Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Just because C&D is your auto-god doesn't make it mine. And I care to dig up these C&D stats just as much as you care to post them.
In what part of my discussion have I worshipped C&D? Can you focus on intelligently discussing the subject with facts and data rather than dealing with conjecture and crying foul when you're proven wrong?
Do you think these test guys sit around blowing bubbles all day, dreaming up numbers? Do you think your speculation is more valid than test results from thousands of vehicles using the same, well-documented methods and yields staggeringly consistent results? Just because you choose not to view the facts does not make them invalid.
Quote:
There are so many different factors that go into a 5-60 times I wouldn't even use it in a comparison.... ESPECIALLY in a discussion that has nothing to do with rolling starts.
If you had understood correctly from my prior post, the street-start test actually greatly reduces the complexity of getting acceleration times by de-emphasizing or removing many of the factors that make consistent standing-start measurements difficult to achieve. So, actually, there are fewer factors at work in the 5-60 test. Neither is invalid in the real world, but 5-60 is definitely more repeatable because of its simplicity.
As I already stated, I don't care why we're discussing 5-60 times and whether it's relevant to the thread topic. I am simply explaining that you are wrong, and why, as you have requested:
Quote:
the only 0-60 vs. 5-60 times I can find have the 5-60 being faster, PLEASE show me different.
When you have cold, hard facts disputing years of test results, then I will concede the point.
B. Riley
Melbourne, FL
'01 Camry LE V6/5-spd
Was: '00 Black/Tan SVT Contour #560 - Sold 3/26/03
Before that: '95 Champ/Blue Contour GL V6 ATX
| 
