Jim,
Now this is really hilarious. Didn't realize you had such a fine honed
sense of humor Jim. Pardon me while I climb back into my chair. Now then,
I'm sure we all believe that, at least compared with the Tiger II 351C,
your rental car was a slug (English unit of mass by the way) Also, btw, the
conversion factor from kilograms to pounds is 2.205, not 2.52, but anyway
still not enough HP or KWhrs to light a dim bulb. Maybe Ford pulled a fast
one on Hertz??
Still chuckling in S.D.
Bob
At 06:35 PM 5/10/99 -0400, James Barrett wrote:
>At 03:01 PM 5/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Jim,
>>
>>I was skeptical of that weight too. Would be less than half what my Taurus
>>weighs. Is it possible you were looking at weight range figures in
>>kilograms rather than pounds?
>Bob,
> Now that is possible. If so then the HP reading would be 2.52 X 39
>= 98 HP. However, they did not use KWhr in place of HP. Of course I
>previously had an 83 Mustang that had both metric and US bolts on it.
>As I turned the car back in to Hertz I will never know. In any case,
>the car was a slug. It is sad when you are drag racing and no one passing
>you knows it.
>
>
>James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
>
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|