Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
08-23-2005, 11:51 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
Wow intristing article, but what's really funny is the
"Which vehicle would you have voted the winner of our Cheap Speed, Round 23 comparison test?"
Article
The Poll (Mid way down on right)
I'm not going to say anything except there is alot more Chevy nut hugers reading C/D then i though
"Which vehicle would you have voted the winner of our Cheap Speed, Round 23 comparison test?"
Article
The Poll (Mid way down on right)
I'm not going to say anything except there is alot more Chevy nut hugers reading C/D then i though
08-23-2005, 01:05 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
For those that dont want to read all 6 pages here is my biased point of view...
Article is called "Cheap Speed, Round 23" And they state this about the SRT-4...
"Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking."
Yet it gets 3rd out of 6...
And then to top it off here is what they say about the 1st place car (RSX-S)...
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap."
Seams like the article and the judging donot fit the title of the article...
Article is called "Cheap Speed, Round 23" And they state this about the SRT-4...
"Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking."
Yet it gets 3rd out of 6...
And then to top it off here is what they say about the 1st place car (RSX-S)...
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap."
Seams like the article and the judging donot fit the title of the article...
08-23-2005, 01:07 PM
#5
Srsly.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
Originally Posted by Totmacher
For those that dont want to read all 6 pages here is my biased point of view...
Article is called "Cheap Speed, Round 23" And they state this about the SRT-4...
"Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking."
Yet it gets 3rd out of 6...
And then to top it off here is what they say about the 1st place car (RSX-S)...
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap."
Seams like the article and the judging donot fit the title of the article...
Article is called "Cheap Speed, Round 23" And they state this about the SRT-4...
"Not only does its turbo 2.4-liter four produce 230 horses, but it also churns out 107 more pound-feet of torque than the Acura. No surprise, then, that it bagged the quickest 0-to-60 time (5.6 seconds), the quickest and fastest quarter-mile blast (14.3 seconds at 99 mph), the greatest top speed (150), and the most enviable autocross time. The Dodge was the only car in our quintet to score a perfect 20 points in our coveted powertrain performance ranking."
Yet it gets 3rd out of 6...
And then to top it off here is what they say about the 1st place car (RSX-S)...
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-to-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter-mile time (14.9 seconds), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap."
Seams like the article and the judging donot fit the title of the article...
08-23-2005, 01:13 PM
#7
Srsly.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
Originally Posted by dave22
It wasn't an all-out performance test.
Cheap Speed, Round 23
the title of the article itself. I think it's a bullshit article and I don't really like any of those cars in the list so I have no bias.
08-23-2005, 01:19 PM
#8
throwbAcura
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Newport News
Posts: 13,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
All the cars are relatively cheap and relatively quick. They've been doing the Cheap Speed articles for years, and it has never been about speed only. That'd make a pretty boring and predictable read.
It's called "Cheap Speed", not "The Speediest for the Cheapest"
It's called "Cheap Speed", not "The Speediest for the Cheapest"
08-23-2005, 01:32 PM
#9
Srsly.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
Originally Posted by dave22
All the cars are relatively cheap and relatively quick. They've been doing the Cheap Speed articles for years, and it has never been about speed only. That'd make a pretty boring and predictable read.
It's called "Cheap Speed", not "The Speediest for the Cheapest"
It's called "Cheap Speed", not "The Speediest for the Cheapest"
08-23-2005, 01:42 PM
#10
FUCKIN MAGNETS
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 22,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cheap Speed, Round 23 (Car And Driver)
Apparently it has very little to do with speed, when the fastest car in every single category finishes in the middle of the pack.