Hello Gang,
I don't have the data Larry, but it is a very interesting
idea. Power is a function of money. My 308GTB
produces 265hp and is quite quick -- unless you compare
it to a 60's muscle car. Then again, it will also go around
a turn on-rails in exactly the same way that the muscle car
doesn't. But so will a Countach and get out of the turn much
quicker. It's money. IMHO, the MG provides about the
best bang-for-the-buck available.
Perhaps we should look at the MGs in the power-to-weight
domain or power-to-cost domain. Or against the 'norm' for
the day, as Larry suggests. I mean, MGAs ran at Le Mans!
And today?
I am always reminded of the phrase, "There is always a
bigger fish." In our hobby, bigger fish cost more money. My
308GTB is more powerful than my M3 but at 200hp, the M3,
which is lighter, goes like stink and is probably quicker than
the bigger Ferrari! I do have to admit, that the MG is MORE
FUN to drive than the Ferrari on tight country roads. It takes
90mph in the Ferrari to give the same 'fun-factor' as the MG at
40 on a twisty road.
Personally, I would love a nicely tuned British roadster, top
down, a dry twisty road, cool morning air, colorful fall leaves
drifting onto the lane and a WOT coming out of the turns!
Yeeeehaaa! Can you tell that I have had just about enough
summer and am ready for fall?
Best,
Rick
PS: I also anticipate fall driving in my 1930 Chevrolet!
> I recently was in a discussion which included the line "you call 65 hp
> to the ground a racecar?". Since MGBs came out in 1962 and never
> substantially changed, I thought that it would be interesting to look
> at the performance figures of 1962 Ferraris, Porsches and Corvettes to
> compare with todays cars.
>
> Does anyone happen to have, or know where to find these data?
>
> Larry
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|