-
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;762434]The press in this country universally proclaimed the 300E as setting a new standard in structural rigidity for passenger cars.
The 190E was a much smaller car.[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with comparitive torsional rates, eg. It may well have 'set standards' as might the W201
But only 324mm shorter to be precise and shares much componentry. I'm going by the MB club of AU (of which I am member) which reckons the W124 is in its design essence a scaled-up W201
-
[QUOTE=Falcon500;762435]Well I have pictures of minis doing the same I have posted many times before When I get my old pics on this computer ill repost it ;)
my father owned a coupe Delux tranverse leaf suspeansion in it and handeled like a go kart :D[/QUOTE]
I had a pale green 1200 sedan and it felt a bit tippy. Totalled when I literally flew it into a drainage ditch on the Cotter road @ about 60 kp/h after 5 days ownership
-
[QUOTE=nota;762441]I had a pale green 1200 sedan and it felt a bit tippy. Totalled when I literally flew it into a drainage ditch on the Cotter road @ about 60 kp/h after 5 days ownership[/QUOTE]
yeah they had dodgy mchperson struts so they didnt have the go kart feel of the 1000;)
-
[QUOTE=nota;762437]I'm not familiar with comparitive torsional rates, eg. It may well have 'set standards' as might the W201
But only 324mm shorter to be precise and shares much componentry. I'm going by the MB club of AU (of which I am member) which reckons the W124 is in its design essence a scaled-up W201[/QUOTE]
I really am not overly interested in the particulars of those cars.
It's a well established fact that structural rigidity (torsional, lateral and longitudinal) has been increasing with each successive generation of any given model.
It's also a well established fact that overall handling qualities greatly benefit from that.
Some of the older cars may "feel good" at lower speeds. Start getting them up into higher speed ranges (assuming they have the power to get there) and that feeling of security will quickly diminish.
The combined improvements in suspension geometry, structural rigidity, materials (e.g. much more aluminum in newer cars) and aerodynamics that define today's new cars seemingly pay off exponentially.
-
Of course, we've all gotten way off topic here. The topic is whether or not the old "musclecar's" GROSS HP ratings were "under-rated:"
As I've been saying for the last 30 or pages, they were actually OVER-RATED - in these cases per the manufacturer's own admissions:
[B]1) 1971 Plymouth published Gross and Net Ratings:[/B]
[url]http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1971PlymouthEngines.jpg?t=1195073100[/url]
[B]225 CID 6[/B]: 145 Gross - 110 Net = [B]35 HP (32%) OVER-RATED[/B]
[B]318 V8[/B]: 230 Gross - 155 Net = [B]75 HP (48%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]383 2bbl V8[/B]: 275 Gross - 190 Net = [B]85 HP (45%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]383 4bbl V8[/B]: 300 Gross - 250 Net = [B]50 HP (20%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]440 4bbl V8[/B]: 370 Gross - 305 Net = [B]65 HP (21.3%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]440 "6 pack" V8[/B]: 385 Gross - 330 Net = [B]55 HP (17%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B][COLOR="Red"]426 Hemi V8[/COLOR][/B]: 425 Gross - 350 Net = [B][COLOR="Red"]75 HP (21.5%) OVER-RATED[/COLOR]
[/B]
[B]2) 1971 GM published Gross and Net ratings for the CORVETTE:
[/B]
[url=http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/?action=view¤t=71Vette-GrossNet.jpg]71Vette-GrossNet.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting[/url]
[B]350 4bbl"[/B] 270 Gross - 210 Net = [B]60 HP (29%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED[/B]
[B]350 4bbl (LT1)[/B] 330 Gross - 275 Net = [B]55 HP (20%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED
[/B]
[B]454 4bbl (LS5)[/B] 365 Gross - 285 Net = [B]80 HP (28%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED
[/B]
[COLOR="Red"]I saved the best for last. The "MIGHTY" LS6 REALLY made just 325 HP!!!
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"][B]454 4 bbl (LS6)[/B][/COLOR] 425 Gross - 325 Net = [COLOR="DarkOrange"][COLOR="Red"][B]100 HP (31%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED[/B][/COLOR][/COLOR]
-
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;762463]I really am not overly interested in the particulars of those cars[/QUOTE]
Fine but with a wb diference of only 135mm your bald claim that [i]"The 190E was a much smaller car"[/i] itself comes up short
[QUOTE]It's a well established fact that structural rigidity (torsional, lateral and longitudinal) has been increasing with each successive generation of any given model.
It's also a well established fact that overall handling qualities greatly benefit from that.[/QUOTE]
Maybe so but it's also well accepted that the 190E does outhandle similar-chassis W124s, despite any claims of structural rigidity
[/back to your topic]
-
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;762472]Of course, we've all gotten way off topic here. The topic is whether or not the old "musclecar's" GROSS HP ratings were "under-rated:"
As I've been saying for the last 30 or pages, they were actually OVER-RATED - in these cases per the manufacturer's own admissions:
[B]1) 1971 Plymouth published Gross and Net Ratings:[/B]
[url]http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/1971PlymouthEngines.jpg?t=1195073100[/url]
[B]225 CID 6[/B]: 145 Gross - 110 Net = [B]35 HP (32%) OVER-RATED[/B]
[B]318 V8[/B]: 230 Gross - 155 Net = [B]75 HP (48%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]383 2bbl V8[/B]: 275 Gross - 190 Net = [B]85 HP (45%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]383 4bbl V8[/B]: 300 Gross - 250 Net = [B]50 HP (20%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]440 4bbl V8[/B]: 370 Gross - 305 Net = [B]65 HP (21.3%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B]440 "6 pack" V8[/B]: 385 Gross - 330 Net = [B]55 HP (17%) OVER-RATED
[/B]
[B][COLOR="Red"]426 Hemi V8[/COLOR][/B]: 425 Gross - 350 Net = [B][COLOR="Red"]75 HP (21.5%) OVER-RATED[/COLOR]
[/B]
[B]2) 1971 GM published Gross and Net ratings for the CORVETTE:
[/B]
[url=http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/?action=view¤t=71Vette-GrossNet.jpg]71Vette-GrossNet.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting[/url]
[B]350 4bbl"[/B] 270 Gross - 210 Net = [B]60 HP (29%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED[/B]
[B]350 4bbl (LT1)[/B] 330 Gross - 275 Net = [B]55 HP (20%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED
[/B]
[B]454 4bbl (LS5)[/B] 365 Gross - 285 Net = [B]80 HP (28%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED
[/B]
[COLOR="Red"]I saved the best for last. The "MIGHTY" LS6 REALLY made just 325 HP!!!
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"][B]454 4 bbl (LS6)[/B][/COLOR] 425 Gross - 325 Net = [COLOR="DarkOrange"][COLOR="Red"][B]100 HP (31%) [U]OVER[/U]-RATED[/B][/COLOR][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Again with this?
You are comparing gross VS net hp and they are not comparable because they are two different measurements. You can't say that a certain car "lost" 20% of its hp because a different measurement was used.
One magazine had an article of a burnout contest... who could leave the longest strip of rubber. The winner drove a '68 or '69 427 Corvette which left a 141-foot strip of rubber. Do you think these guys cared what the net or rear wheel hp their cars were making? Not likely.
I see 13- 12- and 11-second muscle cars at the weekly car gathering I stop by at. I also see a lot of them leave accelerating fiercely and getting rubber through the gears. Do you think these guys care what the net or rear wheel hp their cars are making? Probably not.
Since you like formulas so much... tell me- how much rear wheel hp does it take for a '69 Hemi Road Runner with 3.23 gears and weighing 4,150 lbs (with driver) to go 145 mph?
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;762476]Again with this?
I see 13- 12- and 11-second muscle cars at the weekly car gathering I stop by at. I also see a lot of them leave accelerating fiercely and getting rubber through the gears...Since you like formulas so much... tell me- how much rear wheel hp does it take for a '69 Hemi Road Runner with 3.23 gears and weighing 4,150 lbs (with driver) to go 145 mph?[/QUOTE]
You see that TODAY, which is 35 - 45 years AFTER the cars were originally built and after countless and unknown MODIFICATION AND ALTERATIONS were performed.
My 3.5 V6 Acura will top 150 MPH - BONE STOCK.
The fact that a 7.0 liter 42 hemi V8 was SLOWER doesn't impress me in the least.
-
Going back to insuring '60s muscle cars, the 396 engine was rated at 425 hp in the Corvette and 375 hp in the Camaro. And it was the same engine (L-78).
And the reason Pontiac built a car called the T-37 was to be able to built what was essentially a GTO without the GTO badges. A kid could say he wants to insure his Pontiac. He would be asked "Is it a GTO?" He would say, "No, it's a Tempest T-37." Pretty sneaky! :D
-
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;762479]You see that TODAY - 35 - 45 years AFTER the cars were originally built and after countless and unknown MODIFICATION AND ALTERATIONS.
My 3.5 V6 Acura will top 150 MPH - BONE STOCK.
The fact that a 7.0 liter 42 hemi V8 was SLOWER doesn't impress me in the least.[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer my question. ;)
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;762482]You didn't answer my question. ;)[/QUOTE]
The answer is ~ 350 SAE NET HP, which is what it made.
You think that's a big deal for a 7.0 liter, pre-emissions V8 running on 100+ octane leaded gas?
Your ignorance is ASTONISHING!
-
[QUOTE=harddrivin1le;762485]The answer is ~ 350 SAE NET HP, which is what it made.[/QUOTE]
What calculations did you use? And I asked what rear wheel (not net) hp.
[QUOTE]You think that's a big deal for a 7.0 liter, pre-emissions V8 running on 100+ octane leaded gas?
[/QUOTE]
How fast have you personally driven your Acura? And let's see how fast it can go 40 years from now (if it's still alive).
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;762476]Again with this?
You are comparing gross VS net hp and they are not comparable because they are two different measurements. You can't say that a certain car "lost" 20% of its hp because a different measurement was used.[/QUOTE]
You aren't grasping what he is trying to show you. The net rating is showing what the vehicle actually made at the crank, as installed in the vehicle. This net rating is much more realistic about the power the engine was making in the vehicle. His comparison shows how OVER rated the engines really were.
[QUOTE]One magazine had an article of a burnout contest... who could leave the longest strip of rubber. The winner drove a '68 or '69 427 Corvette which left a 141-foot strip of rubber. Do you think these guys cared what the net or rear wheel hp their cars were making? Not likely.[/QUOTE]
Seeing how the real wheel hp is what really matters, yes.
[QUOTE]I see 13- 12- and 11-second muscle cars at the weekly car gathering I stop by at. I also see a lot of them leave accelerating fiercely and getting rubber through the gears. Do you think these guys care what the net or rear wheel hp their cars are making? Probably not.[/QUOTE]
If they frequent the track, yes, they do care about the whp because THAT IS WAS REALLY MATTERS WHEN DEALING WITH PERFORMANCE.
Fleet, you act as everyone else is the ignorant one, but in reality, you are the ignorant one, stuck in a time warp of myth and narrow mindedness.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;762489]What calculations did you use? And I asked what rear wheel (not net) hp.
How fast have you personally driven your Acura? And let's see how fast it can go 40 years from now (if it's still alive).[/QUOTE]
I'm sure with a number of rebuilds, tune ups, and restoration, the car will be able to go that speed. Just like almost every muscle car needs to be able to keep running.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;762489]What calculations did you use? And I asked what rear wheel (not net) hp.[/QUOTE]
Bone stock 426 Hemis made about 315 rear wheel HP, which lines up quite well with Chrysler Corp's 350 SAE NET HP rating (at the crank):
[url=http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/roadtests/37426/photo_08.html]P97215 Image Large Photo[/url]
Here's what 425 [COLOR="Red"]ACTUAL[/COLOR] (SAE NET) HP looks like in a 4,212 pound (PLUS driver) Chrysler sedan: 173 MPH.
[url=http://s218.photobucket.com/albums/cc136/harddrivin1le_album/?action=view¤t=SRT8300C.jpg]SRT8300C.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting[/url]