No guys, I'm not joking.
I'm talking "Gross" H.P. not "Net" H.P.
I'm going by the performance similarities of the Crossfire and another car that's nearlly identical in all proportions.
I'm taking into consideration the weight of the car, the gear ratio, frontal area, weight disrtibution, and tire diameter.
Drivers ability is of little consequence with a 15 sec. car, (which is essentially a point and shoot scenario) but all tests were completed using professional drivers.


Seating Capacity______________2___________________2_______ _________

Wheel Base__________________97"_________________94.5"___ __________

FR.Track____________________59.7"________________5 8.3"_____________

R.Track_____________________57.0"________________5 8.2"_____________

Length______________________177.2"_______________1 59.8"____________

Height______________________51.7"________________5 1.4"_____________

Ground Clearance____________5.29"________________4.9"____ __________

Curb Weight________________3035 lbs._____________3084 lbs.__________

Weight Distribution F/R,%_____57/43________________54/46_____________

Trunk Space cu.ft.____________9.6__________________7.6________ ______

Turns Lock to Lock____________3.8__________________3.1__________ ____

Turning Circle________________33.5'_________________32.9__ ___________

Engine Compression Ratio______10.2:1________________10.0:1__________

Gross H.P.___________________315________net H.P. ___215__ ___________

Frontal Area sq.ft.____________20.6__________________20.6______ ______

Final Drive Ratio_____________3.15:1________________3.27:1____ _______

Body Construction____________Unitized_______________Uni tized_________

Steering___________________recirculating ball________recirculating ball___

Braking 60-0 m.p.h.__________115'__________________114'________ _____

Automatic Trans. Performance__Motor Trend____________Motor Trend_____
30 m.p.h.___________________2.9 sec.________________2.5 sec.________
60 m.p.h.___________________6.9 sec.________________7.1 sec.________
1/4 mile time & speed_______15.2 sec. 92 mph._____ 15.18 sec. 96 mph._

Manual Trans. Performance____Car & Driver____________Car & Driver_____
30 m.p.h.___________________1.9 sec.________________2.1 sec.________
40 m.p.h.___________________3.1 sec.________________3.5 sec.________
50 m.p.h.___________________4.5 sec.________________4.7 sec.________
60 m.p.h.___________________6.6 sec.________________6.5 sec.________
70 m.p.h.___________________8.5 sec.________________8.2 sec.________
80 m.p.h.___________________10.7 sec._______________10.2 sec._______
90 m.p.h.___________________13.5 sec._______________13.1 sec._______
100 m.p.h.__________________16.3 sec._______________16.1 sec._______
1/4 mile time & speed_______14.8 sec. 95 mph._________14.8 sec. 96 mph_


SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS

Let’s clear up a couple of common misconceptions about gross and net horsepower ratings:

1. Contrary to some assumptions, net horsepower ratings do NOT measure horsepower at the drive wheels. Both gross and net ratings are at the flywheel and don’t reflect power losses in the drivetrain.
2. Because of the vagaries of the old gross ratings and the widespread over- and underrating of different engines, there is NO precise formula for converting gross horsepower to net horsepower or vice versa. Sometimes, the difference is as little as 5–10%; sometimes it’s more like 25%. The only way to be certain about the comparative gross and net ratings of a specific engine is if the factory released both gross and net figures for that engine. (Some U.S. automakers did this during the 1971 model year and intermittently before that.) Otherwise, the best you can do is make an educated guess based on state of tune and real-world performance testing — keeping in mind that published road tests didn’t necessarily reflect the performance of cars the average consumer could actually buy.
3. The ambiguity of gross horsepower ratings means that many pre-1972 American cars were actually a lot less powerful than the advertised figures would suggest. While the late sixties were a golden age of horsepower compared to the late seventies or early eighties, the differences weren’t quite as vast as they appear at first blush. For example, a 1967 Chevrolet Impala with the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) V8, rated at 325 gross horsepower (242 kW), probably had something like 220 net horsepower (164 kW) in pure stock form.