Re: Why do u guys like american carz??

Discussion in '2002 Chevrolet Camaro SS 35th Anniversary' started by C5 R Vette, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Don't worry any vette person. when the new C6 comes out it will put any bmw in its place. Also do u see any bmw run with McLarens. NO!!!But when the new C6 vette comes out it will run in the class of the McLarens.So i heard from like 20 ppl. And thats pritty damn fast!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from BP</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>You think the Saleen is domestic? Why do they race under a Brittish flag? Vector and Shelby were the two American manufacturers that I couldn't remember. Ford can build good stuff when they try. I hear that there is a chance of a new GT40 that will be in the $100K range and should take on the likes of the new Lamborghini Murcielago and 911 GT2. I'd like to have a Saleen S7. I'm sure the interior is nicer than that of the 911 GT2 but its still not faster, and it costs more. Porche isn't really a car manufacturer I like because of durability issues. If I were going to buy a car in the $250K dollar range, I'd import a TVR Cerbera Speed 12 (I'd never waste that much on a car). It weighs like 2200 lbs and has over 800 bhp (what a 7+ liter engine should have). Less than 80 bhp/liter indicates one of 3 things: its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated. But we can name off limited production cars all day.

    The reason I like Toyota the best isn't because they build the fastest cars, though they have good race history. The reason is this: When Toyota was in Waco working with RAM on a quad-cam turbo V8 powered airplane, they respected everyone's opinion. One day my Dad, who works at RAM, was telling me about a Toyota engineer asking one of the cleaning staff their opinion on some things going into the airplane. It wasn't that the engineer thought that the janitor would know, or that the engineer didn't. It was simply an issue of respect. The smartest people sometimes overlook the most obvious things that a passing layman (in this case a janitor) may notice. Now, I'm sure some smart ass out there is reading this wanting to make a remark about Toyota's being build by janitors but thats ok. I forgive you before you ever say it. Another thing I liked about the Toyota engineers was that, while our guys were dreading another day at work, Toyotas engineers were praying that they could do the best job possible for themselves and their families. They worked harder and longer and often more effectively. The reason I buy Toyotas is because I know that they were built buy a person who had their mind and heart in their work, not by some lazy slob waiting for the next brake to roll around. You all know what I'm talking about. I'm sure you've done it yourselves, I have. Let a mistake slide because you knew somebody else would catch it. But when your religion touches your job you work harder, as with Japanese workers. They build a better car because they try harder. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Less than 80 hp/L shows "its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated"... Whatever, you really don't know what you are talking about. And, you have actual proof that Toyota's workers work harder than (I'm guessing you are talking about Americans here) Chevy, Ford, GM people? Nope? Didn't think so.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I live right down the road from the facility Toyota was working at and my dad was working there with them. Thats how I know, but I can't prove it. Oh well, I guess you win.
     
  3. Say when, say where. I'll bring the camera.
     
  4. Say what you will about the Viper and Z06's handling, they both beat a 360 Modena aroung the N-Ring. You can state other people's opinions, but it can't change facts.
    Go ahead and Compare the Z06 to the GT2, what is the difference on the course? The GT2 can beat it for sure, but at what price and by how much? (a lot and not much) You get what you pay for? That is true, but that is asthetics not results that you pay for, the fact is that the difference in performance is not really that much when you consider that one is 4 times the price. i doubt the GT2 will make it over those same bumps that the Z06 bottomed on, if i recall that was the main thing that you complained about on the Z06. For the $150,000 Price difference i can surely redo the interior, performance and exterior if it wasn't good enough for me. Hey since they are in the same price and refinement range why not compare the GT2 to the S7? The GT2 will surely be beaten badly, and neither will be able to go over them speed bumps you were talking about...

    When i drove the Viper last it surely wasn't refined, it surely wasn't good on fuel, it wasn't even particularly comfortable. Would i change a thing on it? HELL NO, it had mind blowing acceleration and great grip, no wonder it can beat the 360 modena and 911 Tubo in the straights and the corners. It is everything it was meant to be, raw powerful and handles great. You can argue with the feel, but some may like the feel i do, you just can't argue with the results.


    You also complained that The Trans am that your neighbor had drank more fuel than the Miata, ummm yeah no kidding for 2-2.5 times the HP i would hope so, but it takes less than the NSX, S2000, 3000 GT, Supra, and RX7, and yet can beat them all plus a Porsche 911 Carerra in a straight line. Sure they aren't the best on a roadcourse, but if i can beat a boxter S with the $24,000 Camaro or Firebird V8 on a road course that is good enough for me. what do you think i could do with a $5000 93-94 with a little handling package added, on a road course a fwd miata will not keep up. It is true that the F Body cars are not that great handling at low speeds, but at high speeds they have been described as "Predictable, powerful and Fast!" Did they actually race their Trans Am or were they talking about the 30 MPH around town speeds, my guess is the latter. You should tell them with a $1500 handling upgrade they can handle as good as a Ferrari, tell them to look around (the secret is suspension geometry).

    Oh one more thing... that program that you have has shown to be inaccurate very often so i wouldn't rely to heavily on it. (if it is the downloadable freeware one) Besides the Buick 455 is a fairly common engine used so i would be suspicious of the accuracy of a program that doesn't have it in the data base.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>You think the Saleen is domestic? Why do they race under a Brittish flag? Vector and Shelby were the two American manufacturers that I couldn't remember. Ford can build good stuff when they try. I hear that there is a chance of a new GT40 that will be in the $100K range and should take on the likes of the new Lamborghini Murcielago and 911 GT2. I'd like to have a Saleen S7. I'm sure the interior is nicer than that of the 911 GT2 but its still not faster, and it costs more. Porche isn't really a car manufacturer I like because of durability issues. If I were going to buy a car in the $250K dollar range, I'd import a TVR Cerbera Speed 12 (I'd never waste that much on a car). It weighs like 2200 lbs and has over 800 bhp (what a 7+ liter engine should have). Less than 80 bhp/liter indicates one of 3 things: its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated. But we can name off limited production cars all day.

    The reason I like Toyota the best isn't because they build the fastest cars, though they have good race history. The reason is this: When Toyota was in Waco working with RAM on a quad-cam turbo V8 powered airplane, they respected everyone's opinion. One day my Dad, who works at RAM, was telling me about a Toyota engineer asking one of the cleaning staff their opinion on some things going into the airplane. It wasn't that the engineer thought that the janitor would know, or that the engineer didn't. It was simply an issue of respect. The smartest people sometimes overlook the most obvious things that a passing layman (in this case a janitor) may notice. Now, I'm sure some smart ass out there is reading this wanting to make a remark about Toyota's being build by janitors but thats ok. I forgive you before you ever say it. Another thing I liked about the Toyota engineers was that, while our guys were dreading another day at work, Toyotas engineers were praying that they could do the best job possible for themselves and their families. They worked harder and longer and often more effectively. The reason I buy Toyotas is because I know that they were built buy a person who had their mind and heart in their work, not by some lazy slob waiting for the next brake to roll around. You all know what I'm talking about. I'm sure you've done it yourselves, I have. Let a mistake slide because you knew somebody else would catch it. But when your religion touches your job you work harder, as with Japanese workers. They build a better car because they try harder. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Less than 80 hp/L shows "its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated"... Whatever, you really don't know what you are talking about. And, you have actual proof that Toyota's workers work harder than (I'm guessing you are talking about Americans here) Chevy, Ford, GM people? Nope? Didn't think so.
     
  6. #8 EmmArTooGuy, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I agree with you brown. Your mustang is faster than my MR2. But for $15K I could build an MR2 that would run 11 flat on stock rubber. Look at this one.

    http://www2.msstate.edu/~sgn1/MR2/mod/gsa.htm

    It probably would cost more than $15K to have it built but you can do it yourself for about $10K. Plus its still the 1.6 liter where as I would have went to a bigger engine.

    You and I have built cars (I'm assuming you built your Mustang) so we know a little about it but too many people here sit in front of their computer and think they know it all. I wasn't talking about BHP/L liter trying to say that a Civic is better than a Z28. I think of Civics I think "economy", I think Z28 I think "crude but powerful". What I was saying is that if I'm going to pay $250K for a car with a 7+ liter engine it better have 700+ bhp. Thats if its naturally aspirated. I'd expect 1500-2000 if it were forced induction.
     
  7. 10th anniversary Firehawk 0-60 in 4.9s 1/4 mile in 13.3s, kills the Skyline.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. #10 EmmArTooGuy, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from KaNe</i>
    <b>do u have any resources emartooguy????? cuz i have never seen an SS run a 13.8 since the LT1 SS in 1997. ummmm if i am correct the LS1 SS runs in the 13.4's??

    http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/1999/7/comparison_test_13_quickest_cars/print.phtml

    and umm if i am correct the Supra TT runs in the 13.5's??

    http://www.auto.com/reviews/sj_052397.htm

    Isnt the Supra like 15 more grand than the SS??? and its Twin Turbo charged???

    Ok thank you<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">

    now go home and F/-Uck your self</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I've read that Popular Mechanics article...Its a croc!

    Get a reliable unbias car mag like Road&Track. They didn't get to be the biggest by writing nonsense. R&T tested the 1999 SS at 13.9 @ 105.5. Show me the difference in the specs from 99 to present. Its not enough to make almost a second in the 1/4 mile.

    The Supra was unchanged, for the most part, from 1993 to 1998. In 1994 R&T tested it at 13.7 @ 103.8.

    I think the Z28 at that time was in mid to low 14's.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center

    Like I said: if you don't like the price find a way to make more money.

    Does anybody remember Group B Rallying? It was for ultra high performance PRODUCTION cars. Anyway there was a Group B option for the first generation MR2...They had AWD and about 600 bhp making them one of the fastest production street cars ever. Just based on experience I'd say low 11s to high 10s in the 1/4. Don't believe me??? Go to your library and tell the librarian you want to read about "Group B Rally events".

    I started looking at this car because I thought it was cool but its sadly overated by its fans. I just wish people could enjoy its strenths without bashing other cars to make it look better than it is.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    uhm yeah, but then people in here tend to be a little bit biased about their comments. No matter what you tell them they will always come out with (sometimes non.-sense) arguments to keep bashing at the cars they don't like, and the fans of those cars.

    Tell you the truth, I like cars, since I was 4, >I'm your tipical dude who grew up drawing cars in the last sheets of his note books (I still do... I'm in college) and maybe its my lack of technical knowledge about cars that I sometimes I judge a car for what it looks like and how it drives like (if I have the chance to get behind the steering wheel) sure I know the stats of a lot of cars out there... and I know jap cars became world famous for their incredibly cheap-incredibly reliable cars (back in the 70's) that caught American (and European) automakers, who were used to make some larger, more expensive, less reliable cars... but then if you look at the formula of the stock japanese car (wether is a luxury car or a ferrari-wanna be) you'll find out they are some kind of cookie-cutters, think about it, if you didn't knew the Honda Civic was indeed, a Honda... and take this badges out and put on some Toyota logos on it... you may actually believe is a new Toyota model... I mean Jap cars lack heritage, and moreover, they lack distinctive styling cues to distinguish them from everything is out there.

    I know that there area lot of cars jap automakers make for its local market only, but most of those cars are either rebadged versions with a feww different details here and there from what they sell in the US, or they are some silly-looking hatchback microcars best suited for the over-crowded Japanese roads, cars that are unsafe to drive in US and Europe and... that don't fit America's taste for cars (US customers dont like hatchbacks or tall -wagon-esque cars, think Hyundai Athos or Nissan Micra... etc).<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>


    Does anybody remember Group B Rallying? It was for ultra high performance PRODUCTION cars. Anyway there was a Group B option for the first generation MR2...They had AWD and about 600 bhp making them one of the fastest production street cars ever. Just based on experience I'd say low 11s to high 10s in the 1/4. Don't believe me??? Go to your library and tell the librarian you want to read about "Group B Rally events".

    I started looking at this car because I thought it was cool but its sadly overated by its fans. I just wish people could enjoy its strenths without bashing other cars to make it look better than it is.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Group B cars as "production" cars is a joke - they had to produce only 200 copies for base model and then 20 copies for the evolution versions. And the extra copies of the evolution versions, which might have been left over from the rally stages, definitely didnŽt get to streets to be driven by the average joes.

    Anyway, Toyota MR2Žs B-group version never entered any competition, as the series were canceled before it was finished. GM has unfortunately had little interest in rallying, but the Opel division has entered the B-group contest and they won the driverŽs championship with Ascona 400 in 1982.

    Regarding to Camaro vs. Supra contest, cars have to be tested same day at the same track to get even results and that only tells the difference of those two particular cars. And also saying, that Supra is more reliable than Camaro, is not necessarily true. In the long run, itŽs not true at all.
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 2000LS1</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Howard943</i>
    <b>I dunno y all uguys like them....I dont think a mustang..camaro looks cool...Corvett and Dodge Viper is a nice car but I will buy a car better than that if I have that much$$$......I am just giving out my own opinion...</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->I respect your opinion, and I like my American car because I got a new car with 310hp, 18/21mpg, for $20,000. And with $3,000 I will be running low 11's. Enough reason for me.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I doubt you can make an F-Body run 11s with $3000. Its just too heavy. My step brother had a 327 Malibu with about 450 bhp and wrinkle-walls. It weighed a little more than 3500 lbs and got mid 12s. It had about $5000 just ON TOP of the block, not to mention the balanced bottom end. That was 1980s prices so expect to pay more now. A friend of mine has a 1999 or 2000 Z28 with about $2500 in it and he runs consistent low 13s.

    But I didn't say it would never happen, just that I doubt it. Ingenuity goes a long way so if you come up with some new, cheap mods let us all know.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ivanhoe</i>
    <b>but then if you look at the formula of the stock japanese car (wether is a luxury car or a ferrari-wanna be) you'll find out they are some kind of cookie-cutters, think about it, if you didn't knew the Honda Civic was indeed, a Honda... and take this badges out and put on some Toyota logos on it... you may actually believe is a new Toyota model... I mean Jap cars lack heritage, and moreover, they lack distinctive styling cues to distinguish them from everything is out there.

    </blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I think thats an issue of you not paying as much attention to the cars. I could never mistake a Corolla for a Civic, a Camry for an Accord, or a Prius for an Insight. They have about as much in common as Mustangs and Camaros (very little).<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. True, but you can beat them in a race!<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    DOHC just reduces friction (ask why and I'll explain). The 2UZ-FE (4.7 L AKA 4663 cc) has F type heads. Its a wedge combustion chamber not a hemi like the Group 7 engine I spoke of. The F type heads are designed for low end response (what you need on a truck or sedan). The engine does what it is intended to do. HP/L is a product of combustion efficiency and volumetric efficiency at high rpm. Since you're mouthing about HP/L I'll remind you that the 4.7 L make more HP/L than the 5.7 L. It also makes more Lb-ft/L. Does this make it faster? No but Toyota's engine technology is greater. No assumptions here... I use to be into domestic power but once I did some research I found Toyota's racing teams to be far more succesful. I'll give specific examples if you like. When ford, gm, or dodge can hold some racing records over Toyota I'll go back to them. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Hmm... IŽd really be interested to know how do you reduce friction with DOHC concept in V-engines (4 cams), versus pushrod design with needle bearing rockers and a roller cam (1 cam). By all means, please elaborate. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> While youŽre at it, you might want to (re?)check the actual benefits and drawbacks of the multivalve construction and express them here.

    About hp/l this 4.7L Tundra engine makes less hp/l than this Camaro 5.7L (52 vs 57). And thus by your definition, CamaroŽs engine technology is greater - no assumptions here. And how about this little gem:

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    Less than 80 bhp/liter indicates one of 3 things: its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    In which of the three categories is the Tundra engine? ItŽs old / poorly designed / in fact has 380 hp, but they just wonŽt tell? Or the Lexus SC430 4.3L engine (66 hp/l)? By the way, this is sarcasm and I give you a little hint still with a quote from yourself:

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    The engine does what it is intended to do. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    And when you start applying this principle to the Toyota engines, IŽll remind you that it applies to the American engines as well.

    The racing records? How about that B-group rally WDC GM has and Toyota hasnŽt. And engine by Ford won the F1 WDC in 1994. These just from the top of my head. But for another record, what about racing records, when choosing a street car? Only dumbos buy cars based on racing merits. Do you really think the Renault street engines were the ultimate pinnacle of the 90s automobile industry, because they did dominate most of the time in F1?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    Like I said man, get R&T. They didn't become the biggest test magazine by being bias and publishing BS. Speed isn't made by peak BHP. If you look at the HP curve on a graph its the AREA under the curve that is important, not the curve's maximum point, according to the laws of physics. Take a college physics class. If you have, go back because you forgot something. Also one of the problems gm had with the c5-r was that the gearbox was soaking up about 150 bhp while cars with comparable output were only losing about 90 bhp. This reflects their best racing efforts so I doubt their street cars have lower percentage drive-line-losses. Its true that the problem with the gearbox losses has been fixed but the street version has changed little. That is one of the reasons the Supra is faster than the F-bodies. The other is a wider power band. If you don't believe me about the Supra vs f-body check the times on this site. If you don't believe those, go post somewhere else. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Calm down, kid. IŽve said it once (or twice?) before, that result from the R&T just gives you the time of a car x in day A versus a car y in day B. But hey, there ARE differences between individual cars and days. And hence we see a lot of different test results in different magazines. And not all of the magazines are bullshit, just because theyŽre not the biggest. But if it makes you happy, by all means, go sit in a stock Supra and think "I can beat all stock F-bodies now, cool me". Sorry, very likely you canŽt.

    YouŽre aware of the concept of average and peak horsepower, good. And even more important from the acceleration viewpoint, is the average torque available. I tried to insinuate this by regarding Supra as turbo hp and F-body as NA hp, but I seemed to have missed my point. Guess which one of these has the flatter torque curve? And by the way, is more efficient at part throttle operation = better MPG (That "closed loop lean burn = poor endurance" was a hilarious one. Holy smoke, all those Mitsu GDIs must be blowing up any second now <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">).

    Heh, nice assumption: "Since c5-r had a (fixed) problem of excessive driveline loss, then all the GM street cars must have large driveline losses as well". I already mentioned how intelligent it is to draw assumptions from the racing versions. Further, IŽve seen magazine results and one dyno sheet in real life, where the F-bodies produce more rwhp than the advertised engine hp. Seems that the "old fashioned" driveline with the solid rear axle does itŽs job pretty well, or GM underrates their engine hps quite a bit.
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    DOHC just reduces friction (ask why and I'll explain). The 2UZ-FE (4.7 L AKA 4663 cc) has F type heads. Its a wedge combustion chamber not a hemi like the Group 7 engine I spoke of. The F type heads are designed for low end response (what you need on a truck or sedan). The engine does what it is intended to do. HP/L is a product of combustion efficiency and volumetric efficiency at high rpm. Since you're mouthing about HP/L I'll remind you that the 4.7 L make more HP/L than the 5.7 L. It also makes more Lb-ft/L. Does this make it faster? No but Toyota's engine technology is greater. No assumptions here... I use to be into domestic power but once I did some research I found Toyota's racing teams to be far more succesful. I'll give specific examples if you like. When ford, gm, or dodge can hold some racing records over Toyota I'll go back to them. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Hmm... IŽd really be interested to know how do you reduce friction with DOHC concept in V-engines (4 cams), versus pushrod design with needle bearing rockers and a roller cam (1 cam). By all means, please elaborate. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> While youŽre at it, you might want to (re?)check the actual benefits and drawbacks of the multivalve construction and express them here.

    About hp/l this 4.7L Tundra engine makes less hp/l than this Camaro 5.7L (52 vs 57). And thus by your definition, CamaroŽs engine technology is greater - no assumptions here. And how about this little gem:

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    Less than 80 bhp/liter indicates one of 3 things: its old, its poorly designed, or its under rated. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    In which of the three categories is the Tundra engine? ItŽs old / poorly designed / in fact has 380 hp, but they just wonŽt tell? Or the Lexus SC430 4.3L engine (66 hp/l)? By the way, this is sarcasm and I give you a little hint still with a quote from yourself:

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    The engine does what it is intended to do. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    And when you start applying this principle to the Toyota engines, IŽll remind you that it applies to the American engines as well.

    The racing records? How about that B-group rally WDC GM has and Toyota hasnŽt. And engine by Ford won the F1 WDC in 1994. These just from the top of my head. But for another record, what about racing records, when choosing a street car? Only dumbos buy cars based on racing merits. Do you really think the Renault street engines were the ultimate pinnacle of the 90s automobile industry, because they did dominate most of the time in F1?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>

    Like I said man, get R&T. They didn't become the biggest test magazine by being bias and publishing BS. Speed isn't made by peak BHP. If you look at the HP curve on a graph its the AREA under the curve that is important, not the curve's maximum point, according to the laws of physics. Take a college physics class. If you have, go back because you forgot something. Also one of the problems gm had with the c5-r was that the gearbox was soaking up about 150 bhp while cars with comparable output were only losing about 90 bhp. This reflects their best racing efforts so I doubt their street cars have lower percentage drive-line-losses. Its true that the problem with the gearbox losses has been fixed but the street version has changed little. That is one of the reasons the Supra is faster than the F-bodies. The other is a wider power band. If you don't believe me about the Supra vs f-body check the times on this site. If you don't believe those, go post somewhere else. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Calm down, kid. IŽve said it once (or twice?) before, that result from the R&T just gives you the time of a car x in day A versus a car y in day B. But hey, there ARE differences between individual cars and days. Plus the drivers. And hence we see a lot of different test results in different magazines. And not all of the magazines are bullshit, just because theyŽre not the biggest. But if it makes you happy, by all means, go sit in a stock Supra and think "Golly gee, I can beat all stock F-bodies now, cool me". Sorry, very likely you canŽt.

    YouŽre aware of the concept of average and peak horsepower, good. And even more important from the acceleration viewpoint, is the average torque available. I tried to insinuate this by regarding Supra as turbo hp and F-body as NA hp, but I seemed to have missed my point. Guess which one of these has the flatter torque curve? And by the way, is more efficient at part throttle operation = better MPG (That "closed loop lean burn = poor endurance" was a hilarious one. Holy smoke, all those Mitsu GDIs must be blowing up any second now <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">).

    Heh, nice assumption: "Since c5-r had a (fixed) problem of excessive driveline loss, then all the GM street cars must have large driveline losses as well". I already mentioned how intelligent it is to draw assumptions from the racing versions. Further, IŽve seen magazine results and one dyno sheet in real life, where the F-bodies produce more rwhp than the advertised engine hp. Seems that the "old fashioned" driveline with the solid rear axle does itŽs job pretty well, or GM underrates their engine hps quite a bit.
     
  16. weighs way to much yo
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from I Hate RustStangs</i>
    <b>Man your comment just pissed me off even more. That's right I do go low 13's in the quarter mile. Don't try to put your fuc*ing matematical equations on me you idiot, you can talk all you want about what your car is capable of going, but I bet you anything you can't get it to go twelves. What kinda engine are you putting in your MR2 anyway? If it's too big and with a lot of torque I bet you anything you'll be peeling out the whole way through. Having a light car is one thing but having too much power in a small light car is another. F-Body's are kinda heavy for a reason. And by the way 3 grand would easily get 2000LS1's SS to run 11's that his car could already run 12's or 13's low. Put forced air in an American V8 and watch out. Sorry if this message is a little harsh but your comment pissed me off, cuz it's really unlikely your gonna put 12's on a car that can barely fit it's stock engine from behind.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Calling me an idiot was kinda uncalled for. I'm dropping a 2.0 turbo (3S-GTE) from a 199X MR2 GT-S (the Japanese market MR2). The JDM MR2 GT-S runs mid 13s stock and in my car (400 lbs lighter than the GT-S) I should get low 13s or high 12s. Then I'll use the rest of my money to adapt my N2O system to the new engine. The 2.0 will be 250-275 bhp @ 6000 and 250-260 lb-ft @ 3200. With the nitrous engaged I'll have no turbo lag so the curve should be something like 337-362 bhp @ 6000 rpm and 375-390 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm. I know those torque figures sound high for a 2.0 but that is the benifit of N2O. With the mid engine layout, I've been using N2O off the line and through the 1/4 mile. I know all about power in a light car. My dad had an MGA with about 350 bhp and it pulled 11.50s on stock rubber (about 165 mm tread width). More weight will help you gain traction but it will also lower your 1/4 mile times. Take your car and make a 1/4 mile run then put three 50 lb bags of sand in the trunk. You'll find that you can launch at a higher rpm but you'll still be slower despite having more traction. I know its hard to keep traction off the line but the top end rewards you. And besides, that is what right-foot-coordination is for. The reason I choose little RWD sports cars is because I like drag racing and road racing. It must handle good or I won't drive it.

    I thought we were talking about making a stock SS go 11s from just $3000. If it already high 12s I believe a supercharger could take another second off.

    I didn't really think you calling me an idiot was harsh because, well, I say worse things about my friends' moms. Joking around naturally. But I didn't take your comment personal. However, I do feel that math holds the secrets to the universe.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. OH,YEAH AND GO ASK THEM FORD,DODGE OWNERS TOO.. THEY SPENT MOST OF THEIR TIME IN THE SHOP. <!-- Signature -->
     
  19. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from mahrens34</i>
    <b>you always bring up baja, but this is not the only form of off road truck racing and toyota does not win all of them.
    I also saw a 1000hp 4cyl toyota at the pikes peak hill climb. a pretty sweet car, but it broke down half way up the hill. Dont rag on engine quality, the diff between an engine that breaks down and one that wins the race is slim to none. the difference usally is the one that broke down tuned their engine a little too hot.
    I belive most cars are the same(nearly) in performance win it comes to sanctioned racing, where the difference lies is in the pit crew and tuners of the engine.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Yeah man, that was the Pikes Peak Tacoma (though it has no actual Tacoma parts) run by Rod Millen. He still holds the record for the fastest ascent from his 1000 bhp Celica he ran in 1994. His Tacoma uses the same engine that was in his Celica and is faster on paper but the conditions haven't been right for him to make a sub 10 minute run. So it broke once; that was the only time, to my knowledge, his car has ever broken down after several years at Pikes Peak. Anyway Pikes Peak is another race Toyota does well in...Seeing as how they still hold the record from their efforts in 1994. And hill climb is probably one of the most difficult forms of racing, for both drivers and engineers alike. I would imagine it to be far more difficult than Baja SCORE Championship.

    I feel that in a given class the manufacturer, pit crew, team manager, sponsors, and drivers are all equally important. If I hot lapped the Ferarri F1 that Schumacher drives he couldn't beat my time with a Civic. But at the same time he could quite easily beat me with a lesser F1. You can loose the race for almost any reason; car, driver, pit crew, manager...etc. Anything can go wrong.

    BTW: Toyota wasn't allowed to use the factory built T/F rail car. I didn't ever say they couldn't run other classes. I also never said that all racers who use Toyotas will always win. I said the FACTORY TEAM has a good history of race wins in a variety of different races and as a race fan I will support their efforts through buying their cars.

    I also didn't say that rocket cars are uncontrollable. There are several that run 1.5-2 second 1/4 mile times. I described it as difficult. I said that no human driver/pilot/whatever could hold the Gs to get supersonic in the 1/4 mile (though its possible with present technology). The cars are very controllable but you would want to start slow and tune the aerodynamic qualities as you get faster and faster. You could put a 12,000 hp rocket on any street car but you'd skip around like a stone across a pond. I'm just saying that rockets can be very dangerous if the car isn't setup properly. Assuming that its well designed the car would be quite controllable. You shouldn't build anything under 6.5 seconds yourself unless you're an engineer (and a darn good one). That is just my opinion.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. The price is $165,000 and it's a street legal production car.
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Howard943</i>
    <b> ivanhoe...I dont agree what u are talking about...I dont think jap cars look all the same, ad if you aretalking about muscle..look at NSX,Lancer Evoultion,Skyline....etc..
    But I know that Mustang is different from others</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    uhhm...
    ok lets see...

    NSX.. nice cars if you got $100 grand to spend in a car that can be outperformed for cars costing half its price (Z06 anyone?)

    Lancer Evo... mundane styling, looks like eeverything else out there, boring interior, and yes its a 4 door, but then you 've got a BMW M-3 which is the true deffinition of a 4 door high performance sedan ...

    Nissan Skyline.. Ok this one is a cool car, but hey its damn expensive too, specially when you go to the aftermarket to tune this car

    and boy
    if you can't tell the difference between a Camaro and... a Dodge stratus, get some new glasses, or even better... get a new life<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. yeah ivanhoe...most people that like american bust on the M3 but i geuss u r different
     
  23. Why do u guys like american carz??

    I dunno y all uguys like them....I dont think a mustang..camaro looks cool...Corvett and Dodge Viper is a nice car but I will buy a car better than that if I have that much$$$......I am just giving out my own opinion...
     

Share This Page