Re: Re: Motor Trend "Muscle 2000" Comparison (Kinda Long)

From: Mike Gibbons (gibbons@fn.net)
Date: Sun Oct 31 1999 - 11:00:06 EST


I think with the magazines, you have to be careful that the factories don't
supply them with 'Ringers', especially when a new model is released. I know
it happens with the bike mags all the time (initial release of the current
Suzook GSXR-750 as a prime example) . They aren't exactly prepped, but the
factories may give out test examples with engines that have had "special
attention" paid to tolerances, tuning, etc. I think this can explain a lot
of the wide differences in reported performance figures. I work for an
aircraft manufacturer and also see firsthand the difference in production
tolerances coming off the line. I feel it's entirely possible to have a .6
second diff between two vehicles coming out of production one after the
other and tested under identical conditions. Then, like Rob said, add in
the human factor of different drivers. What I'm getting at is don't place
all your belief in just one magazine article. Motor Trend may have also
gotten a hold of an RT that had been abused mercilessly by three or four
other mags. My bro'-in-law worked for a company that delivered factory
owned vehicles to different places for testing, celebrity use, etc. I would
drive for him on occasion. I remember a certain Lexus LS 400 that did
beautiful smoky burnouts/powerbrakes at stoplights when you turned the
traction control off. Then there was that BMW 325is I got to keep for the
weekend, and that Mercedes 400 class sedan...but I digress. Point is: the
RT could have been abused/on the low side of factory tolerances, the Ferd
could have been a 'ringer'.

Mike G.

Well its a 6.something sec to 7.5 sec depending on who tested it. And the
Ford is supposed to be a 5.5 but id give it a realistic 6.5 sec . Remember
you wont always have optimum conditions to run the truck at the advertised
times.
Rob



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:18:37 EDT