Journalistic Integrity

[Maser Sod]

I was reading a recent EVO group test which covered a range of sports coupes in the 30-55K bracket.

(If you haven't seen it, there is a scan at: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?p=1067057085 )

The 4C is in there, which is why I read it, and although the review of the car wasn't especially positive it certainly isn't too different to most reviews of the test model.

What really shocked me in the article, though, was the comparison of the Porsche Cayman and the Exige S. In particular, the timed lap of the Anglesey Coastal track.

According to EVO, the standard Cayman weighs in at 1330 kilos, makes 271 hp, boasts a power to weight ratio of 207hp/ton, and reaches 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.

The Exige S, arguably a more track-oriented car, is 150 kilos lighter, has a whopping 74 more horses, power to weight of nearly 300 hp/ton, and is nearly two seconds - yes two seconds - quicker from 0-60.

So ... how the **** does the Cayman beat the Exige around the track in the group test?!?

 

[Contigo]

Great chassis, good brakes and typical German precision engineering at a guess. Anglesey is very twisty and demanding so power means less.

 

[Contigo]

Oh and they say the car had newer rear tyres than front which upset the balance, had it been rubbered right it would have won.

 

[safrane]

Simple EVO love the Porkers and also they pay for more advertising.

 

[Maser Sod]

I saw another online review recently, it may have been a 4C vs a Cayman on the track (can't remember), but what I do remember is the dash showing that one of the cars had a fully laden fuel tank and the other was near empty!!!

I don't know whether it is incompetence or intentional bias in these 'reviews'.

 

[c4sman]

I was reading a recent EVO group test which covered a range of sports coupes in the 30-55K bracket.

(If you haven't seen it, there is a scan at: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?p=1067057085 )

The 4C is in there, which is why I read it, and although the review of the car wasn't especially positive it certainly isn't too different to most reviews of the test model.

What really shocked me in the article, though, was the comparison of the Porsche Cayman and the Exige S. In particular, the timed lap of the Anglesey Coastal track.
track
According to EVO, the standard Cayman weighs in at 1330 kilos, makes 271 hp, boasts a power to weight ratio of 207hp/ton, and reaches 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.

The Exige S, arguably a more track-oriented car, is 150 kilos lighter, has a whopping 74 more horses, power to weight of nearly 300 hp/ton, and is nearly two seconds - yes two seconds - quicker from 0-60.

So ... how the **** does the Cayman beat the Exige around the track in the group test?!?

It may not be a complete conspiracy. Firstly, if these guys got found out rigging their track tests the implications would be catastrophic for their business and individual journalist reputations so I really don't think they would take what would be a huge risk.

The second thing is for those of you who used to watch top gear there was a test between what was then the new AMV8 Vantage 380BHP, the 501BHP M6 and a humble 350BHP 911 Carrera S all timed on the same stretch of the TT circuit, on the same day, with the same driver (the Stig). The 911 when fastest by a huge margin (6 seconds over a 90 second circuit), and there is no way that Clarkson would allow a test to be rigged in favour of a porker as he hates them.

Clip should be here http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/1859681019

So Porsche's do make the most of their often lower power figures.

 

[Maser Sod]

I would fully expect a Carrera S to humble an M6 as the latter is a very heavy saloon.

But an Exige S is a very powerful, light, track-oriented car.

Hats off to Porsche if the entry level Cayman really is a match for the Lotus.

 

[BJL]

Cancelled my subscription of 'Veto' as it has become a Porsche sales brochure. Now just get Auto Italia and Octane

 

[c4sman]

copied from another forum but sounds legit from the owner of the lotus in question

"This from a Lotus forum the owner posts on -

'nothing but praise for it really with the only fly in the ointment being that I didn't switch out the front tyres at the same time as the rears (puncture forced me to change them prematurely before the test).
I am surprised that the "standard" base spec Cayman was so quick but it was well suited to anglesey where the lotus would definitely benefit from a limited slip diff. Couple that to the fact I was in the passenger seat for the timed laps in the exige (I'm at least 20kg's heavier than Dan) and I guess that's why unfortunately it didn't come out on top. Guess you can only blame me for that one. At the time he did say he thought it was the fastest but upon review looks like the porsche just pipped it.'

 

[Maser Sod]

Given all the variables, I wonder why EVO even bothered to post the times!

 

[alfatwo]

It's all total tosh anyway..I haven't driven a Alfa 4C..But after driving a Porsch Cayman around Mallory Park there so brutally quick, yet you could take your mum to the shops in it..there so easy

I don't think you'd be doing that in the Fiat/Alfa plastic fantastic!

Dave

 

[Classico]

Never based my thoughts on what motoring journalists may "factually" write or think.

If that were the case, definitely wouldn't be driving Italian now.

The only opinion that matters is your own.

 

[davy83]

Never based my thoughts on what motoring journalists may "factually" write or think.

If that were the case, definitely wouldn't be driving Italian now.

The only opinion that matters is your own.

Exactly! My thoughts too, i do read a lot of the reviews but i always have a drive in any car i would consider buying and make up my own mind. We all have different expectations too, so i think all of this is subjective anyway.

I am certain that all reviews contain an element of bias because the person doing the review has an opinion! As for rigging tests I don't actually think this would happen, after all they can just write down what they want anyway we would never know, so biased reviews - yes always, rigging tests to make one car look better, no need.

 

[c4sman]

Never based my thoughts on what motoring journalists may "factually" write or think.

If that were the case, definitely wouldn't be driving Italian now.

The only opinion that matters is your own.

Agree with this. It is all down to personal taste.

Recently after reading amazing reviews from Chris Harris about a Golf Mk7 R I went to test drive one a few months ago. Fast but incredibly dull even with its fake engine sound generator. I used to have a manual MK5 Golf R32 with the V6 and had a go in another one this weekend and absolutely loved it. Not that quick, average but very grippy handling, but full of character due to almost Italian like engine note and feel of a small car with a huge engine. Chris Harris hates them, but I would have another in a heartbeat if I could justify another car.