Dual exhausts? everywhere, but not on the right cars

[argatoga]

The ZR1 was not a handling machine in its day. GM wanted the Corvette to go faster so they had Lotus make a powerful V8 for it. Point and shoot (not that there is anything wrong with that). But according to jsausley's nebulous definition of "it can handle and... uh... go fast, and... uh... not a pony car!" it is a sports car, being as it isn't a pony car.

Outside of a drag race something like this would eat a C4 ZR1:

 

[Bad Bowtie]

First, do you consider "pony car" to be an actual type of car? I'm pretty sure it only applies to Camaros and Mustangs? So that's not the same thing.

Look up pony car, there is more than the Mustang and Camaro if you look back over the decades. Now, there are only really 3 American pony cars left, but all of the lines between what's what are becoming blurred more often since cars dip into other categories' strong areas.

How can you not consider a Corvette a sports car? I'm confused.

I don't think that's what he was questioning about your post. It was the bit at the end...

Is the old ZR1 an agile car by modern standards?

Holding old cars to modern standards is a VERY poor argument, and I don't mean just in this situation.

I'd want it off even if I'm slower that way so that I can learn more about car control.

Not every driver learns the same way.

If you are not willing to take certain risks associated with taking your car to the track, then start out with autocross first maybe

Why should you be confined to something you don't find as exciting just because you haven't had the experience, aren't as good, or have a different plan of attack than someone else? Some people are out there to have fun, but don't find that same fun in autocross. Personally, I'd definitely do a proper track day before I did one of autocross. Autocross' big draw is that you don't need power to succeed. Throw an average driver in 2 cars, one with 200hp and the other with 400hp and you can bet, 8 or 9 times out of 10 the average driver will get 200hp car around faster. Road racing takes everything into account, since straights can let average drivers more powerful cars fight back. I am someone who likes lots of power and straight-line racing. However, I would like to hit a circuit some time. I'd be willing to put my car on the line to an extent, but those first few times out the any and every aid that my particular car had would be on. Does that mean I should be forced into starting with autocross? Hell no, because I don't find that anywhere near as interesting.

Whoever said most people overestimate their driving skills, I very much agree with you.

 

[jsausley]

The ZR1 was not a handling machine in its day. GM wanted the Corvette to go faster so they had Lotus make a powerful V8 for it. Point and shoot (not that there is anything wrong with that). But according to jsausley's nebulous definition of "it can handle and... uh... go fast, and... uh... not a pony car!" it is a sports car, being as it isn't a pony car.

Outside of a drag race something like this would eat a C4 ZR1: RX-7

Where are you getting that information? I am truly interested, because I've never seen hardcore handling tests for the ZR1, and apparently you have.

Prove to me that the unmodified, severely under-powered RX-7 would beat the C4 ZR1, will you?

Let's look at the numbers.

Power-to-weight? RX-7: 11.08 pounds per HP. ZR1: 8.39 pounds per HP.
0-60? RX-7: 5.3 seconds. ZR1: 4.4 seconds.
Top speed? RX-7: 157 MPH. ZR1: 178 MPH.
Weight distribution? Both have 50/50 (basic C4 was 51/49, ZR1 is 50/50 due to lighter engine).
Braking distance? RX-7: 222 ft. from 80 MPH. ZR1: 233 ft. from 80 MPH.
Skidpad? RX-7: 0.92g. ZR1: 0.94g.
Wheelbase? RX-7: 95.5 in. ZR1: 96.2 in.
Tire tread? RX-7: 255/255. ZR1: 275/315.
Height? RX-7: 48.4 in. ZR1: 46.3 in.
Length? RX-7: 168.5 in. ZR1: 178.5 in.
Width? RX-7: 68.9 in. ZR1: 73.1 in.

The only place where the RX-7 outperforms is braking and the only dimension the RX-7 has over the ZR1 is overall length. The ZR1 is lower, wider, has wider tire tread, better power-to-weight ratio, the same weight distribution, better acceleration, higher top speed... Yeah.

Finally, I can't see how my definition is nebulous. I said that any car developed purely for the purpose of being a performance car can qualify as a sports car. I don't care how many doors it has, whether it has a top or not, whether it has 4 cylinders, 8 cylinders, or 12 cylinders, as long as it was designed, ultimately, with performance it mind, it's a sports car. I even hold that definition true for the M3 and the Evo, because while they are based on a saloon/sedan, that particular car was still developed with performance in mind. I simply withheld the older Mustangs and Camaros from that because they weren't designed for performance - if they were, they would have had more care taken with their suspension development.

 

[Aircooled]

Everyone that knows automotive history understands that dual exhausts have been placed on only the highest preformance cars.






Like this here 1956 VW bug and its HO 36BHP engine.

 

[jasonof2000]

Ohhhhh!

 

[LeVeL]

If you don't care about getting better and you just want to be a "racer" and have Civics pass you, by all means head out to the local track with no experience at all and have a ball. Me, I know I'd get smoked so I would rather learn to drive gradually before setting tire onto a road course. To each his own. I'll stick to autocross for a couple of years before hitting the track, but if you want to, you're more than welcome to be "that guy" that holds everyone up at the track.

As far as traction control is concerned, my honest opinion is that if you feel like you need TC at the track, then you simply aren't good enough to be there. I don't want to rely on TC and/or ESP, I'd rather learn how to control the car myself, without electronic aids.

 

[argatoga]

Where are you getting that information? I am truly interested, because I've never seen hardcore handling tests for the ZR1, and apparently you have.

Prove to me that the unmodified, severely under-powered RX-7 would beat the C4 ZR1, will you?

Let's look at the numbers.

Power-to-weight? RX-7: 11.08 pounds per HP. ZR1: 8.39 pounds per HP.
0-60? RX-7: 5.3 seconds. ZR1: 4.4 seconds.
Top speed? RX-7: 157 MPH. ZR1: 178 MPH.
Weight distribution? Both have 50/50 (basic C4 was 51/49, ZR1 is 50/50 due to lighter engine).
Braking distance? RX-7: 222 ft. from 80 MPH. ZR1: 233 ft. from 80 MPH.
Skidpad? RX-7: 0.92g. ZR1: 0.94g.
Wheelbase? RX-7: 95.5 in. ZR1: 96.2 in.
Tire tread? RX-7: 255/255. ZR1: 275/315.
Height? RX-7: 48.4 in. ZR1: 46.3 in.
Length? RX-7: 168.5 in. ZR1: 178.5 in.
Width? RX-7: 68.9 in. ZR1: 73.1 in.

Ah yes, because that is all I need to know to compare cars. I remember Enzo Ferrari threw in his hat once when he saw similar comparisons to another race car. My God that car is an inche higher and has two more HP per pound! Suspension geometry and body shape be damned! How many rivets do the seats have, I suspect that is a useful measurement as well.

I've already had this argument over the definition of a sports car (it is in a Smoking Tire thread somewhere). I have yet to hear anyone being able to define it in any sensible way. I don't feel like having this argument again. You don't like the older Mustangs so they aren't sports cars in your opinion. O.K. good for you.

 

[TC]

If you don't care about getting better and you just want to be a "racer" and have Civics pass you, by all means head out to the local track with no experience at all and have a ball.

Who said anything about not learning and getting better? Sounds to me like you're making the assumption that it's impossible to learn track skills with TC/ESP turned on. Like others have said, most good electronic ads only kick in when you've lost it. If you want to learn, then just keep in mind that if the TC/ESP kicked in, then you've probably pushed too hard. And I don't think driving around cones in some parking lot will fully prepare anyone to handle a road course all that much. Nothing beats first hand experience, I believe, so it's good to get out there and get some track time in. And if you're still learning, then I believe it's even more important that you keep the safety systems activated. You want to spin yourself into a guard rail? Be my guest, but on a track you could collect others and ruin their day as well. And I don't think those other drivers you crashed into will be happy that you turned everything off, so you could, like, get better and not have Civics pass you bye.

As far as traction control is concerned, my honest opinion is that if you feel like you need TC at the track, then you simply aren't good enough to be there. I don't want to rely on TC and/or ESP, I'd rather learn how to control the car myself, without electronic aids.

The way I see it, TC/ESP are safety systems. Kinda like how seat belts, helmets, fire retardant suits, roll cages are also safety devices. You don't use them because you need them, you use them just in case something bad happens. A good TC/ESP system will not kick in early, but rather it will let you push it over the limit just a bit. If it kicks in, then it probably just saved you from a crash. But hey, it's your car, your choice, just try not to take anyone with you when your skill runs out.

 

[jsausley]

Usually you have an instructor on your first five or six full track events (at least, that is the case with SCCA and NASA). They put you in a low level course, with relatively new drivers, so you can learn your skills. It's not like they throw you out solo in the midst of a bunch of hardened racers.

LeVeL - what do you drive when you go to the autocross or track? If it's something like a Miata (like your sig suggest), you won't realize the advantages of a TC system. It's a different animal when you have 400 HP instead of <150.

With the GTO, I've only had TC come on twice with me in two track events at VIR (probably about 90 laps).

Once was going through the uphill esses, which is a very tough part of the track, and where I've seen a large number of cars go off (including Hammond's Porsche in the east coast special, interestingly). I went in too fast and I had to brake during the first corner, and when I came out of it the TC came on. If it hadn't, I would've gone off.

The second time was coming out of Oak Tree, when I got into the power too early, the back started to slide and then I felt TC kick in to stop the back in from coming around. I would've definitely been in a tire wall if it didn't jump in to help.

 

[janstett]

Personally, I'd definitely do a proper track day before I did one of autocross. Autocross' big draw is that you don't need power to succeed. Throw an average driver in 2 cars, one with 200hp and the other with 400hp and you can bet, 8 or 9 times out of 10 the average driver will get 200hp car around faster. Road racing takes everything into account, since straights can let average drivers more powerful cars fight back. I am someone who likes lots of power and straight-line racing.

I would recommend the opposite, and I learned in a ~400hp LS1 Trans Am, a car that's definitely not best suited for autocross as opposed to road racing. I autocrossed for 2-3 years before my first proper track.

Not only is autocross low risk, but it will teach you several things that will suit you well on the big track.

- Throttle and brake are not on-off switches
- Learning how to carry speed through corners is very important (read: powerful cars will understeer over cones at low speeds).
- Weight transfer especially under power & braking drastically effects handling.

If you've never been on a track before you've got a lot to learn -- such that it doesn't really matter that you've got a powerful car because you will be like a baby with a gun. Learning in the kiddie pool of autocross will serve you well on road courses. Further, autocross is only one lap at a time for around 1-2 minutes. Road racing will have you out there for dozens of laps, 15-30 minutes at a time. Autocross will cost you tens of dollars and road racing will cost you hundreds.

If you ONLY like straight line racing then hit the drag strip. If you want to turn, my advice is that anybody can mash the gas pedal, going fast around a road course is about more than raw power, I guarantee with that attitude you will be understeering in corners because you're coming in way too hot and all the weight transfers to the front tires under braking (get used to flat-spotting your tires), you'll be oversteering and drifting around tight corners, and running off the track because you don't know how to carry speed through corners. I know from experience.

Forget about competing in autocross, do it for fun and experience. It will teach you a lot with very little risk. Worst you will do is understeer into some cones and have some polishing to do. But you will learn a lot about driving dynamics. Especially if you get to see pictures of what your car is doing under extreme handling conditions.

Sounds to me like you're making the assumption that it's impossible to learn track skills with TC/ESP turned on. Like others have said, most good electronic ads only kick in when you've lost it. If you want to learn, then just keep in mind that if the TC/ESP kicked in, then you've probably pushed too hard. And I don't think driving around cones in some parking lot will fully prepare anyone to handle a road course all that much. Nothing beats first hand experience, I believe, so it's good to get out there and get some track time in. And if you're still learning, then I believe it's even more important that you keep the safety systems activated. You want to spin yourself into a guard rail? Be my guest, but on a track you could collect others and ruin their day as well.

Like the rest of my car (2000 TA) the ESC system is stone age simple. Basically when there is any wheelspin (including on a dry dragstrip-style straight line launch but also powering out of corners) it will retard fuel delivery, basically cutting back the throttle and making you sputter. These stability programs are intended for PUBLIC ROAD conditions and particularly for novice drivers who have more car than they know how to handle. In other words 16 year old kids who mash the throttle and wrap the car around a tree.

I grant modern ESP programs do more work such as keeping the car drivable when it is inherently unstable (think SLS) and keeping SUVs from falling over on their sides.

But if I drove around a track with the ESC on I would only be causing further delays because the fuel delivery would cut out when I need it the most (powering out of corners) and I'd lose not only lap time but concentration in addition to causing a logjam at one of the track bottlenecks.

Personally I hate driver assists (with the exception of ABS but even then, learn to brake dammit) and I think every car should be a 427 Cobra or Viper that requires the driver to learn how to master it. Isn't the point of being out there to learn car control? If embedded computers are doing your work for you, well, where's the fun in that?

Most ESP programs interfere with the driver having any fun that shouldn't happen on a public road.

 

[jsausley]

Well, as you said, yours is so restrictive because it's a simple system on an older car. In your situation, definitely turn it off. But mine rarely comes on, as I said.

 

[LeVeL]

Only a few modern TC/ESP systems are actually any good for track use. The rest are poor, as janstett pointed out. Like I said, I'd want electronic nannies turned off during a track day but to each his own, I suppose.

jsausley - my buddy did his first trackday in a CRX with 170hp tops. There were a GTO and Evo in his group that would be right up his butt at the end of every straight but nowhere in sight after he came out of a corner. That's the other thing - I believe that power is bad for learning because you end up relying on it. My Miata is a momentum car, which means that if you mess up a corner, you can't make that time up down the straights.
To answer your question though - I've autocrossed a number of different cars. The most powerful (not fastest) was an AP1 S2000, known for its twitchy rear end; I found to be perfectly fine and controllable and have a 1st place trophy from that day to show for it.

All that said, I agree with janstett - autocross is not just puttering around a parking lot. It teaches you a lot of basic car control skills that transfer to the street and the track.

 

[jsausley]

My only experience with autocross was with SRT and we did STR-4s, SRT-6s, and SRT-10s (Vipers), and they all seemed to perform about the same. No car could get over 60 MPH because of the course was so small, and while the Viper certainly handled the best, the others probably were only a second or two behind in overall time, simply because if you put more than a quarter throttle on the Viper you'd go through the cones.

jsausley - my buddy did his first trackday in a CRX with 170hp tops. There were a GTO and Evo in his group that would be right up his butt at the end of every straight but nowhere in sight after he came out of a corner.

Sounds like the drivers in the GTO and Evo were very bad drivers, and I'm not just saying that to be a smart ass. Last time I did a track day, the cars were all fairly equal as long as the drivers were decent (in other words, not the previously mentioned GT-R), and we had Corvettes, an STi, M3s (old and new), a new M5, a few spec-Miatas and 911s. The only things I really remember threatening me in the corners was a Z06 (which definitely passed me), a lightened and racy E36 M3 (which also passed me), and a Lotus (which didn't, thanks to leaving him behind on the straights). In an amateur track event, the cars are all on street tires and they all perform within, I'm guessing, probably 10 or 15% of each other which is not enough of a difference that you can attempt a mid-corner overtake, or even a straight overtake if the driver in front of you doesn't let off. All of the passing takes place on the straights and the difference between 400 HP and a Miata on a straight is huge.

I'm looking forward to more HPDEs this fall, once the weather cools a bit. When I start going back, I'll get some video. But before that, I'm going get slotted brakes and a better radiator (was running about 260 degrees F in oil temp, would love to get that down to 240ish). The one place where the GTO scared me was in braking. After 10+ laps of hard braking from over 130 MPH, the pedal feel starts to jitter a bit, probably because the car weighs nearly 3600 pounds.

*EDIT* S2000s are great little cars. Perfectly balanced, and that high revving 9000 RPM redline is fantastic. But, that's a car with around 230 HP and 140 lb-ft torque, so I really think your views are skewed when talking about traction control. You need to drive something that reaches the 400 mark (torque moreso than HP), like a Corvette, Viper, or equally powerful car that, in low gear, will start spinning the tires as soon as you push the throttle more than halfway down if you're not perfectly straight or perfectly ready to do so. In that kind of car, you'll learn to appreciate a TC system that isn't invasive.

Obviously, for clarification, I would like to say that I agree completely that TC does in fact slow you down and makes the drive less pure, but for a semi-amateur driver who only does a few autocross or track day events a year I think it's silly to take it off unless you're driving an under-powered car.

 

[prizrak]

If you don't care about getting better and you just want to be a "racer" and have Civics pass you, by all means head out to the local track with no experience at all and have a ball. Me, I know I'd get smoked so I would rather learn to drive gradually before setting tire onto a road course. To each his own. I'll stick to autocross for a couple of years before hitting the track, but if you want to, you're more than welcome to be "that guy" that holds everyone up at the track.

As far as traction control is concerned, my honest opinion is that if you feel like you need TC at the track, then you simply aren't good enough to be there. I don't want to rely on TC and/or ESP, I'd rather learn how to control the car myself, without electronic aids.

I was reading this website by an autocrosser/racer who was talking about racing with ABS. The way he suggested to treat it was the following, when the car's ABS kicks in treat it as the locking point of the brakes and ease off a little. You can do the same thing with TC/ESP depending on how well it's tuned, if it's tuned properly you treat TC/ESP kicking on as the limit that you should not be going past and adjust your driving accordingly. Once you get to the point where you don't trip the TC/ESP you can start driving w/o it and see if you can improve the times.

Also learning how to set the fastest times and learning recovery don't have to happen in the same session.

 

[LeVeL]

I rode along in a Viper at an autocross and he was wide open coming out of every corner. Good tires + smooth inputs = you can put down a hell of a lot of power.

As for my TC argument - it shouldn't be about setting the fastest lap times or having the "purest" driving experience for a beginner. I just think that without electronic safety nets you are (possibly only subconsciously) more aware of what you are doing and you think about your inputs more. In my dad's A4 in the snow, you can drive around with one finger on the wheel (I don't, don't worry) and the ESP just sorts everything out for you. Whenever I'm driving a WRX (never mind a Miata) in the snow, I am much more aware of what the car is doing and I am constantly considering any inputs and thinking about what the result will be.

Like I said earlier, to each his own. I don't think there is a 100% right or wrong answer to this TC/ESP-on-a-track issue.

 

[prizrak]

n my dad's A4 in the snow, you can drive around with one finger on the wheel (I don't, don't worry) and the ESP just sorts everything out for you.

He must have some skinny ass tires on that car or puts winters on. If I relied on ESP to sort everything out in my A4 in the snow I wouldn't be talking to you right now

 

[TC]

I think the whole TC/ESP argument boils down to the individual systems themselves, as it should be. If the system lets you push the car over the limit before it kicks in, then you should leave it on. If it's constantly intruding and interfering, preventing you from driving the car the way you want to drive, then turn it off.

That being said, I've heard plenty of examples of cars with adjustable traction control systems where the fastest lap time posted by professional drivers was with the TC/ESP turn on, but at it's lowest level. I believe it was the Z06 and/or ZR1. Which are very powerful cars that could potentially bite your head off, so it makes sense.

 

[Bad Bowtie]

Where are you getting that information? I am truly interested, because I've never seen hardcore handling tests for the ZR1, and apparently you have.

Prove to me that the unmodified, severely under-powered RX-7 would beat the C4 ZR1, will you?

Let's look at the numbers.

Power-to-weight? RX-7: 11.08 pounds per HP. ZR1: 8.39 pounds per HP.
0-60? RX-7: 5.3 seconds. ZR1: 4.4 seconds.
Top speed? RX-7: 157 MPH. ZR1: 178 MPH.
Weight distribution? Both have 50/50 (basic C4 was 51/49, ZR1 is 50/50 due to lighter engine).
Braking distance? RX-7: 222 ft. from 80 MPH. ZR1: 233 ft. from 80 MPH.
Skidpad? RX-7: 0.92g. ZR1: 0.94g.
Wheelbase? RX-7: 95.5 in. ZR1: 96.2 in.
Tire tread? RX-7: 255/255. ZR1: 275/315.
Height? RX-7: 48.4 in. ZR1: 46.3 in.
Length? RX-7: 168.5 in. ZR1: 178.5 in.
Width? RX-7: 68.9 in. ZR1: 73.1 in.

The only place where the RX-7 outperforms is braking and the only dimension the RX-7 has over the ZR1 is overall length. The ZR1 is lower, wider, has wider tire tread, better power-to-weight ratio, the same weight distribution, better acceleration, higher top speed... Yeah.

Finally, I can't see how my definition is nebulous. I said that any car developed purely for the purpose of being a performance car can qualify as a sports car. I don't care how many doors it has, whether it has a top or not, whether it has 4 cylinders, 8 cylinders, or 12 cylinders, as long as it was designed, ultimately, with performance it mind, it's a sports car. I even hold that definition true for the M3 and the Evo, because while they are based on a saloon/sedan, that particular car was still developed with performance in mind. I simply withheld the older Mustangs and Camaros from that because they weren't designed for performance - if they were, they would have had more care taken with their suspension development.

Because dimensions and numbers are all that matters when comparing handling. :lol: Top speed? That plays a factor in handling too? :lol::lol:

I would recommend the opposite, and I learned in a ~400hp LS1 Trans Am, a car that's definitely not best suited for autocross as opposed to road racing. I autocrossed for 2-3 years before my first proper track.

Not only is autocross low risk, but it will teach you several things that will suit you well on the big track.

- Throttle and brake are not on-off switches
- Learning how to carry speed through corners is very important (read: powerful cars will understeer over cones at low speeds).
- Weight transfer especially under power & braking drastically effects handling.

If you've never been on a track before you've got a lot to learn -- such that it doesn't really matter that you've got a powerful car because you will be like a baby with a gun. Learning in the kiddie pool of autocross will serve you well on road courses. Further, autocross is only one lap at a time for around 1-2 minutes. Road racing will have you out there for dozens of laps, 15-30 minutes at a time. Autocross will cost you tens of dollars and road racing will cost you hundreds.

If you ONLY like straight line racing then hit the drag strip. If you want to turn, my advice is that anybody can mash the gas pedal, going fast around a road course is about more than raw power, I guarantee with that attitude you will be understeering in corners because you're coming in way too hot and all the weight transfers to the front tires under braking (get used to flat-spotting your tires), you'll be oversteering and drifting around tight corners, and running off the track because you don't know how to carry speed through corners. I know from experience.

Forget about competing in autocross, do it for fun and experience. It will teach you a lot with very little risk. Worst you will do is understeer into some cones and have some polishing to do. But you will learn a lot about driving dynamics. Especially if you get to see pictures of what your car is doing under extreme handling conditions.



Like the rest of my car (2000 TA) the ESC system is stone age simple. Basically when there is any wheelspin (including on a dry dragstrip-style straight line launch but also powering out of corners) it will retard fuel delivery, basically cutting back the throttle and making you sputter. These stability programs are intended for PUBLIC ROAD conditions and particularly for novice drivers who have more car than they know how to handle. In other words 16 year old kids who mash the throttle and wrap the car around a tree.

I grant modern ESP programs do more work such as keeping the car drivable when it is inherently unstable (think SLS) and keeping SUVs from falling over on their sides.

But if I drove around a track with the ESC on I would only be causing further delays because the fuel delivery would cut out when I need it the most (powering out of corners) and I'd lose not only lap time but concentration in addition to causing a logjam at one of the track bottlenecks.

Personally I hate driver assists (with the exception of ABS but even then, learn to brake dammit) and I think every car should be a 427 Cobra or Viper that requires the driver to learn how to master it. Isn't the point of being out there to learn car control? If embedded computers are doing your work for you, well, where's the fun in that?

Most ESP programs interfere with the driver having any fun that shouldn't happen on a public road.

I don't really feel like breaking this post down. Suffice it to say, you make a TON of assumptions...and we all know where that goes.


I like how people assume drag racing is just mash the pedal and go, like you just said in your post. :lol: Granted it takes a different set of skills and in almost every case less actual talent, but that's because drag racing is mostly about setting up the car before the race, not (entirely) what you do in the race. I have a friend with an LS1 Formula that ran 12.0s with no power mods other than a muffler. Different beasts, but that doesn't mean one is better than the other.

I loooove the pious attitude that comes standard with your typical road racer/auto-crosser ego. Drag racing isn't real racing, right? Because anyone can do it, right? That is seriously laughable. Case in point: my friend's LT1/6 speed. He could only get a best of 14.0 every single time. I got out there and hit a 13.7 my first pass. Best of 13.5x @ 104.xx. A couple of my other friends couldn't go faster than 13.9s either...anyone can mash the pedal, right?

Oh and don't think it so easy for autos. In a modified auto car, mostly when when you get into big power/stalled autos, is where the problems arise.

 

[GRtak]

Can we seperate the track stuff from the dual exhaust discussion?

 

[Topgearfanatic]

Ah yes, because that is all I need to know to compare cars. I remember Enzo Ferrari threw in his hat once when he saw similar comparisons to another race car. My God that car is an inche higher and has two more HP per pound! Suspension geometry and body shape be damned! How many rivets do the seats have, I suspect that is a useful measurement as well.

I've already had this argument over the definition of a sports car (it is in a Smoking Tire thread somewhere). I have yet to hear anyone being able to define it in any sensible way. I don't feel like having this argument again. You don't like the older Mustangs so they aren't sports cars in your opinion. O.K. good for you.

What about Coco's definition: a sports car is one designed specifically for "wheeeeeeeee."