In article <1993Apr5.203719@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes: >In article <1993Apr2.030031.15691@cactus.org>, boyle@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes: >|> In article <1993Apr1.104746@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes: > > I found a Mopar spec sheet this weekend:  > >               model         wgt    hp >             Stealth         3086   164 >             Stealth ES      3186   222 >             Stealth RT      3373   222 >             Stealth RT TT   3803   300 > > Okay, I'll take "their" word for it.  These arethe numbers I have been stating in the past 5-10 messages. It really angers me that you insisted you were right, and that you had no clue what your own car weighed. Why didn't you check when I first told you that your figures were implausible?   >  > >> I am giving every chance to retract figures widely known. The Mustang is >> rated at 205.  222-205 is 17. You have a 17hp advantage over a Mustang > > Seems that the 1993 Mustang 5.0 is rated at 205 hp ONLY because Ford > changed its testing procedures.  Under the older procedures, it still  > rates closer to 225 hp.  That means that the Mustang has 3 hp more. >  I'd like to hear a better explanatin of how you come to that  conclusion from the above data.  > >> Big threat. You are KO'd by a Civic, acording to C+D  > > Yeah, sure, in your wet dreams.  And that's probably where you got  No, sorry your wrong again. *You* quoted the del Sol as doing 0-60 in 8.1 according to C+D. Interestingly, the Stealth ES, which is *faster* than your RT does the samerun in 8.5 seconds according to C+D. Kind of embarassing isn't it? Why didn't you check the figures  before posting? It only makes you look stupid when you are caught out twice with *your own* figures.  > that 11.2 second 0-60 for the Stealth. > > >>> I'll check C&D's 5/91 issue.  Strange that you claim to have that   You really should have checked.  >> >> Go ahead and check asshole, you'll realize what an idiot you are for not >> checking data beforeposting. Car+ Drive, may 91. Stealth ES, 222hp, >> automatic. > > For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car & Driver       *2* > without posting any numbers.  Why not?  Because they prove me right and you > ain't got the guts to admit it?  Yeah, thought so. > If you insist, I gave you every chance to retract, but:    Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 - Wonder why you couldn't find it?  Do you realize that a 9k Sentra (C+D) will run a 16.7, that a Sentra SE-R or Saturn will run in the 15's? Don't you think it is kind of strange that your 222hp sports car is so easily beaten.   A Mustang 5.0, which weights about the same (according to *your* numbers), has less power and is much quicker? Care to explain. Don't be abusive, just try and come up with a rational explanation of where those 222hp went to, its a mystery to me.  >> The Sentra SE-R really is alot quicker than the 222hp FWD Sports car. >> You are close to the 9k sentra-e. Go look up the numbers in C+D - and >> report please. > > No, I'm going to play your game -  > >       No way, Sentra's are SLOW!  I took a test drive and it took >       21.7 to go 0-50!  Why, even the Hyundai Excel blows it doors