Bang for the Buck?

On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, McHoogilan wrote:

On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, McHoogilan wrote:

That's because they've never tested cars like the HPA GOLF R32 which could get a time of around 1:18 flat for $54,000, the EIP Stage 4 Golf R32 which would do it in about 1:16 and change for $?

Jeremy Clarkson actually drove the Evo 9 FQ400 against a professional racer driving a Lamborghini Murcielago and Jeremy won.

The Nissan GTR is WITHOUT EQUAL in the bang for the buck category, it has 2 million dollar car performance on the track for 70k.

On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, McHoogilan wrote:

Also, on a big OVAL track, a standing mile or a run in Bonniville, the Bugatti Veyron, Mclaren F1, and Koenigsegg CCX, would DESTROY the other cars by a VERY LARGE margin.

I did see the Pashitt

Ofcourse not, Passats are meant to be driven fast on Highways, not the track. Passats have among the best horsepower to weight ratio of any midsize cars in existence.

A 4000lbs 270bhp Passat W8 can do 174 MPH, but even a 2700lbs 270bhp First Generation Acura NSX can only do 168 MPH.

It's the 0.27 drag coefficient and perfect 6th gear ratio and final drive ratio that the Passat has, it actually makes a bigger difference than the 1300lbs weight difference. Besides to drive really fast, a car should be heavy like the Bugatti Veyron or else it could become airborne from a gust of wind.

A 411 bhp Passat W8 with supercharger can do 200mph. That is among the best horsepower to top speed ratios out there. It's not just the W8 though, ALL Passats have great horsepower to top speed ratios. The 150bhp 1998 Passat B5 1.8T has a top speed of 143 MPH, and the

Corvettes on the other hand are some of the most inefficient cars at converting horsepower into top speed. Even with 405 bhp a C5 Z06 can only manage 172 MPH drag limited. Corvettes can't even break 200 MPH with 505 BHP, while a Passat can do it with just 411 bhp.

On Jul 23, 11:15 pm, Z=FFRiX wrote:

Or should I say I did not see the Pashatt...

Go to bed son. You'll be flipping burgers at Micky Dees the rest of your life.

I don't know why I'm getting sucked into this. I don't see anything on that website about the track these were done on. I've been on tracks were 600 hp corvettes were slower lap times than 400 cc formula cars. Obviously, the Corvettes had MUCH higher speeds, but lap times were slower. Likewise, I have been on tracks were the opposite was true on lap times, where the 600 hp corvette shattered the 400 cc formula car to the point it looked like the formula car was a pace lap by comparison.

I'm reminded of a test day at the old Mid America Raceway track at Wentzville.A guy and his kid had a go-kart out there testing while several other cars were out there. The go kart was putting down lap times that was shattering most of the cars and beating nearly all. When we asked him about how he drove the track and where his braking points were, he simply asked "Brake?" The track was so wide and open for him he never braked anywhere on the course, while everyone else had to on at least four different corners and most on about 6 corners.

Without track information, these times are worthless.

I also doubt that lap times mean little to most who are buying many of these cars, except as bragging rights. I seriously doubt that many are capable of driving them to these times, whatever these times may represent.

"McHoogilan" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Well, Lordy, Lordy...didn't expect to see Tom here.

Since last week I'm only seeing 'our' side of these threads. Activated the 'Sal' filter several dozen posts ago. Thought this was a dead-end thread until I saw you here.

Good news that the cross-posting has stopped.

Great post! Great comment on bragging rights. Answer -- you got sucked in because you recognized he was screwed up and you wanted to help. You forgot that helping a troll is like helping the tar baby.

To your sage notes on track, I'd add the effect that the event and purse has on the degree of preparation -- or, where a team may have run the prior week. And, people do pick their event. No one has unlimited resources.

Or, sometimes a component that looked great in timed trials or quals doesn't work out well in the event. Then there's human error--mechs screw up and drivers blow it too. Then there is the matter of tires, weather and density altitude. When 'sal' works with anecdotal data he intentionally ignores these factors.

Those who watched the carnage at the GP (f1) last weekend got a visual lesson in minor (and major) things that can go wrong even when reputations on the line. (Hamilton's collision with the barrier during quals had me in stunned awe!)

Outside of our troll doing stupid stuff with car and engine data because he doesn't know s### about the difference between Cd and aero drag he probably means well.

Just lacks sufficient education to discern right from wrong or understand that it's more than machinery. One of these days 'Sal' may experience the joy of driving.

I think it's much like sex or golf -- OK for some as a spectator sport but *continuing* personal experience is usually the best teacher.

That said though, I have definite tastes in cars and sex. Golf is just plain challenging. Maybe I've got a lot to learn about all three. (definitely golf!)

-- pj

Tom in Missouri wrote:

I don't see anything on that

Besides the fact he's cherry-picking data (and anyone who brags about stuff they find on the web is an idiot) and also obviously making things up, it is plain, as you say, that "Sal" has no experience driving high performance cars. I'm sure the little twit would s*** his drawers LONG before he ever got a car up to 200, on a closed course or anywhere else. Tom is exactly right that VERY few drivers have the skill to make a performance car go as fast as it is capable of going. You have to be willing to drive on the razor's edge.

So much in racing depends on track conditions. It's obvious at Indy qualifications, which I attend most years. There are sweet spots in the day when the track is a few mph faster than it was an hour before or an hour later.

I don't know what GM or Chevrolet or a Corvette ever did to "Sal" to make him froth at the mouth so, but I don't care. As with you, he's in my garbage file and the sooner the little troll leaves, the better. That'll happen as soon as people quit feeding him.

Golf is a very difficult game for sure.

AJM '93 Ruby coupe, 6 sp (both tops)

On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, McHoogilan wrote:

Even the Caterham CSR 260 did the top gear track in 117.6 and you're excluding a lot of other cars that also had faster lap times than the corvette on your list. The Caterham CSR 260 also costs a lot less than the ZO6 as do a lot of other faster cars.

Oh please, the Stig is not the only person to drive on that course. There are plenty of faster cars than the corvette that are much cheaper. Here's some more PROOF that many cars are excluded from your list.

Ok, enough. Get back to your homework.