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. Shut your mouth. You only say that because you own one you big dork!
     
  2. Wow bearing, I didn't know you wrote multi volume novels. Thanks for wasting my time.
    -OHC has less friction than OHV
    This is because you have less recipricting mass (We'll say RM for short) smaller lifters and the lack of rocker arms. Lower RM means that you need less force from the valve springs (softer springs) to keep the lifter in contact with the cam. Softer springs mean that the normal force (physics term, hope I don't lose you) of the lifter on the cam is less which leads to lower friction. The friction of the cam bearings is negligable once the oil pressure is up. 4 cams have more rotational mass than 1 but the belts are lighter than a chain so losses from rotational mass are less for the OHC engine.

    -Benefits of multivalve
    Air flow through the engine isn't about valve area or combined diameter of valves. Its about combined circumfrence. Say you have 8 square inches of valve area. You can use 2 valves of 2.256758334 inch diameter.

    A=(Pi)(radius)^2
    A=(2.141592654)(1.128379167)^2
    A=3.999999

    Multiply by 2 for 2 valves
    A=about 8

    Now use 4 valves of 1.595769122 inche diameter

    A=(2.121592654)(0.7978845608)^2
    A=2

    Multiply by 4 for 4 valves

    A=8

    Now that they both have the same area let me show you how the 4 valve has more circumfrence.

    for 2 valve
    C=(2)(Pi)(radius)
    C=(2)(Pi)(1.128379167)
    C=7.089815403

    multiply by 2 for 2 valves

    C=14.17963081

    now the 4 valve
    C=(2)(Pi)(0.7978845608)
    C=5.013256549

    multiply by 4 for 4 valves

    C=20.0530262

    The difference is more than 5 inches! That is a LOT more air flowing for the same valve area.

    -4.7 has more HP/L than 5.7
    I was talking about the 5.7 L truck engine (no longer used)

    -I still won't drive any car with under 80 BHP/L.
    Just a personal preference. No facts about 12.5 second vipers will change my mind either.

    -I don't think that racing makes the street cars faster but I've nothing but good experience with Toyotas and I'll support their already successful racing endevors by buying there cars.

    BTW: The F1 powered by the "Ford" engine was actually a Ford Cosworth made in england. The GT40 was also made by Cosworth and Lola in england.

    Peace, son...<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. MR2G - Thanks, IŽve now proven that I can write, though I did quote a lot from you. In turn youŽve proven that you can count and as we probably can both read, weŽd make an above average police team. However, itŽs reciprocating, not recipricting and pi is 3,14 not 2,14. ;)

    OHC does reduce friction a little for some the reasons you mentioned, but DOHC does not, for the simple reason it has 2 or more times friction surfaces compared to OHC or OHV, despite the slightly lesser valve spring forces. And we were talking about DOHC here, not OHC. ThatŽs why I asked about the benefits and drawbacks of the multivalve construction - decreased friction is not on the benefit list. DonŽt worry about you losing me on physics terms, or then maybe, itŽs been a while. However, about the plus/minus sides, I was referring more to a relation of overall gas velocities and thermodynamics in the desired rev range, which arenŽt always positive, simultaneously considering increased complexity and manufacturing issues & existing infrastructure. Though it might be better to save time and leave it for now.

    As for the rest:

    -Well the Camaro engine still has more hp/l than the Tundra, hence it still is more greater technology (still sarcasm).

    -I drive any (yes, any, including a Toyota) car that feels nice and suits the current purpose and donŽt give a flip about hp/l, which still doesnŽt mean anything.

    -Simplest way to reach the desired goal is the best engineering.

    -Whole concept of reciprocating piston combustion engine is ancient technology and should have been dead and buried ages ago.

    -Cosworth English: So? Do you think it means the whole rest of the Ford consortium is cut separate from the Cosworth, and/or the informational/resource highway between them is one-way only?

    Peace - thatŽs my middle name. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  4. MR2G - Thanks, IŽve now proven that I can write, though I did quote a lot from you. In turn youŽve proven that you can count and as we probably can both read, weŽd make an above average police team. However, itŽs reciprocating, not recipricting and pi is 3,14 not 2,14. ;)

    OHC does reduce friction a little for some of the reasons you mentioned, if itŽs designed for the same revs, but DOHC does not, for the simple reason it has 2 or more times friction surfaces compared to OHC or OHV, despite the slightly lesser valve spring forces. And we were talking about DOHC here, not OHC. ThatŽs why I asked about the benefits and drawbacks of the multivalve construction - decreased friction is not on the benefit list. DonŽt worry about you losing me on physics terms, or then maybe, itŽs been a while. However, about the plus/minus sides, I was referring more to a relation of overall gas velocities and thermodynamics in the desired rev range, which arenŽt always positive, simultaneously considering increased complexity and manufacturing issues & existing infrastructure. Though it might be better to save time and leave it for now.

    As for the rest:

    -Well the Camaro engine still has more hp/l than the Tundra, hence it still is more greater technology (still sarcasm).

    -I drive any (yes, any, including a Toyota) car that feels nice and suits the current purpose and donŽt give a flip about hp/l, which still doesnŽt mean anything.

    -Simplest way to reach the desired goal is the best engineering.

    -Whole concept of reciprocating piston combustion engine is ancient technology and should have been dead and buried ages ago.

    -Cosworth English: So? Do you think it means the whole rest of the Ford consortium is cut separate from the Cosworth, and/or the informational/resource highway between them is one-way only?

    Peace - thatŽs my middle name. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
     
  5. DOHC has less friction than OHV. Do you think its just a way to sell cars? The adnvantage DOHC has over SOHC is that you can time the intake and exhaust independently.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. As said, DOHC doesnŽt have less friction than OHV, it has benefits on other areas - easy 4-valve construction, increased flow at high rpm and the removal of significant amount of reciprocating mass, which in turn allows higher rpm operation.
     
  7. As said, DOHC doesnŽt have less friction than the OHV, it benefits on the other areas - easy 4-valve configuration, which means better flow at higher rpm, plus loss of a significant amount of reciprocating mass, which in turn allows higher rpm operation.

    Main difference between DOHC and SOHC is that you can easily have more valves with DOHC than SOHC. DOHC also completely loses the rocker arms, which are used in some SOHC applications.
     
  8. Right, and the loss of rockers is how the valve springs are so much softer for the same rpm and why there is less friction.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b>DOHC has less friction than OHV. Do you think its just a way to sell cars? The adnvantage DOHC has over SOHC is that you can time the intake and exhaust independently.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    not to be an ass or anything, but why do they still use OHV in nearly all classes in NHRA drag racing. this would be the one place where you would want every atvantage right? please explain.
     
  10. if it werent for american cars, you wouldnt have ground effects or any other "hot rodding" shit on your 4 bangers! the plymouth superbird/dodge charger daytona were, form what i understand, the first cars with ground effects. the jap cars didnt come until the 70s, and those were pussy civics! i like the WRX, and other cars but leave classic american mustle, even modern mustle, alone! i pissed off over 100 people the first post on this site("MUsTANG AND CAMARO SUCK!"), and i learned by far that its not true! 'so pack your bags! quit your bitchin'! and get ready for a South Park road trip!' i love that show.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. You guys, you guys, you guys! You all have great opinions on cars. I love cars totally. I like what I like and I don't have one car that I love more than the other, becuase there is always something out there that comes out that I love. I like BMW's, Corvettes, even Japanese cars. However when It comes to performance and god knows not everyone has huge income. I'd pick American Muscle over anything else. The only thing that I see that comes close to an American Muscle car is the Toyota Supra. But think about it, it's turbo charged and has over 300 hp. Not to mention it's still really expensive, even used. Does go to show that their is high demand for a car like that. But yes people need to stop living in the fast and furious days, not everyone has the income to put turbo, nitrous and shit in their cars. It's too damn expensive. Engine Swapping on an American car costs less than that, I've got an 89' Iroc with an LT1 a put in this summer and Flowmaster exhaust, and I'm putting out 335hp on the dyno! And it only cost me 3 grand! Well you also got have hookups and good friends in the business but that's what loving cars is all about man! You want cheap speed with original looks? Go American Baby!
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from mahrens34</i>
    <bnot to be an ass or anything, but why do they still use OHV in nearly all classes in NHRA drag racing. this would be the one place where you would want every atvantage right? please explain.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Because its a traditional sport. Nickel nitrate/Hydrogen peroxide powered exebition cars can easily out run T/F rail dragsters but there isn't a true class for them. Why? Because drag racing is a traditional sport. Also, some teams are experimenting with S/DOHC in the highest T/F class cars.

    Why do they use 4 valves in the $20+ MILLION F1 engines? (yes, that is just for the engine!)

    Why did Toyota (DOHC) beat Chevy (OHV) in Baja all the time?

    Why does almost every form of motor sport across the world use 4 valves per cylinder?

    4 valve is even better than 5 valve on a NA engine. Why did F1 go back to it after using 5 valve?

    I am not mouthing off at you. Just answering your question as well as presenting some more for you (everyone, myself included) to think about.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Hello all u crackers out there first of all let me say that Not all american cars suck, but most of them will eat dust from any import for instance a viper uses its V10 once around the track and its flat out dying the second lap u will bring that peace of shit home? If i were u i would leave it and talk about a cheap ass American car against a import. A V6 vs a V8 u would expect he camaro to burn it but no American cars can take more mods then a skyline or supra would. U try to stick a Nos tank in your crack rockets and it will burn down as soon as u start it. And did u ever hear of a V4 1,000HP or 2,000HP American car? Hell nah so drop it! <!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from mahrens34</i>
    <bnot to be an ass or anything, but why do they still use OHV in nearly all classes in NHRA drag racing. this would be the one place where you would want every atvantage right? please explain.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Because its a traditional sport. Nickel nitrate/Hydrogen peroxide powered exebition cars can easily out run T/F rail dragsters but there isn't a true class for them. Why? Because drag racing is a traditional sport. Also, some teams are experimenting with S/DOHC in the highest T/F class cars.

    Why do they use 4 valves in the $20+ MILLION F1 engines? (yes, that is just for the engine!)

    Why did Toyota (DOHC) beat Chevy (OHV) in Baja all the time?

    Why does almost every form of motor sport across the world use 4 valves per cylinder?

    4 valve is even better than 5 valve on a NA engine. Why did F1 go back to it after using 5 valve?

    I am not mouthing off at you. Just answering your question as well as presenting some more for you (everyone, myself included) to think about.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    I am not calling you a lier, but I would like to see a car out run a t/f rail car. a lot of the time those cars are toned down a little by changing the head gaskets and other things so that the cars can hook up on launch. this is why I am not sure if they're are any cars that are faster than t/f rails.
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from mahrens34</i>
    <b>I am not calling you a lier, but I would like to see a car out run a t/f rail car. a lot of the time those cars are toned down a little by changing the head gaskets and other things so that the cars can hook up on launch. this is why I am not sure if they're are any cars that are faster than t/f rails.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Rockets make more power per unit of size and unit of weight than any other engine. Nickle nitrate/Hydrogen peroxide rockets are the only cheap, powerful rocket that can be easily built. Many of the exibition cars use nickle nitrate and they can run as low as 1.5 sec in the 1/4 mile. It has been said that with present rocket and aerodynamic techology you could build a car that would reach super sonic speeds in the 1/4 mile but there are two problems. The G forces would kill you and you wouldn't have room to stop at any present drag strip. If this sounds absurd remember that I'm speaking of a car that would be more like a missile with wheels. Many missiles reach super sonic speeds in less than 1/4 mile. These cars don't have a problem with traction because the wheels don't push the car. Thrust from the engine moves the car as described in the "Jet Propulsion Theory". Also, these rockets are very cheap to build. You could build a 6 second car for about $6000 though I would start experimenting with like 12 seconds and then up the thrust...An out-of-control rocket would not be a fun ride.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from THE FAST AND THE FASTEST</i>
    <b>Hello all u crackers out there first of all let me say that Not all american cars suck, but most of them will eat dust from any import for instance a viper uses its V10 once around the track and its flat out dying the second lap u will bring that peace of shit home? If i were u i would leave it and talk about a cheap ass American car against a import. A V6 vs a V8 u would expect he camaro to burn it but no American cars can take more mods then a skyline or supra would. U try to stick a Nos tank in your crack rockets and it will burn down as soon as u start it. And did u ever hear of a V4 1,000HP or 2,000HP American car? Hell nah so drop it! </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Have you ever heard of a V4 in ANY car??? LOL
     
  17. I think Suzuki made a car with a V4. It was just a concept car though. The concept version of the S2000 had a V5. Thats not a typo, I mean V5. Neither had 1000 or 2000 bhp though. I saw a S2000 once that had 650 bhp/L which equates to 1300 bhp. You wouldn't want to drive it far from home though, you'd probably walk back. I'm not a Honda fan anyway.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. volvo or audi has a V5 engine according to motortrend. but i havnt heard of a v4 either. <!-- Signature -->
     
  19. <!-- 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.
     
  20. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from I Hate RustStangs</i>
    <b>Engine Swapping on an American car costs less than that, I've got an 89' Iroc with an LT1 a put in this summer and Flowmaster exhaust, and I'm putting out 335hp on the dyno! And it only cost me 3 grand! Well you also got have hookups and good friends in the business but that's what loving cars is all about man! You want cheap speed with original looks? Go American Baby!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    So you put 355 WHP for 3 grand. Thats about 405 bhp and what does that get you? About 13.0 on stock rubber? I'm doing an engine swap as soon as my student loan check comes in. My other MR2 will be in the 12.0-12.2 range based on the power to weight ratio and the speed of other cars in the family. And the engine + transaxel + a few bolt ons will only cost $3000. And It'll still look like a stock 1985 MR2. <!-- Signature -->
     
  21. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from EmmArTooGuy</i>
    <b><!-- 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.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    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.
     
  22. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Delorean DMC-12 Rocks</i>
    <b>volvo or audi has a V5 engine according to motortrend. but i havnt heard of a v4 either. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Volvo has some I5 engines, not V5
     

  23. I5.... agreed, a V5 is a little too unbalanced dont you think.

    Oh and as for getting 10's in an f-fody for $3K....

    2001+ Automatic
    Add...
    Stall converter good for mid-high 12's (stock).
    4.10 gears.

    Air lid, exhaust cut out (basically open headers after the cats), Nitto 555DR's, oh...and you're going to need a 150 shot of juice.

    very high 10's/low 11's possible, but dont expect your rear end to last.<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. <!-- 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 -->

    You're entitled to your opinion just as we are entitled to ours. Why do you like foreign cars(European or Japanese)? I personally love American cars because according to my motor trend magazine there are not very many foreign STOCK cars that will outrun an American car. The few excetions are the Porsche 911 Turbo, Ferrari 575 Marnello, and these won't even be able to outrun the 2003 Dodge Viper. But I am American through and through, so if for no other reason, I love them simply because they are ours.
     
  25. I HAVE RESPECT FOR MUSCLE CAR CUZ THEY HAVE RESPECT FOR ME...BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IF IMPORT SUCK THAN WHY IS GM USING THERE ENGINE ON THEIR CARS???BUT FOR SURE GM DOES SUCKS THEY FALL APART..<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page