Ugh, I had long responses written out but just deleted them because I realized that I just don't care anymore. I don't know why I even bothered starting this thread; I just figured I'd get the community's take on a test that seems a little flawed, that's all. Instead, it turned into a typical evom thread filled with garbage. The main point that I was trying to get across is that I don't mind losing to another car that has a better power to weight ratio on a track with long straights but what bothers me is seeing data that seems to be misrepresenting the evo's handling capabilities and doesn't accurately depict the EVO for what it is. It was the wrong track to test these cars on because it's going to favor power to weight ratio rather than cornering ability and they only show the data for 1 corner to scew the interpretation that readers will have. That's the point that I was trying to get across all along.

 

I'm sorry but you need to relax, this thread isn't filled with garbage just because everybody didn't rally behind your paranoid cause. It's still filled with decent comments and is just what I would expect from Evom. If you want a site where people just proclaim the Evo to be God, I suggest you look elsewhere. If you want a site where people can have informed and rational discussions, stay and take part in them.

 

I changed what I had wrote to more accurately depict my feelings but you responded before the change. Either way, I never said the EVO was god and I have no problem with a little competition, I just think that the test is flawed and whether it be from skewed data or from only showing 1 corner to skew the interpretation of that data, or from just choosing a track that favors certain cars and not others, it just didn't seem like it was a well set up comparison and that is where the issue lies. In any case, lose the sarcasm and attitude; the way to quell an argument is not to use sarcastic and smart *** remarks. Good day.

 

No, you were suggesting car and driver of falsifying the results, as the thread is named. As the points came across, it became clear that the results were not falsified. As stated, evos do not do well on VIR. Yes, the handling does not come out here. But yes, the Cobalt SS outran both generations of evolution

edit: I agree it does not show the Evo's best side, this course never did. A tighter, shorter, smaller course would definitely distinguish these cars. But honestly I don't think there was any sort of foul play. C'mon, even my precious IX got beat

 

I NEVER SAID THAT THIS TEST WAS FRAUD WITHOUT A DOUBT, I PROPOSED IT AS 1 OF MANY POSSIBILITIES AS TO WHY THE DATA SEEMS A LITTLE FISHY. In my OP, I CLEARLY SAID THAT IT COULD BE RIGGED, IT MIGHT NOT BE, WHO KNOWS? BUT SOMETHING SMELLS FISHY. Then I opened it up for discussion to get everyone's thoughts. In the course of the discussion, I have acknowledged that maybe the EVO's strengths aren't well suited to VIR but still stick by the fact that the cornering G loads seem underrated and on other courses it pulls far more, proven. Maybe on other turns on this course it pulled more in the .99 range but since they only give data for turn 1 it's hard to know. This brings me to my last point, which was that maybe the data isn't scewed as much as the interpretation of the data is because of how it's presented.

 

So wait, you expect Car and Driver to use a track that favors the Evo because the Evo failed in this case? That's absolutely ridiculous and is equivalent to all the SRT-4 people who demand you race from a roll. No matter what, some tracks are biased towards certain features. I'm sure you'd be complaining if they used an autocross course and the new WRX kept up or beat the Evo (as it might considering it beat the SS at an autocross course).
The data is not wrong, the numbers are what the numbers are, it's that simple. There was no interpretation, it came down to which car posted the fastest time, nothing more. You can whine and moan all you want but the fact is your argument isn't that valid. You essentially want all the conditions to be right for the Evo to destroy the competition which isn't realistic or mature for that matter. There are plenty of cases of the Evo beating substantially more expensive cars yet no one suggests that the tests are flawed. The FQ-400 beat the Lambo but I rarely see anyone criticize that comparison. Even in the recent Top Gear comparison between the Evo X and the STI there was the minor problem of them using a modified Evo in the tests but of course no one raised an eyebrow because the Evo "won" the review.
There is no reason to think the test was biased/falsified. People keep on raising the issue of advertising, have you ever opened a Car and Driver? They have advertisements for Mitsubishi, Ford, Chevrolet, Honda, Subaru, Porsche, Nissan, Dodge, etc., why would they prefer one manufacturer over another when they all pay fees to advertise? Are you going to side with one person over another if they're both paying your bills? No you're damn well going to stay impartial to keep the money coming.
You keep on bringing up these cornering G numbers yet you never say where they come from. I read through the Road and Track review of the Evo X GSR and the Road and Track Ultimate Track Test (where they used an MR) and in neither case did I see this 0.99 G consistently come up. In the review, it was a 0.97 on a 200 ft skid pad. In the UTT, it bounced between a 0.87 and a 1.10. It should be noted that the 1.10 was obtained on an oval track.
If you present an argument that warrants smartass remarks, you're going to get smartass remarks.

 

It sounds like you are quite sour that the SS did better than the X in corners. Theorhetically the X is suppose to handle better, with all the mechanical advantages you have mentioned, but the extra 700lbs is a lot of weight to handle.
Skidpad figures do hint on the car's handling capability but it isn't the end of it, thats why magazines try to measure the emergency lane change speed as well. Even with that, you will not be able to completely summarize a car's handling capabilities in different size and shape of turns, along with elevations and road conditions.

There is another car that has world-class AWD system, has a lot of research done for performance, uses high-quality parts and pulls near 1.0g, yet doesn't handle too well. I'm sure you have guessed it already...


... Lamborghini Murcielago (standard or LP640 form).

And there is a FWD car that will carry more speed than the Lambo in most low to mid speed turns...




... Honda Civic Type-R.


Maybe the X in the test was a lemon, maybe the SS was a factory freak, maybe the SS was warmed up before the test, maybe the editors driving styles were more suited for the SS but not for the X, maybe it was staged, we may never know. But what we know is that the SS beat X in that shootout and theres a good chance that they were trying to keep all the conditions fair for all the cars in the shootout.

 

Oh my god, are you serious? Listen to what I'm actually saying: I never said that the magazines should choose a track that favors the evo, I'm just saying that when you have supercars in the test that are going to destroy everything else on the straights and high speed sweepers, you need to choose a track that is ballanced to show the OVERALL capabilities of all of the cars being used. This is the point of a comparison test. It has nothing to do with the evo, it's about all of the cars below the supercars. It's about choosing a track that exploits the full potential of all of the cars being tested to show how they truly compare to one another.

They should choose a track that has a balance of turns and straights rather than a lot of one and not much of the other. Second, my main point was the fact that since the rest of the cars achieved maximum grip in the corners and pulled similar G loads to thier respective skidpad tests that it seemed strange that the EVO and Lotus (2 of the most highly acclaimed cars for their handling capabilities) didn't seem to be pushed to their limits, at least not on the turn that the data was given for. If the rest of the turns had data to compare then this probably wouldn't even be a discussion.

Anyway, I acknowledge that the possibility of car and driver taking a bribe is pretty ridiculous, but I do think that magazines tend to sway to one side sometimes and it does raise questions. In any case, if you stop putting words in my mouth and making sarcastic comments you'll see that my points are in fact quite valid, even if you disagree with them.

 

I don't know where you got the cobalt beating the evo in the turns from, but that never happened and was never in question. The cobalt beat the X in the straights, not the turns. The issue was whether or not the EVO was pushed to it's limits in this test because the G load achieved in corner number 1 doesn't match up with what the car is capable of putting down. It has nothing to do with skidpad tests, as they have been backed up in other tests on road courses. It's about the fact that they only give data on one turn and it leaves too much in question.

 

Was there a sale on tin-foil hats at Wal-Mart?

 

Interesting, I see what you're saying. However, even if it were true that the driver was sandbagging, how much faster do you honestly think it should have gone? It was already .2 seconds faster than the IX MR, and no matter how much reasonable decrease in time you give it, it will still be very close to the cobalt. Don't you think this theory could tie in with your assumption that the Evo X SHOULD be faster (superior)?

 

we just did sunday although it was no passing zone / free track day/, it was more then obvious the SS with those drivers cant compete against any evo, with they drivers. OR the SS is not what it suppose to be.

 

Notice its all teh Evo IX's guys who are defending the SS?
There just hateing, thats all. Where are the O.G. VIII haters at?

 

Considering 99% of track performance is driver related, I can't fathom why people care so much about a few fractions of a second by professional drivers.

 

The numbers do look screwy, but since they used an MR it's hard to directly compare. From the last track day I had at Watkins Glen where both HP and handling are needed to navigate the track, I can tell you that even my friend in his brand new stock Evo X was moving around the track at a brisk pace.

Where these cars really shine is once they are tweaked with some well placed mods. I had more brakes thanks to the excellent Raybestos pads that were recommended by Girodisc and I was out braking everything in my run group besides maybe a Z06 on slicks. When it came to power, even running lower 23 psi of boost at the low to mid range I managed 140 mph on the back straight which amazed me. Static handling through the turns was also quite good considering the stock tires and only slightly modded suspension and I was only marginally better than my friend's Evo X in that category.

Overall a GT3 was able to keep pace with me and the Z06 on slicks was passing everyone due to 500 HP and insane traction, besides that I was blowing past every single other car out there it was almost like cheating. Now granted this was just a track day lapping event but it was very easy to keep this car moving around the track safely within limits with the tires singing but not over driven. I would be very amazed if a Cobalt SS could keep pace with my friend's Stock Evo X and once you look at future potential after mods the gap opens wider. Without testing two nearly identically prepared cars I guess there will be far too many variables but those skidpad numbers don't add up just as the OP stated.