You're amazing. You may be one of the most obtuse people I have ever encountered on FR.
Go look at your post #98 in this thread and then tell me you never made the claim.
There is something you obviously don't understand about posting comments online, Twinkletoes. The rest of us are completely unable to guess what you had in mind or what you were thinking (or not thinking) when you posted. We have to go on what you actually wrote. Holding us responsible for understanding what you meant to post is monumentally arrogant, not to mention stupid.
It certainly appeared that I made that claim; however, if you will actually look at all the rest of my posts, you would find that I HAVE acknowledged that I misspoke. Most of those recants were directed to you. I have explained my position numerous times, each time qualifying my observations for special case machines that nobody regards as "ordinary". I have also stated that even the special case machines are subject to air drag limitations because drag is still the limiting factor for the top end speed. I have, numerous times, stated that my general statement STILL holds true for the general case of the car.
Either you are not reading my posts, or have some preconceived notion regarding this discourse.
All cars must overcome air friction in order to move. The faster they move, the more friction encountered. The horsepower required to move is directly proportional to the square of the velocity. The proportional figure includes drag coefficients that account for the shape and size of the individual vehicle. Different engine designs get more or less power out of a given quantity of gasoline. Exceptional engines, like in a Jag, squeeze a lot of power out of its fuel when compared to "ordinary" engines. They are more efficient. A Jag also has an low drag coefficient because of a body style designed to reduce drag. It is certainly true that not all cars are made as finely as the Jag.
Now the part with which you are having trouble: All cars achieve maximum speed when the maximum horsepower of the engine matches balances friction and air drag. Air drag is the limiting factor because air drag increases with the square of velocity. The engine must produce four times the horsepower in order to double the speed. It must produce 16 times the horsepower in order to go four times faster. Up until 70 mph, the effects of drag are nearly linear and almost negligible. Above that speed, drag increases very quickly. Fuel consumption must go up in order to produce more horsepower. Even a Jag will be consuming more and more fuel as it goes faster.
Now, I got into this discussion because there are those who think that increased speed does not cause increased fuel consumption. It does. A jag operates inefficiently at low speeds, so poor mileage in that case is due to the "setup" of the engine rather than drag. As the Jag goes faster its engine becomes more efficient and produces the horsepower needed to overcome the drag more economically that other engines. As speed is increased, the Jag will also be limited by drag and will indeed experience reduced mileage.
I am merely trying to be informative. You seem to be taking a stance that ignores the facts of life. A Jag is not magic, it is well designed and built.
Now, merely answer the following question: What do you think limits the top end speed of your incredible car?
Perhaps you are merely being argumentative.
Your failing to read my replies where I corrected myself, then refusing to discuss the amended comments based upon merit of fact seems to be problematic on your part. Consider the following posts, most of them to you:
110: OHHHH! We aren't talking 1972 GTO, are we? ;-D
324: For most people's cars, this would be the case. I wasn't thinking in terms of THAT type of car.
325: Sure, some cars do better than others. Sure, some cars are optimized for for higher speeds.
357: Your car has high performance because the engineers who designed it know physics well. For 95% of the cars on the road, my statement is dead on. For the high performance cars, such is not the case.
359: I have already admitted that my opening statement was not well crafted.
364: The point is that you seem to be dismissing facts in a discourse you chose to enter merely because I misspoke my opening lines.
400: As you have repeatedly ignored or chosen to overlook, I have admitted that I did not make the proper exception for the class of car you drive.
407: ..you would find that I HAVE acknowledged that I misspoke.
What do you want me to do? Are you implying that the first line in a conversation must be made without error and in consideration of all mitigating facts? This hasn't been the rules in discourse until you came along.