Road and Track Article - Thanks Maikeru!
03-12-2003, 01:43 PM
#1
Road and Track Article - Thanks Maikeru!
03-12-2003, 01:43 PM
#2
03-12-2003, 01:44 PM
#3
03-12-2003, 01:45 PM
#4
03-12-2003, 01:46 PM
#5
03-12-2003, 01:47 PM
#6
03-12-2003, 01:55 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx Herc, Great Article. This is exactly what I'm looking for.
But somthing as piqued my interest: Let's compare this article to the C/D article.
In the R/T the RX-8 exhibited faster accleration then the G35, won on braking, but loss, so to speak, on the 200 ft skidpad.
In the C/D, the RX-8 loss on accleration, but won in braking and on the 300 ft skidpad.
Why the differences? My guess is that its because these were all pre-production vehicles, hand built = not exactly the same. Any ideas?
But somthing as piqued my interest: Let's compare this article to the C/D article.
In the R/T the RX-8 exhibited faster accleration then the G35, won on braking, but loss, so to speak, on the 200 ft skidpad.
In the C/D, the RX-8 loss on accleration, but won in braking and on the 300 ft skidpad.
Why the differences? My guess is that its because these were all pre-production vehicles, hand built = not exactly the same. Any ideas?
03-12-2003, 02:00 PM
#8
I think that Road and Track were using old numbers from the G35 Coupe because they merely threw it into the comparison, and didn't compare it head on like C&D did.
Besides C&D's numbers are usually to me the most reliable... if I don't like the writing I can always take a glance at the numbers and realize they are pretty dead-on.
Besides C&D's numbers are usually to me the most reliable... if I don't like the writing I can always take a glance at the numbers and realize they are pretty dead-on.
03-12-2003, 02:02 PM
#9
Administrator
thanks herc for getting those posted up i love my silver:D
chenpin just a thought but the c&d comparo was an actual comparo ove rthe course of , i think they said , 3 days. the r&t article is just showing numbers they got from the g35c some time before, so conditions at the time of testing could have a lot to do with it.
edit: herc beat me to it:o someone should figure out a way to measure the torgue at his fingers
chenpin just a thought but the c&d comparo was an actual comparo ove rthe course of , i think they said , 3 days. the r&t article is just showing numbers they got from the g35c some time before, so conditions at the time of testing could have a lot to do with it.
edit: herc beat me to it:o someone should figure out a way to measure the torgue at his fingers
Last edited by zoom44; 03-12-2003 at 02:08 PM.
03-12-2003, 09:01 PM
#13
Originally posted by cueball1029
Didn't C/D mangage to pull a .91 or .92 on the skidpad. Road and Track only got .88
Didn't C/D mangage to pull a .91 or .92 on the skidpad. Road and Track only got .88
I've always trusted C&D's numbers anyways, so the 0-60 times, skidpad and braking numbers I'd rather take from C&D. They generally get better results anyways.
03-14-2003, 12:38 PM
#14
Another interesting observation is that C&D got 5.9 and 14.5 with a 2940 lbs RX-8 and R&T the same numbers with a 3180lbs RX-8. C&D also launched form 8000rpm drop and the R&T from a 7500rpm drop. So is this just minor inconsistance with numbers or does launching it at 7500 make that much of a difference. Though i don't recommend doing that to any clutch but hopefully mazda has taken that into consideration and given us a racing style clutch.
03-14-2003, 04:37 PM
#16
Prodigal Wankler
Originally posted by ZoomZoomH
great, now I have to go to the bookstore to get this issue....
great, now I have to go to the bookstore to get this issue....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
duworm
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
1
10-01-2015 04:57 PM
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 01:53 PM