ORIGINAL: Albeeno
HAHAHA That's awesome! Kowalski is the man!!!
Anyway, I just don't understand the variance in the performance times. I could see if it was a measley 0.1 or 0.2 seconds difference (between every article I've ever read on the R/T and what posters on this forum are CLAIMING). If that was teh case I wouldn't be concerned one bit. But it just doesn't add up for me!
Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't understand how a Test Driver for a widely respected automotive publication such as Road & Track gets 6.2 seconds 0-60 in his R/T and others on here claim more like 5.2. Obviously the guy with Road & Track knows how to drive a car and push its limits. Can you understand why I'm confused now?
I appreciate the proper respect to our patron saint Kowalski.
I agree, it seems weird. I would credit variation up to about .5 second to 60 as normal. Surface, driver, altitude, temperature etc could account for that pretty easily. It might be a question of the 18's vs 20's. They have different rear gears, and different tires. It may be an issue with traction control. It can be defeated (at least on most cars it seems), but takes some trickeration to get it all the way off. None of that totally satisfies me, but if you assume the conditions were unfaforable, road and track had a bad day driving, they had the slower wheel package, and did not get traction control all the way off (which I think they complained about), it might just account for it. Still feels like a stretch, that might be how it went down.
Regardless.....
If you doubt any claims made by those timing at home, check out the Motor Trend article that I cited before.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Once you read that, the times in the low 5's will be right on par with an article you have read. So the pros are getting 5.1, and amateurs timing at home are seeing generally 5.2~5.3. All is right with the world.