Honda delivered a CBX that only made 72 rwhp to Cycle magazine. It only turned 12s. So they did some investigation with Honda and learned that something wasn't quite right with the bike and also that the new ignition module robbed power. So they introduced a new one. Cycle did several dyno runs and found that using the oldest ignition module made the most power, but that the new one from Honda worked pretty well, also. They gained about 10 hp and got into the 11s. The also got a Kawasaki GPZ550 that was noticeably down on power and performance. It had been "overhauled" by a shop, and apparently cams had not been fitted correctly. After a new session on the work bench, and with valves lapped, power and performance was restored. Both these bikes were tested and presented as they were, then a few issues later came the follow-up stories. I've also read many articles in US magazines where they describe how the bike had been run hard (read: abused) for several thousand miles before they received it, suspecting that to be the result of lower than expected performance. MOTORRAD would dyno-test every bike with extra-ordinary performance, and it it was making way too little or way too much power, they would get another machine to verify if it was typical or atypical for the model. There are probably 2 broad types of magazines; those who generally present what you can read in the brochures and those who do their best to be objective and check all their data, from wheelbase to weight to consumption to top speed. I prefer the latter ones, although they make mistakes and often get coloured by the hype as well.