Road and Track R3 Short Take...
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road and Track R3 Short Take...
They got more respectable numbers than C&D....about what I thought this car should be.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7180
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7180
#2
Vtak just kicked in yo!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lake County IL
Posts: 4,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats dissappointing. according to my Road and track magazine from 2003, the 1st gen rx8 is faster.
2003 RX8
0-60 5.9
0-100 15.9
1/4 mile 14.5 @ 95.6 mph
huh, how did that happen
2003 RX8
0-60 5.9
0-100 15.9
1/4 mile 14.5 @ 95.6 mph
huh, how did that happen
![Lol](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/lol.gif)
#5
It's a Cavalier
The trap speed is almost the same. The R3 didn't lose much... just sounds like they didn't launch it as hard. Braking numbers are little disappointing. I'd be more pissed about that.
#8
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet a bunch of you guys don't remember that in 2003, R&T tested the RX8 with original 250hp tune before it was change to comply with EPA.
The trap speed is almost the same. The R3 didn't lose much... just sounds like they didn't launch it as hard. Braking numbers are little disappointing. I'd be more pissed about that.
The trap speed is almost the same. The R3 didn't lose much... just sounds like they didn't launch it as hard. Braking numbers are little disappointing. I'd be more pissed about that.
There is the other thread with the C&D review. They had it stop at 153 feet from 70-0 mph so maybe Road and Track was using an already abused test vehicle.
#9
problem with CD is no one uses that metric.
Stopping is based upon 60 to zero and 80 to zero.
Throw in CD 70 to zero and how do you compare?
Stopping is based upon 60 to zero and 80 to zero.
Throw in CD 70 to zero and how do you compare?
Last edited by Razz1; 12-10-2008 at 10:58 AM.
#10
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy, you just compare it to the other cars they tested the 70-0 test to. I actually prefer the 70-0. I've gotten accustomed to it after reading CD for so many years. 153 feet is definitely excellent breaking performance. The Audi R8, for example, stopped at 157 feet.
#13
It's a Cavalier
I think Car and Driver sucks. Their testing sucks. I wouldn't trust anything to be consistent from them. They rung a good time out of the GTO (0-60 in 4.8 and 13.3 @ 107mph), but I wouldn't brag about it because you can't take that number and compare it to the numbers from other cars they've test... too inconsistent. If R&T posts a number, you can replicate it, and when comparing cars in their summary table, you have a very good idea of how each car will do against each other real world.
#16
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's probably just green engines, C&D showed that the rotary needs many miles to break in to produce those still mediocre times.
But fact is, the R3 shows no improvements anywhere.
#17
Future Rotary User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only in terms of power.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Touge
Canada Forum
1
09-23-2019 06:45 PM
Touge
Canada Forum
0
09-23-2015 10:51 PM
Touge
Canada Forum
0
09-01-2015 10:47 PM
Touge
Canada Forum
0
08-13-2015 04:48 AM