View Single Post
Old 04-03-2011, 06:06 PM   #94 (permalink)
Red__Zed
A True Z Fanatic
 
Red__Zed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: window seat
Posts: 28,940
Drives: Mostly on two wheels
Rep Power: 120
Red__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond reputeRed__Zed has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaZ View Post
Exactly. What you're saying is that it's a great time but it's really more like this other slower time with the correction factored in.
Then we have to account for weight discrepancies in the car and heck, don't forget the weight of the driver! What octane fuel was in the car? Tank full or empty? You could go on forever finding discrepancies that need adjustment to simulate absolute equality.
Seriously, I'm not trying to argue with you. I understand the desire to use correction factors as an "equalizer". It's just that at the end of the day, it provides room for someone to say "but".

Back on topic.
I think the article is written like a sales pitch press release rather than an honest review.
As far as cabin noise goes, I couldn't hear my tyres or pebbles in the wheel wells. Just a howling Fast Intentions cat-back as I ran up the mountain at WOT in 3rd gear before downshifting for a switchback. I don't think Dynamat would have helped.

If you don't see the issue with comparing corrected times to uncorrected times, there's not much point in having a conversation.
Red__Zed is offline   Reply With Quote