motor

golfiste · 03-01-2004, 03:19 PM

hi
something is wrong i don't understand i watched a bm video where they tested a 360 modena and a 911 turbo and in another video i have a honda s 2000 hte problem is that the bm pilot performed 14 s for a quater mile in the honda and 12.4sec in both modena and 911.but whan i compare it with other magazines the s 2000 makes 14.9 sec and 12.9 sec for both modena and turbo.so my question is how is it possible that bm pilots make such great performance in these cars while others aren t able?everytime they overpassed other magazines.Like the honda nsx r 2002 this is incredible just 290 hp i think and 7min56 sec at the nurburgring while other cars more powerful make the same time or even worse.so anyone can post

racer_f50 · 03-01-2004, 05:06 PM

its all down to driver ability. the guys at best motoring are excellent drivers, who can shift with the best of them.
i'm guessing that many of the journalists at magazines aren't race drivers, and thus don't drive nearly as well.
another thing to consider is the vehicle condition while testing. many magazines test with a full or half-full tank of gas and 2 people in the car.
usually BM has just one person, and i'm not sure about the fuel tank.

as for that NSX-R Ring time, well the handling on the nsx is probly better than that of some more powerful cars, and it's also lighter weight, so that makes up for a lot of it.

BADMIHAI · 03-01-2004, 07:27 PM

Like the honda nsx r 2002 this is incredible just 290 hp i think and 7min56 sec at the nurburgring while other cars more powerful make the same time or even worse.so anyone can post

Make no mistake, the NSX can hold with the best of them! Remember the tests of the NXS by BM...when it was up against the F40 and others....It has a great chassis, and it fucking kicks ass! It might not be the most powerful car out there, but, just like the Elise "it could pe powered by a Hoover vaccum engine, and it would still be fast".

When it comes to the 1/4 mile times, as racer_f50 said, the BM pilots are amongst the best in the world!

zr2man99 · 03-01-2004, 07:51 PM

BM is a biased show. They make their japanese cars seem better than the rest of the world's cars. The Japanese cars have more power than they say. And they put their best drivers in the Japanese cars when they go around the track for a head to head comparison. The Japanese cars probably have better rubber too.

yg60m · 03-01-2004, 08:18 PM

I don't know why they would biased the show. The cars haven't exactly the same specifications as in Europe or USA, first exhaust are differents.
The drivers are race drivers and there isn't a lot of lags where you can find that. If you read bikes mags where there are often pro drivers you can see the difference between a race driver and a mag (certainly good) tester : several seconds. The weather conditions can alter the results in both time laps and accelerations.

zr2man99 · 03-01-2004, 10:14 PM

The one reason I think there is something fishy with best motoring, is because in one of there videos an Evo beat a 360 modena and an M3. The 360 has a hundred more ponies than an evo, and it can handle almost just as good. It is BS.

veilsidebr · 03-01-2004, 10:17 PM

yeah most(if not all) of the journalists at the magazines are not race car drivers, and, on the opposite way, best motoring drivers are so good. You can see on the videos, they do incredible things. And i´m not surprised to see better times on that videos than on the magazines, because they are really good race car drivers

veilsidebr · 03-01-2004, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by zr2man99

The one reason I think there is something fishy with best motoring, is because in one of there videos an Evo beat a 360 modena and an M3. The 360 has a hundred more ponies than an evo, and it can handle almost just as good. It is BS.

depends on the point of the view. The Evo has an all-whell-drive powertrain that allows it to make so good lap times, and on the other hand the Ferrari is MR typed (Mid engine rear drive) that is so good too but allows it so much whellspin. On dragstrips i guess the Evo would stay so near, if not ahead, the Modena, because of this reason of whellspining. He has a great variable center differential that allows you to change the percentual of traction to the rear, if i don´t forget, at the maximum of 70% of traction on the rear.

So it also depends on the driver. Just see this, the best time of the Maclaren F1 on Best Motoring at Tsukuba track is about 1:04.62 seconds and the time of the Ferrari F40 is about 1:03.73...so what can you say if the Maclaren is better powered (627hps of the F1 vs 478 of the F40) and has a greater traction and handling??

Tomerville · 03-01-2004, 10:44 PM

Drivers, tires, conditions. European cars heading to Japan are different too. Its soo circumstantial. The NSX-R is just a track beast, its perfectly (or nearly) balanced, and it revs high (9000rpm) which is exellent for a high speed track such as the ring.

twboy1999 · 03-01-2004, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by zr2man99

The one reason I think there is something fishy with best motoring, is because in one of there videos an Evo beat a 360 modena and an M3. The 360 has a hundred more ponies than an evo, and it can handle almost just as good. It is BS.

in reality evo, sti and thoese jap car, can hang with m3 and modena

more horsepower in a track doesnt mean faster time

is about handling,, and able to step on the gas exiting the corners

RC45 · 03-02-2004, 03:23 AM

Aren't they doing 400m runs though? Not 1/4 mile.. 1/4 mile is 402.336 meter - just a thought...

yg60m · 03-02-2004, 03:48 AM

So it also depends on the driver. Just see this, the best time of the Maclaren F1 on Best Motoring at Tsukuba track is about 1:04.62 seconds and the time of the Ferrari F40 is about 1:03.73...so what can you say if the Maclaren is better powered (627hps of the F1 vs 478 of the F40) and has a greater traction and handling??

It's true that the times are not really representative, the F50 didn't made a better time than the Macca so than the F40 wich is older

The fact is that they haven't been tested the same day under the same conditions, the F40 was under pressure with a car just behind, the McLaren made a flying lap but no real pressure and the F50 was leading half a lap on the other cars and i don't mention the weather and climate conditions.
If you watch them regularly, you will notice that they don't record the same times everytime they test a car, like, say the 360. There is a reason : on a 1/4 mile if you miss the start it had a strong influence on your time and i think that they don't made a hundred tests because they compare two cars on a drag so it's more difficult to have good time for the two cars together...
On a drag race, the Mitsu for example has a strong advantage for the start and i think it's easier to not miss the lunch while with the 360 if you put too much gaz the car mae wheelspin and you loose time.
The magazines made several attemps and take only the best recorded, during their attemp to beat the world record of the 0-100-0 mph with the Mclaren F1 LM, the first time they record was 12.5 s and then they lowered it to 11.5 and they won the most on the 0-100 time not on the 100-0.

HoboPie · 03-02-2004, 09:10 AM

Well the 1/4 mile times are often done with a high wind. I have a couple older subbed vids where they talk about the high wind on that day aiding the times.

I certainly don't think they are biased. The 360 may have lost to the evo on that day, but one spun out and the other posted the the fastest lap of the race. In one race their was something wrong with the modenas tires and they mentioned it. It was pretty obvious when the 360 took apart the Evo 8 and STI at the recent Fisco vid.

Also those 1/4 mile times go for everyone. The F50 with just a tubi or similar exhaust ran an 11 flat and the F40 on the same day ran an 11.2

golfiste · 03-02-2004, 01:45 PM

hobopie you are talking about the video where they did quarter miles with ferraris
lambo porsche it is incredible what these guys are able to do and do you watch the one with the s 2000 where they did 14 s flat impressive