RWHP versus ACTUAL horsepower? Huh?
03-07-2013, 05:23 PM
#31
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They say different on it helps by 25%,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering
Active four-wheel steering
At low speeds the turning circle can be tightened so parking and maneuvering is easier.
The steering has been around but not like todays more computerized.
Just like automatics have been around racing but nowhere near what PDK is which now
shifts quicker than anyone can with a manual trans.
Wonder what the rocker arm setup looks like,says more like motorcycle motor.
Back to question of post
Seen only crank horse from auto makers,not sure of any who show RWHP in sales brochure etc.
Good video on the new car is at
Last edited by inactiveuser1; 03-07-2013 at 05:55 PM.
03-08-2013, 09:27 AM
#33
When everything is considered HP is a little overrated in determing a car's fun factor, and even the performance of the car. I have seen test where a 660 HP Mustang can not get to 200. With that flat front end I can see why. The CD on a new Mustang or Camero might be about the same as the 25 year old Shark, but what is that drag actually doing. Lifting, staying nuetral, or creating down force for stability. Is'nt there a GPS verified run with a Shark getting to 210 with less than 600 crank HP? If a Mustang gets to 196 with 660 crank HP, what would it take to get to 210? I would think another 60 to 80 HP.
03-08-2013, 09:46 AM
#34
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
It's actually quite similar to the Honda where the wheel's move either with the front wheels or opposite depending on how fast you are going.
With my driving back in college, my Prelude could do a sub 7 minute 'Ring lap time with 7 people riding along....
With my driving back in college, my Prelude could do a sub 7 minute 'Ring lap time with 7 people riding along....
03-08-2013, 12:19 PM
#36
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low speed same as 2 wheel
Medium worked both ways,same way as front going into the corner and opposite on the way out.
High speed was opposite of the fronts.
You guys must of smoked alot of funny cigarettes to imagine those times
Last edited by inactiveuser1; 10-06-2013 at 10:23 PM.
03-08-2013, 06:22 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
If Paul'a car dynoed an average of 281rwhp and the factory stated crank hp is 300hp then his driveline loss is 300/(300-281)= 15.8%
281/300 = .06% loss, which is not accurate drive train loss estimate.
281whp should account for 15% loss, so 281/.85 = 330hp, 30+ over stock 300hp rating.
03-08-2013, 06:38 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
When everything is considered HP is a little overrated in determing a car's fun factor, and even the performance of the car. I have seen test where a 660 HP Mustang can not get to 200. With that flat front end I can see why. The CD on a new Mustang or Camero might be about the same as the 25 year old Shark, but what is that drag actually doing. Lifting, staying nuetral, or creating down force for stability. Is'nt there a GPS verified run with a Shark getting to 210 with less than 600 crank HP? If a Mustang gets to 196 with 660 crank HP, what would it take to get to 210? I would think another 60 to 80 HP.
03-08-2013, 07:18 PM
#39
Yea but I was being cautious with my estimate. A lot of people do not realize the power increases it takes to get to speeds like 200, 220 or 250. My main point is that HP is only one part of the eqaution in the performance of any car. I am not saying HP is not very important, but everything has to mesh together to have a good car. In 1982 When Dr. Porsche announced that the new 944 could travel 45mph and only be using 26 HP, he knew they had something good.
03-09-2013, 04:58 AM
#40
Nordschleife Master
The purpose of the Mustang is not to go 200 MPH, or set records at the ring, its to allow the minimum wage pay check of the kid at the local grocery store to buy a car that kicks the @ss of fancy expensive cars from 0-120 MPH.
03-09-2013, 05:46 AM
#41
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When everything is considered HP is a little overrated in determing a car's fun factor, and even the performance of the car. I have seen test where a 660 HP Mustang can not get to 200. With that flat front end I can see why. The CD on a new Mustang or Camero might be about the same as the 25 year old Shark, but what is that drag actually doing. Lifting, staying nuetral, or creating down force for stability. Is'nt there a GPS verified run with a Shark getting to 210 with less than 600 crank HP? If a Mustang gets to 196 with 660 crank HP, what would it take to get to 210? I would think another 60 to 80 HP.
This year the claim is breaking 200mph for the 2014 model
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/trim/shelbygt500/
03-09-2013, 11:00 AM
#42
The stupid azz kid at the grocery store is what I am worried about. I remember a kid that got killed im my small home town when I was only about 10. He was heading home from school and was going about 120. He lost control and actaully clipped the top of 30ft tall trees as he ramped through the ditch. Take that to 200mph and some idiot is going to fly off of a freeway some time and crash into a office building or housing district. I am pretty conservative but I also know that we don't need 200mph cars everywhere. That makes about as much sense as letting the guy next door have a loaded grenade launcher in his front yard. It's going to get real bad in a few years when all these cars start ending up at the buy here pay here places.
Last edited by rgs944; 03-09-2013 at 11:19 AM.
03-09-2013, 01:12 PM
#43
I also think about a lady that went nuts a few years ago in my home town. She hit the gas pedal and was driving down the street at about 90 in a 30 mph business district before slamming into a pole. Take that same scenario 5 years from now when she is driving granny's 580 HP Caddilac and it will likely be more than her that dies next time.
