Road Tests and Road Testers
30 June 2003, 05:59 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the light of Juans' recent posting about test figures the thought occurred to me that some of you may not know how these figures often come about...
How [for example] do you think the fabulous acceleration figures posted by Lamborghini are obtained?
1/. How come so many sites publish exactly the same figures... almost exactly matching the 'brochure' figures.
2/. How come the sites that actually test 'raod' cars get different figures.
3/. Finally which do you believe?
How [for example] do you think the fabulous acceleration figures posted by Lamborghini are obtained?
1/. How come so many sites publish exactly the same figures... almost exactly matching the 'brochure' figures.
2/. How come the sites that actually test 'raod' cars get different figures.
3/. Finally which do you believe?
30 June 2003, 06:20 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on mag.
I think the likes of EVO and CAR do a proper performance test and getting the right figures is important to it's readers. Also they are only looking at a subset of the car market.
Autocar and AutoExpress probably don't take these tests as seriously as they have to look at all cars in the market so just use the manufacturers figures to save time.
For example, EVO and CAR post 0-60 for the Honda S2000 as 5.5 seconds. AutoExpress and Autocar post it as 6.2 (the manufacturers figure).
Not sure which I'd 'believe' as an absolute but if you're comparing cars, make sure you use the same source when doing so. e.g. the Corrado VR6 is the same 0-60 in EVO as the S2000 is in AutoExpress. I can tell you that the S2000 is DEFINITELY better 0-60 than the VR6 as I've had both of them.
I think the likes of EVO and CAR do a proper performance test and getting the right figures is important to it's readers. Also they are only looking at a subset of the car market.
Autocar and AutoExpress probably don't take these tests as seriously as they have to look at all cars in the market so just use the manufacturers figures to save time.
For example, EVO and CAR post 0-60 for the Honda S2000 as 5.5 seconds. AutoExpress and Autocar post it as 6.2 (the manufacturers figure).
Not sure which I'd 'believe' as an absolute but if you're comparing cars, make sure you use the same source when doing so. e.g. the Corrado VR6 is the same 0-60 in EVO as the S2000 is in AutoExpress. I can tell you that the S2000 is DEFINITELY better 0-60 than the VR6 as I've had both of them.
30 June 2003, 07:10 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
================================================== =======
"What about these very very expensive exotics?"
================================================== =======
That's a good question and a good topic too. Some magazines and websites simple don't have the resources or the time to perform acceleration tests, it just depends on how important they believe their readers see them.
American motoring magazines like Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motor Trend make a big deal out of acceleration and often they'd make elaborate tests on *every* performance car out there.
Autocar is also very influencial in the UK and some parts of Europe.
With that in mind, car manufacturers are aware about how journalism can affect the marketability of their cars. They'd often provide the most "run-in" example they have to make sure that car performs well in a magazine. One *bad* example was by Honda with their S2000 in the USA. Recommended run-in period is 600 + miles, one test car only had 380 miles on the clock and they managed a 5.6 second 0-60 by revving to 8000 RPM upon launch (which then spurned alot of bad impression on *every* S2000 out there in the states).
"What about these very very expensive exotics?"
================================================== =======
That's a good question and a good topic too. Some magazines and websites simple don't have the resources or the time to perform acceleration tests, it just depends on how important they believe their readers see them.
American motoring magazines like Road & Track, Car & Driver and Motor Trend make a big deal out of acceleration and often they'd make elaborate tests on *every* performance car out there.
Autocar is also very influencial in the UK and some parts of Europe.
With that in mind, car manufacturers are aware about how journalism can affect the marketability of their cars. They'd often provide the most "run-in" example they have to make sure that car performs well in a magazine. One *bad* example was by Honda with their S2000 in the USA. Recommended run-in period is 600 + miles, one test car only had 380 miles on the clock and they managed a 5.6 second 0-60 by revving to 8000 RPM upon launch (which then spurned alot of bad impression on *every* S2000 out there in the states).
Trending Topics
30 June 2003, 07:53 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think they should scrap the 0-60 tests.
The 0-60 is too dependant on other factors (clutch dumping at appropriate revs, good 1st to 2nd gearchange etc.) which most people can't or won't do (not on a regular basis unless you've got an account with clutches'r'us
)
Instead have a 30-70 test as that gives a much better indication of real world performance differences between cars. (not a perfect system but far better than 0-60 and no others have been suggested in the past).
The 0-60 is too dependant on other factors (clutch dumping at appropriate revs, good 1st to 2nd gearchange etc.) which most people can't or won't do (not on a regular basis unless you've got an account with clutches'r'us
)Instead have a 30-70 test as that gives a much better indication of real world performance differences between cars. (not a perfect system but far better than 0-60 and no others have been suggested in the past).
30 June 2003, 10:25 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manufacturers definately provide the very best vehicle they can, for example, during the late 80's/early 90's Suzuki were caught a couple of times providing blueprinted and de-restricted versions of their GSX-R1100 to ensure they beat the competition.
It's interesting when a magazine does a group test, then does a similar group test later on and contradicts themselves. Again, using bikes as an example, new GSX-R1000 gets launched, blows away the competition "moves the game on", then a year later, the all new R1 gets launched and suddenly the Gixxer "feels old", a minor revamp later and the Gixxer is back on top.
Magazine journos are paid to sell cars so very few are honest. Wouldn't want to risk not being invited to that new model launch at a 5 star hotel abroad with all expenses paid, would we?
It's interesting when a magazine does a group test, then does a similar group test later on and contradicts themselves. Again, using bikes as an example, new GSX-R1000 gets launched, blows away the competition "moves the game on", then a year later, the all new R1 gets launched and suddenly the Gixxer "feels old", a minor revamp later and the Gixxer is back on top.
Magazine journos are paid to sell cars so very few are honest. Wouldn't want to risk not being invited to that new model launch at a 5 star hotel abroad with all expenses paid, would we?
30 June 2003, 11:02 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 3,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had a few of my cars tested by a certain well known, high profile magazine and their 0-60 time sources are interesting to say the least.
When I was there, they really did go to town testing the figures of all the cars there. Autocar are known for being very harsh in their tests, which is why many 4x4 cars get better times there as they are less inclined to display mechanical sympathy.
When I told them I didn't want my car tested for 0-60, they just grabbed the figures off another publication, saved them time and allowed me to go home on an intact gearbox.
Cem
When I was there, they really did go to town testing the figures of all the cars there. Autocar are known for being very harsh in their tests, which is why many 4x4 cars get better times there as they are less inclined to display mechanical sympathy.
When I told them I didn't want my car tested for 0-60, they just grabbed the figures off another publication, saved them time and allowed me to go home on an intact gearbox.
Cem
30 June 2003, 11:10 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 3,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and I agree, 0-60 times are absolute tosh. My car has a better 0-60 time than almost any Porsche. But in the real world, unless I dump my clutch at 7000rpm and destroy my gearbox, a 996 Carerra is going to make mince meat out of me.
Cem
Cem
30 June 2003, 11:27 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the exact opposite with auto'box cars... testers tend to sit in them put them in 'D', floor the accelerator and that's it... that is the time they record... in fact one magazine I KNOW does not allow power-braking at all for any Autos...
Power braking will remove more than a second from most GT auto times...
Hi Cem.. :thumbsup
Power braking will remove more than a second from most GT auto times...
Hi Cem.. :thumbsup
01 July 2003, 07:20 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to "trust" (lack of a better word) Sport Auto (Germany)
They seem to produce some serious and repeatable testing.
Their results are put in a database on this website:
http://www.track-challenge.com/main.asp
I'm sure they'll make mistakes as well, but on the whole they seem to be very serious about what they are doing.
Incidently: their times for a Diablo GT:
0 - 40 Km/h 1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,4 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 Km/h 5,6 s
0 - 140 Km/h 6,8 s
0 - 160 Km/h 8,7 s
0 - 180 Km/h 10,4 s
0 - 200 Km/h 12,8 s
VMax of 330 km/h
They seem to produce some serious and repeatable testing.
Their results are put in a database on this website:
http://www.track-challenge.com/main.asp
I'm sure they'll make mistakes as well, but on the whole they seem to be very serious about what they are doing.
Incidently: their times for a Diablo GT:
0 - 40 Km/h 1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h 2,4 s
0 - 80 Km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 Km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 Km/h 5,6 s
0 - 140 Km/h 6,8 s
0 - 160 Km/h 8,7 s
0 - 180 Km/h 10,4 s
0 - 200 Km/h 12,8 s
VMax of 330 km/h
01 July 2003, 08:45 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mycroft,
You're not gonna make some TVR owners cry are you? Obviously ALL of TVRs published figures are accurate and their test cars are never doctored
Strange how Autocar got 8.8 secs 0-100 on a 360 but everywhere else seems about 2 secs off.....wonder why?
You're not gonna make some TVR owners cry are you? Obviously ALL of TVRs published figures are accurate and their test cars are never doctored
Strange how Autocar got 8.8 secs 0-100 on a 360 but everywhere else seems about 2 secs off.....wonder why?
01 July 2003, 09:09 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but Craig even Autocar recently commented that the 360's 8.8 time was "suspicious".
Anyone buying a car on the strength of a magazine's published standing start acceleration figures is wasting their time. They are only good for comparisons between different cars tested by the same magazine (and ideally the same road testers)
30 to 120 through the gears is a better indication of real world useable performance IMO.
So to go back to the original post, which I won't give mycroft the entertainment value of answering on a line by line basis so he can pick up on irrelevant points of detail.
I would comment, however, that it is highly likely that the manufacturers of the exotics publish computer simulated figures based upon the perameters they have, and then "enhance" the test cars to meet them.
I know for a fact that Vauxhall's 150 mph claim for the Astra Turbo was based on simulations, which subsequent test figures could never emulate.
LOL remember the E-Types original test cars......
D
Anyone buying a car on the strength of a magazine's published standing start acceleration figures is wasting their time. They are only good for comparisons between different cars tested by the same magazine (and ideally the same road testers)
30 to 120 through the gears is a better indication of real world useable performance IMO.
So to go back to the original post, which I won't give mycroft the entertainment value of answering on a line by line basis so he can pick up on irrelevant points of detail.
I would comment, however, that it is highly likely that the manufacturers of the exotics publish computer simulated figures based upon the perameters they have, and then "enhance" the test cars to meet them.
I know for a fact that Vauxhall's 150 mph claim for the Astra Turbo was based on simulations, which subsequent test figures could never emulate.
LOL remember the E-Types original test cars......
D
01 July 2003, 09:10 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mycroft -- on the other hand, EVO were spelled out quite clearly in a test that they powerbraked their autobox 330i and 330d BMWs .... brutal treatment!
Autocar tests are good because they give comprehensive data, especially in-gear acceleration. Deffo agree that the 0-60 figure is a waste of time for road use.
Autocar tests are good because they give comprehensive data, especially in-gear acceleration. Deffo agree that the 0-60 figure is a waste of time for road use.
01 July 2003, 01:26 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60 - 100 is a good indication too IMO. Factors out traction etc and just focuses on how hard a car can accelerate.
Autocar fig tend to beat everybody elses - 0-100 on a 996 as 10.6secs - i dont think so at all!
The only figures i trust are those which are done on the same test eg EVO test or M5 v XJR v S6, even them i look at the fig relative to each other ie M5 60 in 4.9 v XJR 5.3 therefore 0.4 secs etc etc
Autocar fig tend to beat everybody elses - 0-100 on a 996 as 10.6secs - i dont think so at all!
The only figures i trust are those which are done on the same test eg EVO test or M5 v XJR v S6, even them i look at the fig relative to each other ie M5 60 in 4.9 v XJR 5.3 therefore 0.4 secs etc etc
01 July 2003, 02:34 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 360 Modena tested there was a semi-automatic. This F1 style 'box' shifts far quicker than any manual shifting.
US spec Dodge Vipers which have similar power-to-weight as a F360 has hit 100 MPH under 9 seconds with a standard 6-speed.
US spec Dodge Vipers which have similar power-to-weight as a F360 has hit 100 MPH under 9 seconds with a standard 6-speed.
01 July 2003, 02:37 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many things affects a cars performance
temperature
humidty
fuel
the road surface tested on
the driver
how hard they push the car
plus all mags are biased to some degree (remember the car companys give them lavish jollys at every launch treating them like rock stars and also pay alot of money to them for advertising so its not in there interest to be too negative)
even take into account evo and top gears test tracks, both of which are small tight circuits with no high speed corners or straights so there is a natural bias against supercars and big high powered cars like the M5 and Vauxhall "lotus" Carlton with its 1950s lorry enigine. It would be interesting to see how the lotus elise and mini did on a track which had 160mph+ corners and 180mph+ straghts as well as slow twisty stuff against the likes of the edonis and 996 turbo.
personally i find evo the best of the bunch currently but i only use it as a rough guide.
the single biggest factor that affects the peformance of any car at this level is the driver, a good driver in 1600 focus will toast a poor driver in a 360 ferrari everytime.
temperature
humidty
fuel
the road surface tested on
the driver
how hard they push the car
plus all mags are biased to some degree (remember the car companys give them lavish jollys at every launch treating them like rock stars and also pay alot of money to them for advertising so its not in there interest to be too negative)
even take into account evo and top gears test tracks, both of which are small tight circuits with no high speed corners or straights so there is a natural bias against supercars and big high powered cars like the M5 and Vauxhall "lotus" Carlton with its 1950s lorry enigine. It would be interesting to see how the lotus elise and mini did on a track which had 160mph+ corners and 180mph+ straghts as well as slow twisty stuff against the likes of the edonis and 996 turbo.
personally i find evo the best of the bunch currently but i only use it as a rough guide.
the single biggest factor that affects the peformance of any car at this level is the driver, a good driver in 1600 focus will toast a poor driver in a 360 ferrari everytime.
01 July 2003, 02:41 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autocar thought that Skoda had given them a modded Octavia vRS.
Have you seen the times? Far faster than anyone else can manage.
0-100 time is faster than the MY01 Scoob.
Lee
Have you seen the times? Far faster than anyone else can manage.
0-100 time is faster than the MY01 Scoob.
Lee
01 July 2003, 03:29 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find lap times and circuit testing the least reliable of all performance indicators... as Nick has said the circuits are short and sharp cornered and don't bear that much relation to how we do [guessing] 90% of our motoring... 'passing off' a 4.8ltr as a 4.4ltr is not as un-common as you may think...
EB, I am always struck by these times from various testers and the 'mess' they leave behind in doing it.
.. the example you have shown is I guess quite recent.
.. probably a 2000+ car.
.. and it is cited as definitive for the marque.
.. yet the reason for this thread was that I posted that 9.9 secs for a 0-100 dash is fierce and on the road caused real aggro to a 'P' reg Diablo.
.. the differences we have noted here means that the 8.7 secs for the 2000+ model you have cited may indeed be correct but not quite so true on the road.
.. if you add to that the citing of 2000+model figures for a '96 model car and you see the point I was trying to make.
.. every yesr manufacturers find ways of shaving tenths of the 'dash' times so I suppose the 10.4 sec test report I posted for that model year might be more right than wrong...
EB, I am always struck by these times from various testers and the 'mess' they leave behind in doing it.
.. the example you have shown is I guess quite recent.
.. probably a 2000+ car.
.. and it is cited as definitive for the marque.
.. yet the reason for this thread was that I posted that 9.9 secs for a 0-100 dash is fierce and on the road caused real aggro to a 'P' reg Diablo.
.. the differences we have noted here means that the 8.7 secs for the 2000+ model you have cited may indeed be correct but not quite so true on the road.
.. if you add to that the citing of 2000+model figures for a '96 model car and you see the point I was trying to make.
.. every yesr manufacturers find ways of shaving tenths of the 'dash' times so I suppose the 10.4 sec test report I posted for that model year might be more right than wrong...
01 July 2003, 03:58 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a minor fly in your ointment iain - Your time is not backed up by anything other than yourself, which cannot be trusted, and you refuse to bring your m-sorer to any place where someone can witness your claims