The car mags should do manufacturer tests!

[Driver72]

With all the talk on the Subaru boards as to how well the WRX does against the Forester XT and how will the Legacy GT compare to the Forester XT, it got me thinking. I've thought about this in the past and wonder...why doesn't one of the car mags do "manufacturer tests" from time to time? You know, pick a manufacturer, take a minimum of 2 to a maximum of...whatever and test their "performance" cars. Wouldn't it be cool to see a magazine, a truly enthusiast magazine, not the wimps at Car and Driver, do a comparo with: 05 WRX STI 05 WRX 05 Forester XT 05 Legacy GT sedan There's a bunch of car manufacturers whose cars are "similiar" and this would be fun. And the definition of "manufacturer" could include the "premium" brand of the same car. Like Acura and Honda or Nissan and Infiniti. A test of all the Nissan/Infiniti cars with the 3.5 liter V6 would be fun to see how they all compare. What do you think?

[racerdave]

Sounds good... but what's a "true enthusiast" magazine? C&D usually gets pretty good numbers. The key, IMHO, is to do it the way Edmunds does their tests... they actually BUY a car from the dealer's lot. No pre-production stuff, no "ringers" unless they all come that way from the factory. Because when C&D first tested the RX-8, it was with a pre-production car, before they officially detuned it 12 HP. So those numbers were skewed.

[Driver72]

The reason I said "true enthusiast" magazine is because Car and Driver seems to all too often be interested in luxury and amentities and less about the actual performance of the car. You said, C & D usually gets pretty good numbers. But keep this one VERY important FACT in mind. Car and Driver ADJUSTS their times. The times you read in their magazine is NOT what they truely got when testing the car. They use a mathmatical formula that adjusts the times they got for a so called "ideal" weather condition. This so called ideal weather condition is sea level, and something like 75 degrees and a certain amount of humidity and a certain amount of atmospheric pressure and with no wind. So I ask? When exactly do all these things come together to be PERFECT? Probably about as often as someone gets struck by lightening. And how often does this happen in even a sliver of the towns across this country? Probably about as often as someone wins a $300 million dollar lottery. Therefore, take Car and Driver's times with a grain of salt. That's why you have to look at other mags times as well. In many cases, when C & D gets significantly better than everybody else, it's because they those cars probably were helped out in a BIG way by their "adjusting." And I also agree with you that they should test when buying a car off the lot. Not one the manufacturer has given them. Which, I'm more than sure is often one that has run exceptionally well for the manufacturer in early testing. But since Car mags want to be on top of cars releases and be the first to test them, they will always try to get early models. But after that, they should buy them off of a lot and test them that way.

[EyeFlyIsTheEye]

Good idea, but the manufacturers wouldn't like it, for various reasons. Nissan wants no one to know that the Altima 3.5 is faster than the Maxima since it's lighter :lol:

[Driver72]

I don't think Nissan would care about that. The Maxima is supposedly moved upscale, and they know someone looking for the best performning Nissan would look at the Altima. This is the case with many manufacturers. Acura's RL for years has trailed the TL And the new one will most likely still be slower than the TL, it's all about packaging and what is desired. Even Mercedes...the E500 is obviously faster than the S500 due to it's smaller size. The manufacturer tests would just give a magazine the opportunity to "highlight" a different manufacturer from time to time and give "customers" a look at what the difference are in a comparo test on the same turf. I personally would love to see how all the 4 Subaru's I listed in the original post would stack up. I've thought about that many times over the years about many manufacturers. Plus, it would be something different.

[eamiller]

[quote]But keep this one VERY important FACT in mind. Car and Driver ADJUSTS their times. The times you read in their magazine is NOT what they truely got when testing the car. They use a mathmatical formula that adjusts the times they got for a so called "ideal" weather condition. This so called ideal weather condition is sea level, and something like 75 degrees and a certain amount of humidity and a certain amount of atmospheric pressure and with no wind. So I ask? When exactly do all these things come together to be PERFECT? Probably about as often as someone gets struck by lightening. And how often does this happen in even a sliver of the towns across this country? Probably about as often as someone wins a $300 million dollar lottery. Therefore, take Car and Driver's times with a grain of salt. That's why you have to look at other mags times as well. In many cases, when C & D gets significantly better than everybody else, it's because they those cars probably were helped out in a BIG way by their "adjusting." [/quote] Well, they C&D adjusts their times for a reason! That way, when you look at past tests (like the "Road Test Digest") you can do an apples-to-apples comparison. If they didn't do a mathematical adjustment, you would never be able to tell which car was really faster. The adjustment gives CREDIBILITY to C&D's numbers, so really you should take OTHER magazines with a grain of salt. Just think of how an internal combustion engine works concerning temperature, how aerodynamics work with regard to wind, and how road surface corresponds to traction and how they all tie together to produce speed and acceleration. The answer will come to you.