I hope nobody posted this before; I'll admit that I didn't search before posting this time.

Aaaaanyway, I was over at Automobile Magazine's website for the first time just now(hell, I've never even read an issue), when I saw a link to performance numbers for various cars that the magazine has tested:

http://automobilemag.com/test_data//index1.html
(notice, this is the second of three pages).

About half-way down the page, they have numbers for an 03 Coupe 6MT, 04 Sedan 4AT ( that's right, it's listed as a FOUR AT; I'm assuming it's a misprint and they didn't have a 4/5'ths transmission ), and an 04 X.

Here's the numbers for the 03 coupe:
0-60: 6.0
1/4: 14.6@98
Breaking from 70:171
Skidpad(left and right):1.01/0.92
Weight:3460

04 Sedan:
0-60: 5.6
1/4: 14.3@100
Breaking from 70:151
Skidpad(left and right):0.91/0.85
Weight:3488
(not listed if this was equipped with the sports package)

04 X:
0-60: 7.2
1/4: 15.5@93
Breaking from 70:161
Skidpad(left and right):0.88/0.85
Weight:3740

Do these numbers surprise anybody? How about the fact that the magazine measured the 04 sedan, auto, to be 4/10's quicker to 60 than the 6MT coupe?

What about the performance of the x? I've never seen numbers for the X posted before( at least from a reputable publication ), but these numbers seem a bit high. I understand that the X is on the order of 300lbs heavier, but should this weight account for a full 1.6 seconds to 60 over the same-year 5AT?

My point is that these numbers can't be accurate. I'm sure that there were a number of variables(altitude, temp, drivers, surface conditions), but variations of these three models are much greater than I would have expected.

Can someone take a stab at explaining these numbers?

 

if i'm not mistaken isn't the 05 g35x like 3650 lbs and heavier than the 04x. they post a number a lot higher than 3650 for the 04. maybe they screwed up on more than just the weight

 

I don't believe any numbers from any magazine anymore. I add them all, take the average, and then look at that with rose colored glasses. For me, they are a general reference - AT BEST.

Most likely AUTOMOBILE messed up their numbers across the board (4AT?) or those were the numbers they were able to produce on that day. I don't think an auto sedan can run a 5.6 to 60, but who's to say they didn't get a freak? The X number seems a bit high to me, and the coupe's does as well.

For 05 I believe the X will run a mid 6 0-60, the auto sedan a low 6, maybe even a 5.9, and the 6MT a 5.9 - 5.7. The coupes are probably close to the same. I don't sweat a tenth here or a tenth there because to me it isn't an indication of what you're gonna get everyday in your neighborhood.

Know whatta mean? Maybe you go faster, maybe you go slower. Magazine racing doesn't really matter to me. One look at three magazines side by side will tell you why. Most folks just pick the lowest test number and go from there - I doubt it's an indication of what the average driver will see.

 

Those #'s do seem a bit wacked. I'd take them with a grain of salt.
C.

 

Exactly. A mag test is ONE car under certain conditions with a particular driver. You could have a slow car, a hot humid day and a bad driver... or a strong car, a cold dry day and a great driver/shifter and get very different numbers.

The one good thing about mag testing... is that if they get a certain number, and it is a very good showing... then you can be pretty sure that a vehicle is CAPABLE of those numbers under the right conditions.

 

Keep in mind that the mags like Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Road & Track correct the times to standard atmosphere and conditions. They also test with a full tank of fuel and 50lbs of test equipment. When I go to the track, I don't have the luxury of getting a corrected for conditions timeslip. Often, most of us would be at least a few tenths and 1-2 mph faster if we corrected for conditions.

It's been my experience that most cars at the track are SLOWER than you read in the mags. Usually the driver is mostly to blame and sometimes the conditions.

As for the 14.6@98mph in the coupe and 14.3@100 in the sedan, $20 that is a 5AT coupe and a 6MT sedan. Not the other way around. If 5AT sedans/coupes were capable of 100mph in the mags, we would have seen at least one stock car do it. Most are in the 96mph range though.

 

Well put. I like that statement.

 

[QUOTE=DaveB]

It's been my experience that most cars at the track are SLOWER than you read in the mags. Usually the driver is mostly to blame and sometimes the conditions.
QUOTE]

I haven't taken my G to the track yet.....it is still to new, BUT.....

my experiecne is the opposite. I have usually achieved better 1/4 mile times than the magazines. 2 mustangs I had back in the 90s (94 GT Vert and 96 Cobra) ran faster 1/4 miles times than any of the major magazines listed. Specifically , the Cobra was listed by most magazines as running 14.0 @ 99-100. Mine ran a 13.86 @ 102.5 totally stock.

I am by no means a professional driver, but I can powershift!!! Maybe it was a mustang thing, but most mustangs ran faster than the magazines articles.

 

The numbers in mags are all over the place. Averaging them and using them as a reference is probably best, but when it comes down to it the only way to know what a car can do is to drive it yourself. If I had to pick one that I find is consistently closest (to my times, anyway) it would be motortrend. They have the sedan @ 6.0 to 60 and 14.5 1/4 @ 96 mph. Those both seem to jive pretty well with my track times. Their coupe numbers were a little off for me (5.7 to 60, 14.2 1/4, but my coupe had a few modifications).

Incidentally the 1/4 for their G35x test was 14.8 if I recall correctly.