Quote:
Originally Posted by G42M240
Their performance scores at the bottom make no sense.
So the m240i's 0-60/ and 1/4 mile times were the best, the braking 70 to 0 was second best, and yet the performance was scored 3rd. Funny how their scoring categories for performance and powertrain have an asterisk due to them being subjective. Why not score them based upon the objective and quantifiable data?
How is the m240 engine NVH rated lower than the supra? Its the same damn thing.
|
Take another look at that scoring sheet, you are misreading it. The category labeled performance is under subheading "Chassis"...it is chassis performance not 1/4 mile times. Do note that under "Powertrain" there is a 1/4 mile acceleration category and rightfully so the M240x outscores the Mach1, 20 to 15, a sizeable gap in favor of the 240 so they did get that right, objectively. In terms of braking the category was braking feel,not braking distance, yes that is a bit subjective. But the M240 does not have good braking feel.
In terms of NVH differences between the Supra vs M240...dunno, that is surprising, perhaps the Supra has better cabin insulation from NVH?? Just guessing here. They are rating how much of the engine's NVH is transmitted to the driver. The Supra also scores higher in ride quality so i am guessing the driver is better insulated from NVH in the Supra
The 1/4 mile times for the M240x being quicker than the Supra is very likely due to all wheel drive vs rear wheel drive. All a matter of traction off the line, the advantage is obviously enough to make up for the weight difference.
It is easy to nitpick a scoring like this but i think they got it pretty much right, but the biggie was the last subjective category of "Experience-Fun to Drive", that tipped the scales to the MACH1 by a 9 point difference.