Regression analysis to estimate performance
June-13th-2002, 09:53 AM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 401
Did you see me using words like "should" and "around"?YES!
Did I ever say "MUST"? NO!
Jstand, stop foaming at your mouth, you have the fastest 99 ES in the world, congratulations on that, I am very happy and proud of you. You are person of otstanding intelligence, unlike me, who is complete moron. I take that regression info for entertainment only and not as "absolute truth".
Alex
Did I ever say "MUST"? NO!
Jstand, stop foaming at your mouth, you have the fastest 99 ES in the world, congratulations on that, I am very happy and proud of you. You are person of otstanding intelligence, unlike me, who is complete moron. I take that regression info for entertainment only and not as "absolute truth".
Alex
June-13th-2002, 12:04 PM
#17
Passion for Zoom Zoom!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 372
I never said I have the fastest '99 ES in the world. That was just a debate on the merits and differences between the 1.8L and 2.0L. The 8.4 seconds 0-60mph is from real-world testing by an established and respected unit of the automotive press.
In my first post, I was just giving real-world times in comparison to the formulated times. I may have sounded a little harsh, but I do hate formulas for calculating performance, particularly when smaller members of the automotive press use these formulas and then state their results as fact in their articles. I remember there was an article running around in 1999 stating the Protege ES with a 5-spd could accelerate to 0-60mph in 10.5 seconds. You know every Honda, Nissan, and Toyota freak jumped in to rub in the "fact" that the Protege couldn't even keep up with a 4-cyl Dodge Caravan with a 3-spd automatic! I didn't need one of our own running around saying things like this.
But, then I got slammed, so I had to go on the defensive...
-Jerry
In my first post, I was just giving real-world times in comparison to the formulated times. I may have sounded a little harsh, but I do hate formulas for calculating performance, particularly when smaller members of the automotive press use these formulas and then state their results as fact in their articles. I remember there was an article running around in 1999 stating the Protege ES with a 5-spd could accelerate to 0-60mph in 10.5 seconds. You know every Honda, Nissan, and Toyota freak jumped in to rub in the "fact" that the Protege couldn't even keep up with a 4-cyl Dodge Caravan with a 3-spd automatic! I didn't need one of our own running around saying things like this.
But, then I got slammed, so I had to go on the defensive...
-Jerry
June-13th-2002, 11:07 PM
#18
Certified Sick Individual
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston, TX.
Posts: 1,141
I personally didn't buy my Protege for its speed. I bought it for its looks, handling, and relative comfort. But it is without a doubt one of the slowest cars in its class. If I wanted the fastest I would have bought an SE-R or Focus SVT. But two problems with that one: ugly and ugly. Didn't I mention they were ugly? The Protege has a very understated appearance for its class.
Anyway out of all the cars I looked at when I was shopping I liked the Civic EX engine most (smooth and quiet), dead second was the Sentra (same here), Protege, Lancer, and then the Focus (needs an automatic before it will stop whining).
Besides, I get compliments from my friends on how smooth my engine is and how freely it revs (except when its cold).
Anyway out of all the cars I looked at when I was shopping I liked the Civic EX engine most (smooth and quiet), dead second was the Sentra (same here), Protege, Lancer, and then the Focus (needs an automatic before it will stop whining).
Besides, I get compliments from my friends on how smooth my engine is and how freely it revs (except when its cold).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)