Sport Compact Comparo !! C/D

[NSX-R]

It's rather weird... just read about "RSX Type-S VS. Cavalier SS(sorry, had to do that)" on R&D, and SS actually beat RSX by a nose... In C&D comparo, SS didn't even come close!

Mags...

 

[TwinTurboJay]

I have a subscription to C&D, and I read this article. After laughing extremely hard for about fifteen minutes, I'll let you guys in on a secret. Those cars? They're not that fast. If you really believe the SRT-4 does 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, I've got some left handed screwdrivers and swampland in Florida I'll sell you.

The fact that Car & Driver can publish any of those 0-60 times with a straight face as the real, honest to god figures is amazing. Not as amazing as the people who believe it, but still amazing.

so....you suggesting they are publishing fruadulent findings ? And that they don't actually do the testing ?

 

[Ghost C]

so....you suggesting they are publishing fruadulent findings ? And that they don't actually do the testing ?

They might actually do the testing, but the figures they publish are off.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

They might actually do the testing, but the figures they publish are off.

....why would they do that ?

 

[NSX-R]

Why would they do that? For money? I don't think that derserves 50 years of reputation!

 

[a6m5]

One Car & Drive issue I read long time ago bragged about how their testing is the most accurate. I do believe that C&D's testing enviroment and equipment are one of the best, if not the best. They have the budget, and their test drive statistics and analysis are really complete.

I think the problem could be the drivers they use. Probably highly skilled racer, abusing the heck out of the cars to get those impressive numbers. Well, that's my guess, anyway!

 

[TwinTurboJay]

on alot of their tests, they do use fairly professional drivers like larry webster, but on a lot of tests they also say, if you try to duplicate these #'s, you better be friends with your local service manager...not all of the time, but once in awhile.l

 

[a6m5]

but on a lot of tests they also say, if you try to duplicate these #'s, you better be friends with your local service manager...not all of the time, but once in awhile.l

That's what I suspected. I do remember the Audi A4 tranny they busted few years ago.

 

[Ghost C]

I get alot of people who ask me why I think C&D's numbers are off. Fact is, they publish times that are constantly a half second or more above what manufacturer's say the car will do. If the manufacturer's thought they could claim more, believe me, they would.

Back in '92, C&D tested my car. 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. Bull. That's six tenths of a second off of what a stock one will do. You can't even replicate that number with a neutral drop, people have tried.

5.6 seconds to 60 for the Neon SRT-4? Come on, people - The twin turbo Supra was barely quicker than that! And the Supra had less traction issues from the hole. And before someone comes with the figure of 4.9s for the Supra that I see widely spread around the internet, guess who came up with that figure? You guessed it.

I could see C&D getting these numbers if they tested the cars on racing slicks going downhill and they dropped the clutch. But how often does that happen in real life?

 

[TwinTurboJay]

TwinTurbo Supra is a hell of alot heavier, and only had what, another 50-60 horsepower ...also the gearing is completely different.

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't have a problem at all with C/D's test numbers. I'll tell you why:

If you take a car to the track and you let my dad drive it, you will get a pretty slow time. If you let me drive it, it will be faster. If you let someone like Webster drive it, it will be faster still. If John Force gets behind the wheel, it will ... well, you get the idea.

Now naturally, we're not all like John Force.

But that's not the car's problem is it? As far as I'm concerned, if the car will do 60 in x time, with an expert behind the wheel, then that's x time is what it will do.

Say someone watching comes along and asks us "so how fast does this car go?" Am I supposed to say "well, John here just did in 12 flat, but I suck and can only manage a 13.5, so 13.5 is what it'll do"??

Sounds ridiculous to me. Magazines should put their best drivers in the cars and go all out. If they correct for track conditions, they should tell you. If they feel that they have to abuse the car in order to get the runs, they should tell you (and they often do). If they feel the car is easy and consistant to drive fast, they should tell you that too.

If you can't match their times, then to put it blunty: it's your fault for sucking. The car is what's being tested here, not your inept and feeble skills. Walter Rohl can peddle a Porsche 911 GT3 RS around the Nurburgring in under 8 minutes. I would be lucky to do it 10 (assuming I survive the lap). Should we say the GT3 RS is closer to a 10 minute car, not an 8 at the Ring??

In addition, let me tell something else about C/D's times. Sometimes, they're slower than real life.

And as long as I'm on a rant on this subject, let me relate a conversaion I had with someone once at an autocross. This guy was complaining to me that his particular car was classed poorly because it wasn't competative. He told me that he's prep'd the car to the limits of the class and he didn't think it was fair. This ticked me off because he was clearly blaming the car because he was getting beat that day. So I told him the car was clearly fast at Nationals because someone trophied in the same type car the year before. He didn't have much to say after that.


M

 

[Emohawk]

If you can't match their times, then to put it blunty: it's your fault for sucking.

I'm quoting this again the next time Doug's arguing the other side.

 

[blargonator]

Hey, you called it an Integra! Where are you from?

haha im from MI, i just asked if they get the integra because acura is a America only thing (i think its still Acura in canada, mexico, nicaragua, brazil, chile, and etc.?) that gets the rsx. everyone else gets the integra so i was just wondering. i still want to know if people in europe and the UK can just go and buy a new integra (DC5) straight off the lot.

yeah, they ran that article not too long about about their equipment, personally i thought it was sort of intresting.

 

[Ghost C]

Say someone watching comes along and asks us "so how fast does this car go?" Am I supposed to say "well, John here just did in 12 flat, but I suck and can only manage a 13.5, so 13.5 is what it'll do"??

Sounds ridiculous to me. Magazines should put their best drivers in the cars and go all out. If they correct for track conditions, they should tell you. If they feel that they have to abuse the car in order to get the runs, they should tell you (and they often do). If they feel the car is easy and consistant to drive fast, they should tell you that too.

If you can't match their times, then to put it blunty: it's your fault for sucking.

M

I don't have a problem with professional drivers, at all. I have a problem with blatant lying and if you show me a professional driver that will make a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLETELY STOCK UNTOUCHED SRT-4 accelerate to 60 in 5.6 seconds on completely flat and level ground, I'll give you a cookie. But you can't, can you?

And there's no way to make my car, which I used as a comparison for their blatant crap, go any faster than a normal guy can make it go. It's an automatic and revving to it's peak torque and neutral dropping it will net you a whole lot of tire spin and nearly no forward motion - With stock tires. Which is why I said they might be able to attain their times on drag slicks.

(To prove my point about my car not being any faster with a professional driver, they tested the 0-60 in 7.4s, and got the same 7.4s result on their 5-60 test, which is just them mashing the throttle from a 5mph roll.)

 

[1X83Z]

I'm quoting this again the next time Doug's arguing the other side.

It doesn't matter. His argument is flawed. I think he even knows it. I refuse to argue with him. He'd rather know what John Force's time in a car is than his own.

 

[niky]

Hmmm.... what numbers does an SRT4 get in other magazines?

I have only one thing to add to this diss-cuss-ion. A lot of times, you'll note that magazines will complain that certain cars are faster or slower than a car of the same make and type (and with the same tires) previously tested. There is a variance between cars and engines that came off the same line, and a further difference between cars with different mileage on them (and different oil... gas... temperature... humidity... etc.).

My car, personally (or the American Version of it) was tested at 0-60 mph at 9.0 (edmunds), 8.7, 8.5 and 8.2 by various magazines. Going by that, you'd probably say that 8.2 is unrealistically low. A friend, though, makes consistent 8.3s - 8.4s at 0-100kph... which points to an 8.2 0-60 (0-96kph) time. Another can't even break 10 seconds.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe that someone out there can break 5.6s in an SRT4, even though I probably wouldn't be able to do under 7 seconds in it myself.

 

[Emohawk]

It doesn't matter. His argument is flawed. I think he even knows it. I refuse to argue with him.

Argue with me then, I don't recall you saying anything last time I took a stance on the issue (might have just missed it before whatever thread that was slipped into oblivion).
What wrong with rating the machine instead of the driver?

He'd rather know what John Force's time in a car is than his own.

I would too. If I wanted my own acceleration time in my car I'd just go do it.

 

[///M-Spec]

I don't have a problem with professional drivers, at all. I have a problem with blatant lying and if you show me a professional driver that will make a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT COMPLETELY STOCK UNTOUCHED SRT-4 accelerate to 60 in 5.6 seconds on completely flat and level ground, I'll give you a cookie. But you can't, can you?

The burden of proof isn't up to me.

If you want to say "that seems slightly faster than what's reasonable", I'd have no problems agreeing. I would have estimated 5.9-6.0 for the ACR, given it's 2980 lb curb weight and "230" hp. You could even go as far as to say C/D must have been given a ringer and I'd go along with that.

But what you're saying is that it's NOT POSSIBLE and that's C/D is LYING. Big difference in conjecture. It's one thing to be skeptical of a set of results from any test. It's another thing to say unequivocally that something is demonstrably untrue without so much as shred of evidence.

C/D's has 50 years of instrumented testing experience and a 1.75 mill circulation to back them up. If you want to debunk their times, I'd say it's up to you to prove it was falsified. Were you there? Did you see them cut a 6.6 but say, "oh hell with it, just take a second off because we really like Dodge."

Besides, what the heck do you expect me to do? Go buy and SRT-4, drive up to Michigan with someone who can drive it and show you in person? Gimme a break.

(although the mere thought of getting a whole cookie in return sounds deeply gratifying...

)

And there's no way to make my car, which I used as a comparison for their blatant crap, go any faster than a normal guy can make it go. It's an automatic and revving to it's peak torque and neutral dropping it will net you a whole lot of tire spin and nearly no forward motion - With stock tires. Which is why I said they might be able to attain their times on drag slicks.

(To prove my point about my car not being any faster with a professional driver, they tested the 0-60 in 7.4s, and got the same 7.4s result on their 5-60 test, which is just them mashing the throttle from a 5mph roll.)

Why would this prove anything?

Hmmm.... what numbers does an SRT4 get in other magazines?

My Road & Track test summary shows 5.9 for a non-ACR. Their quarter mile time and trap speed is almost identical to C/D: 14.5 @ 98.4. (C/D shows 14.4 @ 98)

I would too. If I wanted my own acceleration time in my car I'd just go do it.

👍 Took the words right out of my mouth.


M

 

[Duke]

It doesn't matter. His argument is flawed. I think he even knows it. I refuse to argue with him. He'd rather know what John Force's time in a car is than his own.

I'm with ///M on this one. I'll know what my time is when I get the car and start driving it. I'd rather know what the car is capable of than know what most people will probably do with the car. That's what really made me hate Consumer Retards.

And BTW, Ghost, what you're doing is (as you've discovered) quite possibly the worst way to get your car to accelerate known to man. It's no surprise you are not impressed with the results.

 

[Danoff]

If you can't match their times, then to put it blunty: it's your fault for sucking. The car is what's being tested here, not your inept and feeble skills.

👍 I'm with ///M all the way here.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

as am I, and new sig confirms it ! lol

 

[Ghost C]

The burden of proof isn't up to me.

If you want to say "that seems slightly faster than what's reasonable", I'd have no problems agreeing. I would have estimated 5.9-6.0 for the ACR, given it's 2980 lb curb weight and "230" hp. You could even go as far as to say C/D must have been given a ringer and I'd go along with that.

But what you're saying is that it's NOT POSSIBLE and that's C/D is LYING. Big difference in conjecture. It's one thing to be skeptical of a set of results from any test. It's another thing to say unequivocally that something is demonstrably untrue without so much as shred of evidence.

What I'm saying is that they cheat on their times. Perhaps they remove the spare tire, or run with an exceptionally low amount of fuel, or remove the air filter to provide more air. Do I know this for certain? No. But I don't honestly believe that they attained those times with a complete, bare bones stock SRT-4.

C/D's has 50 years of instrumented testing experience and a 1.75 mill circulation to back them up. If you want to debunk their times, I'd say it's up to you to prove it was falsified. Were you there? Did you see them cut a 6.6 but say, "oh hell with it, just take a second off because we really like Dodge."

Besides, what the heck do you expect me to do? Go buy and SRT-4, drive up to Michigan with someone who can drive it and show you in person? Gimme a break.

I intend to find out how fast those SRT's really are on the street, in the real world, not under perfect conditions with professional drivers. I'll report back the results. And what is this about Michigan?

Why would this prove anything?

Nobody has ever, ever been able to replicate a 7.4 second 0-60, by any means of launch with my car. Only C&D has ever come up with that result, and even we Cadillac owners know better.

My Road & Track test summary shows 5.9 for a non-ACR. Their quarter mile time and trap speed is almost identical to C/D: 14.5 @ 98.4. (C/D shows 14.4 @ 98)

The ACR doesn't gain any power over the non-ACR, and I believe it may be heavier, although I admit I don't know. Perhaps someone who knows more about the differences can fill me in.

And BTW, Ghost, what you're doing is (as you've discovered) quite possibly the worst way to get your car to accelerate known to man. It's no surprise you are not impressed with the results.

What, flooring it? It's the fastest way I've found to accelerate in my car, because I have much better than stock tires, the car sticks to the road if I just mash it, whereas if I try to neutral drop from any RPM, all that torque just spins the tires.

 

[blargonator]

isn't doing a neutral drop the easiest way to kill your transmission? anyways, i don't think its cheating if they were to run with lower fuel, i mean if you knew you were going to go and try and get your best time at the strip, would you fill your car up to the brim with heavy fuel?
i know we all like to think we are great drivers, but its just not true. as ///M-Spec put it, its your own fault for not getting those results.
about the MI thing, he brings up a good point. i am not even that into drag racing, but i know altitude and temperature (and etc.) effect times.

 

[Joey D]

I intend to find out how fast those SRT's really are on the street, in the real world, not under perfect conditions with professional drivers. I'll report back the results. And what is this about Michigan?

Car and Driver does all of their test in Michigan. In fact there office isn't to far from were I live.

What he's getting at cars run differently in different areas. Michigan isn't way about sea level and out state is flat. The turbo in the car would run differently depending on where it's at, but I don't need to leature any car nut about that .

 

[1X83Z]

I'm with ///M on this one. I'll know what my time is when I get the car and start driving it.

Except you can't really do that, can you? Unless you have some skilled measuring device, that is. There's nothing I hate more than inaccurate data, and Car & Driver is only accurate data for those who drive like the editors at Car & Driver. These are the same people who are responsible for fostering the complete outright lie that manual transmissions are faster than automatics.

Saturn Ion Redline owners buy their vehicle under the false premise that it accelerates from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds.

 

[Joey D]

Yup buddy mine has a Redline, he gets to 60 in about 6.8-7.0 but then again he's not uber cool with the shifter.

 

[Emohawk]

Saturn Ion Redline owners buy their vehicle under the false premise that it accelerates from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds.

So your problem is that the general populace is getting a false impression of how fast they can make their car go?
Be aware, this is the same general populace that must be warned that their coffee is hot and they shouldn't spill it on themselves. The same general populace who must be warned not to attempt to stop their chainsaw blades with their hands or genitals.
I maintain that using professional drivers to obtain acceleration times results in more usefull data.

 

[1X83Z]

So your problem is that the general populace is getting a false impression of how fast they can make their car go?
Be aware, this is the same general populace that must be warned that their coffee is hot and they shouldn't spill it on themselves. The same general populace who must be warned not to attempt to stop their chainsaw blades with their hands or genitals.

You and I both know those analogies aren't valid in the slightest.

The vast majority of human beings cannot time themselves in cars, just as the vast majority of human beings haven't got the time or energy to test drive every possible car they might be interested in. Therefore, the vast majority of human beings look to magazines for accurate data. And the vast majority of human beings simply don't find it there, though they're misled to believe they do.

The funny thing is that this thread is operating under the principle that, in fact, magazines' times are nearly impossible to replicate by the general public. We (including ///M-Spec) completely accept that. It's comical. Where the hell is journalistic accuracy?

 

[Emohawk]

... Therefore, the vast majority of human beings look to magazines for accurate data. And the vast majority of human beings simply don't find it there, though they're misled to believe they do.
The funny thing is that this thread is operating under the principle that, in fact, magazines' times are nearly impossible to replicate by the general public. We (including ///M-Spec) completely accept that. It's comical. Where the hell is journalistic accuracy?

In what way 'not accurate'? Maybe not applicable or misleading, but accurate. Innaccurate is "It accelerates to a bazillion miles an hour in under a quarter of a second". As long as they're not cheating (taking the spare out, air filter off, etc.) the times they print are accurate, no matter how much (if at all) they obscure the fact that they use professional drivers pushing the vehicles to their absolute mechanical limit.

 

[niky]

Except you can't really do that, can you? Unless you have some skilled measuring device, that is. There's nothing I hate more than inaccurate data, and Car & Driver is only accurate data for those who drive like the editors at Car & Driver. These are the same people who are responsible for fostering the complete outright lie that manual transmissions are faster than automatics.

Saturn Ion Redline owners buy their vehicle under the false premise that it accelerates from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds.

Uh... Manuals aren't faster? An A/T is easier to achieve consistent times in, but a properly driven M/T, with lower drivetrain losses and shorter gear-ratios, will still win in most acceleration tests. And it isn't only C&D that come up with these A/T vs. M/T numbers... I've driven A/T and M/T cars of the same type and engine, and I can honestly say I've never felt that the A/T version is faster... maybe with the new CVTs, there's an even match, but otherwise... no... heck no. no. no. no.

I buy cars using magazine sourced data, and I know you have to take them with a grain of salt. These guys carp on about fried clutches and burned rubber. They're not disguising the fact that numerous launches will hurt your car badly.