Hey, you edited the prior reply. I'm watching Fringe and missed it in my quote, sorry.

Porsche is just an example of a company that offers both. Most all supercars are RWD.

Check out One Lap sometime. There are some wicked AWD cars that do very well also. I used the Evo in the Vette comparison because its the most winning One Lap AWD car. Even with the econobox roots you mentioned, Evos are still wicked track cars. I love them.

 

I'm conceding because I don't know enough about physics to argue any further than I already have without sounding like an idiot.

 

let me give you some info's...
I dont think the the MR should have run faster as you wanna hear it ,
open your mind and look around on that test , the SS is over rated period.
and yes the X MR runned faster the your precius IX MR , so what? should have been even faster , or not? Maybe just runned faster because the weather condition was better for it, or not? Do you actually understand how many ways you can actually "cheat on these tests?"
Only reason why i start to argue , because looks like , they dont even care anymore, if its obvious is something is not right.

By the way are you one of those test drivers? Because you are so sure its everything is oke with that test.

You are beyond blind, buddy.

 

At last you said it. I don't care that the X MR ran faster. I'm impressed, and I'm glad. I don't hold loyalty to cars, just performance. Now that we've cleared the fact that you don't think the X should have ran faster:

You think the Cobalt SS time was cheated then, yes? (Among other things)

 

help me which facts i have to answere?

 

That was in response to your accusations that the X MR was not driven hard enough, implying that you thought the MR should have ran faster. Yet you were not able to say that the MR should have ran faster

 

yep, or if the SS time is right then the MR should have run faster. besides the STI

 

that is a question not a , a fact.
"Should have" is not fact in my dictionary. That is an opinion.

the fact is 0.88g's from the evo is not great. But the SS 89g's is great. Specially if you think the MR puls bigger G's on skid pad then a SS.
So the lower g number car, pull bigger g's in the track , mean time the Higher G's numbers car pulls lower...

And dont start the BS about, how suddenly the whole car attitude is changed when the speed goes up. I know that , but that is not that simple ,
If you think i'm wrong then how come your law of phisics not working on the AMG C63 ,Cadillac, GT-R , M3 etc?
So the better g holding car will still pull digger g's in the track then a slower ones. The skid pad is designed for a reason, and the law phisycs of that pad will not change, because the SS running on the track or the chevy is bankrupted.

you are so far the only one if you dont see that.

 

I thought we agreed the MR ran an appropriate time?

And yes, of course the first thing that stuck out to me was the Cobalt's lap time as down right incredible. But the more I looked into it, the more it seemed credible.
Admit it or not, this car stock is an impressive machine. Tuned on the Ring, and it runs an 8:22? That to me is awesome. Look at the list of cars it beat on the Ring. Surely you won't say the SS's times were faked on the Ring as well.

 

Right, that was your opinion. In which I was trying to clear up by bringing in the Evo IX's time from last year, which the X MR ran ever quicker than. Which I tied into the fact that IX's and X's always perform quite similarly. And the fact that the time ran by the X MR would not vary a lot from it.

Meaning it was unreasonable to call the X MR's time into question, yet you seemed to have been. That has been the point of my tireless ranting and debating with you.

 

Okay. So are you once again saying, since the X MR's g's were not up to how they pull on a skidpad, that the X MR should have been faster?

 

yeah i say it once again, since that is one of the subject.
Different conditions cars tend to be run different times , Most of the time sec differences. So the IX MR time is really not to good argument here. Same day same track is a good base. I thought i never have to go down this low..

Can be many factor to have differences between those times. Not even one test data is a same.

So where is your fact again?

 

Right. I covered that point, saying that, the time would not vary by that much. Let's say that conditions were better or worse. Since it was still dry, I wouldn't give more than a second. Honestly, I wouldn't give more than half a second. But to humor you, we can say a second. Either way, times end up quite close to the Cobalt SS.

 

Honestly, I just give up. I've had it. Hold on to your two bits of information that make it seem like the X wasn't ran hard enough.

It's clear that your argument is fueled by the idea that the Evo X should never be outrun by this Cobalt.

I don't know what happened to everyone else in the thread, but they probably wised up and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Yes, the Evo X should have ran two seconds faster. And yes, the Cobalt's time was lopped off by a good 3 seconds. I agree!