Actually you can maintain a decent pace by just driving it normal. Just because there's 140 ft/lbs of torque that high doesn't mean you'll need all of it for normal driving. You'll get along fine with just staying in the 3K and less range. If you need that extra power it'll be there... Dyno sheets have absolutely no reflection on the daily drivability of a car.

Also don't forget that reving to 6K RPM in a sport compact 4 cylinder isn't as much of a chore to do as it is in a V8 muscle car. They get there considerabley quicker and with less effort.

 

Care to tell me where about's you wore that paint off? I just don't see anything painted inside the interior of my truck -- it's all the molded stuff; fairly soft & flexible. I guess I'm missing it. Again -- all three vehicles I know of haven't had a problem -- so I'm curious to see what place on the truck experiences enough hand-traffic that I can't see it even though it must be a frequented part (enough to wear the supposed paint off).

Lastly, I'm going to have to take your word for the sandpaper bit -- there's NO WAY in #*$Y# that I'm going to take sandpaper to my dash. Call me crazy, but I tend to treat my vehicles a bit better than that.

 

R&T times are what you can expect to realistically get.

The other magazines use whatever trick works from severe brake torques to neutral drops on automatics to clutch abuse (stuff you would NEVER do to your own actual "I'm-paying-on-for-the-next-5-years" car while it's still under warranty), then averages the times.


On the subject of car rags, I also liked Motor Trend when I was back in High School. The 1st Car & Driver I bought (and still have ) is the "Double the Double Nickel" article (April 78 I think) which won me over. To me it was the best written most fun to read article I'd seen at that time.

Today, I read Car & Driver periodically, but still way more than I read Motor Trend. I like Automobile, but they don't have the edge and humor C&D has. I'm quickly becoming a fan of MPH, though.

Of all the car mags, Road & Track is without a doubt the best as far as being balenced, informative, and free from ridiculous stances or bias.

 

I am pretty sure Car and Driver does nothing to abuse the cars when they test them either. They went over their methods a few years ago, and they seemed pretty much like the motor trend methods. I think C&Ds are SAE corrected though, although I thought Motor Trend's were as well. I can guarantee C&D isn't neutral dropping any trannies to get their times. A well driven 05 GTO will run 12s without abusing the hell out of it, and likewise a z06 most likely will run 11s. The guys who abuse the hell out of them are just looking for those last few tenths.

 

Agreed. I am quite sure nuetral drop wouild do nothing get the car to go faster. If R/T gets realistic times, then do other mags get unrealistc times??

Times that you cannot expect to get yourself.

Car and Driver does not powershift either.

I have beat some magazine times and I am just one man--not a test car driver.

 

I don't think any of the "big 4" do abusive techniques (I know CandD and R&T do not). One big difference for Road & Track though is that they do not correct for weather/altitude at all. What they run is what they publish. Which means it is basically only good to compare cars they run on the same day.

I think that partially explains why their acceleration results are sometimes considerably slower (their slow times are my main beef with them too).

BTW, wireless is great! I'm typing this from the terminal at Portland Int'l Airport, waiting to get on my plane.

 

Interesting to see I'm not the only person who has been less and less impressed with C&D and MT over time, and am starting to like R&T more and more, despite crappy times.