> 157. That was the horsepower number the 1982 GT Mustang touted. And
> many people, me included, were excited. Okay, we knew 157 wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Patrick
> > 157. That was the horsepower number the 1982 GT Mustang touted. And
> > many people, me included, were excited. Okay, we knew 157 wasn't
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> > What do you think... where does it end? When will the horsepower
> > numbers level off?
> It seems to me that the performance of the vehicles is not keeping pace
> with the hp numbers. Why does the 500 horse Shelby GT 500 produce the
> same 1/4 mile times and trap speeds as the 390 horse Terminator cars.
I've only noted that in one road test -- Car & Driver's. In all the
other tests I seen the Shelby GT500 runs quicker and faster in the 1/4.
> And why do people who have driven the Shelby say "it just didn't feel
> that fast."
In comparison to what? The Terminator cars? If so, then the "feel"
could be attributed to the difference in chassis -- the older Fox not
feeling as button down as the '05 and ups.
> I've heard the same thing about the 400 horse GTO ("it's just not all
> that fast").
In all the road tests I seen, the 400HP version is noteably
quicker/faster than the 350HP cars.
> Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?
The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
of newer models.
Patrick
JohnV@nn - 21 Sep 2006 01:42 GMT
snip
> > Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?
>
> The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
> of newer models.
>
> Patrick
I know that the weight is increasing along with the hp. It's a shame
that we've seen accounts (even in our own ramfm) of folks test driving,
or even buying, an 05+ GT and saying "it just didn't feel as fast as my
01 GT" or similar. I saw a post the other day on a forum comparing a
guy's stock 92 LX and an 06 GT, and he says the LX feels faster. To
me, this is a seriously bad sign. The car gets more hp and along with
it more weight, and the end result is a car that doesn't "feel as fast"
(whatever that really means).
I personally have not subjected myself to a test drive of an s197 car
because I fear I would wind up owning it. I'm old enough now to
protect myself from myself. :-)
John
93 GT (now with 3.55s)
NoOption5L@aol.com - 21 Sep 2006 03:51 GMT
> snip
>
> > > Are the numbers somehow outpacing the real-world performance?
> >
> > The only thing hurting the bigger HP numbers is the increasing weight
> > of newer models.
> I know that the weight is increasing along with the hp. It's a shame
> that we've seen accounts (even in our own ramfm) of folks test driving,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it more weight, and the end result is a car that doesn't "feel as fast"
> (whatever that really means).
Maybe it's the added refinement that makes the newer car feel slower.
I know when I drive/drove and older 60's car they feel/felt faster than
they really were. So perhaps it's the same now comparing an older Fox
to a new S197. Because we know the magazine numbers all show the newer
GT much faster than the old Fox (S197 GT magazine numbers are always
over 100 mph, usually 103 or so and the old LX Foxes where lucky to
even crack 100. Most ran higher 90s. Mine ran 98.
> I personally have not subjected myself to a test drive of an s197 car
> because I fear I would wind up owning it. I'm old enough now to
> protect myself from myself. :-)
I've test driven them. I want one!
Patrick
'93 Cobra (also running 3.55s)
> John
> 93 GT (now with 3.55s)