According to the latest road and track article which had a shootout between a Z06m, a 911 targa, an m3, and a 350Z, the Z did pretty well all things considered. What really annoyed me is these are the numbers they posted for the 6mt track edition 350z:

0-60: 5.8
1/4 : 14.4

WTF is that about? I thought the Z could run 13.9 in the 1/4, and 5.49 0-60? Do Road and track drivers suck or could this be legit!??

 

Dont even worry about mag times, most of their people baby the car down the 1/4, also some of the use G-tech...

 

True, but they didn't baby the Z06 or M3. Hmmmm....

 

I bet on Mags, it whom ever pays the most, gets what they want, its all marketing

 

Most likely since they did their track testing at Willow Springs in Rosamond they probably used the dragstrip in Palmdale for the acceleration times. High elevation robs HP. The numbers would only be good to compare the vehicles to each other.

 

You're right. And unless that track has been re paved in the last year or two, the times will be high because of the BUMPY first 1/8 mile. It's really bad!

 

Did they run the "big track" or the Streets of Willow?

 

I saw all of the numbers posted on one of the "other" forums for this test and if it makes anybody feel any better...all of the car's numbers seemed to be .4 higher than the norm. (0-60 and 1/4 mile). So the Z's 5.4 and 14.0 would still be intact. If these tests were at the Palmdale venue as suspected (limited traction and altitude) that would make sense. The Z still loses, but at least you know it's not as slow as the numbers they posted.

 

The guys that are testing these cars are for the most part just writers and not professional drivers. A good example is C&D test of the 02 Z06 and 03 Z06...the 02 went 12.4 @ 114 and the 03 went 12.9 @ 114 according to the mag and there were no changes to the car. That tells me the person who ran the 03 could not get out of the hole, but I bet he is a good writer though

 

Is this the issue that is currently on the shelves?? I went to the R&T website, but there is nothing. Can you post more about how the Z did (not just the acceleration times)??

 

Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to read the article; I got the info from a thread posted on acura-cl.com:

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...threadid=93533

I do now believe the 14.4 was a typo; it should have been 14.1. I also looked for the magazine in the bookstore the other day and they didn't have it. I do know that the Z faired very well on the track in comparison to the other cars, proving what a good deal the Z is.

 

I also think the Z faired very well, considering all of those cars are significantly more expensive than the Z. Try not to listen to magazine times, and don't be discouraged if you do. C&D listed my car as running 14.4 in the 1/4 also, but High performance pontiac got a bone stock LT1 T/A to go 13.54 in the 1/4, I'de say for the most part, listen to what other people on this forum are getting to get an acurate measurement.

 

Alot of those numbers are condition dependant. If you look you'll probably find the other cars numbers slightly slower as well. Road and track has a camaro SS as a 13.9 but several other car mags have gotten an SS as low as 12.9's.

 

It's probably not a typo all the other cars were off by the same amount. It's the conditions of the track and elevation.

 

That's the point I was making earlier. I think the biggest problem with these types of tests are the driver(s) abilities. When they step from one car to the other they may not be willing to really find the car's threshold. ( I don't blame them, at the risk of the magazine having to buy a car that's in pieces) I believe this test was held at Willow Springs (not Streets of Willow) and the times reflect this. There is only one configuration for Willow Springs and it is always run clockwise. I was consistently lapping this track last time out in my Supercharged Integra Type R in the low 1:37's. I can tell you that my Type R does not the have power to weight ratio of the Z06 or the M3 and comes close to the Z. It has much less grip on it's DOT racing tires than the Z06. Why are my lap times off just slightly from a car that should be at least 3 seconds a lap faster? The driver. Am I a professional driver?...not even close! Is that guy a professional driver? Probably not and if he is, he's not a good one. This is why the cars come out so close, they are driven at the driver's pace...not the car's pace.


I've seen articles from these magazines before with the same results so I wouldn't get too worked up or excited about it. I think all of the cars had a lot more in them at the track and I think the M3 vs. Z may change with a driver willing to push the limits of both cars. I haven't had the Z to the track yet so I could be mildly suprised, but it feels like it has a lot more understeer than either of these other two cars.

 

Maybe they forgot to turn VDC off .

 

Maybe they needed it!

 

I learned a long time ago to not take any test times in Road and Driver Trend seriously.

 

Note the trap speeds are the same, indicating the slow one had a bad start (bad conditions?) but the engine was just as strong.


In the R&T article, the times are a bit slow for all the cars. Not only that, the trap speeds are off for the M3, which should be hitting 106-107 in the 1/4.

What's useful is the relative numbers, which are about right. The Z06 beats all by a significant margin, the 911 and the M3 are essentially the same, and the Z is a second behind or so. If you look at the 0-100 times you get a good idea for how the cars compare. The Z06 hits it in 9.9 secs, the 911 in 12.0, the M3 in 12.3, and the Z in 14.5.

In a freeway situation, there's a big difference between a Z06 and an M3 or 911 and an equally big difference between an M3 or 911 and a Z, and the numbers back that up.

 

For those who haven't read the article I've come across this link on another thread here.

http://68.8.45.61:8080/350zmods/roadtrack/start.htm

Summary of times: