So a journalist could slip in a time of 7:32, and you're saying he still wouldn't question it? Of course he would. Are journalistic standards in Germany somehow looser than in other parts of the world? Somehow, I doubt it. You're telling me that instead of correcting a rumour when given the opportunity, Goeschel not only fails to squash the rumour, but even plays along with it? OK, so maybe it was not a journalist, but a magician... You didn't explain to me the part about how the time is a lie, yet it (the lie) was set by Sabine... BM...This was in July of 2005? Or 2004? Because as early as July 2004 (the date of the Autocar road test), if not even earlier, Ford had already uprated the hp rating of the GT. There was only a few short months when the production versions (with the front and rear spoilers) were rated at 500 hp. Not that that means anything anyway, as most of the test numbers bear out. Then how do *you* explain the 8 seconds? Yes, I've looked at the TopGear times. Just as an example, ex-F1 driver Julian Bailey set a 1:35.5 in the Lotus Exige (Series 2) in the dry, while the Stig did it in 1:26.9. That's an 8.6 second difference for the same model, on the same track (which compared to the Willow Springs 2.5-mile course has got to be relatively small). Was TopGear (the magazine) lying when it recorded that time for Bailey? Or was TopGear (the show) lying when it recorded the time for the Stig? But nevermind, I see what you're saying: the old C5 Z06 is not only faster than the C6 Z06, but both are faster than the Ford GT driven by Gan San. Who's lying? Pilgrim? edmunds.com? Best Motoring? Is it really necessarily true that one of them *must* be lying? Is there no room for the possibility of (gasp!) conditions playing a role as well? And who's to say the Zonda S and Gallardo also wouldn't lap any faster with a different setup?