Why Car & Driver times are slower than others:

This from their "Road Test Digest" Page:

"Acceleration: Elapsed time from 0 to 60 mph and through a quarter-mile distance using full-throttle acceleration. Test vehicle is loaded with driver, full tank of fuel, and 30 pounds of test instrumentation. With manual-transmission cars, wheelspin or clutch slip or both are used at the starting line to make the best use of the engine's power characteristics and the vehicle's traction. All upshifts are lift-throttle with the clutch disengaged. With automatic-transmission cars, brake torquing (applying the throttle while holding the vehicle with the brakes) is used when beneficial to produce the best launches and acceleration. With all tranmissions, various shift points are tried to maximize performance. The redline is never exceeded. Time, speed, and distance are measured using a Datron Correvit optical fifth wheel. All performance results are corrected to standard atmospheric conditions."

The second and last sentences are important. For these reasons, one should expect that one's vehicle, in the real world, should almost always exceed C&D's results.

I think they are trying very hard to make it easy to compare car to car in their tests.

 

By doing this, it's easier to do a direct comparison between the performance levels of different cars that were tested during different seasons. If not, one model tested in winter could appear to be significantly faster than a competitor which was tested in summer, when in fact, the reverse could be true.

The catch is that you have to take all your numbers from Car & Driver. I'd rather have the ease of comparison than questionable numbers if I were shopping based on performance.

 

Exactly my point.

 

But yo snoopdog I'd rather the just G up those times yo





I agree this makes things much easier when people like me try and figure out which is faster ... the civic type r or the focus SVT

 

well ben and bags if you guys were faithful reader of c&d like my self....


they recognize testing two same cars and getting completely different numbers. i found that road and track numbers are always slower than all other car magazines. not sure how they test their cars though.

 

I've been a subscriber since 1995

C/D is the best car mag out there!

 

I've been subscribing to C/D since 1989 and in the past, they've posted some of the best published times. However, as of late they've been way off compared to their own published times.

Take for instance the Infiniti G35:

In the May 2002 issue (Pages 68-73), they post the following numbers:
0-60: 6.2 seconds
0-100: 16.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.9sec @ 96mph
skidpad: .84g

Now in the October 2002 issue (comparo test pages 78-91), the post the following numbers:
0-60: 7.1 seconds
0-100: 19.4 seconds
1/4 mile: 15.6sec @ 92mph
skidpad: .80g

THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. All things being equal, even we were comparing a manual tranny with an auto tranny, there wouldnt be that big of a difference. As far as how both cars may have been equipped the 10/02 car cost $36G vs the 5/02 car's $34G, which tells me only that the 5/02 car didn't have Navi.

My angle is that if we (the car enthusiasts) are looking for performance numbers, then you (the mag) want to create the best possible (reasonable) conditions for getting optimal perf numbers. If I want real world numbers, I'll read consumer reports.

Peace.

 

Can't be any worse then Consumer Reports times.

 

What about normal production tolerances? They test each specific car. Maybe one car had a green engine and the other was more broken in. Maybe one of those cars had been flogged mercilessly for it's short life and wasn't performing as it should. There are a lot more variables that you haven't considered.

Do you really think 1 sec. is a huge difference?? In a street/drag race, if both of those cars were to run against each other, how many car lengths do you think the faster car would be ahead of the slower car? Not even one is my bet.

I've been reading CD since 1989, of all the car magazine, they by far have the best writing out there. I don't always agree with them, as they do take the "family" approach, but for finding accurate and concise information, I find them the easiest to use. On the other hand, a mag like Motor Trend is pretty much a joke. The tone of their articles is similar to what one can find on the clubsi message board. One of their editors is named C. Van Tune? Give me a break.

 

I steal copies from from starship when I am there buying.....other things

 

For 1/4 mile drag racing, I thought the rule of thumb was .1 sec difference at th end of the track was about 1 car-length.

Just visualize the distance a car travels in 0.1 second at 90 mph: 13.2 feet

 

Hmmm. I have no idea, I'm not really into drag racing. Interesting though.

 

c&d is my bible. had to give away my stash in 93 when i joined the marines. i had every issue from may 1988 up until that point.

cant buy em like i use to cause im a broke phucker (thanx to my max).

but now i just stand at the store and read the good acticles.

 

sooooo right haha i wonder HOW they get such slow times

 

Possibly but that's a big reach.


Do you really think 1 sec. is a huge difference?? In a street/drag race, if both of those cars were to run against each other, how many car lengths do you think the faster car would be ahead of the slower car? Not even one is my bet.[/QUOTE]

Go to the track and see the difference between a 16 second car and a 15 second car and tell me. Short answer: Yes. (see subsequent posts)

I've been reading CD since 1989, of all the car magazine, they by far have the best writing out there. I don't always agree with them, as they do take the "family" approach, but for finding accurate and concise information, I find them the easiest to use. On the other hand, a mag like Motor Trend is pretty much a joke. The tone of their articles is similar to what one can find on the clubsi message board. One of their editors is named C. Van Tune? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]

I have every CD since May 1989 (minus two issues. since). They do have the best format and accurate commentary (except for the fact that the Road Test Summary is NOT in every issue). But this last issue displayed performance numbers that were WAY OFF with respect to the 2K3 Max SE, W8, 330i, G35 and TL-S. (I also question the new Accord V6 numbers now.)

You see previously, CD's numbers were pretty close to what I saw at the track. Seeing the 2K3 Max SE 6sp run the same 14.7 that I ran in my auto 2K2 leaves me with some doubts about their testers.