6th gear performance

[petraman]

Check these numbers out... the beauty of low-end forced-inducted torque.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

---------------------------EB------GT
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.1 sec 9.6 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.9 sec 9.0 sec

Just imagine how fun overtaking will be, hehe.

For kicks and giggles, here are the FoST's numbers:

Top gear, 30-50 mph: 8.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 6.7 sec

Sponsored

 

[OppoLock]

The EB's an auto. C&D has done this kind of mismatch before and even outright stated that the autos will downshift in those tests. You and I know that they could do it in the manumatic mode, but trust me, they don't. And for as much difference as there could be in low down torque (maybe 50-100 lb-ft), that doesn't translate to a freakish 6 second difference in 30-50 and 50-70. You'd have to be delusional to think otherwise.

 

[OppoLock]

Does it not cross you at all that the FoST and GT are running with manuals in those tests with pretty identical times, and the EB is less than half? Hint hint - it has nothing to do with the engine.

 

[Butter77]

Pretty sure the Ecoboost was a Auto and the GT was a Manual... If the auto dropped down a gear or 2, then it sways the data big time.

 

[petraman]

Honestly, I missed that part, and while it's possible that it did lock out the higher gear in the 30-50mph test, there's no way it would lock it out for the 50-70mph test. That's well within 6th gear cruising speed.

 

[OppoLock]

Honestly, I missed that part, and while it's possible that it did lock out the higher gear in the 30-50mph test, there's no way it would lock it out for the 50-70mph test. That's well within 6th gear cruising speed.

It undoubtedly downshifted for both runs. 30-50 would be 2nd or 3rd, 50-70 would be 3rd most likely.

 

[petraman]

I've tried looking for other publications that have run the same tests, but it looks like C&D is the only one... What you're saying honestly makes sense, and it was something I didn't consider. It would certainly explain the insane numbers. Oh well... until we get some numbers from a manual car, I'll put a cork in it.

It's a shame you can't trust a well-known auto publication for honest specs anymore.

 

[OppoLock]

I've tried looking for other publications that have run the same tests, but it looks like C&D is the only one... What you're saying honestly makes sense, and it was something I didn't consider. It would certainly explain the insane numbers. Oh well... until we get some numbers from a manual car, I'll put a cork in it.

It's a shame you can't trust a well-known auto publication for honest specs anymore.

Definitely sucks. Insideline used to be a great resource; they were transparent about everything involved with testing. C&D also publishes rollout 0-60 numbers without making it a point to mention the foot of give they offer.

With regards to this thread, I'm pretty sure something similar happened way back when there was a 335i versus something compare (maybe a G37 or a group) and this huge gap popped up.

 

[petraman]

Insideline used to be a great resource

All I have to say is f*** Edmunds.com with an iron fire stoker for taking away that site. Haven't been to Edmunds since. Seems like it's catering more to the "Camry vs Accord" crowd now.

I remember very well the explanation they gave for their low 0-60 times, and from then on using "1 foot of rollout like a drag strip." Very honest reviewers. Such a shame...

 

[OppoLock]

All I have to say is f*** Edmunds.com with an iron fire stoker for taking away that site. Haven't been to Edmunds since. Seems like it's catering more to the "Camry vs Accord" crowd now.

I remember very well the explanation they gave for their low 0-60 times, and from then on using "1 foot of rollout like a drag strip." Very honest reviewers. Such a shame...

Agreed, unfortunately. They became the Wonder Bread of auto news resources.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Just for more clarity...Here are the C&D performance metrics of the 2014 GT500.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.9 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 12.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 17.6 sec
Zero to 160 mph: 20.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 9.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.8 sec @ 125 mph
Top speed (mfr�s est): 202 mph

 

[Seabee1973]

Curious if they were using the 3.73 because if not, there would be more torque to the wheels and the acceleration would definitely be better

 

[jeebuspwnz]

top gear acceleration tests from 30mph are COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Especially when they use an automatic.

Even when they use a manual, all it does is favor a car with no overdriven top gear. Hooray for crap mileage!

Now, if every car had a gear that was exactly 1:1 ratio, a 30-50 or 50-70 test in that gear compared to other cars would be a GREAT test. Unfortunately, that has not ever been the case.

 

[ilkhan]

Check these numbers out... the beauty of low-end forced-inducted torque.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/perfor...mustang-gt-versus-2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost/



Just imagine how fun overtaking will be, hehe.

For kicks and giggles, here are the FoST's numbers:

If I'm doing 30 in 6th you have permission to shoot me. I don't hit top (5th) gear in my '01 until I'm already doing 65.

I'm 90% sure a stock GT will have more torque across the whole range than an EB at the same point. Theres just too big of a difference between them.

 

[Trackaholic]

Yeah, those top gear tests piss me off, especially when comparing an automatic against a manual. If you let an auto downshift, it's no longer a top gear acceleration test, is it?

The magazines could do a few things to make them meaningful, but they don't. I'd like to see them do one of three things:
1. If you test and Auto vs. Manual, and let the auto downshift, at least be very clear that the test results don't mean anything and should be ignored.
2. If you want meaningful results, put the auto in manual mode and lock it in top gear. At least then we are comparing TOP GEAR ACCELERATION, which is what the test is called.
3. If you want meaningful results, and still want the auto to downshift, then downshift the manual as well. Include the shift time in the results, but at least then you are comparing the same thing.

It's a stupid test anyway, since 90% of the cars are automatics these days.

And totally agree with the sadness over the loss of Inside Line. Loved that site, tried to visit a bit when it was moved back to Edmunds crappy website, but they ruined the good parts of it and so I haven't been back (unless a dyno run shows up in a google search, at which point I will check it out).

-T

Sponsored