Why the big difference in performance numbers?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 09:11 PM
  #1  
RDX REX's Avatar
Thread Starter
boostin'
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO
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!
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 09:13 PM
  #2  
DNPhotography's Avatar
Photographer
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu, HI
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.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 09:15 PM
  #3  
RDX REX's Avatar
Thread Starter
boostin'
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO
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?
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 10:47 PM
  #4  
DogPatch's Avatar
Advanced
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
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.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 10:53 PM
  #5  
Jackygor's Avatar
Racer
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, BC
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?
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 11:20 PM
  #6  
rdxsteverino's Avatar
rdxsteverino
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 327
Likes: 1
From: LA
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.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2007 | 11:21 PM
  #7  
RDX REX's Avatar
Thread Starter
boostin'
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis, MO
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?
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2007 | 08:07 AM
  #8  
dom's Avatar
dom
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 47,710
Likes: 801
From: Toronto, Canada
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.
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2007 | 10:35 AM
  #9  
SilverJ's Avatar
Drifting
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,356
Likes: 269
From: PA
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.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
9
Feb 25, 2020 09:57 AM
JarrettLauderdale
2G CL Dynograph Gallery
5
Sep 21, 2015 07:51 PM
Drake3287
ILX
7
Sep 9, 2015 11:21 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.