When the testing conditions are that bad (100 degrees+), even correcting for conditions won't help because these motors and most other high compression motors become severely detuned to keep them from detonating. MT got a 14.1@99mph out of a 6MT 05 sedan if that makes you feel any better.

As for IS350 running 13.7@104mph, I think it was a fluke in their calculations and/or they got a ringer from Toyota. Reason being the power to weight ratio for that type of ET and especially the MPH is wildly off. To acheive 104mph in a 3,600lb sedan would require about 360hp. I don't see it. Also, MT and R&T only 14.2-14.4@98-99mph out of the IS350 which is a far cry from a 13.7@104mph. It appears that IS350 owners are only getting lower to mid 14s out of the car too.

 

My point about the poor times for the G in the C&D review is that it wasn't accurate. It didn't "hurt my feelings" or some such, but in this particular case, I simply knew better. Couple this with the failed brakes on the 330, the incorrect tallying of the points(of which they have not mentioned, nor corrected, in the successive 3 issues), and more heated recent comparisons( GTO versus mustang , CobaltSS/Ion Redline/WRX/SRT4/RSX), in which the statistical performance winners actually lost due to the subjective "Gotta have it factor", and I have lost all faith in C&D as being an objective, reliable source of automotive information. However, the letters to the editor, Csaba's editorials, and the stories that often are at the back of the magazine make for great reading. These last points are the only reason I will continue to read the magazine.

Also, I think the actual tests to which vehicles are subjected are a bit dated. 0-60, IMO, is now useless. 1/4 times are interesting, but even yourself have stated that ET's are more a measurement of one's driving ability, while the traps are the indication of available power. As such, I would like to see rolling acceleration tests. Today, C&D tests top gear acceleration of 30-50 and 50-70, which is supposed to be comparable to a passing manuever. I think the tests should be augmented to include a rolling test, say from 50 to 120, or 30 to 100. That way, acceleration, and power, is measured throughout a greater range of speed, and as a result, a range of gears.

Another thing I would love to see performance cars be measured on an autocross course. Today you have the skidpad and slalom. To me, these figures are almost meaningless. After autocrossing a few times, I think that would be of much greater accuracy. Neither the skidpad, nor slalom, really measure a suspension's ability to react from an upset attitude, something that will surely be induced while autocrossing. Granted, the only way published autox times will mean anything is if a static autocross course design is used, but that's not a big issue.

And lastly, when cars are reviewed, almost no mention is ever made of the OEM tires. Sure, the author will usually refer to the width and/or size of the stockers, but that's about it. And every single sedan owner on this board understands how crappy the turanza's are. Reviewing a car equipped with such a tire does not give the reader a fair impression of the car's abilities. Granted, if they are stock equipment, then any purchaser will be stuck with them, but an informed reader will understand the limitations are due to the rubber and not the platform. To alleviate the issue of tires, I would suggest settling on 2 or 3 standard models that offer a wide variety of sizes. That way, the same tires can be used on multiple test cars.

And the thing that really pisses me off is almost monthly I read a column from Csaba or Bedard lamenting the aged, obsolete testing methodologies used to determine EPA mileage, crash safety, tire treadware, highway fatalities; you name it. Time and again one editor or another calls for updated, more accurate, and more importantly, relevant testing procedures. They could take a look at themselves.

/End rant

 

Agree wholeheartedly with what you've said. I was a subscriber for about 15 years but I haven't subscribed for about 3 years now because of some lack of credibility and fairness. The subjective part frequently outweighs the ojbective points ratings.

 

Trey,

I agree with you on everything. I too would love to see a simple "auto-x" test and a WOT passing acceleration test. I think those would be great tests and truely show a car's real world ability.

As for the tire tests, that's just to hard for manufacturs. They'd have to offer at least 2 test cars to a whole bunch of magazines, basically doubling their testing costs. I don't see it happening. If I were you, I'd just note the tire size, make, and use (all season, summer, etc) and take that into consideration when comparing results. All the major mags usually note all the tire specs. The reality is handling and braking is far more related to the tires than anything else on the car. If you put nearly auto-x ready tires (ie tires that are OEM equipment on the STI and EVO) on something like a bonestock 06 Civic, the car is going to pull stellar handling numbers. We're talking 69+mph in the slalom and .90+ g's. Braking will probably be 10'-15' shorter too. The right tires make a HUGE difference.