Jason@Performance

iTrader: (11)

was it the same driver?

driving both trim levels the same day?

Tire Pressure the same on both cars?

etc... etc...

Camel

I just noticed that Road & Track tested the 35th model as well. Their numbers are better, FWIW, I don't put much faith in magazine times. In this article, they even say its .2 seconds faster than the Track model.

0-60 - 5.6 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.1 seconds

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3

sentry65

iTrader: (11)

yeah i caught that too - wtf is up with that?

yeah lets add 100lbs to the same exact car and say it's faster??? - maybe a typo?

wookie

funny our magazine show
5.9 for touring
and 5.2 for 35'th

rofl stupid car testers

Camel

Not sure, I am assuming they must have done 5.8 in a Track model at some point. My guess is it was the 287hp version since it would make zero sense for an '05 Track to be slower than the 35th with the same 300hp setup...

rickyj59

You are right on the money my man, you paid your money, you did your research, you love your car, end of story.

Armitage

iTrader: (15)

Magazine tests are about as accurate as dyno tests. Every single result is always different because there is some variable in the test that prevents it from being comparable.

I Hate JDM

The best thing I have ever heard to back up what you just said is this:

"Horsepower sells cars. Torque wins races."

sentry65

iTrader: (11)

hehe yeah, as long as we're talking about the same car or general class of car. Otherwise, most everything would bow down to the Dodge Ram 3500 with 610 ft/torque and 330hp and a car like the lotus elise with 133 ft/ torque, 190hp would be dog slow

Camel

Agreed. I found that R&T test data and wanted to throw it out there to stir the pot.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

I am a little surprised at the times as well. Up to that point I saw that 2 mags got a 5.8 0-60 time, what is up with that??? Until more tests come out, I will reserve judgement, but iirc, the fastest time on the 287 HP car is 5.3 (13.77 1/4) and there are a lot of 5.4 times in the mags, even touring editions. one thing I think happened, they added wt and lowered torque, I think this is a bad combination for launching and getting out of turns/corners on the track. As I said, time will tell, but until there are 3+ more articles on the car, i'd say the 287 HP car may actually be faster, based on the torque.

Myself, I am not a HUGE fan of the 35th anniv, I think you pay more for some fluff, but you know what, it is ONLY a few Gs more, and if the owners are happy thats what matters. I just read an article were the M45 KILLS the Lexus GS430, and guess what, the stupid lexus costs $13,000 more!!!!!! now that is getting ripped off!!!

rodH

iTrader: (2)

looking at it more closely, I really effects the track speed, I remember reading a couple tests (still have the copies) where the Z beat the M3 SMG and a 911 with a sport wheel and package option. And another test where it beat the S2000 and the Mustang Billit (or was it a mach 1?) and audi TT. Now the Z has gone down in torque and he S has gone up and guess who won this time??? Maybe the weather was bad, or the track was bad, but in the comparison, there is NO way the Z should have finished where it did.

Armitage

iTrader: (15)

^PEAK torque went down. Thats it. It has more usuable torque further into the powerband which means it might suffer a little bit down-low to gain some more in the mid-range and top-end. In a side-by-side race, new engine vs. old, I think it would be a drivers race.

Point is, I don't think gaining 13 hp and losing 14 ft-lbs of tq would equate to being a .5 second different in 0-60 times, or .2-.3 seconds in the 1/4. Get a real racecar driver behind the wheel and see what times he/she pulls off.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

agree, I still think we haven't seen ENOUGH times yet to conclude