RS tested in the new Autoweek...
Sep 16, 2004, 12:31 PM
#1
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RS tested in the new Autoweek...
Ran a 14.50 @ 91.6mph! Yes, that's right, 91.6mph trap speeds!!! Also, they claim that the new front helical LSD and stiffening material adds exactly 101 pounds! They say it's only 45lbs lighter than a regular Evo now (3218lbs), but you have to remember that their RS was not fitted with A/C like the production RS'. So, you figure an RS is actually therefore heavier than a regular Evo. How stupid. 
C&D on the other hand said the RS runs 13.5 @ 102 and weighs only 3026. I guess somebody at one of these magazines is smoking their underwear... Yet another reason to never believe what you hear or read... If this is all published in magazines, can you believe how much untrue BS must be posted on Internet forums such as these?
C&D on the other hand said the RS runs 13.5 @ 102 and weighs only 3026. I guess somebody at one of these magazines is smoking their underwear... Yet another reason to never believe what you hear or read... If this is all published in magazines, can you believe how much untrue BS must be posted on Internet forums such as these?
Sep 16, 2004, 12:45 PM
#2
Evolved Member
iTrader: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 3,120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this isnt the first time autoweek screwed up.... whenever i read autoweek, i always wonder, "are they smoking crack?" u should wonder why autoweek doesnt sell nearly as well as car and driver, and road and track.
Sep 16, 2004, 12:54 PM
#4
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it wasn't a mistake. They tried justifying it in the article by saying it was hot out when they tested it, blah blah blah. I don't care if it's 200 degrees out, there's no way in hell it should be trapping at 91mph in the 1/4 mile.
Sep 16, 2004, 04:09 PM
#6
Evolving Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autoweek article
In the same issue, they say the updated RSX Type-S has 243lb-ft of torque
. Maybe the RS acceleration times are a typo too
!
Anyway, the whole Autoweek issue got me thinking, what with the RS losing the shootout, the revised RSX looking good, and the STI cranking out 300lb-ft of torque......time to mod!
. Maybe the RS acceleration times are a typo too!Anyway, the whole Autoweek issue got me thinking, what with the RS losing the shootout, the revised RSX looking good, and the STI cranking out 300lb-ft of torque......time to mod!
Trending Topics
Sep 16, 2004, 04:53 PM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ill be home soon
Posts: 3,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why listen to an american mag who is easily persuaded by $$$$...(like a lot of other consumer mags are in the us)...go test it your self and find out...or read european mags...much more inforemative and less biased to a car/ manufacturer
Sep 16, 2004, 05:49 PM
#10
Originally Posted by Barnettevo
In the same issue, they say the updated RSX Type-S has 243lb-ft of torque . Maybe the RS acceleration times are a typo too!
Anyway, the whole Autoweek issue got me thinking, what with the RS losing the shootout, the revised RSX looking good, and the STI cranking out 300lb-ft of torque......time to mod!
. Maybe the RS acceleration times are a typo too!Anyway, the whole Autoweek issue got me thinking, what with the RS losing the shootout, the revised RSX looking good, and the STI cranking out 300lb-ft of torque......time to mod!
it is either they are on crack or they got bribed by suburu
and Evo was just slightly better 
Sep 16, 2004, 09:14 PM
#12
Evolving Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch. I hope that's just bad testing, typos, or both. There's also the possibility the RS software needs some fine tuning or something. I never put too much stock in what Autoweek reports... they have good pictures though.
- Jason
- Jason
Sep 17, 2004, 12:31 AM
#13
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had autoweek for the longest time and hated it... I always saw different numbers in other magazines and never knew what to beleive. Plus the mags are really short and un-detailed, way too many ads in that thing...
Sep 17, 2004, 04:08 AM
#14
Evolving Member
I like Autoweek a lot, but certainly not because of their new car tests. The thing that makes Autoweek great is that it comes out weekly and you don't have to wait a month to see what's new, particularly along the lines of motorsports and spy shots. And they have great classified ads too. Of course, that all meant a lot more before this whole Internet thing happened...
JW
JW
Sep 17, 2004, 07:33 AM
#15
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Diamond Bar, California
Posts: 3,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changed...
I get what your saying, I would be pissed off to if the EVO I was getting was way down on power than other stock EVOs. Good luck with your tunning
. Still stand by the Autoweek test being total crap
.
I get what your saying, I would be pissed off to if the EVO I was getting was way down on power than other stock EVOs. Good luck with your tunning
. Still stand by the Autoweek test being total crap .
Last edited by 3000ways; Sep 17, 2004 at 08:03 AM.