Nissan GT-R Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

· GTR Nerd
Joined
·
5,309 Posts
Its articles like this, that help to spread misinformation.

"Previous models since 2009 have gone from zero to 60 in 3.6 seconds, but the Black Edition does the job in 3.1 seconds, earning its place at the top of this list."

Anyone else see anything wrong there?
 

· GTR Nerd
Joined
·
5,309 Posts
lol what happened to 2.9?
It all depends on who does the test. What day. What conditions What surface. What timing gear. Rollout?

You have to ALWAYS take numbers with a grain of salt. You will lose a lot of street races if you go by what the book says.

The way it is written, it says the Black Edition is faster than the Premium, which it really isn't. They talk Black Edition, then the picture is of a Premium. Yes I am a technical nerd, but these kinds of things bug me.
 

· R36 Member
Joined
·
5,965 Posts
It all depends on who does the test. What day. What conditions What surface. What timing gear. Rollout?

You have to ALWAYS take numbers with a grain of salt. You will lose a lot of street races if you go by what the book says.

The way it is written, it says the Black Edition is faster than the Premium, which it really isn't. They talk Black Edition, then the picture is of a Premium. Yes I am a technical nerd, but these kinds of things bug me.
same. pisses me off.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
It all depends on who does the test. What day. What conditions What surface. What timing gear. Rollout?

You have to ALWAYS take numbers with a grain of salt. You will lose a lot of street races if you go by what the book says.

The way it is written, it says the Black Edition is faster than the Premium, which it really isn't. They talk Black Edition, then the picture is of a Premium. Yes I am a technical nerd, but these kinds of things bug me.
Sean - I am in absolute agreement with you. The more I actually race at a track (1/4 mile in this case) - the more I see that magazine and other reviewer times are not always so and definitely not consistent. People come to the track and are upset because their car didn't do a 13.3 like MT says and can't figure out why they just got a 14 flat.

Grain of salt.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,093 Posts
Uhh that means the GT-R is quickest to 60 but far from fastest...
 

· GTR Nerd
Joined
·
5,309 Posts
Sean - I am in absolute agreement with you. The more I actually race at a track (1/4 mile in this case) - the more I see that magazine and other reviewer times are not always so and definitely not consistent.
I have done a lot of magazine testing over the years. From Sport Compact Car, to Modified, to Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend Magazine. Some of the best, most detailed testing I did, was with Sport Compact Car Magazine. Josh Jacquot, Dave Coleman, and Scott Oldham. Dave is at Mazda and MotoIQ, Josh and Scott are at Edmunds.

Doing all the testing, I learned a lot. Some places will take just the best time. Some will need to back it up with another pass. Some take the average of several passes. Some days are good, some are bad, for both driver and car. The advantage that AWD has, is that it is much more consistent than most RWD or FWD cars. Easier to get mostly right.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
It all depends on who does the test. What day. What conditions What surface. What timing gear. Rollout?

You have to ALWAYS take numbers with a grain of salt. You will lose a lot of street races if you go by what the book says.

The way it is written, it says the Black Edition is faster than the Premium, which it really isn't. They talk Black Edition, then the picture is of a Premium. Yes I am a technical nerd, but these kinds of things bug me.
I thought the same exact thing when I read this.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top