There isn't, there are just too many variable.
Different time of the day, different tire temperature, etc.
If you think of it this way, The Ring Banana project that we done with the Mazda Miata that ran at the Nurburgring.
The car was bought as it was, ran the ring at 9:21.
We swap a set of MeisterR coilovers, and it ran a 8:54.
This was the same car, on the same track, driven by the same driver (a GT4 race driver), running on the same set of tires (10 year old Kumho).
The only difference was the suspension, and the alignment (something you have to do when installing new suspension anyways).
It isn't as scientific test, but we try to limit as many variable already.
The reply from various forums include:
Of course it will be faster if it was an old set of standard suspension
Alignment probably would of made a big difference alone
Driver is learning the track better (this I find funny as he is a podium finishing race driver as well as a driving instructor at Nurburgring).
He had more traffic on the base lap vs. the new lap.
And so on...
What I am illustrating here isn't the test, but the reaction to the test.
Because there are so many variable, any manufacturer willing to throw money at a comparison test will probably not do it a second time.
There are too many variable to conclude, and any conclusion will always be meet will counter argument from another side.
So that is the main reason why you don't see comparison test, because aside from the test itself, chances are it will cause the manufacturer more hassle than it is worth.
Just thought I give you my view on this.
Jerrick