Why the big difference in performance numbers?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-10-2007, 09:11 PM
  #1  
boostin'
Thread Starter
 
RDX REX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 44
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why the big difference in performance numbers?

I recently saw that Motor Trend did a comparo w/ the RDX, and they recorderd 0-60 in 7.3 and 1/4 in 15.6---Road and Track recorded 0-60 in 6.3 and 1/4 in 14.8.
Those are vastly different numbers, so what gives? I know mags differ usually, but that is much more than usual!
Personally I like Road and Tracks numbers!
Old 01-10-2007, 09:13 PM
  #2  
Photographer
 
DNPhotography's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Honolulu, HI
Age: 43
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sorry to change the subjest but i just noticed your sig. you do know that the rear windows are not tinted right? they are just darkened. it doesnt offer your interior any UV protection.
Old 01-10-2007, 09:15 PM
  #3  
boostin'
Thread Starter
 
RDX REX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 44
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DNPhotography
sorry to change the subjest but i just noticed your sig. you do know that the rear windows are not tinted right? they are just darkened. it doesnt offer your interior any UV protection.
I know, I was just going for the darkened look on the front windows also...........................................the re, fixed it

so anyone got any ideas?
Old 01-10-2007, 10:47 PM
  #4  
Advanced
 
DogPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RDX REX
I know, I was just going for the darkened look on the front windows also...........................................the re, fixed it

so anyone got any ideas?
keep in mind that R&T got those numbers break torquing the RDX at 3k rpm before letting loose, and assumingly with traction control off.

the guys at motor trend probably used a different technique to obtain those 'best' numbers.

also keep in mind that variables such as temperature, road conditions, altitude, etc, can also effect performance numbers.
Old 01-10-2007, 10:53 PM
  #5  
Racer
 
Jackygor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 36
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A bit off topic. I know in turbo cars if you put in gas with higher octane, you would yield better performance? Does this apply to the RDX?
Old 01-10-2007, 11:20 PM
  #6  
rdxsteverino
 
rdxsteverino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA
Posts: 327
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jackygor
A bit off topic. I know in turbo cars if you put in gas with higher octane, you would yield better performance? Does this apply to the RDX?
Doubtful octane could account for a full second better in 0-60 performance. The engine controls partially compensate for the difference in octane. I agree with DogPatch that torque braking (spooling up the turbo before letting go) is the likely difference.
Old 01-10-2007, 11:21 PM
  #7  
boostin'
Thread Starter
 
RDX REX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 44
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DogPatch
keep in mind that R&T got those numbers break torquing the RDX at 3k rpm before letting loose, and assumingly with traction control off.

the guys at motor trend probably used a different technique to obtain those 'best' numbers.

also keep in mind that variables such as temperature, road conditions, altitude, etc, can also effect performance numbers.
thanks for the info.!

Does using the paddle shifters over just normal auto make a difference?
Old 01-11-2007, 08:07 AM
  #8  
dom
Senior Moderator
 
dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 47
Posts: 47,710
Received 801 Likes on 662 Posts
Originally Posted by DogPatch
keep in mind that R&T got those numbers break torquing the RDX at 3k rpm before letting loose, and assumingly with traction control off.

Hmmm, R&T had info a few issues back about how they perform their testing and I'm pretty sure it specified that brake tq'ing was a no no.

Unlike MT and C&D R&T makes no corrections whatsoever for temp, pressure etc, they report exactly what they find. And typically their times are slower than the other two because of this.

Interesting they were so fast. But surface, temp, elevation and the car itself all play a role. Its possible they had a strong RDX and ideal testing conditions.
Old 01-11-2007, 10:35 AM
  #9  
Drifting
 
SilverJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 2,252
Received 241 Likes on 165 Posts
0-60 in 6.3 eh ?
I dunno about that...I have an 04 mt TL that is supposedly 0-60 in about 6 secs and I dont think the RDX feels that quick. It definitely is fast for a truck though...
Love the truck.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
9
02-25-2020 09:57 AM
JarrettLauderdale
2G CL Dynograph Gallery
5
09-21-2015 07:51 PM
Drake3287
ILX
7
09-09-2015 11:21 AM



Quick Reply: Why the big difference in performance numbers?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.