When the '04 RS first came out, Motor Trend tested it at 4.4 seconds from 0 - 60 mph. That seemed a little optimistic, but was certainly good news. Now, AutoWeek tested an '04 RS and could only do 5.81 seconds. WHAT GIVES???

 

Autoweek short-shifted in their 0-60 and 1/4 mile tests.

 

I believe some tests are conducted with little or no regard to the drivetrain (i.e. launching the car) and some are done with no launching at all.

 

sounds like the most sensible explanation.

 

Weather plays an impotant role. Don't discount it. Particularly with turbos. I notice a huge performance difference between a day in which the temperature is 90+ vs a day thats 20 degrees.

 

I live in L.A. It is NEVER 20 degrees here. But it is often 90 - 100 in the summer.

 

4.4 is the more accurate number. Bad weather or not, you're evo shouldn't take 5 seconds to make 60 mph

edit: typo

 

Autoweek totally screwed the Evo over in their review none of their numbers were acurate they ****ed up big time Actual 0-60 for the RS is just under 5 seconds I don't care what a dumb**** magazine says.

 

maybe they launch worst than me?

 

I could take an hour to accelerate from 0 to 60. Slow times mean little it's the shortest time clocked that is the most signiificant and several tests have the Evo in sub 5s. These cars are fast, anyone who thinks different can just go on thinking it and enjoy our tail lights.

 

Autoweek can't drive. They even held back with the R32. I threw that issue out and wrote the editor I was so disgusted.

The proof is in the trap speeds. They trapped 91.X miles per hour in both of those cars. My bone-stock automatic V6 Eclipse traps 90.X mph for crying out loud. Trapping at only 100mph would've been a bit of a screw-up in that car, as they really should trap 102-103 if it's done right.

If Autoweek's journalists knew how to drive, it wouldn't of been an issue. They felt there was no benefit at shifting higher than 6,000? How daft are they. Shifting the Evo at 7500rpm drops you around 5200rpm in the next gear, which is the meat of the powerband. Shifting at only around 6K drops you MUCH lower, definitely to where you shouldn't be.

They also complained the car struggled, so I'm sensing a leak in either the BOV, or the hoses. Maybe it was filled up with 87 octane too for some ridiculous reason.

 

autoweek sucks anyways.

 

I can't agree with that. I have subscribed to Road & Track for over 25 years, AutoWeek for about 10 years, and lots of other car mags. In my humble opinion, AutoWeek is the best general car mag out there. They always scoop R&T, C&D and MT, because it comes out every week. So they blew one road test. No big deal. The problem here is that they blew it on our beloved EVO. They are wrong, no question. But I wouldn't discount AutoWeek for that one mistake. Actually, I can think of one other mistake they made. I own a heavily modified N/A 350Z Track model that I race. They put the 350Z in the Sports Coupe category, rather than the Sports Car category, in their annual car class competition issue last year. I wrote a nasty letter to the editor that was not published. So what. I think you all should subscribe to AutoWeek. It ain't perfect. Nothing is. But it's the best and most up to date general car mag(as opposed to special car mag, like Sport Compact, European Car, etc.) mag out there.

 

Instead of saying Autoweek can't drive, ever think that perhaps this RS test mule has been around the block a few times?

Back when I was in AZ there were a few journalists testing Evos before they were released, and 2 or 3 came back to Tempe Mitsu to get clutch jobs after a day of abuse before they went back to wherever they came from. Think about it, it's not like Mitsu is going to give every magazine a fresh, broken in, smell like noone farted in it Evo every time they want to run a review.

Heck, maybe they didn't even dump the clutches in an effort to get real world times.

 

I just read that Autoweek article. The 1/4 time for the RS... and I quote:

"The RS hit 60 mph in 5.81 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 14.50 seconds at 91.6 mph. That’s good."


Um, not its not! People hit mid 14s with the 200HP RSX.

Does the ENZO run 13s when Autoweek tests it?