Hey guys check this one out!

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/13065/2007-aston-martin-v8-vantage-v-2008-audi-r8-v-2007-porsche-911-turbo.html

what do you think?

I think it's a load of crap...

The 911 out acceled the R8...
Stopped consistantly shorter than the R8

The R8's ride was Quieter..Which is what I don't want from a supercar, nor an "everyday supercar"

The Porsche outhandled the R8 on the skidpad, but somehow the R8 got a faster lap time?

Their reasoning "The R8 was the most stable of the 3"
Which leads me to conclude, with a better driver or...A PORSCHE driver, the porsche would come out on top.

But..That's MY opinion

what kind of drugs were they doing when they test drove those cars?

The good ones...

The Flipity floops...

and lumber jacks..

And Cosmic Charlies

hilarious, what chemical precisely was flowing to their brain when they decided that the r8 is faster than the turbo. as for the vantage, it can't compete in any way. even the v12 vanquish would struggle to keep up with a 911 turbo. I have the stats here:
Aston Martin V8 Vantage- 0-100 in 5.0 sec
Audi R8- 0-100 in 4.4 sec
Porsche 911 Turbo- 0-100 in 3.7 sec (thats Porsche's official time, but it has been clocked apparently at 3.2 with the tiptronic transmission)
The facts speak for themselves. I will never read Car and Driver again- not that I ever did.

I've got a LOT of seat time at Willow Springs and although I've never taken a new 911 Turbo aaround it I have driven numerous Porsches there... including a couple with MORE power than the Turbo. Maybe it's the fact that I've got a lot of experience with rear engine 911's or just the fact that their 'test drivers' just can't handle a 911 but I don't have any problems with the rear end trying to pass the front. I think it's called throttle control... I don't know but I can't see the R8 getting better lap times than that Porsche. Oh well... life goes on.

I actually have a subscription to Car and Driver and I call bullshit on alot of their stuff. They routinely give random ass ratings to obviously inferior cars because they "feel faster".

Im looking for a better magazine, any suggestions ?

Well thay judged the cars not just by lap times but ride, grip, interior, exe. But not to say that the turbo was just slower period but maybe its just harder to push to its limits, or they just diden't like it as much over-all, and I'm sure it was close to.

I read road and track, and car and driver. I think their stats are wrong all the way because I watched one of their vitual test drives on the Colbalt SS. They said it did 1/4 mile in 14.4 secs. Isn't that too fast for those slow Colbalts?

I read road and track, and car and driver. I think their stats are wrong all the way because I watched one of their vitual test drives on the Colbalt SS. They said it did 1/4 mile in 14.4 secs. Isn't that too fast for those slow Colbalts?


the cobalt SS is supercharged.

^^ I know that. I'm speculating thats too fast for the Colbalt SS supercharged models.

eh 14.4 is slow anyways.

Im looking for a better magazine, any suggestions ?

Top Gear.

Seriously, the mag is a good read.

The good ones...

The Flipity floops...

and lumber jacks..

And Cosmic Charlies

wtf are those lol?

i'll hazard a guess that cosmic charlies are either ecstasy or cocaine...

as for lumber jacks, here's my guess; shrooms? :-k

flipity floops? i'm not even gonna try... no idea lol!

Cosmic Charlies = LSD Tablet that had a picture of Charlie Brown on them....

Lumber Jacks = Sleeping pills in which taken with alchohol the side effects are alertness, minor hallucination, and cold sweating.(Not to be confused with the terrible lumberjack affliction....Having to crap and puke at the same time)

And Flipity floops i just made up.

Top Gear.

Seriously, the mag is a good read.

it is very good, but i still prefer the TV programme :p

The programme is nearly all about entertainment. The magazine has a lot more interesting articles and good reviews. Whoever hasn't read one yet, you will be happy to know JC writes one or two articles in it, that's all.

If the 911 is faster and handles better how does the R8 beat it on a track? Looks like someone rigged the lap times...

The problem with car magazine comparisons is that the drivers don't spend much time with the cars. Therefore, the more forgiving, de-tuned cars that are the easiest to drive tend to get the highest scores and fastest lap times.

The cars that win these magazine comparisons are the cars that are easy to get into and drive quickly right away.

The cars that should win are the cars that, once mastered, are faster in the hands of an experienced driver. If a magazine only has a day or two to test a car, there is no way that they are going to be able to test it at its true potential.

So, all these magazines are really testing is how easy a car is to drive, not how fast it is or how rewarding it is to drive.

Top Gear.

Seriously, the mag is a good read.

I don't think so. It costs twice as much as most magazines I'm used to and half the damn thing is adds. Either way I find that Evo has more interesting articals.

I prefer Evo and Automobile the most. I don't take C&D too seriously. I remember when they had a tv show on Spike and that made it more clear about their reasoning and biases. I admit, I still read it.

Maybe Top Gear is a bit more expensive, but what magazine these days isn't filled, cover to cover, in adverts? What I like about the magazine is that you do get good reviews, but they still like to make jokes. Even though they're not as excessive as the show. I did enjoy EVO when I get my hands on it every so often. For some reason, my subscription has halted. I should maybe look into it. But I can't be arsed.

Whatever the outcome, we all know the 911 is still a true 24/7 supercar. As for mags, I strongly recommend EVO...

Maybe Top Gear is a bit more expensive, but what magazine these days isn't filled, cover to cover, in adverts? What I like about the magazine is that you do get good reviews, but they still like to make jokes. Even though they're not as excessive as the show. I did enjoy EVO when I get my hands on it every so often. For some reason, my subscription has halted. I should maybe look into it. But I can't be arsed.

I'm fine with the one add every 5 pages or so like most magazines have but the solid 40 pages of adds at the back of every Top Gear is a bit over the top. On the price thing I just realized Evo is more expensive but it has less adds in it and what I see as better articals.

I actually have a subscription to Car and Driver and I call bullshit on alot of their stuff. They routinely give random ass ratings to obviously inferior cars because they "feel faster".

Im looking for a better magazine, any suggestions ?

Evo magazine, Autoweek I like a lot, and Top Gear magazine is great too. Expensive though $$$$

EVO and CAR magazines, both from the UK are the best IMO. They always have the best reviews and most interesting articles.

So, all these magazines are really testing is how easy a car is to drive, not how fast it is or how rewarding it is to drive.Huh?


What?:confused:


Do you read the articles, notes and test results? Or do you just look at the pictures?