As car enthusiasts, most all of us enjoy reading car magazines. Whether it be "Car and Driver", "Motor Trend", "Road and Track", or whatever you enjoy reading in your free time, it is always fun to read reviews and tests about our favorite cars.
Car manufacturers take reviews very seriously. They can drive manufacturers to totally redesigning a car while keeping past criticisms in mind.
But is it possible for a car manufacturer to take a test so seriously that they resort to questionable practices to squeeze every last millisecond out of their car?
There are many questionable times and test results out there. Did the CTS-Vs cage benefit it around the Nurburgring? Did Nissan use semi-slicks on their GTR or falsify results as Porsche claimed?
A few months ago, a car journalist came forward with somewhat unsettling article about Ferrari's testing practices they sometimes use when they lend a car to an automotive publication.
The article speaks for itself, for the most part.
Here are some highlights:
Ferrari wanted to know which test track we were going to use for Autocar's 599 GTB road test, but in reality the rot had set in many years earlier.
Why would it want to know that? "Because," said the man from the Autocar office, "The factory now has to send a test team to the circuit we chose so that they can optimize the car to get the best performance from it."
They duly went to the track, tested for a day, crashed the car, went back to the factory to mend the car, returned, tested and then invited us to drive this "standard" 599.
The 599 had already been available to the public at this time. Why did Ferrari feel the need to test the car prior to Autocar testing it? Is the car not already up to optimal performance out of the factory? If a consumer takes their 599 to the same track, will they manage a similar time that the second Ferrari managed?
... the 360 Modena press car that was two seconds faster to 100mph than the customer car we also tested. You allow some leeway for "factory fresh" machines, but this thing was ludicrously quick and sounded more like Schumacher's weekend wheels than a street car.
I do not have much to say about this. You can take it for what it is or draw your own conclusions.
They (Ferrari) turn up at any of the big European magazines end-of-year-shindig-tests with two cars. One for straight line work, the other for handling exercises.
The question here is: Would both cars perform equally as well as the other in both tests? Why have two different cars, one for each test?
What Ferrari plainly cannot see is that its strategy to win every test at any cost is completely counter-productive. First, it completely undermines the amazing work of its own engineers. What does it say about a 458 if the only way its maker is willing to loan it to a magazine is if a laptop can be plugged in after every journey and a dedicated team needs to spend several days at the chosen test track to set-up the car?
There is nothing wrong with double checking that a car is up to snuff. But should the car not already be at its best when it leaves the factory? Shouldn't the test reflect that of a car that has been approved for sale? There should be nothing left to check at that point, no?
I am not trying to insinuate anything about Ferrari. I really don't think they would resort to changing a car at the last minute just to beat the competition. I do feel though, that Ferrari's actions described in the article are questionable. I would like to think that car articles reflect the very same car that you or I can go out and buy. And as such, I think a manufacturer should limit themselves to sending out their final product to editors. They shouldn't need to send out engineers to double check anything, they should send out the car that is ready for sale and test it "as is."
Ferrari makes great cars, there is no doubt about that. If they feel a car has lived up to their expectations, then they should send off their car exactly as it is when it is approved for sale. This in only my opinion.
What conclusions do you draw from the article?
