DanS.02GT

Autoweek used to list their performance #s along with the best reported #s from the other mags.

burningman

no one is arguing thier support...we are arguing the fact that they can't drive to save thier lives

Horsepower844182

I have to agree...If the mags say they can run 14's and you can get a mid 13 out of them, who cares what the mags say? Buy the car you know and love...no one will complan...
I don't care what they compare the stang to, because 9 out of 10, I know the stangs better, no matter what the rags say.

HammyZTS

I have seen these a million times in the letters to the editors section and they always have the same relpy...

The numbers they post are an average. They usually get three or four numbers and then average them. On that assumption, it is safe to say that C&D got better numbers, and some worse numbers, but all in all they got 14.2.

They are professionals, and no one knows if they deal with inclement weather, heat, cold, a poor model, a well used model, etc etc etc.

Just because one magazine doesn' get as good as numbers as Joe Racer, does not mean the car isn't fast. Give it a rest.

00StangGT

C&D are just idiots....my stock GT does 14.0@102mph

The_Wretched

thats really stupid!!! ive seen stock 99+ GT pull 13.8's. and my mach pulles a 13.2!!! 8/10ths is an eternity. i never pay attention to what C&D or MT say... after all they said that the lancer Evolution was faster than my mach! tell that to EVO i smoked a few weeks ago!! and mine is stock.

stangerT

Oh really??? I also saw this issue, and if C & D are such supporters, it's funny becuase all the letters "beside Brad's" were basically bashing it about how terrible it was for ford to use a "pushrod" engine, and no IRS and on and on from some :gay:
who probably drives a Lexus his daddy bought for him... Sorry if they are such supporters, they should also include in the letters in support of Ford and mustang as well, seemed a little bias from what I read.

Lalo

they gave the evo and the wrx times that i thought were ridiculously too fast for these cars. :notnice:

msd

Wow, most of you really hate these mags. I enjoy both Car and Driver and Road and Track, and once in a while I'll even buy Motor Trend. I think the bashing is uncalled for really. Just because their focus isn't the 1/4 mile doesn't mean they suck at driving. I'm willing to bet anyone here that owners of the Enzo would rather hand their car over to one of the "bad" mag drivers (and in fact have done this) than someone here who can eek out a couple more tenths of a second in the 1/4 mile with their own car.

I for one would LOVE to be a test driver for a magazine. Look at all the vehicles they get to sample! Sure, they normally don't have the vehicles long enough to learn all the small details of a particular car (unless it's a long term tester), so naturally they won't always get the best time compared to the weekend warrior who takes their SAME car to the track every weekend.

Mike

rhumb

As for the former letter, they pretty much bashed that guy, as for the latter, it was a well formed letter which I think many, particularly non-drag racers, would agree. And they have been, IMHO, fair critics of the Mustang and most other cars.

No, they are not "supporters," nor would I want them to be as that would in itself undermine their objectivity. But they have given many opinions, both positive and negative, over the years, most of which I have found to be reasonable and well founded. Their initial piece on the '05 seems optimistic, given they nor anyone else has actually driven the thing and I expect they will give it a fair appraisal, good points and bad.

I think some of the bad blood people have for C&D stems from the fact that they tend to rate cars across a very broad performance spectrum giving equal weighting to such things as braking, handling, steering, suspension compliance, ride quality, etc.

Many, though not all, on this board, seem to give a greatly disproportionate weighting to simple straight line performance with other vehicle dynamic aspects taking a distant back seat. C&D's formulation thus does tend to quite understandibly rate the Mustang, with its ancient chassis and design, lower overall than many other newer performance cars, often foreign, that take a more balanced and fleshed out approach to performance envelope. And they have certainly savaged any number of cars, foreign and domestic, far more ruthlessly than they ever have a Stang, which they do seem to have a begrudging fondness for in spite of its objective shortcomings.

The straightliners on the other hand, seeing solely the Mustang's impressive engine performance, can't understand or are dismissive of C&D's full envelope approach and simply figure they have some bias or hate on the Stang. And their acceleration-centric assessments are reflected in other various rags that too are presominantly drag-racing oriented in their focus.

Rather, it is just simply a different way of assessing and weighting a car's performance. Both groups, in a sense, are correct. In a fair but broad assessment, the current Stang does have many weaknesses and shortcomings and ought to be judged with that in mind. In a more 1/4-mile-centric assessment, the Mustang shines and represents a huge bang for the buck value.

Presumably, the '05 will gird the current car's manifest weaknesses all while further bolstering its strong points. Yes, the live axle does represent a worrisome feature for those wanting a more broadly capable performance car yet that same feature represents a positive point in the narrow realm of off the line performance where the benefits of an IRS are, at best, irrelevent.

My expectation is that C&D will give a fair critique of the '05, one that will inevitably uncover some weaknesses, lest Ford has developed the first perfect human creation, as well as what I think will be huge improvements overall and result in an excellent overall performance car, straightline, curves and all.

And remember too that there will likely be further Stang models that will comport more closely with C&Ds assessment schemas, ones that will further enhance handling, braking and overall vehicle dynamics with such features as IRS, that will likely get rave reviews from them.

rhumb

Well, these cars ARE ridiculously fast, not only in straight-line acceleration, but more so, everywhere else in the performance envelope. That has been documented in any number of rags beyond C&D.

While a drag race between an EVO, STi and Mach I would be fairly close, with the Mach likely edging them out, throw in any tougher tests such as a fast drive down a sinuous country road and the former two would simply eviscerate a Mach I.

Now what the '05, with its modern chassis, will do against them is another matter yet to be seen... B)

428CJ

Well, these cars ARE ridiculously fast, not only in straight-line acceleration, but more so, everywhere else in the performance envelope. That has been documented in any number of rags beyond C&D.

While a drag race between an EVO, STi and Mach I would be fairly close, with the Mach likely edging them out, throw in any tougher tests such as a fast drive down a sinuous country road and the former two would simply eviscerate a Mach I.

Now what the '05, with its modern chassis, will do against them is another matter yet to be seen... B) [/b][/quote]
The STI can probably edge the Mach 1 out. They have never been tested against eachother, but on average, the STI has been getting quicker 1/4 mile times. THe mach 1 WILL beat the EVO.

Lalo

yea, you guys are right, its just that i'm in denial that an import would out run a stang, especially a mach

Dan

Couple points I want to make:

- Unless a magazine trys to achieve the fastest time possible using means within the strength of the drivetrain (ie. no risk of damage), they will not converge on a comparible time.

- If a driver for a magazine goes to the strip and just makes a pass or two, without getting a feel for the car then how is this a good test of a car's speed? There is so much variability

I see it like this: in the olympics you can have a wide variety of times by different athletes for any given moment or situation. But world records are often approached asymptotically as people get extremely close to breaking them. This is a consistant value.

Run the car down the track 30 times and see if you start to get a consistant 1/4 mile time.

My point is, there is no way to compare different cars between mags and even with the same driver (to a certain extent) without aiming for that "fastest time". Its is realistic? Probably not, but realistic times will be proportional to the fastest times.

C&D got a 14sec time out of the Mach and a 14.2sec out of the GT. So with an extra 50 (rated) or ~65 (actual) hp difference, improved gearing and under 100lbs heavier, the Mach could only get an extra 0.2sec in the 1/4mile. Explain to me how this is accurate even if you subscribe to the realistic methods used by C&D?

This is because that day, that is the best C&D could get for a couple of passes. Fine, but how can this value be used to compare cars?

I don't know, maybe we need computer-controlled 1/4 mile tests?

Lalo

hey that sounds pretty good

ManEHawke

yeah no sutpid human. The car can drive itself. Just program it.
Man that'd be awesome.

pilot1129

i'm sure that could be done. tweak an auto tranny to just the right shift position in a car such as the 05 where having 4 gears as opposed to a manual's 5 wont make a difference. have the rear wheels be on rollers like they are on a dyno to measure distance. all this can be done with the wonders of technology.

oh yeah, but then you have to take into consideration that this could be tested indoors and all that mumbo-jumbo.

Dan

They do have sophisticated car programs that calculate theoretical 1/4 mile times where you can also input shift delay etc.

Might not be perfectly realistic but at least it would be comparible.

Dan

As much as I like the idea for testing purposes, I would NEVER want a computer to drive my car because I have way too much fun doing it myself. Chalk that up beside going to electric motors. I love the environment but if I don't hear a nice V8 rumble, I'm just can't be happy.

hatsharpener

This is a funny thread

PS I don't like the mags...but for other reasons too :-P