Are fucking for real? Did you learn this in one of your classes @ school?

If you haven't noticed they have TV showings of ET on cars that are smoking tires ripping gears... but maybe its all just movie magic, and the 93 RX7 never could do the 13.9 the factory claimed from the factory...right????? Because they pussy shifted it..and weren't @ a track with traction...

Do you think the track I got 1/2 second faster was preped??? Its not so, go find some real data to back your crap up.

I know you know the mod to this forum well.. so I am sure he will back you up this crazy ass claim tjhat they don't drive the cars hard when they test them, and they don't use tracks with traction...

 

I'm curious why a magazine would not drive a car hard at the track, to get the best possible times..anyone?

 

They do test the cars to their full potenial, if they didn't and reported numbers that were proven wrong, by another source, then their reputation and sales would be non exsistant.

So Yes they beat the shit outta the test cars, and many times I see them testing on the same tracks, that pros use for racing.

 

a) I don't know the mod here, and even if I did, why would that matter?

b) the info was through a conversation with a friend of mine, who knows and races with some of the guys from Motor Trend and Road & Track. *shrug*

note: if you've ever watch motor trend TV, when they do the acceleration tests, they do NOT do 4000 rpm clutch drops, NOR are they on an actual track. They use something like Michelin's Proving Grounds in Laurens, South Carolina. I've been there, and it's not a prepped track. It's asphalt or concrete in very good condition, but there's no VHT for one, and they don't use standard NHRA timers to trap either, just the mph at the 1320 exactly instead of the average that NRHA uses.

 

DUDE i used to know a guy that tested ferarri's.... dood ! they used to pay him mad money yo ! lol just to beat the living shit out of the cars..... he said it wasnt out of the ordinary to blow an engine or two in a day.... i want that job.... but why wouldnt they beat on the test car ? thatz why its a "test" car right? its not gonna be sold or n e thing..... and why put fake numbers out? wouldnt they get repremanded or fired somehow for giving numbers that werent full potential numbers... just slightly beat on numbers.?

 

So then what you are saying is the 14.5 @ 95 quoted from M/T & R&T are times that are slower than normal, and this is really a 13.9 car. It sure felt faster than 14.5 that my RX pulls @ 98

 

they usually just launch aggressively, not clutch drop.....which basically means the ET will be a tad slow, and the trap will not be accurate for the already stated numbers.


as to your buddy who tested ferraris....that's a test driver, not a magazine editor driving a press vehicle.

 

I have in front of me issue of Car & Driver April 2003.

They Tested the
RX-8, 5.9, 14.5@96 Top speed144

SVT Cobra 4.6, 12.9@112 155 Governed

G35 Coupe 5.5, 14.2@ 100 155

These are hardly no clutch drop runs..12.9 is fuckin fast, and thats reaming the balls off that Mustang, and plenty of traction to pull 12.9 with only 390 hp ansd 3680lbs.. I have seen these Stangs run @ preped tracks and most of them are a little slower than 12.9..it may be the driver, but a bone stock is hard to get 12.9and thats my experiences from what i see @ the tracks every week I go.

 

*shrug*

think what you want. This is a message board. I'm not going to argue, as I've got nothing invested in this worthless arguement.

 

LOL ...Amen to that brother..!

Fuck it who really cares, I think one of the line guys @ the Mazda Plant had too much Saka, and ported the one RX-8 I drove...