Looking to buy Dodge Stealth, have questions
Mubashir Cheema
Hello World,
I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth. I have never bought
a brand NEW car before. I would appreciate if you netters can help me land
a good/excellent deal. I have some questions and would appreciate if you
could answer some of these.
1. How should I approach a dealer? Is there any proven method of bargaining ?
2. I definitely would be interested in getting the best price I can. What
should I expect to pay for Stealth and Stealth RT ?
3. I have heard that Mitsubishi is offering a wonderful deal on 3000GTVR4
lease, anybody's got any details and if it is a GOOD deal and worth it ?
4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
5. Anybody's got invoice price on the Stealth RT and stealth ?
6. Any ideas, suggestions and your comments are more than welcome.
Mubashir Cheema
A4K !!!
Craig Boyle
>
> Hello World,
> I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth. I have never bought
> a brand NEW car before. I would appreciate if you netters can help me land
> a good/excellent deal. I have some questions and would appreciate if you
> could answer some of these.
>
>
> 1. How should I approach a dealer? Is there any proven method of bargaining ?
>
> 2. I definitely would be interested in getting the best price I can. What
> should I expect to pay for Stealth and Stealth RT ?
They have rebates.
>
> 3. I have heard that Mitsubishi is offering a wonderful deal on 3000GTVR4
> lease, anybody's got any details and if it is a GOOD deal and worth it ?
>
> 4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
The Stealth/3000GT will certainly make you stand out in a crowd. I hate
all the gadgets in the VR4 - but this is the one to choose. The other
models are so slow (despite the supposed 220bhp) they find it hard to
get out of their own way. The VR4 is the only to
have power that matches the looks. I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2
seconds (automatic) the 5 speed is somewhat quicker, but a Protege LX
would probably have you for lunch.
The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
car is fwd, it should be rwd.
Try looking at a Camaro, it has similar "look at me" styling and will
perform much better, Only problem is suspect GM build quality.
>
> 5. Anybody's got invoice price on the Stealth RT and stealth ?
Go to you look short-term reference library (Waldenbooks, B. Dalton etc.)
they have books with invoice prices.
Go to your long term referene library (University) and ask for automotive
news, they have details of rebates that the dealer may not tell you
about
>
> 6. Any ideas, suggestions and your comments are more than welcome.
>
Craig
>
>Mubashir Cheema
>A4K !!!
>
>
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <mac1.73...@Isis.MsState.Edu> ma...@Isis.MsState.Edu (Mubashir Cheema) writes:
|>> I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth. I have never bought
|>> a brand NEW car before. I would appreciate if you netters can help me
|>> land a good/excellent deal. I have some questions and would appreciate
|>> if you could answer some of these.
|>>
|>>
|>> 4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
|>
|> The Stealth/3000GT will certainly make you stand out in a crowd.
True. :)
|> I hate all the gadgets in the VR4 ...
Gadgets, what gadgets? Most of the stuff in there is also in every
other "fully equiped" car. Ain't nothing in there you don't find in
any other $30k+ automobile.
|> The other models are so slow (despite the supposed 220bhp) they
|> find it hard to get out of their own way.
|> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
BULLSHIT! I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
Better wind your watch, Craig.
|> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
|> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
Of course, Craig is talking about the non-turbo models because
everyone knows they are AWD. But a "real" enthusiast prides himself
on mastering ALL drives and would learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead
of relying on biased hearsay.
Not to start up the ol' FWD vs RWD thread again, but today's FWD sports
cars can handle anything than most drivers are capable of or are willing
to push any car to its limits.
|> Try looking at a Camaro, it has similar "look at me" styling and will
|> perform much better, Only problem is suspect GM build quality.
Ah, your true colors show through - just another pony car, stoplight
grand prix fan. Who else would recommend a Camaro to someone looking for
a Stealth/3000 over the Corvette LT-1, Nissan 300ZX, or Mazda RX-7?
TRAVIS
Christopher James Santarcangelo
> I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth. I have never bought
> a brand NEW car before. I would appreciate if you netters can help me land
> a good/excellent deal. I have some questions and would appreciate if you
> could answer some of these.
>
>
> 1. How should I approach a dealer? Is there any proven method of bargaining ?
>
> 2. I definitely would be interested in getting the best price I can. What
> should I expect to pay for Stealth and Stealth RT ?
>
> 3. I have heard that Mitsubishi is offering a wonderful deal on 3000GTVR4
> lease, anybody's got any details and if it is a GOOD deal and worth it ?
>
> 4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
I know someone who has owned MANY performance cars in his lifetime. He
bought a Stealth RT Turbo the first year they were offered. After one
long trip he came back very happy. He pulled out to pass a few cars
(started ~55mph) He passed the cars very quickly and when he looked down
he was doing 132 and the car didn't feel any different than at 55.
Sounds like a well engineered car to me!
>
> 5. Anybody's got invoice price on the Stealth RT and stealth ?
If memory serves me correctly (most likely not), the base Stealth starts
at about $17k.
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Mar23.1...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <mac1.73...@Isis.MsState.Edu> ma...@Isis.MsState.Edu (Mubashir Cheema) writes:
>|>> I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth. I have never bought
>|>> a brand NEW car before. I would appreciate if you netters can help me
>|>> land a good/excellent deal. I have some questions and would appreciate
>|>> if you could answer some of these.
>|>>
> [snip]
>|>>
>|>> 4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
>|>
>|> The Stealth/3000GT will certainly make you stand out in a crowd.
>
> True. :)
>
>
>|> I hate all the gadgets in the VR4 ...
>
> Gadgets, what gadgets? Most of the stuff in there is also in every
I guess I am a minimalist. An RX7 R1 is pimped out by my standards.
More seriously the VR4 is the pimp machine from hell, all those
video displays, buttons, AWD etc. A good counter example to the
VR4 is the RX7 which does a whole lot better as sports car by taking
a much simpler approach.
> other "fully equiped" car. Ain't nothing in there you don't find in
> any other $30k+ automobile.
>
>
>|> The other models are so slow (despite the supposed 220bhp) they
>|> find it hard to get out of their own way.
>|> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
>
> BULLSHIT! I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
> Better wind your watch, Craig.
Bullshit your bullshit! So you claim 15.8 in an automatic stealth
non turbo? I'll see you at Houston raceway park one Wednesday night!
Still, even if you are right, a 15.8 is pitiful for a car with those
looks and that claimed power. I'd have guessed nearer a 17.0 -
which I admit seems ridiculous given Mitusbishi's claimed power.
The actual times I got (I was timing, friend driving) averaged over
several runs were: 0-30 in 5.0 and 0-60 in 11.2. I thougt the
brakes were above average.
>
>
>|> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
>|> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
>
> Of course, Craig is talking about the non-turbo models because
> everyone knows they are AWD. But a "real" enthusiast prides himself
> on mastering ALL drives and would learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead
> of relying on biased hearsay.
I guess that's why there are so many fwd Ferrari's, Porsche's around etc.
FWD cannot handle real power. Note that I own (and autocross) only fwd
drive cars, but recognize the inherent superiority of rwd. Judgement
day is every Sunday afternoon. Incidentally, I have never seen
any Stealth/3000GT model do anything respectable in SCCA competition -
the general opinionis that they are too big, heavy and FWD.
>
> Not to start up the ol' FWD vs RWD thread again, but today's FWD sports
> cars can handle anything than most drivers are capable of or are willing
> to push any car to its limits.
Depends if you group yourself with "most drivers" or not.
>
>
>|> Try looking at a Camaro, it has similar "look at me" styling and will
>|> perform much better, Only problem is suspect GM build quality.
>
> Ah, your true colors show through - just another pony car, stoplight
> grand prix fan. Who else would recommend a Camaro to someone looking for
No, anyone that knows me would know how much I dislike the no-tech,
no handling pony cars. But I guessed that since the poster was
interested in the Stealth the Camaro would also be of interest because
of its exaggerated styling - and the Camaro would blow the doors
off the Stealth as long as it wasn't in the shop.
> a Stealth/3000 over the Corvette LT-1, Nissan 300ZX, or Mazda RX-7?
>
An RX7 R1 would be my clear choice out of these, followed by the LT1, Z,
MR2 T and someway back the Stealth.
>
> TRAVIS
Craig
Unknown
|> >|> find it hard to get out of their own way.
|> >|> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
|> >
|> > BULLSHIT! I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
|> > Better wind your watch, Craig.
Dont forget that drag strip times dont include rollout (the 12"-14" from
where the vehicle stages and trips the start light)
This first foot of travel takes 0.20 - 0.30 secs to be traversed. This
time will need to be added to strip time for comparison to stopwatch measuring.
|> Bullshit your bullshit! So you claim 15.8 in an automatic stealth
|> non turbo? I'll see you at Houston raceway park one Wednesday night!
|>
|> Still, even if you are right, a 15.8 is pitiful for a car with those
|> looks and that claimed power. I'd have guessed nearer a 17.0 -
|> which I admit seems ridiculous given Mitusbishi's claimed power.
|>
|> The actual times I got (I was timing, friend driving) averaged over
|> several runs were: 0-30 in 5.0 and 0-60 in 11.2. I thougt the
|> brakes were above average.
Speaking of stopwatch timing, if you are using the vehicles own speedometer
there are a few things you must consider. 1) Make sure the vehicle's indicated
speed is the same as the *actual* speed 2) Analog speedometers will typically
lag behind *actual* speed during acceleration by about 3 mph. Both will serve
to induce errors in your timing efforts. Also, stopwatch timing will include
first foot of travel (as it should be). This rollout time is typically not
included by drag strip timers or optical 5th wheel measuring devices. 5th
wheels used by rags like C&D will ignore the FFOT to avoid false starts during
vehicle staging.
So, strip times & Mag test times will tend to be a bit on the optimistic side.
ok that's enough,
$0.02
Ericy
*---------------------------------+---------------------------*
| Eric Youngblood |
| Bell-Northern Research _ |
| Richardson, Texas 75082 _| ~- |
| \, _} |
| \( +---------------------------|
| | Peon w/o Email privs |
*---------------------------------+---------------------------*
T.M.Haddock
|>In article <1993Mar2...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|>>In article <1993Mar23.1...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
|>>> In article <mac1.73...@Isis.MsState.Edu> ma...@Isis.MsState.Edu (Mubashir Cheema) writes:
|>>> The other models are so slow (despite the supposed 220bhp) they
|>>> find it hard to get out of their own way.
|>>> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
|>>
|>> I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
|> ... 15.8 is pitiful for a car with those looks and that claimed power.
I don't think 15.8 is that bad. "Stock" Mustangs and Camaros run low 15's
yet the Stealth gives up about 1000lbs to them. Besides, I was just
taking it easy so as not to hurt my new toy - probably could have gone
low 15's as well. ;)
Your friend should get his 11.2 car fixed.
|>>> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
|>>> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
|>>
|>> Of course, Craig is talking about the non-turbo models because
|>> everyone knows they are AWD. But a "real" enthusiast prides himself
|>> on mastering ALL drives and would learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead
|>> of relying on biased hearsay.
|>
|> I guess that's why there are so many fwd Ferrari's, Porsche's around etc.
|> FWD cannot handle real power.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean like the 300hp Northstar V8 in the FWD Cadillac STS?
I bet you said the same thing about the V-6 when it first came out.
But what has this go to do with an "enthusiast's point of view"?
By "biased hearsay" I meant the lame mind-set that says "must be RWD".
|> Note that I own (and autocross) only fwd drive cars, but recognize the
|> inherent superiority of rwd.
Then are you a NON-enthusiast because you drive FWD instead of RWD?
Why don't you practice what you preach?
Besides, "real" rally autocrossers drive AWD, recognizing the inherent
inferiorities in both FWD and RWD.
|> Incidentally, I have never seen any Stealth/3000GT model do anything
|> respectable in SCCA competition - the general opinionis that they are
|> too big, heavy and FWD.
So simply making it RWD will change all that?
BTW, one of the class's (I forget which) current champ drives a FWD
(Eagle?) and routinely beats the pants off the other RWD cars in the
class (300ZX?). But I guess he's a non-enthusiast too because he
doesn't recognize the fact the FWDs aren't suppose to do that.
And speaking of cars, you know what I drive, so what do you drive, Craig?
Or are you ashamed because it hasn't done "anything respectable in SCCA
competition" either?
|>> Not to start up the ol' FWD vs RWD thread again, but today's FWD sports
|>> cars can handle anything than most drivers are capable of or are willing
|>> to push any car to its limits.
|>
|> Depends if you group yourself with "most drivers" or not.
Until your name appears in bold type "CRAIG WINS AGAIN", yeah, you're
grouped with most drivers.
|>>> Try looking at a Camaro, it has similar "look at me" styling and will
|>>> perform much better, Only problem is suspect GM build quality.
|>>
|>> Ah, your true colors show through - just another pony car, stoplight
|>> grand prix fan. Who else would recommend a Camaro to someone looking for
|>
|> No, anyone that knows me would know how much I dislike the no-tech,
|> no handling pony cars. But I guessed that since the poster was
|> interested in the Stealth the Camaro would also be of interest because
|> of its exaggerated styling - and the Camaro would blow the doors
|> off the Stealth as long as it wasn't in the shop.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I take it you are referring to the Camaro because of your previous
questioning of GM's quality. I too have more confidence in Mitsu's
quality than GM's - at least I have had zero problems with mine.
But comparing apples to apples - according to C&D's specs, the new Camaro
Z28 and the Stealth/3000 Twin-Turbos are pretty evenly matched.
|> An RX7 R1 would be my clear choice out of these, followed by the LT1, Z,
|> MR2 T and someway back the Stealth.
Now this is what you should have said in the first place. :)
See ya in the winner's circle, :)
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Mar24.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|>In article <1993Mar2...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>|>>In article <1993Mar23.1...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|>>> In article <mac1.73...@Isis.MsState.Edu> ma...@Isis.MsState.Edu (Mubashir Cheema) writes:
>|>>>> I am looking to finance a Dodge Stealth...
>|>>>> 4. Any pluses or minuses for the car.
>
>|>>> The other models are so slow (despite the supposed 220bhp) they
>|>>> find it hard to get out of their own way.
>|>>> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
>|>>
>|>> I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
>
>|> ... 15.8 is pitiful for a car with those looks and that claimed power.
>
> I don't think 15.8 is that bad. "Stock" Mustangs and Camaros run low 15's
between the two. I don't own, one, never have, never wish to, but have
seen at least 10 of these vehicles run 13.9 thru 14.4.
> yet the Stealth gives up about 1000lbs to them. Besides, I was just
I'm glad you brought this up. The stealth does not give 1000 pounds to
a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
The Mustang has a big torque advantage and it is RWD....
> taking it easy so as not to hurt my new toy - probably could have gone
> low 15's as well. ;)
>
15.8 at 93 suggests that you are unable to launch the car - FWD problem
here.
> Your friend should get his 11.2 car fixed.
>
Dealerships vehicle.
It was brand new, which may account for part of the problem.
It was also an automnatic. I subsequently drove a stick shift, which
might just be able to do the 15.8 you state, but *no-way* is the
auto going to do 15.8. Do you drive a stick or an automatic?
>
>|>>> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
>|>>> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
>|>>
>|>> Of course, Craig is talking about the non-turbo models because
>|>> everyone knows they are AWD. But a "real" enthusiast prides himself
>|>> on mastering ALL drives and would learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead
>|>> of relying on biased hearsay.
>|>
>|> I guess that's why there are so many fwd Ferrari's, Porsche's around etc.
>|> FWD cannot handle real power.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You mean like the 300hp Northstar V8 in the FWD Cadillac STS?
> I bet you said the same thing about the V-6 when it first came out.
>
Not me. Just hang out with people who know about motorsport. FWD works
with low power vehicles (CRX etc) but not at higher hp's.
> But what has this go to do with an "enthusiast's point of view"?
> By "biased hearsay" I meant the lame mind-set that says "must be RWD".
I don't think you'd find anyone who "knew what they were talking about"
to agree with you. FWD can't put power down because of weight transfer.
>
>
>|> Note that I own (and autocross) only fwd drive cars, but recognize the
>|> inherent superiority of rwd.
>
> Then are you a NON-enthusiast because you drive FWD instead of RWD?
> Why don't you practice what you preach?
Money. The only decent RWD in my price bracket would be a 240SX or
a used "something".
>
> Besides, "real" rally autocrossers drive AWD, recognizing the inherent
I'm talkinbg about staying on the pavement. Otherwise, yes, I'd be in the
market for a used Group-B car.
> inferiorities in both FWD and RWD.
>
>
>|> Incidentally, I have never seen any Stealth/3000GT model do anything
>|> respectable in SCCA competition - the general opinionis that they are
>|> too big, heavy and FWD.
>
> So simply making it RWD will change all that?
>
RWD would help. The car would just be too big and heavy then.
> BTW, one of the class's (I forget which) current champ drives a FWD
> (Eagle?) and routinely beats the pants off the other RWD cars in the
The reason you have forgotten is because it doesn't exist. The AWD
Talon does OK in B-stock, which is where the 300ZX (non turbo is).
The FWD ones come nowhere as they can't put power down.
Just this last Sunday afternoon I watched as a FWD turbo Eagle tried
to compete in San Antonio. It was obvious he had too much power for
FWD.
> class (300ZX?). But I guess he's a non-enthusiast too because he
> doesn't recognize the fact the FWDs aren't suppose to do that.
>
> And speaking of cars, you know what I drive, so what do you drive, Craig?
Integra. I make no claim that this is a good car. However, I would kick your
butt in an autox (assuming you have an automatic stealth) :-)
> Or are you ashamed because it hasn't done "anything respectable in SCCA
> competition" either?
Its probably too heavy for E-stock. The car did win the Luk clutch challenge
a few times (competing against Talons, 240's etc.), but the class seem
to be heavily affected by weight penalties.
>
>
>|>> Not to start up the ol' FWD vs RWD thread again, but today's FWD sports
>|>> cars can handle anything than most drivers are capable of or are willing
>|>> to push any car to its limits.
>|>
>|> Depends if you group yourself with "most drivers" or not.
>
> Until your name appears in bold type "CRAIG WINS AGAIN", yeah, you're
> grouped with most drivers.
>
Look at the autocross results from Austin (Spokes), San Antonio (SASCA)
and College Station (TAMSCC) to see how I do.
>
>|>>> Try looking at a Camaro, it has similar "look at me" styling and will
>|>>> perform much better, Only problem is suspect GM build quality.
>|>>
>|>> Ah, your true colors show through - just another pony car, stoplight
>|>> grand prix fan. Who else would recommend a Camaro to someone looking for
>|>
>|> No, anyone that knows me would know how much I dislike the no-tech,
>|> no handling pony cars. But I guessed that since the poster was
>|> interested in the Stealth the Camaro would also be of interest because
>|> of its exaggerated styling - and the Camaro would blow the doors
>|> off the Stealth as long as it wasn't in the shop.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I take it you are referring to the Camaro because of your previous
> questioning of GM's quality. I too have more confidence in Mitsu's
> quality than GM's - at least I have had zero problems with mine.
>
> But comparing apples to apples - according to C&D's specs, the new Camaro
But then see how many odl F-bodies enagage in motorsport compared to
Mitu's. Part of the factor is cost. But, I have never
(to my recollection) eveer seen a Stealth in any form of organized
motorsport. It is too heavy and fwd.
> Z28 and the Stealth/3000 Twin-Turbos are pretty evenly matched.
>
>
>|> An RX7 R1 would be my clear choice out of these, followed by the LT1, Z,
>|> MR2 T and someway back the Stealth.
>
> Now this is what you should have said in the first place. :)
>
>
> See ya in the winner's circle, :)
>
> TRAVIS
Craig
T.M.Haddock
In article <1993Mar25.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig
>In article <1993Mar2...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>>In article <1993Mar24.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>>>In article <1993Mar2...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Mar23.1...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>>>>> I timed the 220 hp model at 0-60 in 11.2 seconds (automatic)
>>>> I have a 15.8 @ 93 mph timeslip that says you're wrong.
>>> ... 15.8 is pitiful for a car with those looks and that claimed power.
>> I don't think 15.8 is that bad. "Stock" Mustangs and Camaros run low 15's
> Stock 5.0 LX, 5 spd will run low 14s, not low 15's. I ... have seen at
> least 10 of these vehicles run 13.9 thru 14.4.
What you've probably seen are COBRA models and/or non-STOCK LXs.
(And that's STOCK as in "Factory" not "Racing Class").
Aside from friends that have Mustangs that run in the low 15's, from a
more objective source - CAR & DRIVER:
Mustang LX 6.3 15.0
Mustang Cobra 5.6 14.3
Camaro Z28 6.4 14.9
Camaro Z28 5.7 5.3 14.0
Of course, not to leave out the FWDs: :)
Dodge Daytona IROC RT 6.0 14.7
Taurus SHO 6.4 15.1
Taurus SHO Wagon Auto 7.5 15.6
>> yet the Stealth gives up about 1000lbs to them.
> I'm glad you brought this up. The stealth does not give 1000 pounds to
> a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
> has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
WRONG! You should really check your facts first.
1991* 1993*
Mustang weight: 3248 hp: 225 hp: 215 * - two sources list
Stealth weight: 3827 hp: 222 hp: 222 different numbers
------------- -------- -------- The Cobra has 245 hp
+ 579 - 3 + 7
So, as you see, the Stealth gives up about 600 lbs and, at most, has only
7 hp more. Hardly the "within 200 pounds" and "17 hp *more*" as you claim.
(Please site your sources.)
Are you still glad I brought it up?
Lets load up 3 or 4 more guys into a Mustang and see how well it does then.
BTW, notice that the Taurus SHO Wagon 3.0 V6 FWD Automatic with 220 hp and
3636 lbs runs 15.6 @ 89 mph 1/4 miles yet you don't believe a Dodge Stealth
3.0 V6 FWD Automatic with 222 hp and 3827 lbs can go 15.8 @ 93 mph. ????
In fact, I would tend to expect similar performance from any sports car in
the range of 16.5 - 17.2 lbs-per-hp.
>> Besides, I was just taking it easy so as not to hurt my new toy - probably
>> could have gone low 15's as well. ;)
> 15.8 at 93 suggests that you are unable to launch the car - FWD problem here.
Nope, you didn't read what I said - please re-read.
>> Your friend should get his 11.2 car fixed.
> Dealerships vehicle.
Ah ha! I should have quessed! You take a quick joy ride, abuse a car that
doesn't belong to you, and glean great wisdom from such a brief encounter -
more than someone who's driven one for 2 years. Yeah, sure.
IF your 11.2 time is to be believed (which is getting harder to do with all
the wrong facts you have given) and after doing more research, I am more
convinced than ever that you were not driving a 222 hp model but the 164 hp
model. Comparing the weight-per-hp ratio of that model to other cars with
similar ratios, I'd just might believe an 11 sec time.
Now, if you wish to site sources for any contradictory information, I will
be glad to consider it. But, there is really nothing more you can just "say"
that will out-weigh published performance figures or my own experience.
>>>> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
>>>> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
>>>
>>> ... a "real" enthusiast prides himself on mastering ALL drives and would
>>> learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead of relying on biased hearsay.
>>
>> I guess that's why there are so many fwd Ferrari's, Porsche's around etc.
>> FWD cannot handle real power.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You mean like the 300hp Northstar V8 in the FWD Cadillac STS?
> FWD can't put power down because of weight transfer.
> The FWD ones come nowhere as they can't put power down.
Again, what has this go to do with an "enthusiast's point of view"?
Look...
You say you race a FWD - do you consider yourself an enthusiast?
How about the thousands of other FWD competitors - don't you think that they
consider themselves enthusiasts?
If everyone really believed "it should be RWD" then they would only compete
with RWD because they would want every advantage they could get. Then why
do they compete FWD cars?
Do you think all the SCCA FWD winners, especially those that happened to beat
RWDs, turn around and say, "Ptooey, should have been RWD"?
Like I said before, a "real" enthusiast prides himself on accomplishments.
A "real" enthusiast just says "Gimme the keys".
>> BTW, one of the class's (I forget which) current champ drives a FWD
>> (Eagle?) and routinely beats the pants off the other RWD cars in the
>> class (300ZX?).
> The reason you have forgotten is because it doesn't exist.
WRONG AGAIN! You're beginning to make a habit of this.
Car & Driver's Nov 92 issue has an article on SCCA Stockers. On pg 168
they list the classes, the competitive cars in each class, and the current
champ. Look at SCCA Showroom Stock, class SSA, you will see FWD Talons
and 300ZX non-turbos, and the current champ is Michael Lowe driving a Talon.
> The AWD Talon does OK in B-stock, which is where the 300ZX (non turbo is).
In fact the Eclipse/Talon does more than just "OK" as it appears in the
competitve and champion columns more than just once.
> The FWD ones come nowhere as they can't put power down.
> Just this last Sunday afternoon I watched as a FWD turbo Eagle tried
> to compete in San Antonio. It was obvious he had too much power for FWD.
Oh, it's all FWD's fault, huh?
The driver ain't got nothing to do with it, huh?
Or is that just the excuse ya'll use?
>> And speaking of cars, you know what I drive, so what do you drive, Craig?
> Integra. I make no claim that this is a good car.
Please provide the quote where I made any such claim about the Stealth.
You're the one who keeps bringing up "racing".
> However, I would kick your butt in an autox ...
(Yawn - boring boy-racer attitude.)
You forgot to say "with one hand tied behind my back".
>>>> ... today's FWD sports cars can handle anything than most drivers are
>>>> capable of or are willing to push any car to its limits.
>>>
>>> Depends if you group yourself with "most drivers" or not.
>>
>> Until your name appears in bold type "CRAIG WINS AGAIN", yeah, you're
>> grouped with most drivers.
>
> Look at the autocross results from Austin (Spokes), San Antonio (SASCA)
> and College Station (TAMSCC) to see how I do.
Hmmmm, there seems to be a contradiction here.
First you go on and on about how bad FWD does in racing. Then, in spite of
your "enthusiast's point of view", you say that you race a FWD. And now you
try to imply that you and your FWD do very well. Doesn't that contradict
what you've said earlier about the inferiority of FWD or do you not do so
well when a RWD 240SX shows up?
BTW, I checked all those newpaper's Sports sections and the national sports
and racing papers and I didn't see your name anywhere. Maybe I should have
looked under "Entertainment". ;)
Oh well. Anyway, you seem to be hung up on "racing".
And I believe that being a real "enthusiast" involves more than just the
race track.
BTW, good luck this weekend at the AggieCross. :)
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>
>In article <1993Mar25.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig
>> least 10 of these vehicles run 13.9 thru 14.4.
>
> What you've probably seen are COBRA models and/or non-STOCK LXs.
> (And that's STOCK as in "Factory" not "Racing Class").
Dead stock 5.0 LX's.
>
>>> yet the Stealth gives up about 1000lbs to them.
>
>> I'm glad you brought this up. The stealth does not give 1000 pounds to
>> a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
>> has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
>
> WRONG! You should really check your facts first.
>
> 1991* 1993*
> Mustang weight: 3248 hp: 225 hp: 215 * - two sources list
> Stealth weight: 3827 hp: 222 hp: 222 different numbers
> ------------- -------- -------- The Cobra has 245 hp
> + 579 - 3 + 7
Is the best that you can do after week of research?. The numbers above
are wrong. Probably any 12 year old kid knows what they are. Want another
chance? Its strange that someone knows so little about his own car.
>
You might start by looking at manufacturers figures for weights and hp.
Its obvious you did not do that otherwise this stuff would not be
as wrong as it is. Do you really think your car weights 3827? I mean,
seriously?
Try redoing the above table, make sure you match vehicle names to weights
properly.
> Are you still glad I brought it up?
Yes, because you get yourself in deeper with every sentence.
> Lets load up 3 or 4 more guys into a Mustang and see how well it does then.
>
What's your point here? Do you think the Mustang would be faster or slower
with a load? I'm interested to know what you think would happen, any why?
> BTW, notice that the Taurus SHO Wagon 3.0 V6 FWD Automatic with 220 hp and
> 3636 lbs runs 15.6 @ 89 mph 1/4 miles yet you don't believe a Dodge Stealth
> 3.0 V6 FWD Automatic with 222 hp and 3827 lbs can go 15.8 @ 93 mph. ????
I am curious about these figures and this is one of the reasons it
is worth discussing the cars performance. The Stealth should be a lot
faster than it is.
Being serious I think Mitsu is either lying about the hp or the Torque
converter is sucking up a whole lot of the power.
>> 15.8 at 93 suggests that you are unable to launch the car - FWD problem here.
> Nope, you didn't read what I said - please re-read.
I guess you don't understand anything about the relationship between the
time you get for a 1/4 mile and the terminal speed. Now, everyone knows.
I also suggest, that before you reply to my message, you look up times
for your car in the rags. I don't think you'll have the guts to reply.
>
> IF your 11.2 time is to be believed (which is getting harder to do with all
> the wrong facts you have given) and after doing more research, I am more
> convinced than ever that you were not driving a 222 hp model but the 164 hp
> model. Comparing the weight-per-hp ratio of that model to other cars with
> similar ratios, I'd just might believe an 11 sec time.
>
Yes, I thought that, but Mistubishi does not sell the 164 hp version.
>>>>> The other big problem, from an enthusiasts point of view is that this
>>>>> car is fwd, it should be rwd.
>>>>
>>>> ... a "real" enthusiast prides himself on mastering ALL drives and would
>>>> learn HOW to drive a FWD, instead of relying on biased hearsay.
>>>
>
>
> You say you race a FWD - do you consider yourself an enthusiast?
>
An impecunious enthusiast. I have the guts to say that I have the wrong
car. Its funny how everyone on the net defends their car to the death
and won't allow the possibility that they might be wrong
>
>
>
> and racing papers and I didn't see your name anywhere. Maybe I should have
> looked under "Entertainment". ;)
Wow! your taking this seriously! No, I don't drive Nascar, nor have any
involvement in professional motorsport or wheel-to-wheel racing. I just
know a bit more than I used to about FWD and the Stealth.
> BTW, good luck this weekend at the AggieCross. :)
Got your wires crossed again.
>
>
Craig
BTW: I zapped a whole lot of stuff about SSA results. My brain faded between
the Eclipse and 3000 GT and I was unfairly hard on the Eclipse. I apologize.
> TRAVIS
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <1993Mar3...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|>>In article <1993Mar25.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig
|>>>
|>>> a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
|>>> has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
|>>
|>> WRONG! You should really check your facts first.
|>>
|>> 1991* 1993*
|>> Mustang weight: 3248 hp: 225 hp: 215 * - two sources list
|>> Stealth weight: 3827 hp: 222 hp: 222 different numbers
|>> ------------- -------- -------- The Cobra has 245 hp
|>> + 579 - 3 + 7
|>
|> Is the best that you can do after week of research?. The numbers above
|> are wrong.
|> for your car in the rags. I don't think you'll have the guts to reply.
A week? No, just about 30 minutes looking through the Dodge and Ford
factory brochures and back issues of Car&Driver. But just don't just
"say" they're wrong, prove it.
C'mon, Craig, quit pulling stuff out of your ass! Post your own numbers
and sources. You really don't have the guts to post them, do you?
|>>>> Until your name appears in bold type "CRAIG WINS AGAIN", yeah, you're
|>>>> grouped with most drivers.
|>>>
|>>> Look at the autocross results from Austin (Spokes), San Antonio (SASCA)
|>>> and College Station (TAMSCC) to see how I do.
|>>
|>> I checked all those newspaper's Sports sections and the national sports
|>> and racing papers and I didn't see your name anywhere. Maybe I should
|>> have looked under "Entertainment". ;)
|>
|> Wow! your taking this seriously!
Didn't you see that "winky" face? I had no idea you were THAT clueless.
Maybe I should have said the "Fantasy" section.
|>> BTW, good luck this weekend at the AggieCross. :)
|>
|> Got your wires crossed again.
Sorry, since you claim you compete, I thought you would be going.
Its suppose to be the biggest event in South Texas this Spring.
Or is this just another lame excuse? [sniff] Yep, smells like one!
BTW, its the TAMSCC sponsored 25th Anniversary AggieCross held in College
Station this Saturday, April 3rd.
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Mar31.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <1993Mar3...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>|>>In article <1993Mar25.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig
>|>>>
>|>>> I'm glad you brought this up. The stealth does not give 1000 pounds to
>|>>> a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
>|>>> has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
>|>>
>|>> WRONG! You should really check your facts first.
>|>>
>|>> 1991* 1993*
>|>> Mustang weight: 3248 hp: 225 hp: 215 * - two sources list
>|>> Stealth weight: 3827 hp: 222 hp: 222 different numbers
>|>> ------------- -------- -------- The Cobra has 245 hp
>|>> + 579 - 3 + 7
>|>
>|> Is the best that you can do after week of research?. The numbers above
>|> are wrong.
Originally you said the Mustang was 1000 pounds heavier than the Mustang,
then you said 600, Actually, quoting from Mitsubishi, the weight
is 3307. Putting it right around the Mustang. I can do no more than
beg you to read the manufacturers data before posting.
Issues like X handles better then Y are subjective. Manufacturers
weight data is not, and it is easily obtained. I think what you
did was get your stealth mixed up with the AWD version.
You are also off on Mustang hp and weight, but not by so much.
>|> I also suggest, that before you reply to my message, you look up times
>|> for your car in the rags. I don't think you'll have the guts to reply.
>
>
> and sources. You really don't have the guts to post them, do you?
>
You might be wondering why all those Sentras and Civics are passing
your "FWD sports car". Check out the 5/91 issue of Car and Driver
for figures.
Now do you have the guts to:
a) Admit that you are wrong about the weight data. Anyone out there
can do what I did to prove you wrong.
b) Reconsider the possibility that tsu might be lying about
horsepower figures. After all the car has more power than a
Mustang, essentially the same weight, but has times that
compare with a $9k Sentra, and is blown away by an SE-R.
The Stealth is a fine cruiser, but its performance does not come
close to matching its looks.
Craig
Sources:
Current Mitsu sales brochure
Car and Driver, May 1991.
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <1993Mar3...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|> >In article <1993Mar31.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
|> >|> In article <1993Mar3...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|> >|>>In article <1993Mar25.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig
|> >|>>>
|> >|>>> I'm glad you brought this up. The stealth does not give 1000 pounds to
|> >|>>> a Mustang, in fact the weights are within 200 pounds. But, the Stealth
|> >|>>> has 17 hp *more* than a Mustang - and it is much slower! What happened?
|> >|>>
|> >|>> WRONG! You should really check your facts first.
|> >|>>
|> >|>> 1991* 1993*
|> >|>> Mustang weight: 3248 hp: 225 hp: 215 * - two sources list
|> >|>> Stealth weight: 3827 hp: 222 hp: 222 different numbers
|> >|>> ------------- -------- -------- The Cobra has 245 hp
|> >|>> + 579 - 3 + 7
|> >|>
|> >|> Is the best that you can do after week of research?. The numbers above
|> >|> are wrong.
|>
|>
|> Originally you said the Mustang was 1000 pounds heavier than the Mustang,
I never said any such thing! You must mean Mitsu right?
|> then you said 600, Actually, quoting from Mitsubishi, the weight
|> is 3307. Putting it right around the Mustang. I can do no more than
|> beg you to read the manufacturers data before posting.
Please quote me exactly - I said "about 1000". Every source I have says
the Dodge Stealth RT is a 3800 lb car. I have never discussed any car but
the Dodge.
|> You are also off on Mustang hp and weight, but not by so much.
Strange, you still won't quote exact figures.
Please quote them and site your source.
Again, I only listed the numbers I read. Again, R&T's current issue
lists the horsepower for the Mustang and Stealth as 225 and 222,
respectively. C&D used to list the Mustang's hp as 225 but, in their
Feb '93 article about the new Mustang Cobra, they said its hp was 245
"up 30 hp" previous models. Therefore, 245-30=215. Even using this
lower figure to give YOU every advantage, your claim of a "17 hp"
advantage over the Mustang is way off. Like I said, the difference
ranges from -3 to +7 hp. The 1991 Dodge Stealth brochure lists the
same numbers I posted. Any error in data is theirs, not mine.
|> You might be wondering why all those Sentras and Civics are passing
|> your "FWD sports car". . Check out the 5/91 issue of Car and Driver...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Never happens but thanks for admitting that it's a Sports Car! :)
In the current issue of C&D, Sentra GSX 9.7/17.4 and Civic CX 11.2/18.3
and the Civic del Sol 8.1/16.7. No threat there. But rest assured,
I'll check C&D's 5/91 issue. Strange that you claim to have that
issue but don't list any specific numbers. Or can you?
|> Now do you have the guts to:
|>
|> a) Admit that you are wrong about the weight data. Anyone out there
|> can do what I did to prove you wrong.
If I were wrong, but I'm not. But you are going to have to PROVE IT!
Just saying the data is wrong won't cut it!
But what have you done? Quoted 1 source to my 5 - my Stealth owner's
manual, Dodge brochure, C&D, MT, R&T. BTW, I have yet to find two
sources that agree exactly. One was as much as 50lbs higher. Again,
I went with the smallest weight to give YOU every advantage.
|> b) Reconsider the possibility that tsu might be lying about
|> horsepower figures. After all the car has more power than a
|> Mustang, essentially the same weight, but has times that
|> compare with a $9k Sentra, and is blown away by an SE-R.
Why would "tsu" or any other maker lie and risk getting blasted in
public by a national magazine. Consider the marketing risk if the
car was as bad as you claim.
From the stated data, the Stealth actually has about the same hp
as the Mustang - a fact you have yet to refute. Or can you?
Sorry, but since you have again failed to provide specific numbers
about the Sentra, I cannot admit to anything. Well, the Sentra is
alot cheaper. Are you now claiming that a Sentra SE-R is more of
a sports car than a Dodge Stealth? "Blown away" - can you define
that in specific terms like et, mph, 0-60? How much of a margin
constitutes "blown away"?
Now, your turn:
a) Reconsider the possiblity that your timing is wrong, or driver
error or car malfunctions. Much more likely than Mitsu "lying"
about hp.
b) Reconsider that since you admitted that the stick version is
capable of the times I stated (which translates to about a 7.0
sec 0-60), does it really seem possible that an auto version
would be 4 seconds slower?
c) Reconsider your claim of a "within 200 pound" weight difference
and a "17 hp" advantage to the Stealth is wrong and you have
yet to produce any specific data to support your claims.
d) Reconsider that someone who has driven a Stealth for 2 years,
did thorough research before buying, and has been timed at a
racetrack (as opposed to by a wristwatch), just might know more
about the car than you who simply took a test drive.
e) Reconsider that all I have done is challenged your 11.2 time,
have presented specific numbers and sources to support my side,
and have made no other claims. So far you haven't produced any
similar specific data to support your claims. Until you do,
anythng else is just so much wasted bandwidth.
This is the third post that I have asked you for specific data and
sited sources. Yet you still haven't produced it. If you do, I
would be glad to consider it and make the appropriate reply.
Until then, I'm not going to waste any more bandwidth.
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Mar31....@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <1993Mar3...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
> Please quote me exactly - I said "about 1000". Every source I have says
> the Dodge Stealth RT is a 3800 lb car. I have never discussed any car but
> the Dodge.
There is no 222hp Stealth that weighs 3800. The 300hp Stealth does weigh 3800.
That's it period.
>
>|> You are also off on Mustang hp and weight, but not by so much.
>
> Strange, you still won't quote exact figures.
I am giving every chance to retract figures widely known. The Mustang is
rated at 205.
> Please quote them and site your source.
Ford.
222-205 is 17. You have a 17hp advantage over a Mustang
>
>|> You might be wondering why all those Sentras and Civics are passing
>|> your "FWD sports car". . Check out the 5/91 issue of Car and Driver...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Never happens but thanks for admitting that it's a Sports Car! :)
It should, they are faster than your "Fwd sports car"
> In the current issue of C&D, Sentra GSX 9.7/17.4 and Civic CX 11.2/18.3
Check out the cheap Sentras.
> and the Civic del Sol 8.1/16.7. No threat there. But rest assured,
Big threat. You are KO'd by a Civic, acording to C+D
> I'll check C&D's 5/91 issue. Strange that you claim to have that
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.
> issue but don't list any specific numbers. Or can you?
I merely wished for you to dig yourself infurther, You refuse to check
your data. ANyone reading this can go and pick up C+D 5/91.
>
>
>|> Now do you have the guts to:
>|>
>|> a) Admit that you are wrong about the weight data. Anyone out there
>|> can do what I did to prove you wrong.
>
> If I were wrong, but I'm not. But you are going to have to PROVE IT!
> Just saying the data is wrong won't cut it!
>
I did cite sources at the end of my message.
> But what have you done? Quoted 1 source to my 5 - my Stealth owner's
> manual, Dodge brochure, C&D, MT, R&T. BTW, I have yet to find two
> sources that agree exactly. One was as much as 50lbs higher. Again,
> I went with the smallest weight to give YOU every advantage.
>
>
>|> b) Reconsider the possibility that tsu might be lying about
>|> horsepower figures. After all the car has more power than a
>|> Mustang, essentially the same weight, but has times that
>|> compare with a $9k Sentra, and is blown away by an SE-R.
>
> Why would "tsu" or any other maker lie and risk getting blasted in
> public by a national magazine. Consider the marketing risk if the
> car was as bad as you claim.
Its not a bad car. I just can't see why it is so slow. Even using your own
figures of a 15.8.
>
>
> Sorry, but since you have again failed to provide specific numbers
> about the Sentra, I cannot admit to anything. Well, the Sentra is
> alot cheaper. Are you now claiming that a Sentra SE-R is more of
> a sports car than a Dodge Stealth? "Blown away" - can you define
> that in specific terms like et, mph, 0-60? How much of a margin
> constitutes "blown away"?
At least 5 car lengths in the quarter mile would do fine for 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.
>
>
> Now, your turn:
>
> a) Reconsider the possiblity that your timing is wrong, or driver
> error or car malfunctions. Much more likely than Mitsu "lying"
> about hp.
>
> b) Reconsider that since you admitted that the stick version is
> capable of the times I stated (which translates to about a 7.0
> sec 0-60), does it really seem possible that an auto version
> would be 4 seconds slower?
>
> c) Reconsider your claim of a "within 200 pound" weight difference
> and a "17 hp" advantage to the Stealth is wrong and you have
> yet to produce any specific data to support your claims.
>
I have Ford and Mitsu data. You can construct a case for saying that the Ford is heavier than the Mitsu.
> d) Reconsider that someone who has driven a Stealth for 2 years,
> did thorough research before buying, and has been timed at a
> racetrack (as opposed to by a wristwatch), just might know more
This is where you are plainly wrong. Who would buy a FWD automatic,
that costs $20K+ that is capable of only a 15.8 and wouldplainly
be dusted by a SE-R?
> about the car than you who simply took a test drive.
Your words prove you know zip.
Craig
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <1993Apr...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@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.
> 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.
And you still haven't posted any weight figures for the Mustang.
> 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
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
>
> 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
without posting any numbers. Why not? Because they prove me right and you
ain't got the guts to admit it? Yeah, thought so.
> 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
off. Any 12 yr old knows that! I race and I'll kick your butt!
blah, blah, blah...
Let's see ... yep, that sounds just like you.
Oh man, I just got it! Beavis & Butthead - that's you!
> Who would buy a FWD automatic, that costs $20K+ that is capable of only
> a 15.8 and would plainly be dusted by a SE-R?
I dunno, why did you?
But why would someone pick the Dodge Stealth RT over the Nissan Sentra?
All it takes is one look.
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Apr2.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@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
I guess you drove a 5 speed and couldn't shift/
Craig
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <1993Apr...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.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.
|>
No, you only posted the one weight of the Mitsu and only after I goaded
you many times to post more specific data. Only in the last message
did you post a specific hp for the Mustang and you have yet to post
its weight. I posted both the 1991 hp and the 1993 hp numbers as
derived from the Feb 93 issue of Car&Driver.
|> 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?
Because just you say its "wrong" is not enough. Any blowhard can do
that. But, if you are willing to post specific data for everyone to
see, then that is something else. I wanted you to do a little research
of your own and post it. And it took "5-10" messages to goad you into
it. Sheesh!
|>>> 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.
Simply read Car & Driver, May 93 issue, Letters section, pg 10.
|>> For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car&Driver
|>> 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 ...
^^^
YES!!!
Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specifics.
Remember how this all started -
YOU CLAIMED THE 222hp MITSU WOULD ONLY DO 0-60 IN 11.2 SECONDS!
^^^^
I knew you and your wristwatch were wrong but I didn't have access
to 'objective' data to back it up.
|> Don't be abusive, ...
Hah! That's a good one coming from you! I never called you "asshole",
you chose to ignore my "smileys" and "winkies", and even my wishing
you good luck at the coming races as some kind of insult. Sheesh!
But enough of that. In the interest of net.peace, I'm letting it drop.
Whew, I'm glad we finally got all that settled.
Thanks to all who replied via email - both pro and con.
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>|> In article <1993Apr...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>|>>
>|>
>|> These are the numbers I have been stating in the past 5-10 messages.
>
> No, you only posted the one weight of the Mitsu and only after I goaded
> you many times to post more specific data. Only in the last message
> did you post a specific hp for the Mustang and you have yet to post
> its weight. I posted both the 1991 hp and the 1993 hp numbers as
No, you never posted a figure released by Ford. Look back at your posts.
>
>
>|> 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?
>
> Because just you say its "wrong" is not enough. Any blowhard can do
> that. But, if you are willing to post specific data for everyone to
> see, then that is something else. I wanted you to do a little research
What you mean that you were lying all along and just wanted to test me
to see if I could find the numbers? Gimme a break? You had no clue
about your own car, perhaps now you know a little more.
> of your own and post it. And it took "5-10" messages to goad you into
The plain fact is that, first you said your car was "about"
1000 pounds heavier than a Mustang, then 600, now about 100. I always
stated that they were within 200. The actual figure depends on the
Mustang model (LX, GT, Coupe etc). I was right and still am right. Now,
you too know something about your own car.
Now, answer this. Why do you think the 222hp Mitsu is slower than a
Civic or Sentra? Got a clue?
> it. Sheesh!
>
>
>|>>> 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
>|>>
> Simply read Car & Driver, May 93 issue, Letters section, pg 10.
You should have RT and not C+D, their explanation is much better.
Want me to fax you this one?
>
>
>|>> For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car&Driver
>|>> without posting any numbers. Why not? Because they prove me right and
They don't prove you right. They "prove" the Stealth is slower than Civic,
which is much the impression I got when driving the car.
>|>> 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 ...
> ^^^
> YES!!!
>
> Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specifics.
But.... wait a minute, these results prove me right, not you. Am I missing
something?
> Remember how this all started -
So are you admitting that your car is slower than a Civic and the same
weight (+-200) as a Mustang......
>
> YOU CLAIMED THE 222hp MITSU WOULD ONLY DO 0-60 IN 11.2 SECONDS!
> ^^^^
Swear to God, that's what it did. I cannot explain it if the car truly
had 222hp. However note that it is not inconsistent with C+D's
trend of being given high performance protoypers, remember the 14.0
Eclipse, 15.4 GSR, Cyclone etc.
> I knew you and your wristwatch were wrong but I didn't have access
> to 'objective' data to back it up.
What, you mean Car and Driver? I don't think that C+D exactly qualifies as
hard to locate. Plus you claimed to have researched your purchase, surely
that would include glancing at a C+D review. No, perhaps not, because
if you had read the article you would have known to watch out for those
little Civics and Sentras.
Well, the car I drove is heavier than the one C+D tested... It also
makes your 15.8 look as though you got one of the good ones.
>
> But enough of that. In the interest of net.peace, I'm letting it drop.
>
Very generous of you since you have proven yourself ignorant and wrong
on every point and steadfastly refused to check any of your own claims.
I look forwad to reading your other posts on r.a.
Remember to move over next time you see a Sentra, Civic, Saturn, Protege,
Escort etc. etc.
>
> Whew, I'm glad we finally got all that settled.
> Thanks to all who replied via email - both pro and con.
How could anyone agree with you? You were 100% wrong, not conjecture,
just on hard facts.
>
>
> TRAVIS
Craig
T.M.Haddock
|> In article <1993Apr...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr6.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
|> >|> In article <1993Apr...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com> hh...@usho0b.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|> >|>>
|> >|>
|> ]Mitsubishi weights deleted]
|>
|> >|> These are the numbers I have been stating in the past 5-10 messages.
|> >
|> > No, you only posted the one weight of the Mitsu and only after I goaded
|> > you many times to post more specific data. Only in the last message
|> > did you post a specific hp for the Mustang and you have yet to post
|> > its weight. I posted both the 1991 hp and the 1993 hp numbers as
|>
|> No, you never posted a figure released by Ford. Look back at your posts.
Wrong again. Check out my post/article <1993Mar30.123803>.
|>>> 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?
|>>
|>> Because just you say its "wrong" is not enough. Any blowhard can do
|>> that. But, if you are willing to post specific data for everyone to
|>> see, then that is something else. I wanted you to do a little research
|>
|> What you mean that you were lying all along and just wanted to test me
|> to see if I could find the numbers? Gimme a break? You had no clue
|> about your own car, perhaps now you know a little more.
No, I admitted, I posted the wrong weight for the Stealth. But I was not
going to correct my numbers because I wanted YOU to "prove it" and post
them yourself.
|>>>> For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car&Driver
|>>>> without posting any numbers. Why not? Because they prove me right and
|> They don't prove you right. They "prove" the Stealth is slower than Civic,
Wrong again. You claimed an 11.2 sec 0-60 time and I simply said you
were wrong. C&D's 8.5 second proved you wrong and thus I was right -
you were wrong.
|>>> Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 ...
|>> ^^^
|>> YES!!!
|>> Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specif
|>
|> But... wait a minute, these results prove me right, not you. Am I
|> missing something?
Wrong again. You claimed an 11.2 second time for the Stealth and I
said that was wrong. C&D's 8.5 time proved you wrong and thus makes
me right.
Besides, I made no claims about the Stealth being quicker than anything.
When you said I was blown away by a Sentra(?), I just said it never
happened to me.
|>>> Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 ...
|>> ^^^
|>> YES!!!
|>> Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specifics
|>
|> But.... wait a minute, these results prove me right, not you. Am I missing
|> something?
Yep. Remember you claimed 11.2 and C&D claims 8.5 and I simply said you
were wrong. I NEVER posted a 0-60 time though I assumed that it's times
would be similar to other cars in its weight/hp class. The only 0-60
time I knew of was my own timing but since I called your's into question
I could hardly offer
|>> Remember how this all started -
|>>
|>> YOU CLAIMED THE 222hp MITSU WOULD ONLY DO 0-60 IN 11.2 SECONDS!
|> ^^^^
|> Swear to God, that's what it did. I cannot explain it if the car truly
|> had 222hp.
|>
|>> I knew you and your wristwatch were wrong but I didn't have access
|>> to 'objective' data to back it up.
|>
|> What, you mean Car and Driver? I don't think that C+D exactly qualifies as
|> hard to locate. Plus you claimed to have researched your purchase, surely
|> that would include glancing at a C+D review. No, perhaps not, because
|> if you had read the article you would have known to watch out for those
|> little Civics and Sentras.
Wrong again. I bought my 1991 Stealth RT before the May issue came out.
(Remember - 1991 models came out in 1990.) But even before and after the
article, the only regret I have is that I didn't have the extra $6000 to
get the AWD Twin-Turbo.
Okay, lets have a show of hands for everyone out there who has the 3 yr
old May 1991 issue of Car & Driver. Hmmm, thought so.
My excuse is that I lost most of my pre-Aug 1991 C&D's when I moved.
And, no, I'm not willing to spend $4.95 for re-prints.
Besides, is that what Internet is for - the easy exchange of data
without someone having to have direct access to all materials.
If all I was interested in was stoplight gran-prixes, then yes, I
would have probably bought a Mustang - in fact, it was down to an
ES and an LX (both red) when that RT arrived at the dealer's. It
just had too much more to offer besides 0-60 times.
If you imply that someone should pick the Sentra over the Stealth
simply because of 0-60 times, then you indeed define yourself as
the stoplight gran-prix boy-racer you so vehemently denied earlier.
|> Well, the car I drove is heavier than the one C+D tested... It also
|> makes your 15.8 look as though you got one of the good ones.
Just like you claim to see stock Mustang LX's run .5 second quicker
than published numbers, is it not possible that other vehicles can
also turn in real world numbers with just as much difference?
|>> But enough of that. In the interest of net.peace, I'm letting it drop.
|>
|> Very generous of you since you have proven yourself ignorant...
Sheesh! You take me out of context again. The "it" I was referring
to was YOUR abusiveness - and in that regard, yes, I was being very
generous.
|> ... and wrong on every point and steadfastly refused to check any of
|> your own claims.
Wrong again. The ONLY point I was wrong on was the Stealth's weight.
And my posting of the Mopar specs proves I re-check my claims.
But YOUR steadfastly refusal to post specific numbers shows you are not
willing to post facts in support of your claims until you are goaded to
death to do so and is the main reason this thread has gone on for weeks.
|> I look forwad to reading your other posts on r.a.
Hey, great! I have read yours with great interest. [yawn] ;)
(Come on now - see that 'winky" face?)
|> Remember to move over next time you see a Sentra, Civic, Saturn,
|> Protege, Escort etc. etc.
Nah, I don't bother.
If they don't get out of the way, I just 'em over! :)
BTW, are you now saying you were wrong when you first claimed that
the Mistu was "too slow to get out of its own way"?
|>> Whew, I'm glad we finally got all that settled.
|>> Thanks to all who replied via email - both pro and con.
|>
|> How could anyone agree with you?
You're not jealous cause I got email and you didn't, are you? ;)
Most of the replies where from Stealth enthusiasts - yeah, kind of
biased there. Most simply relayed their "real world" experiences.
Only 2 replies simply said I was wrong about the Stealth's weight.
I did get a couple from Mustang enthusiasts confirming my Mustang
numbers. And, of course, talking to my autocross buddies here at
work. If any of them care to, they can confirm their correspondence
to you.
|> You were 100% wrong, not conjecture, just on hard facts.
100% wrong? Nope. I was right about you being wrong. I was right
about the hp numbers. I was right about that FWD winning its SCCA
Showroom class over RWD. Again, the only thing I was wrong about
was the weight of the Stealth just as you were wrong about its
performance.
I'm convinced that if you go back and re-read all our posts, you'll
find that neither of us was 100% right or wrong.
TRAVIS
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Apr7.0...@cactus.org>, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>
>
>
>|>>> 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?
>|>>
>|>> Because just you say its "wrong" is not enough. Any blowhard can do
>|>> that. But, if you are willing to post specific data for everyone to
>|>> see, then that is something else. I wanted you to do a little research
>|>
>|> What you mean that you were lying all along and just wanted to test me
>|> to see if I could find the numbers? Gimme a break? You had no clue
>|> about your own car, perhaps now you know a little more.
>
> No, I admitted, I posted the wrong weight for the Stealth. But I was not
> going to correct my numbers because I wanted YOU to "prove it" and post
> them yourself.
What's the point of that? Your figures were so ridiculous they did not
need specific disproving data. Like saying "my Stealth has a V8" -
just plainly wrong.
>
>
>|>>>> For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car&Driver
>|>>>> without posting any numbers. Why not? Because they prove me right and
>
>|> They don't prove you right. They "prove" the Stealth is slower than Civic,
>
> Wrong again. You claimed an 11.2 sec 0-60 time and I simply said you
> were wrong. C&D's 8.5 second proved you wrong and thus I was right -
> you were wrong.
Well, no. I reported what happened. It wasn't conjecture. just reporting
the facts. What am I to do? the car really was that slow.
>
>
>|>>> Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 ...
>|>> ^^^
>|>> YES!!!
>|>> Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specif
>|>
> Besides, I made no claims about the Stealth being quicker than anything.
> When you said I was blown away by a Sentra(?), I just said it never
> happened to me.
Probably too busy playing with all those Mitsu gadgets to notice.
>
>
>|>>> Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 ...
>|>> ^^^
>|>> YES!!!
>|>> Finally! But only after goading you on and on to post the specifics
>|>
>|> But.... wait a minute, these results prove me right, not you. Am I missing
>|> something?
>
> Yep. Remember you claimed 11.2 and C&D claims 8.5 and I simply said you
> were wrong. I NEVER posted a 0-60 time though I assumed that it's times
> would be similar to other cars in its weight/hp class. The only 0-60
No, the Stealth is the joke of the century compared to other cars in
its weight or class. Witness the Mustang, with approximately the same
weight and power destroying the Stealth. There is nothin even close
to the Stealth in terms of claimed power/weight. From this I conclude
that Mitsubishi either can't make transmissions or based its engine
spec's on some hot prototypes.
> time I knew of was my own timing but since I called your's into question
> I could hardly offer
?
>
>
>|>> Remember how this all started -
>|>>
>|>> YOU CLAIMED THE 222hp MITSU WOULD ONLY DO 0-60 IN 11.2 SECONDS!
>|> ^^^^
>|> Swear to God, that's what it did. I cannot explain it if the car truly
>|> had 222hp.
>|>
>|>> I knew you and your wristwatch were wrong but I didn't have access
>|>> to 'objective' data to back it up.
>|>
>|> What, you mean Car and Driver? I don't think that C+D exactly qualifies as
>|> hard to locate. Plus you claimed to have researched your purchase, surely
>|> that would include glancing at a C+D review. No, perhaps not, because
>|> if you had read the article you would have known to watch out for those
>|> little Civics and Sentras.
>
> Wrong again. I bought my 1991 Stealth RT before the May issue came out.
> (Remember - 1991 models came out in 1990.) But even before and after the
> article, the only regret I have is that I didn't have the extra $6000 to
> get the AWD Twin-Turbo.
>
Yes, I'd have chosen the tt, it is much faster. Was the 300ZX available
at the time?.
> Okay, lets have a show of hands for everyone out there who has the 3 yr
> old May 1991 issue of Car & Driver. Hmmm, thought so.
I guess you used the same Math to prove that 1991 is 3 years ago as you
did to compute Stealth data.
I keep information on *my own car* and have some clue about its performance
dimensions and weight.
>
> My excuse is that I lost most of my pre-Aug 1991 C&D's when I moved.
> And, no, I'm not willing to spend $4.95 for re-prints.
Try your local library, they will provide you access to information for
nothing. Similarly dealers often have test reprints.
> Besides, is that what Internet is for - the easy exchange of data
> without someone having to have direct access to all materials.
>
This all started when you arrived as an "authority" on the Stealth coming
to the assistance of a potential purchaser. Alll you did was provide
inaccurate data. Unfortunately this is one of the great problems of the
net, in unmoderated groups you can't get rid of people who don't
know a hubcap from a turbocharger.
> If all I was interested in was stoplight gran-prixes, then yes, I
> would have probably bought a Mustang - in fact, it was down to an
> ES and an LX (both red) when that RT arrived at the dealer's. It
> just had too much more to offer besides 0-60 times.
Seriously? These are very different cars that look and drive in
a near opposite manner. I can't rally imagine the 2 appealing to
the same person.
What are the good points of the Stealth that made you buy it? Letting
the net know might give some frame of reference as to your thought
patterns.
>
> If you imply that someone should pick the Sentra over the Stealth
> simply because of 0-60 times, then you indeed define yourself as
> the stoplight gran-prix boy-racer you so vehemently denied earlier.
No, but I would be embarassed if I bought a car as aggressive looking
and expensive as the Stealth (twice the price of a Sentra) and
then got blown away in every performance dimension. The only area I
give the Stealth a chance in is braking. Just don't even try to
claim that the Stealth is any kind of performance car.
>
>
>|> Well, the car I drove is heavier than the one C+D tested... It also
>|> makes your 15.8 look as though you got one of the good ones.
>
> Just like you claim to see stock Mustang LX's run .5 second quicker
> than published numbers, is it not possible that other vehicles can
> also turn in real world numbers with just as much difference?
Ok, fair point that deserves an explanation.
The Mustang is a particular case where the launch is everything.
Somewhat skilled drives can usually beat magazine numbers substantially
for musclecars. Many Japanese cars don't match up to their C+D results
in the real world - the hot prototype problem. I state this objectively.
Over a number of years I have come to understand that "this is how it is"
without liking it.
>
>
>
>
> Wrong again. The ONLY point I was wrong on was the Stealth's weight.
Most of what you say falls between misinformatin and disinformation. Without
knowing you, I could not tell if you were just ignorant of the facts or
deliberately trying to mislead.
> And my posting of the Mopar specs proves I re-check my claims.
Yes, but only having claimed/lied about having 5 sources that backed up
your initial ridiculous figures.
>
> But YOUR steadfastly refusal to post specific numbers shows you are not
> willing to post facts in support of your claims until you are goaded to
> death to do so and is the main reason this thread has gone on for weeks.
>
The reason this has carried on is because you are clueless about your
own car, an unforgiveable sin on rec.autos.
>
>|> I look forwad to reading your other posts on r.a.
>
> Hey, great! I have read yours with great interest. [yawn] ;)
>
> (Come on now - see that 'winky" face?)
That's the first time you have used it properly. Congrats.
>
>
>|> Remember to move over next time you see a Sentra, Civic, Saturn,
>|> Protege, Escort etc. etc.
>
> Nah, I don't bother.
> If they don't get out of the way, I just 'em over! :)
>
> BTW, are you now saying you were wrong when you first claimed that
> the Mistu was "too slow to get out of its own way"?
Metaphorically speaking it is too slow to get out of its own way. It
is certainly far slower than expectatinos.
a
is certainly far slower than Mistu's figures would lead us to believe.
>
>
>|>> Whew, I'm glad we finally got all that settled.
>|>> Thanks to all who replied via email - both pro and con.
>|>
>|> How could anyone agree with you?
>
>
> Most of the replies where from Stealth enthusiasts - yeah, kind of
> biased there. Most simply relayed their "real world" experiences.
> Only 2 replies simply said I was wrong about the Stealth's weight.
I'm surprised anyone but the two of us is dumb enough to be following
this thread any longer :-)
> I did get a couple from Mustang enthusiasts confirming my Mustang
> numbers. And, of course, talking to my autocross buddies here at
> work. If any of them care to, they can confirm their correspondence
So what did your "autocross" buddies tell you about your "fwd 222hp
sports car"
> to you.
>
>
>|> You were 100% wrong, not conjecture, just on hard facts.
>
> 100% wrong? Nope. I was right about you being wrong. I was right
> about the hp numbers. I was right about that FWD winning its SCCA
The way you explained Mustang hp really is nearer disinformation than
misinformation. The pragmatgic conclusion is that the Stealth and Mustang
have approximately the same weight and power. This would lead one
to believe they would have similar power, they do not. The Stealth's
power rating would seem more reasonable at 150-170hp.
> Showroom class over RWD. Again, the only thing I was wrong about
> was the weight of the Stealth just as you were wrong about its
> performance.
>
> I'm convinced that if you go back and re-read all our posts, you'll
> find that neither of us was 100% right or wrong.
The one error I made was to confuse Stealth/Eclipse in SSA. I apologized
immediately.
>
>
> TRAVIS
Craig
Taka Mizutani
OR ANY OTHER SUCH NONSENSE, TAKE IT TO E-MAIL! DON'T WASTE NET RESOURCES!
Taka Mizutani
taka...@mail.sas.upenn.edu