And not only that, different cars are going to have different gaps between pro and normal drivers based on their nature.
Its a slightly to moderately interesting metric but anybody who considers it a factor in their purchase decision is a dope. Anything the ring time tells you could should have already been figured out elsewhere.
Just take an honest assessment of the stuff that impacts driving fuel. A lot of electronics don’t until you get into the driver aid stuff. My 90s Mustang (note the username) was still run by a computer but had no traction control and the power steering had no connection to the ECM, it was purely mechanical. It did have ABS but people made delete blocks for that since it was expensive to replace and people re-routed the brake lines when they did turbos. TBH though most everyone thinks they can beat ABS and they’re wrong. Having cruise control does not detract from the driving experience, just don’t use it if you don’t want to at that time.
I never felt electronics were interfering with my driving experience in that car, and once I did the racing seats and coilovers there was a ton of feedback from the chassis. It also made my back sore, I’m glad the shocks were adjustable. TBH if I were to do it again I’d not do the coilovers and just do good lowering springs with matching shocks, the caster/camber plates and the bumpsteer kit. Really, if you go back to the early 00s thats about as far as you’d most likely need to go to ensure hydraulic steering that doesn’t talk to the computer, cable throttle, and no traction control.
But there is also a good chance you idealize the “analog” and “computerless” experience based on what you’re reading on here, people seem to really put some of that stuff on a pedestal around here and its not that simple. Analog is not automatically good or bad, its the execution. My GTI has an amazing driving feel and it has plenty of electronic stuff. My '38 has nothing electronic but lights and a starter, its even points and condenser ignition and let me tell you, there is a point of diminishing returns.
So I’m going to break from the crowd here and say its actually been possible for a long time. We’ve had the technology.
But what we have had:
Lets go back to the 90s. Ford would have never bothered with the DOHC 4.6 if they weren’t getting wrecked by GM’s LT1. The LT1 wouldn’t have been needed if the Corvette was competitive. The Coyote wouldn’t have existed if the 3V Mustangs weren’t getting wrecked by LS2 Camaros. I don’t think BMW wanted to start adopting turbo engines that much in the mid 2000s but they would have been down on power relative to competition at the time so they had to. Those are just off the cuff examples. Making power has never been the challenge, its meeting emissions and fuel economy standards while doing it.
The E46’s S54 is a fantastic engine but at the end of the day, its an 8000 RPM redline engine. Anybody could have shoved a set of big cams in a I6 with big head ports and short runners and made that power. The power isn’t the noteworthy part. To sell a car like that, you have to make the engine make the power while also being tame enough for street use, last the warranty period, and pass emissions standards. You can’t just do that in a temperamental big cam engine. Variable valve timing lets that be a reality, electronic throttle control probably helps, and then from there its just making an expensive engine built to handle high RPMs. It needs to have the rigidity, valvetrain control, oil control and bottom end strength to do it. That’s well established tech, its just more expensive than building a more basic engine not intended for such a rigorous life. The Honda B16 came out in 1989 and has similar power density, VTEC is what made it possible. VVT Tech existed since the 80s, manufacturers just were slower to adopt it on larger engines because it required R&D investment and they needed to have a need for it.
Right? This author is one step away from wanting to ban assault sedans.