Vaughn Gittin Jr. Accuses Car And Driver Of Using AI After A Negative Review Of His 800 HP Mustang That’s Slower Than A Mustang GT

This week, Car And Driver published a road test of the supercharged Spec 3 Mustang built by professional drifter and two-time Formula D champion Vaughn Gittin Jr.’s RTR tuning firm, and the results weren’t spectacular. Despite having an 810-horsepower supercharged five-liter V8 under the hood, it was slower in acceleration tests to the sorts of speeds people are likely to see on the street, gave up a bit of grip on the skidpad, and required an extra ten feet to stop from 70 MPH compared to a regular Mustang GT with the Performance Package.

Add in an as-tested price knocking on the door of $110,000, and you can see why the magazine came up with the verdict “Looks like a champion but won’t finish first.”

Normally, this wouldn’t be a story. It just sounds like another day in the office at any number of automotive outlets, but then something strange happened. A commenter by the screen name “VGittinJr” responded to the road test in the comments section of the article, and a spokesperson from RTR has confirmed that Vaughn Gittin Jr. himself left this comment:

We appreciate your time with the Spec 3.  We do not build Spec 3’s to shatter instrument tests. Can we do that? Of course, easily. In fact the car is one set of tires away from completely changing the headline you have chosen. Perhaps we did not do a good job at telling you why this car exists.  Our intent for the Spec 3 and Spec 2 for that matter is a diverse fun car that can ensure owners enjoy any and every type of fun behind the wheel he or she can imagine. We have chosen the tires we chose because they are good in the rain and very progressive when it come to the limit, they also won’t require a tire change after a few donuts in my opinion they are the best all around Mustang tire. Our suspension is a compliment to this mindset, confidence inspiring and progressive (not snappy) at the limit. . This mustang is an all around enthusiast driver’s car, not a track record breaker. Our owners absolutely love them. I was just at the Tail of the Dragon with 30 of them smiling ear to ear.

Up until this point, the comment seems like just a reasonable explanation of why RTR chose those specific components and tires for its Spec 3 Mustang. However, things get weird in the second paragraph (emphasis mine):

We of course knew that we would not impress your instruments when we agreed to the test, we do know what drivers say of our vehicles and I must say I’m a bit disappointed that the writer/driver of this article did not touch on the overall driving experience and only focused on numbers. It makes me wonder if AI is doing the writing after data is output. The overall driver and owner experience is what this vehicle is about and is what anyone that has experienced our Spec line up has raved about.

Even in a veiled manner, suggesting that generative AI was used to write an article is a serious allegation, and one that would need to be backed up with substantiative proof. It’s tantamount to claiming that a company that stamps “made in America” across its advertising copy is actually just dropshipping parts from China, but not providing manifests or anything to back up such a bold allegation.

Strong claims require strong evidence, and that just hasn’t been provided here. I reached out to Hearst, the organization that owns Car And Driver, about this and received this response: “Thanks for reaching out. Elana [the writer] wrote that article entirely on her own.”

[Ed note: This sucks. Elana is real and wonderful person, as well as a great writer. Even vaguely intimating that a computer wrote for her is incredibly unfair and just plain dumb. There is no computer built that can craft a sentence as well as she can. Gittin Jr. is way out of line here and completely undermines any argument he may have otherwise had. – MH]

As a pattern, Car And Driver’s instrumented tests tend to follow a data-driven layout, so it’s not as if a heavy focus on test track numbers isn’t precedented. It’s worth noting that a second account by the screen name “RTRvehicles” also commented on the road test with a more corporate statement:

We respect the perspective your instruments created, but the Mustang RTR Spec 3 was never built to chase instrument test numbers.

At RTR, we’re not chasing expectations or numbers. We’re focused on building vehicles that create a connection the moment you get behind the wheel.

The kind of connection that makes you take the long way home.

That builds confidence with every corner.

That turns every drive into something you look forward to.

That’s why every element of the Mustang RTR Spec 3 is intentionally chosen, from the engineering of our suspension to the tire setup, designed to inspire confidence for drivers of all experience levels and support a variety of fun behind the wheel. Whether you’re carving back roads, heading to your first track day, drifting, donuts, or simply enjoying the drive, the experience is built to put a smile on your face.

When you drive an RTR, it becomes more than just transportation.

It’s the community.

It’s the shared passion.

It’s the friends you didn’t even know you’d have.

That’s what the Mustang RTR Spec 3 was built to deliver. A connected driving experience for drivers who want more than just numbers.

Available to All. Not for Everyone.

Regardless, it goes without saying that providing Car And Driver with a car for instrumented testing and clapping back at the results seems like waving a “cake me” sign at a Steve Aoki show and being upset that you got hit in the face with a sheet cake. The loan was already agreed upon, and when a company loans a car out for evaluation, it opens the product up to fair criticism.

In the case of this RTR Spec 3 review, criticism largely centers around the sort of performance figures this modified Mustang generates for the money. As Car And Driver wrote:

At 4.7 seconds to 60 mph, the RTR is not as quick as a stock manual GT, which can manage the same task in 4.2 seconds. It’s slower in the quarter-mile too, smoking its tires with all but the lightest touch, which results in a 12.7-second run at 121 mph to the stock manual GT’s 12.5-second pass at 114 mph. Things aren’t any better when the RTR’s mass changes direction or comes to a halt. Our test car required 163 feet to stop from 70 mph, sliding well past the GT’s 153 feet. It can’t grip the skidpad as tightly either, pulling just 0.92 g of stick to the GT’s 0.99 g. In the numbers game, our heavily optioned Spec 3 example hardly seems worth its hefty $109,808 as-tested price, especially when it’s being outrun by a stocker that costs significantly less.

Beyond that, the articles notes “if you do too many burnouts, that stock clutch will perfume the parking lot with the expensive scent of failure,” which also seems like a fair criticism considering entering the burnout box is pretty standard for anyone taking a rear-wheel-drive car to the drag strip. Objectively, nothing here falls below editorial standards for any outlet in North America. Want an example?

Earlier this year, I lived with the updated Lexus RZ 550e for a week. It’s definitely an improved effort over the old RZ, but the hot trim level feels like questionable value once you factor in the shortened range, strong price, and beta-version-feeling simulated shift mode it gets over a base model. Despite this, Akio Toyoda did not drop into the comments to accuse me of using ChatGPT.

Outside of a handful of outliers, there’s a general understanding that fair evaluation stands, and it really ought to because a car is usually the second-most-expensive thing people buy in their lifetimes. Sometimes cars have irksome traits that don’t appear during a quick around-the-block test drive at a dealership, and everyone worth their salt in this industry will let you know about them.

Worst-case, the outlet sometimes doesn’t get another car, but that’s about as far as things usually go. Beyond that, I have a strong suspicion that Car And Driver’s road test probably won’t damp the enthusiasm of anyone looking to pick up an RTR Spec 3. It still looks sweet, shaving 1.1 seconds off the top-gear 50-to-70 mph acceleration test means you’ll notice the supercharger from a roll, and while the Nitto NT555 G2 tires offer middling grip, they last a long time if you want to slide around.

While this may seem like a somewhat petty thing to report on, the president of a company hopping in the comments section of a fair review and seemingly accusing a well-respected automotive journalist of using AI without any proof is very weird, and as we are journalists ourselves, not something we’re going to ignore. Needless to say, I’ll keep you updated if this situation develops further.

Top graphic image: RTR