Why is it ITR related? Well...they claim they are the first ones to "clip the apex" of Beaver Run while testing the Audi TT, S2000, Mustang Mach1 and 350Z Touring.

350Z got 1st place and S2000 3rd....hmm, I don't even bothered to read the mag. I never liked C/D, bunch of leather-seat demanding elderly.

Anyhow, they also tested out the Neon SRT...with a whopping 5.6 0-60 and 14.2 1/4 miles, while they tested the S2000 with 6.3 and 14.9 (new car)

 

Going to trade my ITR in for an SRT fo sho.

 

dodge turbo =

i give that car a couple of months before they recall and say something catches on fire under the hood like the older neon's. lol


[Modified by NAgs-R, 8:27 PM 11/21/2002]

 

They got a 14.9 out of an s2000? Someone sucks at driving.

 

The main appeal of the Neon is in the torque numbers....if you look in this months SCC they have a dyno plot of all the cars that they tested....on the torque graph there wasn't anything even remotely close to it.

I think that it is hilarious though that Dodge decides to finally build the car...puts that much torque into it...and makes it with an open diff....

 

Handling wise, .84g. and 165 feet braking from 70-0. Which is like 15 less than the new Si.

They did said that "better hold the wheel straight when launching, or else it will be spin city"

I remember long time ago when SRT is still a rumor, didn't it said that they offer factory LSD at extra costs?


[Modified by nEoMuGen, 11:41 PM 11/21/2002]

 

What about the TT Dodge Stealth/3000GT?

 

A friend of mine said that the SCC article also stated that the car was underrated. It mad almost as much WHP as crank HP or something.

 

 

What were track conditions when this test was performed?

I hope you're not comparing it to what you think it *should* run, without knowing the testing conditions.

I wouldn't be so quick to make that statement unless I had some evidence to support my claim. After all, they get paid to drive cars for a living and you don't.

 

 

Sounds like they must have borrowed one of our australian magazine drivers..

You think 14.9 sucks, wait till you see the figures they did in MOTOR..

 

Why don't you inquire about a job at MOTOR since you're obviously more qualified to do the job than the current testers?

 

I gree with Reid. The numbers are nearly impossible to compare without knowing the test conditions.

Alex - who wonders why Reid has to challenge everything...

 

Well, I did stated that it's a new car...to be accurate. Only 392miles on it. However, they did said that launching with the S2k requires those who knows how to do clutch at their lunch time and the average Joe can do about 7.6 0-60.
They said S2K is good for track, but you can't roll up a track and put it in the trunk.
Anyway, they are very pessimistic about S2K and then act like teenage girls toward the 350Z....
Nissan's got some fat checks written....

 

I heard that the CnD car was like a super neon, and that SCC couldn't duplicate the numbers... at least that's what I heard...

 

LOL I quit this , by jan 2003 some bastard will whoop my *** in the new ACCORD 6SP.... WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah but it is ok to compare with other cars that ran the same day. So if the Neon got 5's then why not the s2k?

 

I just don't agree with bashing people unfairly.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I was only responding to the comment that the C&D drivers are poor drivers.

 

I see that they are "selective poor drivers". And they are obviously less hardcore than most of us if you read their statements and remark that will show that they are on the softer side.. ie, leather seats, dimming rear windows..etc. I stop subscribing after I realized there are better mags out there.

They goy 14.6 for RSX-S, and 15.2 for ITRs. They used to be all over the S2K, now they start to bash it like it's an outdated toy...their value of cars is so, hmm, objective.


[Modified by nEoMuGen, 12:53 AM 11/22/2002]

 

Anyway, the thing is. They had an article dedicated to BeaverRun and its facilities. I think it won't hurt to have a quick reading by the newsstand.

 

I'll pick up a copy for just this reason.

Thanks for the heads up!

 

I doubt that their skill in driving is the issue...

They never state the conditions in which the tests were performed...and due to the fact that is a monthly publication, they are testing vehicles in VERY different conditions throughout the year. The numbers aren't going to be consistent...it isn't possible.

We have seen enough evidence here on the forum that cars come off the assembly line in different states of tune. There are very large differences in whp in stock trim simply among the vehicles on our own forum. I see no reason to suspect that the case isn't the same for C&D or any other magazine which tries to do comparisons and tests.

The numbers that they publish shouldn't be taken as concrete or absolute...they are approximations. General numbers which give GENERAL ideas about performance.

Doesn't seem to great of a principle to grasp in my opinion.

 

Exactly.

 

I was under the impression that the Neon was a prototype that Dodge sent specifically to SCC for the review they did on it in last months issue.

The Neon in SCC is simply a "beefed-up" tester in my opinion. Here are some stats.

Manufacturer's claimed HP: 215hp
HP measured at the wheels: 223hp

Manufacturer's claimed TQ: 245 lb-ft
TQ measuread at the wheels: 250 lb-ft

Edmunds.com has a preview of it and there is some very conflicting info in regards to the HP and TQ. Heres the link.... http://www.edmunds.com/future/2003/d...n/preview.html