Car and Driver Lightning lap Test Falsified?
Oct 20, 2008, 02:00 PM
#76
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
How was my comment "hostile"? The only sentence that could be considered hostile is my "sell your car" remark and that stands, if you're so insecure about your vehicle that you chalk up a lose to a magazine bias or blatant lies than you should just quit now and start riding a bike because no matter what you drive, a car will come out that is better. As for the other personal remarks, I'll just leave those alone. You're posting on Evom, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you or thinking your arguments don't/can't stand up, a forum may not be the best place for you.
Stock for stock it doesn't come down to track since the SS is right on the Evo's *** in both comparisons. The difference between the cars is less than a second at both VIR and Laguna Seca. Those are two very different tracks. Now then, what does this tell us? Well we can either continue with the paranoia and suggest that both magazines are biased against the Evo or we can use this as evidence that the SS is a damn fine car.
Considering the SS hasn't been around as long as the Evo we have no idea how it will perform when modified. Don't forget that the Ecotec motor is very strong and it is more than capable of handling big power. I believe that the Ecotec motor holds some speed records.
Wait, so because I actually take part in the discussions I'm a bad moderator? What do you expect us to do, stay quiet and just delete posts whenever someone feels hurt? I haven't made any personal comments about you but rather simply dissected your arguments (or lack thereof).
Stock for stock it doesn't come down to track since the SS is right on the Evo's *** in both comparisons. The difference between the cars is less than a second at both VIR and Laguna Seca. Those are two very different tracks. Now then, what does this tell us? Well we can either continue with the paranoia and suggest that both magazines are biased against the Evo or we can use this as evidence that the SS is a damn fine car.
Considering the SS hasn't been around as long as the Evo we have no idea how it will perform when modified. Don't forget that the Ecotec motor is very strong and it is more than capable of handling big power. I believe that the Ecotec motor holds some speed records.
Wait, so because I actually take part in the discussions I'm a bad moderator? What do you expect us to do, stay quiet and just delete posts whenever someone feels hurt? I haven't made any personal comments about you but rather simply dissected your arguments (or lack thereof).
Oct 20, 2008, 02:13 PM
#77
Okay, one more time. Let's clear up the feuds here.
On topic, Basically we're questioning the validity of the Evo X MR's time on the VIR. We are not, however, questioning the times of the Cobalt SS. I tried to make a few points earlier, but everyone seems to be dancing around it. One more time. Honestly I don't get why it's such a struggle.
On topic, Basically we're questioning the validity of the Evo X MR's time on the VIR. We are not, however, questioning the times of the Cobalt SS. I tried to make a few points earlier, but everyone seems to be dancing around it. One more time. Honestly I don't get why it's such a struggle.
Actually, they sure do (numbers vary), when there's different drivers. Like I said again and again and again.. Think logically. Different drivers, or same with one year + experience. Come on man.
1.
Forget the placement. Look at the times. They're right on. You're definitely not accusing C&D for dropping any seconds on the Cobalt. That means it's pretty damn fast.
2.
So, that means you are once again accusing C&D of sandbagging in the Evo. So, how much faster do you think a X MR would be on a power course like VIR?
The final lap time seems on the money to me. You guys are just overanalyzing the data in hopes of finding something that allows your X to be a little faster.
3.
What are you hoping for? An extra .5 seconds? Cobalt is still right there.
You guys for the Evo X really seem to be missing this point. The faster you say it should have gone, the faster you're saying it is that the Evo IX MR (for REFERENCE ONLY). This is a POWER course. On nearly any track, haven't we agreed that both cars (IX and X stock) will run similar lap times? Yet for this course, because the Cobalt is so fast, the MR MUST have had potential to run faster. You guys are biased as hell
I really would like to see responses to these points from you guys. You guys have been dodging this stuff, but if you guys are sure, you should be able to answer these points
TheGame : as you stated, the IX was slower than the Cobalt and the MR. Then you go on to state the MR should have been even faster. Really now? How much faster? I missed the part where, stock for stock, the MR received a huge leap in track times all of a sudden, against the IX... on a power course
1.
Forget the placement. Look at the times. They're right on. You're definitely not accusing C&D for dropping any seconds on the Cobalt. That means it's pretty damn fast.
2.
So, that means you are once again accusing C&D of sandbagging in the Evo. So, how much faster do you think a X MR would be on a power course like VIR?
The final lap time seems on the money to me. You guys are just overanalyzing the data in hopes of finding something that allows your X to be a little faster.
3.
What are you hoping for? An extra .5 seconds? Cobalt is still right there.
You guys for the Evo X really seem to be missing this point. The faster you say it should have gone, the faster you're saying it is that the Evo IX MR (for REFERENCE ONLY). This is a POWER course. On nearly any track, haven't we agreed that both cars (IX and X stock) will run similar lap times? Yet for this course, because the Cobalt is so fast, the MR MUST have had potential to run faster. You guys are biased as hell
I really would like to see responses to these points from you guys. You guys have been dodging this stuff, but if you guys are sure, you should be able to answer these points
TheGame : as you stated, the IX was slower than the Cobalt and the MR. Then you go on to state the MR should have been even faster. Really now? How much faster? I missed the part where, stock for stock, the MR received a huge leap in track times all of a sudden, against the IX... on a power course
Last edited by kyoo; Oct 20, 2008 at 02:15 PM.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:27 PM
#78
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, they sure do (numbers vary), when there's different drivers. Like I said again and again and again.. Think logically. Different drivers, or same with one year + experience. Come on man.
1.
Forget the placement. Look at the times. They're right on. You're definitely not accusing C&D for dropping any seconds on the Cobalt. That means it's pretty damn fast.
2.
So, that means you are once again accusing C&D of sandbagging in the Evo. So, how much faster do you think a X MR would be on a power course like VIR?
The final lap time seems on the money to me. You guys are just overanalyzing the data in hopes of finding something that allows your X to be a little faster.
3.
What are you hoping for? An extra .5 seconds? Cobalt is still right there.
You guys for the Evo X really seem to be missing this point. The faster you say it should have gone, the faster you're saying it is that the Evo IX MR (for REFERENCE ONLY). This is a POWER course. On nearly any track, haven't we agreed that both cars (IX and X stock) will run similar lap times? Yet for this course, because the Cobalt is so fast, the MR MUST have had potential to run faster. You guys are biased as hell
I really would like to see responses to these points from you guys. You guys have been dodging this stuff, but if you guys are sure, you should be able to answer these points
TheGame : as you stated, the IX was slower than the Cobalt and the MR. Then you go on to state the MR should have been even faster. Really now? How much faster? I missed the part where, stock for stock, the MR received a huge leap in track times all of a sudden, against the IX... on a power course
1.
Forget the placement. Look at the times. They're right on. You're definitely not accusing C&D for dropping any seconds on the Cobalt. That means it's pretty damn fast.
2.
So, that means you are once again accusing C&D of sandbagging in the Evo. So, how much faster do you think a X MR would be on a power course like VIR?
The final lap time seems on the money to me. You guys are just overanalyzing the data in hopes of finding something that allows your X to be a little faster.
3.
What are you hoping for? An extra .5 seconds? Cobalt is still right there.
You guys for the Evo X really seem to be missing this point. The faster you say it should have gone, the faster you're saying it is that the Evo IX MR (for REFERENCE ONLY). This is a POWER course. On nearly any track, haven't we agreed that both cars (IX and X stock) will run similar lap times? Yet for this course, because the Cobalt is so fast, the MR MUST have had potential to run faster. You guys are biased as hell
I really would like to see responses to these points from you guys. You guys have been dodging this stuff, but if you guys are sure, you should be able to answer these points
TheGame : as you stated, the IX was slower than the Cobalt and the MR. Then you go on to state the MR should have been even faster. Really now? How much faster? I missed the part where, stock for stock, the MR received a huge leap in track times all of a sudden, against the IX... on a power course
If anything, I think the problem is not in one car under-delivering, but in one car over-delivering. But whatever, C & D isn't one of my favorites. Their test have not been great in the past either. And it is a known fact that company's pay the media to promote their products.
About the IX... I also refuse to believe that the IX ran this track slower than the SS as well. I feel that the X and IX are close, hell, the IX wins most of the tests. Whatever. The SS could not possibly run quicker than a IX either. Different day, etc??? Well then throw all the Nurburgring times out the window too. Those were different days too.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:28 PM
#79
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Ambystom, what more can I actually explain? I've been totally clear on my point of view, we just disagree that's all. To recap: I think the SS is a very impressive car for the money. Despite what you think, I think it comes down to the track being used to see which one will come out on top. My main issue all along is that the evo beats the cobalt in all of the sectors where data is given and even ends up 2 seconds ahead yet in the sectors where there is no data given, the cobalt seems to gain the time back out of nowhere. Seems strange to me, that's all.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Oct 20, 2008 at 02:31 PM.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:30 PM
#80
Look at how the Cobalt performed at the Nurburgring, it's not a POS, it's a purpose built performer.
You are correct that manufacturers pay the media but that's irrelevant because it applies to all the manufacturers, Car and Driver wouldn't botch a test to make one company happy only to **** off a dozen more.
I don't even see why people are freaking out about the Cobalt. Who cares if it was faster?
You are correct that manufacturers pay the media but that's irrelevant because it applies to all the manufacturers, Car and Driver wouldn't botch a test to make one company happy only to **** off a dozen more.
I don't even see why people are freaking out about the Cobalt. Who cares if it was faster?
Oct 20, 2008, 02:31 PM
#81
Wow, you totally just blew up a small post. My opinion is simple. If you look at the sector breakdowns you'll see it too. The Cobalt having a higher mph, higher lateral grip, and higher exit speed than a X??? Or any other car on the list for that matter. If this is true, then the Cobalt SS is freakin awesome! But I find it a little hard to believe that the Cobalt SS outhandles an Evo, especially in one of the sectors where the Evo comes in faster, exits quicker, and has a higher minimum speed, but the Cobalt puts up the better time. So the time had to be made up in the corner. Or that thing takes off like a rocket right after the turn. All while being FWD. Not to mention, being quicker than a Lotus Elise, STI, etc...
If anything, I think the problem is not in one car under-delivering, but in one car over-delivering. But whatever, C & D isn't one of my favorites. Their test have not been great in the past either. And it is a known fact that company's pay the media to promote their products.
About the IX... I also refuse to believe that the IX ran this track slower than the SS as well. I feel that the X and IX are close, hell, the IX wins most of the tests. Whatever. The SS could not possibly run quicker than a IX either. Different day, etc??? Well then throw all the Nurburgring times out the window too. Those were different days too.
If anything, I think the problem is not in one car under-delivering, but in one car over-delivering. But whatever, C & D isn't one of my favorites. Their test have not been great in the past either. And it is a known fact that company's pay the media to promote their products.
About the IX... I also refuse to believe that the IX ran this track slower than the SS as well. I feel that the X and IX are close, hell, the IX wins most of the tests. Whatever. The SS could not possibly run quicker than a IX either. Different day, etc??? Well then throw all the Nurburgring times out the window too. Those were different days too.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:34 PM
#82
Ambystom, what more can I actually explain? I've been totally clear on my point of view, we just disagree that's all. To recap: I think the SS is a very impressive car for the money. Despite what you think, I think it comes down to the track being used to see which one will come out on top. My main issue all along is that the evo beats the cobalt in all of the sectors where data is given and even ends up 2 seconds ahead yet in the sectors where there is no data given, the cobalt seems to gain the time back out of nowhere. Seems strange to me, that's all.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
Cleared
Oct 20, 2008, 02:36 PM
#83
Ambystom, what more can I actually explain? I've been totally clear on my point of view, we just disagree that's all. To recap: I think the SS is a very impressive car for the money. Despite what you think, I think it comes down to the track being used to see which one will come out on top. My main issue all along is that the evo beats the cobalt in all of the sectors where data is given and even ends up 2 seconds ahead yet in the sectors where there is no data given, the cobalt seems to gain the time back out of nowhere. Seems strange to me, that's all.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
The motortrend test gives good data that shows the peak G load of the EVO at 1.56 Gs while the cobalt pulls a still impressive 1.32. Now these are peaks not averages so measure it how you will, but the sector times and mph through the corners is noticeably faster in the evo. However, the max speed in the straights is noticeably faster in the cobalt. So like I said, the cobalt can't hang with the EVO on a tight track, but the cobalt will edge out a win on a track with lots of straights.
I don't think there's a conspiracy or that the magazines took a bribe, and I even said in my OP that it was an unlikely but possible explanation of a seemingly hard to explain event where much data on the course and the cars was left undisclosed. That's all. Aside from that, kyooch I have not been ignoring you, you were talking to Rob Evo and I didn't see you addressing me anywhere. I agree entirely with all of your points and think that it comes down to the track. I must admit that it urks me a bit that that POS cobalt is such a fast car for the money, but it doesn't make me like my evo any less.
I still think that as a platform for mods there is no competition between the two and if you look at the road racing scene, I don't see any modded cobalts messing with modded evos. I think we agree on all fronts, sorry if you felt like I was avoiding you. It was not my intention, and I hope that this is all cleared up now. To all, I started this thread to see what people thought of the outcomes and proposed a few different possibilities, some legitimate ones like driver error and the particular track being used, and some pretty ridiculous ones like the magazine taking a bribe and sandbagging the evo.
Throughout the course of the discussion, I have changed the way that I look at it to what is written above. I don't think I could possibly be any clearer.
Again, the current Cobalt hasn't been out for that long. Just because you don't them doesn't mean the car isn't capable. A good thing that Chevy has done is provide factory guidance to build a race car using the Cobalt as a platform. If you watch Street Tuner Challenge you would see that a Cobalt was used in the first season. You can build a car much like that built during the show with parts or instructions from Chevy.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:37 PM
#84
Evolved Member
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, I think we can all agree that whenever a comparo is done like this, they should at least measure all sectors, not just portions. We don't know what happened in the "yellow" areas of the track. They are mostly straight... But who knows? Maybe the SS was flying on these sections.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:42 PM
#85
8:41.9 - 142.07 km/h -- Lotus Elise SC, 220 PS/902 kg (AutoBild sportscars 08/08) http://www.autobild.de/artikel/nords...-s_744720.html
Cobalt SS hit 8:22.x
Cobalt SS hit 8:22.x
Nurburgring punish cars, if they cant go over 150 mph, period.
And who knows it was rain or not between those two test. or summer or winter etc. Oh i know it stupid to assume those differences...
you can come up anything you want. The numbers are in this test there, and they showing. after 5 section 1.7 sec advantage to the MR. Including up hill straight too. Now the rest of the track is really no major differences , so there is no place where really the SS can make up 2 sec over the MR based on the 5 section they point out.
Weirdest thing is. the SS gain 2 sec over the MR /which is barely pulled 0.90 g's.. same on the driver/ in the UNDOCUMENTED areas.
But i'm sure it doesn't raise any question in you. Because you are not biased towards the SS. But we are , for sure.
Oct 20, 2008, 02:51 PM
#86
Look at how the Cobalt performed at the Nurburgring, it's not a POS, it's a purpose built performer.
You are correct that manufacturers pay the media but that's irrelevant because it applies to all the manufacturers, Car and Driver wouldn't botch a test to make one company happy only to **** off a dozen more.
I don't even see why people are freaking out about the Cobalt. Who cares if it was faster?
You are correct that manufacturers pay the media but that's irrelevant because it applies to all the manufacturers, Car and Driver wouldn't botch a test to make one company happy only to **** off a dozen more.
I don't even see why people are freaking out about the Cobalt. Who cares if it was faster?
I'm oke with the Evo loss against the SS in the US magazine test , since makes me an under dog which is i like a lot.
But saying it will out perform a road legal gokart, on half slick on road course. Boy they just dont have limits ...
On the side note i did race against the 09 SS. well, my car is not factory anymore so i dont comment on that one
But i saw othet evos in the same day following the mighty SS... It was a sad day since you couldn't pass... it was a free track day.
But i could see the capabilitys for that car. Which is awesome .
Oct 20, 2008, 03:54 PM
#87
because it is a marketing and lies about other manufacturers products.
I'm oke with the Evo loss against the SS in the US magazine test , since makes me an under dog which is i like a lot.
But saying it will out perform a road legal gokart, on half slick on road course. Boy they just dont have limits ...
On the side note i did race against the 09 SS. well, my car is not factory anymore so i dont comment on that one
But i saw othet evos in the same day following the mighty SS... It was a sad day since you couldn't pass... it was a free track day.
But i could see the capabilitys for that car. Which is awesome .
I'm oke with the Evo loss against the SS in the US magazine test , since makes me an under dog which is i like a lot.
But saying it will out perform a road legal gokart, on half slick on road course. Boy they just dont have limits ...
On the side note i did race against the 09 SS. well, my car is not factory anymore so i dont comment on that one
But i saw othet evos in the same day following the mighty SS... It was a sad day since you couldn't pass... it was a free track day.
But i could see the capabilitys for that car. Which is awesome .
Oct 20, 2008, 04:19 PM
#88
So you actually think that all these magazines have been paid by Chevy to botch the results? Do you know how crazy that sounds? The Evo is a very competent machine but it's not God, I don't see why people are so naive as to think that it wouldn't be challenged eventually. Even the older SRT-4 challenged the Evo.
That is nothing to do with being "non paid" and "non biased" test right? Yes you remember right, the Viper ACR...
How do you know how this test did go down? We dont.
As far as the real world goes. Numbers and results will be out soon i'm sure
Challenging and winning is a two different thing, in my dictionary.
Oct 20, 2008, 04:56 PM
#89
Evolving Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: here and there
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what dieing manufacturer you talkin about. around here i havent seen any gm dealers closing yet, even though they are in trouble money wise but i have seen 3 or 4 mitsu dealers go out of business and they keep getting worse with warranties. i just think on that day on that track with those drivers the SS took it, oh well the evo will make it up on the next one
Oct 20, 2008, 04:57 PM
#90
Evolving Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you actually think that all these magazines have been paid by Chevy to botch the results? Do you know how crazy that sounds? The Evo is a very competent machine but it's not God, I don't see why people are so naive as to think that it wouldn't be challenged eventually. Even the older SRT-4 challenged the Evo.
.