I purchased on eBay a November 1992 article on the RS America. Interesting read. I came across a statistic that seems unusual. Car and Driver road tested the RSA and came up with a 0-60 mph time of 4.6. That is the lowest figure I have seen. It is usually listed in the 5.0 to 5.5 range.

Any opinions on how they managed such a low time? C&D is usually pretty reliable on data. If it is a "real" number, I imagine that the clutch was 100% fried afterwards.

Any thoughts?

 

I was thinking about buying that....have no idea, maybe it was downhill a bit.

What else did they say? I need to get a copy, I have the R&T RSA test I saved from '92 (so I wanted the car for a while) and the previous owner gave me the Excellence RSA test, which was not that good.

 

Forklift,

Send me an e-mail request and we can trade PDFs.

randy at teammccalla . c 0 m

 

The things that Car & Driver, Road & Track and most other car magazines do to obtain their figures is scary. Running it up between 4,000 - 5,000 rpm and dumping the clutch is common. Ok for a tester but not practical for one you own.

 

And i doubt they used the clutch to change up either - to get a time like that .

 

Claude is right about their testing procedures. Also, C&D always has had a lower 0 to 60 time for any car they test then any other publication.

 

I have had my car only since July, and hammer it pretty well on the track, but have not "dumped" the clutch and don't plan on it.

Thanks again 9XI and I will mail you the R&T copies.

I don't put as much weight on those acceleration #s as I use to, but will sometimes look at the 50 -130 mph times, as that what might be experienced at the track. Nevertheless, the difference between the R&T and C&D numbers are huge.

For 0-100: R&T 13.0, C&D 11.6 Just to put that in perspective, R&Ts number for the 3.6 Turbo on 0-100 was 11.7 (which won the 0-100-0 comp. in 4/94, including the Viper, 512TR, and ZR-1, but excludes the Kawasaki).

It is amazing though how far the sedans have come. In the new R&T the Cadillac CTS-V 0-100 is 11.4, but I (hope) think would get crushed on the track where it counts (vs. the drag strip) vs. the RSA given the same driver.

 

C&D states that it never "speed shifts" (not lifting off the throttle during a shift) and always uses the clutch in its acceleration tests. How it manages its almost always quickest numbers, I do not know. I have always had the impression that R&T is gentler on its cars. FWIW, Motor Trend usually gets figures in between those of C&D and R&T.

 

I know one of them -- C&D or R&T -- "adjusts" for climate, altitude while the other says they don't.

The review was very interesting as it gave a different perspective, and even info, from what you're used to seeing in our current comments on the cars. Lots of good detail. Thanks for sharing! J

 

I have an Sept. 92 issue of Sports Car International that tested the RSA at 4.93 sec. 0-60. No details on how they acheived it though.

 

I have the same issue as Jeff......Sports Car International......Besides C&D, this was the Only other test I have seen below 5 seconds for 0-60. Having had my RSA since new, I saved many of the magazines that orginally tested it.

The test results for the RSA are different from magazine to magazine, but The magazines are pretty consistant in the fact that in almost all cases the RSA is about .1 seconds faster then the same magazine test for a C2...........

Flagg

 

Is there somebody who wants to send me a scanned copy of those?

Thanks if you should do that.

a.brinkcate@wanadoo.nl

 

Arjan,

Please check your "in" box, courtesy of Mr. 9XI.

Flag, or rsa, Is there any way you could fax me copies of those? My fax number is 703-255-2773. Thanks!

Jim

 

Arjan,

My email to a.brinkcate@wanadoo.nl got bounced back......

 

Forklift,

Those 0-100 times on the 3.6 turbo. Was that for 0-100 or 0-100-0.

The numbers I have for the 3.6 turbo are 0-99.5 ..... 9.5 sec and 0-124 .... 15.0 sec. Just curious