I fully understand what you are saying. All im saying is, it sucks. But thats a good thing about comparisons, since their all tested at the same time, the results are fair.

 

Except in this case...no way the TL-S is the slowest of that group. No way.

 

Why would there be an exception when a TL-S is slowest and not be an exception when other cars are slower?

 

Because I've never seen another comparo where the TL-S is slowest, that's why. And the TL-S should be faster than a couple of the cars. If the BMW or Infiniti were slowest I woulda been surprised as well. I assume C&D got a bad TL-S.

 

That just show there's so many variables when they do this test that it's hard to be fair. I find magazine comparison test not very useful except to have something to debate about. Maybe the TL-S is slowest because the driver who driven the TL-S can't drive or maybe it got too hot when the TL-S did the 1/4 mile. There's just too many variables. Just w/ C&D when they did the review of the G35, the braking distant is 162 but in the comparo, it's 172ish, that's a whole 10 feet longer.

 

C&D is different and they do it from 70mph anyways.

 

C&D is different? both the test and comparo are by C&D. I don't get your argument.

 

I was in a hurry when I type that.

I meant, they do their braking test from 70mph, while most other do it from 60mph.

That makes like a 50ft or so difference.

 

I agree with you. I'm just saying the two # i put up, the 162ft and the 172ft, are both tested by C&D.

 

And I agree with you too. But why are we bickering? Who cares.

If I had 35k, I'd buy a BMW. I dont care about heated this and that. Only extras I need are A/C and a cd player.