http://www.geocities.com/n_dahi/stats.htm

okay, so i'm looking at this and wondering how the heck some of these magazines got their information on the sentra se-r. i mean, we have 1/4 mile times ranging from 15.8 second (couple of different magazines) to 16.9 seconds (autoweek)!! how can you range that much on the same car? these tests were done in 1991 so there was no automatic transmission to deal with, either. i'm just curious as to how a driver could drive the se-r that sucky as to get a 16.9 seconds in the 1/4!? you're horrible autoweek!

so now i'm looking at the skidpad ratings. once again, we have a huge range! autoweek (the suckiest straight line guys) managed .95g's with their extremely slow se-r, but popular mechanic's only received .75g's from their se-r!? what is going on!? coincidently enough, pm's se-r was the lightest of the se-r's listed on that page!

i am lost here, and a little mad too. can you explain why the numbers varied so much?

:confused:

"Magazine numbers" are to be taken with a grain of salt. :D

I've noticed, even though I enjoy reading autoweek, they need less on how to drive a car hard. Every article that I can remember from then they had the worse 1/4 and 0-60 times out of all the magazines, and skid pad/slalom/lateral g's they also hit the bottom to. But the part that has me laughing the most is when they are not impressed with a car that all the other magazines like.

Hmmm....I thought that MotorTrend had gotten a 15.4 on the quarter mile. I guess I'll have to double check the se-r.net stats....

Bleh, don't wory about magazine racing.

any one see that pic of tara reid when u click the link? :D

OUTLIERS!!!! Ah...how i remember these from AP Stat. Take out all Autoweeks scores (because they let apes drive) and PM's skippad for the Sentra. Then take out Road and Track 98 all the way across due to the loss of the LSD, RT's other 1/4s (they don't look right without the 98 1/4), and MT skidpad for 97. Here's the new scores....
Classic averages - 7.8 to 60, 16.0 in the 1/4, and .81 on the pad
200sx averages - 8.0 to 60, 16.1 in the 1/4, (and I have 2 numbers for the skipad because MT's 97 number looks like an outlier) so .83 with, and .84 without
so those look better I think...I am a tool

His braking numbers are also all over the place because CD and some other mags use a 70-0 test not a 60-0. obviously those can't be directly compared like that. Yeah, mag racing sucks... take it to a track and find out for real!

Josh

never ever ever rely on autoweek. ever.








...

ever.

Originally posted by DaGenesis
any one see that pic of tara reid when u click the link? :D

No, I get Men In Black commercials. :(

The Magazine tests differ a lot due to a lot of variables. How many other mags have had the car first and fried the clutch and tires before your mag got it. What the temp was like for testing that day. Was the track too cool or hot. Different drivers do things differently. Some rev high and dump the clutch while others will lug it off the line and try to catch up at the end. But in the end the only Mag I trust is Grassroot Motorsports. They are sports car lovers like us. This is just my 2 cents....your mileage may vary.

Bill E.
93 SE-R
95 240SX

For the record, I agree with SK. But to make things more confusing, CD got 6.9 0-60 out of the NX2000, while RD got 8.1. CD also got .93g's and 71.3mph or something (can't exactly remember but it was in the 70)through the slalom. Heres what I have gathered: R&D and MT seem get consistently slower acceleration times the CD. R&D always seem to have a lower skidpad rating (.84 -> seems to be very good) and a slower slalom (68 seems to be REALLY good). In CD, I have seen quite a few 70mph passes (vipers, modded vettes, ferrari's, stuff like that). In the end, the only mags I trust anymore are CD, SCC, and GRM. I semi-trust MT and R&D (seem to be old fogys running it). Anyway, just adding my 2 cents to the growing pot!