[ds968]

I made some partial reference to this topic in one of my other posts, but felt it may warrant a separate post of its own.

I do not know if ANY other, or ALL if other car manufacturers do this <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/huh.png" class="smilie" alt="" /> , but I know several BMW employees ( I play soccer with a bunch of them who are on assignment in the U.S. for a couple of years..) one of which was a test driver for the factory in Germany and he informed of this fact : all tests for the 0-100km

and other performance time trials are done with a car which has only only the basic / standard features, only a gallon or so in the tank, with the lightest-weight test driver available ( maybe they employ jockeys as contractors for those tests ? <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) and sometime around 5 to 6 in the morning, during the winter when the air is at its coldest. Something to ponder when you see sub-5 second 0-60 times claimed by some manufacturer and then you wonder why your very same car barely manages to even get within a

2 sec delta of that figure..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Chris Vais]

The best conditions for driving a N/A 968 is a cold damp day. More Oxygen per cubic meter of air that on a warm day. I'm not surprised that auto manufacturers try to stack the deck in their favor. Just about everybody else does. I never put much faith is manufacturers test data for just that reason.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

I don't see any problem with them using the ideal conditions - as long as everybody does. It seems to level the playing field, and what good would it be if they used variable or mediocre conditions? We'd be in the same boat as we are with dyno charts.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

it's pretty subjective. even the road surface makes a difference. i can get a pretty big change from one road i test on to another i use. if everybody were on one test site, it would be great. unfortunately that isn't practical.



i like the road and track and other magazine tests. at least they are consistent in how they do their own tests. where this falls down though is in the all too common case of just reprinting the manufacturer specs. it gets really confusing.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[tamathumper]

I suppose if you wanted to get really crazy, you'd have to adjust for ambient temperature and wind direction/speed?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

yup - wind speed is a problem for sure. same with road level.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[AJG]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1340147504' post='128333']

it's pretty subjective. even the road surface makes a difference. i can get a pretty big change from one road i test on to another i use. if everybody were on one test site, it would be great. unfortunately that isn't practical.



i like the road and track and other magazine tests. at least they are consistent in how they do their own tests. where this falls down though is in the all too common case of just reprinting the manufacturer specs. it gets really confusing.

[/quote]



Do you get out on the road much these days Bob?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

arrrrgh - no, and it isn't just limited to the 968. i just don't drive that much anymore

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

I don't see any problem with "ideal" conditions the only exceptioin is that the ground is level, otherwise, have at it....



JMO,



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[bombfactory]

I'm sure it's same case for reporting gas mileage figures, where the 'highway' figure is no doubt reached at a steady 55 mph in top gear with 80 lbs. of pressure in the tires.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

That's probably true for the manufacturer's claims, but as Flash points out, the car magazines go to great pains to make the tests as objective and fair as possible, as they don't have (or at least shouldn't have) any vested interest in the outcome of the tests.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='Cloud9...68' timestamp='1340227851' post='128351']

That's probably true for the manufacturer's claims, but as Flash points out, the car magazines go to great pains to make the tests as objective and fair as possible, as they don't have (or at least shouldn't have) any vested interest in the outcome of the tests.

[/quote]



makes sense. and while the test conditions of different magazines will still have some variables from one to the next, I suspect the time deltas of the results are probably smaller ( than the aforementioned factory tests results vs. John Doe's car when he drives it off the lot )

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Ajr968]

That's funny, I was under the impression that Porsche, in particular, is very conservative on acceleration figures. It is certainly true of the 968. I think the factory figure is 6.3 but there is plenty of evidence that, even the cab like mine, will do sub 6 secs. Makes it a bloody quick old car for a four pot!



I had a '87 944 earlier and from memory, the factory fig was 8.3. Reality was more like 7.5.



I dunno.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

A couple of car magazines tests ( I'll try to find out which specific ones because I know I did save the info somewhere ) had the stock coupe ( NOT the CS , but the "regular" manual coupe ) turn times as low as 5.2 What I found very odd though about those two tests was this : the car with the faster 0-60 result had the slower 1/4 mile time, and the other car's respective times were just the opposite. I don't remember either of the two Q-mile times precisely but the difference between the two was also more than a half second. I think the lower one was 14.1 , not sure, but it was on the car which had a dismal 6.1 0-60 time. Anyway, I can understand one 968 being quicker than another, but if that was the case wouldn't it be quicker in both categories ?



Also, on this site http://www.zeroto60t...-mph-Times.html a '92 coupe times show 5.8 and 14.2 and a 93 coupe show 6.5 and 14.7. One more reason to take ANY published stats with a grain of salt, IMO.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[AJG]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1340198225' post='128345']

arrrrgh - no, and it isn't just limited to the 968. i just don't drive that much anymore

[/quote]

I noticed your bicycles hanging in the garage, please say they are either Bianchi or Battaglin, good Italian framed bikes!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - nope - one is a trek (my old trainer from when i raced a bob jackson) updated with a bunch of carbon fiber, but still running sew-ups, and the other is a scattante



back on topic - i have a hard time paying much attention to 0-60 specs in magazines. sure, it's a reference point, but it's only as good as the driver and the circumstances

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Imagine making a car selection based on its 0-60 stats? Sort of like going out with a young woman. There must be more! Lol

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.