change.

The lightweight Gallardo Superleggera version will cost 265 thousand euros.

Warranty — 3 years without mileage limit. Officially, Lamborghini is sold in Russia by two dealers, also from Moscow.

What else?

In addition to the five cars that took part in the comparative test, official dealers can offer several other models that are quite capable of competing. True, they all have a front engine layout and drive only to the rear wheels.

The British coupe Aston Martin V8 Vantage sells for 147 thousand euros (base version). Under the hood — a 4.3 L engine with 380 hp, paired with a six-speed manual, which can be replaced with a robotic one. The senior Aston Martin DB9 model with a V12 engine (6.0 L, 450 hp) costs 230 thousand euros, and the DBS version (510 hp) — already 330 thousand euros.

Orders are already being accepted for the newest Maserati GranTurismo coupe — from 145 thousand euros. Under the hood is a V8 with a volume of 4.2 L (405 hp), the gearbox is a six-speed ZF automatic. More details about this model — in AR No. 15, 2007.

The Mercedes-Benz SL 500 roadster (5.5 L, 388 hp) with a folding hardtop and seven-speed 7G-Tronic automatic costs at least 134,600 euros. For the SL 55 AMG version they ask already 173,400 euros: its V8 5.4 engine with a mechanical supercharger produces 517 hp. Details — in AR No. 15, 2001.

The Mercedes-Benz CL 500 coupe is equipped with the same engine as the SL 500 and costs 133,600 euros. The CL 63 AMG modification (6.2 L, 524 hp) sells for 178,500 euros. More details — in AR No. 19, 2006 and No. 21, 2006.

The BMW M6 coupe (161,100 euros) has a five-liter V10 with 507 hp and a seven-speed SMG III robot (details — in AR No. 16, 2005). The BMW Alpina B6 version costs 160 thousand euros: the V8 4.4 engine with a supercharger develops 500 hp, the gearbox is a six-speed automatic.

In terms of price-to-power ratio, the American Dodge Viper SRT-10 roadster is unrivaled. Its V10 with a volume of 8.3 L produces 517 hp, the gearbox is only manual. Price — 129,800 euros. The updated Dodge Viper SRT-10 with a 612 hp engine, presented this year, is not sold here...