Car & Driver's Best/Worst Perfromers of 05

[niky]

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).

Maybe the Topkick only has three gears? I agree that top gear tests are largely pointless, as many automatic transmission cars won't let you hold top gear from low rpms. They've had that problem with the top gear test for a long time... it throws off their other numbers. I wonder why they still do it.

As for braking... does the TopKick actually get to 70 mph? I notice it only hits 68 mph in the quarter mile.

EDIT: ADDED

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.

Ahh. Going with what I said and with what YSSMAN says, I guess the Topkick just did NOT qualify for braking and top gear tests. I have a suspicion they couldn't get it up to 70 mph... which means that it placed a DNF in both categories.

 

[YSSMAN]

I really cant recall the performance of the TopKick... Ive seen plenty of them around town, but most are suited to full work duty usually as a cargo truck, dump truck, and occasionally as a snow plow truck.

 

[Joey D]

The only thing I did with the Top Kick is sit in on some design meeting for them, however Iwas bored as hell and played on my Clie.

 

[Tornado]

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.

That does not mean crap. I do know the Enzo is faster. So? And you are still saying that the Vette only can't be near than the Enzo because it mathemattically can't. The fact that you don't understand that mother nature doesn't care about numbers does not concern me.

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.

Based on what? How do you figure this?

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.

Again, based on what? Some numbers that have more or less been proven in multiple magazines?

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.

Are you seriously that dumb? The 16.4 has 1001 fricking BHP. It could have 8 wheel drive and suffer from traction problems. You also just contradicted yourself. First of all, the Bugatti does not have "super super wide tyres", because it was built of top speed. "super super wide tyres" limit top speed. Second of all, 4 wheel drive does not eliminate traction problems. It limits them. Third of all, what does the Bugatti have to do with anything?
On the Saleen topic, prove it. Prove to me that it can't do 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. Motor Trend never fully tested it. Automobile never touched it. So prove it to me.

 

[Joey D]

I love how he says car magazines are wrong and he is right. Car Magazines are right most of the time and average joe's like us are typically wrong because we don't get the oppertunities to do stuff like that. I mean I have with GM but that's about it.

 

[Kent]

I just wanted to mention a few things...

1) Ceramic brakes don't reach full potential until they are well heated.
That means a straight up cold test of the SLR will produce worse figures than what it really should do (and will do after some time to heat the brakes).
I doubt anyone did a hour of track runs to get the SLR "ready" for the brake test.

2) The front tires on the vette are wider than the SLR's (even though the rear tires are not).
However, that does mean there is a possibility that the Z06 has more tire grip up front (which is where weight goes under braking).
(and that's still not addressing the weight of each car)

3) The aero dynamics of the Enzo are probably "worse" than the vette's.

Fact is, the Enzo is made with creating large amounts of downforce in mind. The vette on the other hand probably has some, but I am sure it is not as much as the Enzo's.

Finally, just a word of advice to Poverty.
Dude,
When everyone else is wrong and only you are right, it might be time to re-think everything including who is actually right.

 

[Jedi2016]

I'd like to add that straight-line speed is only good for so much... track speed is another thing altogether, when you factor everything together, including how well the thing turns.

And I'm going to take a stab and say that an Enzo would devour a Z06 on a track.

Going back to straight-line speed for a sec... what's the Z06's top speed? The stats up there only mention "above 190".. can it even break 200?

 

[Joey D]

And I'm going to take a stab and say that an Enzo would devour a Z06 on a track.

I wouldn't say devour, but I'd say it would be faster.

Going back to straight-line speed for a sec... what's the Z06's top speed? The stats up there only mention "above 190".. can it even break 200?

At the Proving Grounds one of the testers had the Z06 up to 196 but ran outta road. He said it probably could have squeezed a few more outta it to bump it to 200.

 

[Tornado]

At the Proving Grounds one of the testers had the Z06 up to 196 but ran outta road. He said it probably could have squeezed a few more outta it to bump it to 200.

They should try the Nardo.

I'd like to add that straight-line speed is only good for so much... track speed is another thing altogether, when you factor everything together, including how well the thing turns.
And I'm going to take a stab and say that an Enzo would devour a Z06 on a track.

I know that it would (except at the Nurburgring). Everyone knows that. But the issue was only about the acceleration times.

 

[Joey D]

They should try the Nardo.

Isn't Nardo in Italy? The proving grounds are in Milford, Michigan...which is a much easier place to test GM cars I must say.

 

[Tornado]

Isn't Nardo in Italy? The proving grounds are in Milford, Michigan...which is a much easier place to test GM cars I must say.

I know, but it would be good publicity (in addition to shutting up a lot of haters. Hey, guess what? My $75,000 Corvette hass a higher top speed than your $200,000 Audi Gallardo). It wouldn't even cost that much. Just one car, rent out the track for a day. Send over a crew. They would be done in an hour.

 

[Joey D]

Ya true enough they did send some Z06's over to the 'Ring at one point in time so I wouldn't suppose it would hurt.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Most of the claims I have herd about the Z06 put it right at 198 at redline in 5th gear, as 6th is too tall to continue acceleration.

 

[Tornado]

...Most of the claims I have herd about the Z06 put it right at 198 at redline in 5th gear, as 6th is too tall to continue acceleration.

At redline or fuel cut-off?

 

[Joey D]

I still say with a long enough track and the right weather conditions 200 is possible.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm really not sure Toronado... I would assume just at redline. The C5 Z06 had the same "problem" when it topped out at 176MPH in 5th, and the C6 Z51 at 183MPH...

 

[Poverty]

I love how he says car magazines are wrong and he is right. Car Magazines are right most of the time and average joe's like us are typically wrong because we don't get the oppertunities to do stuff like that. I mean I have with GM but that's about it.

No im saying C/D are wrong. Why is it that all the european mags (and there are about 10 times as many european mags as US.) have 0-60 figures that are quite a bit slower than C/D? And why is C/D figures always quiet a bit faster than the manufacturers figures?

Think about it. .

 

[Joey D]

No im saying C/D are wrong. Why is it that all the european mags (and there are about 10 times as many european mags as US.) have 0-60 figures that are quite a bit slower than C/D? And why is C/D figures always quiet a bit faster than the manufacturers figures?

Think about it. .

It's been explained. Do you even read anything other then your own post and mine? Probably not. C/D might use a different testing method.

 

[Poverty]

On the Saleen topic, prove it. Prove to me that it can't do 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. Motor Trend never fully tested it. Automobile never touched it. So prove it to me.

No you prove to me that it can as I have the figures to show that it cant.

And untill you provide those figures im in the right.

You also just contradicted yourself. First of all, the Bugatti does not have "super super wide tyres", because it was built of top speed. "super super wide tyres" limit top speed.

wrong. The veyron has the widdest tires ever made for a production car. Go look it up the veyrons tires are huge.

Finally, just a word of advice to Poverty.
Dude,
When everyone else is wrong and only you are right, it might be time to re-think everything including who is actually right.

Yeah except im arguing with self announced GM fanboys. They cant take it that Im arguing about the fact that c/d figures are too fast but they want to not believe it as they want their precious Z06 to do 0-60 in 3.4 secs. I bet if the Z06 wasnt even mentioned they would agree.

 

[Poverty]

It's been explained. Do you even read anything other then your own post and mine? Probably not. C/D might use a different testing method.

Well what good is that? Everyone should use the same testing equipment and procedures to keep all data valid. What C/D is doing is bad data collecting.

 

[Joey D]

Well what good is that? Everyone should use the same testing equipment and procedures to keep all data valid. What C/D is doing is bad data collecting.

Why? Independent firms can use what they like. If you don't like C/D don't buy it, I happen to like it so I buy it...along with a lot of people.

 

[Poverty]

I dont buy it anymore. Just dont quote performance figures off it then as it seems everyone except C/D are using the same method for testing.

 

[niky]

Poverty: Just read again what I posted. C&D does 0-60. That's valid for the American market. It was an American who first thought of that stupid benchmark, and that's what American magazines do.

European Magazines do 0-62. That's 0-100km/h. That's valid for the European market, because everything is in km/h.

That's something like 2/10ths of a second up to half a second longer. If the car in question is made for the 0-60 benchmark, and has an additional upshift before it hits 62, (and I know a lot of cars that peak in gear at 60mph), then it will get a relatively long 0-62 time compared to 0-60.

Manufacturers, as said previously, usually give conservative 0-60 times. Partially for insurance reasons, and partially so that owners won't go up to them and tell them "It's all crap... why can't my car do 0-60 in 9 seconds?" They give a little leeway, add some fudge factor so NO ONE can claim they're overselling their cars. And many manufacturers use 0-60 and 0-62 interchangeably... (just like they use PS, HP and SAE HP interchangeably) even though they're not IDENTICAL.

I'm not going to say it again. We've all been trying to explain it nicely. So please knock it off. C&D isn't doing bad data collecting. Why the hell would they need to inflate ALL the numbers they get?

Their times are internally consistent and should be taken in that vein. Compare the Corvette's C&D times to the C&D times of any other car, but NOT the times from other magazines, because those guys are testing IN DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, UP TO A DIFFERENT SPEED. (62 is NOT 60). Get it?

This has all been said before. AND YOU STILL DIDN'T READ IT.

 

[niky]

I dont buy it anymore. Just dont quote performance figures off it then as it seems everyone except C/D are using the same method for testing.

Everyone is using the same method. If Road and Track can get nearly the same times, then what's the problem?

And if you don't believe C&D times at all, get out of the thread, because this thread is about C&D, and apparently, none of us can convince you of its relevance.

 

[Poverty]

LOL I did read it however I refuse to believe there is ner enough a gap of around a second from c/d figures to another publication by the difference of 2 mph.Not all cars change gear around 60mph. Many go quite a bit past that.

 

[niky]

LOL I did read it however I refuse to believe there is ner enough a gap of around a second from c/d figures to another publication by the difference of 2 mph.Not all cars change gear around 60mph. Many go quite a bit past that.

And the fact that that time is also far behind Motor Trend's means Motor Trend's time is impossible? And the fact tha Road and Track got 3.9 in the desert (minus the heat factor, would equal at least 3.4-3.5 on a cooler track) means that Road and Track's time is impossible, too?

Automobile is European. Many people who work with the metric system think 0-100 km/h and 0-60 mph are equal. Again, they are not.

Like I've said. C&D's times can and have been replicated by car owners I know. Some testers just have bad launching techniques, or poor testing conditions. Go look up Edmunds. You'll love their Corvette test. They got a 4.5. Now tell me. Does that make anything under 4 in a Z06 impossible?

EDIT: Edmunds has some nice reviews... but their testing is damn terrible.

 

[Poverty]

Ive seen a couple reviews that puts the C6 at 4.5 secs. The lowest ive seen is 4.2.

 

[Joey D]

Well I've been where GM tests the thing and I've seen it at 3.55 seconds, so I really don't care what you have seen. You want a pat on the back or something for seeing that?

 

[Poverty]

Well I've been where GM tests the thing and I've seen it at 3.55 seconds, so I really don't care what you have seen. You want a pat on the back or something for seeing that?

Well I think you like to pull figures out of a black top hat. Do you want a pat on your back because you "saw" ?

 

[Joey D]

Meh I sat there behind the lap top and that's what the computer said, I'm going to trust what I saw over what I hear. Seeing is believeing and yes I do want a pat on the back. I think you just don't like that I have first hand experience with this stuff and you don't. You are only here to stir up arguements...alla Plauge.Ghost and Young_Warrior. Don't you get the feeling that you are wrong?