magazines vs the track

[MRGTX]

Right...which is why we don't magazine race.

Shaving 1/2 second off of a magazine time on a prepped track and a seasoned driver usually isn't that difficult....unless of course the vehicle already has an uncanny ability to launch on the street.

If the testing methods are at least somewhat consistent, it's still data...still better than a wild guess.

And yeah...this kind of testing certainly favors AWD.

Sponsored

 

[millhouse]

If the testing methods are at least somewhat consistent, it's still data...still better than a wild guess.

And yeah...this kind of testing certainly favors AWD.

Better than a wild guess...but in no way a determination on what it can do on a prepped track.

 

[1320']

Right...which is why we don't magazine race.

Shaving 1/2 second off of a magazine time on a prepped track and a seasoned driver usually isn't that difficult....unless of course the vehicle already has an uncanny ability to launch on the street.

R35 GTR...I'm looking at you.

 

[EcoVert]

Do you think it's a conspiracy? Whose numbers would you believe?

EDIT- wait, I thought you didn't care about performance numbers.

Well lets see the magazines say the are testing stock cars as you buy them off the show room. Well (general) motor trend admits to changing the tires on the camaro running 93 octane gas in it then they put 87 octane in the Mustang then they still have trouble staying with the Mustang. I wouldn't say it was or is a conspiracy I'd say it was and openly admitted biased test to prove their sales flop super car was the best.
Everything they do is tainted how can anyone believe anything they put out again.

Wait I care about fairness and truth.

 

[02gtnh]

Well lets see the magazines say the are testing stock cars as you buy them off the show room. Well (general) motor trend admits to changing the tires on the camaro running 93 octane gas in it then they put 87 octane in the Mustang then they still have trouble staying with the Mustang. I wouldn't say it was or is a conspiracy I'd say it was and openly admitted biased test to prove their sales flop super car was the best.
Everything they do is tainted how can anyone believe anything they put out again.

Wait I care about fairness and truth.

Where in that article does it say they ran 87 octane in the EB? I had a EB in my escape and it was a dog with 87, but that is what was recommended by Ford. But to get the hp rating, you needed premium. I doubt they ran 87.

 

[EcoVert]

Where in that article does it say they ran 87 octane in the EB? I had a EB in my escape and it was a dog with 87, but that is what was recommended by Ford. But to get the hp rating, you needed premium. I doubt they ran 87.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-vs-2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

 

[02gtnh]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2016-chevrolet-camaro-rs-vs-2016-ford-mustang-ecoboost/

Again, where does it say they used 87 octane?:shrug:

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Again, where does it say they used 87 octane?:shrug:

Based on the horrible #'s that was provided vs. other tests like this C&D test.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-mustang-23l-ecoboost-manual-test-review

The last line of the chart states regular fuel is recommended for the Eco while premium is recommended for the Camaro.

 

[MRGTX]

The octane game is a pretty annoying one. Because of the flexibility of modern ECUs, they can both claim the horsepower numbers with higher octane fuel while also claiming the ability to run 87. A lot of people really do sneer at the requirement of high octane fuel. You can see why manufacturers would do this.

I would hope that they could test the Ecoboost both ways and let the reader know how much it matters. Pretty shabby that they didn't...

...then again, the targeted Ecoboost buyer may really value the ability to run cheaper gas and not worry too much about the performance difference.

It's hardly worth losing sleep over. The EcoBoost cars continue to sell well and we all know what they're capable of. Anyone buying them on performance merits rather than gasoline grades knows this as well.

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Again, where does it say they used 87 octane?:shrug:

I'm pretty sure they admitted it in their on line comment section when the article first came out. Here is the VS thread when the article first came out. It's probably in there somewhere.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56069

 

[MRGTX]

I'm pretty sure they admitted it in their on line comment section when the article first came out. Here is the VS thread when the article first came out. It's probably in there somewhere.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56069

It sounds like a screw-up but do you guys feel that this is a conspiracy?

I really doubt it.

 

[EcoVert]

I'm pretty sure they admitted it in their on line comment section when the article first came out. Here is the VS thread when the article first came out. It's probably in there somewhere.

http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56069

It was but looks like they updated the article

 

[EcoVert]

It sounds like a screw-up but do you guys feel that this is a conspiracy?

I really doubt it.

Again no conspiracy just blatant " camaros going to win no matter how much we (MT) have to mod it or half ass drive the Mustang"

 

[16 GT MM/Auto]

I will never believe any thing(general) motor trend does.

lol

Come on now dude, seriously!

Not in the reviews. But there have been 3 or 4 guys at C6 that have ran in the 11s that are 100 percent stock.

I'm sure there has been.

And I'm sure there are drivers of every type of car made that has "run faster" than mag times. But journal testing levels the playing field when comparing cars throughout the year by negating all important variables like weather/altitude, not to mention the all important exaggerations that goes on at every track.

People will cling to magazine tests because they'll generally be slower, for a number of reasons ...

It's no so much about "clinging" as it is providing consistent data on different cars that are tested on different days throughout the year.

Right...which is why we don't magazine race ...

After decades at the track, I learned never to place trust as to what others claim regarding the supposed condition of their vehicle. Drag racing just brings that out in people, much akin to fishermen and their claims of "I caught one THIS big". lol

 

[bluebeastsrt]

I'm sure there has been.

And I'm sure there are drivers of every type of car made that has "run faster" than mag times. But journal testing levels the playing field when comparing cars throughout the year by negating all important variables like weather/altitude, not to mention the all important exaggerations that goes on at every track.







After decades at the track, I learned never to place trust as to what others claim regarding the supposed condition of their vehicle. Drag racing just brings that out in people, much akin to fishermen and their claims of "I caught one THIS big". lol

What exaggerations are you referring to? If you know what your looking for. You should be able to shoot these bold face liars down, easily at the drag strip. And someone with "decades" of track experience like you. Should be able to easily tell if a car is carrying more mods than an owner is letting on. For example. If someone in an automatic has a 1.5-1.6 sixty foot. The transmission isn't stock! If they are trapping three MPH over accepted stock times at a known weather condition. Something is fishy. If you don't know what your looking for. Everyone is a liar! There is only so many places you can hide nitrous solenoids. Cammed cars don't sound stock. ETC. ETC. But someone with decades of track experience like you. Should know all of this already?

Sponsored