by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 02/21/2017 at 16:20
by "Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
Published 02/21/2017 at 16:20
Tags: Questions
STARS: 0
Does the Ford GT have the smallest cargo capacity of any production car? Ford says the GT has an astounding 0.4 cubic ft of volume. That’s around 691 cubic inches (roughly 11.3 liters). The car is rated at 647 hp. Hmmm, what if every vehicle made the same amount of power as their claimed cargo capacity in cubic inches?
"Under_Score" (tomtheatum)
02/21/2017 at 16:24, STARS: 0
Then the “1500" in Suburban would represent horsepower.
"PotbellyJoe and 42 others" (potbellyjoe)
02/21/2017 at 16:25, STARS: 0
Or conversely, 0-60 times would be tied to cargo volume. Would people still buy the largest SUV that they could afford knowing it would be a slug when merging from main st to the left lane of the highway while they were talking on their cell phone, applying make-up and trying to pass their only child a juice box?
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
02/21/2017 at 16:28, STARS: 0
I think 14000 hp might be a bit of overkill for my Twingo...
(230 l = ~14000 ci -> 14000 hp)
We might need some multiplier to make it a bit more realistic, or we could just use the litres
"dtg11 - is probably on an adventure with Clifford" (dtg11)
02/21/2017 at 16:29, STARS: 0
That means my car would have 26,438 HP
"aberson Bresident of the FullyAssed Committe" (emaxxbl)
02/21/2017 at 16:31, STARS: 0
my jag has 17 cubic ft of space. that means it would have a 481 liter engine.
how would i drive such a thing
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
02/21/2017 at 16:33, STARS: 0
I’m trying to illustrate how insignificant the GT’s cargo capacity is compared to production vehicles. Just saying it doesn’t give people the right scale.
"BvdV - The Dutch Engineer" (dutchengineer)
02/21/2017 at 16:40, STARS: 0
Ah I see, I guess I interpreted it wrongly.
"Vítor" (vitorcesar)
02/21/2017 at 16:43, STARS: 0
Your Jag would have 481 hp, not liters.
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
02/21/2017 at 16:45, STARS: 1
No worries, I threw a curve ball since my questions are usually games. I used the wrong format for my intentions...though if you all try to find production cars that rival the GT for smallest cargo capacity then I think you’ll have a fun time!
"Ash78, voting early and often" (ash78)
02/21/2017 at 17:04, STARS: 0
My Odyssey would understeer into a tree the first time I tried to turn. That is, assuming the front tires didn’t blow out first.
"CaptDale - is secretly British" (captdale)
02/21/2017 at 17:12, STARS: 0
Audi (C6) RS6 Avant is probably close. Lets see
580 hp and 565 liters to 1660 depending on seats up or down. So with seats up it is pretty much there.
"Levitas" (levitas)
02/21/2017 at 20:38, STARS: 0
Have been around the new GTs a fair bit. Literally no cargo space. None in the frunk, absolutely none near the engine, and basically none in the cabin. 0.4 cubic feet sounds spot on.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
02/22/2017 at 09:27, STARS: 0
Would these be the new Top Fuel Dragsters then?
