Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Last 24 Hours Clear All
  • Batman's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:01 PM
    In a performance oriented sports or track car, what is the point of innovation and unique parts if it doesn’t improve performance over your competitors or closest rival? If you’re going to innovate and you have 7 years to do so, you make damn sure you dominate the competition. No excuses! Prior to this comparison test, I was all in on the Mustang, despite it costing almost $20,000 more. I still wish it was offered with a manual transmission but I was willing to overlook that fact. In my opinion, the CFTP is a joke considering the performance to dollar benefit. When you analyze the details of the CFTP, part of the improved performance over the non-CFTP Mustang is attributed to the Michelin Pilot Cup Sport 2 tires and rear seat delete. The non-CFTP Mustang has a back seat and runs Michelin Pilot 4S tires. If the non-CFTP ran the same Michelin Pilot Cup Sport 2 tires, I believe the performance difference would be less. Wait a minute. We’re looking at a comparison test of two track monsters duking it out against each other to determine which car offers the ultimate performance, and you’re more concerned about the Mustang having a “Cadillac” ride compared to the Camaro??? Yeah. Right. Got it!
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • Batman's Avatar
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • richpike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:47 PM
    I tend to like Carwow - they get a lot of fun cars. But I do agree that their testing could be better, especially the stupid kick down. -Rich
    3 replies | 284 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 PM
    No it isn't. Sometimes they start in the right gear, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they do kickdowns, sometimes they don't. It's all over the place and a mess. Non-prepped is fine but finding the dustiest area (what, they don't have brooms?) to exaggerate is nonsense. And why they didn't use the C4S. It isn't like Porsche doesn't have AWD. When you go to ATCO you expect to drag race. When they line up these two cars, they are drag racing. Notice how they immediately thought to heat the tires? Well, why didn't they edit out the first race then and say when the Porsche wasn't prepped the tires spun? They intentionally left the race in where the Porsche loses and set the title intentionally to 'shocking' for clicks. This is deceptive and done on purpose. Even without launch control 0-60 is in the low 3's. I've launched these cars plenty of times on the street. I've never spun like that with more torque when I was trying to launch. The rear weight bias is incredible. Even when actually spinning on the dragstrip I still ran an 11.6. They were trying to make it as bad as possible for their sensational title. The Porsche traps 12 miles per hour higher. It only took that long because they had it out of boost. The damn car hits 45 in first gear. I've been in gear waiting for a P100D at speed. Took me no time at all to pass and that thing is much faster than the Model 3. Porsche is higher commission but much lower volume.
    3 replies | 284 view(s)
  • Batman's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:12 PM
    The CFTP improves performance. In my opinion, they could have used cheaper materials on the Carbon Fiber wheels then used the savings to put wider wheels or tires on the car.
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • Bowser330's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:00 PM
    In regards to the 992 slipping, Carwow is consistent in its testing, always using a non-prepped surface, it is what it is and is why as you pointed out the awd car has the advantage. Surely you’ve heard of no-prep racing which is supposed to simulate real world roadway conditions and be closer to street racing as opposed to track racing on a scraped washed dried and re-gripped (prepped) surface. Racing times on different surfaces can’t really be compared right? This site regularly points out the difference between drag racing tracks like ATCO surely we can expect no-prep to be different than prep. I think all the video shows in one example is that a 992 carrera s could lose to a model 3 performance without launch control on a prepped surface or without being in the optimal gear and performance mode for the starting speed. They claimed the Tesla won even after the Porsche pulled past it because the roll race was to 110mph for the point, then they extended the test to see at what speed the Porsche would pull past it. 126mph when the Porsche started in 2nd gear at 30mph. I agree I think the speed was too low. They should have tested it at different starting speeds and gears to see how much a difference it makes, that would have been informative and more interesting. On another note.... how does carwow make money besides views and ads on YouTube? I think they also get commission for selling cars, affiliate marketing. I would expect a Porsche sale to make them more income than a model 3 sale, no?
    3 replies | 284 view(s)
  • Sticky2's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:54 PM
    You know he's a pedophile and general lunatic, right? Dude is wayyyy off his rocker. If you haven't seen this gem:
    5563 replies | 1750905 view(s)
  • richpike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:43 PM
    Sadly, too many people listen to idiots like this and aren’t knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions. The only positive on this is this guy followed his own advice. -Rich
    5563 replies | 1750905 view(s)
  • richpike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:39 PM
    If you don’t understand why the Camaro wins from a dig, I’m not sure I can help you. Skid pad and braking (and traction from a dig) are largely driven by tires (and weight). The Camaro apparently rides like shit which is likely helping it in the skid pad too. In the end, let’s see them around a track. And from a roll. And with equal tires from a dig. My money is on the GT500 in all those instances. And that 7-years they spent developing a bunch of unique parts and innovating. Chevy was clearly spending their money on the C8 (which is innovative for sure). -Rich
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • Batman's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:22 PM
    Whether it be a Parts Bin Special or having a unique engine, isn't it still about performance? And as much as we hate to admit it, price and cost is part of the equation. Performance per dollar. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please feel free to check out the 2020 Nissan GTR Nismo. It has unique materials and a unique engine, and only costs $213,000+ and offers equivalent or worse performance than the Camaro or Mustang. Despite the $18,500 CFTP on the Mustang that includes carbon fiber wheels (exotic "unique" materials), the Camaro is still accelerating better from a dig, is pulling more Gs on the skid pad, and braking better! The shocking thing here is that the Camaro is doing all this with it's parts bin special. Ford had 7 years to develop and build the Mustang. Did Ford forget to benchmark the Camaro (it's main rival) against the Mustang during development? Ford had time to develop this Mustang. There is absolutely no excuse on why the Camaro should perform this well against the Mustang.
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • quattr0's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:33 PM
    $224 better be good lol Not a big fan of Shiraz but this is good.
    1455 replies | 430055 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:43 PM
    Finally got on the list for Quilceda Creek after I don't know how many years. Ordered the 2017: It's pretty good stuff: Vintage Wine Advocate Issue Date Reviewer 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 98 #154, Aug 2004 P. Rovani 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 100 #164, Apr 2006 P. Rovani 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 100 #164, Apr 2006 P. Rovani 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 #172, Aug 2007 J. Miller 2005 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 100 #177, Jun 2008 J. Miller 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 #185, Oct 2009 J. Miller 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 100 #190, Aug 2010 J. Miller 2008 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 #196, Aug 2011 J. Miller 2009 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 #207, Jun 2013 J. Dunnuck 2010 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 98+ #207, Jun 2013 J. Dunnuck 2011 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 96 #213, Jun 2014 J. Dunnuck 2012 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 98 #219, Jun 2015 J. Dunnuck 2013 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 #225, Jun 2016 J. Dunnuck 2014 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 100 #231, Jun 2017 J. Dunnuck Vintage JebDunnuck.com Issue Date Reviewer 2015 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 99 April 2018 J. Dunnuck 2016 Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley 98+ April 2019 J. Dunnuck This represents an average score of 98.9 points over 16 vintages, with three different reviewers.
    1455 replies | 430055 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • richpike's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:15 PM
    The camaro won because it’s a parts-bin special that allows them to price it $20k below the Mustang. Parts bin engine, transmission, etc. Not saying they aren’t good parts (on an excellent chassis), but it’s a bean counter’s car first. The Mustang has a unique engine (yes, leveraged from the voodoo, itself a unique engine), unique transmission (on par with Porsche’s), carbon fiber wheels, etc. It’s much more special. For me, the $20k premium is a no brainer. C&D is just trying to remain relevant with a “shocking” winner. -Rich
    11 replies | 210 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:15 PM
    Welcome AWDFanatic, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 98 view(s)
More Activity