magazine 1/4 mile acceleration times

[khappucino]

Just a thought, can you guys think of any good reason that
auto mags dont post the 60ft times with the 1/4 mile ET and trap speed,
it seems like that would give some indication on the quality of the run :biggrin:

i know such metrics are only one facet of a car, but i've seen some crazy times posted cars, and by crazy i mean hellaciously slow.

for example from various magazines
91 NSX at 14.4 ET
2004 Lan Evo 8 running 14.1 ET

etc... just a thought :biggrin:

 

[CerberusM5]

Just a thought, can you guys think of any good reason that
auto mags dont post the 60ft times with the 1/4 mile ET and trap speed,
it seems like that would give some indication on the quality of the run :biggrin:

i know such metrics are only one facet of a car, but i've seen some crazy times posted cars, and by crazy i mean hellaciously slow.

for example from various magazines
91 NSX at 14.4 ET
2004 Lan Evo 8 running 14.1 ET

etc... just a thought :biggrin:

Road and Track list time to distance data I believe.

I've seen times as low as 13.2 for an Evo variant in one of the auto magazines. I also saw a stock Evo run a 13.5 at the Las Vegas drag strip. I am very impressed with how well these car run for a cheap econobox. However, I hate the looks and the image the car has.

 

[nsxtasy]

Usually, 80 percent of magazine test times will be within a tenth or two of each other. For example, there are lots and lots of magazine tests of the '91-94 NSX which report in the 13.7-13.9 second range. You can ignore anything that is reported outside these "consensus figures".

Magazine times don't always match what you see at the drag strip. That is because they follow standard procedures to eliminate variables that would otherwise affect results. Some of these standard procedures result in faster times, but many of them result in slower times. These procedures include the use of professional drivers (yes, they DO know what they're doing - usually), bone stock cars with absolutely no mods, stock tires, full fluids including a full tank of gas, all standard equipment in the car (including spare tire, jack, floor mats, etc), etc. Some (but not all) magazines correct for environmental conditions (temperature and humidity).

 

[CerberusM5]

Usually, 80 percent of magazine test times will be within a tenth or two of each other. For example, there are lots and lots of magazine tests of the '91-94 NSX which report in the 13.7-13.9 second range. You can ignore anything that is reported outside these "consensus figures".

Magazine times don't always match what you see at the drag strip. That is because they follow standard procedures to eliminate variables that would otherwise affect results. Some of these standard procedures result in faster times, but many of them result in slower times. These procedures include the use of professional drivers (yes, they DO know what they're doing - usually), bone stock cars with absolutely no mods, stock tires, full fluids including a full tank of gas, all standard equipment in the car (including spare tire, jack, floor mats, etc), etc. Some (but not all) magazines correct for environmental conditions (temperature and humidity).

I thought that 14.4 number seemed extremely high for a 91.

Thanks Ken for your thorough explanation of the magazine testing process. It would be great to if the same driver could test cars at the same location for all the magazines. It is impossible to guage the consistecy between tests.

I do like the fact that Top Gear magazine's track testing is performed by one driver; the Stig.