0-60 or 1/4 mile times anyone?

[dmitrik4]

you also get a much, much smoother and more refined engine (and gearbox, IIRC) with the 2.3. that's my only real compaint about my protege...the engine is ROUGH.

the 2.3L would be worth it to me if were in the market.

 

[SCDZ]

I have been following this thread with interest, hoping that someone in the forum would provide a plausible explanation for the differences in the 0-60 times between the AJAC Canadian testfest and the other recorded times (eg Caranddriver). I find it hard to believe that the driver could account for the 1.5 second differential. I am also curious as to why the 2.3 litre Mz3 0-60 times are 0.2 of a second slower than the 2.0 Litre times.

 

[jjac28]

as fas as i know ajac has always been posting slow times.
i think they need to explain how exactly they test the acceleration
of the cars

 

[Excitmnt94]

could be poor conditions as well...poor traction...poor drivers...slight uphill grade of usual test site...not driving it like they stole it...high altitude might have something to do with it also.

 

[SCDZ]

Thanks. I expect the true 0-60 times will be somewhere between the two. The environmental conditions still dont account for the faster time recorded with the 2.0 litre as oppossed tothe 2.3 litre. Given the power to weight ratios I would expect the 2.3 to be at least a second faster. Does anyone have a theory on the times.

 

[Excitmnt94]

all right...i've got an inside source on this debate...so we can finally put it to rest. turns out they let their usual monkeys test the 2.0L. the mutant monkeys tested the 2.3L. the mutation was actually a third arm...and this extra arm isn't fully functional...and this is the arm the mutant monkeys used to try to throw the stick through the gates. due to this fact...they got through the gears even slower than the regular monkeys did. i think that should do it.

 

[dmitrik4]

Thanks. I expect the true 0-60 times will be somewhere between the two. The environmental conditions still dont account for the faster time recorded with the 2.0 litre as oppossed tothe 2.3 litre. Given the power to weight ratios I would expect the 2.3 to be at least a second faster. Does anyone have a theory on the times.

sometimes they don't actually test them on the same day or in the sam location, despite what the story and pics lead you to believe. also, maybe they got a poorly-running 2.3. who knows...i wouodn' worry about it too much. there has to be some explanation.