Quote:
Originally posted by grjones1:
And if I have ignored your user manual, it's because I find it as confusing as ....
Sigh..........I was sure you'd be abe to get your keyboard around it.....
Quote:
And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):
Huh? OK, if you say so...
Quote:
If you are going to compare "apples to apples" start with the stock HP of the Volvo. Why begin with it in "IT trim at the wheels"?
Because I wanted to use numbers that were mentioned right here in this thread, lest I open myself up to a discussion on the proper "stock" number. Besides, the bottom line is the actual known power at the wheels...
Quote:
It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:
Uh, no, I wasn't as devious as that... sorry.
Quote:
If you can get 160 HP out of a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo, imagine what just a computer chip will do for the NB!
Lets look at both sides of this statement. First, you place a ton of faith in a magic chip. Maybe it adds a little, maybe a little more. But it's just one part of a package. Think about the world when the Volvo was made. Volvo wasn't exactly thought of as a maker of high strung sports cars...I bet the engine was far from optimized when it left the factory. It probably had an exhaust manifold that looked like it came off a John Deere lawn mower!! It is no surprise that it puts some good power down. On the other hand, I bet that the NB is WAY more optimized, just because the world demands great fuel economy, proper emissions, and so on. Across the board, performance (such as specific output) has improved in lock step over the years.
Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> And you guess 144 HP as maximum for the VW as generous. Then you award 2% difference in driveline loss from front drive to rear drive -that's conservative. ....... ([it's] a great deal more than 2%.) </font>
Ok, fine.... what say you figure it out. Show the math for the percentage YOU think is appropriate.
Quote:
An again you fail to consider aerodynamics. At .38, the NB is not exactly sleek, but it's a great deal more slippery than the Volvo.
"An again"??? AND again I didn't mention it because its such a minor factor....at many tracks the time spent in the range where aerodynamics become a factor isn't a majority, and I bet the overall drag numbers aren't that far apart.
Quote:
And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C.
Hey, I didn't bring the Volvo up in the first place! I was just trying to add some real live numbers to take the discussion out of hyperbole, and ground it a bit. If you like I can go back and quote the statements that caused me to make my comments, but this post is out of control as it is!
Quote:
As I said before there are numerous new cars out there that are much closer to the older cars in C. That way you bring in fresh cars and don't threaten the existing competiveness of guys who have been developing their cars for years.
Your're spot on here, but I guess nobody cares about those cars or they would be classified.
Quote:
Why is this not important to you?
Now THIS is Hilarious!!!!!!!!
Where have you been????? I drive an 1st Gen RX-7 !!!! It's the freaken POSTER CHILD for marginilized cars that have been totally outclassed by newer entries in it's class! Anyone on this board can tell you that I, of all people, fight every day to protect the existing cars and that the word "parity" is the most typed word on my keyboard!!!
Quote:
.... I jumped to the perhaps overreactive conclusion that people were bowing to VW influence, member driven or otherwise. For that I will guardedly retract my charges....
Fair 'nuff...
Phew.....
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 25, 2004).]