The proper comparison of Pony Cars

Only AutoWeek (AW) did the proper comparison of the current Pony Cars. The testers don't drive very well, but they trumped Motor Trend and Car & Driver. The June 15th issue of AW featured a comparison test of the new Chevrolet Camaro SS, Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 and Dodge Challenger SRT-8. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090612/CARNEWS/906129990

Why is this test better than rest? It isn't because of the performance results, it's because they compared the top-of-the-line models from each manufacturer. Car & Driver didn't do it right in the July 2009 issue: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/coupes/2010_chevy_camaro_ss_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt_2009_dodge_challenger_r_t_comparison_test

and neither did Motor Trend in the June 2009 issue: http://www.motortrend.com/multimedia/wallpaper/112_0906_2010_camaro_2009_challenger_2010_mustang_wallpaper/index.html

Before I get into the problem with the performance numbers, what is overlooked is market segment vs. pricing. When shopping for over $30k domestic performance coupes, the enthusiast is going to shop capability first, price second. These magazines are bringing existing models to a test with the new Camaro SS. Since the SS is the top performer in the Camaro model line-up, don't bring the Challenger R/T, bring the SRT-8. Doesn't it make sense to see how a 426hp Chevy does against a 425hp Dodge? The Mustang GT, at 315hp, doesn't belong either. Bring the 540hp GT500. So what if the GT500 is nearly $51k. The Camaro is $37k and the Dodge nearly $44k.

Yes, the Camaro is a bargain, but a used GT500 is in the same range. And the Challenger SRT-8 new or used, is close enough as well. So again, AW did the right thing by comparing a the top models to each other.

What about the driving? Well in the simplest terms, when the 425hp Dodge is clocked from 0-60mph in 5.7 seconds, that is garbage. Literally. Especially when other sources are clocking the 376hp R/T version in 5.1 seconds. If the car is faulty, get another from the press pool or at least tell us the quarter-mile results. All of models tested in AW are capable of mid/high 4-second blasts. And that is only part of the story.

The 0-60mph test is valid but there is much more to straight line performance. The Mustang GT has it's lunch handed to it by the others in the quarter mile and in the triple digits. Take a look at the Car & Driver story. The 0-140mph times are 22.3 seconds, 27.7 seconds and the GT might as well give up at 34.2 seconds. These are enormous gaps at triple digit speeds. Who drives that fast and where you ask? Well considering the 60-130mph measurement is becoming the new standard, if you're still asking, you're not in the market for a 400hp car, are you? http://www.examiner.com/x-5826-San-Jose-Autos-Examiner~y2009m3d21-New-performance-standard-of-60mph-to-130mph-replacing-the-quartermile-drag-race

The bottom line is when the top model warrants a comparison, bring in the heavy hitters, not the price leaders. Once you have that resolved, drive 'em to their ability just like your competition and the owners themselves.

Photo: The 2010 Mustang GT at 315hp is quick, but is Car & Driver's top pick despite being the slowest, by far. http://www.desktopcar.net/ford/mustang/Ford_Mustang_2010_01.jpg.html

Edmunds makes a HUGE blunder!

I found this a while back and was amazed at what I read. I decided to summarize my findings to Edmunds in December of '08 but didn't receive a response. I think I know why. While Editor in Chief Karl Brauer seems like a nice guy, product knowledge wasn't his strong point in this case. And in his position, that is critical. As always, I'm offering my help.

Unfortunately Edmunds has a horrible reputation among enthusiasts regarding performance oriented vehicles. This example is exactly the reason why. They redeemed yourselves a little with the Challenger, but this was simply horrible. Probably the worst I've ever read in over 30 years:
www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=107369

"the Chrysler 300C SRT-8 we tested last year. That car pulled a 5.7-second 0-to-60 time and ran through the quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds at 105 mph. Putting the Charger through similar testing netted a 5.4 0-to-60 time while taking 13.5 seconds to clear the quarter-mile at 105 mph. With curb weight, tire size and gearing the same in both models we can only conclude that the Charger's cold-air induction is really working. Well, that and the usual variances between test vehicles and testing conditions." Did they even open the hood? See the 6.1 Hemi in the photo. No ram air.

Problems:
1. 300C result is the worst ET (elapsed time) ever published for an SRT-8.

2. 14.1 @ 105mph is obviously due to a very bad start or "launch" which indicates exceptionally poor driving or testing procedures.

3. Identical trap speeds means there is virtually no difference between vehicles and conditions. It is an indicator of identical horsepower.

4. 13.5 @ 105mph is suspiciously identical to Dodges' published time. And easily beaten by all owners at or near sea level with a good "launch". The trap speed is a little low however. Virtually the "big three" magazines have all recorded 108 to 109mph trap speeds when actually testing the car in good conditions. "Good" meaning cool air, low humidity, etc. Factors which "rob" horsepower.

5. Cold Air Induction does NOT reduce ETs, especially by .6 seconds! It may increase the trap speed by about 1mph, 2mph if very, very lucky. It is for a minimal gain in horsepower, not directly translating to a huge drop in the ET.

6. The Charger does NOT have cold air induction! The hood scoop is for cooling purposes only and does not feed into the engine air intake. Therefore, no power advantage. And if there was a power gain, the manufacturer would be required to have a higher horsepower rating.

7. The stability control can be fully turned off by depressing the ESP button and holding it for approximately 6 seconds.

This follow-up was hardly better. Not very good results on the track, and by the way, SRT-8s do NOT start in 2nd gear! Also, interesting commentary on the braking distance being significantly longer than the first test: 120ft vs. 135ft. And the Challenger did it in 119ft despite a softer suspension which would translate to more "dive" and possibly a worse weight distribution.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=121127

Finally the owners requested that the transmission automatically shift from 1st to 2nd at redline. Why? Because the tachometer readout was slower than the actual engine rpms and along with the response of manually shifting the automatic "Autostick" caused frequent and annoying delays by the engine banging off the rev limiter. The reason this was wanted was when maximum acceleration was desired. Not for doing ridiculous burnouts beyond 1st gear, which is useless and potentially harmful.

Quite frankly these reviews were atrocious. This goes to show you not only is product knowledge needed when reviewing cars, but also research, decent driving skills and communication with the factory. This was bad, really bad.

In all fairness to the brand and the magazine, the following tests weren't too bad. This test wasn't instrumented but it should be noted the wheelbase is 116", not 112". http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=124470/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2009/dodge/challenger/101020245/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=124470

And this one was well done with good results: http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=125459/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2009/dodge/challenger/101020245/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=125459

The performance results of this manual transmission car were noted to be disappointing. I wonder if a software update would have resolved this problem from research I've done. http://www.edmunds.com/dodge/challenger/2009/testdrive.html

If Edmunds takes some minor steps, their relevance and reputation can raised to a level that will bring them more fans, more readers and more attention. I wonder if they are too mad to hire me?