file.newsgroup.cars.101607 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Craig Boyle)
Subject: Re: Looking to buy Dodge Stealth, have questions
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Craig Boyle) writes:
>|> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
> I found a Mopar spec sheet this weekend:
>
> model wgt hp
> Stealth 3086 164
> Stealth ES 3186 222
> Stealth RT 3373 222
> Stealth RT TT 3803 300
>
> Okay, I'll take "their" word for it.
These arethe numbers I have been stating in the past 5-10 messages. It
really angers me that you insisted you were right, and that you had
no clue what your own car weighed. Why didn't you check when I first
told you that your figures were implausible?
>
>
>> I am giving every chance to retract figures widely known. The Mustang is
>> rated at 205. 222-205 is 17. You have a 17hp advantage over a Mustang
>
> Seems that the 1993 Mustang 5.0 is rated at 205 hp ONLY because Ford
> changed its testing procedures. Under the older procedures, it still
> rates closer to 225 hp. That means that the Mustang has 3 hp more.
>
I'd like to hear a better explanatin of how you come to that
conclusion from the above data.
>
>> Big threat. You are KO'd by a Civic, acording to C+D
>
> Yeah, sure, in your wet dreams. And that's probably where you got
No, sorry your wrong again. *You* quoted the del Sol as doing 0-60 in
8.1 according to C+D. Interestingly, the Stealth ES, which is
*faster* than your RT does the samerun in 8.5 seconds according to
C+D. Kind of embarassing isn't it? Why didn't you check the figures
before posting? It only makes you look stupid when you are caught out
twice with *your own* figures.
> that 11.2 second 0-60 for the Stealth.
>
>
>>> I'll check C&D's 5/91 issue. Strange that you claim to have that
You really should have checked.
>>
>> Go ahead and check asshole, you'll realize what an idiot you are for not
>> checking data beforeposting. Car+ Drive, may 91. Stealth ES, 222hp,
>> automatic.
>
> For 3 posts now you've been harping on this May 1991 issue of Car & Driver
*2*
> without posting any numbers. Why not? Because they prove me right and you
> ain't got the guts to admit it? Yeah, thought so.
>
If you insist, I gave you every chance to retract, but:
Dodge Stealth ES Auto does an 8.5/16.4 - Wonder why you couldn't find it?
Do you realize that a 9k Sentra (C+D) will run a 16.7, that a Sentra SE-R or Saturn
will run in the 15's? Don't you think it is kind of strange that your
222hp sports car is so easily beaten.
A Mustang 5.0, which weights about the same (according to *your* numbers),
has less power and is much quicker? Care to explain. Don't be abusive,
just try and come up with a rational explanation of where those 222hp
went to, its a mystery to me.
>> The Sentra SE-R really is alot quicker than the 222hp FWD Sports car.
>> You are close to the 9k sentra-e. Go look up the numbers in C+D - and
>> report please.
>
> No, I'm going to play your game -
>
> No way, Sentra's are SLOW! I took a test drive and it took
> 21.7 to go 0-50! Why, even the Hyundai Excel blows it doors
I guess you drove a 5 speed and couldn't shift/
Craig
© 2015 - 2025 Weber Informatics LLC | Privacy Policy