LLWesMan

Whats the stated 0-60 on the AT 97 2.2 CL? Whats the best anyone has ever run?

laslo

hey .... same question but for a 98 3.0

Mike 350Z

cars.com says 7.5 for a 97 3.0, im sure a 98 is about the same. 2.2 wasnt mentioned so im guessing its slower

proaudio22

Car-stats.com has:

Motor Trend says 8.9 seconds 0-60 for the 2.2, 16.7 1/4 mile. (should be auto)

C&D says 8 seconds 0-60 for the 2.3 Accord EX, 16.4 1/4 mile. (should be manual)

C&D says 7.8 seconds 0-60 for the 97 3.0, 16.1 1/4 mile.

Motor Trend says 7.3 seconds 0-60 for the 99 3.0, 15.7 1/4 mile.

legendaryCL98

?

99 and 98 3.0's have .5 second difference?!?! WTF? i want a 99 now!

what makes it faster by .5 seconds? (0-60)

Hobo

the mag makes it faster lol......
mag racing is not so accurate

clorich

I can run 7.0 to 7.1 in my stock '98 (timed by video camera on speedo).

proaudio22

Car and Driver tends to have whack times. They tend to either beat the fudge outa the car or they don't try much at all.

damond

In real world applications...if you were looking at the two 3.0's side by side...how much difference is .5 sec?

Could time of the year, temp, burometric pressure, weight of driver, wind, planetary alignment make a difference?

ib_jimmy

Nah Car & Driver posted 2 different times for the exact same car (TL-S) and it was in the same issuse just like a few page off =) it was about .5sec off.

Stapler

right they say they always do a new test. Or somthing. Every engine doesnt make the same exact amount of power ect ect... and then there is everything damond said.

suXor

1/2-3/4 a car length

green972.2

lol planetary alignment?

Cocoa

iTrader: (2)

plus...they stats they post in their magz, is an avergae of many tests. So they can have a best time of 15.5 in the 1/4, but if they ran 16 for their next run, then they would post the average (15.75), for the 2 runs. Or how ever many times they ran it. Thatz why itz always off from mag to mag.