mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Archive for discussions from 2008. Please post new discussions in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Matthew, neps, Michael Pajaro

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:36 pm

hmm

from http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/road/cars/ford_mustang_gt.html
for the 2007 Ford Mustang GT, "0-60 mph 5.2 seconds"

from http://cars.about.com/od/chevrolet/fr/ch_05cobaltss.htm
for the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged, "I didn't get a chance to test Chevy's boast of a 145 mph (235km/h) top speed, but I did find the SS mighty quick in the 0-60 mph and 40-80 mph speed ranges. GM claims 0–60mph times in the sub-6 second range and I have no reason to doubt that number."

Yet, some on here would have me believe that something like the Chevy Cobalt is vastly underpowered. If they are correct, why are the Ford Mustang and Chevy Cobalt so similar by this metric? It seems that, as I suggested earlier, if a sufficiently powerful engine/motor is used in an "underpowered" car, such as a Chevy Cobalt or Pontiac G6, performance comparable to a "muscle car" can be achieved. My theory is that the "underpowered" cars have inherently superior aerodynamics, and that the "performance" of "muscle cars" comes mainly from having an engine which could drive a brick as easily as it could drive a Mustang.

The Tesla is another example; its motor is only 185 kW (247 HP), half the power of the new Ford Mustang GT500KR 550 HP motor, yet it can go 0-60 faster than a Ford Mustang GT500KR. That is because the Tesla is built from the ground up for superior performance, as opposed to taking a box and putting an excessively powerful engine in it, and claiming that one has made a spycar.

So, I question the argument of the Tim Taylor types that somehow a Chevy Cobalt can't be a spycar, despite its spycar looks -- in my opinion of course -- because it doesn't have a V8. Clearly, cars with far less than V8 power can perform similarly or better than those with V8s.

Tesla Motors shows this image on their site, talking about the performance of their car

Image

I believe a V8 has 8 cylinders, not 4, so the graph would look different for a V8, but you see the point.

That's why the new KITT is described as having a "hybrid engine", that is to say, an electric motor with an engine merely providing the source of electricity. Because an electric motor is superior to an internal combustion engine, and, of course, because hybrid powerplants are "cool" right now. :)

that's from http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php

More importantly...why do I not look up things like this more often, when it seems so easy to disprove claims made by some?

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:59 pm

from http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/officially-official-2008-chevy-cobalt-ss-bows-at-sema/

The standard transmission is the GM Powertrain Sweden F35 short-throw 5-speed manual with a "no-lift shift" feature. This, combined with the punchy turbo four, helps propel the Cobalt SS Turbocharged from 0 to 60 in a scant 5.7 seconds. In fact, GM set a Nürburgring class record for FWD sport compacts with the turbo Cobalt, lapping the Green Hell in 8:22.85.


So, only 0.5 seconds slower than a Ford Mustang GT (depending on which web page you're reading on the 0-60 time for the mustang gt).

User avatar
Lost Knight
FLAG Special Ops
Posts: 2716
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by Lost Knight » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:00 am

"Up to some of your old tricks, Templeton?"
“Gimme maximum turbo thrust and blast me outta here, will ya!?”
:kitt: :dash4:

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by d_osborn » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:00 am

Wow... I wish I had that much time on my hands. ...and here I was thinking you didn't care about the actual performance of the vehicle... only looks. :roll: Are you REALLY going to make me go back and explain that the design aesthetics of sport compacts are completely different than that of sports cars? It's all about image, my "cool car-blind" friend. Not performance.... image. An image that most sports compacts, ESPECIALLY the GM Delta cars, don't have. Apples and oranges.

Go convince the producers and marketing execs that a sport compact would make a good KITT in the new movie. :lol: Gee... why didn't Ford push the new Focus coupe? Oh yes... BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN AWFUL CHOICE. :mrgreen:

You asked why the Tesla vehicle could be just as fast as the Mustang GT, with only half the power output... WEIGHT, my dear Watson. It's a tiny-ass car compared to the much larger and heavier Mustang.

... and I'm not even going to bring up how fast the GT would be if the same amout of modifications were made. With enough money, a Model T could be made to break land-speed records.

Seriously, though... do you drive a G5? Why are you so hung up on other fans admitting that it might make a decent KITT? I'm not a fan of the new Mustang KITT at all... but you're coming across as a bit... strange. ...and that's coming from a guy posting on a message board dedicated to a 25+ year old cheesy detective/talking car TV show!

shinobi594
Recruit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:07 am

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by shinobi594 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:58 am

2 cars... One's a cool muscle car, the other is a "dorky" sport compact...

Sport Compact: Subaru WRX STi

engine: 2.5 liter single scroll turbo Boxer 4 cylinder engine

power: 305 bhp and 290 ft/lb of torque

drivetrain/suspension : Front Engine Symetrical AWD (with un sporty "understeer" feel of a FWD) with Mcpherson Front and Multi-Link Double WIshbone rear suspension




Muscle "Sports" Car: Ford Shelby GT

engine: 4.6 liter normally aspirated V8 (revised engine calibration, less restricted exhaust system, Cold Air Intake)

power: 319 bhp and 315 ft/lb of torque

drivetrain: Classic Sportscar RWD with Mcpherson strut, and classic Muscle/Sportscar SOLID REAR AXLE!


Watch the vid, then read the article:

vid: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HlqjChw9H3A

article: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Dr ... eId=123965


Kinda embarrassing that a 5 door econobox beats the classic sports/muscle car in every performance category, even in acceleration, and it does it with half the amount of cylinders....



Wanna see how fun "sport compacts" are to watch??? Watch this battle between a RWD (turbo rotary modified) sports car (RX-8) and a FWD (EG6) civic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x0u4zNetRNE

If KITT were to have the same handling characteristics as its mustang V6 base or GT shell, it would get its butt handed by both that civic and impreza STi.... Mike Tracer better hope that the road he's chasing the bad guy on is a straight one with no hairpins....


The days of blind FR (Front Engine Rear Wheel Drive) Superiority is over.... Technology FTW ^.^

FLAG should take advantage of technology instead of live in the past...... I hope that mustang isn't gonna be advertised in the show as a low tech V8 with a solid rear axle :roll:

shinobi594
Recruit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:07 am

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by shinobi594 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:45 am

d_osborn wrote:... and I'm not even going to bring up how fast the GT would be if the same amout of modifications were made. With enough money, a Model T could be made to break land-speed records.


RIght.... So with enough money, ANY car would be made to break land-speed records, even a Pontiac G6, or a Chevy Cobalt SS... But stock for stock, that FWD car is just as fast acceleration-wise as that V8 mustang. If you wanna talk about drivetrain superiority, an AWD sport compact actually outperforms a stock "special edition" version of this new Mustang too... (see vid above). There is a saying... "There is no replacement for Displacement, other than the TURBO in my basement". Turbocharge/supercharge the mustang you say? Sure why not? Increase the boost on the Sti/EVO? Sure why not? a 600 hp turbo V8 still has the same power as a 600 hp 4 banger. Up the boost on the mustang's turbo you say? Sure why not? Well, see below:


A mustang GT that has 1000 hp engine will still handle like crap unless its chassis/suspension was EXTENSIVELY modified. Even then, you won't be able to take advantage of all 1000 horses it can put out... USABLE horsepower is where its at... The CHASSIS is what makes the car... A mustang simply isn't a good chassis when compared to other performance cars (sport compact or not, FWD, AWD, or RWD) with the same price tag.... It would be a shame if Kitt came out to be a straight-line acceleration one-trick pony... :(

They should've gone with using a NIssan 350Z, at least itsRWD, and even performs better. Oh wait, its not american-made and its not a V8.... Awww. Mustang it is then. ^.^


GT500KR Super Snake with 600+ hp huh??? Wonder how it will do against a Lancer Evolution FQ400: http://youtube.com/watch?v=s1ZWJjC648I



My co-worker LOVES it when he races people that are ignorant regarding what sport compacts can do.... He makes a decent amount of dough handing a can of 4 banging whupp-a$$ to unsupecting mullet racers at street races ^.^ (ps: I don't support street racing.... pls keep it on the dragstrip/circuit... I gave up nagging him about it but he's stubborn).

shinobi594
Recruit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:07 am

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by shinobi594 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:37 am

d_osborn wrote: Are you REALLY going to make me go back and explain that the design aesthetics of sport compacts are completely different than that of sports cars? It's all about image, my "cool car-blind" friend. Not performance.... image.



Ironic isn't it, that the new mustang's design aesthetics is also based on "image"!?.... I fail to see any advantage aerodynamically regarding the new mustang's current design. 0.38 drag coefficient? That's worse than a slow Toyota Celica with 0.32! I believe Ford designed the mustang this way to give it a "Retro look". Even the fake hood scoop on the Ford Shelby GT doesn't do anything.... (downforce? exhaust manifold temp cooling? I have no idea what its function is?) I don't even wanna talk about its handling characteristics anymore (see above).... Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the look of the classic 65 mustang as well as the current one, but looking macho/retro won't do any good on the circuit/track.....

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by d_osborn » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:24 am

Image isn't functionality...image is "coolness" or "sexiness", as lame as that is to say. Design aesthetics... notice the second word... AESTHETICS. LOOK. IMAGE. I'm not talking about drag coeffectients here. I'm talking about low slung, wide raking designs that evoke a "cool" image. Three or four years ago, I could see some sort of import sport compact possibly being KITT... after the whole FAST AND FURIOUS fad. I have nothing against sport compacts... I drove an 94 240SX with the SR20DET Sylvia motor in college... and I drove a 71 GTO in high school. Guess which is more fun to drive? ...and guess which car most people thought was cooler? ...and guess which car could outrun the other? I'm well versed in the "fun to drive" category. The general viewing population wouldn't accept a sport compact as KITT. They may be fun as hell to drive, but most still look like econo boxes with big spoilers....or as most of the general populations calls it... DORKY.

Producers don't care about what the car can do... they care the image.

Now 350Z... I like that choice. Personally, I could care less if KITT is American built. Victor Kros already said it's a moot point when they will be deciding KITT for the feature. ...but the 350Z is now a very old model. My personal choice was the new GT-R.

Like I said... I'm not big on the Mustang... but I can see why they chose it. It has a cool image... and Ford is paying big bucks.

...but looking macho/retro won't do any good on the circuit/track

NBC/U, Ford, and WS marketing execs could care less if it does any good on the circuit/track. They simply want people to think it looks cool. You would be laughed out of a marketing meeting if you brought up drag co-effecients, or that your co-worker's sport compact can outrun muscle cars. Whatever vehicle is used for KITT doesn't have perform the feats that the screenwriter demands. It's Hollywood, guys.... and it's ALLLLL about looks.

EDIT---- ...and can you and seeker please compress your multiple replies down to one in the future? It's a bit annoying. :wink:
Last edited by d_osborn on Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ckeller22
Operative
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by ckeller22 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:27 am

I can't believe your still dragging on with this. First this is show business. It would not make sense to have a small compact car to be Kitt period. The producers want something to catch an eye. With what they had they filled the requirements. It doesn't matter performance and believe me I also was hung up on this I was the one who first posted the comparison between the Subaru WRX STi and Mustang. Go back and find the post. And than I realized thanks to some help here on the board that it's not about performance. Kitt is a fantasy car he has been engineered by the fictional foundation who has technology years and years ahead of everyone else. The foundation could take a Yugo and make it the fastest greatest car in the world because it is television. So again now that performance is not a factor We need the wow factor. The Cobalt is a entry level car,the Aveo is the only car below it.. The Kr500 is a limited edition car. The Cobalt does not have the stance the Mustang has. What your trying to say if you look at it is hey the yugo should be Kitt cause it has better performance with the upgrades than a trans am. That doesn't make sense. Once again it' about looks in Hollywood not performance they can make a car do whatever they want.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by d_osborn » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:33 am

I'm glad I'm not the only sane person posting here. :mrgreen:

Forgive me for saying this... and I'm not bashing you guys... but picking apart torque curves and drag coeffecients in regards to KNIGHT RIDER is about as nerdy as the four door sport compacts themselves... hell, it's nerdy in almost ANY situation, outside of a pit crew or vehicle engineering team. :lol:

.... and yes.. .like I said earlier, that's coming from a guy posting on a message board dedicated to a 25+ year old cheesy detective/talking car TV show!

User avatar
Darknight
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Huntington/Wayne area, WV
Contact:

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by Darknight » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:34 pm

I think the way this should be analyzed is from FLAG's point of view. FLAG would want a vehicle with a low coefficient of drag and high lateral g capability. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe KITT"s COD was between .32 and .29. On the skid pad, the 3rd Gen could pull .78 Gs. Characteristics such as these gave flag a good starting point to build the "car of the future." It would be both functional and fuel efficient.

In the show, KITT's V8 was only for putting around. Everyone knows that KITT depended on his turbines for the real power. The producers of the show weren't afraid of being "nerdy;" they wanted something believable as the car of the future. Since when did the car of the future become strictly relegated to the technology of the past?

If the KITT of the 80s had turbines capable of nearly limitless power and efficiency, how does this cinderblock of a car stack up?

To speak candidly, it does appear that FLAG has regressed, rather that progressed, as the NBC show has been envisioned without the leadership of Larson.

My only hope is that the feature film embodies the true essence of KITT's technological superiority.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by d_osborn » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:35 pm

I give up...

:roll:

User avatar
ckeller22
Operative
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by ckeller22 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:13 pm

Me too...

User avatar
Solid Snake
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:55 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Hengelo, The Netherlands

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by Solid Snake » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:03 pm

Why are cars that have less power similarly fast... really you wonder about that?? How about weight? The Tesla is a very light car (based on the Lotus Elise) and the power development in an electro engine is much more efficient and optimized...

The same comparisons can and must be made with the upcoming Camaro and... lets say a Noble (or Rossion as it will be called in the US)... same basic idea... a much lighter car will always outperform a heavier car in relative terms... Knight Rider car or not.
Knight Rider, powered by Ford!

shinobi594
Recruit
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:07 am

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by shinobi594 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:15 pm

I'm not knocking on how cool the mustang looks, but like you said, it just looks cool, no functionality whatsoever. The design of the Cobalt SS is based on trend as well... I actually like the Mustang more than the Cobalt. FnF may have been lame/ghey to car enthusiasts like me and you (SR20DETs on a civic? lol), but to everyone else, believe it or not, it was pretty cool. Domestic car companies might lag a bit when it comes to Sport Compact coolness, but if you are looking at Foreign companies like Honda, Mitsu, Toyota, especially the Scion brand, their sport compacts are the ISH right now, these cars are selling like hotcakes.... Lots of kids hop them up where I live. Ever been to recent Car Shows like HIN and Extreme Autofest? There are more sport compacts there than anything else. Old school V8 muscle is cool, but High Reving 4 bangers also have a coolness factor in their own way. High Revers might have their share of badly modified "RICEY" (Pimpmyride and FnF come to mind) cars that give the scene a bad rep, but the scene also has cleanly modified JDM/DTM/Sleepers that plainly KICK A$$ and look sexy at the same time... Just like how the Mullet guys with their badly modded Camaros and Stangs give the classic/modern V8 crowd a bad image... I guess coming from CA, the car scene here is probably different than everywhere else...


The reason why I brought up technical info on cars is just to prove a point that a stock sport compact could be on par (if not better) with a classic sportscar on a performance standpoint. I understand some or most people on here are not well educated in automobile/auto racing so this info is also here for them. They can read it and have a new understanding, or they can choose not to read it and stay ignorant. (I believe the discussion started off with the OP offering the possibility of sport compacts with drivetrains/engines other than RWD/V8 being possible as shells for KITT, and the rest chose to be closed-minded on the idea despite the evidence.)

Like Darknight said, KITT should be the ESSENCE of technological superiority, and using an inferior chassis when there are better ones out there doesn't show that IMO. I guess at least it looks cool right? ^.^

We're all fans of Knight Rider, and this forum exists so fans can talk about all things Knight Rider. Trying to find a connection between reality and fantasy regarding KITT's capabilities is an interesting topic (I'm sure I'm not alone on this).

In response to Solid Snake's reply: As a general rule, yes. Cars with better Power to Weight ratios are going to be faster. However, this is where new technology comes in. Active Yaw Control in combination to better gearing, some cars with heavier frames can keep up or be faster... Case in Point, the new Lancer EVO X with SAWC: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp ... le_id=6387


PS (off topic) have you guys seen Jackie Chan's movie "Who Am I?"

Who AM I (A Lancer EVO IV is shown here doing cool car stunts): http://youtube.com/watch?v=MekEBnWlFqc

User avatar
JJSoCrazy
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:12 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Yonkers, NY
Contact:

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by JJSoCrazy » Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:50 pm

Wow Seeker! I didn't think you would post something silly like this. I am actually going to give my response to such a silly question.

Now, the Mustang GT is a "Muscle Car" this is defined by a car that is built by standards of Straight Performance and Speed!. The Cobalt SS Supercharged is defined as a Sports Compact Coupe. It is like comparing apples to orange, they are different types of coupes with a totally different type of performance. I have friends that have both the Mustang GT 2005 and 2007 and friends with a Cobalt SS Supercharged 2007 and 2006. Now the 0-60 roughly in a Mustang GT is 4.8-5.0 and the Cobalt at 6.4-6.6. The Cobalt SS beats my friends Honda Civic SI by a few cars and with the Mustang in the story it destroys them both by many cars on the highway. Their peformance is totally differnt and no where near close, if a 0-60 is 5.0 and the cobalt is 6.4, a 1.4 second difference is A LOT! Their quarter miles are totally different with the Mustang much quicker. Besides the entire fact behind this you are making a similarity between a MUSTANG V8 and a COBALT 4 Banger! :evil:

Hope this helps! :lol:

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:16 pm

d_osborn wrote:Go convince the producers and marketing execs that a sport compact would make a good KITT in the new movie. :lol: Gee... why didn't Ford push the new Focus coupe? Oh yes... BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN AWFUL CHOICE. :mrgreen:


Well, more because the new Focus is not intended to be marketed as a high performance car. The new Focus certainly looks a lot more aerodynamic than the new Mustang.

You asked why the Tesla vehicle could be just as fast as the Mustang GT, with only half the power output... WEIGHT, my dear Watson. It's a tiny-ass car compared to the much larger and heavier Mustang.


Exactly, the Tesla vehicle is built from the ground up to perform like that, as opposed to a lot of these modern cars where it's just a box with an excessively powerful engine. Nothing about the design of a Mustang GT500KR is making it go fast, just the fact that it has a powerful engine. At least, that is what a layman would think by looking at it.

... and I'm not even going to bring up how fast the GT would be if the same amout of modifications were made. With enough money, a Model T could be made to break land-speed records.


Well, that's not the point.

Ok, take a Mustang GT and a 2008 Ford Focus SES Coupe. Remove the gasoline engines from both cars and replace them with electric motors which have 550 horsepower output, as well as installing the needed batteries. Make no other modifications. I would guess the Ford Focus would go faster. As you said, it's lighter, but it's also the aerodynamic design.

If you take a block from the Great Pyramid, and strap like 100 Space Shuttle rocket engines to it, you might be able to make it go from 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds. But it wouldn't look as nice as a Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged.

Of course, the appearance is merely a matter of opinion, and unlike others, I don't present my opinion of the appearance as being a matter of fact which no reasonable man can dispute. Two reasonable people can have different opinions as to the visual appeal of a given object and still be considered reasonable.

Seriously, though... do you drive a G5? Why are you so hung up on other fans admitting that it might make a decent KITT?


I don't drive a car at all...but...

Again missing the point. The G5 was only one of MANY cars I have suggested. I had suggested the G5 because its EXTERNAL APPEARANCE is far less boxy than a Mustang GT500KR and it LOOKS faster.

In the real world, it may not be, because of the powerplant, but if Knight Industries used the Pontiac G5 as a base, they certainly wouldn't use the factory powerplant. They would have a high horsepower output electric motor as the main device powering the wheels. And they certainly wouldn't leave the transmission unmodified in ANY vehicle they used, including a Mustang GT500KR. Just like with the 1982 Pontiac Trans Am, Knight Industries replaced the gasoline engine with a turbine engine. It's a fantasy car...no car in the real world can perform the way KITT can...

I mean they show KITT taking 90 degree turns at 100 mph, and doing a slalom course at that speed ...I don't think a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am could do that. Maybe a Formula 1 car. On MythBusters they showed a car being hard to turn a 90 degree corner even at 25 mph. So just based on that, I'm going to say it's all in the camera angle or whatever. But of course, a professional stunt driver would be more likely to be able to do a 90 degree turn at 100 mph in any vehicle than one of the mythbusters... ;)

I'm just saying my main metric is external appearance. I don't look at a car and have the specs memorized and say, "because I happen to know that this vehicle only has 150 horsepower, I think the external appearance looks terrible"; that makes no sense to me. Either you're commenting on the appearance or you're not. The specs don't speak to the external appearance, they are completely irrelevant.

I just look at the car, as a layman, who doesn't know ANYTHING about the powerplant or transmission, and say "this car looks cool to me" and if that's what I think when I see it, that's what I want to go with. I don't go look up the specs and see if it is a high performance car. The list of those is fairly short. That Cadillac XLR that people were talking about, that certainly is not a high performance car, at least not in the sense that a Corvette is. It's higher performance than a Pontiac G5, sure, but it's not a high performance vehicle. Yet people were saying it would be a good KITT car.

I'm not a fan of the new Mustang KITT at all...


well we agree on one thing lmao!!!! it does look better to me whenever I see it on video though. It's mainly the front that I don't like. But I don't care that it's a Ford.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:39 pm

d_osborn wrote:Image isn't functionality...image is "coolness" or "sexiness", as lame as that is to say. Design aesthetics... notice the second word... AESTHETICS. LOOK. IMAGE.


Right, and the Chevy Cobalt beats the Ford Mustang there. At least, in my opinion.

the "fun to drive" category. The general viewing population wouldn't accept a sport compact as KITT.


I'm the perfect example of the "general viewing population". I know almost nothing about engines and drivetrains on cars. I'm just looking at external appearance. So I would be your "general public".

And I'm telling you right now...as a general public layman, a Chevy Cobalt looks FAR more like a KITT car than does a Ford Mustang. Again, this is a matter of opinion, of course.

The Cobalt, in my opinion, LOOKS aerodynamic, it has the low swept nose, the wing, two doors, a backseat.

As a layman, I look at the Mustang and I can tell it is not as aerodynamic as a Cobalt. The general public, such as myself, as seen airplanes flying through the air, and we know that faster airplanes have that swept back aerodynamic shape.

The Mustang looks fast to a "Tim Taylor ToolTime More Power" type, because to someone like that, the large engine appeals to them, the performance specs of the vehicle. Those of us who don't have the specs memorized don't look at it that way.

or as most of the general populations calls it... DORKY.


Actually that's just what the Tim Taylor "more power" types say. Those of who don't know anything about cars...certainly, to me, the Chevy Cobalt looks cool.

outrun muscle cars. Whatever vehicle is used for KITT doesn't have perform the feats that the screenwriter demands. It's Hollywood, guys.... and it's ALLLLL about looks.


Well, make up your mind, is it the LOOK or is it the MARKETING INTENTION (image) or is it real world performance? Those are 3 different things that are not related.

If it is LOOK, then I still have to disagree with this statement, because in my opinion, the Cobalt LOOKS faster than a Ford Mustang. You might disagree, and that's fine. It's a matter of opinion.

As far as marketing intention, yeah of course, GM intends for their performance car to be the Corvette, not the Chevy Cobalt. That is not in dispute.

But I don't think "the general public" somehow sees the Chevy Cobalt as LOOKING slower than Mustang. One car has a 90 degree boxy front, the other has a swept down front, I think most laymen -- and I am a layman -- would see the one with the swept down front as looking faster.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:48 pm

ckeller22 wrote:Go back and find the post. And than I realized thanks to some help here on the board that it's not about performance.


Why is it, then, that the objection to the Cobalt is based on its performance?

The Cobalt is a entry level car,the Aveo is the only car below it..


That's a reference to performance, and marketing, not appearance.

And in any case, as I said in my original post, a 2008 Chevy Cobalt SS Supercharged is entry level in the same sense that a 2008 Mustang GT is, yet their performance is similar.

The Kr500 is a limited edition car.


You can tell this by looking at it? I don't see a "I am a limited edition" label. Furthermore, being limited edition certainly doesn't make it appear to be faster.

Once again it' about looks in Hollywood not performance they can make a car do whatever they want.


I agree, hence, 2008 Chevy Cobalt looks better than a 2008 Ford Mustang.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:15 pm

Solid Snake wrote:Why are cars that have less power similarly fast... really you wonder about that??


No, what I wonder is, why is it that people like myself and shinobi are regarded as irrational by the Tim Taylor types because we feel that a Chevy Cobalt looks far more aerodynamic than a boxy Ford Mustang???

People make comments like "you're dumb because you don't know that a fwd car can't do xyz" then it turns out that a fwd car can, in fact, do xyz, with a professional stunt driver at the wheel. I'm definitely finished with accepting such arguments without verifying them.

I don't have car specs memorized, and it's frustrating to hear that I am somehow inferior because I do not. Yeah, the Cobalt does not have a 550 horsepower engine in it, but obviously if the Foundation were to use it, they would put such an engine in it. And it would use neither FWD nor RWD, but rather some kind of adaptive drivetrain that can drive different wheels depending on road conditions. So the specs of the car really don't matter. The reason I wouldn't want a Ford Model T as KITT is not because of its specs, but because of its looks. Specs don't change how a car looks on the outside. Specs don't make a car look "dorky".

My bottom line is this...if the car LOOKS cool to me...then it looks cool to me.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:39 pm

ok well here is a Chevy Cobalt 2LT Coupe...we'll just say for the sake of argument that it is actually a SS Supercharged model (which has similar real world performance to a Mustang GT). the Chevy web site doesn't have an official pic of the SS Supercharged for me to post.

Image

ok, so, if you knew nothing about this car, and didn't know the type of engine or drivetrain, or that it was "entry level", what specifically makes it look "dorky"???

Because, I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Is it the wing? A Ford Mustang GT500KR also has a wing. That it has two doors and a backseat? Again, both share these features.

seeker78
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 402
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 6:00 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by seeker78 » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:50 pm

ok here's a pic of the SS Supercharged, it's not official, and it's not in black, but you can see what it looks like, the main visual difference is the wing shape

Image

User avatar
blowersho
Operative
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by blowersho » Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:17 am

shinobi594 wrote

The days of blind FR (Front Engine Rear Wheel Drive) Superiority is over.... Technology FTW ^.


RWD will always be superior, thats why purpose built race cars are RWD. You will never see FWD at Bonneville, Indy 500, F1 or the 24 hours of Lemans.

d_osborn
Operative
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 8:32 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Jonesboro, AR

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by d_osborn » Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:22 am

Wow... six posts in a row... :roll:

In all honesty, I'm through with this debate. It's going nowhere. Some people just have bad taste in vehicles. 8)

User avatar
Lost Knight
FLAG Special Ops
Posts: 2716
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: mustang gt 0-60 similar to cobalt.

Post by Lost Knight » Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:53 am

seeker78,

Again, I didn't bother to read more than the first line or two of your posts, and I have a feeling I might not be the only one. By this point, it's almost as if you're a borderline troll. I won't waste my time asking you to give this pointless argument a rest, because I've already tried to in a friendly way, and you don't want to "get it." You're not going to get it; you don't want to get it; and you seemingly think that board members here are against you for your "lack of knowledge" on automobiles. What you need to realize is that nobody cares about that. What people care about is having to repeat themselves or get sucked into debates that will go nowhere on cars that are clearly not what most fans would consider "K.I.T.T. material." Your agenda is clearly to promote American-made vehicles, no matter what they look like. I guess the only reason I'm even bothering to waste my time is to tell you flat out that I'm fed up with your thickheadedness. So I'm writing this to basically make myself feel better, and yet I am still holding back a great deal just for the sake of being cordial. You could say that if I don't like what you have to say, then I don't have to read it, but it's simply impossible to avoid seeing your topics in some cases. For whatever reason, people still respond to your posts with their own facts, despite the fact that you're not going to change what's hard-wired into your brain, and that's fine. Just stop irritating the members here, that's all.
“Gimme maximum turbo thrust and blast me outta here, will ya!?”
:kitt: :dash4:

Locked