Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mg1942 on April 04, 2008, 09:30:21 PM

Title: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 04, 2008, 09:30:21 PM
Anyone seen the may cover?  It's Outrageous! :)
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 01:33:42 PM
It really is, I know many people are crying foul over the May issue.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Masherbrum on April 05, 2008, 01:35:14 PM
When you actually get the car, start bragging.   
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: eagl on April 05, 2008, 01:41:40 PM
It really is, I know many people are crying foul over the May issue.

Why are they crying?  Seriously, what are the complaints and issues?
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 02:41:01 PM
When you actually get the car, start bragging.   

Gimme 6-7 years.  I'll wait for reliability data.  I predict there's only going to be slight changes.



Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 05, 2008, 02:49:04 PM
Post up a pic otherwise this thread is worthless.

Well, it pretty much is anyway.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 02:53:13 PM
Why are they crying?  Seriously, what are the complaints and issues?


http://pages.prodigy.net/frederickvh1/CCW/Road&Track_750.jpg

http://forums.roadandtrack.com/cars/board/message?board.id=Reader&thread.id=138&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

the 1st link is deemed too offensive to some peeps.

Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 02:56:17 PM
Post up a pic otherwise this thread is worthless.

Well, it pretty much is anyway.

I read a complaint about me "posting too much pictures" :o 
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: john9001 on April 05, 2008, 03:30:47 PM
they are trying to sell a magazine, give them a break.

it's called "journalism".
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 04:08:55 PM
ok ok diablo...

http://www.nagtroc.org/gallery/albums/userpics/21210/scan0007

(http://www.nagtroc.org/gallery/albums/userpics/21210/scan0008.jpg)
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Bronk on April 05, 2008, 04:14:32 PM
I read a complaint about me "posting too much pictures" :o 

(http://www.nagtroc.org/gallery/albums/userpics/21210/scan0007.jpg)

(http://www.nagtroc.org/gallery/albums/userpics/21210/scan0008.jpg)
No the complaint was linking it in every thread  to any obscure automotive reference.
Like I keep saying nice piece of tech.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 05, 2008, 04:51:21 PM
What's funny about the so-called "spanking" is if you read the .pdf comparison between the three cars they are so close in performance in all-around consideration it's almost a 3-way tie. 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_TechDetails.pdf

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_GTRZ06911_chart.pdf

Show me again where both the Corvette and the Porsche got spanked?  Beat in over-all comparison?  Yes.  But spanked?  That's Road & Track for you.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Masherbrum on April 05, 2008, 05:43:46 PM
The Exige S could take all of those three on that track and you'd have money in the bank.   
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 05, 2008, 06:27:34 PM
What's funny about the so-called "spanking" is if you read the .pdf comparison between the three cars they are so close in performance in all-around consideration it's almost a 3-way tie. 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_TechDetails.pdf

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_GTRZ06911_chart.pdf

Show me again where both the Corvette and the Porsche got spanked?  Beat in over-all comparison?  Yes.  But spanked?  That's Road & Track for you.

Isn't a 5 sec gap what you call getting spanked in this technical track?  Like I said it's outrageous.

GT-R: 1:56:90

911 Turbo:  2:02:01
Z06:  2:02:02

Many people are calling foul on this test, there's no way a GT-R can do this.
If R/T gets more rants about this evaluation, I predict they will do a rematch, they may choose a track that will probably help 911 turbo / Z06 narrow that HUGE 5 sec gap.  Laguna Seca perhaps?
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Mark Luper on April 05, 2008, 07:03:58 PM
Dang thing is still ugly though  :eek:

Mark
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 05, 2008, 07:11:26 PM
Isn't a 5 sec gap what you call getting spanked in this technical track?  Like I said it's outrageous.

GT-R: 1:56:90

911 Turbo:  2:02:01
Z06:  2:02:02

Many people are calling foul on this test, there's no way a GT-R can do this.
If R/T gets more rants about this evaluation, I predict they will do a rematch, they may choose a track that will probably help 911 turbo / Z06 narrow that HUGE 5 sec gap.  Laguna Seca perhaps?

Well, that's just it.  It's a track and yes a 5 second gap is big.  Then again you could find a track that suits the Corvette better, or the Porsche, but it's just ONE track result. 

But my point is comparing the test track results with the general head-to-head comparison which gives you a much bigger over all picture.  When you look at 0-60, 0-100, quarter mile, skidpad, braking, etc...they all very close to each other.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2008, 07:15:03 PM
I'm interested in seeing what The Stig does with it.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: FrodeMk3 on April 06, 2008, 01:40:36 AM
http://pages.prodigy.net/frederickvh1/CCW/Road&Track_750.jpg

http://forums.roadandtrack.com/cars/board/message?board.id=Reader&thread.id=138&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

the 1st link is deemed too offensive to some peeps.



Hmm, they did the test in Buttonwillow? Wish I'd known about it. I'd have driven over and watched, Track is about 25 miles' from my house.

One point I'd like to make, though...The problem with the Buttonwillow test is that YES, it does' favor different cars' more or less. A buddy of mine from High School, has a step-dad that used to run a Firebird in SCCA competition. He said he had a harder time at Buttonwillow than he did at Sears' point, Laguna Seca, or Willow Springs.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 06, 2008, 01:45:22 AM
Just for the record I don't think the cover is offensive in the least.  If anybody gets offended by that cover they need to grow a pair.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 06, 2008, 03:21:35 AM
(http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/21402.jpg)

For Mg1942...When The Heart Rules The Mind
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: AWMac on April 06, 2008, 03:55:51 AM
See Rule #5
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: john9001 on April 06, 2008, 08:10:49 AM
how did the GT-R do in the sebring race?
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Masherbrum on April 06, 2008, 09:02:03 AM
Well, that's just it.  It's a track and yes a 5 second gap is big.  Then again you could find a track that suits the Corvette better, or the Porsche, but it's just ONE track result. 

But my point is comparing the test track results with the general head-to-head comparison which gives you a much bigger over all picture.  When you look at 0-60, 0-100, quarter mile, skidpad, braking, etc...they all very close to each other.
Exactly. 
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Mini D on April 06, 2008, 09:49:52 AM
I love the logic of R&T's editor:

Q: "Why did Car & Driver's test driver have 5 second faster lap times on that track with the Z06 and Porsche than your driver?"

A: "Because they didn't use proffessional divers"
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 06, 2008, 11:26:25 AM
how did the GT-R do in the sebring race?

imagine the uproar it would cause :P
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: FrodeMk3 on April 06, 2008, 12:31:34 PM
imagine the uproar it would cause :P
That's his point; It wasn't there.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: SteveBailey on April 06, 2008, 02:14:30 PM
I'm a vette lover...   I think the GT-R is a good lokoking car.  If it outperformed the others... so be it.  That just means the next gens of the losers will be that much more tweaked.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Halo on April 06, 2008, 09:08:45 PM
I could never afford or effectively drive any of them, but if I could I'd go Corvette.  That thing is just so tough and sexy.  The newest ones are pure fantasy magnets. 

Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: DiabloTX on April 06, 2008, 09:16:47 PM
This was supposed to be my original post:

For Mg1942...When The Heart Rules The Mind


(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/185745.jpg)

The group is GTR.

lawlz
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: moot on April 06, 2008, 09:51:34 PM
Anyone with the means should design and build their own car.  Anything else is a cop-out. :)
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 06, 2008, 10:39:51 PM
This was supposed to be my original post:

For Mg1942...When The Heart Rules The Mind


(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/185745.jpg)

The group is GTR.

lawlz


gooogled it midnight... my reaction was WTH :P
there's some clips on youtube too
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Widewing on April 06, 2008, 11:34:54 PM
I subscribe to R&T and read that article. I immediately thought that the test was rigged. Millen is a former factory driver for Nissan, and IIRC is still on the payroll as a consultant. Perhaps they should have asked for factory Corvette and Porsche drivers to balance things out. However, I'll wager that Nissan would not give R&T the GT-R without Millen being the driver. This is very bad practice and R&T will be dragged over the coals for this one.

It's not uncommon among car magazines to have skewed tests. Car & Driver is the absolute worst when it comes to predetermining the test result. I remember when they claimed that a 4 cylinder Camry could snap off a 7.1 second 0-60 some years ago. Down a ski slope perhaps, but a 3,400 lb car with 160 hp isn't producing those numbers.

IMHO, the most biased, slanted and dishonest automotive journalist in the business is Pat Bedard.

In the most recent issue of C&D, Bedard, for the second time in two years, selected the VW Rabbit as the best sporty entry level car. He gave it 20 points for "gotta have it". Really? VW dealers can't give away Rabbits... Sales are far below the competition. I guess the public doesn't have to have it after all. Honda Civic? Nope. Mazda 3? Nada. Subaru Impreza? Not this time. Mitsu Lancer GTS (here's the "gotta have it" car of this category)? Not this time. How about Suzuki's superior handling SX4 Sport? Nope, 6th place, they didn't like the center arm rest (no kidding). Saturn's new Astra (a huge hit across the pond)? No chance... Opel is a competitor for VW in the EU.

This was supposed to be a test of 4-door cars. However, they brought in a 2-door Rabbit. Why? The fact that the 2-door is 100 lbs lighter is my guess.

I'd take the Mitsu or the Suzuki over the Rabbit in a heartbeat.

Car and Driver tests have several categories that are totally subjective and award the greatest points. Thus, the test can be skewed as they wish. C&D hasn't been the same since David E Davis left... No integrity these days.

My regards,

Widewing

Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: Pooh21 on April 07, 2008, 12:21:46 AM



poop



You are welcome to your opinion however. Rather have my Rabbit.
Title: Re: Road & Track May 2008 issue
Post by: mg1942 on April 14, 2008, 01:30:31 PM
Now this is downright ridiculous~
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/08/nissan-gt-r-v-spec-lap-times-stun-observers/

And can you imagine what's gonna happen if MINEs and AMUSE recieve samples of these to conduct *some* experiment(s). :devil