Quote:
Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N
how the heck am i supposed to respond to a calculator that tries to blame tire diameter on the the rotation of the moon?? I think the GPS thing would be more accurate (but the test on for the speedometer would have to be while the car is accelerating and not at steady state). Of course there would need to be more evidence then just your word as well  |
Or a calculator that doesnt factor in anything? Yeah the rotation of the moon lol. It takes into account vehicle weight, varying tire pressures, temperatures. It has a ballpark correction factor that is, from the looks of it, more accurate than your calc.
And the road and track numbers at 6500 rpm? Since you dismissed the automobile mag numbers because they didnt mention the RPM. I guess because the link was broken (to the road and track figures)the fact that a member quoted the numbers isnt good enough...they knew about this issue/argument years in advance also.
Or the fact that all these numbers MATCH across the board form the calculator to the automobile mag test to the road and track test to my own personal experience as well as others.
Everyone must have a messed up speedo. And all these tests and calculators must have known ahead of time we would be arguing about this and the results are skewed.
Wow...I have never seen anyone that was this stubborn/in denial when the possibility of them being wrong is presented.
But you know what...I guess if we are just going to go by your calculator the speed in 4th attainable by the 2011 mustang GT is 114...so I guess neither side has an excuse.
Either way...your argument using your calculator is not in your favor.