2nd fastest under 20k!
04-23-2007, 09:19 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd fastest under 20k!
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...han-20000.html
dono if any of you have seen that, but i thought you would want to. america is taken it back baby! look at that, top two are american and everything below is asian! wooooooo the 2.4's and the 4.0's holdin it down.
kind a shitty write up with some slow times for at least the impreza, the 2.4, and the 4.0, but it makes me pretty proud and you guys should be too
dono if any of you have seen that, but i thought you would want to. america is taken it back baby! look at that, top two are american and everything below is asian! wooooooo the 2.4's and the 4.0's holdin it down.
kind a shitty write up with some slow times for at least the impreza, the 2.4, and the 4.0, but it makes me pretty proud and you guys should be too
04-23-2007, 10:24 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-10-05
Location: Hackensack, NJ
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero to 60 mph: 7.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.3 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing ź-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
those really arent bad numbers for the auto.
Zero to 100 mph: 20.3 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.0 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing ź-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
those really arent bad numbers for the auto.
04-23-2007, 10:25 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-29-05
Location: AZ
Posts: 7,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm faster than all of those cars...woohoo!
thats pretty sad that they gave the Lancer a makeover and its still that slow though...
that article pretty much means that you have to pay to go fast and it sucks to be poor...
thats pretty sad that they gave the Lancer a makeover and its still that slow though...
that article pretty much means that you have to pay to go fast and it sucks to be poor...
04-23-2007, 10:34 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-19-06
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh god, I can hear it now from all the other car owners:
"See, the Cobalt SS aren't that fast!"
I guess they will just be surprised when they don't know the difference between a 2.4 SS and an SS/SC and try to race one. Damn you GM marketing division!
"See, the Cobalt SS aren't that fast!"
I guess they will just be surprised when they don't know the difference between a 2.4 SS and an SS/SC and try to race one. Damn you GM marketing division!
04-23-2007, 10:39 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 04-17-04
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone notice this:
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
but it went to 120mph in the tests.
Awful, poorly written paragraph.
where do you see numbers from an auto? Doesn't say that in the spec panel.
Says manual---bad times too. I got those exact times at 3400ft above sea-level
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
but it went to 120mph in the tests.
Awful, poorly written paragraph.
Zero to 60 mph: 7.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.3 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.0 sec
Street start, 560 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing ź-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
Braking, 700 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
those really arent bad numbers for the auto.
Zero to 100 mph: 20.3 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.0 sec
Street start, 560 mph: 7.3 sec
Standing ź-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 118 mph
Braking, 700 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.83 g
those really arent bad numbers for the auto.
where do you see numbers from an auto? Doesn't say that in the spec panel.
Says manual---bad times too. I got those exact times at 3400ft above sea-level
Last edited by avro206; 04-23-2007 at 10:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
04-24-2007, 12:12 AM
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea all the times are pretty slow from them, i dono why it must have been conditions or something cause they ran the same exact 1/4 mile time with the manual 4.0 as they did with the auto 4.0....but there was like a 3mph trap speed difference? its very odd. and it seems like the 2.4 is running slower there than alot of people are running here also. And the impreza is running slow for sure cause i have seen faster times outta them stock. i'd say drop 3-4 tenths off the v6, the impreza, the ss 2.4, and the gts and those are closer to what people are actually running with good driving. This isn't really a review article or anything and im slightly dissapointedin how short it all was, but the point is, 2 american cars beat out 8 import cars in a comparo of cars that the average person can afford. THAT gives me hope for our automotive industry and its just a plus that they happened to be us 
04-24-2007, 07:59 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-11-06
Location: Virginia Beach, Va
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn steddy, calm down. He was just pointing out that Car And Driver got the SS models confused.
As for the 2.4L those are slower than what we run with good driving. Oh well, at least we're up there! I wonder what they would say about the 2.0L? Oh, thats right, they said in an earlier article "its good for those needing cheap speed". I about shot the editor for that, but they are cheap for the performance
As for the 2.4L those are slower than what we run with good driving. Oh well, at least we're up there! I wonder what they would say about the 2.0L? Oh, thats right, they said in an earlier article "its good for those needing cheap speed". I about shot the editor for that, but they are cheap for the performance
04-24-2007, 08:09 PM
#17
Damn steddy, calm down. He was just pointing out that Car And Driver got the SS models confused.
As for the 2.4L those are slower than what we run with good driving. Oh well, at least we're up there! I wonder what they would say about the 2.0L? Oh, thats right, they said in an earlier article "its good for those needing cheap speed". I about shot the editor for that, but they are cheap for the performance
As for the 2.4L those are slower than what we run with good driving. Oh well, at least we're up there! I wonder what they would say about the 2.0L? Oh, thats right, they said in an earlier article "its good for those needing cheap speed". I about shot the editor for that, but they are cheap for the performance
I thought like 3894729834723984723984723 SS/SC owners were gonna start up with all blih blah again lol
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post