They took a bunch of cars that cost $25,000-$30,000 and had a bunch of fun. My new dream, be a test/editor for a major automotive magazine.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12238/the-quickest-cars-of-2007-25000-to-30000.html

i find it interesting that the automatic equip. sky redline and solstice gxp were faster then the manual. The automatic is really nothing special but i guess its not that easy to launch with the manual...which is interesting.

Wow, I'm sort of surprised that the Solstice/Skys are that quick. I really haven't read anything on them but I figured a 4 cyl car with huge wheels like that wouldn't be too quick. Atleast not quicker than a MazdaSpeed6, 350z or Impala SS.

it doesn't weigh much and it's small. 10 pounds per horsepower is not bad at all. Not too sure how the automatic is quicker than the manual though!

I never understood getting rid of your radio to save weight. The EVO is a kickass car, but that 'weightstripped' version makes me sick. Way to go losing a 5 pound carbon fiber wing that makes the car look cool and a 5 pound radio. retards.

I'll take the stang GT from that bunch!

Im suprised an STI wasnt in the mix

That evo allways impress me, it's horrible but damn its fast!

Im suprised an STI wasnt in the mix

STI costs more than the $30k price tag for this comparison.

rwd, 3000lbs and 260hp/tq will do that.

it doesn't weigh much and it's small. 10 pounds per horsepower is not bad at all. Not too sure how the automatic is quicker than the manual though!



Go drive a Solstice, the manual in my Ranger shifts easier than the box in the Solstice. Boo-urns.

STI costs more than the $30k price tag for this comparison.

Usually the Evo does too. Looks like they used the cheaper one in the test.

Evo MR, under $30k. Think it is missing some standard options such as A/C, rear wing. Supposed to be lighter.

it's missing a radio, too.

Eh, youll be singing to the song of Turbo. PSSSSS (turbo spooling), psh psh psh (BOV) (in case you needed the lyrics lol)

bzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ PSHEW!! sing along!

Auto vs Manual.........makes you think

The 2007 Chevrolet Impala SS is faster then a 350? Holly hell! Talk about a sleeper looking car.

I know it's ridiculous

too bad noone buys impala's lol

I really like this model year for the Impala:

http://rick.stavanja.com/images/content/1996impalass.jpg

all about the benjamins babbyy

me too - im talking about the new ones

yah..i agree. The new one's are crrrrrep

i hate car n driver bunch of tree huggin [:)][:)][:)][:)]ies

i hate car n driver bunch of tree huggin [:)][:)][:)][:)]ies

Car&Driver is without a doubt, hands down, the best auto magazine ever published.

Period.

Over the decades, their 1/4 mile times matched the 1/4 mile times of all my stock 'Stangs when I raced them at the track (while the "other" mags were off by 1/2 sec. or more).

And I'm not sure what "tree hugging" has to do with their ability to test/drive automobiles (I'm a stout Conservative myself, who personally disdains the limp wristed tree huggers).

I am a big fan of CandD and R&T. both great magazines. Autoweek is worthless, I am pissed I subscribed to them. Motortrend is bland. Automobile mag for me is between CandD and R&T, but its starting to equal them in quality.

I think the impala looks plain, just by the looks I would call it a grampa car. But I guess there is monster under the hood. LOL

so was the mercury marauder- and you can see how many they sold of those-

yeah c/d and r/t are the best car magazines by far i have subscribed to all of them since i was like 10 years old- motortrend is average and automobile is going down the drain quickly since they changed their format and have basically no info pages with times and numbers on any reviews now- wtf is up with that

R/T is my favorite. Never been a HUGE fan of c/d but I respect them.

I think C/D tends to be a little more legit when it comes to track times. Some of these magazines put the GT stang at sub 5 seconds from 0 to 60...other's put it at 5.5 to 60. I dunno who to believe..so I go off who has the most captivating article's, most creativity in writing and pictures and sweetest cars...that's why I choose R/T FTW.

I dun like any Impala's except that mid '90's SS model. The one that Bookum (Ice cuuube) drives. I saw Ice cube in Hollywood but he was driving a BMW 645..not an Impala.

I dont think there drivers were all that great! i know of a couple people that have some of those carrs listed that get better track times than that. Heck i have a friend with a 98 Mustang Gt and he does the quarter in 14.3 and that Z is only doing it in 14.2?? i would think that they could get better than that. Heck my buddy kinda sucks off the line and is getting low 14s with only 240 horse. I think they used some bad drivers on that test. AUto beating a manual doesnt sound quite right to me.

R/T is my favorite. Never been a HUGE fan of c/d but I respect them.

I think C/D tends to be a little more legit when it comes to track times. Some of these magazines put the GT stang at sub 5 seconds from 0 to 60...other's put it at 5.5 to 60. I dunno who to believe..so I go off who has the most captivating article's, most creativity in writing and pictures and sweetest cars...that's why I choose R/T FTW.

I dun like any Impala's except that mid '90's SS model. The one that Bookum (Ice cuuube) drives. I saw Ice cube in Hollywood but he was driving a BMW 645..not an Impala.

i would say the stock gt would be around 5.5 -no way its under 5

I dont think there drivers were all that great! i know of a couple people that have some of those carrs listed that get better track times than that. Heck i have a friend with a 98 Mustang Gt and he does the quarter in 14.3 and that Z is only doing it in 14.2?? i would think that they could get better than that. Heck my buddy kinda sucks off the line and is getting low 14s with only 240 horse. I think they used some bad drivers on that test. AUto beating a manual doesnt sound quite right to me.

Lets take it easy on the editors and magazine test drivers. I am only quoting you AK to make a point on something I think we forget or just ignore.

These guys get the cars for a few days. Maybe a week. But my point is how long have your friends been driving their cars? These editors/drivers get a limited amount of time with the test cars. In addition, they are factory fresh and not even broken in. One more thing to consider is the testing conditions. It can take a few days, weeks, or months for a car to set in and for any driver to discover the best launch rpm, shift rpm, and so forth. x2 on a brand new car with only a few hundred or thousand miles.

I'll use Road and Tracks test data for the Mazdaspeed 3. I love how they do PDFs that we can look at. When I saw the results of a 14.3 quarter mile, I was like my JRSC/BBK kit can take them. But when I looked at the 97 degree, 27% humidity, and 357ft elevation test conditions listed in the PDF, then its a completely different story. My times are in my signature, and that was my first time down the strip ever. I ran on a nice 45 degree day with no humidity. Bottom line, the MS3 is a sub 14 car in my weather condition and with someone who has had the car for more than a few hours, days, or weeks. http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/mazdaspeed3.pdf

I chose not to rip on them and just remain jealous about the oppurtunities they get, to drive some amazing cars to the limits, THE BEST THAT THEY CAN in those few days.