I think you might be underestimating the magazines testing procedures. They dont just make one run for acceleration times and then pack it in, nor do they blast it down the strip all day and take the one quickest ringer. There was a big article a year or two back in one of the magazines(cant remember which one, I get all of em) that detailed all their testing procedures and all their onboard testing equipment, it was pretty exhaustive. But as for acceleration I remember them saying they took like 6 or 7 runs and tossed out the best one and the worst one and averaged the rest(somebody who read the article back me up) and the one thing they hate more than anything is getting some momo writing them every month braging about how he squeezed one or two tenths better time out of his car than they did. So dont get too discouraged when you see mags test times, to just use the one best run by a professional driver would be unrealistic and they know it.

 

At least they get the name right!

Car mags aren't into finding a car's true potential, just seeing how it performs off the showroom floor. I want to know how a car performs stock, not after ditching the spare, lowering my tire pressure, and waiting for the stars to align.

 

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, my mine is that I don't care so much about potential track times as how much real world performance I'm going to get on the street in everyday driving. Thus, I'm more interested in times w/ spare tire, normal pressures, etc. that reading a time I can recite for bragging rights.

 

I think the only thing to really glean from the car mag numbers is the performance relative to other cars. In that case, the only real important thing is that they test consistently, using the same methodology for each car. Lord knows they don't even pull that off. But if you throw all these other variables in there, I think it would render the numbers way less applicable to your car's everyday performance. I'm also sure it would make magazine testing a logistical nightmare to run every test under the same weather conditions, track conditions, etc.

 

Good point TBCZ. Besides, unless your a drag racer none of these times really matters. the only acceleration times I care about are 5-60mph, to give an idea of how quick it will exit out of tight corners, and 30-70mph, to see how well I can pass people on the freeway. I dont care what the Boxster or S2000 guys say about being within a tenth or so in the quarter mile, just wait till they get in the lane next to you on the freeway

 

Yea verily, I'm am most interested in times from 20to40, 40to60, 60to80, or 40to80. Real world driving, straight up, I love to watch racing but my own personal car will not be raced, only tested on the open road when I can avoid the OHP. I know a lot of you members live in highly urbanized areas, so you do your driving where you can; track, strip, etc. but I don't and kinky roads are all around me, and they are a lot of fun to let the car loose.

Boomer

 

Heh, yeah I grew up in So Cal too, so all there was was street racing, Then I moves to Nor Cal and its like a dream come true! Empty car commercial-type roads going on forever! I go through alot of tires....

 

I can live with that

 

WTF!!!!! U NEED TO TELL ALL THE FACTS!!!!!!
First off, I am the one with the modded WS6. I ran a 14.2 cuase it was my 2nd time at a track. I bogged badd off the start and didn't even hit 4th gear! I mean my brake lights even came on before the end of the 1/4. I have footage of it and Joey has seen it. You are making it sound like a 14.2 is the best the car can run.I dont even have that many mods, just a few bolt ons, nothing major. QUIT doggin my car just cuase its american! We all know u hate american cars but I dont rag on ur eclispe. (Dont make me start talking about the race between u and my auto. 400 4wheeler u only beat my a car length.

2nd ... "and his buddy with the zo6 that somehow put it in revers while runnin the quarter mile, ended up runnin a low 14 as his personal best as well!" .... I dont know him, he isnt my buddy, i have never talked to him, you dont know him, u have never talked to him, we saw that when we were leaving the track one day,you also have no clue if he ran agian or not, you have never talked to him. You have no clue if that was his best or not.

QUIT LYING TO MAKE URSELF LOOK GOOD (its getting old)

 

Magazines are for the most part ********, the company with the deepest pockets gets the good times. Car and Driver got 5.2 seconds for a stock s2000, yeah right. I want to see a slip from the track with a 5.2s time on it, and I don't think you will. I think they also got a 5.3s 0-60 for the WRX haha having driven 2 WRXs I can reasure you that car can't do any better than 5.6s stock. So take these magazine results with a grain of salt.

 

For all those of you that think the end-all be-all of a sports car is to compare its drag race numbers to other cars, I will refer you to this site
http://www.corral.net/main.html

 

We're talking about car magazines and in magazines all they do is compare 0-60 and 1/4 times they don't do lap testing.

 

700 ft Slalom is the only test that matters since its the most dynamic. it includes acceleration, lateral G, camber change, and transition. That and the braking distance is all you really need to see. And dont put too much value on skidpad tests since its a completely static test, you can throw fat, sticky tires on anything and make it hold a circle for days. Did you see the Ford Cobra R that pulled 1G in Car and Driver that got smoked in the slalom by the RSX at .83g?