Evo Magazine, July 2004

Let me start off by saying this, in my opinion, is really dumb. I would have hoped for more from Evo. They mention that testing all the cars under like conditions would have been ideal, but they could not. So some cars were tested in the very wet, some in the damp, and some in the dry.

The Elise was in the wet.

So don't expect good results. Don't expect useful results.

I'm a faithful EVO reader, and I was disappointed as well. They ended up with the Elise and 350Z in the same ballpark (overall points). Can't really make anything of it, but kind of irritating anyway

I was also stunned to see such good numbers on the Cayenne, which I despise on principle. I know it's fast in a straight line, but I guess it handles pretty well for a truck

I don't know if the Cayenne test was in the wet, but in those conditions, the Turbo version is faster than even the Carrera GT around the Leipzig test track due to hydroplaning resistance. All else being equal, perhaps the only advantage of weight around a race track?

Randy Chase said:

So some cars were tested in the very wet, some in the damp, and some in the dry.

The Elise was in the wet.

So don't expect good results. Don't expect useful results.

Click to expand...

You have to be acclimatised pschologically to the fickleness of the British climate.
All the British car comics post results this way. The Exige 2 posted sixth fastest time of all cars on Top Gear mags test track.
The times are for both wet and dry with notation for a wet test.
The Exige was tested on a damp/wet surface. I think that makes it all the more impressive.
m.