I think slower, but I wouldn't stake anything on it. R&T is the most consistent I've noticed, since they post weather conditions and everything.

 

I think its kind of silly to see big variances on the same product, becuase that pretty much misinforms the consumer.

 

This is why I never choose one publication...each is biased in their own way, although some are better than others.

 

I can stand magazines, but crap like consumers reports and J.D. Powers pissses me off.

 

Yeah that is true...and everyone hypes up the JD Powers awards

 

I love how Buick brags of their "Initial Quality" awards by JD Powers...all that is is a sucker thing. Suckers get drawn in because of the initial quality but within a year it's falling apart and everything is worn. Nobody puts stock in initial quality, it is in fact very misleading (such as Saabs, as they have had very good initial quality for years)...but GM doesn't get it. Or rather their buyers don't.

CR sucks. Period. End of story.

Yianni, testing variations come from the vehicles, the temperatures, the humidity, and the elevation. It really isn't a bias thing.

 

I know that, I was just saying that its silly to see such bigvariances. I've seen 0-60 times vary by more than a second, that just crazy.

 

95 degrees F with a dewpoint of 80 degrees F at an elevation of 3,000 feet will yield more than a second off of 0-60 times tested at sea level with low temp and dewpoint. Unless it is FI.

 

Yup, so they shouldnt test at places like that.

 

You should know as well as I do that sometimes it is unavoidable. And which one are we avoiding? The hot and humid day or the cool and dry day? See what I mean? The problem is this country has such a vast climate, and the auto publications are spread out arouind the country.