COTY-P Performance Numbers - How Reliable Are They?

[jut703]

In case anyone missed it, the COTY-P (Car of the Year Philippines) group has recently released performance figures for new cars launched in 2012 by way of Kotse.com: http://www.kotse.com/home/index.php/...13-performance



For the most part, I find the results believable, if a tad slow. However, Niky has posted in a thread somewhere here that the tests were done with 2 people on board, and an additional 50-100 kg could definitely bog down performance numbers a bit. Overall, it seems more realistic than C!'s figures (as noted in their car guide at the end of their issues), as those numbers seem to be all over the place.

That said, there are a few things I wanna clarify. First and foremost, is the Ranger 2.2L really faster from 0-100 than a BT-50 3.2? The numbers show 11.8s for the Ranger and 12.4 for the BT-50. I've been reading a lot about people being unsatisfied with the Ranger's 2.2L performance and are thus waiting for the Wildtrak which shares the same 200 hp 3.2 as the BT-50, but these figures seem to be disheartening.

Second, the automatic version of the Toyota 86 posted a 9.5-sec 0-100 time, which is over a second slower than what international motoring bodies have tested for the same car. What gives?

Third, and this is really more of an inquiry, is the FB Civic really that much slower than the FD? I've read before that a 1.8S FD AT can do 100 kph in ~11s from a standstill, and I've tried this personally with a crude stopwatch and a flat stretch of empty road and I did get similar numbers. The FB on the other hand now takes over 12s to achieve the same feat, which is kinda sad, to say the least. I've driven both models (though not back-to-back), and while the newer FB does feel more comfy, I didn't expect that this much of a performance deduction was the tradeoff.

Again, I made this thread not to discredit the COTY-P results, because I do believe that the people behind it share my desire for accurate and objective results. These questions are simply to appease my curiosity.

[tsupermario]

a similar test for the accent crdi

[JohnM]

The Impreza also has a similar slalom time as the Rio and the 300C. It gets beat by the Cherokee and the 5008

[EQAddict]

Subaru Impreza 2.0i 10 secs

Subaru impreza 2.0i Sport 12 secs.

The disparity is huge * 2 seconds . This is the same car, same engine, same everything except trim. 2 seconds is huge when you're only sprinting from zero-100 kmh. I seriously doubt the accuracy of this.

Also regarding the Bt50 with 200hp vs the 2.2 liter Ford Ranger, again I doubt that the much more powerful and torquey BT50 takes longer to the century mark.

[renzo_d10]

Guys, again, nasa driver yan.

Mas mabilis pa yung Rio 1.2LX MT sa Rio 1.4L AT. Must be the weight difference and the transmission...

Pero ang impressive diyan, yung Mirage. Ang bilis huminto. :bowdown: Tama nga feedbacks ng iba, maganda brakes ng Mirage.

[ghosthunter]

Guys, again, nasa driver yan.

Mas mabilis pa yung Rio 1.2LX MT sa Rio 1.4L AT. Must be the weight difference and the transmission...

Pero ang impressive diyan, yung Mirage. Ang bilis huminto. :bowdown: Tama nga feedbacks ng iba, maganda brakes ng Mirage.

Not really sa driver as much as you would think. The RIO 1.2L M/T was simply more responsive overall than the 1.4L A/T during the COTY test drives. based on my experience with both cars, I really felt the 1.2L M/T goes better than it's 1.4L A/T variant. So the 1.4L A/T was disappointing for "performance".

[weisshorn]

Guys, again, nasa driver yan.

Mas mabilis pa yung Rio 1.2LX MT sa Rio 1.4L AT. Must be the weight difference and the transmission...

Pero ang impressive diyan, yung Mirage. Ang bilis huminto. :bowdown: Tama nga feedbacks ng iba, maganda brakes ng Mirage.

Agree ako dito sa GLS model but not in GLX variant, although halos parehas din lang ng ibang brand.

[ghosthunter]

The Impreza also has a similar slalom time as the Rio and the 300C. It gets beat by the Cherokee and the 5008

For the Peugeot 5008, you have to drive it to know. It's a very fast MPV that I wouldn't mind driving everyday.

[renzo_d10]

Not really sa driver as much as you would think. The RIO 1.2L M/T was simply more responsive overall than the 1.4L A/T during the COTY test drives. based on my experience with both cars, I really felt the 1.2L M/T goes better than it's 1.4L A/T variant. So the 1.4L A/T was disappointing for "performance".

Well ya. I've been reading Niky's posts and it's all hail & praises sa performance ng 1.2L Rio. Maganda nga raw performance, and to back it all up, it's not sharing the same FC woes of its bigger sibling, the 1.4L AT

I'm very impressed with the GLS Mirage. Laki pala ng difference if you have ABS+EBD noh? Kasi ang alam ko yung GLX Mirage walang ABS+EBD, am I right?

[JohnM]

For the Peugeot 5008, you have to drive it to know. It's a very fast MPV that I wouldn't mind driving everyday.

Any idea why the Impreza was unusually slow? CVT?

I'm very impressed with the GLS Mirage. Laki pala ng difference if you have ABS+EBD noh? Kasi ang alam ko yung GLX Mirage walang ABS+EBD, am I right?

Yep GLX no ABS/EBD. Skinnier tires din (165 14" vs 175 15").

[ghosthunter]

Any idea why the Impreza was unusually slow? CVT?

Impreza 2.0i 6MT vs Impreza Sport 2.0i Sport 6AT(CVT)

I think that is enough to explain the 2 second difference?

[JohnM]

Impreza 2.0i 6MT vs Impreza Sport 2.0i Sport 6AT(CVT)

I think that is enough to explain the 2 second difference?

Makes sense. How about the slalom?

[ghosthunter]

Makes sense. How about the slalom?

Less difference because initial acceleration (from a stop) is not anymore important nor measured during slalom.

[JohnM]

Less difference because initial acceleration (from a stop) is not anymore important nor measured during slalom.

So agility lang talaga ang measured dito? Eye-opening results nga

[niky]

Let me answer as best I can:

We can only assess the cars as they are given to us. In some cases, the cars are not familiar, and we spend some time checking out the onboard systems first. We tend to turn off all assists such as traction control and stability control. Obviously, traction control will make some launches slower, particularly with low-torque cars like the 86. For cars with lots of torque and close-ratio gearboxes (6DCT or 6AT), a smooth traction-controlled launch can be quick. The Lancer Ralliart two years ago matched the manual STI from 0-100 (though the STI kills it in every other measure).

Dynamic stability control is off when it can be turned off. It simply makes the cars slower and less predictable on the slalom. (We did instrumented tests of this). But the slaloms also showed us how effective it can be. For novice drivers, leaving stability control on can help correct for stupid driving.

For cars where we can do burn-outs (86 MT, Genesis Coupe 2.0T MT), an aggressive launch might be slower, might be faster. We try two or three different methods to arrive at the best time. For example, the GenCoupe's fastest time was with a 5k clutch drop. We could have likely gone faster with a clutch-sliding launch from 5k, but these cars had to drive back to Manila. No Car&Driver style trailer-the-car-home launches here!

The 86 AT had a hard time breaking traction and the track was hot. It would not "launch" like the manual could be launched. The 86 MT was sort of slow, but an 8.2 second time for 0-100 with two on means a circa-7.8 second run with one on board. Possibly 7.5 seconds on a launch strip with better "bite" or with a clutch-slipping launch.

One other Car&Driver type thing we skip is SAE corrections. As opined by Edmunds.com, SAE correction factors tend to over-correct for newer turbocharged cars with MAP sensors. Either way, we are only comparing these cars to each other, and not to times released by other publications in cooler countries. Certainly not to 0-60 mph times, which can be from half-a-second to a second (or more) faster.

Ranger versus BT50. The Ranger is slower than before. The last 2.5 liter Ranger I tested did 10.5 seconds against the V-Box (one on board), so it's worth around 11 seconds in these conditions. And those numbers are slower than the Navara or Strada. The BT50... well, we can only test what's given to us. During the Qualitative Testing, I felt that Mazda's BT50 test unit was slow, and even asked if it was the 2.2 4x4. The technical tests bore this out. I don't know if there was anything wrong with the engine or the drivetrain, but that's that.

The two Imprezas. One was manual. One was CVT. The CVT was slower. Handling-wise, the CVT held gears well in the slalom and let you concentrate on twirling the steering rather than shifting.

The Rio 1.2 is faster. I've test driven both the 1.2 and 1.4 extensively on the road, had both for week-long tests, and the 1.2 is definitely faster. Shorter gears. Manual transmission. Sucks no ABS, but if you want a Rio for sporty driving, this is it. Just slap better wheels and tires on it. I've also V-Boxed the previous 1.4 MT Rio. At around 12.4 - 12.6 seconds to 100 km/h, that would make it slower than the new Rio 1.2 with two people on board. The new 1.2 is really a fantastic motor.

As for the slaloms. We have changed the test slightly. This year's slalom is tighter to try to negate the advantage of extra power. Cars with lots of power can still do well by accelerating between cones, but as you'll see, cars with really good emergency handling shine. Note that the Eon did the slaloms as well as the GLS Mirage, despite the lack of power. The Mirage is agile, but soft. The Eon simply weaved between the cones very quickly, thanks to its stiffer suspension and narrow body.

And yes, the 5008 and Grand Cherokee are very, very agile. I guess the brouhaha over the GC's tire failure on the "moose test" comes about because the Grand Cherokee has so much mechanical grip it stresses and overloads its tires on that very, very, VERY aggressive test. More air pressure up front would have let it pass.

The S60 has always been one of our top performers. Very, very agile chassis. Always has good brakes. Best S60 we've ever had on the racetrack was the S60 1.6T. Punchier than the 2.0 and better balance than any other S60 variant. Be keen to see whether the new 3-series is better, but we haven't had one at Clark yet. Hoepfully the new distributor will come around to sending one to one of these PCOTY tests.

[jut703]

Thanks for the explanations Niky.

I wish someone from the COTY-P team would post results from previous years' testings, just so we could compare. And hopefully, procedures are standardized so that year-to-year comparisons can be made. If COTY-P measures with 2 on board this year, hopefully next year's iteration follows suit. It's just not the same if you simply add a correction factor since torquier cars suffer less from added weight.

[niky]

The 100-0 test was added two years ago. Performance tests from all testing years done at Clark Speedway should be comparable. The slaloms have been adjusted over time to find a good lay-out to elicit the data we want.

The 0-100 should be comparable. The drivers have been the same for the past few years.

[Monseratto]

Hmm...Trailblazer 4x4 and MS 3.0 4x4 vs Fortuner 2.5G 4x2??? Didn't the 3.0 MS last came out in 2011 and was replaced by the MS 2.5 GTV in 2012?

In case anyone missed it, the COTY-P (Car of the Year Philippines) group has recently released performance figures for new cars launched in 2012 by way of Kotse.com:

[niky]

Hmm...Trailblazer 4x4 and MS 3.0 4x4 vs Fortuner 2.5G 4x2??? Didn't the 3.0 MS last came out in 2011 and was replaced by the MS 2.5 GTV in 2012?

It's the V6 gasoline variant. Launched just last year? Don't recall, but if it was launched after the close of the previous PCOTY, it qualifies.

[GTi]

Why is it that some of the models included have no performance data? Many cars are not included in this year's testing, many of which are bestsellers. I wonder if data from the previous years can be supplied as well?