zero to 60 MPH times?
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ORIGINAL: Riptide
Suhweeeet!! A Challenger R/T and a Mustang GT. Now you just need a Corvette.
Suhweeeet!! A Challenger R/T and a Mustang GT. Now you just need a Corvette.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Ok, according the the in-dash EVIC diagnostics 0 to 60 timer, for whatever accuracy it provides, I have personally done 5.29 seconds 0 to 60 and I think there is more there in the R/T manual trans car. (if you need a picture of the display as proof, just ask. I'll take one). I only had the car for 3 weeks at that time and there was a lot of rain during that time so I had not gotten a good feel for the car yet. And my car is just about fully loaded. A stripper R/T without all of the bells and whistles and a few less pounds could even be a tad quicker.
But I do agree that a stock Mustang GT (2005 and up 4.6 L 3 valve) can possibly give these R/Ts a run for the money from a dead stop. It could be a driver's race. But I think the R/T would have the edge if going from a roll.
A Mustang with a simple CAI and tune would be a bigger problem for a stock R/T. The R/T gives up quite a bit of a weight disadvantage and the stock throttle mapping is poor with a nod toward stability control and warantee longevity, even with 75 more HP.
But I do agree that a stock Mustang GT (2005 and up 4.6 L 3 valve) can possibly give these R/Ts a run for the money from a dead stop. It could be a driver's race. But I think the R/T would have the edge if going from a roll.
A Mustang with a simple CAI and tune would be a bigger problem for a stock R/T. The R/T gives up quite a bit of a weight disadvantage and the stock throttle mapping is poor with a nod toward stability control and warantee longevity, even with 75 more HP.
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ummm 10sec Dodge proves it.... Honestly I don't care about a manuals time if your running a manual you should be running a quarter-mile IMO... 0-60ish is auto heaven... Plus auto vs. auto times are way more accurate... and 10secDodge shows that a stock GT can't beat a stock R/T plain and simple... I don't care what you have to say beeno to make yourself feel better it's really that simple for some guys like me...
Beeno you haven't seen b.s. your full of it and 10sec dodge proves it... to argue that is pointless show me a gt running 13 sec quarters...PLEASE!!!! AND SHOW ME A GT RUNNING 5.1 0-60 PLEASE!!!! if not shut up already.... 10sec has showed times point blank... to argue now is bogus show times orPLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP.... your girly car is nothing but a little scooter good for pretty decent 0-60's it doesn't have what it takes to run the long haul you know it.... there is no pull left in it
Beeno you haven't seen b.s. your full of it and 10sec dodge proves it... to argue that is pointless show me a gt running 13 sec quarters...PLEASE!!!! AND SHOW ME A GT RUNNING 5.1 0-60 PLEASE!!!! if not shut up already.... 10sec has showed times point blank... to argue now is bogus show times orPLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP.... your girly car is nothing but a little scooter good for pretty decent 0-60's it doesn't have what it takes to run the long haul you know it.... there is no pull left in it
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Kris, I wouldn't say a stock Mustang GT "cant" beat a stock Challenger R/T just because 10sec can get some fast times.
More realistically, I'd say 10sec's times are proof that it would be a driver's race, either car could win depending on the driver. 10sec's times are an aboration (no disrepect to Mr. 10secDodge) as his track experience in even faster cars is obviously a factor in his ability to do so well in the Challenger vs. what the average Joe can do.
As for 0-60 times being less of a measure than 1/4 mile times...I'll work with 0-60 until I can get to a track. Plus, 0-60 does give me the launch practice (on surface streets in an almost legal manner) with recordable results that I hope will help with the 1/4 mile launch at the track when I get there. Running a 1/4 mile full out on the streets is an easy way to get hauled to the clink or even killed.
I've got both a 2006 Mustang GT and a 2009 Challenger R/T. While my Mustang is no longer stock, I do have 1/4 mile times from when it was stock that I will put up against my own stock Challenger R/T times when I can get it to a track in the spring. That will be the proof to me of how the car handles accelleration when you take the driver out of the equation since the driver will be the same.
Unfortunately, I don't have a 0 - 60 timer in the Mustang for comparison but I do have a reference point on a local road that I can use to judge by distance on how well the Mustang does 0 - 60 vs. my Challenger. Unfortunately, with winter adding snowy roads to the equation, I have not been able to run the Challenger against this reference point yet.
In short, I think the Challenger has potential. It may have the top end to take out a Mustang GT in a 1/4 mile and definitely for longer distances. But from a dead stop, the Mustang will probably have the upper hand and get an early lead. From a roll, however, the Challenger R/T has a lot more power to work with and really seems to pick up speed faster than the Mustang once it is mocving.
I like both cars. But I still have to admit I don't feel like the Challenger is 75 HP stronger from a dead stop.
I want to qualify all of my statements with the fact that I've had 3 years to learn how to launch the Mustang and only just about a month in the Challenger.
More realistically, I'd say 10sec's times are proof that it would be a driver's race, either car could win depending on the driver. 10sec's times are an aboration (no disrepect to Mr. 10secDodge) as his track experience in even faster cars is obviously a factor in his ability to do so well in the Challenger vs. what the average Joe can do.
As for 0-60 times being less of a measure than 1/4 mile times...I'll work with 0-60 until I can get to a track. Plus, 0-60 does give me the launch practice (on surface streets in an almost legal manner) with recordable results that I hope will help with the 1/4 mile launch at the track when I get there. Running a 1/4 mile full out on the streets is an easy way to get hauled to the clink or even killed.
I've got both a 2006 Mustang GT and a 2009 Challenger R/T. While my Mustang is no longer stock, I do have 1/4 mile times from when it was stock that I will put up against my own stock Challenger R/T times when I can get it to a track in the spring. That will be the proof to me of how the car handles accelleration when you take the driver out of the equation since the driver will be the same.
Unfortunately, I don't have a 0 - 60 timer in the Mustang for comparison but I do have a reference point on a local road that I can use to judge by distance on how well the Mustang does 0 - 60 vs. my Challenger. Unfortunately, with winter adding snowy roads to the equation, I have not been able to run the Challenger against this reference point yet.
In short, I think the Challenger has potential. It may have the top end to take out a Mustang GT in a 1/4 mile and definitely for longer distances. But from a dead stop, the Mustang will probably have the upper hand and get an early lead. From a roll, however, the Challenger R/T has a lot more power to work with and really seems to pick up speed faster than the Mustang once it is mocving.
I like both cars. But I still have to admit I don't feel like the Challenger is 75 HP stronger from a dead stop.
I want to qualify all of my statements with the fact that I've had 3 years to learn how to launch the Mustang and only just about a month in the Challenger.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Stock Mustang GT. 0-60 4.9 seconds right here. 1/4 mile in 13.5.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
So there you go Sullivan. Are you going to "shut up" now that you've been shown?
I for one don't question 10SecDodge's times. I do agree that they are not average by any stretch and represent most likely what the car is capable of at the upper limit under great conditions with a great driver. I feel the same way about GeneK on the Mustangforums who has achieved a 13.2 second 1/4 mile time with a bone stock GT. More typical times for a GT are around 5.1-5.3 seconds 0-60 and around 13.5-13.8 in the 1/4 mile. Gee, kinda in line with the average R/T time.
So yes, it's pretty much a driver's race.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
So there you go Sullivan. Are you going to "shut up" now that you've been shown?
I for one don't question 10SecDodge's times. I do agree that they are not average by any stretch and represent most likely what the car is capable of at the upper limit under great conditions with a great driver. I feel the same way about GeneK on the Mustangforums who has achieved a 13.2 second 1/4 mile time with a bone stock GT. More typical times for a GT are around 5.1-5.3 seconds 0-60 and around 13.5-13.8 in the 1/4 mile. Gee, kinda in line with the average R/T time.
So yes, it's pretty much a driver's race.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
I agree with Mot and Rip...comparing stock cars is truly a drivers race. For instance....if you can get a 1 tenth fast 60' time launching, that equals 2 tenths in the quarter mile.
I have seen several Mustangs in the 14's and always wondered why they were so slow. I also seen a brand new Vette running mid 14's....clearly a driver issue.
To be the devils advocate, I would not be surprised if a Mustang will run 0 to 60 faster. However, all things considered the Challenger should be able to make up the time thoughout a quarter mile. This is why a lot of Mustang guys don't like the Chally...it is not a "light to light" racer (just my two cents on the subject....and not trying to upset anyone).
I have seen several Mustangs in the 14's and always wondered why they were so slow. I also seen a brand new Vette running mid 14's....clearly a driver issue.
To be the devils advocate, I would not be surprised if a Mustang will run 0 to 60 faster. However, all things considered the Challenger should be able to make up the time thoughout a quarter mile. This is why a lot of Mustang guys don't like the Chally...it is not a "light to light" racer (just my two cents on the subject....and not trying to upset anyone).
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Albeeno,
I respectfully reject your reasoning That Road & Track test was some sort of debacle. We have clear evidence, from both forum members experience and the motor trend test that I cited that faster times are very possible. Does that mean everyone will get them? No. But as I stated before, it is a winnable race for either driver, and will probably be decided by skill and (if on the street) level of commitment/aggression.
You will notice that I cast no chick car aspersions on your Mustang. I just think them, and let others type them. (kidding) Kowalski is a legendary character not bound by physics or the rules of normal space/time. He runs the 1/4 mile in 9.2 on a stock R/T, and 0-60 under 4 seconds.
I respectfully reject your reasoning
That Road & Track test was some sort of debacle. We have clear evidence, from both forum members experience and the motor trend test that I cited that faster times are very possible. Does that mean everyone will get them? No. But as I stated before, it is a winnable race for either driver, and will probably be decided by skill and (if on the street) level of commitment/aggression. You will notice that I cast no chick car aspersions on your Mustang. I just think them, and let others type them. (kidding) Kowalski is a legendary character not bound by physics or the rules of normal space/time. He runs the 1/4 mile in 9.2 on a stock R/T, and 0-60 under 4 seconds.
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
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?
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?