larry.g.unger@lmco.com wrote:
>
> The 'C's massive six cylinder produces 170 lb ft of torque at 3,400 rpm
> compared to the 'B's 110 lb ft of torque at 3,000. The 'C's unladen
> weight is 2,460lb compared to the 'B's unlanden weight of 2,030lb ...
> so the 'C's torque to weight ratio is .69 compared to the 'B's .54. Road
> and Track recorded the standing 1/4 mile for a '69 'C' (Federal Specs) at
> 18.0 seconds compared to 18.7 seconds for a '70 'B' (FederalSpecs).
See! Larry once again gets tripped up with the facts.
The 'C' outperforms the 'B' by 7 tenths of a second in the 1/4 mile. It
takes a lot of money and effort to trim your ET 7 tenths. The short
version has a name: DISPLACEMENT
55% more torque is 55% more torque. Face it! A C/GT can haul a lot of
ass! I got ample proof of that!
And quit with the weight thing already. My esteemed colleague and close
friend Trevor has already checked in that less weight don't mean s**t
without some fancy calculus and we all know spewing calculus ain't the
hot ticket to get the babes pressed up against the wind screen.
Larry should really put down his magazines and get out more.
--
Bob Allen, Kansas City, '69CGT, '75TR6, '61Elva(?)
"However, I must agree with Bob Allen" -- Larry Unger, Sept. 15, 1997
|