Car & Driver's Best/Worst Perfromers of 05
- Thread starter Joey D
- 99 comments
- 3,283 views
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Here are some 0-60 times for the Z06 from every major US automotive magazine:
- Car and Driver: 3.4 seconds
- Motor Trend: 3.5 seconds (just past redline in 1st gear)
- Road and Track: 3.9 seconds (tested in California desert, may be off a bit)
- Automobile: 4.1 seconds (they must be driving like old people)
By comparison, here are some times for the European (and American) titans:
- Ferrari Enzo: 3.3 seconds
- Saleen S7: 3.3 seconds
- Ford GT: 3.4 seconds
- Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren: 3.6 seconds
- Porsche Carrera GT: 3.5 seconds
You have to remember that every magazine tests their cars with different drivers with different equipment in different weather condidtions. All cann ad up to substantial differences in performance figures. Car and Driver uses a GPS-based unit to measure all of their performance figures, and will correct them for atmospheric and temperature differences if necessary... The Z06 was tested just outside of my hometown, where it remains rather humid and somewhat hot well into late September/ early October.
- Car and Driver: 3.4 seconds
- Motor Trend: 3.5 seconds (just past redline in 1st gear)
- Road and Track: 3.9 seconds (tested in California desert, may be off a bit)
- Automobile: 4.1 seconds (they must be driving like old people)
By comparison, here are some times for the European (and American) titans:
- Ferrari Enzo: 3.3 seconds
- Saleen S7: 3.3 seconds
- Ford GT: 3.4 seconds
- Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren: 3.6 seconds
- Porsche Carrera GT: 3.5 seconds
You have to remember that every magazine tests their cars with different drivers with different equipment in different weather condidtions. All cann ad up to substantial differences in performance figures. Car and Driver uses a GPS-based unit to measure all of their performance figures, and will correct them for atmospheric and temperature differences if necessary... The Z06 was tested just outside of my hometown, where it remains rather humid and somewhat hot well into late September/ early October.
- 1,267
BlazinXtreme
Both these technologies are to prevent brake fade and the brakes overheating, if you know anything about brakes you'd know that...right? They don't really have much, if anything, to do with one stop from x mph, as long as x is less than, say, 220km/h+. If you did 8 stops from 70mph or whatever it is, then yes, you'd notice a big difference.
I also doubt the braking of the Z06 vs the SLR McLaren. Not only does the McLaren have more grip (better tires, not run-flats, and tire grip is the most important factor in braking) but it also has massive carbon ceramic rotors and an air brake.
I wouldn't doubt the performance of the Z06 against the SLR in any other category though... the Z06 is a beast!
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Swift
Yes this rule...
If its lighter more powerful and hasnt got some kind of design flaw it should be faster. Ive got nothing against the Z06 and im not tryint to take anything from it but lets face it C/D is pure crap. Your not going to be pulling those numbers off. Whats the manufacturers claim of 0-60? I know some manufacturers slightly underestimate their cars 0-60 time but it wouldnt be by a such a big gap as 0.5 of a second (0r 0.4 depending on what GM claim the z06 does.)
For me its all mathematical. It is equationally impossible for the z06 to be quicker 0-60 than the enzo thats all
So this is what we have learned then. C/D and M/T both screw up their figures.
No enzo is pulling off 3.3 secs neither is a ordinary saleen. The slr time is a tad too quick aswell and the CGT is slightly off aswell.
Why cant these guys just stick to the manufacturers claims? They really lose credability from me when they do stuff like this.
- 40,877
So what you are saying is that the only reason the Corvette can't be faster than the Enzo is that it shouldn't be? Where the hell do you get this stuff?PovertyYes this rule...
If its lighter more powerful and hasnt got some kind of design flaw it should be faster. Ive got nothing against the Z06 and im not tryint to take anything from it but lets face it C/D is pure crap. Your not going to be pulling those numbers off. Whats the manufacturers claim of 0-60? I know some manufacturers slightly underestimate their cars 0-60 time but it wouldnt be by a such a big gap as 0.5 of a second (0r 0.4 depending on what GM claim the z06 does.)
For me its all mathematical. It is equationally impossible for the z06 to be quicker 0-60 than the enzo thats all
So this is what we have learned then. C/D and M/T both screw up their figures.
No enzo is pulling off 3.3 secs neither is a ordinary saleen. The slr time is a tad too quick aswell and the CGT is slightly off aswell.
Why cant these guys just stick to the manufacturers claims? They really lose credability from me when they do stuff like this.
What you are basically saying is that every U.S. magazine in the country is wrong, because if you were to correct for whatever was trowing these times off, they would undoubtably be the same or better.And BTW, it is incredibly easy to rip off 0-60 times in a Saleen S7, or an SLR. Know why? 1st gear extends past 60 MPH. Same thing with the Ford GT. But wait, you didn't question how a car that was mathematically slower could get a 3.4 0-60, yet you don't see how the very lighter and more powerful Enzo and similarly lighter S7 (not even the Twin-Turbo even. The old 550 BHP one would pull 3.3's all day) could pull 3.3? That's retarded by your own twisted logic.
- 23,800
- Philippines
PovertyYes this rule...
For me its all mathematical. It is equationally impossible for the z06 to be quicker 0-60 than the enzo thats all
So this is what we have learned then. C/D and M/T both screw up their figures.
No enzo is pulling off 3.3 secs neither is a ordinary saleen. The slr time is a tad too quick aswell and the CGT is slightly off aswell.
Why cant these guys just stick to the manufacturers claims? They really lose credability from me when they do stuff like this.
A manufacturer's claim is just that, a claim. Some are conservative, some are optimistic. Most, if not all, are based on the performance of pre-production prototypes within a controlled environment. Motoring magazines test cars in production spec, in the real world. Obviously, they're going to get different times.
And GPS devices don't lie.... or at least, not much.
I rather doubt they'd inflate the figures unnecessarily. C&D may seem optimistic to some, but then, some of my friends have confirmed C&D times with broken in production line models, others can't get close. Not everyone has the ability to do perfect street launches, and a lot of cars start slowing down after five or six launches.And why is it so hard to believe that a Corvette could drag an SLR? They have nearly identical power-weight ratios. The Corvette's suspension likely allows more squat (=more traction on peel-out... something most US sports cars prioritize) than the SLR's overly stiff suspension. The Corvette also has a slight aerodynamic advantage.... the McLaren has more horsepower... so? That the Corvette beat the SLR in C&D's test likely indicates better traction on launch, while the SLR's better 1/4 mile time vindicates the fact that it has more power.
If you've driven the Enzo, the CGT and an ordinary Saleen with a VBOX plugged in, please do tell us what 0-60 times they should do. I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, it's your opinion against test data from a bunch of reasonably good drivers with a lot of electronic equipment.
YSSMAN
👍
To add more to this, I'd like to bring up the Australian publication Motor as a prime example of how different conditions, and even different examples of the same car can give different 0-60 figures. They've never gotten the same 0-60 for the XR6T... due to differences in unit condition, weather, surface, heat (which is a major factor for high horsepower, high strung engines) and clutch condition. Hell, increasing or decreasing tire temps and tread heat will also affect launch dramatically.
Break-in is also a factor. A lot of cars are very tight before they hit their first five thousand kays... heck, some cars don't see full power before fifteen thousand kays.
Thus, again, it's your opinion against empirical evidence. Please give it a rest.
- 4,522
- TwinTurboJay
amp88
Thats of cars they tested in the calender 2005 year that are available for sale in America. Also, the fuel mileage includes their extreme test procedures, 1/4 mile drags, sometimes laps at a local racetrack, not easy on the ol' fuel economy.
Just a thought...
If you had a Enzo, or CGT, or SLR, or S7, would you be willing to hand it to some Magazine Drivers and say "Go ahead, drop the clutch, bounce it off the redline, and smoke the tires all you have too, just get the fastest 0-60 you can get out of it."
Conversely, if you had a $70,000 Corvette, would you be willing to do the same thing?
Different Drivers, Different Owners, Different Tracks...personally, I'm buying that the Z06 did a 3.5-3.4 without worrying about it, it get's its power a bit differently than an Enzo (7 Liters of grunt, that doesn't mind being wrung out) so unless you are willing to show your equations, Poverty, come off it.
If you had a Enzo, or CGT, or SLR, or S7, would you be willing to hand it to some Magazine Drivers and say "Go ahead, drop the clutch, bounce it off the redline, and smoke the tires all you have too, just get the fastest 0-60 you can get out of it."
Conversely, if you had a $70,000 Corvette, would you be willing to do the same thing?
Different Drivers, Different Owners, Different Tracks...personally, I'm buying that the Z06 did a 3.5-3.4 without worrying about it, it get's its power a bit differently than an Enzo (7 Liters of grunt, that doesn't mind being wrung out) so unless you are willing to show your equations, Poverty, come off it.
True, the Murc is notorious for blowing transmissions.
Yeah, the CGT is good as far as the clutch goes...if you can get the tiny thing to grab well enough to get a fast launch that is.
It's more of a track carver than a sprinter, I've never heard anyone call the CGT's clutch anything but "tricky" at best.
Let's also remember Torque, and where it comes in.
Similar amounts of Torque between all three cars (Enzo, CGT, Z06) at 485, 435, and 470.
Then see where they hit, 5500, 5750, 4800.
The Enzo and CGT engines would be what you call, high strung versus the LS7, revving to 8k, and 1 or more liters less than the Z06 has.
Hell, the Ferrari actually weighs almost 100 pounds MORE than the Vette.
So yeah, I don't see your "mathematical impossibilities" popping up here.
Yeah, the CGT is good as far as the clutch goes...if you can get the tiny thing to grab well enough to get a fast launch that is.
It's more of a track carver than a sprinter, I've never heard anyone call the CGT's clutch anything but "tricky" at best.
Let's also remember Torque, and where it comes in.
Similar amounts of Torque between all three cars (Enzo, CGT, Z06) at 485, 435, and 470.
Then see where they hit, 5500, 5750, 4800.
The Enzo and CGT engines would be what you call, high strung versus the LS7, revving to 8k, and 1 or more liters less than the Z06 has.
Hell, the Ferrari actually weighs almost 100 pounds MORE than the Vette.
So yeah, I don't see your "mathematical impossibilities" popping up here.
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
ToronadoSo what you are saying is that the only reason the Corvette can't be faster than the Enzo is that it shouldn't be? Where the hell do you get this stuff?
And BTW, it is incredibly easy to rip off 0-60 times in a Saleen S7, or an SLR. Know why? 1st gear extends past 60 MPH. Same thing with the Ford GT. But wait, you didn't question how a car that was mathematically slower could get a 3.4 0-60, yet you don't see how the very lighter and more powerful Enzo and similarly lighter S7 (not even the Twin-Turbo even. The old 550 BHP one would pull 3.3's all day) could pull 3.3? That's retarded by your own twisted logic.
No the only reason why the vette cant be faster than the enzo is because its less powerful, heavier, got skinner tires and more than likely less aero dynamic than an enzo. even though 0-60 times dont really get limited by aerodynamics too much.
I know that the enzo is faster, you know that and the world knows that.
Yes the car mags are wrong plain and simple. This was never about omg Z06 ant be as fast as or faster than an enzo. It was omg C/D is soo crap.
Like I said in my previous post your american car mags but every car down as faster than they really are.
None of the cars in the following lists will do those times 0-60
This just shows further evidence of what a crap publication C/D is. It never had anyhting to do with me trying to put down your beloved z06.
And the only retard here is you in thinking that a saleen will pull of a 0-60 time in 3.3 secs at every asking. Try more like 3.6 secs at best. Its funny that when you look in german, italian, and UK publications none of these cars get anywhere around the stated times by M/T and C/D. Look up car websites on the internet and they wont have times anywhere near that aswell. And the veyrons 1st gear goes past 60 aswell and its got 4 wheel drive and super super wide tyres and buitl specifically for straight line speed and it does 0-60 in 2.8 secs.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Okay.... here I go again. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN TESTING CONDITIONS THAT CREATE DIFFERENCES IN TIMES.... PERIOD.
0-100 kph is not equivalent to a 0-60 MPH. All the times you have posted are European 0-62 MPH. 60-62 mph isn't much when you're talking real life, but in terms of testing, and considering a lot of these cars are near redline in 1st gear around 60MPH, it's very significant.
And your quoted weight for the Enzo? 1255kg? Only one site showing that... and it may be a typo.
According to Motor Trend: 1367kg
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0308_enzo/index2.html
According to tiscali.co.uk: 1365kg
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/motoring/broadband/roadtest_ferrari_enzo.html
According to supercars.net: 1370kg
http://www.supercars.net/VC?id=1934
I could go on... Yes, no two figures agree, but a fully loaded Enzo would definitely weigh around that much.
Yes, the Corvette is around 1400 kg+. One point there.
There is still no reason for calling crap on acceleration figures unless you can provide hard evidence that it is impossible under any conditions for those times to ever be achieved. People get quarter mile times and acceleration times faster than manufacturer's claims all the time. GET OVER IT.
You're the only one fighting your side of the argument. If this thread descends into any more name-calling by anyone, it's going to be a prime candidate for lockage.
0-100 kph is not equivalent to a 0-60 MPH. All the times you have posted are European 0-62 MPH. 60-62 mph isn't much when you're talking real life, but in terms of testing, and considering a lot of these cars are near redline in 1st gear around 60MPH, it's very significant.
And your quoted weight for the Enzo? 1255kg? Only one site showing that... and it may be a typo.
According to Motor Trend: 1367kg
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0308_enzo/index2.html
According to tiscali.co.uk: 1365kg
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/motoring/broadband/roadtest_ferrari_enzo.html
According to supercars.net: 1370kg
http://www.supercars.net/VC?id=1934
I could go on... Yes, no two figures agree, but a fully loaded Enzo would definitely weigh around that much.
Yes, the Corvette is around 1400 kg+. One point there.
There is still no reason for calling crap on acceleration figures unless you can provide hard evidence that it is impossible under any conditions for those times to ever be achieved. People get quarter mile times and acceleration times faster than manufacturer's claims all the time. GET OVER IT.
You're the only one fighting your side of the argument. If this thread descends into any more name-calling by anyone, it's going to be a prime candidate for lockage.
- 19,699
- Alabamamania
240Z
Yes, it's only for cars/trucks the Car & Driver tested during the publication year of 2005. They also do not include tuner cars, non-production/one-off cars, racing cars, and non-US-market cars in their stats.
C&D did not officailly road test a Ferrari Enzo, a Koeniggseg (sp?... I'll just call it: King's Sword), etc. during any point during the 2005 publication year.
They did a mini-test of the Top Kick, which was just intended to show that GM makes a car for public sale in all 50 States that dwarfs a Hummer H1 or H2 in many respects. It really shouldn't have been included because many of the criteria that C&D readers and buyers use to determine their purchases are way off the mark. There's no graph or rating for it's towing capacity, or cubic feet of space, for example.
Man, so many whiners on this board just do not get it...
1. For a Website showing pretty good numbers on cars, try http://fast-autos.net/makes.html it seems pretty trustworthy.
Edit: Nevermind, here are direct links.
Enzo
CGT
Z06
2. I've never seen a Ferrari Enzo listed at less than 3200 Lbs before, the FXX might weigh 2700 Lbs, but an Enzo sure the hell doesn't.
3. There isn't too much difference in the width of the tires on the Enzo and the Z06 that I saw.
Abort? Retry? Delete?
Edit: Nevermind, here are direct links.
Enzo
CGT
Z06
2. I've never seen a Ferrari Enzo listed at less than 3200 Lbs before, the FXX might weigh 2700 Lbs, but an Enzo sure the hell doesn't.
3. There isn't too much difference in the width of the tires on the Enzo and the Z06 that I saw.
Abort? Retry? Delete?
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Ok kids, the reason why Car and Driver may be getting better acceleration times is because they know how to drive the damn things... Road and Track along with Automobile are notorious for driving like old-folks when testing their cars and trucks, the exact opposite can be said for Motor Trend or Car and Driver.
In the Corvette Z06, as Motor Trend pointed out in their first test of the car, can hit 60MPH in 1st gear just beyond redline. They were doing their performance testing in Europe at the car's intoduction in Germany... They pulled a 3.5 second 0-60 time doing so...
Back in October 2005, Car and Driver also tested a Z06 in Europe and managed a 3.6 second 0-60 time, as compared to the Michigan as-tested speed of 3.4 seconds...
Car and Driver has stated over, and over, and over again that they use the VBOX GPS-based unit to measure acceleration and other speed tests, usually use the same driver (usually Csaba Csera or Larry Webster), and will correct their data for extreme weather conditions that have an adverse effect on data such as high temperature, high windspeed, elevation, and humidity.
Will everyone who drives a Z06 or Viper be able to match the numbers given by the Manufactuers or Magazines? Not hardly... Not even the magazines could match GM's claim for the CTS-V at 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (closest I ever herd of was 4.7)... Most people can drive fast, but these people do it for a living...
In the Corvette Z06, as Motor Trend pointed out in their first test of the car, can hit 60MPH in 1st gear just beyond redline. They were doing their performance testing in Europe at the car's intoduction in Germany... They pulled a 3.5 second 0-60 time doing so...
Back in October 2005, Car and Driver also tested a Z06 in Europe and managed a 3.6 second 0-60 time, as compared to the Michigan as-tested speed of 3.4 seconds...
Car and Driver has stated over, and over, and over again that they use the VBOX GPS-based unit to measure acceleration and other speed tests, usually use the same driver (usually Csaba Csera or Larry Webster), and will correct their data for extreme weather conditions that have an adverse effect on data such as high temperature, high windspeed, elevation, and humidity.
Will everyone who drives a Z06 or Viper be able to match the numbers given by the Manufactuers or Magazines? Not hardly... Not even the magazines could match GM's claim for the CTS-V at 0-60 in 4.6 seconds (closest I ever herd of was 4.7)... Most people can drive fast, but these people do it for a living...
- 1,267
Road and Track is the one (and only) American car magazine I trust with test numbers. And before you say "oh you fanboy cd is teh best r&t is abunch of ol fogeys" know that the guy who lent his 575 to them watched them test his car and he approved of how they did it.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
iceburns288
You mean they couldnt get a 575 Manarello to test? Ha!
I know what you mean.. C/D had to borrow an Enzo to get a full test done, and the same happened with the Ferrari F430... But the F430 was because their test car was totalled by some lunatic...
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
Yes... thats not what I mean at all. Think about it. A manufacturer builds a uber racer. Then they go test its performance figures. I think they will take the time out to try and get the optimium surrondings for their testing to get the best figures possible. Now I know that from time to time people will manage to get better times or worse for that matter but funnily enough for C/D they always get 0-60 times that are alot quicker than what the manufacturers claim for most their vehicles. Thats what Im complaining about. The figures they produce are pretty much unachieveable for most the cars figures they state. Maybe its just the equipment they use or the crappy setup but why do they need to test it independiently anyway? Whats wrong with the manufacturers figures?
Mark my words no enzo is doing 0-60 in 3.3 secs.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Poverty
Manufactuers generally underrate their cars for insurance purposes, atleast in the US anyways... And since when is a track just outside of Detroit an optimum place to do all of their new car testing? They may do their performance testing in Detroit on occasion, but the Nurburgring Nordshelife is another hot spot, same can be said with cold weather testing in Sweeden, hot weather testing in Baja or Dubai.
These cars are tested idependantly because they can be. The automakers want the magazines, newspapers, and websites to test their cars to show off the new goods, compare against other models, and prove (like Chevrolet and Bugatti have) exactly how fast their cars are.
This is what automotive magazines are supposed to do... Tell the people why or why they should not buy a particular car or truck... They tell you the 0-60 time (atleast in the US) so that you can know exactly how long it will take to merge into freeway traffic... Although that fact can be argued for and against, thats what it's origional point was...
So how exactly are the performance numbers C/D state unachieveable when they themselves are getting those numbers on a consistant basis? Why is it that Motor Trend often has similar data for the cars and trucks they test?
I looked up some 0-60 times for the Enzo:
- Car and Driver: 3.3 seconds
- Motor Trend: 3.4 seconds
- Road and Track: 3.3 seconds
- Automobile: untested
- Supercars.net: 3.4 seconds (from Ferrari themselves)
So dont say that an Enzo cant make the rip to 60 in 3.3 seconds...
- 6,769
- Little Elm, TX
- JCE3000GT
Can't we just say these cars are fast as **** and top the bickering. Nothing is getting solved and no one will ever agree with each other. The Enzo is fast, The CGT is fast, the Zonda is fast, the S7 is fast, and the ZO6 is fast. Leave it at that and let's move on.
- 3,603
Blazin
So... Am I the only one who finds it odd that some vehicles performed worse than the TopKick? The Braking being the most disturbing of the list above, followed by the top gear acceleration (As vague as the test is, it tells me that an Xterra is slower than a friggin' dump truck while at speed).
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
Slicks
Top gear acceleration is the combination of acceration times that it takes a car to go from 30-50MPH and then from 50-70MPH in their top gear.
That being so, the Xterra's 6-speed manual may have too tall of a sixth gear to let it make full use of its powerband, unlike the TopKick which has a monstrosity of a Diesel engine with enough torque to turn the Earth backwards.
