I don't buy the "crappy driving" urban myth, C&D does fairly well. You may find some people running a tenth or two (or maybe 3) better, but you can always attribute it to better conditions, cooler weather, disparity between cars, and no, they don't usually speedshift as they prefer to test cars using STANDARDIZED driving methods to ensure good apples to apples comparisons. Case in point, C&D ran 12.70 @ 113 on one test, and 12.60 @ 114 in another of the 2005 Z51 Corvette. Now I'm sorry, but that is NOT notoriously crappy driving. They even managed to horsewhip a 355 h.p. '05 Carrera S to a 12.40 (from the STRONG numbers the new Porsches are running, I've got to believe that Porsche has hopped on-board the "under-promise and over-deliver" bandwagon of under-rating their horsepower figures). What most people don't understand is that the big car magazines try to test cars using driving techniques that can be easily replicated over and over on all different makes and models of cars from test to test to test, so that their results are consistent and can be compared in a standardized way. They're not like MM&FF, where they go out to the track and absolutely RAPE a car and beat it within a sliver of its life to get a fast e.t..
, aluminum suspension parts, etc. Isn't the IRS reported to be lighter than the previous set-up? Magnesium wheels would be cool. 
