Re: [DML] Comparison

["BRUCE BENSON" <delornut@xxxx>]

This debate is probably as old as the twenty year old DeLorean. Most of the
input seems to dwell on zero to sixty times as the benchmark for a
performance car. One contributor seems disgruntled after buying a tired
DeLorean without a proper inspection. Another is saying a Volvo dealer
performed some magic that would seem physicaly impossible. What ever, no one
has entered real world performance profiles that make for an overall
evaulation of a cars abilities. When I was a teenager I attended a few Indy
500 races. In 1961 the race was dominated exclusively by front engine
roadsters with powerful Novi and Offenhauser engines. Jack Brabham brought a
rear engined Cooper Climax, with an engine half the size of the Indy power
houses, to compete. We were camped in an area along side of the race track,
which you could do in those days, along with many old timer Indy folks. They
laughed among themselves for days about the futility of this guy and his
midget car. Brabham came in seventh of thirty three entrants and two years
later Jim Clark won with a Ford powered rear engined Lotus thereby changing
the profile of Indy racing forever. There's more to performance than brute
horsepower. A small group of us DeLorean owners have run in some "spirited
touring" of the track at Road America. I can tell you for a fact that I've
seen a DeLorean beat a early 80's Porsche 911 with-in a couple of laps and
come out of turn 14 ahead. Of course the DeLorean doesn't accelerate like a
big bore V-8 but it handles better than given credit for and if driven
properly can hold it's own with other touring cars under "semi-race"
conditions. The tone for this comparison debate seems to be picking up
argumentative overtones and perhaps we should get back to discussing what we
appreciate about this car instead.

Bruce Benson