<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Some comparison tests require a considerable amount of planning and creative musing. Others fall out of the sky and come together naturally like colors in a rainbow. Case in point: This test, in which we&amp;#039;ve pitted the new BMW 1 Series M Coupe against two other high-end coupes: the Lotus Evora S and the Porsche Cayman R. A gathering of such finely engineered, 6-piston, track-biased sports cars required nothing more than a superb circuit like Spring Mountain Motorsports Ranch and hours of hot-lap research to separate strengths from weaknesses and declare a winner. Even after three days in the saddle, it was tough deciding which car we liked best. Read on.   Video window may take a few moments to load...         3rd - BMW 1 Series M Coupe Lap Time: 1 minute, 22.82 seconds   BMW&amp;#039;s M division decided it would do the universe a favor and make the M performance brand a little more affordable. For them to achieve this while preserving the M-car reputation, they would have to save money where they could without sacrificing performance or quality. Thus the 1 Series M Coupe was born from borrowing much of its new hardware from its big brother M3, while receiving a few special parts of its own to complete its high-performance metamorphosis.           The moment we laid eyes on this mechanical incarnation of &amp;quot;Iron Mike&amp;quot; Tyson, we couldn&amp;#039;t help but love how its stocky frame gained a near-ridiculous 1.6 in. of fender-flare width, essentially to span the widened tracks (2.8 in. front, 1.8 in. rear) from the all-aluminum M3 donor suspension and huge 19-in. competition wheels, densely packed in a wheelbase 4 in. shorter than the M3&amp;#039;s. The 1 M&amp;#039;s chassis underwent some tuning, testing and torturing at the Nordschleife, and emerged with amazing lateral grip, snappier transitional response and nearly none of that ugly understeer plaguing lesser 1 Series models. Nonadjustable and honed for performance, the 1 M&amp;#039;s suspension errs on the stiff side, which will have you second-thinking any extended road trip.           The twin-turbo N54B30HP inline-6&amp;#039;s output is identical to that of the Z4 sDrive35is model\u2014335 bhp at 5900 rpm and 332 lb.-ft. of torque at 1500 rpm. The 1 M, however, gets specific piston rings and tuning for a unique character, along with a flywheel that weighs 3.3 lb. less. Through slow, low-rpm corner exits, the 1 M feels positively brutish as its 3.0-liter comes on boost and flings you out of the corner quicker than the Cayman R&amp;#039;s 3.4-liter flat-6 or the Evora&amp;#039;s even larger 3.5-liter supercharged V-6. Credit the turbo&amp;#039;s high-load overboost function operating between 1500 and 4000 rpm for up to 7 seconds, providing an extra 37 lb.-ft. of KERS-like torque\u2014only without the instantaneous delivery. The relative nonlinearity of this engine is as much a character flaw as it is an exhilarating kick in the pants. &amp;quot;You can point the car very easily with the throttle when on boost,&amp;quot; says Associate Engineering Editor Shaun Bailey, &amp;quot;which also makes it a bit of a handful if it hits when you don&amp;#039;t expect it.&amp;quot;   With a 20-mm delta between front and rear tires and the most weight of the trio over the front axle, the 1 M expectedly pushes more than its mid-engine competition, despite near perfect 50/50 weight balance. We also noticed the rather upright seating position, which was a little high for sporting comfort, but one Assistant Road Test Editor Calvin Kim considers &amp;quot;the most beginner friendly because it allows you to see much more of the track.&amp;quot;   Second highest marks were given to the BMW&amp;#039;s 6-speed manual and its improved shift action over the 135i, which has less of the rubber-on-rubber in-gate feel of that car. And last, the powerful M3-spec brakes delivered substantial stopping power with only mild fade as expected, though the long pedal stroke wasn&amp;#039;t.   The M-car finishes 3rd at the end of the day, but consider this: It has the most usable trunk, can easily (and legally) carry two additional passengers and costs more than $30K less than the next car. How much exactly is a second around the track worth to you?   2nd - Lotus Evora S Lap Time: 1 minute, 21.73 seconds           Lotus reads Road &amp;amp;amp; Track\u2014we&amp;#039;re sure of this. Every little chink we discovered in the armor of Hethel&amp;#039;s engineering during our first run in a production Evora was acknowledged and effectively ameliorated in the new Evora S (and future standard Evoras for that matter). This is what Lotus&amp;#039; latest middleweight should&amp;#039;ve been from the start.   The Evora S&amp;#039; crowning improvement is its non-intercooled, Roots-type Harrop supercharger (utilizing Eaton&amp;#039;s TVS technology seen in the Corvette ZR1) that churns out 5.5 psi of boost, significantly enhancing the Toyota V-6 to a test-topping 345 bhp with 295 lb.-ft. of torque. Power delivery is lag-less and linear, plus there&amp;#039;s a new sport button function (that should remain on at all times). It activates a muffler-flow bypass taking the exhaust note from meek to masculine in an instant and enlivening throttle response like a cup of Red Bull-spiked coffee.           Around the track, the Evora S is a delicate, laser-precise weapon; and the quickest by 0.15 sec. even with an intermittent 2nd-gear synchronizer issue (more on this later). It has wonderfully light steering that speaks your language, and a ratio that&amp;#039;s as quick as we&amp;#039;d want it to be. Lotus engineers performed a number of suspension tweaks\u2014an area we actually felt was superb already\u2014increasing lateral bushing stiffness by 10 percent, swapping in new upper front wishbones for more caster (for better on-center feel and straight-line stability), revalving the dampers and adding a half millimeter larger rear anti-roll bar for a bit less understeer. The ride is surprisingly plush on city streets yet well-composed on track. &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s a lot of roll, but it feels like it&amp;#039;s really utilizing its suspension,&amp;quot; says Bailey. &amp;quot;Despite the sticky Pirellis, the Evora still feels somewhat under-tired.&amp;quot; I concur. Deep trail braking is critical to getting the Evora to rotate around what feels like excessive front-tire scrub. Left-foot braking was a boon throughout Spring Mountain&amp;#039;s technical Radical Loop, so much that we didn&amp;#039;t miss the nonexistent dead pedal. Perhaps the supportive Recaro buckets played a part in this too.   Where delicacy goes, frailty sometimes follows. Although the transmission of the Evora S is an area of vast improvement (thanks to new low-loss motion/low-friction gearshift cables and improved linkage inertia), our 3rd-to-2nd-gear downshifts were hit or miss events, thanks to a balky synchronizer. Even so, the Evora&amp;#039;s lap times still landed it on pole.   1st - Porsche Cayman R Lap Time: 1 minute, 21.88 seconds           The winner and still the middleweight champion of the automotive sports car world remains Porsche&amp;#039;s Cayman, and the Cayman R is the best iteration yet.   With the least gains squeezed out of their naturally aspirated flat-6\u2014a disappointing 10 bhp to net 330 bhp (via tuning and exhaust modifications) compared with the BMW&amp;#039;s 35-bhp spike and the Lotus&amp;#039; 69-bhp bump\u2014Porsche had to look elsewhere for performance enhancement. With a leaner, meaner and greener (in color anyway) battle plan, Porsche engineers attacked the Cayman S&amp;#039; beltline with the ferocity of German piranhas, removing a claimed 121 lb. of relatively needless mass to improve the pound-to-power ratio of the Cayman R.   To begin, 33 lb. were saved by going to aluminum doors. The door trim is minimal, eliminating the stowage compartments and replacing the interior handles with nifty red nylon straps. The fixed-back sport seats, a favorite of the test, shave off an additional 24.4 lb. as other precious ounces are saved through various interior trim adjustments like omitting the hood over the instrument cluster.   Opting for the no-cost air conditioner delete option, as our test car had, is a cheap way to save 33 lb. (compared to the optional $1700 lithium battery at a 22-lb. savings), although we don&amp;#039;t recommend this for warmer climates like the Nevada desert.           Aside from undercutting the Lotus and the BMW in mass by 190 lb. and a whopping 380 lb. respectively, the Cayman R&amp;#039;s real talent resides in its unflappable track dynamics and tailor-made driver interface. The 20-mm lower suspension gains stiffer springs, anti-roll bars and dampers (PASM isn&amp;#039;t available), complemented by a slightly wider track (4 mm front, 2 mm rear) and larger 19-in. wheels, weighing in at a trim 22 lb. per corner.   This is a car that epitomizes the advantages of the mid-engine layout\u2014almost without the prerequisite of driving skill\u2014as it translates even ham-fisted steering inputs into the graceful kinematics you originally intended. &amp;quot;You can basically drive the Cayman hard everywhere,&amp;quot; exclaims Bailey. The 6-speed manual gearbox is as good as they get, blending positive engagement with creamy fluidity.   The biggest ticket items on the parts list were the $8150 carbon-ceramic brakes\u2014money well spent. Though they don&amp;#039;t quite have the initial bite or as firm a pedal as the Evora&amp;#039;s AP racing setup, they seem to have the highest stopping power and are fadeless lap after lap.   Although I agree with Kim&amp;#039;s comment about the rear wing being &amp;quot;a bit on the weenie side,&amp;quot; it does reduce lift by 40 percent over the rear axle. And yes, although the Porsche fails to match the Evora S&amp;#039; overall performance scores and lap times, the Cayman R still surprisingly ends up on top\u2014having approached the battle with the best balanced repertoire of the three.   So which one?           Conclusion   We assign numerical values to these tests because people demand a winner. The Porsche earns a landslide victory here, even when factoring in the price. In this test, though, it&amp;#039;s clear that each car has particular advantages, so it all boils down to this: BMW&amp;#039;s bang for the buck, Porsche&amp;#039;s complete package or Lotus&amp;#039; dominating performance? Which is most important to you? "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a17256/track-trifecta/>