Just got back home from test driving another z before I make my decision.

whoady4shoady · 07-01-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cow

The reviews of the new SS have all praised its handling. Pretty much every magazine is pulling upwards of 0.98 G's. That's really impressive.

I wont disagree with you there, but a car still has to be visually appealing, but then again it must be to some becasue it is selling.

frost · 07-01-2009, 09:28 PM

The skidpad test is impressive, but there's more to handling than road stickiness. I often rely on nurbur numbers to solidify handling.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

The skidpad test is impressive, but there's more to handling than road stickiness. I often rely on nurbur numbers to solidify handling.

Nurburgring numbers are overrated.

There are just too many factors that affect the final lap time.

cow · 07-01-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

The skidpad test is impressive, but there's more to handling than road stickiness.

I agree with that statement, but the number is indicative of a car that's no slouch in handling.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

The mustang has a shit interior, but it's always been that way. It's always been the more economical choice to the higher priced, but somewhat nicer f-bod twins. And since it's always been that way, any slight improvement is an improvement of leaps and bounds

I'd say the new one is about 85% as nice as the Z's.

frost · 07-01-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

I'd say the new one is about 85% as nice as the Z's.

I think it's obvious with my prior collection that I'm an american muscle fan, but even I'd say that's being a little generous. I'd go 70 at best.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

I think it's obvious with my prior collection that I'm an american muscle fan, but even I'd say that's being a little generous. I'd go 70 at best.

I'll revise and say 75%. The gauges are horrid and the air vents are still el cheapo. But the seats are nice.

frost · 07-01-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

Nurburgring numbers are overrated.

There are just too many factors that affect the final lap time.

I don't think there is a perfect test, but I do believe a combination of nurb numbers and skidpad tests give a better impression than just one test alone.

frost · 07-01-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

I'll revise and say 75%. The gauges are horrid and the air vents are still el cheapo. But the seats are nice.

Lol, alright, I'll compromise with you at 75. I do bow to all the stuff you can add to a mustang straight from the factory. If anyone wants to see a shit-load of options, go to the ford site and build a stang.

cow · 07-01-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

Lol, alright, I'll compromise with you at 75. I do bow to all the stuff you can add to a mustang straight from the factory. If anyone wants to see a shit-load of options, go to the ford site and build a stang.

A buddy of mine just bought an 09 Mustang. The cheapness of the parts & amounts available was sickening, haha.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

I don't think there is a perfect test, but I do believe a combination of nurb numbers and skidpad tests give a better impression than just one test alone.

Indeed there isn't a perfect test. But I really don't think the Nurburgring tests are really that good. It's more of a marketing thing and people just buy into it. The lap time is never indicative of the car's true performance as too many factors can affect the time. You've got something like 170 corners and none of those test drivers are ever going to be able to click off the perfect lap. They will always be giving up time somewhere.

Say the GTR vs. ZR1 internet wars... it was just ridiculous. I think the numbers published were around 2 or 3 seconds apart which when you think about it is less than 1% difference in time between cars. No one in their right mind would ever look at those two cars and say, "well, it's obvious that Car A is better than Car B."

IMO, you're better suited to put two cars on a much, much smaller track with a mix of low and high speed corners. That way you have the same conditions and only around 10-12 corners or so which will make it much easier to get a 100% lap in. Then you get a more accurate idea of which car is better.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cow

A buddy of mine just bought an 09 Mustang. The cheapness of the parts & amounts available was sickening, haha.

the 05-09s were crap.

m4a1mustang · 07-01-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frost

Lol, alright, I'll compromise with you at 75. I do bow to all the stuff you can add to a mustang straight from the factory. If anyone wants to see a shit-load of options, go to the ford site and build a stang.

You can add an FRPP blower at purchase and have around 450 warrantied rear-wheel-ponies.

Which brings up another important point for all of us Z guys: You see a new GT and think, "haha, easy pick'ns" only to find out they are factory supercharged.

frost · 07-01-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m4a1mustang

Indeed there isn't a perfect test. But I really don't think the Nurburgring tests are really that good. It's more of a marketing thing and people just buy into it. The lap time is never indicative of the car's true performance as too many factors can affect the time. You've got something like 170 corners and none of those test drivers are ever going to be able to click off the perfect lap. They will always be giving up time somewhere.

Say the GTR vs. ZR1 internet wars... it was just ridiculous. I think the numbers published were around 2 or 3 seconds apart which when you think about it is less than 1% difference in time between cars. No one in their right mind would ever look at those two cars and say, "well, it's obvious that Car A is better than Car B."

IMO, you're better suited to put two cars on a much, much smaller track with a mix of low and high speed corners. That way you have the same conditions and only around 10-12 corners or so which will make it much easier to get a 100% lap in. Then you get a more accurate idea of which car is better.

Don't disagree, there just isn't a "standard" test for it, that goes in all the mags and whatnot, so we have to deal with what we got

nogoodname · 07-01-2009, 09:46 PM

this thread matches this pic

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post Your Window Tints! - Decision guide for the non-tinted!	RCZ	Exterior & Interior	578	11-20-2022 08:20 PM
MotorTrend First Test: 2009 Nissan 370Z test drive 4.7 sec 0 to 60 11.25.08	AK370Z	Nissan 370Z Photos / Spyshots / Video / Media Gallery	47	11-11-2009 09:06 PM
Test Driving?	shadyDR	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	19	06-05-2009 01:50 AM
Dealer Decision	shadyDR	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	10	05-16-2009 07:45 PM
Weekend of test driving	theDreamer	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	6	03-22-2009 11:48 AM

07-01-2009, 09:28 PM	#17 (permalink)
frost Retired admin Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Winterfell Posts: 106,613 Drives: Your Wife Crazy Rep Power: 0	The skidpad test is impressive, but there's more to handling than road stickiness. I often rely on nurbur numbers to solidify handling.

07-01-2009, 09:46 PM	#30 (permalink)
nogoodname Lifetime Premium Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Montreal Posts: 22,357 Drives: E46 M3 Rep Power: 1765	this thread matches this pic