This is with stock 3:31 factory gears. I’m telling you it doesn’t matter. Its no fun in those conditions, as you are apparently aware. It sucks driving a car with rear drive, light rear weight and that much power in ANY condition other than dry and warm.
You’ve driven a ZR1??
Its a rare occurence!
I was given a ride in an Austin-Healy that had a small block Chevy V-8 stuffed in it. IIRC it also had the Chevy transmission and rear end. It had been built by someone other than the guy who gave me the ride and the details are kind of fuzzy. This was in the early 1960s and it was too much car for the driver; scared the hell out of me, I do remember that. Other than that my life has been kind of tame, car wise.
Yes. It is. It helps to know some engineers and race teams. However, I was not allowed to drive it all out so it didn’t count as a scary ride. 
If you are going to take a Mustang out in the snow, it will need skinnier tires and snow or off-road tires are best. When it first snows, take that thing to a big parking lot and see how it handles. Do not tromp on the go pedal, but give it gas gently.
yeh. last year in February, I figured I’d take my 2010 Mustang on a short errand (it with Pirelli “all season” tires.) of course, while I was out, it started snowing this miserable wet, sloppy snow. I couldn’t even breathe on the gas or else it’d fishtail.
'course, I’m sure the 2012 I have now would be even worse 
lemme guess- four wheel drum brakes too, right?
That reminds me of the scariest car I’ve driven. It wasn’t fast, but it was definitely scary. It was a 66 Mustang coupe with a 302. I know it didn’t have power brakes, but I’m not sure if it had drums or discs in the front. Whatever the were, you had to plan your braking points way ahead of when you planned to stop. Had something run out in front of me, it would have been a goner. I never even opened it up to see how it ran because the brakes terrified me at only 30 mph.
I’ve watched Lotuses on the track against Lambos - that’s a real lesson in fun. Where the Lambos were braking at 100+ m from turn 1, the Lotus was braking at 50 and 60 metres.
Have driven an Alfa at 240+ km/h, Lotus Elise at 170, and my 7 seat Toyota (that shares an engine with the Elise) at 175.
Have also ridden with Greg Murphey in a race ready HSV - thats an experience 
11.5 to 1, not 14. It’s been a while. Still insane. And yes, the Matrix is 3 seconds slower in the quarter mile. I said as much, it’s much slower between a standing start and 60 than most cars. But it’s got a dual cam profile, and if you can stay in the appropriate power band (Above 6000 RPM), and above 50 MPH, it will accelerate much faster than the numbers say. We’re talking an 8100 RPM redline. It was a very odd car. Ah, found the final drive. 4.529:1, with taller tires than the Celica GT they pulled it out of. Lighter than a same-year Eclipse.
http://www.modified.com/roadtests/0201scc_2003_toyota_matrix_xrs/index.html
I was able to accelerate faster than they were, I’m pretty sure, because I had more time with the car. It took a lot of care.
I was also able to brake harder and better than anything that size and shape should allow. Very odd car.
Ahem! My point was, and it’s getting lost, that thanks to modern engineering and especially modern tires, despite putting these two unexpected beasts to 95/100ths of their actual capability (Again, the Camry was literally sliding two inches to the side in turns), they still handled securely, showed no ill effects afterwards, and generally behaved well under extreme pressure.
This is not behavior I expected, growing up in a series of 911s and other interesting beasts of the European variety. (Including a Volvo sports car I forget the model of that used to like to try to eject the passenger in a hard turn. Looked a little like a Karmann Ghia. I was usually the passenger. After the first time, you learned to hold on to something.)
I think the second dividing point, after the introduction of radials, was the Goodyear Aquatread. That’s when tread design seriously improved.
My Dad had a 12 cylinder Jaguar. Don’t tknow the type or the year, but it was a two-seater with the tiniest shelf of a “back seat.” Thsi would have been around 1995 maybe. I took it out to get groceries, with little understanding of the level of power it had. I pulled off of an entry ramp onto the highway and just touched the gas pedal gently - then looked down to see that I was doing 120. I giggled a bit thinking that must be in kilometers. Nope.
It wasn’t just that it was fast or powerful. There was a smoothness to the automatic transmission that hid the acceleration far too well. You never got that “Throw your head back” feeling, and you never heard the engine at all. It just silently and smoothly brought you up to insane rates of speed.
Want.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-quickest-cars-of-2007-20000-to-25000-second-place-2007-toyota-camry-v-6-page-1 By the way, once again, look at where the Camry stands here, and what beats it. The only thing in the price range that’s faster is a WRX, and that generally by .2 or .4 seconds. The Camry, being FWD, and the base model having no traction control, is a bit tricky to launch, but this guy seems to have nailed it. At the speeds I was going, the limitation was entirely the road. Poor repair, and occasionally concrete-ish, not asphalt. Plus a good amount of sweeping to slightly tighter turns. Very little straight runs.
Basically, if you’re going to go fast on that road, it’s a matter of your tires, your suspension, and the driver, rather than your engine and brakes alone.
In this case, it was mostly a matter of the driver, because the Mustang probably could have held a bit tighter than it did, he braked earlier than I did. But it was a local road for him, so he had no excuses.
If it helps, I’ve noticed a distinct difference, a qualitative difference between Mitsus and BMWs on one hand, and Vettes and Porsches on the other. It’s fun to encourage the latter to show off, because it’s like something has just glued the car to the road and told it to go that way now.
I’m sorry you don’t believe me. These things happened, I’ve tried to explain why they happened, and where.
It’s really insane how I hear my dad talking to his old driving buddies about their cars, and going ‘yes, in fact, I can do that with my mostly production sedan.’
I’m not the driver he was. But my car can make up the difference. Well, except for the time he drove a Mini through a supermarket. I can’t do that with the Camry no matter how big they make the Super Wal-Mart.
(My I-Win-The-Lottery-Car is an Atom 500, which is (I believe) street legal in the US, followed eventually by a handbuilt Caterham.)
Hey its all good, man. I didn’t say I didn’t believe you, but I knew there was something inaccurate about the engine claims for the Matrix XRS. And when you said Toyota Camry, I (wrongly) assumed a four cylinder car, and had forgotten that the latest iteration of the V-6 Camry is indeed a pretty fast car in its own right. I apologize if you felt I was trying to call you a liar or anything. Almost 270hp in a Camry?
What’s next, cats and dogs living together?
ETA: I too love the Ariel Atom. The original supercharged variant with the Honda Civic Type-R engine in it seemed pretty scary enough (something like 0-60 in 2.8 seconds and 0-100 in like 9? Good Grief!) on its own. I cannot imagine what a V-8 powered Atom would be like. I also wonder if the extra weight of the larger engine impacts the superior handling of such a light car.
I think I forgot to mention I’ve also got a sportbike. My sense of speed is all screwed up. Riding in the NASCAR COT, I could tell it accelerated fast, but I’m used to sport bikes, supercharged Z06s, and the like, so it wasn’t that fast. When it dove off into the corner though, that was the first time I’ve felt a rush from speed in a long time.
No doubt…the closest thing a cager will see to a motorcycle will be a Kart. And even then, the loading is different. Kart’s have a lot of lateral loads, bikes don’t.
I’ve been in a shifter kart too. Extremely fast, but it was by far the roughest thing I’ve ever been in. I don’t know how the tires kept any grip over the surface it was so rough at WOT.
No personal experience, but I did see some fool taking a Maserati Murcilage out for a test drive (RT 128, Newton, MA). The guy almost crashed into the car in front of him-clearly he never should have been driving a powerful car like this (capable of 190 MPH).
Where do you get to drive cars like these (to their limits)?
Certainly, not on RT. 128!
You got a 7-seater up to 175 km/h (109 mph)? Was it on a straight road? Did it have awesome tires (must have)? That would be scary. People movers at speed. Yikes!
I’ll stick with sports cars at speed. They are built for hugging the curves.
Most of my stories on here have been on drag strips or a NASCAR oval. I did buy my first Mustang GT when I was 19 though and there’s lots of open interstate at 2 in the morning.
I fully endorse this post. To my mind, cars are now beyond the capabilities where we can really enjoy them - and also beyond the capabilities of most drivers. I remember growing up when 100 miles an hour was considered FAST. Now - it’s a ho hum kinda speed.
Doing 109 in my people mover, I still (felt) I had some in reserve. And its stock - lower it an inch, stiffen up the suspension, engine bay and underfloor braces and I could see it at 200+ km/h.
This is what I love about the Exige, its a fast car - but it feels fast - and it rewards good driving.
I drove the Saab 9-5, and that also gathers speed so effectively you just don’t notice. The Kuga was another that you just didn’t notice the speed.
My personal “win the lottery” is also a Caterham, would forgo the Atom though, would have to include an Exige if I really had enough dough.
From what I’ve read I don’t quite understand the draw of the Veyron - what’s the point? How do you drive a car that fast (sanely) on a public road - it’s capabilities are simply so far beyond the bounds of a human’s ability to react that you are so far within the comfort zone there is no “fun” or “challenge” or even sense of speed