E90 eeked out a win in the latest Car & Driver comparison of 8 sports sedans. Here's a scanned version of that article
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3802
Actually, they didn't win - they tied with Lexus. Car and Driver can't add.
On the summary page of the article, BMW shows a total of 75 points being scored for "Vehicle". The problem is - they didn't score 75. They scored 74.
8+7+3+4+3+7+9+7+9+0+17= 74 not 75.
That would mean 212 points and tied first position with Lexus.
Whoops!
I emailed the Car and Driver Editor on the 11th of September:
- To whom it may concern,
I bring your attention to the comparison test published in the October 2005 issue ("$35,000 Sport Sedans", pp 94-112), and specifically, the results table on page 112. It has been noted by myself and others that there seems to be a discrepancy in the totals in almost all of the columns.
The points proximity between the top two cars tested--the BMW 330i and Lexus IS350--prompted the attempt to verify the grand totals of each. It was found that the 330i's total under the "Vehicle" section was miscalculated by one point (where it should have been 74 instead of 75). As a result, the grand total for the 330i is identical to that of the IS350, at 212 points, earning the Lexus a tied first place (going by points).
I took the liberty of checking the entire results table, and found eight similar miscalculations. Please find attached an image scanned from page 112, with the miscalculated figures crossed out and replaced by the correct ones.
The table is fairly straight forward: a number of sections made up of individual (subjectively or objectively) tested parameters. Each section has a total (unless there is only a single parameter), implying the addition of the points earned for each parameter. Likewise, there is a grand total, implying the addition of the points stipulated by each total (or in principle, the sum of all points earned for each parameter).
It would seem that one of the following two scenarios is true. Either:
1) The results table contains several miscalculations leading to the incorrect finishing order of the Lexus IS350 (no other cars were affected in terms of their finishing order), or
2) The totals and grand totals stipulated in the results table are not actually intended to be accurate totals or grand totals (in relation to the points stipulated in the results table).
This, as one might expect, has resulted in great cause for concern, and I find myself wondering if Car and Driver have published other comparison results tables containing similar miscalculations and--possibly--incorrect finishing orders.
We eagerly await Car and Driver's response.
Best regards
Olorin
I sent a follow-up email on the 19th after receiving no response:
- To whom it may concern,
I am disappointed to have received no response on this issue. It has been over a week since the email was sent.
Regards
Olorin
I then received a reply on the 22nd:
- Olorin:
We respond in the print magazine in the Backfires section, look there for a possible response in the months to come, be assured your email has been included for review by the Editor.
Regards,
Scott
Want me to go knock on their door?
Their HQ is 10 mins away in Ann Arbor.
BTW...nicely written letter.
Those number don't correlate with the results. This has happened many times before and the editors always recieve letters with people wondering why the numbers don't correspond with finishing places. They just don't. Although since some of the columns don't add up, that's odd. But for reference, it has happened before where cars have the highest composite total but are not in first place. Finish place isn't quantified that way.
2010 BMW S1000RR
Yes, like has been mentioned, the total points are NOT a summary of the other categories. This info has been repeated ad nauseum in previous issues. Whether the E90 should have won despite significant electronics bugs is another debate. In the same vein, a car that won't let you turn off the e-babysitter shouldn't necessarily win either.
what's the use of having points if they don't add up correctly
People are confusing two issues here.. One is that the winning point total doesnt always equate to the winning car... Fine.. I think most of us can buy that.. If they want to use some mythical fudge factor to name the winner, so be it.
But thats a very different issue than the column point totals not being added correctly.. I dont think anybody here can seriously believe that the points 'grand total' isnt supposed to equate to the addition of all points awarded in each individual column. Thats why its called 'Grand Total'!
BTW, Olorin, very nicely written letter to C&D.
___________________
Paul E
'11 AW 135i ; Sold: '99 White M3 81k mi; Dinan SC kit, 6"/3.48" sc pulleys, Aftercooler: 10.5 psi-367 SAE rwhp/304 rwftlbs @80 degrees ambient (still with OBDII manifold & stock cats); DynoTuning by Nick G (techniquetuning.com); Speed Shop: Imported Cars of Stamford; AA-Aquamist Water Injection, exhaust, clutch; Fikse FM-10s; Koni Suspension; Stealthboxes
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a173/boostm3/
Bookmarks