A 1970 Olds Vista Cruiser with a 455 Rocket.

Ever seen how much coal a power plant burns in a day? Even a little one? It's staggering. I mean, you think you have an idea, then you see the coal piled up in the yard...

Well, tell that to those who live there.

Experiment 3 isn't even testing what it claims to be testing. It is only testing distance from the wheel, which has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the car. I'm 6'3", and the smallest car I've ever owned, a 2002 Hyundai accent, had plenty of room for me to move the seat back far enough to not feel crammed…

I'd prefer a Nissan President myself. I'm a sucker for fender mounted mirrors...

My first car was a 302 Maverick Coupe with a 3 speed manual. I loved that car. Sure, the steering was vague, and the clutch linkage came loose all the time, and it was a 1976 so the 302 had been neutered, but I'd buy another in a heartbeat...

My reading comprehension? You don't understand simple phrases and my reading comprehension?

I do! "Essentially meaningless" means "mostly without value" or perhaps "not particularly useful". The way that he is using it means that the gross HP value does not make a particularly good indicator of performance. No one has argued this. This, however, is a different statement than "not based in fact". The…

I read the article. I'm wondering if you have, because it's not saying the same thing you are. In fact, if you'll actually look at my arguments instead of storming around like an autistic hothead, you'll see that it is not incompatible with anything I've said. Different standard of horsepower? Check. Tests the engine…

"SAE gross horsepower was measured by removing the engine from the car and stripping it of its exhaust system, air clearer..." While strictly not true, gross was measure before the engine was put in the car, it was, according the article, still an actual measure. It was a measure of the power of the engine, not the…

Gross horsepower certainly did have a basis in fact. It was measure of the engine's power before it was installed in the car. That's all it ever claimed to be. Whether all of that power is transferred to the wheels or wherever else you want to measure it is beside the point.

Actually, I think you've proven you have no idea what critical thinking actually is. Context is a big part of it, and you have completely ignored that for a whole list of apples to oranges comparisons between cars made 50 years apart and held that up as though it has proven something. When challenged on your points,…

I think the fact that you have to compare the V6 Accord to cars from a time when "digital" meant something you do with your fingers says more about the V6 Accord than the muscle cars.

So?

First off, you are still comparing a modern car with a modern driveline, transmission, wheels, tires, and, really, everything else, to one that's as old as I am.

I'll stick with my Viper transmission, but I love my Challenger as well. Looks a lot like yours, actually.

Actually, that's not true either. In fact, it's pretty much the reason that the Feds instituted net as standard. Ford and Chrysler in particular were outright lying about their horsepower ratings. The Cobrajet and Hemi could be and usually were factory tuned to well above the stated number. Since testing horsepower at…

Also, I don't think there is anyone who reads this site who doesn't understand that you can't compare gross and net horsepower ratings.

No, the cars were that slow because that's what they were capable. What you are doing is comparing two different units of measurement and calling one of them wrong. Gross HP wasn't wrong, it was an estimate of what power the engine was capable of before taking into account all of the things an engine has to do before…

So, let me get this straight....Are you saying that one type of car is roughly as fast as another type of car that was made roughly half a century earlier?