Autos.com
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
Autos.com
I was searching for specs on a car, and I stumbled onto Autos.com. The specs on this site are a complete joke.. even to the point of being egregious.
0-60 times for 2006 models:
Honda S2000: 6.5s
Subaru WRX STi: 5.5s
Mitsu Lancer Evo: 5.7s
Mitsubishi Eclipse: 8.7s
"Performance" out of 5 stars:
Cars receiving 5 stars: Evo, STI, GTO, SOLSTICE
Cars receiving 4.5 stars: S2000, Dodge Viper, Corvette, Hyundai Tiburon
Wonder if anyone decided to get a Tiburon instead of that Viper they wanted because they give the same level of performance?
http://www.autos.com/autos/rankings_accele...ation&year=2006
0-60 times for 2006 models:
Honda S2000: 6.5s
Subaru WRX STi: 5.5s
Mitsu Lancer Evo: 5.7s
Mitsubishi Eclipse: 8.7s
"Performance" out of 5 stars:
Cars receiving 5 stars: Evo, STI, GTO, SOLSTICE
Cars receiving 4.5 stars: S2000, Dodge Viper, Corvette, Hyundai Tiburon
Wonder if anyone decided to get a Tiburon instead of that Viper they wanted because they give the same level of performance?
http://www.autos.com/autos/rankings_accele...ation&year=2006
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,106
Likes: 5
From: Connecticut
I actually emailed them asking where the specifications were derived from. I got a response from the VP of Publishing 
what he said in a nut shell:
formulas are based on vehicle specs, as opposed to live driving tests. The advantage of that is consistency, but the disadvantage is that some vary from widely-accepted test results, like 0-60 acceleration tests.
Ok I can live with that, but I highly doubt Honda rates the s2000 at 6.5s 0-60.
The performance calculation does involve a range of factors. The current version of the rankings also only reflect base trim, which makes for some apples-to-oranges comparisons -- especially on performance and off-road ability.
I can understand the apples to oranges comparisons, but what about cars with only one trim? This statement makes about 50% sense to me.
Anyway, he goes on to say that they too have issues with the current performance rankings, and will be changing them during a site remodeling later this year.
what he said in a nut shell:
formulas are based on vehicle specs, as opposed to live driving tests. The advantage of that is consistency, but the disadvantage is that some vary from widely-accepted test results, like 0-60 acceleration tests.
Ok I can live with that, but I highly doubt Honda rates the s2000 at 6.5s 0-60.
The performance calculation does involve a range of factors. The current version of the rankings also only reflect base trim, which makes for some apples-to-oranges comparisons -- especially on performance and off-road ability.
I can understand the apples to oranges comparisons, but what about cars with only one trim? This statement makes about 50% sense to me.
Anyway, he goes on to say that they too have issues with the current performance rankings, and will be changing them during a site remodeling later this year.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sideways
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
16
Apr 24, 2006 01:36 PM