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
So it was designed and built by a Drift racer, and people are surprised that it doesn’t have grip?
How do you even define drifting other than “performative art that is slower than real racing, due to a complete lack of grip”.
So it sounds to me like they did a good job. (Doesn’t explain weak clutch.)
The 1/4 mile Elapsed time does show a notable improvement over stock, so the horsepower is there. The question is why is it not getting to the ground?
Anyways, the tuner’s response sounds like special pleading. Pretty pathetic really.
Tires are the weak point of taking these kind of instrumented tests too seriously and even as a longtime c&d reader I think they take the stock tires that come on a car a little too seriously as changing out tires is the easiest and most effective mod anyone can make. That being said this car seems seriously overpriced, I haven’t looked at Mustang superchargers but last I looked for a BMW they were like $4-$6K and not an especially hard install either. Throw in some wheels and suspension and I’m most of the way there with cash left over for more tires.
Sure but presumably all these companies sending over cars to C&D know what sort of instrumented testing they do and *should* have put on a grippy option tire if they didn’t want to be hammered by the numbers.
Oh they do, I guess part of the gripe is sometimes even with non-tuner OE cars I think they harp on tires too much given how easy they are to change out. But I get they are supposed to be judging what they get and what a consumer will be buying new.
I mean, modifying a car to have both more power and less grip (and in particular worse brakes) is just making it more dangerous for no benefit and they deserve to be called out on it.
I get what he’s going for with the “slidey tires are for fun times drifting” take, but he’s been around long enough to know that instrumented tests will be a major part of how your car is perceived, whether they measure your intention for the car or not. Especially when they can put your “upgraded” car head-to-head against the stock version and it’s so much worse.
An easy way to side-step this while educating the customer about the intention of the car would have been to give it sticky tires that would blow the stock version out of the water in the instrumented tests as standard, then offer a no-cost option for “slidey fun-times tires that will definitely make you smile even if you’re slower”.
That’s assuming that the upgraded car on sticky tires is much faster, which isn’t necessarily the case…
Or, when they sent the car over, be very clear about what it’s designed for, and maybe even suggest tracks where it would be fun to drift around.ie set expectations.
Wonder what level of Autopian membership VGJ has because making a car worse with your modifications is a core compendecy here 🙂
Call me old-fashioned, but if I am paying for over 300 more horsepower and almost 200 more pound-feet of torque, I think I’d expect better 0-60 numbers. If RTR isn’t about the numbers, maybe there should be an “RTR Lean” model with the aesthetic upgrades (which the author complemented) and suspension tweaks that just focuses on going around the curves and looking sharp. And not upgrading the clutch sounds like a legitimate gripe on C/D’s party.
Yeah it’s a weird defense, and if the clutch is burning before you can roast the tires what’s the point of having longer lasting tires anyway?
VGJ being a drifter does kind of make the tires thing make sense, but it seems like if anyone is really buying this for sliding around a track they’ll 1. have tires they like to run anyway so don’t care what comes on the car and 2. are immune to tire costs so roasting the stock set of sticky tires that allow for the 3.5s 0-60 or whatever is no big deal to them. He really should just ship it with the max grip that allows it to put up huge instrumented test numbers.
Yeah, something’s not adding up…if it’s hard to launch but loves doing a burnout, then how could the clutch be slipping so much? I wonder if the acceleration testing was done prior to the burnouts.
The drifter defense doesn’t even hold up because pro drift cars are actually super grippy, that’s why they can maintain such high speeds while drifting.
True, but then again he realizes his customers aren’t pro drifters and need something that will step out progressively and be pretty accessible.
Which still doesn’t make sense since a six figure Mustang with 800 HP isn’t exactly accessible in the first place.
Couldn’t he just put on the slidey tires and nothing else and make it more drifty?
“It makes me wonder if AI is doing the writing after data is output” doesn’t read as a serious accusation. Seems in context like just a clumsy jab at the focus on numbers rather than the human experience.
This is my thought as well. I think overall Vaughn crafted a good response, I’m not ready to grab pitchforks over what seemed like a bit of a throwaway comment out of frustration.
People don’t understand the implication of this kind of accusation, though, especially when coming from someone with an audience.
For someone working in a creative field, almost nothing hurts more than being compared to an AI, and there’s also the fact that it calls into question everything else about an organization.
If you disagree with a review, whatever, it’s a subjective opinion, but we really should not be in the habit of throwing around the AI accusation with such ease.
In the era of AI we’re all collateral damage and it will continue to be this way until we can trust the media that we consume. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
That’s true, but there’s a difference between calling out some obvious AI fake news thing on FB and just accusing someone of being an AI because you don’t like their take.
It’s unfortunate it was leveled at Scherr, as she is one of only two C&D editors who can actually write. The rest of that magazine may as well be AI. It’s terrible. I go there for standardized instrumented testing numbers and am assuming they still produce those competently.
Sure, but to be fair, we* didn’t create the AI writing monster. Less creative writers and creators ran with it ignoring the scissor like nature of it.
*By “we” I mean content consumers..
Agreed. Just journalists defending each other without acknowledging that there is a lot of AI garbage around, so it seems like a valid criticism and a way to vent online that the author of the original review didn’t really seem to get why the car exists.
“Wonder” is the most passive voice you can use and still get the gist across IMO..
I think everyone is being thin skinned here.
After I skimmed through it…. I’m with VG Jr.
Is C&D going to test a Demon 170 on the Nürburgring against a 911 GT3 RS next while they’re at it? He isn’t a F1 icon, a NASCAR superstar, he’s a drifter. Of course the cars he wants his name on them aren’t chasing other than “sick drifts” & burnouts!
I can see their next article: “Up next: The 1970 Chevelle 454SS is an American performance icon, but it can’t beat a new Datsun 240z on the Tail of the Dragon”.
Well, it is C&D. After the Cherokee debacle, they aren’t worth the time to read, let along write about. No matter who writes the articles. Bad takes will always be bad takes.
What Cherokee debacle are you referring to? I must’ve missed that one.
They had posted an article from a new writer that had personally reached out to the Cherokee nation’s chief and inquired about the continued use over the Cherokee nameplate, and how Stellantis (since they used to be FCA) was continuously ruining the name of the Cherokee nation.
Here’s the article: http://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35568468/cherokee-nation-jeep-stop-using-name/
2nd paragraph:
I distinctly remember (but could be the Mandela effect or something along those lines) that the internet had a field day about it, and I personally stopped going to their site over it. I call it a debacle; I could be definitely overreacting. I’m known for it and I’m grown up enough to admit it lol
How is that a ‘debacle’? It seemed like a reasonable article to me.
I took it as they were digging for an article and stirring up bs, &;
otherwise known as a fiasco.
Which is a cousin of the lesser known kerfluffle.
I’m inclined to buy into the “we did slow tires on purpose for fun” because there is definite truth to that. That said, I don’t think C&D’s emphasis on the numbers here is entirely unfair. If the car blew everyone away despite the numbers it would have come through in the review more but it doesn’t seem like the driving experience did anything to make them forget about that. Those sorts of power figures and “fun drivers car” really don’t compute for me lol. This ain’t no BRZ.
And do they really think the stock clutch is good for 800hp/600tq?
That clutch 1 trillion percent can’t handle that power, but like even the article states they kept the factory clutch for the warranty. It seems like a loss either way; keep the stock one and have possible higher warranty costs, or charge more for a proper clutch with less warranty.
If the driving experience doesn’t come up to the expected standards, that could’ve been a whole article itself. The article in question reads like a GT vs RTR comparison test, and the general public doesn’t know what an RTR or who VG Jr. even is. Only car enthusiasts do, and I’d like to believe outside the street takeover, stance, roll-coal people, car enthusiasts can tell the different goals between a GT and an RTR.
“It makes me wonder if AI is doing the writing after data is output.”
I wouldn’t call it a direct accusation. It’s more of a jab saying: “I don’t like your writing and I disagree with your article.”
I think a journalist should have a little bit thicker skin, and can easily defend themselves with words and facts.
On the other hand, RTR did a decent job of defending their product but definitely hurt their case by lobbing this insult at the author.
They are a small company, nothing like Toyota, which can absorb the losses of an odd dud.
For RTR, a bad review and failed product launch can sink the whole company, so they have a duty to defend their product.
A wiser approach would have been to either do their own testing, or discuss with CD and come back for a second round with an improved product.
Likewise, CD could have contacted them, to give them a chance to address the issues before sending the brutally honest review to print.
I parsed the AI comment as “did the person who wrote this even drive the vehicle?”, which is extremely tone-deaf in today’s world– and in some ways, that makes it even worse. Did this guy even read the byline?
I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but I particularly like Elana Scherr’s reviews because she’s not all hype-hype-hype and not a lap-times-over-everything sort of reviewer. She points out it’s a hoot to drive in the sub-head, but if she can’t find her way back to that in the rest of the review and she’s writing about how the car’s writing checks its performance can’t cash, that says a lot about the car.
I’m much more inclined to take Ms. Scherr’s word for it than Mr. Gittin’s.
1m+ internet points to Thomas for referencing sheet cakes at a Steve Aoki concert
This must be the first time ever that tuning a car makes it worse. (/s)
I’m old enough to remember when Car and Driver included “Fun to Drive” in the scoring for their comparison tests and people would write and mail physical letters to them to complain about how their biases put slower, by the numbers worse cars in first place. It’s been a while since I picked up a magazine from them so I don’t know if they’ve changed their way of looking at cars, but the irony of RTR claiming that they only looked at the numbers and not the overall driving experience is killing me.
They typically do still have that scoring method for comparison tests, but they have never done that for individual car reviews.
For poops and giggles, I just ran the article through what I use for AI scans. 100% clean. So, she’s got that going for her…which is nice
What do you use for that?
My go to detector is GPT Zero. It can even parse between Gen-AI and simply Grammarly “edits.”
Copyleaks is very reliable, too, though it usually just tells me “yes” or “no,” less about the how.
Quillbot used to be good, but now it’s not. Useful as a third data point sometimes.
We should run some Jalopnik and TTAC articles through that scanner.
I expect you know what you’ll get.
Don’t do that, you’re just feeding the AI machine.
That’s really odd behaviour. Usually these things are expressed in private (through emails/messages) rather than publicly, so that the publication has right of reply.
Also, nothing that C&D did was wrong.
He should have left out the AI accusation. The rest of his comments are just adding context really.
This verbiage
“That’s what the Mustang RTR Spec 3 was built to deliver. A connected driving experience for drivers who want more than just numbers”
Sounds like an audiophile saying a silver plated USB cable “opens up the sound stage” after 100 hours of burn in.
Just admit you didn’t build a drive train strong enough to handle a claimed 800 hp without melting unless you used rock hard tires.
Not to play devils advocate, there is something to be said about tuning a car for “fun” vs numbers. See Porsche 911R vs GT3RS or how modern cars, although way faster, are not necessarily more fun than older cars.
But also an 800hp Mustang is not my type of car. I’m definitely in the “Hot Hatch/lighter is better” camp. So I have no stake in this.
I understand the appeal of slow car fast and lean more Miata than Mustang but my critique still stands. RTR is charging a lot for a car that on paper seems to only best a stock GT at burnouts, drifting, and clutch destruction
Wtf.
Also thank you for this:
> won’t damp the enthusiasm
You’re the first person I’ve seen in years who uses damp (instead of dampen) properly.
I actually didn’t know I was using it wrong this whole time, thank you for pointing that out.
Anytime!
dampen -> make damp (slightly wet) just like ripen -> make ripe, etc.
A damper is something that damps (attenuates). A dampener humidifies. 😀
Drives me crazy when someone talks about suspension dampening…
I’m good with either, as “dampen” carries the connotation of “throwing cold water on” which I also see as a valid construction. But then again, don’t get me started on “defuse” vs. “diffuse”.
How about forgo vs forego?
I’m secure enough to admit I don’t have a good view on that but instinct says “forgo” as “forego” for me would carry not a connotation of denying oneself but one of “going to the fore of” or “going before”.
And… I just checked my Webster’s Unabridged and it accepts either as acceptable for the meaning of “to do without”, but I have always personally used “forgo” to denote doing without and “forego” to denote preceding in some way, such as “in the foregoing paragraph”.
I see that sort of thing all the time now.
However they source it, no one is proofreading at all.
Subtitles are even worse.
I’m choosing to watch a lot more subtitled German and French because at least someone literate did the subtitles.
Like a breath of fresh air!
RTR is brilliantly using the Streisand effect to build name awareness.
“At RTR, we’re not chasing expectations or numbers.”
Translation: everything we did made the car worse. Give us money anyway.
a.k.a. the Mansory Philosophy.