Car and Driver comparison: Mustang wins but posts slower times (?)
4/25/10, 12:35 PM
#1
V6 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car and Driver comparison: Mustang wins but posts slower times (?)
I saw this in the C5 forums and thought it was interesting:
Normally I would chalk it up to bias, but they picked the GT the winner (didn't they pick it last year as well?) I am definitely interested in seeing the rest of the magazines comparisons to see how the numbers are across the board. Generally they don't differ so wildly do they?
I just got my new Car and Driver and I was really suprised when I saw the 1/4 mile times.
Camaro SS - 13.0 @ 111 mph
Mustang GT - 13.2 @ 109 mph.
"got all that metal moving past 60mph, it was a little quicker than the Ford."
Car and Driver did pick the Mustang GT over the Camaro SS (199 vs 193) in the Final Overall Results (not suprising).
But by the way everyone was talking about the new Mustang GT, I was quite suprised by the results.
Camaro SS - 13.0 @ 111 mph
Mustang GT - 13.2 @ 109 mph.
"got all that metal moving past 60mph, it was a little quicker than the Ford."
Car and Driver did pick the Mustang GT over the Camaro SS (199 vs 193) in the Final Overall Results (not suprising).
But by the way everyone was talking about the new Mustang GT, I was quite suprised by the results.
4/25/10, 01:26 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a HUGE difference between motortrend and car and driver tested times.... Not to mention all the hype going on saying these mustangs put down 390 to the wheels....
10 bucks says they did an "estimated" 1/4 time again.
4/25/10, 01:51 PM
#6
4/25/10, 02:10 PM
#7
Mach 1 Member
Somebody had to have put lego bricks under the Mustang's throttle for them to get that kind of time. That is utterly ridiculous. MT got 12.7 seconds out of it, for Chrissakes. I'm more than half tempted to write them a letter about this. It's just getting ridiculous.
4/25/10, 03:25 PM
#11
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...testing-column
"Every so often we get a letter that reads something like this:
You guys said the Corvette goes from 0 to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds, but Chevy says it does it in 4.2 and Motor Trend got 4.9. What gives?
First, let me explain our acceleration-testing procedure, which has been in place for more than 20 years. We perform several standing-start launches to determine the quickest technique. Every car is different, but basically, to launch a car with a manual transmission, we raise the engine rpm to, say, 4000 and either slip or abruptly release the clutch.
Shifting through the gears is done in a normal fashion. We could go a tick quicker if we simply kept the throttle pinned during the shift, but that technique can fry the clutch. After each run, we look at the times and adjust our launch technique accordingly. In this scenario, we might, for example, try revving the engine to 3000 rpm instead of 4000.
Cars with automatic transmissions are easier to launch, but we still experiment. Usually, brake torquing — holding the car in place by braking, simultaneously giving it some gas, and then lifting suddenly off the brake — is the best way.
To cancel out wind effect, we average the best runs over two directions. Also, weather has a profound effect on performance — cars run faster when it's cool — so we adjust the times to reflect what the car would run on a dry 60-degree day and a barometric pressure of 14.7 psi. (Our weather-correcting technique can also be viewed at CARandDRIVER.com/features/9382/correcting-for-weather.html.)
It would be easy to get better numbers by simply running with the wind at our backs, not against it, or by flailing the gearbox, or by running uncorrected figures obtained on a 30-degree day. No procedure is perfect because uncontrollable variables will always intrude. The track surface varies, drivers have bad days, and yes, you can take two identical cars, and one just might be faster than the other.
We control what we can and use the same procedure for all cars. We don't know how carefully the other guys get their numbers, but same car, same track, same day, we'll pit our technique against anyone's."
"Every so often we get a letter that reads something like this:
You guys said the Corvette goes from 0 to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds, but Chevy says it does it in 4.2 and Motor Trend got 4.9. What gives?
First, let me explain our acceleration-testing procedure, which has been in place for more than 20 years. We perform several standing-start launches to determine the quickest technique. Every car is different, but basically, to launch a car with a manual transmission, we raise the engine rpm to, say, 4000 and either slip or abruptly release the clutch.
Shifting through the gears is done in a normal fashion. We could go a tick quicker if we simply kept the throttle pinned during the shift, but that technique can fry the clutch. After each run, we look at the times and adjust our launch technique accordingly. In this scenario, we might, for example, try revving the engine to 3000 rpm instead of 4000.
Cars with automatic transmissions are easier to launch, but we still experiment. Usually, brake torquing — holding the car in place by braking, simultaneously giving it some gas, and then lifting suddenly off the brake — is the best way.
To cancel out wind effect, we average the best runs over two directions. Also, weather has a profound effect on performance — cars run faster when it's cool — so we adjust the times to reflect what the car would run on a dry 60-degree day and a barometric pressure of 14.7 psi. (Our weather-correcting technique can also be viewed at CARandDRIVER.com/features/9382/correcting-for-weather.html.)
It would be easy to get better numbers by simply running with the wind at our backs, not against it, or by flailing the gearbox, or by running uncorrected figures obtained on a 30-degree day. No procedure is perfect because uncontrollable variables will always intrude. The track surface varies, drivers have bad days, and yes, you can take two identical cars, and one just might be faster than the other.
We control what we can and use the same procedure for all cars. We don't know how carefully the other guys get their numbers, but same car, same track, same day, we'll pit our technique against anyone's."
4/25/10, 04:04 PM
#12
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know how it works for mags, they can'y have the same car win twice in a row. So there you have it for this year's winner. And a definite and crisp win, without a doubt. But comes next year when the Maro gets tweeked a bit by GM, or the Challenger get major upgrades, we'll have ourselves a different winner. If it wasn't that way, and couldn't please everybody in the global car world, they'd go out of business.
Last edited by montreal ponies; 4/25/10 at 04:19 PM.
4/25/10, 04:46 PM
#14
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 23, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not have the article in front of me, but it looks like C&D is using the numbers from the Short Take Test of the 2011 GT that they conducted a few weeks ago and are comparing them to the Short Take Test numbers performed last year on the 2010 SS. 
I wouldn't sweat it. Take what you read from any publication with a grain of salt. All we can do is gather as much information as we can and make the best of it. The only way you can perform a proper comparison is to have only one good driver run each car through the battery of tests and within a close time frame. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that is what took place.
I wouldn't sweat it. Take what you read from any publication with a grain of salt. All we can do is gather as much information as we can and make the best of it. The only way you can perform a proper comparison is to have only one good driver run each car through the battery of tests and within a close time frame. I could be wrong, but I very much doubt that is what took place.
4/25/10, 04:48 PM
#15
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: March 3, 2004
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heck, they probably didnt even test them the same day, at the same place. The camaro's numbers are probably from a test from last year. And who really cares anyway? Well besides C5? Mustang is still a better car
4/25/10, 04:59 PM
#16
GT Member
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, unless it's me in my car racing against him or her in another car, it doesn't matter; that goes double when a magazine is involved. So, line your trash can with this copy of Car and Driver, and feel good that it wasn't a total waste. Better yet, run copies of the article and have them available for when you stomp Camaros. Then hand a copy of the article to the defeated Camaro driver to make him/her feel better about losing in the real world.
4/25/10, 05:30 PM
#18
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 23, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall, the 12.7 quarter mile time was achieved by Motor Trend. After watching Motor Trend's Pony Car Comparison video, at least it looks like Motor Trend may have tested all the pony cars together and around the same time. In Car & Driver's defense, it seems as if they posted a similar video pitting the Mustangs, GT and V6 models, against the Camaro's SS and RS models.
Last edited by J Tennu; 4/25/10 at 05:43 PM.
4/25/10, 05:40 PM
#19
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
