I don't know how efficient it is, but my wife and I once packed a week of camping gear, including a wooden beam, canvas tent and 15 gallons of beer, into our Challenger. I think I could even put my seat back most of the way. Though, it was...challenging when we switched spots because I couldn't move her seat back at…

My second car was a '74 Mach 1. It was brown.

So, he reviewed a Grand Cherokee, using facts about the regular Cherokee, except when he wrong about those (the AMC Cherokee was a 4 cylinder. It was Chrysler who decided it could use six, and put their own into it).

Eh, the General Lee was a dirt tract race car, not a showroom spec Charger. That's why it had the numbers on the side and the doors welded shut. The Dukes had, as I recall, given up a promising career stock car racing before they had to come help out their uncle, and the Lee was a relic of that.

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.