The 1999 Ford Mustang Cobra should have been a straightforward road test. Instead, it became the moment a magazine forced a carmaker to rebuild part of a production car. Car and Driver’s testers could not match the advertised output, Ford investigated, and the company admitted that defective intake manifolds were compromising airflow. It then fitted new intake manifolds and mufflers to deliver the promised horsepower.
That episode is the clearest illustration of what Car and Driver has been doing since 1955, and why its testing programme has become the closest thing the car industry has to an independent audit. The American title describes its editorial tone as “intelligence, independence, and irreverence,” and it is currently led by editor-in-chief Tony Quiroga from offices in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But the thing that separates it from the rest of the motoring press is not the writing. It is the timing gear.
400 cars a year, 200 data points each
Car and Driver says it tests cars, trucks, SUVs and vans, and it treats testing as the core of its identity rather than a sideline to the reviews. The numbers it quotes are striking: upward of 400 vehicles per year, which it claims is “more than anyone else in the industry,” and more than 200 data points collected on every single test vehicle.
That volume matters. A publication that tests a handful of cars a year can afford to treat each one as an event. One that tests 400 has to build a system, and systems are what turn anecdote into evidence. When a manufacturer’s press release claims a 0-60mph time, a centre of gravity or a power figure, the value of an outfit like Car and Driver is that it has already measured hundreds of comparable cars and knows what the numbers should look like. Those acceleration runs are quoted in the US convention of 0-60mph, and the power figures it discusses are American horsepower rather than the bhp and PS that British buyers see in showrooms.
From stopwatch to GPS
The methods have changed beyond recognition. In the magazine’s early days, acceleration runs were timed with a stopwatch, which is roughly as accurate as it sounds. Today the operation uses GPS-based testing equipment, the same category of hardware that has made timing disputes in motorsport considerably harder to argue.
More recently, the title has added a layer of static testing that has nothing to do with speed. It now measures cargo space, interior stowage pockets, infotainment response times and blind-spot size. These are the things buyers actually live with every day, and they are exactly the areas where manufacturer figures tend to be vaguest. Boot volume quoted in litres tells you very little about whether a pushchair fits. Response time in milliseconds tells you a great deal about whether a touchscreen will drive you mad.
When testing catches manufacturers out
Two years after the Cobra affair came the Mazda Miata episode. The new car was slower than the model it replaced, despite a claimed 15hp increase. Mazda then admitted that the 155hp figure came from a Japanese-market version that did not meet US emissions standards. Its remedy was unusually generous: it offered to buy back early models, or to provide free maintenance plus $500. Both cases were US-market matters, but the principle they established travels well.
The Supra claim that did not survive scrutiny
More recently, Toyota asserted that the 2020 Supra had a lower centre of gravity than the GR86. It is a classic marketing line, the sort of figure that sounds technical and flattering and is almost never checked. Car and Driver measured it and found Toyota was wrong.
That is the whole argument for third-party verification in a single episode. Centre of gravity is not a matter of opinion. It is a physical property, and it can be established with equipment and a flat surface. When a manufacturer gets it wrong, either through error or through optimism, only an independent test will say so.
Why independent numbers matter
Car and Driver makes the case bluntly: third-party testing is critical because “manufacturers’ performance claims are just that: claims.”
It also explains why the appetite for verified numbers survives in an era of instant spec sheets. Anyone can publish a press release. The work of confirming it is slower, more expensive and considerably less glamorous. It is also the reason a 70-year-old testing culture still carries weight with buyers who have never picked up the magazine. The same instinct drives coverage of the restomod scene, where a builder’s output claims are worth exactly as much as the dyno sheet behind them, as anyone following the Revology Mustang Boss 302: The $400,000 Restomod That Outruns the Original will recognise. That car is an American product at an American price, and the figure is quoted in dollars.
How the operation stays honest
None of this is free. Car and Driver is partly supported by advertising, and it says all site and magazine content is produced by its editors or contributors. Content created in partnership with advertisers is marked as such. It also participates in affiliate marketing programmes, earning commissions on products bought through links to retailer sites, while stating that every featured product is independently researched, tested or editor approved.
The internal checks are worth noting too. Content is fact-checked by the copy department and edited by the testing team to verify technical accuracy. That second step is unusual. In most newsrooms, the person who checks a technical claim is a sub-editor with a style guide. Here, the people who measured the car are the ones signing off the words about it.
That structure matters most when specifications are in flux. A supplier pulling out of a component business, as with Nidec Eyes Exit from EV Motor Business as Stellantis Demand Falters, or a mainstream model slipping down the schedule, as with Honda Delays Next-Gen CR-V Hybrid to 2027 as Civic Production Shifts, leaves buyers comparing cars across model years. When the hardware underneath a badge changes, a verified baseline from the year before is the only reliable reference point.
The print product still has its own column
For all the digital expansion, the magazine remains a distinct thing. The print edition is put together by writers, photographers and graphic artists, and it is described as the only place to get the “Backfires” letters column. In an age when most titles have folded their print operations into their websites, keeping a letters page that exists only on paper is a deliberate choice. It preserves a slower form of argument, one where readers write in, editors reply and the exchange stays on the record.
What 70 years of measuring cars actually proves
The lesson from seven decades of testing is not that manufacturers lie. It is that specifications are produced by marketing departments, engineering departments and legal departments working to different briefs, and the number that reaches the brochure is the result of that negotiation rather than a pure measurement.
A publication that buys its own test equipment, books its own track time and publishes what the instruments say is performing a service that no amount of glossy photography can replace. It is why a 1999 Mustang Cobra got fixed, why a 2001 Miata claim collapsed under scrutiny and why a 2020 Supra figure did not survive a tape measure and a set of scales.
Spec sheets are written. Cars are measured. The gap between the two is where the entire case for independent testing lives, and it is not closing any time soon.
One Comment