you make a good arguement, magazines aren't the true measure of a car's performance in the right driver's hands, but again, without the scientific method, there are way too many variables to actually present a completely solid arguement.

oh and Georgia is so much better than Mississippi? hahaha that's funny

 

I love reading this forum. It will just make it even sweeter everything I blow the doors of a 350Z. Thanks 1Redline350Z

 

I have some questions. I'm assuming you'll avoid answering every single one of them ...

If 1 magazine rates a car with a certain e.t., does that make that the only e.t. possible for that car? Apparently these magazine statistics are fact according to you.

Once you've answered that question, answer me this one. How is it that some magazines run better or worse times than other magazines?

What makes the magazine you choose to use "THE" source of information?

All the peope in the real world who run better numbers than the ones published in your magazine article ... are they all liars?

What is a 350Z rated at in Motortrend or whatever magazine you chose to look at?

I can't wait to hear the silence on this one.

Chris

P.S. magazine racing sucks.

 

You do make a pretty good point.

 

So.... lemme get this straight. Your modded 350Z runs (according to your magazine numbers) 13.9 and costs more than an LS1 powered car that can run 13.5 stock. What exactly are you arguing?

Yup, you have class alright.

 

no, but the one chosen is a proven and reliable source. it is a relativity issue.

Better/worse drivers. Better/worse standard test conditions. Different launch procedures. Different timing equipment.

nothing does. choose any reputable magazine you wish and make the comparisons.

Why do i feel like i'm repeating myself?

Dunno, not the issue at hand. Please inform us.

Anything else?

 

driving in a staight line is for amateurs.

 

Oh so now we're arguing price value now? Oh ok.

So... lemme get this straight. My Kawasaki crotch rocket beats your modded LS1. What exactly are you arguing?

Yup, you have a clue alright. Value is not the point of this thread.

 

Proven by who? You? When they rate a 2003 Z06 at a 12.9 and a 2002 at a 12.5 when there are no difference between the cars ... yeah, that's reliable alright. Try again!

In other words, 1 magazine isn't going to tell you anything. Thanks for making my point for me.

If I do that it's going to make his numbers look ridiculous. I'm not a magazine racer though. I know what the cars are capable of because I've actually driven them and I've seen many others driving them IN REAL LIFE. To say that a car can only do a certain time because that's all they got out of it in a magazine is ridiculous.

I have no idea. That's why I asked. I'm looking for a magazine racing statistic, I figured who better to ask than a magazine racer?

If it's as useless as your last post ... no.

Chris

 

Lets see here. How long has it been in print? Where is it sold? How many copies are sold every month? How many different car companies send them test cars? How many car companies give them exclusive reports, interviews and test drives? Apperently it's not me who choses if it's proven and reliable.

Well, apperently there is a difference in the cars. I don't know for sure, I'll admit that I don't know everything about Z06's, and I never claimed to. So I guess there's nothing different about each year of mustangs or even will be with 350z's either? Absolutely nothing changed from 2002 to 2003 in the z06? i find it hard to believe that anyone would accept getting different times on supposedly the same car a year later for no reason.


Oh yes it will. It will make a comparison. That's what relativity means by the way. How something is in comparison to another thing.

Go for it, make his and our day. So everyone you've seen driving their cars drives them to their maximum possible potential? And they all have equal driving skills? If not, then you can't compare the results. Hence scientific process. YET AGAIN.

So comparing cars by their statistics makes me a magazine racer? But i thought magazine racing statistics make no difference to you because you're not a magazine racer? oh ok.

You haven't made a useful point yet.

 

Here's why magazine racing sucks

350Z 1/4 mile times

Road and Track
14.3@100.2mh
http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/..._350z_data.pdf

Car and Driver
14.1@101mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...t_z.xml?page=2

That makes anyone who has ever said they have run a bone stock 13 in a 350Z a liar ... right?

I hate both magazines (actually I hate Motortrend too). It's because of magazines like these that threads like this exist.

I'll be the first to admit a 350Z can run a high 13 bone stock. According to magazine racing though they can't. These are "facts" since they're published in "respected" magazines. What a joke.

I've been here before though and I know I'm fighting a losing battle trying to convince you guys that magazine numbers don't mean anything. I'll leave you in your little fantasy world.

Chris

 

u must be a ****in dumbass if u think a Z starts making power at 6k rpm..it redlines at 6600 dipshit.

 

Dude, im not trying to say that a magazine tells you how fast a car is. I agree with you, there are better drivers out there that can turn out better times with a car they can drive well than any magazine. Magazine are not the final say in how fast a car accelerates to 60mph or goes a 1/4 mile.
But the fact is, the magazine drivers drive all the cars to their personal potential. So if we have a driver thats got so and so driving skills that drives one car, then he drives the next, it will show which car is faster. I know every car drives differently, but they get the same amount of practice on each car. And they also have more than one driver race the car for the final time the print in the magazine. So, from these results, you can draw a conclusion that one car is faster than another. And also how much faster. Hence my point, and Redline's point.

So pretty much you're just giving up?

 

We were not the ones who started claiming that our cars were the capable of beating every other sports car in the world....and as to why we are all her on your forum...pure entertainment Word spreads quick over the net about disillusioned car owners thinking there cars are the best...so we usually come over at first trying to see what all the hype is about...and try to be nise but when the BS gets to be to much...we become the reality check enforcers

 

That is funny I suppose you are a professional race car driver Because if not your just an amateur that thinks he is good at driving in circles.

 

you have a FORD mustang. what all do you have done to it, b/c I question stock vs. stock. I have raced many from 1995-02.

 

Yes, there must be right, otherwise your theory is shot right to hell.

Obviously.

The 2003 got some anniversary badges. Maybe that made it slower?

Seriously, the 2002 and 2003 are both rated at 405hp still. Before you start arguing something, do some research on it. 12.5 and 12.9 are way off for cars that are practically identical. Not only that, but 12.5 is still a lot slower than the best published time.

Welcome to magazine racing.

Did I say that? You're failing to see the main point. He posted up some numbers and said they were FACTS. Like they are the only possible time allowed. The same way he has decided that no LS1 Fbody has ever hit a 12 stock. Who is he to decide that when people have done it and when people do run better times than published magazine times?

Do people run slow times in Z06's? Sure. The point is the car is capable of running as quick as high 11's bone stock. Just because some idiot runs an 18.5 in one doesn't mean that's all it's capable of. The same as just because some magazine runs a 12.9 in one doesn't mean that I can't run a 12.2 in the same car. This is all common sense, or so I thought. Do I really need to explain this to you?

Chris

 

First of all, that is not a fact. In fact, it's a fact that many magazines do not drive a car to it's full potential otherwise no one would be hitting a 13 in a 350Z in real life.

My car ran a low 13 stock. I think it was rated at a 14 in Car and Driver. Did they get it to it's full potential?

Edit: I just reread that ... if you mean they drive to the "drivers'" personal potential and not the cars' personal potential ... then I agree. Unfortunately, most of them don't have a lot of potential as drivers.

Chris

 

The only difference between the 2003 and the 2002 Z06 is that the 2002 has a .5 gallon higher fuel capacity. Maybe the extra weight allowed it to hook up better?