Car Thread and Thoughts

[boomdart]

I was just in the 300hp NSX thread and had some thoughts...

First of all, a 2000 cobra-R pulls a 13.0 w/ 1.0+g skidpad... A 2003/2004 cobra will pull a 12.6 quarter at best in near perfect conditions, the engine is under-rated by a good 40hp, and has a less impressive ~.92g skidpad rating. It has more rear-wheel horsepower than a z06 but weighs a good bit more.

Now, why do people have to argue cold hard facts? Let's say Car A performs a certain way, if it beats Car B in all aspects, how could Car B be a better car?

Raw horsepower does not mean everything, weight, drag, and gearing has a lot to do with acceleration. The 180hp Lotus Elise will outperform a Cobra-R with "390" hp (I use quotes because it is under-rated).

Also, people tend to compare cars that aren't meant to compete with each other. For example, many people will compare their cars to Civics, as if they are a basis of comparison for car performance.

Sport compacts should only be compared to sport compacts.
Sports cars should be compared to sports cars.

Never should a modified car be compared to a stock car, that is giving an unfair advantage to one, handicapping the other. Different cars have different restrictions, such as the '89-'92 ford probes having a very restrictive intake system, while a talon craves exhaust and boost. So comparing similar mods done to each car must be taken lightly.

Clarification(Edit): It is fine to compare moded cars to moded cars. When I say do not compare a modified car to a stock car, I mean this for the purpose of judging the stock car based on what a modified car can do. Do not say that Stock Car A is slow/crappy because Modified Car B is better.

Also, some cars are not made for their performance. Some are made for their aesthetic purpose, or to appeal to a certain age group. Sometimes the fun-factor of a car rates higher than actual peformance.

Street racing, here is a topic many people like to brag about... Unless the other is sure of racing, and you have had previous contact or spoke with them through the window, one is never sure that the other was not racing. Supposing you beat a 350z with your integra at a stop light, how are you to be sure the 350z was even bothering? Also, one race is not enough to justify a win. Conditions vary, and driver skill varies as well.

I'm setting myself up for a flame, I'm pretty sure of it...Or at least a thread hijacking. But I'm okay with that.

And that's all I can think of right now...

 

[Ryan]

I agree

 

[boomdart]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
I agree

Thanks

 

[notfred]

So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

 

[boomdart]

Originally posted by: notfred
So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

Sort of, but not qutie to that extent.

Cars should only be compared to what the manufacturer intended them to compete with. And only in stock forms should cars be compared.

 

[MrCraphead]

I agree with notfred. Unless, the cars are in the exact same "category"?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I have to disagree because one person may want a $25k car with $5k in mods while another may want a completely stock $30k car with lower performance than the modded $25k car.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred
So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

Sort of, but not qutie to that extent.

Cars should only be compared to what the manufacturer intended them to compete with. And only in stock forms should cars be compared.

Then there's no point to racing or car shows then, is there? I mean, they're both means for comparing cars, and if all the cars are always stock, where's the fun in that?

 

[boomdart]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
I have to disagree because one person may want a $25k car with $5k in mods while another may want a completely stock $30k car with lower performance than the modded $25k car.

But what would you be comparing? You're using cost as a basis for comparison. In that regard, anyone could note that a mid 80's mustang with less than 12 grand in the entire project could make low 12's. Therefor, it's faster than much higher priced stock cars.

Sure, both of those people could buy their respective cars, but imo they can not be compared in performance to one another; as one has an unfair advantage.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
I agree

 

[boomdart]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred
So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

Sort of, but not qutie to that extent.

Cars should only be compared to what the manufacturer intended them to compete with. And only in stock forms should cars be compared.

Then there's no point to racing or car shows then, is there? I mean, they're both means for comparing cars, and if all the cars are always stock, where's the fun in that?

I'm talking about when people try to compare against a stock car. It's perfectly fine to compare modified cars to modified cars.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred
So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

Sort of, but not qutie to that extent.

Cars should only be compared to what the manufacturer intended them to compete with. And only in stock forms should cars be compared.

Then there's no point to racing or car shows then, is there? I mean, they're both means for comparing cars, and if all the cars are always stock, where's the fun in that?

I'm talking about when people try to compare against a stock car. It's perfectly fine to compare modified cars to modified cars.

Why can't I compare a stock Corvette to a modified Mustang, or a stock S2000 to a modified Prelude?

Have you ever raced cars? Have you ever modified your car? Have you ever been part of a car club? I don't think you really understand why people do this stuff.

 

[boomdart]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: boomdart

Originally posted by: notfred
So, basically: "It's unfair to compare different cars cause there's too many variables" is what you're trying to say, right?

Sort of, but not qutie to that extent.

Cars should only be compared to what the manufacturer intended them to compete with. And only in stock forms should cars be compared.

Then there's no point to racing or car shows then, is there? I mean, they're both means for comparing cars, and if all the cars are always stock, where's the fun in that?

I'm talking about when people try to compare against a stock car. It's perfectly fine to compare modified cars to modified cars.

Why can't I compare a stock Corvette to a modified Mustang, or a stock S2000 to a modified Prelude?

Have you ever raced cars? Have you ever modified your car? Have you ever been part of a car club? I don't think you really understand why people do this stuff.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Go ahead and compare, but do not *judge* the other car based on what a modified car will do compared to the stock car. Do not say the S2000 is a slow car because a modified Prelude will beat it. That's the kind of comparing I don't agree with.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

I think we tend to forget about the intangibles that are part of the way a car drives. The things that don't show up on the spec sheet because you can't quantify it. Altho we can't really comment on it since most of us haven't driven those cars.

For instance, the NSX. It's said to be one of the most comfortable and rewarding cars to drive. It was rated 1 out of 100 in evo's Car of the Year. They rated it above the Pagani Zonda (which is faster in almost all respects) just because the NSX was more involving & rewarding & offered 9/10th of hte performance numbers at 1/4 of hte price.

Personally, I don't really care about the numbers. I prefer how the car feels...maybe it's because I've grown up driving light sh!tboxes (87 CRX, 91 Corolla, 90 Civic, etc..) that are pretty fun to drive. I recently was driving a 90 Civic and I really enjoyed how direct the steering and how light the car felt. It was dirt slow but it was fun. What's the point of driving a fast car if it isolates you from the thrill of driving fast?

It comes down to this: It's more entertaining to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow.

 

[boomdart]

bump