How come we don't follow the European approach to how fast a car is?
07-10-2007 | 11:39 PM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by FAST1
muscarel - Every magazine lists lateral gs in their tests and I have no problem with that as being a good indicator of a car's cornering capability. I also have no problem with your suggested 40/80 or 40/100. My problem is with a 0/60 where someone drops the clutch at 6K or 7K, and gets some super time that hardly any of us can replicate because we don't choose to abuse our cars.
07-11-2007 | 10:50 AM
#17
Ring times are good, but you would need to take the average of about 100 with the same driver in each car to really get a feel for a cars overall performance. That road changes from minute to minute, enough that 2 seconds can easily be lost or gained in one corner.
07-11-2007 | 11:06 AM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by muscarel
0-60 is silly, especially when talking about AWD cars. 6,000 rpm drop clutch launchs, perfect traction, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. Then after that, the truth shows up and it takes another 9 seconds to hit 100. What good is that?
07-11-2007 | 01:53 PM
#19
Originally Posted by FAST1
Moreover if the conditions aren't ideal, many magazines will "adjust" their times to offset the less than favorable conditions.
07-11-2007 | 01:58 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dmkozak
Just out of curiousity, do you have any support for this statement? Have you worked with or for magazines testing cars and known this to be true?
07-11-2007 | 03:03 PM
#21
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Also, the car mags often give an 'estimated' 0-60 and 'estimated' 1/4 mile time for new models that haven't been tested yet.
They do this using a formula based on engine specs and weight -- although now there are calculators that do the math, like this one:
http://www.teamenvy.com/battlecalc.htm
Obviously, many variables are excluded but it still comes out pretty close, in most cases.
If you apply this calculator to the G35 (using 3488 lbs and 293 HP at flywheel for the 07 coupe), it would predict 14.02 sec.
For the G37 (using 3668 lbs and 330 HP -- I'm going off memory so I could be wrong on the specs), the calculator gets 13.7 sec.
Anyway, there are other calculators for 0-60 etc.
The mags will often print these results but they'll usually qualify it by printing (estimate) next to the result.
They do this using a formula based on engine specs and weight -- although now there are calculators that do the math, like this one:
http://www.teamenvy.com/battlecalc.htm
Obviously, many variables are excluded but it still comes out pretty close, in most cases.
If you apply this calculator to the G35 (using 3488 lbs and 293 HP at flywheel for the 07 coupe), it would predict 14.02 sec.
For the G37 (using 3668 lbs and 330 HP -- I'm going off memory so I could be wrong on the specs), the calculator gets 13.7 sec.
Anyway, there are other calculators for 0-60 etc.
The mags will often print these results but they'll usually qualify it by printing (estimate) next to the result.
07-11-2007 | 04:35 PM
#22
Originally Posted by FAST1
I subscribe to several car magazines (R&T, C&D, MT) and one of them stated that they adjust their times based on factors like elevation.
Your post made it sound like the magazines play with the numbers to get to certain predetermined results. My experience (all with Road & Track) says nothing of the kind is ever done.
07-11-2007 | 06:57 PM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by dmkozak
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. In your original post, you said the magazines routinely adjust their numbers to "offset less than favorable conditions". Elevation changes, like temperature changes are NOT "less than favorable conditions". They are factors which can be mathematically adjusted to put all tested cars on a level playing field. Likewise, adjusting for friction coeffecients on skidpads accomplishes the same objective.
Your post made it sound like the magazines play with the numbers to get to certain predetermined results. My experience (all with Road & Track) says nothing of the kind is ever done.
Your post made it sound like the magazines play with the numbers to get to certain predetermined results. My experience (all with Road & Track) says nothing of the kind is ever done.
07-11-2007 | 07:22 PM
#24
Originally Posted by FAST1
So are you suggesting that the 0/60 times are meaningful to you? If so please explain how.
07-11-2007 | 07:36 PM
#25
Yin-Yang and Life
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
From: Apple Valley, CA
Originally Posted by dmkozak
No. All I am saying is that the magazines do not "adjust" their times as you have suggested.
08-03-2007 | 09:28 AM
#26
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: Dartmouth,Nova Scotia, Canada
Originally Posted by dmkozak
While we magazine race the G37 versus the 335i (and we totally forget about the A5/S5, CLK, TT, etc.), the Europeans don't seem too interested in magazine performance numbers. Europeans look to the auto magazines for journalistic impressions about the cars. When Europeans want to know how fast a car is, they find the car's lap time around the Nurburgring. The 335i runs a 8 minute 26 second lap around the Nurburgring. Same as the 350Z. The Nissan Skyline runs a 8:28; two seconds slower. Since we all know the G35 Coupe is heavier than the Z, this difference should not be that much of a surprise. The weight affects braking and cornering as much as it affects acceleration.
Now, the only real question is what will the G37's time be? Should we expect the G37 to be faster around the Nurburgring than the G35 Coupe? According to the magazines who reported on the G37 versus the G35 Coupe at Barber Motorsports (yes, Infinit also brought along a G35 Coupe), the G37 braked better, cornered better and had a wider power band. In theory, these should translate to faster lap times. If the G37 picks up two seconds around the 'Ring, then it ties the 335i. If not, it will be slower than the 335i. No matter what, when we know the G37's lap time, if we were European, we would be done talking about this.
Now, the only real question is what will the G37's time be? Should we expect the G37 to be faster around the Nurburgring than the G35 Coupe? According to the magazines who reported on the G37 versus the G35 Coupe at Barber Motorsports (yes, Infinit also brought along a G35 Coupe), the G37 braked better, cornered better and had a wider power band. In theory, these should translate to faster lap times. If the G37 picks up two seconds around the 'Ring, then it ties the 335i. If not, it will be slower than the 335i. No matter what, when we know the G37's lap time, if we were European, we would be done talking about this.
Great post. I agree with this.
Bring several top drivers and have at it. The drivers, tires, weather etc can all be included in the test as "variables". This would provide some measure of comparison and would at least as good or better than what we get now from the mags. Reminds me of Top Gear and the "Stig".
As to the G37 I'm inclined to think it will shine in a higher speed environment where the additional cc's come into play along with sharper handling and braking.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
superjoey
D.I.Y. Installations/Modifications
31
03-23-2023 12:56 AM
