ignore Car & Driver times (long)
 

I know there is a similar thread on this subject but there was too much detail to include. I was just reading last night in the latest C&D (October 02) and couldn't believe when I saw these obvious errors.

They have an article on the 02/03 version for which they sum with the Maxima is past its prime. They quote times : 0-60 6.0s, 0-100 15.7s, and 1/4mile 14.7s. Then they have the nerve to say that this isn't significantly enough better than the Acura TL-S type for which they quote 0-60 as 6.2s, 0-100 as 16.0s, and 1/4mile as 14.8s. The funny part and why I say ignore them, is in the same magazine they have a comparison of the G35, 330i, Acura TL-S, etc. They quote the Acura as having 0-60 of 7.6s (1.4s slower), 0-100 as 20.8s (4.8s slower), and 1/4m as 16.0s (1.2s slower). This is in the same magazine.

Furthermore they have the nerve to say that the brakes on the 02/03 are poor with a 70-0 of 182ft, yet somehow the 330i which had a 70-0 of 186ft they give a 10. Obviously braking distance is not a significant factor to them for overall braking ability.

In the comparo they trashed the G35 but not because it posted better times than the lead car (330i) but because it had a "quirky personality". Again, they had times in the comparison for the G35 which were significantly slower than the times they used against the max (again they specifically state that the G35 is an auto in both cases).

It's beyond comprehension when a magazine can't even keep the story straight in the same issue. You could forgive them not looking back at old issues.

C&D Letter to the Editor!

C&D is a VERY biased magazine. I'm pretty sure they get a good amount of ad $$ from Honda and BMW...since these are the cars that win all the tests. Fun to read, but don't take it literally.

I also liked the street start figures. WRX is 7.5 sec's and the max is 6.5 secs, TL-s is 7.8, 330i auto is 7.6, G35 is 7.4....
Again they say WRX is 15.5 to 100 but in the same issue they test thier long term WRX at 17.5 and 17.3, seems to me the 15.7 they got to 100 for the 6 speed max kills that. Many contradictions in that issue.

Better yet don't buy it. Read it at the local mag store.

F C&D...get Motor Trend

So...
 

Should I ignore the 5.4 second 0-60mph they got with a WRX?:gotme:

Re: So...
 

No.. it's still a documented record of what the car can do, but just don't believe that all WRXs will get that time. Even though their times seem bogus most of the time, many factors come into play when they are actually testing it.

Mag times just give you an idea of what a car can do.

Car and Driver is a FAIMLY magazine. This is what I have come to realize. Ive had a subscription for 3 years and I have finally canceled it. Triple8Sol said it right, MT are less pansy when it comes to rowing through the gears or even smashing the gar pedal as well as being less biased, or ignorant, whichever term you wanna use. Just take a look at the recent editions of both. I have them sitting right here....
MT-G35 vs CTS vs 330i
Finally a BMW is dethroned. The last paragraph says it all. "IF you leave a large enough target exposed for a prolonged period of time, somebody with big aspirations and a fistfull of darts is bound to hit the bulls-eye."
Some highs for the G35-
V-8 power from a v-6(they got a 6.2/14.6)
Guided-missle handling(ran a 65.9 in the slalom:eek: )
Sports Car brakes(60-0 in 110 ft:eek: )

Now for C&D-3.2Tl vs A4 vs 330i vs G35 vs MB c320 vs Passat W8
G35 scores fourth in front of the MB and VW:rolleyes: ok it wasn't the same test but take a look at their "highs and lows" for the G35

High
-Horses aplenty, yeah no s***
-Royal back seat-really, WOW
-Friendly price-ok
-Intelligent face-agreed

Low
-Slightly harsh ride
-frustrating switchgear
-grabby brakes

What we have is two very different, not necessarily wrong views of how a car should be measured. I happen to hate the way C&D looks at things and think the type of people around here judge cars by the former, as do I. I guess there needs to be magazines out there like C&D who can't drive to keep our insurance premiums from getting any higher than they are.

For the C&D test - 3.2Tl vs A4 vs 330i vs G35 vs MB c320 vs Passat W8

I believe they were testing at high altitude somewhere because they speak of mountains. That would explain why all the cars have slower than expected times in that test.

I highly doubt that. You wanna know why Honda and BMW's are always tops??? They are the benchmarks in their respective catagories. Every magazine on the market is the same way. Magazines arent the final authority when it comes to figures.

To top it off w/the errors, they state that the G35 did a 70-0 stop at 162 feet, yet on p.88 in the comparo, it took 191 feet! I just finished writing and sending my letter to C&D about all the inconsistencies I saw.

They arent errors....Those were two different cars testes on different occassions. Pavement, Brakes, temperature, and how much wear and tear are actually on the brakes are the reason there is a difference.

too much variation
 

If this is an acceptable amount of variation then they shouldn't bother reporting times ever. IMHO there is too much variation to be covered by the items you sited. More likely the people doing the test are at fault for such a big difference.

I'm suspicious, but lack any proof, that in the case of the direct comparison with the Maxima, the Acura was probably a MT. I don't believe Infiniti has a MT available yet. But the Acura does and the difference in times would make sense.

Re: too much variation
 

So they have an acura tl-s with 6-spd manual tranny available now?
When did this occur?

Re: too much variation
 

It seems you are asking for too much. All that they can do is publish the numbers that their particular test car produced. If they test 2 different cars on 2 different occasions, one should expect different results. No one, anywhere, can tell you exactly what a G35 will run in the 1/4 mile. There are too many variables.

You, as the reader, have to take in the data that they provide and draw your own conclusions.

Hell, my 1995 GXE automatic, with only a K&N panel filter ran 15.2 in the 1/4 and 0-60 in 6.7 according to Gtech. I have never seen numbers close to that published anywhere. Oh well, I had a good night at the track. No big deal.

Re: too much variation
 

If the car was driven hard before the test and someone glazed the brake pads, that could easily account for the increased distance. You have to admit that stock brakes from Nissan suck and they're ridiculously easy to cook.

It says right in the comparo what transmissions the cars had.

Just because CD doesn't agree with you that the Maxima is God's gift to cars doesn't mean they're a bad magazine.

Re: Re: too much variation
 

Uh-oh...them's fightin' words!

Re: Re: Re: too much variation
 

You have to admit that's pretty much what this entire thread is about.

A magazine disagrees with someone's opinion and all of sudden it doesn't have a clue?

not true
 

A magazine disagrees with itself is at issue.

Re: ignore Car & Driver times (long)
 

They said it was past it's prime as a sports sedan. Just because it's fast, doesn't mean it's a sport sedan. Compared to some of the others in the comparison in the same issue, some of those cars "feel" better to hustle around than the Maxima. What's one of the common complaints about the 5th gen on this forum? It handles like a boat. You don't hear the 3rd gen guys saying that. CD has a point, the Maxima is being taken more upscale with a less sporting personality to it than the last 2 generations, a bigger motor can't help that. The Altima is starting to takes it place in the marketplace. Also, raw performance numbers don't tell the whole story either.

There's more to good brakes than outright stopping distance. How about pedal modulation, or more important, fade resistance? How many times can a Maxima stop fromm 70-0 in 182' vs. how many times can the 330 stop in 186'? The funny thing is, the brakes are another common complaint about the Maxima on this forum, but when CD brings up the same weakness, as reflected in the score they gave the brakes, they get jumped on. Post a similar opinion on the forum and most people agree with it. Double standard.

Lastly,

The test on the Maxima was written by ONE person. The comparison was a compilation of many different people's opinions, did you really expect the results to be identical?

There are many inconsistant times in that C&D mag. In the Max review they say the WRX does 14.1, but in the WRX review a few pages earlier they said 14.4 (or 3? I forget). It does make you wonder.

And I agree, just because you don't agree with it does not mean it's a bad magazine. Also remember that not all the reviews are driven and/or written by the same guys. So there is some taste variation there.

IMO C&D is very fond of good handling first (BMW), power second. And you have to admit the new Max can't even try to compare to some of the competition when it comes to handling.

I, knowing this, take everything with a grain of salt. Handling is fun, but also dangerous. I am more likely to punch it in a straight line from a red light than I am likely to hurl the car around a turn at 60 mph. So in my case the Max gets a thumbs up from me, because it goes fast and smooth in a straight line. I could care less about its auto-cross abilities. But someone else (C&D for example) might care.

Are you saying a car that handles well is dangerous?

That's like my mom saying she was worried I would be a worse driver after taking a high-perfomance driving course at Road Atlanta.

Makes no sense. I think a Corvette is a much safer car than a Volva 240. When driving the 'Vette, by virtue of its superior performance, it is much easier for the driver to avoid an accident in the first place. If you're going to be crashing anyway, pick the Volvo...but I think I've made my point...

I think I know where he's coming from. High speed handling has more potential for a bad outcome than just standing on the gas does for a 1/4 mile.

Come on Ben, if you took the high performance driving course, you should know that it doesn't necessarily have to do with the car. If the driver doesn't know how to take advantage of it they're screwed anyway. WE are the weakest link:laugh:

comparison
 

In the article on the Maxima, they cite their source for the G35 times (a previous issue). This means that they consider comparisons with any other report to be reasonable. Clearly they don't know what they write about as they have conflicts within their own issue.

And yes I understand there is more to "braking" then simply stopping distance. One of their big problems is they don't define braking (or ergonomics, handling, etc.) so you have to infer that they use the same criteria in all tests. Again clearly they have a problem.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting the Maxima has better or equivalent handling to a 330i or whatever car you choose to name. I don't really care about their evaluation. What I care about is sloppy work and poor conclusions.

How about they test the braking with armor-all on the tread?

On other cars too...like a Lexus IS, maybe? :laugh:

Re: comparison
 

They correct all their results to a standardd atmosphere so every car can be directly compared to each other no matter when they test them. Even the same make and model might show different times because each individual car is different. I'm confused as to what your actual issue is regarding this.

It's subjective. Each editor has different opinions as why they voted they way they did. The end result is a compilation of those opinions. This could vary from day to day and could easily depend on what side of the bed they got up on. Written evaluations on individual cars can vary as well depending on the cars that were recently driven by the author. I think my clutch is stiff if I'm just driving my car around for a while. If I drive an old BMW for a while, and then get back in my car, I just about shove my foot through the floorboard the first time. Ask me then, and I'd say the clutch is ridiculously light. Same thing with magazine writers. Considering the broad range of cars they constantly drive, how can clearly define constant criteria on something that is so clearly based on opinion??

Never said you were. I wasn't looking at this as a Nissan vs. BMW thing. You seem to think that these evaluations are cut and dried.
You mention poor conclusions. These comparisons and articles are not not scientific studies as to which car is better. They're opinions based on what people were thinking at the time they were written.

what is at issue
 

You say that there is a large degree of variability in both their testing results and their "evaluations". I then don't understand why you disagree with my point that their conclusions are meaningless.

Their magazine would be significantly better if they would use at least some standardized tests and publish what they feel the tolerance for error is for each test. Publishing numbers just begs the issue. They might as well ignore the numbers and simply do a show of hands for which cars they like and which they do not.

I've ranted on long enough about this issue. I appreciate the feedback I've gotten here.