"current" performance figures?
07-23-2011, 12:32 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
"current" performance figures?
The performance figures out of the R & T dated Feb 84' states the following.
0-60 in 6.2
1/4 in 14.6 @ 96
60-0 in 153
And of course these vary mag to mag. For the sake of arguement, lets say those are the definitive figures. My question is, given that my Targa has 76k on the clock, is 27 yrs old and has a clean bill of health, what effect do you think age and mileage has on the above figures? My quess is that it lost a second 0-60, probably does 16 in the 1/4 and 170 braking.
0-60 in 6.2
1/4 in 14.6 @ 96
60-0 in 153
And of course these vary mag to mag. For the sake of arguement, lets say those are the definitive figures. My question is, given that my Targa has 76k on the clock, is 27 yrs old and has a clean bill of health, what effect do you think age and mileage has on the above figures? My quess is that it lost a second 0-60, probably does 16 in the 1/4 and 170 braking.
Last edited by SARGEPUG; 07-23-2011 at 06:24 PM.
07-23-2011, 03:48 PM
#3
Braking may not be any worse since tire technology has improved. Handling might be worse as the rubber suspension components, if still original, would be dried out and les useful. 0-60, unless the engine is full of carbo deposits is likely spot on.
The big "however", is that you don't know how "abusive" the testers were to accomplish those numbers.
The big "however", is that you don't know how "abusive" the testers were to accomplish those numbers.
07-23-2011, 05:13 PM
#4
My current Carrera is the quickest I have driven. Chipped euro engine with 113K, uncorked exhaust. Just did the brakes, so it stops pretty well too on 17s.
I don't think older has to be slower.
I don't think older has to be slower.
07-23-2011, 06:27 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
No kidding. Had a customer with a brand new '84 or '85 (been so long I forget) who wanted to duplicate the 1/4 mile time at an open night down at Firebird in Phoenix. Asked me to help. So we go out to where our local super secret testing area was near the shop, and I (fully knowing I was NOT going to follow through) proceeded to rev it up to about 6K and started to feather in the clutch. He went nuts. I told him that's what it takes. He never asked about drop throttle acceleration again.
07-23-2011, 06:45 PM
#6
Rennlist Member
Car & Driver's performance data was notoriously, ummmm...."optimistic" back in the '60's-'90's.
Anyone remember the C&D test of the full-size 1965 Pontiac 2+2 that supposedly did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds? Pure bull****.
Road & Track's figures were probably closer to the truth back then.
It is also a well-known fact that advertising revenue has influenced road test writeups over the years. Isn't it interesting that vehicles that were 'Car of the Year' a few years back are now often considered a piece of crap? I don't take much stock in road test opinions, especially from Car & Driver. YMMV, though.
Anyone remember the C&D test of the full-size 1965 Pontiac 2+2 that supposedly did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds? Pure bull****.
Road & Track's figures were probably closer to the truth back then.
It is also a well-known fact that advertising revenue has influenced road test writeups over the years. Isn't it interesting that vehicles that were 'Car of the Year' a few years back are now often considered a piece of crap? I don't take much stock in road test opinions, especially from Car & Driver. YMMV, though.
Last edited by jackb911; 07-24-2011 at 12:08 PM.
07-24-2011, 02:13 AM
#7
Rennlist Member
I did one "hole shot" in Ruby when I first got her. Never again. I still cringe at the wheel hop. Automotive journalists beat the crud out of test cars. I think the only reason a manufacturer puts a launch control feature on a new car is for that stupid 0-60 or 0-100kph stat. Most owners are not going to do this more than once.
She's gotten lighter, and gained 60HP in her old age, but I have no clue what 0-60 is.
She's gotten lighter, and gained 60HP in her old age, but I have no clue what 0-60 is.
