Ah, you're looking at only HP - look at the pounds/torque ratio - (as Joe
did earlier) - the Type R is worse off then the others. Also, the rev's
required for each of the respective HP numbers show an intersting story as
well. Not to mention 15x6 wheels compared to the rest at 16x7 or so. The
Road & Track article on the new Celica says 6.5 for 0-60 (Toyota's numbers)
with the six speed.
You just have good drivers in Type R's now - how is that different than
Neon's? The Camaro's and DSM cars will do fine, I expect (remember that a
Prelude came in 3rd last year, BTW...).
I agree, though - leave things as they are and put the Celica in there.
Don't much with what is working...
Kevin McCormick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Meyers [mailto:solo2@uswest.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:32 AM
> To: Kent Rafferty
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: The 'New' G Stock?
>
>
>
>
> Kent Rafferty wrote:
>
> > So, potentially you could have the following match-up
> > in GS (excluding the Type R, etc for now), correct?
> >
> > Car hp weight lbs/hp
> > --------------------- -------- ---------- ---------
> > Audi TT Quattro 225 3200 14.2
> > Audi S4 250 3500 14.0
> > DSM AWD 210 3100 14.7
>
> Firebird V-6 200hp 3200 16.0 but rear
> drive + posi &
> big rubber.
> (ever notice the engine
> setback in one of
> these?)
>
> Type R 195 2400 12.3 Wow!
> All the good
> stuff *and* this power to
> weight. No wonder
> it dominates.
>
> I don't know. With all of the "new good stuff" coming out
> that is classed in G
> Stock, it might make sense to leave all there for another
> season and see just
> how things stack up.
>
> Better than making a lot of wrong guesses based upon "I thought".
>
> And after looking at the above, the Type R seems to be way
> out of the scope of
> the other cars.
>
> Scott Meyers
>
|