Bamm1 Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Motortrend 2020 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0T AWD 3714 lbs. 0-60: 6.9 sec ¼ Mile: 15.3 sec @ 89.3 mph Skidpad: 0.76g Car and Driver 2020 Ford Escape Titanium 2.0T AWD 3731 lbs. 0-60: 5.7 sec ¼ Mile: 14.3 sec @ 96 mph Skidpad: 0.85g So C&D got a 17 lb. heavier ’20 Titanium AWD to 60 1.2 sec faster, through the ¼ mile 1 sec faster (with a 6.7mph higher trap speed) that pulls almost 0.1 g more on the skidpad? I am dumbfounded! MT usually posts less quick results when testing "like vs like" vs. C&D. But this is like they tested COMPLETELY different vehicles. It also doesn’t help that C&D’s numbers border on wow and the MT numbers are just disappointing. References https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/escape/2020/2020-ford-escape-first-test-review-cr-v-fighter https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a29077713/2020-ford-escape-drive/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Different days tested, different tracks, altitude, and drivers all play a part. The difference in weight could be just the gas load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLPRacing Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 Maybe C&D used 93 octane & sport mode whereas MT may have used 87 octane, eco mode & a parachute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamm1 Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 On 10/25/2019 at 3:28 PM, coupe3w said: Different days tested, different tracks, altitude, and drivers all play a part. The difference in weight could be just the gas load. I have been comparing instrumented test results between the two publications for more time than I will admit. I think the weight is a wash. My reference to it was more of a "wow, it was SO much quicker and look, it was even heavier." All of the variables you listed do play some part in generating different results when testing "like vs like." But the vast majority of the time the results are very close. Maybe a few tenths/mph difference (half a second max). This is by far and away the largest difference I can recall. Its as if MT tested a 2019 and C&D tested a 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fbov Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 On 10/25/2019 at 2:39 PM, Bamm1 said: It also doesn’t help that C&D’s numbers border on wow and the MT numbers are just disappointing. No one's mentioned tires. You think perhaps MT tested cars with different rubber than C&D? The review pictures show both got one with Bridgestone Ecopias, but C&D also had Continental CrossContact TX while MT's other car had Michelin Primacy. From what I've read, MT's skipad numbers would be really good for Ecopias. Add less traction to MT's history of "testing slow" and the numbers could all be real results from well-intentioned test technicians Have fun, Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeHTally Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 My Mazda Speed3 was like that. C&D got a 0-60 of 5.4 ish, as I recall, with a top end of 152. The "official" 0-60 was mid 6s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.