C&D 0-150-0 MPH Test for 2023
 

Very interesting results, which, to no surprise, the EVs seem to have won. But look at the Blackwing and the 911 Turbo!
Honorable mention, Hyundai Elantra N. Just wish they still made it into a hatchback.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...eed-test-2023/

The problem with the blackwing imo is the complexity of its drive train, especially the cooling system. All necessary to support the performance level of the vehicle but complex and costly nonetheless. I still give gm credit for having the balls to produce it when they're supposed to be building neutered woke wagons.

Disappointing that the GRC couldn't be included (I have no idea why Toyota limits it's top speed) although I'm quite sure it would have come in last (or just ahead of the Elantra?)

Still wish I could justify one.

On the one hand, it's pretty wild that the modern Z06 barely managed to squeak out a win over the Lingenfelter ZR1 from 25 years ago (though it probably would've performed better on the better surface the Lingenfelter had).

On the other hand, ten out of twelve of these stock vehicles are competitive against the highly modified cars in the first test back in '98. Not only that but had there been a track excursion (something far less likely thanks to "nannies"), one would have a much better chance surviving it today. And they're all competitive against the stock vehicles C&D tested too. It's a good reminder that for all the complaints about modern cars - it's tough to argue the results.

The Elantra N continues to impress as well. The cheapest stock car in '98 C&D tested was the Camaro SS which sold for almost $52k in today's dollars.

Valid points overall, but I greatly disagree on the bolded part. One of the largest complaints today is that cars are just about the numbers. And that's specifically highlighted in your analysis. Cars stopped being "fast enough" to have a riot years ago. Now they're insanely/unusably fast but also more disconnected, heavier and less involving. Today's arguments are almost entirely focused on that (well that and ugly styling ruined by mpg and crash regulations).

Streamed Motortrend last month and spent enough time to get a handle on the most Murican motor shows in the wurld.
Almost exclusively drag racing in a straight line, swap in a bigger motor, blower, turbo and NOS "YEEEAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

Only shows that had anything that went around a right hand corner were super luxury supercars in the Alps.

Only things I could really appreciate were Roadkill horking cars off a cliff and the Ed China show.
Stopped the sub and it expired today.

The problem with Motortrend+ shows is it's like Hallmark Christmas Movies, completely predictable and very little relationship with the real world.

All the build shows are the same, find a car, drama getting to an unrealistic deadline that has no relationship to fact, a lot of yelling at each other and then, miraculously, a beautiful car rolls out the door that likely didn't last past the first 100 miles.

There are a few exceptions but not nearly enough for me to keep up a subscription. Like you did, I'll do a free trial or maybe pay for a month or two maybe once a year, then cancel. The only two shows they have that were worth the subscription (Chasing Classic Cars, and Top Gear America) don't seem to be a real priority for them. Everything else is junk.

We need to get Kei cars legalized here rather than making it illegal to drive anything under 4 tons.

^ We'll need bigger sidewalks

The only recent car building show I could actually watch was Wheeler Dealers.

I did enjoy Monster Garage back in the day though lol.

Wheeler Dealers is good because at least it seems practical to do. Of course, those guys aren't really living off their flips so much as the revenue from the show.

What's the point of this particular test?
It seems even more useless than 0-60.

Seems like a braking test to me.

The faster you can go, the faster you need to stop?

Better brakes on the track mean faster lap times?