Quote from tristan :

Well, as you're too young to drive, I assume you mean your parents Mondeo.

No, I say what I mean; it's my car, paid for by me, registered in my name. Being unlicenced to drive it on the roads doesn't mean I can't own a car, despite what everyone says when I refer to 'my' car :rolleyes:

The age point in general is quite difficult to judge - as we've never seen what a large number of new 19-year-old drivers behave like compared to a large number of new 17-year-old drivers, we can't really say how much of an impact such a change would have. Personally, I do think that the majority of people who take their driving test in the UK do so mostly out of practical reasons, for independence, whatever - not people who have a great interest in cars, or who have been paying a great deal of attention to them in the time before getting their licence. Not wishing to stereotype an entire nation, but we just don't know how much of a change there'd be in two years.

Quote from tristan :

What has alcohol got to do with it?

Something to do with the legal age to buy alcohol being 18, not 17? I used that as a passing comment, that new drivers at the age of 18 or over would be more easily able to buy - and drink before driving - alcohol. Not a great consideration, but I mentioned it nonetheless.

Quote from tristan :

No protection? I think you'll find ALL modern cars are a lot safer than some older ones!

I agree entirely - but who says a newly licenced driver is going to have a modern, safety-oriented car? It seems far more likely, again due to costs, that new drivers will be in cheaper, older cars - with less safety equipment. Indeed, cars less safe to be hit by too, but that's besides the point.

Quote from tristan :

Weighing next to nothing? It's feckin' hard to find a car that weighs less than 1 ton! 1.3 tons plus is more like it...

A new Vauxhall Corsa 1.0 weighs 1,025kg, which really isn't far off. Older cars way respectively less, too, and as above, those are more likely to be driven by new drivers. Actually, the weight distribution is more of a concern as far as safety goes - I'm thinking front-wheel-drive, lightweight cars with nothing over the back end experiencing lift-off oversteer in the wet, that sort of thing that new drivers tend not to know much about or how to deal with.

Quote from tristan :

Mods ruled out by costs? Open your eyes laddie - look at all the twats in Vauxhalls with blue LEDs, unpainted bodykits, daft fake Recaros and printed carbon fibre filler flap covers.

I thought you meant modifications that affected performance, as in, modifications that actually matter as far as safety is concerned.

Quote from tristan :

(with a plus side that it means you can hear their fart-cans from a mile away, plus they make the car go slower, so you have more time to get out of the county).

Always a silver lining, eh

I just want to make it plain that I want this to be an intelligent discussion, not a flame-war or an argument. Better that way

OT
That comment about assuming it wasn't my car didn't chuff me up much, nor did referring to it as a silly repmobile - a mid-Nineties dark-coloured 4WD two-litre saloon sounds pretty unassuming to me, but, hell, make of it whatever you will

And having driven a Ka, yes, I agree that it is made out of very compressed tin foil...
/OT

Sam

Quote James May "I love procedures"

But only in Flight Sim, not in LFS.

Quote from Dark Elite :

I knew the age limit was only fifteen - personally I approve of lower age limits, but only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people. I speak as someone too young to hold a driving licence in the UK.

Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.

Sam

Actually NZ is a prime example why you should NOT let younger drivers on the road. You just have to look at the young kids playing GT4 IRL to realise they are NOT equiped to drive at that age!

Always young deaths, always young people running from police with chase ending around a lamp post etc etc.

If you want to lower premiums for younger people they need to take the responibility to stop having crashes. There are higher premiums for younger drivers because they have the MOST crashes. It is as simple as that.

The reason yours costs so much is that chances are, at your age, you will cost the insurance company money

Well, quite:

Quote from Dark Elite :

only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people.

I can imagine the problems it causes for younger people to take the same tests as older ones. It should really only be those with a great deal of experience, knowledge and/or ability who are allowed to have a driving licence at a lower age, not to mention the sense of responsibility and respect for the car. However, I do still think that the majority of younger people being too idiotic to deserve a driving licence should not mean that the few who could hold one safely are not allowed to do so. It's a tough government, though, who will impose particular tests for different age groups, and unfortunately we, er, don't have a tough government

Some sort of time restriction on re-taking the test should be employed as well, I think; if someone fails, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep trying over and over again until they get lucky and pass - because they clearly aren't ready for it. The driving test in the UK in particular is easy enough for anybody remotely capable to pass it, and those that don't probably should be made to think about it for a few months before they can try again. This might help lower newly licenced accidents too.

Sam

We had a Hyundai Sonata that required the clutch be pressed before starting the car. I push the clutch when starting anyway

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.

Quote from Dark Elite :

As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.

Sam

I think the 4WD 136bhp Mundano sounds a nightmare in the hands of a 17 year old TBH. But then I get the feeling you will be in for a nice shock when it comes to insurance.

You should think what it is that insurance costs show. Here is the general idea though.

1) The more powerful the car the more chance it is involved in a crash.
2) The younger the driver the more chance they are involved in a crash.
3) The more years of experence the less chance of a crash.

You can see where you sit in this no?

I have to say, it's not all stupidity. My dad has owned a Jaguar E-Type 12 Cylinder, a DeLorean, an Alpha Romeo and other cars - all manual - and when I started driving, one of the things he got me into the habit of doing was pressing the brake when I start the car. He said that way, one day, if you accidentally start a car in gear, at LEAST your foot will be on the brake, because it WILL happen to you once, lol.

As for the whole age thing, I honestly don't know what to do anymore. What I DO think is that at the first sign of stupidity, your license should be revoked. The other day I was driving down one of those roads with three lanes - the middle being the turn lane - and some IDIOT (oriental 40 year old woman) stopped in the DRIVING LANE waiting for other traffic to pass before turning, causing a massive jam. I guess she didn't understand that was what the middle lane was for, despite all the turn arrows lining the whole road. THAT KIND OF STUPIDITY and display of lack of common sense, should merit an immediate suspension of your license should a cop see that happen. No one who is that clueless can possibly drive a car safely. The same should apply to teens. It is obvious when an accident was the result of a teenager's over-confidence, or sheer inability to control a vehicle, and those instances should merit a 1-year license suspension and OBLIGATORY additional driving lessons.

Quote from tristancliffe :

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is.

Nah, think laterally... Let let them have mopeds at the age of fourteen, then by the time they are seventeen, they will either be dead (hence of zero concern to the statistics relating to seventeen year old driving incidents) or they will have more road knowledge than you or I ever did at seventeen.

Have you seen how wreckless 16 year olds are on mopeds? That's bad enough! Whilst I don't give two hoots if they die or not, I'd rather they weren't out there for ME to hit!

Quote from Tristan :

Of course you're in favour of lowering the age of starting - not because you've thought it through, or because you've digested the facts of driving (being unable to drive on the road means you don't know very much about it). You want the limit lowered because YOU want to drive.

Yes, of course I want to drive - but that does not mean I haven't thought it through, and I'd like to think my posts reflect that I have considered the matter at length.

Quote from Tristan :

I am unbiased.

I'm not so sure - seeing as you're way above any possible age issues with driving, you don't care that much about what happens to those who might be affected by changes, so you don't much care about the restrictions and inconveniences that would be placed on seventeen-year-olds and their families by not being allowed to drive.

Quote from Tristan :

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

I would like to know what's silly about a two-litre saloon, if you're going to carry on taking the piss out of my car you might as well justify it. And I'm also wondering why you don't seem to accept that it is mine, as it's been bought, registered, maintained and driven by me.

Quote from Tristan :

When you grow up you'll realise just how silly letting most 17 year olds out in cars on their own (or worse, with mates) is. But right now, as a child, you are unable to see that because you are the very age group you need to look at.

So, I'll be a 'child' right up the point at which I turn seventeen? A sixteen-year-old is classified as a 'child' because they're not allowed to drive by this government, and is younger than you? Yes, I know it's damnably hard to assess your own age group, but that doesn't mean my attempts should be subject to patronisation instead of reasoned argument, does it?

Much as I wanted to have an intelligent discussion here, it seems we're going to fail because you're unable to treat me as an equal, and feel the need to patronise me because you think I don't have a valid opinion from this side of the driving age barrier. It's a shame I mentioned my age, because I feel that you'd respond differently if you didn't have that particular point to lock on to all the time.

Quote from Woz :

I think the 4WD 136bhp Mundano sounds a nightmare in the hands of a 17 year old TBH. But then I get the feeling you will be in for a nice shock when it comes to insurance.

You should think what it is that insurance costs show. Here is the general idea though.

1) The more powerful the car the more chance it is involved in a crash.
2) The younger the driver the more chance they are involved in a crash.
3) The more years of experence the less chance of a crash.

You can see where you sit in this no?

If you use the laws of averages, those three points are correct - and yes, I can see where I unfortunately sit in this scenario. It's not going to stop me, but I do acknowledge it. The sad fact is that I'll have had over three years' driving experience, three years' experience of the physics involved in driving a car, and three years' teaching in the dangerous nature of driving; but no insurance company will care. I know there's no substitute for road driving experience, but that doesn't mean no other experience is worth anything.

I'm still kind of ambivalent about whether a larger, more powerful but also heavier and better-planted car is more dangerous than a smaller, less powerful but also less protected and less grippy one.

Oh, and I agree entirely with Stang70Fastback, for the record.

Sam

Quote from Dark Elite :

Oh, and I agree entirely with Stang70Fastback, for the record.

... for the record.

Also, I don't see what is so particularly dangerous about a 136bhp vehicle. That's not a lot of power at ALL. I drive a 165bhp AWD station wagon, and it's nowhere near powerful enough to pull a burnout or race anyone and have a hope of winning. I realize that in America our standards of 'power' are greatly exaggerated, but still, I think anyone with one iota of common sense could be able to handle a 136bhp car without issue.

Where I start to have a problem is when 17 year olds start getting cars with over 200-250 bhp. One kid in our school was given a BRAND NEW Ford Mustang by his parents... crashed it, and got ANOTHER (from his parents.) That's just ridiculous. In another example, I was once given a ride home by a girl with a Ford Thunderbird (V8) and was scared to death. She had no sense of speed, cut corners blindly on small roads going faster than the limit, and just had no idea how a car worked. It's no wonder I had to help pull her car out of a snow drift the FIRST time we had to drive to school in the snow (about 1 inch of snow - and it was literally 3/4 from her home.) Actually, I got in her car and drove it while a 14 YEAR OLD KID from the house across the street from where she was stuck, pulled the car out with a farm tractor, lol. And he looked like he could do much better driving that car than she could.

This is the girl that asked me why the car lurched every once in a while when it accelerated, and I had to explain to her that that was the "TRANSMISSION." Oh, and I'm not making this up, she also asked why cars had that "feature" that locked the wheels when you slammed on the brakes. HOW IN HELL CAN SOMEONE LIKE THAT BE GIVEN A LICENSE?!! THOSE are the people who should be limited to .0005 bhp cars, not everyone.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I am unbiased. I have been driving for over 10 years legally (and some more on private roads/airfields etc). Raising the age limit won't change my ability to drive, and so I can look at the pros and cons retrospectively. And it's OBVIOUS that a 19 year old new driver is VASTLY (factors of 10) safer as a new driver. Will there still be accidents? Yes. Will some still be twats on the road? Yes. But overall the picture is safer.

I think the starting age should be lowered under the supervision of a driving instructor I don't think a 16 year old starter poses any more danger. Maybe L plates at 17 and a compulsory motorway element/separate test. I'd certainly be in favour of making the test harder and doing something to stop people just rebooking there test time and time again. I know someone who passed there test (third time) still not understanding that without a filter you don't have priority when turning right at a green light, he just turned across traffic expecting it to stop for him

The theory also needs throwing away and replacing, what about proper training of dangerous situations (possibly a simulator based part of the test/compulsory training) just going by the theory book I think I'd have had a (non-fault) head on by not being able to get out of the way of an idiot (probably another young driver). I've got another friend who tried to overtake a lorry traveling at 60mph uphill just before a blind crest, he pulled out changed up a gear then despite the fact there was an oncoming car and he was hardly faster than the lorry waited for the lorry to slam on its brakes and let him in. In terms of f***ing retardedness it doesn't get much better, the scary thing is he thought nothing of the fact that two other road users had to brake to avoid a certainly fatal accident caused by total ignorance resulting in a string of unforgivable mistakes none of which are covered in a driving test.

Equally conditions need to be properly covered, I also know someone who managed to spin and crash a car into a hedge on ice on at low speed on a dead straight road :doh:

Quote :

And of course you don't agree with power restrictions because you 'own' a silly repmobile (that is a LOT more dangerous as a first car than pretty much anything vaguely close to sensible). Again, you are biased, and therefore your views hold little water.

I'd have said weight and capacity restrictions would be a sensible measure, and IMO cars should be taxed based on weight, the idea of a 2 ton car that happily cruises at 90mph is pretty scary and is bad for safety, the environment (if you believe in global warming) and just a completely senseless waste of resources that nobody should be driving.

Quote from Dark Elite :

If you use the laws of averages, those three points are correct - and yes, I can see where I unfortunately sit in this scenario. It's not going to stop me, but I do acknowledge it. The sad fact is that I'll have had over three years' driving experience, three years' experience of the physics involved in driving a car, and three years' teaching in the dangerous nature of driving; but no insurance company will care. I know there's no substitute for road driving experience, but that doesn't mean no other experience is worth anything.

I'm still kind of ambivalent about whether a larger, more powerful but also heavier and better-planted car is more dangerous than a smaller, less powerful but also less protected and less grippy one.

I am interested in your 3 years driving experience, where was this gained. Please do not say LFS.

The trouble is that when you start to drive on real roads you realise that all the theory, sims and lessons has not prepared you for what you WILL encounter on the roads, it can be a nightmare out there in the real world. The place is full of t*ats that should not be on the roads at all.

Here is a great example on why you faster but "more stable" car (As you put it) will put you more at risk...

There were studies done years ago on seatbelts wearing around the time when the law changed so you had to wear them. The test subjects were monitored driving with and without a seatbelt. What the researchers found was that when people wear seatbelts they pull away faster, drive faster, brake later and take more risks in general.

The safer you feel in your car the more you will push it harder. The less "risk" you feel the more "risk" you take, this is just basic human nature and the same think happens in all aspects of life no matter the activity.

Try it yourself. Drive without your seatbelt and you will feel very exposed. You will find you are less inclined to push it.

As you yourself acknowledge, you are at the bottom of the chain. No RL road experience coupled with fast car. While you might feel you are safe there will be situations that catch you. That first time you hit black ice, oil or even a big deep puddle at real speed is the time you realise how little room for error there is. Even the first time someone steps out on you and you are forced to stop or kill them.

So a car which is slower and feels less safe will make you drive slower. The slower you are the more margin of error you have and the more chance you have to recover.

I have learnt, over my long driving history, that in the end on public roads a slower car with crap tyres ends up more fun. You can push its limits at far far slower speeds and the lack of speed means you have a chance to catch the mistake with time to spare. In the end it is just as much fun but you do not end up dead as you go into a tree backwards

I still don't think you can call a 136bhp car 'fast.'



<--- THAT'S fast. But that's got like almost 10x the power

I admit that if I were to drive anything with more then 200HP, then I would end up in a ditch somewhere the first day I drove it. Although I did drive my friend's Pontiac Grand Prix once, but that only has about 190HP.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I still don't think you can call a 136bhp car 'fast.'



<--- THAT'S fast. But that's got like almost 10x the power

Yep your avitar car is a "very fast" car but this is relative.

We are talking about the first car a person will drive on public roads.

So in the context of someone still learning what testosterone is and its effects on the mind and body, yes 136 bhp is fast and will get you into trouble.

lol

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I admit that if I were to drive anything with more then 200HP, then I would end up in a ditch somewhere the first day I drove it. Although I did drive my friend's Pontiac Grand Prix once, but that only has about 190HP.

I took a BWM Works Cooper S on a 500mile test drive once. 210bhp light car that is not yours and no worries about your own no claims bonus in the arse end of Scotland makes you drive like a nutter. Yep its true, the faster the car will go the faster you need to drive it before it becomes fun. This thing didnt really start to sit right on the road until you hit 90+mph. At that speed you could feel the suspension was working at the frequencies it was designed to operate at. It just felt too solid at slower speeds.

And that is the problem right there. The faster a car is designed to go the worse it feels and the slower it feels until you get it up to its operating speed. The speed the suspension and setup are designed for.

I bet an Enzo is a pile of shite to drive around town, its designed for very different tasks

Quote from tristancliffe :

WTF! How does a button requiring you to press the clutch save 'the engine's lifespan'? Can you refrain from posting about semi-technical stuff until you've finished kindergarten?

well, "bumping" the car along with the starter motor and repeatedly stalling the car couldn't be good for the engine could it?

and BTW, i start in 1st, i just have the clutch depressed when i start the car.:sheep:

Quote from Woz :

Yep your avitar car is a "very fast" car but this is relative.

We are talking about the first car a person will drive on public roads.

So in the context of someone still learning what testosterone is and its effects on the mind and body, yes 136 bhp is fast and will get you into trouble.

lol

I have to say I disagree. What exactly is your idea of a good car to learn on? Something that goes 0-60 in 20 seconds? Ideally you could start every teenager out in a PowerWheels and slowly work them up to a real car, but there's a point at which a 'slow' car actually becomes useless for teaching anything, or even dangerous in traffic. 136 hp is NOT fast enough to get into trouble unless you really are an idiot, in which case you'll probably be just as likely to get into an accident in a 70 hp car. There were 500 students who went to my high-school, and I only heard of maybe a handful who managed to crash their cars - and those cars were: new Toyota Scion... another new Toyota Scion, a Ford Mustang, a Camaro. There were quite a few tiny accidents, but none were the result of overpowered cars, more underpowered brains and the inability to watch the car in front of them in heavy 5mph traffic on the way to and from school.

The thing is, most teenage drivers that would crash a high-powered car, are stupid enough that they usually manage to get into accidents no matter what kind of car you hand them the keys to. In a sense, I think that it's better to just let them drive the way they want. As they say, having an accident is the only way to learn :P

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. Unless you're talking about the four-cylinder Camaro, then it definitely was because the driver was driving a car with too much power. What year was it, and v6 or v8?

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'

I get the feeling you fail to understand what I am talking about then. No a 140bhp car is not like a 200bhp car. You are 100% right there and a 200bhp car will get you in trouble far faster. agreed.

BUT a 90bhp car is nothing like a 136bhp car. You might not accept that a 136bhp car is fast but with modern cars they are actually capable of high enough top speeds to get a new driver into lots of trouble. It is even enough to get the back to step if you panic in a corner and play with the throttle with a lead foot trying to correct.

Even the poster with the car admits that the 3 stats I made a note of are TRUE. Youth + lack of RL driving experience + power DOES increase the risk of a crash. The further any of those moves up the scale the more likely the crash is.

You do realise that driving is NOT just about your skill, but the rest of the stupid morons on the road.

Yes you can get many cars of that power level nowdays and that might make you believe it is no longer a powerful car but compared to the cars most young drivers are forced to drive in the UK due to high insurance costs for anything remotly powerful it is far more powerful.

Does that help you see where I am coming from.

Quote from Woz :

You might not accept that a 136bhp car is fast but with modern cars they are actually capable of high enough top speeds to get a new driver into lots of trouble.

That's true. My mom's 4 cylinder accord only has 160HP, and is a slow, boring sedan, but I've gone 90mph in it before. So, 160HP is enough to get you killed. But, I've been just as fast in my Saturn once, which only has 124HP. You don't need a lot of power to go too fast for the road. Now, both times I went that fast were obviously on the highway, and when there was no traffic around. But let's just say that a tire blowout at that speed would definitely not be fun. The speed rating on the tires is 93MPH, and that's one speed limit I didn't wish to exceed! 124HP is plenty powerful for me. 0-60 in 8.5 seconds is slow, but I have never gone from a dead stop to 60mph in any car ever before.

Yes, I fully understand where you are coming from, but what if you could buy a car with 20 bhp? Would you recommend THAT as a starting point?

I guess I should restate what I'm trying to say. What I mean to say is that if someone really is incapable of safely driving a car with 100+ bhp, they probably won't be much safer with a car with 70 or even 50.

Let me put it this way. Imagine some 17 year old who is a FANTASTIC driver, and will never crash his 300 bhp car. Great. He has to be somewhat intelligent. Now imagine another person who has difficulty controlling a car with 150 bhp. Probably not as much common sense up there. Same with 100 - the intelligence level (when it comes to driving) goes down IN GENERAL. What I'm trying to say, is that there's a point at which, if a person cannot control a car of xxx power, they probably don't have enough skill to merit having a license and driving ANY car at all. In other words, I think if someone cannot control a 100 bhp car, giving them a car with 60 bhp is probably still going to be almost as dangerous because odds are they will have an accident anyway - though not at as high a speed I guess.

Basically, if you don't trust someone with a car faster than 30 seconds to 60, you shouldn't trust them on the road at ALL.

I know that they still will be safer with less power, but ALL I am trying to say is, why let them on the road at all? They're probably too dangerous ANYWAY.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Thats what I was saying. The only accidents at our school involved cars with too much power. But TOO much power means 200+ bhp (or ever 300 in some cases there.) 135 hp is LESS than almost ALL of the cars at my school had, and no-one seemed to have any trouble controlling those raging horses under the 'bonnet.'

well, in my city, practically every kid is spoiled with a brand new 30k car. we here, have evos, z's, infinity skylines, and gti rabbits(fastest guy in school). they all have atleast 300 bhp.

and yes it's all relative, guess everyone in my neighborhood is competent enough to handle "beasts"

the most powerful thing i have driven is my cousin's 250is with around 200 hp... felt a little too tame...

and i have also driven a 70's 911 and it kinda scared me... i expect that a lot of hp escaped...