Import Car Makers Vs. Domestic Car Makers (opinion thread)
12-28-2003 | 07:07 PM
#81
Hating...
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,246
Likes: 0
From: In the NSX
The japanese restriction is actually called the "agreement." It isnt like the japanese govt forced all car manufacturers to not exceed 280hp. It was a buisness tactic agreed upon by all the manufacturer's to not impeed on each others market. A compromise if you will...
But like in any business they cheated a few times going behind eachothers back. The R34 skyline obviously makes more than 280hp as does the Supra. The agreement though is in the process of getting revised and the 280hp restriction will not be imposed anymore. I think the new NSX-R will be around 350hp.
But like in any business they cheated a few times going behind eachothers back. The R34 skyline obviously makes more than 280hp as does the Supra. The agreement though is in the process of getting revised and the 280hp restriction will not be imposed anymore. I think the new NSX-R will be around 350hp.
12-29-2003 | 04:44 AM
#82
Srsly.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,449
Likes: 0
From: Kalamazoo
Originally posted by racerns
I will agree that I have seen the criticism that the f-body steering feel is a little more disconnected than the Mustangs and the road manners of the Mustang are little better than the f-body. Though when it comes down to sheer performance, the f-body wins out. As for lateral g numbers, I have seen anywhere from .83 to .90 for the f-body depending on what wheel and tire version is tested. The RSA (all season tire) shod cars usually give the lower numbers. Though lateral g numbers don't really tell the whole story.
I am not sure what numbers you want to see but here is a link the results of this years national SCCA run offs. Here are a few good links detailing the Mustangs suspension design and some of its short comings.
Mustang Suspension
Griggs
The first link compares the Mustang suspension set up to an Unequal Length suspension or SLA. This is the type of setup that the f-body has for its front suspension. I don't have the link but I have seen a full computer analysis of the f-body front suspension and it showed that there was not much to do to improve it geometry wise. For the rear suspension you will see the first link points out how the addition of a locating device, like a pan hard bar, and a torque arm would be improvements. The f-body already has these incorporated into its rear suspension. Is this the type of info that you are looking for?
I will agree that I have seen the criticism that the f-body steering feel is a little more disconnected than the Mustangs and the road manners of the Mustang are little better than the f-body. Though when it comes down to sheer performance, the f-body wins out. As for lateral g numbers, I have seen anywhere from .83 to .90 for the f-body depending on what wheel and tire version is tested. The RSA (all season tire) shod cars usually give the lower numbers. Though lateral g numbers don't really tell the whole story.
I am not sure what numbers you want to see but here is a link the results of this years national SCCA run offs. Here are a few good links detailing the Mustangs suspension design and some of its short comings.
Mustang Suspension
Griggs
The first link compares the Mustang suspension set up to an Unequal Length suspension or SLA. This is the type of setup that the f-body has for its front suspension. I don't have the link but I have seen a full computer analysis of the f-body front suspension and it showed that there was not much to do to improve it geometry wise. For the rear suspension you will see the first link points out how the addition of a locating device, like a pan hard bar, and a torque arm would be improvements. The f-body already has these incorporated into its rear suspension. Is this the type of info that you are looking for?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post