Today's new cars are way overpowered...

[GManBart]

It's all about the total work done by the engine. A one point HP rating don't do that.

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

 

[MossRoad]

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

Unless one is shaped like a brick wall and the other is shaped more aerodynamically. Although I agree that the Saturn isn't running sub 15 times without modification. Best times I saw for it were closer to 16s.

 

[forestcreature1]

The only thing I have under 400 hp is my Deere

 

[Egon]

This is taking silly to the extreme. The two cars are within 100lbs of each other. One car has 210hp, and the other 180hp. The one that has 210hp is going to be faster unless something really weird is going on. In reality, tests of the two cars show that the one with the extra 30hp was faster. C&D got a 15.3s 1/4 mile time when they tested it. Various publications list the Saturn at anywhere from 16.0s to 16.5s for 1/4mi. So, real-world testing shows what everybody knows...a car with more peak power is going to be faster through the 1/4mi than a similar weight car with less power. Shocking news to some.

Then we get someone posting here that their Saturn can run 14.9s for 1/4mi. That conflicts with common sense, published figures, and reasonable comparisons to similar weight vehicles. There is no way that Saturn is running in the 14s without a major addition of power somehow....end of story. Slight changes in final drive ratio because of a different tire aspect ration simply isn't going to get it done.

Using an online 1/4mi calculator showed 15.6s for the Mustang and 16.25s for the Saturn....pretty close to what actual testing showed. According to the same site, the Saturn would need about 230hp to get to 14.9s. Tire ratio isn't going to make up for a 50hp shortfall.

http://www.nitrousexpress.com/oldwebdocs/hpcalculators.htm

i

Silly eh! You saying them engines only run at the top HP rpm?

 

[GManBart]

i

Silly eh! You saying them engines only run at the top HP rpm?

I never said that.

 

[Egon]

I never said that.

It was implied by your statement.

 

[GManBart]

It was implied by your statement.

No, it wasn't.

You're going to have to find someone else to argue about whether a higher horsepower engine will make a car faster in the 1/4 mile.

 

[LD1]

Unless one is shaped like a brick wall and the other is shaped more aerodynamically. Although I agree that the Saturn isn't running sub 15 times without modification. Best times I saw for it were closer to 16s.

Agreed.

Had my saturn SL down the track a time or two. (actually 2 saturns ago). 100HP SOHC and 5-speed weighing in all of 2200-2300#. Best ET was 17.34 and I forget the MPH. Probably somewhere around 80-85MPH

 

[Egon]

You took the words right out of my mouth...but you said them better....!!!

The more advanced cars get, the stupider the majority of drivers get. "Lane departure warning..." "Parking assist...." "Backup cameras...." etc, etc, etc. I saw a TV commercial recently for a new truck that offers BACKUP ASSIST for those who are too lazy and stupid to learn how to back up a trailer...oh, let's not get me started on that one. I bet 90% of new drivers today could not operate a stick shift if their lives depended on it....I learned how to drive a stick on my dad's 8N when I was 12 years old and learned how to back up a hay wagon in short order using the same tractor.

I said it above and will say it again: New cars are overpowered, overpriced, and have way too many gewgaws and gimcracks and electronic features...all of which serve no purpose except to make the majority of drivers less attentive and less able to have decent driving skills.

"Oh, my new Malibu has 250 horsepower, and this huge screen in the middle of the dash, I must be one (bleep) of a great driver....."

:laughing:

Why learn all about driving a manual if you never got to drive one. Can do without haveing to drive an 8N too. The Kubota and present JD much nicer.

Them fancy gewgaws that are so distracting; well most work just fine and the driver didn't even know it was working

 

[4570Man]

You took the words right out of my mouth...but you said them better....!!! The more advanced cars get, the stupider the majority of drivers get. "Lane departure warning..." "Parking assist...." "Backup cameras...." etc, etc, etc. I saw a TV commercial recently for a new truck that offers BACKUP ASSIST for those who are too lazy and stupid to learn how to back up a trailer...oh, let's not get me started on that one. I bet 90% of new drivers today could not operate a stick shift if their lives depended on it....I learned how to drive a stick on my dad's 8N when I was 12 years old and learned how to back up a hay wagon in short order using the same tractor. I said it above and will say it again: New cars are overpowered, overpriced, and have way too many gewgaws and gimcracks and electronic features...all of which serve no purpose except to make the majority of drivers less attentive and less able to have decent driving skills. "Oh, my new Malibu has 250 horsepower, and this huge screen in the middle of the dash, I must be one (bleep) of a great driver....." :laughing:

I don't have any of that crap in my 1999 Chevy 1500. I actually would like to have a backup camera. They make hooking up a trailer way easier. Backing up a trailer is easy. Backing up a trailer in a stick shift dump truck with poor side mirrors is more challenging. I think your 90% claim about not being able to drive a manual is low. I'd say more like 97%.