Quickest Cars of 2007 : $20,000-$25,000

[LonghornTX]

It's one thing to have additional content that pertains to a printed article on the website, such as additional photos or C&D's comparison bar graphs, and directing people to the site to view it.  It's another to have entire articles published online without any mention of them in the printed magazine.  I had no clue C&D had done any sort of review or writeup on the 5-Door GTI up until one day when I was searching for a 0-60 time on the GTI and I saw the article come up in the search engine.  Wondering if I had perhaps overlooked the printed article, I went to my magazines and checked the issue from the month that the article was published and it wasn't in the printed issue.  I also hadn't heard about this quickest cars piece up until somebody posted about it on the forum.  It's not mentioned in the printed magazines at all. 

Seems like an attempt to get more people to their website.  In addition to posting additional info about printed articles, they also come up with exclusive stuff (like this cr*p) so that people will have some reason to visit.  Though, not publishing that fact seems kinda strange.

I still like C&D alot, but some of their changes are not desirable to me.

[Vinsanity]

Reason #329 to hate Camries.


Love the new sig, Vin.

LOL thanks

although I don't follow why being the 2nd fastest to 60 under $25k is a reason to hate the Camry

[ro51092]

WRX

[Soup DeVille]

You know, this is making it truly hard to build a car that will embarass people! In 2001, I used to be able to walk people all the time in the S2000: Today I'd have a good chance of having my ass handed to me by a bone stock Camry.

When I started collecting parts to rebuild the 425 in my Caddy, I figured a good clean running 400 HP mill would be plenty of go-power for anything I wanted it for. If this trend continues, I'm going to have to scrap the pump gas 425 completely and build up a 500 to run on alky.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You know, this is making it truly hard to build a car that will embarass people! In 2001, I used to be able to walk people all the time in the S2000: Today I'd have a good chance of having my ass handed to me by a bone stock Camry.

When I started collecting parts to rebuild the 425 in my Caddy, I figured a good clean running 400 HP mill would be plenty of go-power for anything I wanted it for. If this trend continues, I'm going to have to scrap the pump gas 425 completely and build up a 500 to run on alky.

I agree, that is a serious problem now. Today's slow cars are faster than the fast cars of 20 years ago. I don't want to think that I put all this work into a ~280hp truck that won't even be able to keep up with gradma in her new Camry. I don't think it's actually hit me yet, that a stock v-6 Camry can to 0-60 in < 6 seconds. 

[Raza]

I agree, that is a serious problem now. Today's slow cars are faster than the fast cars of 20 years ago. I don't want to think that I put all this work into a ~280hp truck that won't even be able to keep up with gradma in her new Camry. I don't think it's actually hit me yet, that a stock v-6 Camry can to 0-60 in < 6 seconds. 

Seriously though, some of these numbers sound unrealistic.  GTI in 6 seconds?  It's a quick car, but not that quick; most 0-60s will place it between 6.5 and 6.7 seconds.  That's half a second quicker, at least.  I don't think the Camry is that fast, either.  Power to weight seems reasonable, but anyone who has pushed a high power FWD car (like you, perhaps) knows that launching isn't that easy.  Also, why is the WRX so slow?  5.6 seems pretty high, compared to the rest of the cars, when compared to its claimed 5.4.

You don't even have to go back 20 years.  A B5 S4, C43 AMG, and E36 M3 would all be worried by a drag race with a Camry. 

[FordSVT]

I'm curious to know how they managed to screw up a 0-60 run so bad in the Mazdaspeed 3 that a Camry outran it. The Mazda has a better HP/weight ratio and is faster in most magazine tests than any numbers I've seen for the Camry. Or is it just much more difficult to launch compared to the automatic Camry?
-FordSVT-

[JYODER240]

This test is so pointless its actually making me mad. Who cares about 0-60 times, if anything a 5-60 time is more important. A 0-60 time is such a small factor in a cars overall performance. I liked C&D's idea of the Lightning Lap where they run cars at VIR. This test is nearly useless.

[MX793]

I'm curious to know how they managed to screw up a 0-60 run so bad in the Mazdaspeed 3 that a Camry outran it. The Mazda has a better HP/weight ratio and is faster in most magazine tests than any numbers I've seen for the Camry. Or is it just much more difficult to launch compared to the automatic Camry?
-FordSVT-

The MS3 is supposedly really hard to launch.  Also, the engine computer cuts power in the first two gears to keep wheelspin and torque steer in check (and there are still wheelspin issues).

And the MS3 and Camry actually tied in 0-60.  The Camry was a 10th quicker in the 1/4 mile (but same trap speed).  The close ratios on the Mazda may have had something to do with this.

[TheIntrepid]

Shut up Yoder. You're seriously becoming a whiny little girl.

[JYODER240]

Shut up Yoder. You're seriously becoming a whiny little girl.

Are you serious?

[TheIntrepid]

Kind of. They wanted to do the damn comparison and they could, so they did it. Boo fucking hoo! They do plenty of other types of comparisons. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[JYODER240]

Then they shouldn't label them as the Quickest Cars. Just because Camry can out run a MS3 to 60mph doesn't meen its a quicker car.

[FordSVT]

Then they shouldn't label them as the Quickest Cars. Just because Camry can out run a MS3 to 60mph doesn't meen its a quicker car.

It's a simple comparison of straight line performance, not track performance or braking performance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quick

What's your definition of quick?
-FordSVT-

[JYODER240]

It's a simple comparison of straight line performance, not track performance or braking performance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quick

What's your definition of quick?
-FordSVT-

Even a 1/4 time would be a better representation. Just because a Camry can outaccelerate a MS3 to 60mph I wouldn't call it a quicker car would you? Straightline performance is only part of a cars performance. IMO what a car can do around a racetrack such as C&D's Lightning Lap is a much better representation because it brings things like acceleration, handling, and braking into the equation. Calling one car quicker than another based solely on a 0-60 time is very ignorant.

[SaltyDog]

It's kind of funny that we can borrow our parents' Camries and beat 5.0 Mustangs.

[MX793]

Even a 1/4 time would be a better representation. Just because a Camry can outaccelerate a MS3 to 60mph I wouldn't call it a quicker car would you? Straightline performance is only part of a cars performance. IMO what a car can do around a racetrack such as C&D's Lightning Lap is a much better representation because it brings things like acceleration, handling, and braking into the equation. Calling one car quicker than another based solely on a 0-60 time is very ignorant.

1/4 mile time was why the Camry was rated ahead of the MS3.  C&D got the same 0-60 time out of both cars (5.8s) and the 1/4 mile time was the tie breaker (14.3 @ 99 mph vs 14.4 @ 99 mph)

[Soup DeVille]

Even a 1/4 time would be a better representation. Just because a Camry can outaccelerate a MS3 to 60mph I wouldn't call it a quicker car would you? Straightline performance is only part of a cars performance. IMO what a car can do around a racetrack such as C&D's Lightning Lap is a much better representation because it brings things like acceleration, handling, and braking into the equation. Calling one car quicker than another based solely on a 0-60 time is very ignorant.

Hey, they do the tests they can in the time allowed at the venue they can get them all to with the people they have available.

Seriously, the logistics of setting up these comparisons of large numbers of cars must be frighteningly difficult. On the other hand, its incredibly easy to sit and find fault with them.

And yes, quicker has also been meant to imply straight line acceleration.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I'm sure that with a proper sports suspension like the MS3 and equally sticky tires, a V6 Camry could give the MS3 a run for it's money on a track. Of course it's heavier and doesn't have a limited slip either. It might not be right compare a family sedan to a hot hatch, but we're just looking at accelaration numbers here, that 's the whole point.

[omicron]

Camry V6: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3461lb (LE V6), for 5.8 and 14.3

Aurion: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3395lbs (AT-X), for 7.3 and 15.5.

Right. Ok then.

[Raza]

Camry V6: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3461lb (LE V6), for 5.8 and 14.3

Aurion: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3395lbs (AT-X), for 7.3 and 15.5.

Right. Ok then.

That's what I thought.

[FordSVT]

Camry V6: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3461lb (LE V6), for 5.8 and 14.3

Aurion: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3395lbs (AT-X), for 7.3 and 15.5.

Right. Ok then.

And don't forget MS3: 2.3L Turbo I4, 263 hp, six speed manual, 3150 lb.  They really can't get it to beat the Camry? Is torque steer and wheel slippage really that big a problem in this car (a hot hatch with a LSD and 18" wheels) but not in the Camry? Should Mazda maybe get out of the electronic nannying business if it's going to screw up the stoplight performance of their vehicles? Could a different set of gears help this problem?

Yes, I'm going to beat this to death. 
-FordSVT-

[MX793]

And don't forget MS3: 2.3L Turbo I4, 263 hp, six speed manual, 3150 lb.  They really can't get it to beat the Camry? Is torque steer and wheel slippage really that big a problem in this car (a hot hatch with a LSD and 18" wheels) but not in the Camry? Should Mazda maybe get out of the electronic nannying business if it's going to screw up the stoplight performance of their vehicles? Could a different set of gears help this problem?

Yes, I'm going to beat this to death. 
-FordSVT-

The Mazda has less weight over the drive wheels than the Camry, giving it less traction. 

You also have to contend with the characteristics of a turbocharged engine which the Camry doesn't have to deal with.  For starters, it makes launching the car even more difficult.  If you launch at lower RPMs to keep the wheelspin in check, you may not have the turbo spooled up and you have turbo lag off the launch, killing your performance.  If you launch with the RPMs high enough so that the turbo is spooled, you may have too much power for the front wheels to handle and you can have uncontrollable wheelspin, which kills your performance.  You need to find a happy medium, and depending on the characteristics of the motor, there may not be one, so you're stuck between trying to find the lesser of two evils.  The more linear power characteristics of a naturally aspirated motor definately make launching the car easier, as there is greater flexibility.

Also, every time you let off the gas to shift, the turbo blows off pressure that needs to be rebuilt before you get full power again when you get back on the gas.  This is why automatic transmissions sometimes do better with turbo motors than manuals.  Automatics don't lift the throttle during shifts, keeping the turbo spooled.  The turbo versions of the Solstice/Sky, for instance, are quicker with an automatic than a manual.

And that's not even getting into the matter of the ECU cutting power in the first couple of gears.

[MX793]

Camry V6: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3461lb (LE V6), for 5.8 and 14.3

Aurion: 3.5 VVT V6, 268hp, six-speed automatic and 3395lbs (AT-X), for 7.3 and 15.5.

Right. Ok then.

What source did the Aurion test numbers come from?  They may have a different testing procedure.  C&D's will brake torque the car to get a better launch, other publications may not follow that practice.

[omicron]

What source did the Aurion test numbers come from? They may have a different testing procedure. C&D's will brake torque the car to get a better launch, other publications may not follow that practice.

A lot of it has to do with the different test procedures between the US and Australian magazines (the Oz magazine used half a tank of fuel and included a passenger), but 1.5 seconds difference in both instances is one hell of a difference, even allowing for such inconsistencies.

Or isn't it, and I require re-educating? :P

[MX793]

Yes, 1.5 seconds is over half a second more than I'd expect given the differences in test procedure.

[Submariner]

Cars are becoming really, really fast nowadays.  The slowest car is almost as quick as my mom's S500.

That is...6.2 seconds?

[Raza]

That is...6.2 seconds?

5.9-6.1 (6.1 is claimed, 5.9 is the quickest I've seen).

[565]

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12396/the-quickest-cars-of-2007-20000-to-25000.html

Ninth Place (tie): 2007 Pontiac G6 GT 3.9
Ninth Place (tie): 2007 Saturn Aura XR
Eighth Place: 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged
Seventh Place: 2007 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT
Sixth Place: 2007 Volkswagen GTI
Fifth Place: 2007 Saturn Ion Red Line
Fourth Place: 2007 Nissan Altima 3.5SE
Third Place: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
Second Place: 2007 Toyota Camry V-6
First Place: 2007 Subaru Impreza WRX




w00t! 2nd place!

Damn, these cars are getting so fast.  Soon it's gonna be hard to be anything over 22 grand that doesn't haul ass.

[omicron]

Damn, these cars are getting so fast. Soon it's gonna be hard to be anything over 22 grand that doesn't haul ass.

Why, Canadiamenistani Mark does, and he's only $50!