2010 in Autoweek
- Thread starter n8rsk8r
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
FOMOCOTOSHO
I eat Rice.
That's a huge difference in 0-60 when compared to Car & Driver. (6.2 for Autoweek vs. 5.2 for C&D) I know environmental circumstances can cause a variance of a tenth or two, so does that mean the car C&D had with the shorter final drive ratio really makes almost a full second difference in the 0-60??
esfoad
Esfoad
Their 6.2 time is estimated. THey did not actually test it. We'll have to wait for real production vehicles to be tested to get a feel for the real performance capabilities with and without the shorter drive ratio.
shobote
SHO Member
They did not test the 0-60, and they estimate 6.2
Both CD and MT measured 5.2 If they did not use 93 octane, there is also another 10 hp to be had from more spark advance and fuel. I wonder if those 5.2's were with the track package final drive. Maybe the difference in mpg from CD (16) an MT (18.9) is due to the different models/final drives ?
Both CD and MT measured 5.2 If they did not use 93 octane, there is also another 10 hp to be had from more spark advance and fuel. I wonder if those 5.2's were with the track package final drive. Maybe the difference in mpg from CD (16) an MT (18.9) is due to the different models/final drives ?
