# Car Wars: Ford Vs Chevy Vs Japan vs Germany. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 12, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451 "2003-06-12T22:04:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8c91f0/32.png) [@Frank\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/21 "2003-06-13T20:18:20Z")
Here’s a [report from a dyno day.](http://www.pylon1.com/cobra/dynoday.htm) Only one 03 Cobra was under 370rwhp and that was because of having no cool down period before dynoing. Here’s [another place](http://www.mafterburner.com/Baseline_dyno.htm) that pulled 350rwhp stock. Here’s a [write-up in 5.0 mag](http://www.50mustangandsuperfords.com/roadtests/92678/) on their 03 Cobra. Pulled 360rwhp stock. [These guys](http://www.uprproducts.com/Article_3.asp?m=m) dyno’d a stock 03 at 365rwhp. So my 375rwhp was a tad on the high side, but not unheard of. A better average range would be 355-370rwhp. That’s still a lot higher than the 315-320rwhp you would expect from the advertied numbers. For whatever reason, Ford underrated the new Cobras. What’s amazing is how well they respond to mods (CAI, mufflers, exhaust, throttle body). They can reach 400rwhp with very little extra. ---
**Author:** ![Necros](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/necros/32/11086_2.png) [@Necros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Necros)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/22 "2003-06-13T20:34:46Z")
Huh. I wonder where they got those numbers from (Dynapack or Dynojet). Everything else I’ve seen has been lower. That ~320 I quoted earlier was from some dyno pulls, not Ford. Looks like there’s a lot of variance between vehicles. As far as minor mods making them MUCH fast, oh yeah. Just a little bit of I/H/E + chip makes then so scary fast it’s unbelievable. Not a big fan, though. IMHO, the interior blows. But the performance is very impressive. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8c91f0/32.png) [@Frank\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_2)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/23 "2003-06-13T20:47:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Necros \* > **Everything else I’ve seen has been lower.** If the number you’ve seen were local and not SAE corrected, that would explain the difference. Colorado has a lower air density which results in lower dyno numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/24 "2003-06-14T02:53:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\*I honestly believe that while your .85 lateral G’s was indeed very impressive, that final 0.15G to take it up to 1.0 G’s is really hard to achieve. Even an F1 car, minus it’s wings is hard pressed to push 1.6 lateral G’s. The slightest bump or undulation in your road surface breaks your grip at those limits and whoosh! Off you go… > . \*\* Now I want the new engine even more. I’m shooting for 350 rwhp out of the little 4 banger. Unfortunately, there is is a lot of metal beyond both the front and rear wheels. I tried a power slide once on a rainy road and completely lost control of the car. Definately not a Porsche when the tires break loose. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/25 "2003-06-14T04:47:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ParentalAdvisory \* > \*\*I know there’s a huge difference betwee 5.5 and 5.0. Who ever made the claim that a GNX could do a 5.0 in the 60 was just flat out wrong and probably never been to the track. Also, their are #'s out there for the GN, it was just so long ago and finding a C&D, or any other car magazine source to say so online is very scarce. I’m still looking for a valid source, they’re just hard to come by for older cars. \*\* First I will say that I have only **been** to the track maybe four times - **I have gone to the track to race many dozens of times personally making hundreds of runs in many different cars** so unless you have more track time - up yours; Hell, even if you don’t! Second: "13.9 seconds in the 1/4…Zero to 60 in 4.9 seconds… Faster than a Lamborghini Countach (5.1 seconds)… even outsprints two of Ferrari’s blur bloods-the Testarossa (5.0 seconds) and the GTO (5.1 seconds)…As near as we could tell, our test car had not been tinckered with… We tested on a brutally cold day-8\*F-which we calculated had improved the engine output by another 15 hp. Ceppos, Rich (1986). _Buick Grand National, Speed is a Gun Slinger In Black_. Car and Driver. Vol 31, No. 10, April 1986 page 129. Ths hp (235) was rated at 4,400 rpm’s for a reason; Torque = 330@2,800 rpm’s. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/26 "2003-06-14T12:09:15Z")
B&I, what’s the wording on the intake in the picture to that article? That C&D is .6 seconds faster than _any_ GNX seen anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/27 "2003-06-14T12:17:04Z")
For that matter, why are we all harshing on the GNX? It’s the apex of pre-Taurus and post-Fuel Crisis/Cat Converter american automobiles. And those engines, because the factories sucked, had amazing stress tolerances. Nowadays, it’s a lot tighter. But that’s what blueprinting’s about. Sure, there are faster, more comfortable, and better handling cars for less nowadays. So what? ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/28 "2003-06-14T15:23:09Z")
for less? the base price for the turbo regal was $13,714. \>\>“the wording on the intake in the picture to that article?”\<\< If I understand you correctly it says “SHORT TAKE” I printed it from film at the library along with a section from a 1/97 C&D that rated the GN as #1 in top-gear acceleration - says the 911 turbo would probably have won except for the manual trans that did not allow for good revs like the automatic in the GN. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/29 "2003-06-14T17:45:25Z")
There’s two kinds of GNX. One says “Grand National”, and one says GNX, I think, on the hood scoop. One’s a prototype and the other’s production. I’m sorry, this is twenty year old memories. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/30 "2003-06-14T22:43:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*Unfortunately, there is is a lot of metal beyond both the front and rear wheels. I tried a power slide once on a rainy road and completely lost control of the car. Definately not a Porsche when the tires break loose. \*\* Well **Magiver** , it’s worth noting that prior to the current water-cooled Porsche 911’s, gee, the previous air-cooled 911’s were notoriously tail heavy. In particular, those made before 1990 or so. In the final few years of the air-cooled 911’s life, the Stuttgart people did some concerted work on the rear suspension geometry etc to make the rear end more tractable but prior to that, they were murder. As a dear friend of mine once described… (he was a very wealthy dentist working in England at the time and it was this guy who owned the 1979 F2 car) he once owned a mid 80’s 911 and was driving through a roundabout in ENgland somewhere and without being too forceful in his driving, well one day he made the mistake of lifting off throttle mid corner and his Porsche swung around on him before he could say Jack Robinson. And this was a guy who was regularly racing at A-grade open wheeler meetings across England - so he was no slouch. But it was the nature of the old 911 apparently. The more you lifted off, the more the rear end swung around on you. It took some time to get used to the concept of “if in doubt, floor it…” because what happened is that the weight transfer under acceleration would dig the rear wheels in, thereby improving rear end grip, whereas lifting off made the rear end very light. As you noted, the real issue is where all your weight is placed. That, and how little there is of it. That’s why the Lotus Elise is such a screamer. If they were to release that car with a twin turbo or a roots supercharger, you would have a truly great supercar I suspect. Only 850 kgs (the weight of 4 x 750cc motorbikes) and a mid mounted engine… combined with all wishbone suspension etc. Imagine getting 300+ hp out of the engine system? Various drivers of that Lotus Elise tell me it’s the closest thing they’ve driven to a road going go-kart - such is it’s ability to get into wonderful controlled 4 wheel drifts without body roll. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/31 "2003-06-15T18:35:49Z")
That short wheel base can make thing kinda squirrely ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/32 "2003-06-25T11:47:21Z")
quote: and Dodge is doing it today with the neon SRT-4, which is dyno’ing about 245HP at the rear wheels), or the Grand National has a little bit of hype floating around over it. -Sam Stone Uh… the Neon is front wheel drive… what exactly are they measuring 245 hp of at the rear wheels? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/33 "2003-06-25T13:31:43Z")
The Neon has a _lot_ of torque. Seriously, it bothers me a bit on a structural rigidity standpoint, I’m not sure it’s enough car to handle that much horsepower and speed. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/34 "2003-06-25T14:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Uh… the Neon is front wheel drive… what exactly are they measuring 245 hp of at the rear wheels? Picky, picky. Slip of the tongue. I’m well aware that the Neon is FWD. As for beating 4.9 0-60 times, the WRX STi does it, and the Mitsubishi Evo does it. The Evo posted a time of 4.69 seconds in the last C&D. 1/4 mile at 13.08. Both of those times are faster than a Grand National. And at $28,000, that’s probably pretty close to the price of the GNX, considering inflation. ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/35 "2003-06-25T19:24:06Z")
Wan’t there a turbine car that almost won the Indy 500 in the early 70’s. The British navy switched from steam piston engines to steam turbine engines in the early 1900’s. The Abrams tank has a turbine engine so why doe the latest Rolls Royce have a 12 cylinder piston design? Rosen Motors had an interesting design with gas tubine generator Dal Timgar ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/36 "2003-06-25T19:42:34Z")
On the OP, other than the Corvette and the fastest Mustangs the performance wars have moved overseas. Obviously the new rally spec. cars are a hoot. The foreign luxury car makers are in the middle of a massive horsepower war. It’s a beautiful thing. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/37 "2003-06-25T19:46:44Z")
Damn, my typing got ahead of my brain. The US also makes the Viper, that new Neon SRT-4 you’ve been discussing, and some fast trucks–especially the Lightning. The GTO, coming soon, will hopefully be a sign of things to come. Mercedes-AMG and BMW-M still have a bit of a head start. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/38 "2003-06-25T22:51:46Z")
Well, new cars are a wonderful thing, to be sure… But may I invite you to look at this web page of a private '66 Fastback Mustang which I’m about to buy… [My Dream '66 Arctic Blue Fastback Mustang](http://www.mustangs.com.au/carssale/mustangs/2003_05_01/2003_05_01.pics.htm) It doesn’t matter if the brakes aren’t as good as a modern car, or if the fuel efficiency isn’t as good, or if the shock absorbers aren’t as good, or if there’s diff whine, or gearbox whine… Just look at that car… Don’t make 'em like that anymore… (shape wise that is…) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/39 "2003-06-26T00:10:36Z")
Boo Boo Foo: Check out the '05 Mustang. It’s a ‘retro’ design based on the 60’s Fastback Mustang. It also comes with 400HP in the GT, apparently. That will make it the fastest Mustang ever produced. You’re right, though - the '66 Fastback is a gorgeous car. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451/40 "2003-06-26T00:11:37Z")
Yes, they do. [http://www.doublenickels.com/page8.html](http://www.doublenickels.com/page8.html) [http://2005concepts.superford.org/registry/vehicles/index.php?vID=2388&fs=&dni=1&vs0=](http://2005concepts.superford.org/registry/vehicles/index.php?vID=2388&fs=&dni=1&vs0=)_3706_&vs1=&vs2=&s1=&s2=&s3=&s4=&s5=&s6=&s7=&s8=&s9=&s10=&s11=&s12=&s13=0&s14=&s15=&s16=&s17=&s18=&s19=&s20= [http://2005concepts.superford.org/registry/vehicles/showpic.php?pID=33695](http://2005concepts.superford.org/registry/vehicles/showpic.php?pID=33695) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/car-wars-ford-vs-chevy-vs-japan-vs-germany/181451.md?page=3)