plenty of substitutes for cubic inches

12 views
Skip to first unread message

SVENNE BRAATEN

unread,
Feb 9, 1995, 8:23:35 AM2/9/95
to
I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
american cars.

Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
three times it's size.

American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run
on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.


Later, polluters,

Amcar: too fat to fly, too slow to go.

David L. Bergart

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 10:26:52 AM2/10/95
to
In article <svenneb.2...@oleg.hiof.no> sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN) writes:

>American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run
>on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
>is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.

Won't hear it if it's *under* my Chevy either.

David
--
____D__a__v__i__d_____B__e__r__g__a__r__t___________________________________
bod...@ccvax.sinica.edu.tw

Aleksi Peltom{ki

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 10:27:44 AM2/10/95
to
SVENNE BRAATEN (sve...@oleg.hiof.no) wrote:
: I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,

edman

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 10:56:33 AM2/10/95
to
SVENNE BRAATEN (sve...@oleg.hiof.no) wrote:
: I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,


: Later, polluters,

Is this guy for real, or is he from alt.syntax.tactical? Besides, I'd like to see a 1600 ccm Jap. engine take out a (stock) 390hp, 500 ft-lb., 68 Hurst-Olds, or any other decent musclecar, for that matter.

Just food for thought.

--Ed

Nathan J. Nagel

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 10:58:56 AM2/10/95
to
Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.rod-n-custom: 9-Feb-95 plenty of
substitutes for c.. by SVENNE BRA...@oleg.hiof

Ummmm, excuse me? Who was building reliable cars while Mazda was
still building motorcycles (and Honda wasn't even invented?) Who first
mass-produced the OHV v-8? Who made cars like the Corvette (not the
wimpy new one, I mean the late '60's ground pounders.)... or the
Avanti.... or the original T-bird...
Who cares if your Honda is extremely quiet? That just means it was
designed by bean counters who don't appreciate the sound of fine
machinery.
And no, I don't drive an American car. But I would trade my 914 in
any day for a late '60's Stingray with a 427/4-speed. Now that's what a
car is supposed to sound like!
Look in the yellow pages under "c" for "clue"....

later,

Nate

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 8:43:24 AM2/10/95
to
In article <svenneb.2...@oleg.hiof.no> sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN) writes:
>From: sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN)
>Subject: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:23:35

I realize that this is flame bait, but - "No replacement for displacement"
applies to brain tissue as well as engines :-)

> I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
>japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
>american cars.

Especially the Russian cars :-) What $33,000 car will easily outperform my
LT1 Corvette?

>Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
>(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>three times it's size.

The 5.7 litre LT1 is three times the size of the 1600. I didn't realize that
the 1600 makes 300 hp and 340 ftlbs.

>American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run
>on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
>is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.

Yeah, I guess 3290 pounds is tons heavier than your Honda weighs.

At least the US has the Enviromental Protection Agency dictating strict air
quality standards. Our cars must comply with emissions standards that require
many imports to be modified.

I'll bet pink slips that my Corvette tests cleaner than your Honda. Take your
Honda, please :-)

Your Mama drives a Vette :-)

Regards,
Eric Webb / Lockheed Martin / RTP, N.C.
92 Corvette LT1, 68 Camaro Rat, 86 Mazda 626 Turbo, 79 Ford F150

jfm127

unread,
Feb 10, 1995, 11:26:23 PM2/10/95
to
In article <3hg2bh...@faatcrl.faa.gov>

eda%anl43...@Germany.EU.net ( edman ) writes:

> Is this guy for real, or is he from alt.syntax.tactical? Besides, I'd like to see a 1600 ccm Jap. engine take out a (stock) 390hp, 500 ft-lb., 68 Hurst-Olds, or any other decent musclecar, for that matter.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
> --Ed

That's great. I have a freind who runs low 11's - high 10's with his
1997 ccm Eagle Talon (made by Mitsubishi). That might take out your
muscle car. Hell, I'll take out that LT1 with my Laser . . .also
1997 ccm. (BTW, I'm sure I've spent less than $33,000 . . . probably
about 1/2 that)

Jim McKenna *jfm...@psu.edu*
Penn State University
*BOOSTED 1990 HKS Laser RS Turbo*

FLHTC

unread,
Feb 11, 1995, 2:55:47 AM2/11/95
to
From: sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN) writes :

This is flame bait I'm going to take the hook,line and sinker.

> I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any
european,
>japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform
all
>american cars.

>Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap.
engine
>(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>three times it's size.

Now last time a HONDA pulled up to my '70 Olds 442 he was left while still
trying to find first gear. Those Vtec engine don't make any power until
4000grand and by then my 370hp <read UNDERRATED> 510 lbs <again
underrated> torque well walk away. Also my '68 Camero RS/SS 396 375HP
<once again underrated> well beat that Vtec <either US or Euro model> in
the 1/4 by 3 secs ! that is over 10 car lenghs. Not bad for a smelly peice
of shit.


>American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will
run
>on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda,
It
>is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.

Lets talk safety. This Honda civic pulled out in front of my, I was
driving my '95 Dodge Ram truck, I hit the Honda at 35 mph, the whole right
side of the car was kaved in like a beer can... My truck had minor damage
<total bill $900> so I'll take my BIG AMERICAN car anyday !

>Later, polluters,

>Amcar: too fat to fly, too slow to go.

Later punk


Rude Fuck

Dean

unread,
Feb 11, 1995, 7:56:02 AM2/11/95
to


Ever hear of the Quad 4???

You must be stuck back in the '70's.......

Joshua J Head

unread,
Feb 11, 1995, 9:56:34 AM2/11/95
to
: >American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will

: run
: >on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda,
: It
: >is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.
You won't see it either. It'll probably get hit.

: Lets talk safety. This Honda civic pulled out in front of my, I was


: driving my '95 Dodge Ram truck, I hit the Honda at 35 mph, the whole right
: side of the car was kaved in like a beer can... My truck had minor damage
: <total bill $900> so I'll take my BIG AMERICAN car anyday !

A guy ran a red light in front of me, and I stopped him.
1985 Honda Civic 3dr vs. 1969 Chevy C-20. His insurance company bought
me a bumper, a grill, and a fender. They also bought him a new car.

I'm also closer to the middle though. See... I drive two vehicles, one
is a 1969 Chevy C-20, and the other is a '86 Honda Accord LX.

The Honda accord is about as far as i'm gonna take it. I'll put a new
stereo, fix a coupld trim things hear and there. Its a great car to
drive to work in, and looks kinda cool. Its REALLY EASY to get tickets.
(Had the car one month, pulled over 3 times, gotten 3 tickets)

But I can't wait to pour a little cash into the 350 in that truck, I know
I'm not gonna have a race truck, but i'll have a pretty quick 1-ton. The
truck gets (last check) about 7-8 mpg. Although I've driven it for 14
months, and have been pulled over more than 8 times, with 1 ticket to
show. And when I'm driving that Honda I look like Grand-Ma.

FLHTC

unread,
Feb 11, 1995, 12:33:24 PM2/11/95
to
>That's great. I have a freind who runs low 11's - high 10's with his
>1997 ccm Eagle Talon (made by Mitsubishi). That might take out your
>muscle car. Hell, I'll take out that LT1 with my Laser . . .also
>1997 ccm. (BTW, I'm sure I've spent less than $33,000 . . . probably
>about 1/2 that)

> Jim McKenna *jfm...@psu.edu*
> Penn State University
>*BOOSTED 1990 HKS Laser RS Turbo*

Jim,

You walked in the middle of something, we are talking STOCK engines here
not dumping $10-15K in to the cars. For your buddy to run 11's he had
some serious engine work done and HKS parts ain't cheap ! Now if you want
to play your way, your little turbo motor would still lose. It's up to
you ! Stock my Camero ran the 1/4 in low 13's, now with 575hp <not blown
or NOS> the car should run 11's. All with less $3500 worth of engine work
done including labor. I know your buddy has more then that in his engine !

Tony

Big Boys have Big Blocks

Henri R Helanto

unread,
Feb 11, 1995, 9:02:36 PM2/11/95
to
sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN) writes:

> I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
>japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
>american cars.

If you haven't realized it by now I'll tell you the big secret:
I doesn't matter where a car is made as long as it's good and
there are plenty of good american cars in existence - good cars
are made all around the world and this kind of puny attempts to
generalize things are widely despised. In case you didn't know.

'The same price range' is another thing, do you have any idea
how many american cars fit into the price of a Lada 1200L ? Or
european/japanese cars for that matter? For the price of a
Tshaika you could buy an Impala SS or Dodge Stealth R/T but
that is something else entirely.

>Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
>(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>three times it's size.

Does it really matter?

>American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run
>on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
>is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I don't particularly like
the fins on Cadillacs of the 50's and 60's but I don't have any
need to make such a number of it. Live and let live; people like
different things you know. Your narrow-minded little flamebait
about emissions, looks, noise and fuel consumption is utterly
pathetic.

-Henri
--
###### Henri Helanto ### he...@muncca.fi / hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi
##### Architecture Major #### Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
#### Net Admin ##### '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
### Sports Car Enthusiast ###### Fiat Uno Turbo - 'AARGH! Front wheel drive!'

Ken Mcarthy

unread,
Feb 12, 1995, 2:16:18 AM2/12/95
to
SVENNE BRAATEN (sve...@oleg.hiof.no) wrote:
: I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
: japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
: american cars.

Ahem, if you can get a new russian car to go over 50mhp, I'd like to see
what kind of pollutants it puts out. From what I recall, russian cars are
crap, pure and simple. Most Ladas are death traps, Trabants were the
same, and I don't remember the name of that other one, but those ran on
anything and tended to blow up....

: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine

: (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
: three times it's size.

I serously doubt this.. I think anyone will agree that I could blaze a
Honda in a 427 AC Cobra...

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 13, 1995, 9:54:49 AM2/13/95
to
In article <3hhe9f$s...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127) writes:
>From: jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127)
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: 11 Feb 1995 04:26:23 GMT

>That's great. I have a freind who runs low 11's - high 10's with his
>1997 ccm Eagle Talon (made by Mitsubishi).

Thread check. Our friend in six-month Scandenavian darkness suggests that any
foreign car would be cleaner, more driveable, and more powerful than an
equivalently priced non-American car - in stock trim. No stock Eagle, or
any other Raptor, can run 11's. :-) It must be disqualified.

>Hell, I'll take out that LT1 with my Laser . . .also 1997 ccm. (BTW, I'm

>sure I've spent less than $33,000 . . . probably about 1/2 that).

Reality check. No stock Laser can outrun a stock LT1 Corvette, unless the
Vette driver dies during the run. So, go back to square one, and supply us
with a $33k car, in stock trim, that outruns the LT1. The only cars that come
close, or surpass the performance, cost more.

jrse...@fs2.engga.uwo.ca

unread,
Feb 13, 1995, 1:54:07 PM2/13/95
to
>>(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>>three times it's size.

>Now last time a HONDA pulled up to my '70 Olds 442 he was left while still
>trying to find first gear. Those Vtec engine don't make any power until
>4000grand and by then my 370hp <read UNDERRATED> 510 lbs <again
>underrated> torque well walk away. Also my '68 Camero RS/SS 396 375HP
><once again underrated> well beat that Vtec <either US or Euro model> in
>the 1/4 by 3 secs ! that is over 10 car lenghs. Not bad for a smelly peice
>of shit.

Unless your "Camero" ( how come you can't even spell the name of your own car;
do you really have one? ) is a sub 12 second car, you're full of it. BTW,
those crusty old HP numbers you have are OVERRATED, I know - my cousin has two
442s and a W60 so don't pull that shit (510ft.lbs).

>Rude Fuck

Get a life

Marty Bose

unread,
Feb 13, 1995, 3:05:27 PM2/13/95
to
In article <3ho0al$1...@spectre.prin.edu>, ctb...@prin.edu wrote:

- I'm tired of thinking about this silly argument- I'll take your Honda
- rice burner any day with a Ford 705 Pro-Shotted & 20lbs o' boost!

Since this thread has gone into the absurd, how would you like to race a
six year old 1500cc Honda? Of course the one I'm referring to has over
45lbs of boost in a McLaren F1 car; makes about 1500 horsepower in
qualifying trim. I seem to recall that someone ran one in a quarter mile
and it ran in the low eight's.

Meanwhile, back in the real world .......

Marty

--
not smart enough for a relevant signature

James Wood

unread,
Feb 13, 1995, 7:29:01 PM2/13/95
to

On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Eric M. Webb wrote:

>
> Especially the Russian cars :-) What $33,000 car will easily outperform my
> LT1 Corvette?
>

Well, it doesn't cost $33,000, and it won't actually outperform your LT1
Corvette, but a $19,000 LT1 Camaro will come damn close.....and with a
Lingenfelter intake duct on that Camaro (perhaps some headers) will
outperform a LT1 Vette....for LESS.


TheNig...@bah.com

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 3:46:06 AM2/14/95
to
>In article <3hkck2$l...@slip-1.slip.net>, sch...@slip-1.slip.net (Ken Mcarthy)
>says:

>>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
>>: (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>>: three times it's size.
>>

can the honda experts out there do me a favor? an acquaintance of mine just
bought a new acura integra and I was curious as to why [as listed in Consumer
Guides] the available engines are rated as follows:
base engine: 129 hp with 127 ft-lbs of torque and the all-mighty
vtec engine: 170 hp with 128 ft-lbs of torque.

only 1 ft-lb of torque difference? where's the difference in performance, at
75 mph when you want to pass someone? who cares? I want to step on the gas
pedal and feel my guts being sucked back into the seat.

Marty Bose

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 1:42:33 PM2/14/95
to
In article <TheNightride...@bah.com>, TheNig...@bah.com wrote:

->In article <3hkck2$l...@slip-1.slip.net>, sch...@slip-1.slip.net (Ken Mcarthy)
->says:
-
->>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap.
engine
->>: (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
->>: three times it's size.
->>
-
-can the honda experts out there do me a favor? an acquaintance of mine just
-bought a new acura integra and I was curious as to why [as listed in Consumer
-Guides] the available engines are rated as follows:
-base engine: 129 hp with 127 ft-lbs of torque and the all-mighty
-vtec engine: 170 hp with 128 ft-lbs of torque.
-
-only 1 ft-lb of torque difference? where's the difference in performance, at
-75 mph when you want to pass someone? who cares? I want to step on the gas
-pedal and feel my guts being sucked back into the seat.

If you are talking about just sticking your foot in it, you'd be happier
with the standard motor. If you want to downshift and then stand on it,
the VTEC will blow the standard motor away. I don't have the specs at
hand, but I believe that the torque rating of the VTEC motor occurs about
a thousand RPM higher than the base motor.

jfm127

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 6:26:11 PM2/14/95
to
Sorry for butting in when I had no idea what you were talking about.
BTW, a Twin Turbo RX-7 costs maybe a thousand or two less AND
performs better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $31,000, 5.5 0-60MPH, and 13.9
1/4 mile for the Mazda opposed to $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
Vette. Handles better too.

Richard Doughty MS-110

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 7:35:19 PM2/14/95
to

To the original poster,

When your little import has 425 hp/410 ft lbs bone stock then you can talk....but
all you did with this post was expose you lack of knowledge about cars for all to see.

Richard
9.422@142

Donnie James Poe

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 12:53:14 AM2/15/95
to
Richard Doughty MS-110 (e08...@sparc55.svl.trw.com) wrote:
> In article <3hkck2$l...@slip-1.slip.net>, sch...@slip-1.slip.net (Ken Mcarthy) writes:
> > SVENNE BRAATEN (sve...@oleg.hiof.no) wrote:
> > : I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
> > : japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
> > : american cars.
> >
> > Ahem, if you can get a new russian car to go over 50mhp, I'd like to see
> > what kind of pollutants it puts out. From what I recall, russian cars are
> > crap, pure and simple. Most Ladas are death traps, Trabants were the
> > same, and I don't remember the name of that other one, but those ran on
> > anything and tended to blow up....
> >
> > : Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
> > : (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
> > : three times it's size.
> >
> > I serously doubt this.. I think anyone will agree that I could blaze a
> > Honda in a 427 AC Cobra...
> >

Here goes my 2 cents. I don't care what any of you guys say, bigger is
better for power. Now I know I am going to get hit with this so listen
to my reasoning.

First of all if you take an american v-8 and add a supercharger or a
turbo charger, there is NO foriegn car going to beat it.

Example, you can go out and buy a 5000 dollar mustang 5.0 and stick a
vortech vr4 supercharger on it and run MID 12's at at total cost of 7500
dollars for the car and the supercharger and still pass emissions.

Another example; Vector took a chevy 350 and added double overhead cams,
32 valves, 4 turbochargers, and a good exhaust system and made over 900
horsepower. (This is an extreme just to cover my but on someone bringing
up a Ferrari F40 or RUFF) This american car will STOMP over any foriegn
car to DATE! (Must be emission legal in the US)

I am also hearing this arguement. Well I can go out and buy a brand new
Nissan (or whatever company) car that costs around $30,000 and out
perform your car. Here is my response.

(Im like fords, but you can subsitute a camaro in if you wish) I can go
out and buy a brand new Mustang GT for about 18,000 and take the $12,000
I saved, by NOT buying a RX-7 and modify it. Now how many people out
there can go buy a car at $30,000 from the factory that could beat a
mustang I modified for $12,000? For $12,000 I would have the car down
into the 10 second braket, have it pulling near 1g in handling, and have
brakes from hell.

About reliability. I don't care what you say about the reliability of
hondas. If you drove your honda like you drove lets say a Vette, then I
BET that you will brake parts on the thing. Most people who do drive
hondas don't race them. You take these same people and stuck them in a
vette, then you will see them rag the hell out of them. If you drove an
american car just like you did a foreign car, the american car would last
longer. A small 4 banger must spin faster and harder than 8cyl. If you
don't believe me then ask performance people. You don't see a nissan at
the drag strip.. You see V8 cars 90% of the time.


Markus Strobl

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 4:14:02 AM2/15/95
to
>>That's great. I have a freind who runs low 11's - high 10's with his
>>1997 ccm Eagle Talon (made by Mitsubishi).
>
>Thread check. Our friend in six-month Scandenavian darkness suggests that any
>foreign car would be cleaner, more driveable, and more powerful than an
>equivalently priced non-American car - in stock trim. No stock Eagle, or
>any other Raptor, can run 11's. :-) It must be disqualified.

Just want to make clear that this Norwegian brainiac isn't in majority
here in Scandinavia. US cars have a huge following here and old muscle
car are very popular. Car Craft has had some articles on Scandinavian
street racers. Also check out the January edition of CC. They have a
fly-by picture of the huge 'Power meet' in Sweden. I was there. Over
5000 US-cars. The cruise was watched by about 70.000 spectators.

Believe me, this jerk is pretty much alone.

>Regards,
>Eric Webb / Lockheed Martin / RTP, N.C.
>92 Corvette LT1, 68 Camaro Rat, 86 Mazda 626 Turbo, 79 Ford F150

Markus (Swede w/ Camaro)

Charlie Irvin

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 11:57:28 AM2/15/95
to
jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127) writes:

>Sorry for butting in when I had no idea what you were talking about.
>BTW, a Twin Turbo RX-7 costs maybe a thousand or two less AND
>performs better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $31,000, 5.5 0-60MPH, and 13.9
>1/4 mile for the Mazda opposed to $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
>Vette. Handles better too.

Incorrect about the performance. Corvette LT1/Six Speed ('95) turns
a quarter mile of 13.9. Maxda RX-7 runs it in either 14.1 or
14.3. The Vette also beats it in 0-60. The RX7 gets better
gas milage and handles better, though.


> Jim McKenna *jfm...@psu.edu*
> Penn State University
>*BOOSTED 1990 HKS Laser RS Turbo*

Wow. You really *BOOSTED* it? I'm so proud.

Charlie

jfm127

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 12:49:05 PM2/15/95
to
In article <3htbpo$3...@news.tamu.edu>
cir...@diralect.me.pvamu.edu (Charlie Irvin) writes:

> >Sorry for butting in when I had no idea what you were talking about.
> >BTW, a Twin Turbo RX-7 costs maybe a thousand or two less AND
> >performs better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $31,000, 5.5 0-60MPH, and 13.9
> >1/4 mile for the Mazda opposed to $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
> >Vette. Handles better too.
>
> Incorrect about the performance. Corvette LT1/Six Speed ('95) turns
> a quarter mile of 13.9. Maxda RX-7 runs it in either 14.1 or
> 14.3. The Vette also beats it in 0-60. The RX7 gets better
> gas milage and handles better, though.

Where do you get your numbers?? I got mine from Car & Driver and
Road & Track. Do you have a better source? Listening to Chevy
inflated figures??


> > Jim McKenna *jfm...@psu.edu*
> > Penn State University
> >*BOOSTED 1990 HKS Laser RS Turbo*
>
> Wow. You really *BOOSTED* it? I'm so proud.

Sorry charlie, I don't give a fuck what you think (sorry for my
profanity but I know it's the only way to get through to you
greaseballs). Your feeble little attempt at being a wise-ass failed
miserably.

Richard Doughty MS-110

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 6:21:21 PM2/15/95
to

I hate to burst this idiotic little bubble of a conversation but at a hondas weight with 1500 hp(doubt) it would be alot faster than a low eight...traction permitting...
but if it is that serious in the motor im sure it must hook. The car would be closer
to a mid six....2900 lb. door slammers making 1600-1800 hp are turning 6.10s to 6.30s
so if your gonna bullshit atleast get your facts straight.

Richard
9.422@142(soon to be 8.80ish)


Gregory Clark

unread,
Feb 15, 1995, 8:57:50 PM2/15/95
to

>Reality check. No stock Laser can outrun a stock LT1 Corvette, unless the
>Vette driver dies during the run. So, go back to square one, and supply us
>with a $33k car, in stock trim, that outruns the LT1. The only cars that come
>close, or surpass the performance, cost more.
>
>Regards,
>Eric Webb / Lockheed Martin / RTP, N.C.
>92 Corvette LT1, 68 Camaro Rat, 86 Mazda 626 Turbo, 79 Ford F150

A 1970 Buick GSX sure didn't cost any $33K and will blow the
LT-1 into obscurity. Seeing as how nobody said NEW car, I can
think of a ton of screamers for under $12K

*********************************************************
Feeling like a road kill on the Information Superhighway!
*********************************************************
*ecl...@enet.net ecl...@memalph.stat.com*
*********************************************************

Brian Lucas

unread,
Feb 14, 1995, 11:42:04 PM2/14/95
to
In article <3hrehd$m...@kirchhoff2.ee> gash...@mtu.edu (Gearhead Gary) writes:
>From: gash...@mtu.edu (Gearhead Gary)

>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: 14 Feb 1995 18:31:57 -0500

>: American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run


>: on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
>: is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.


>Well I thought I would comment on this one. I am currently
>at school where they make us park in a rather crappy lot.
>Well anyway my point is that the Honda that tried to park next
>to my gas guzzling Chevy truck apparently died. It was stuck
>in the aisle and everyone had to go around it. I guess your
>right, Hondas don't pollute cause they don't run......

Here's flamebait for ya':
Think about it. For americans, there is no substitute for cubic inches. We
are cubic inches. Fattest god damned people on the planet.
So we build big cars to haul our full size spare tires around, and the
japanese will import one or two for the occassional sumo wrestler they can't
shoe-horn into a honda.

Seriously, I've always owned cars with small displacement engines -- it's an
economy thing. You can rod the hell out of a 4-banger and make a very fast
car, but a bigger engine simply gives you more room to work with. Christ.

gallant

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 7:38:37 AM2/16/95
to
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950213...@PEAK.ORG>
James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU> writes:

> Well, it doesn't cost $33,000, and it won't actually outperform your LT1
> Corvette, but a $19,000 LT1 Camaro will come damn close.....and with a
> Lingenfelter intake duct on that Camaro (perhaps some headers) will
> outperform a LT1 Vette....for LESS.

Yes, but lets see the Camaro -vs- LT1 going through the turns or
working the brakes hard.

Later

Rob
gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil

KENT A ROGERS

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 10:53:52 AM2/16/95
to
In article <svenneb.2...@oleg.hiof.no> sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN) writes:
>From: sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN)
>Subject: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:23:35
> I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
>japanese, or russian car in the same price range will easily outperform all
>american cars.

Bring me something in the same price range as the camaro or mustang that
will beat them hands dowm. Can't do it can you.

>
>Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
>(Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>three times it's size.


The problem is where all the horsepower isw made, at very high rpm's, which
is practically worhtles in any kind of traffic, acually everywhere but when
you are passind on the highway, also they have esetially no usefull torque
range, because they have no usefull torque.


>
>American cars are big, smell bad, and use lots of fuel. I bet they will run
>on hot butter. They are big, ugly and make too much noise. Take my Honda, It
>is extremely quiet. Put it next to a chevy, and you won't even hear it.

What are you talking about, they don't smell any different and they come in
the same sizes as the other cars, compact, midsize, full size. They all
have to confrom to the same emmisions standards. And the american cars are
a whole lot cheaper to fix and the prices for the cars are a lot of the
times cheaper. Gas mileage, a comperable sized car with a comperable sized
motor will get the same gas mileage. Obviously we are talking to someone
who really doesn't know much about cars and is trying to make himself feel
better about the foriegn piece of crap he is driving.

Marty Bose

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 1:15:34 PM2/16/95
to
In article <3hu29h$q...@gatekeeper.svl.trw.com>, e08...@sparc55.svl.trw.com
wrote:

-In article <marty_bose-13...@mbmac.bdt.com>,
marty...@bdt.com (Marty Bose) writes:
->
-> Since this thread has gone into the absurd, how would you like to race a
-> six year old 1500cc Honda? Of course the one I'm referring to has over
-> 45lbs of boost in a McLaren F1 car; makes about 1500 horsepower in
-> qualifying trim. I seem to recall that someone ran one in a quarter mile
-> and it ran in the low eight's.
->
-
-I hate to burst this idiotic little bubble of a conversation but at a


hondas weight with 1500 hp(doubt) it would be alot faster than a low
eight...traction permitting...

-but if it is that serious in the motor im sure it must hook. The car
would be closer
-to a mid six....2900 lb. door slammers making 1600-1800 hp are turning
6.10s to 6.30s
-so if your gonna bullshit atleast get your facts straight.


You are an obnoxious little dweeb, aren't you? The car in question is not
a drag racer, it was a Formula 1 car (you have heard of them, haven't
you?). As such it is not optimised for standing starts, it is set up for
cornering power with lots of downforce and therefore lots of drag. The
car in question had a five speed box, and went through the traps in fourth
gear. Top end is about 210 MPH with the gearing they were running.

As far as bullshit goes, I'll defer to your judgement; you certainly seem
much more familiar with it than I am.

S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 6:19:40 PM2/16/95
to
Yep. MORE cubic inches!

S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 6:31:42 PM2/16/95
to

Yeah but what if you have to fix it ????. If you're out in the sticks
you won't find anyone with clue and no parts. What about a recent posting
about one of these mazdas where to have the Turbo replaced you had
to buy 2 at $ 10,000 so the guy said. I'd trade that circus for
ease of maintainance anytime.

Corey Cole

unread,
Feb 16, 1995, 10:46:51 PM2/16/95
to
Marty Bose (marty...@bdt.com) wrote:

: ->In article <3hkck2$l...@slip-1.slip.net>, sch...@slip-1.slip.net (Ken Mcarthy)
: ->says:
: -
: ->>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap.
: engine
: ->>: (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
: ->>: three times it's size.
: ->>
: -
: -can the honda experts out there do me a favor? an acquaintance of mine just
: -bought a new acura integra and I was curious as to why [as listed in Consumer
: -Guides] the available engines are rated as follows:
: -base engine: 129 hp with 127 ft-lbs of torque and the all-mighty
: -vtec engine: 170 hp with 128 ft-lbs of torque.
: -
: -only 1 ft-lb of torque difference? where's the difference in performance, at
: -75 mph when you want to pass someone? who cares? I want to step on the gas
: -pedal and feel my guts being sucked back into the seat.

Here is an interesting statistic. The rpm range between peak torque
and peak horsepower is generally related to the driveability of the
vehicle in which it is installed (unless you have an 85 speed automatic
trans...). Usually, what you gain with the larger swept volume, is a larger
range of usable rpm. The Acura Legend's VTEC engine has a 100 rpm difference
between peak torque and peak rpm...slightly peaky. This would make a
good motorcycle engine (not a lot of mass to soak up the motive power), but
try putting it in a Cadillac. I think you would find that a direct swap,
with no crutching of the engine through the use of a new transmission, would
result in worse mileage than the original Acura or the Cadillac.
There is an old saying that is very applicable when discussing
powerplants. "Horses for courses" You don't drive your NASCAR racer on
the street, and you don't drive you Honda at Talledega.

Corey Cole
co...@pr.erau.edu
'65 Skylark

svr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 5:03:13 AM2/17/95
to
In Article <17Feb199...@pa-pc14.massey.ac.nz>

S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz writes:
>>Sorry for butting in when I had no idea what you were talking about.
>>BTW, a Twin Turbo RX-7 costs maybe a thousand or two less AND
>>performs better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $31,000, 5.5 0-60MPH, and 13.9
>>1/4 mile for the Mazda opposed to $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
>>Vette. Handles better too.

Not according to the latest C&D (I hate quoting car rags but since it was
already brought up...). The LT1: 5.1 0-60, and 13.7 1/4 mile. The RX-7:
5.3 0-60, and 14.0 1/4 mile.

TODD

Ken Mosher

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 10:44:16 AM2/17/95
to
In article <jrsevazl....@fs2.engga.uwo.ca>
jrse...@fs2.engga.uwo.ca writes:

> BTW,
> those crusty old HP numbers you have are OVERRATED, I know - my cousin has two
> 442s and a W60 so don't pull that shit (510ft.lbs).

Not to get tangled up in this, but I was was wondering ... what's a
"W60"?

I remember W25 for the 350 Hurst/Olds, and W30 for the 455 Hurst/Olds
(buddy of mine had a 74 1/2 Indy Pace car H/O ... white&gold, fun
car)... just wondering what the W60 is. Was it a rare engine package?


Ken Mosher (ken_m...@sterling.com)
Buick Grand National: "... A *BOOST* of Buick Performance! ..."

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 7:55:45 AM2/17/95
to
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950213...@PEAK.ORG> James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU> writes:
>From: James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU>
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:29:01 -0800

Again, we're comparing a non-stock vehicle to a stock vehicle. And the last
time I looked, a Z28 Camaro was over $21,000.

However, the first thing most LT1 Corvette owners do is replace the stock
intake with a bigcold air scoop and performance filter located behind the
front air dam. The Camaro LT1 is shoehorned too tightly into the engine
compartment to allow the installation of a such a large air intake. Even so,
the Camaro doesn't have true dual exhaust of the Corvette, so the Camaro can't
exploit an air intake increase to the extent that the Corvette can.

Also, if you are comparing more than straight-line performance, remember that
the Camaro has a solid rear axle while the Corvette has an independent rear
suspension.

Speaking of numbers, the original LT1 was, like the Buick GN, rated by GM on
the conservative side of the BHP and torque curves. There are several reasons
for this marketing strategy: insurance cost, comparison to other models, etc.

Truth be told, quarter mile times of average stock Camaros and Corvettes with
LT1 engines, and similar weights, suggest Camaros produce about 260 hp at 4500
RPM and Corvettes generate 315 hp at 5000 RPM. Of course, these numbers will
vary by car, options, and weight of the vehicle.

From a marketing perspective, GM wanted to maintain a generous difference in
BHP between the LT1 and LT5 Corvettes, and advertise a closer difference
between the Camaro and Corvette LT1. Why? So LT5 owners could feel that the
$28k LT5 option was worth the pricetag. And to convince lots of folks that
they are buying Corvette performance for a Camaros price.

I remember when Buick advertised the GN at 235 and 245 BHP. This was when the
Corvette L98 was rated at 225 and 235 BHP. Chevrolet didn't want Corvette
owners to think that a Buick Coupe has the power of the Corvette. But anyone
who owned a GN, like I did, knows that 86 and 87 Corvettes were easy meat.

Stock to stock, on the street or strip, I have found the Camaro and Firebirds
to be worthy opponents for the Corvette. But my admiration is directed
through the side or rear mirrors.

This is not a gratuitous slap aimed at Camaros. Note that I own a 68 Camaro
that wastes my LT1 Corvette down the 1320 :-)

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 8:05:57 AM2/17/95
to
In article <D40Bv...@lazrus.cca.rockwell.com> sdba...@cca.rockwell.com (Scott D. Bartholomay) writes:
>From: sdba...@cca.rockwell.com (Scott D. Bartholomay)

>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:35:30 GMT

>(Eric M. Webb) writes:

>>
>> Reality check. No stock Laser can outrun a stock LT1 Corvette, unless the
>> Vette driver dies during the run. So, go back to square one, and supply us
>> with a $33k car, in stock trim, that outruns the LT1. The only cars that come
>> close, or surpass the performance, cost more.

>Good thing you said "car", not truck. Or are we still talking foreign vs. US?
>Syclone/Typhoon mailing list.

Well, I spent a lot of time laughing the two times I've actually seen them.
The first time I whipped one in an 86 Grand National; the second time I
outran one in the 92 Vette. And I wasn't laughing because of the race :-)
The sad part is that I couldn't even use one to pull my 68 Camaro to the body
shop when I need to work on it. I suppose you can use them to carry your
lunch to work. I guess there is concrete evidence that LSD has emerged from
retirement :-)

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 8:13:06 AM2/17/95
to
In article <3hre6j$m...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127) writes:
>From: jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127)
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: 14 Feb 1995 23:26:11 GMT

>Sorry for butting in when I had no idea what you were talking about.
>BTW, a Twin Turbo RX-7 costs maybe a thousand or two less AND
>performs better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. $31,000, 5.5 0-60MPH, and 13.9
>1/4 mile for the Mazda opposed to $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
>Vette. Handles better too.

The last time I looked at the Turbo RX-7, it had a sticker of $38,500. Those
times are from what, Road and Track? My 92 Corvette has run 13.4 stock.
I thought that the RX-7 had too much oversteer, to the point of being
dangerous. Of course, that's just my subjective opinion.

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 8:26:25 AM2/17/95
to
In article <bsl5.24....@po.cwru.edu> bs...@po.cwru.edu (Brian Lucas) writes:
>From: bs...@po.cwru.edu (Brian Lucas)

>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:42:04 UNDEFINED

>Seriously, I've always owned cars with small displacement engines -- it's an
>economy thing. You can rod the hell out of a 4-banger and make a very fast
>car, but a bigger engine simply gives you more room to work with. Christ.

Brian, I agree with you, but have some thoughts to add:

The issue can be reduced to power-to-weight ratios (if we assume proper
gearing and suspension). A heavier car requires a bigger engine than a
smaller car needs. The alternative is the very expensive proposition of
building an engine that can reach record RPM.

For example, one wouldn't try to propel a 3500 NASCAR chassis with an Indy Car
or F1 engine. And the converse wouldn't make much sense either.

dwjo...@charlie.usd.edu

unread,
Feb 17, 1995, 11:25:24 PM2/17/95
to
In article <3ho0al$1...@spectre.prin.edu>,
ctb...@spectre.prin.edu (Torrey Breeden) writes:
>In article <3hkck2$l...@slip-1.slip.net>,
sch...@slip-1.slip.net (Ken Mcarthy) says:
>
>>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm.
>>: Jap. engine (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as
>>: an american engine three times it's size.

>>
>>I serously doubt this.. I think anyone will agree that I could blaze
>>a Honda in a 427 AC Cobra...
>>
> I'm tired of thinking about this silly argument- I'll take your Honda
>rice burner any day with a Ford 705 Pro-Shotted & 20lbs o' boost!
>Seriously, though foreign cars frequently run higher compression and are
>sometimes turboed. They use 4valve heads, which for some reason haven't
>hit the American aftermarket in numbers yet. I'd like to hear other real
>design differences......

IMO, the main reason you have not (and likely will not) see four valves
per cylinder on an american v8 is because of the operating engine rpm.
It takes much less effort to turn high rpm's on a smaller motor. My
little model airplane engines turn 15,000 to 27,000 rpm's at 5-hundredths
and 1-hundredth of a cubic inch. And they start and stop instantly. The
rotating mass of a 454 may weigh as much as the above mentoned Honda engine.
(don't quote me on that)

Four valves per cylinder raises the torque rpm level, not a real problem
on a light car but hell on a heavier one. I have an RV cam in my 350
Chevy 3/4 ton pickup. It develops torque at very low rpm's, just what
is needed for pulling. A Vette cam that develops the same torque at 1,000
higher rpm it would be worthless in that application. Put a 400hp Honda
2.0 in a Camaro and race it against a 400hp 350 Camaro and the outcome
would be obvious. No torque, no race! You want two valves per cylinder
for mid range torque. BTW, the only four valve V8 I can recall was on
8,000+ rpm race prepped hemi's. OOPS, forgot the 255 Ford Cosworth Indy
engines. But again, similar rpm's.

dj - ps, that guy could care what anyone says about defending american cars.
He only wanted to needle ya.

James Wood

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 1:48:30 AM2/19/95
to

I do love the Corvettes (recently departed with an '86 that was a
strong runner), but can't ignore the fact that the '93-up F-body is the
way to go, until the next-gen 'Vette reclaims the title.

I don't know what the actual performance figures are for taking
the turns or riding the brakes, but I would imagine that the NEW Z28
comes up VERY close. There are MANY MANY modifications available for
"fixing" those abilities.

I think my point is, a modern Z28/Trans Am can take the corners
hard enough to really make me smile...... The real impetus in
performance is that blast to the quarter, and top-end....those make me
smile much more than taking a corner.

If I can come to within a couple of tenths as a 'Vette, handle
almost as well for less than half the money....sounds like a deal!!!!
I'd split the other half of the money on another vehicle, and F-body
perf. mods.

James Wood

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 2:30:32 AM2/19/95
to

On Fri, 17 Feb 1995, Eric M. Webb wrote:

> Again, we're comparing a non-stock vehicle to a stock vehicle. And the last
> time I looked, a Z28 Camaro was over $21,000.

Of course we're talking about a non-stock vehicle against a
stock-vehicle....but the stock vehicle costs TWICE as much, which is why
the "non-stock" vehicle is still the underdog.

If you'd rather, look at it in terms of UNITS OF
PERFORMANCE/DOLLAR. There can be no mistaking then. Both cars can be
modified, but aside from the fact that the Corvette costs over twice as
much to begin, both cars will respond similarly to similar
modifications.

>
> However, the first thing most LT1 Corvette owners do is replace the stock
> intake with a bigcold air scoop and performance filter located behind the
> front air dam. The Camaro LT1 is shoehorned too tightly into the engine
> compartment to allow the installation of a such a large air intake. Even so,
> the Camaro doesn't have true dual exhaust of the Corvette, so the Camaro can't
> exploit an air intake increase to the extent that the Corvette can.

The first modifications people should do with the Camaro/Trans AM
is these areas: intake and exhaust. Lingenfelter cold-air intake kit and
headers, and Borla exhaust.....and it's time to go Corvette hunting.

>
> Also, if you are comparing more than straight-line performance, remember that
> the Camaro has a solid rear axle while the Corvette has an independent rear
> suspension.

True...but that's not to say that the F-body handles poorly, is
it? It handles quite well; upgrades are available. I wouldn't waste the
money, however; straight-line performance is most fun, and most fun to
entice those expensive cars into a contest and embarrass them. They
might be able to out-handle my Camaro, but I wouldn't want to jeopardize
my car to find out....loose it in a corner and call the paramedics and
body shop. Loose it at the stoplight? Call up Lingenfelter, Vortech, or
Paxton.

>
> Speaking of numbers, the original LT1 was, like the Buick GN, rated by GM on
> the conservative side of the BHP and torque curves. There are several reasons
> for this marketing strategy: insurance cost, comparison to other models, etc.

I wonder what the service costs are on all those GNs...now that
their turbos are old and probably burning out....and 3.8 parts are not as
plentiful as small-block parts....

>
> Truth be told, quarter mile times of average stock Camaros and Corvettes with
> LT1 engines, and similar weights, suggest Camaros produce about 260 hp at 4500
> RPM and Corvettes generate 315 hp at 5000 RPM. Of course, these numbers will
> vary by car, options, and weight of the vehicle.

Quarter mile times of average stock Camaros/Corvettes is
sometimes within a TENTH of a Corvette. The first opinions of many
automotive writers was that the performance of the Z28 was so close to
the 'Vette that they wondered if the "missing" horses were missing. I do
highly doubt that Chevrolet would lie in BOTH cases and OPPOSITE
directions; overrating Z28s to 275 and underrating Vettes to 300.

>
> From a marketing perspective, GM wanted to maintain a generous difference in
> BHP between the LT1 and LT5 Corvettes, and advertise a closer difference
> between the Camaro and Corvette LT1. Why? So LT5 owners could feel that the
> $28k LT5 option was worth the pricetag. And to convince lots of folks that
> they are buying Corvette performance for a Camaros price.

I'd imagine that this argument has more merit in application
between the LT1 Camaro and LT1 Corvette. I don't believe that the 275 HP
rating is inflated AT ALL. The cars are DAMNED strong. I believe that
the 275HP, while real, is a PURPOSEFUL CRIPPLING of the Z28 that should
(and could) produce Corvette horsepower. Look under the hood at
that restrictive snorkel-tubing and air-intake silencer on a '93-up
Camaro. Could my grandmother have done it any worse by guesssing? Same
to be said with the exhaust.... The excuse, of course, was that these
restrictions "were necessary to package the LT1 in the small chassis."
Then there's the aftermarket which does it like the factory should have.
Since the intake snorkel had to be manufacured to begin with, would it have
cost the factory any more to make a decent one? Of course not. Good thing
for Lingenfelter and the others. Fact of the matter is, they were done
that way so high-schoolers in their $20,000 Camaros wouldn't smoke executives
in their $40,000+ Corvettes.


The LT5 being a whole ballgame of its own.... If I could afford
one, I would LOVE the LT5. THey are so unique; I think there is some
intrinsic value in the ZR-1 that no other Vette has, regardless of how
fast. 405HP can't be wrong, either.

>
> I remember when Buick advertised the GN at 235 and 245 BHP. This was when the
> Corvette L98 was rated at 225 and 235 BHP. Chevrolet didn't want Corvette
> owners to think that a Buick Coupe has the power of the Corvette. But anyone
> who owned a GN, like I did, knows that 86 and 87 Corvettes were easy meat.

This is true. Today the same situation exists between the
Camaro and Corvette. I'm sure there was trepidation between the
marketing gurus at Chevy in the planning (crippling) of the Camaro to
275hp. The Corvette guys must have been pissed that the Camaro was so
close, and the Camaro guys must have been happy to have the first Camaro
in TEN YEARS that would smoke a Mustang, hands down.

>
> Stock to stock, on the street or strip, I have found the Camaro and Firebirds
> to be worthy opponents for the Corvette. But my admiration is directed
> through the side or rear mirrors.

You haven't met up with a sub-$20K Camaro with $2K of hotrod
parts. If the factory would have incorporated these "mods", they
wouldn't cost a dime. They cost $2K because **EVERYONE** knows the
horrendous rip-off profit margins on go-fast goodies (I know...I've
broken myself on 'em before....<grin>.

>
> This is not a gratuitous slap aimed at Camaros. Note that I own a 68 Camaro
> that wastes my LT1 Corvette down the 1320 :-)


Understood. I **LOVE** Corvettes, and I certainly do not mean to
slight them. My only point is that for LESS than an Acura Integra
4-banger, one can have near-Vette performance, and with $2K of bolt-ons,
even more. Fact.


James

James Wood

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 2:36:13 AM2/19/95
to

On Fri, 17 Feb 1995, Eric M. Webb wrote:

> >Syclone/Typhoon mailing list.
>
> Well, I spent a lot of time laughing the two times I've actually seen them.
> The first time I whipped one in an 86 Grand National; the second time I
> outran one in the 92 Vette. And I wasn't laughing because of the race :-)
> The sad part is that I couldn't even use one to pull my 68 Camaro to the body
> shop when I need to work on it. I suppose you can use them to carry your
> lunch to work. I guess there is concrete evidence that LSD has emerged from
> retirement :-)


Are you talking about the Syclone? One day after coming back
from the races with my '86 Vette (ran 13.6@101), I came across a feller
driving a Syclone....saw his cowboy hat through the tint.

We lined up at the stoplight.....As the crossroad light turned
yellow, I could hear him gun it as he held the brake....turbo started to
whine. Light turned, and of couse, my ass-end went up in smoke, but I
got off the line pretty well.... Got up to a hundred, but he was still
a good way ahead of me. After he let off and I caught up, I saw the
"12.4" on his windshield, in white shoe-polish..... If that had any
merit to it, I didn't stand a chance.... (He did get perfect traction,
obviously).

He must have had some go-fast parts under there, but who knows?
I approach the Syclones VERY carefully. Typhoons are heavier, but I've
never crossed with one.

James

James Wood

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 2:44:20 AM2/19/95
to

On 16 Feb 1995, Gregory Clark wrote:

> A 1970 Buick GSX sure didn't cost any $33K and will blow the
> LT-1 into obscurity. Seeing as how nobody said NEW car, I can
> think of a ton of screamers for under $12K

They didn't say anything about reliability or top-end, either. As I've
indicated previously, I'm not so much of a "braking and cornering"
critic....but ANY LT1 car (even Camaro) will waste anything from that era
SO BADLY in these departments (and top end), that I shudder to think
about it.

Are you talking stock GSX? Read most of the "RESTROSPECT" columns in
popular magazines, like Road&Track, Car&Driver, Motor Trend.... They
commonly reprint an old review of a muscle car, such as you speak of.
Despite their 400HP ratings (obviously, inflated theoretical GROSS
figures with no water pump and alternator), many are lucky to even see
better than a 14 in the quarter. DON'T ANYBODY FLAME ME - I KNOW THERE
ARE THOSE WHO CLAIM THEIR LS-6s WILL RUN HIGH 10's STOCK.

At the very least, let's see the GSX do it on modern crappy PUMP gas, and
get 25MPG while it's at it.


Henri R Helanto

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 8:46:40 PM2/19/95
to
e08...@sparc55.svl.trw.com (Richard Doughty MS-110) writes:

>I hate to burst this idiotic little bubble of a conversation but at a hondas weight with 1500 hp(doubt) it would be alot faster than a low eight...traction permitting...
>but if it is that serious in the motor im sure it must hook. The car would be closer
>to a mid six....2900 lb. door slammers making 1600-1800 hp are turning 6.10s to 6.30s
>so if your gonna bullshit atleast get your facts straight.

If you had actually *read* the article you quoted, you'd know
that he was talking about Formula One racing car, not another
fiberglass-bodied street car that can run sub-something on
the quarter and get its doors blown off in the first corner
by a Yugo.

IMO, acceleration is nice but it matters very little when
compared to handling. Almost anyone can accelerate but few
can really drive.

-Henri
--
###### Henri Helanto ### he...@muncca.fi / hhel...@vipunen.hut.fi
##### Architecture Major #### Nissan Skyline GT-R 'Janspeed Special'
#### Net Admin ##### '71 LS-6 454 Corvette Coupe
### Sports Car Enthusiast ###### Fiat Uno Turbo - 'AARGH! Front wheel drive!'

Donnie James Poe

unread,
Feb 19, 1995, 11:06:05 PM2/19/95
to
gallant (gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil) wrote:

> Yes, but lets see the Camaro -vs- LT1 going through the turns or
> working the brakes hard.

> Later

> Rob
> gal...@oasys.dt.navy.mil

Okay, if you spent 5,000 dollars on the suspension and brakes, your
camaro will out brake and out handle the vette. $19,000 + 5,000 =
$24,000, still about $10,000 cheaper than the vette.


Alexander M. Bilan

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 12:16:50 PM2/20/95
to
HH> IMO, acceleration is nice but it matters very little when
HH> compared to handling. Almost anyone can accelerate but few
HH> can really drive.

Exactly on the nose! I've watched enough driving enthusiasts in their old iron
lose vettes and such in some curves. Its a matter of getting to know your
car, and how to make it work.

One just needs to watch slalom driving, some of the most unsuspecting cars
with a good driver will drive circles around simularily, or better equipped
competition.

Sinking tons of money into handling features for your car won;t do you squat
if you can't utilize them to their fullest.

Mr.V-8
// The opinions expressed above are strickly the opinions of my fingers and
\X/ may not reflect the opinions of the other apendages.

Pete Dunton

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 4:28:16 AM2/20/95
to
In article <EWZ.365....@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV> E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb) writes:
>From: E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb)
>Subject: Camaro and Corvette LT1
>Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 12:55:45


>Truth be told, quarter mile times of average stock Camaros and Corvettes with
>LT1 engines, and similar weights, suggest Camaros produce about 260 hp at 4500
>RPM and Corvettes generate 315 hp at 5000 RPM. Of course, these numbers will
>vary by car, options, and weight of the vehicle.

To my knowledge the only difference between the LT-1 in the Corvette and the
Camaro is that the LT-1 in the Corvette has a less restrictive intake and true
straight dual exhaust which allows for the 25hp advantage of the
Corvette. Rear wheel dynos have been preformed on the LT-1 in
the Z-28 and it is right there in the 275 hp mark. May I be as bold to ask
where are you getting 260hp from? Remember the Corvette has wider rear
tires which can only help in getting better quarter mile times. Now-a-days
car makers underrate horsepower for insurance reasons why would GM bother to
overrate an engine's horsepower rating and risk higher insurance rates which
could kill sales. Oh and by-the-way you can get a $17K '95 Camaro Z-28 with
a 6-speed and the z-rated P245 tires (of course there is no power options on
this one). Also it is possible to get a stripped down new '95 Corvette for
$29K with a little wheeling and dealing. In my opinion I think the Corvette
is a great car however to me I would rather save the extra cash and go with
the Camaro Z-28, the reason being the following:

1) The Corvette has had the same styling since the '84 Corvettes were released
in March of '83. While the Camaro's styling is much newer. However the '97
Corvette will fix that problem.

2) The performance of the Z-28 is at least as good as a LT-1 powered Corvette
(the Corvette may be little faster in certain areas however the Corvette's
advantage is almost insignificant).

3) Why pay at least $10K more for a Corvette when you get 97% of the
performance of the new Corvette in a new Z-28.

However there are those who want the most ultimate 2 seater sports car for the
money with such goodies as traction control, automatic climate control, etc.
Then the Corvette is only way to go.

Pete..

Scott D. Bartholomay

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 3:18:39 PM2/20/95
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95021...@PEAK.ORG>, James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
>
>
>
> Are you talking about the Syclone? One day after coming back
> from the races with my '86 Vette (ran 13.6@101), I came across a feller
> driving a Syclone....saw his cowboy hat through the tint.
>
> We lined up at the stoplight.....As the crossroad light turned
> yellow, I could hear him gun it as he held the brake....turbo started to
> whine. Light turned, and of couse, my ass-end went up in smoke, but I
> got off the line pretty well.... Got up to a hundred, but he was still
> a good way ahead of me. After he let off and I caught up, I saw the
> "12.4" on his windshield, in white shoe-polish..... If that had any
> merit to it, I didn't stand a chance.... (He did get perfect traction,
> obviously).

Easily possible. They will spin the tires, but only because the front end
lifts off. You would have probably caught up eventually- the thing has
the aerodynamics of a brick.

> He must have had some go-fast parts under there, but who knows?

About $1100 - $1300 worth will get you into the mid-low 12's vicinity.

> I approach the Syclones VERY carefully. Typhoons are heavier, but I've
> never crossed with one.

Only about 300 lbs. - I've heard of factory stock Ty's running 13.80's out
east, modded ones running 12.60s.

Dig
sdba...@hwking.cca.rockwell.com
'91 Sy- 12.65 @ 106.8 On the factory tires, through the mufflers.

Bryan Hinkle

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 2:56:44 AM2/21/95
to
jfm127 (jfm...@psu.edu) wrote:

: That's great. I have a freind who runs low 11's - high 10's with his
: 1997 ccm Eagle Talon (made by Mitsubishi). That might take out your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bullshit


: muscle car. Hell, I'll take out that LT1 with my Laser . . .also
: 1997 ccm. (BTW, I'm sure I've spent less than $33,000 . . . probably
: about 1/2 that)

Bring on your Laser and I'll smoke it with a less than 6
grand investment and a small block with one four barrel.


Some of the absolute crap being spouted in this thread is
amazing. Your buddies Eagle better have something other than
the stock paperweight in it and the only way your Laser would
get within sniffing distance of me or most of the people i know
is if it's attached to the car when we launch.


B.

Scott D. Bartholomay

unread,
Feb 20, 1995, 2:57:52 PM2/20/95
to

Somebody didn't know how to drive it, apparently. A Sy is perfectly capable
of running a 13.4 on the factory rubber. If you count the ones the magazines
tested, they've run a 13.06. You did say "come close, or surpass the perfor-
ance", did you not?

BTW, how much does the 'vette tow?

Dig
sdba...@hwking.cca.rockwell.com
12.65 @ 106.8 - On factory tires, through the mufflers.

svr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 5:21:28 AM2/21/95
to
In Article <EWZ.366....@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV>

E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb) writes:

>>Good thing you said "car", not truck. Or are we still talking foreign vs. US?
>>Syclone/Typhoon mailing list.
>
>Well, I spent a lot of time laughing the two times I've actually seen them.
>The first time I whipped one in an 86 Grand National; the second time I
>outran one in the 92 Vette. And I wasn't laughing because of the race :-)
>The sad part is that I couldn't even use one to pull my 68 Camaro to the body
>shop when I need to work on it. I suppose you can use them to carry your
>lunch to work. I guess there is concrete evidence that LSD has emerged from
>retirement :-)

Obviously Eric forgot to log off his account. Nobody would intentionally
post something this stupid and incensing.

TODD

STANGL T

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 7:27:53 PM2/21/95
to
BTW, what DOES your car run in the 1/4?

I know of SEVERAL Talon/Laser owners in the mid 11s with NO nitrous. With
nitrous, high 10s are possible. The AWD helps a LOT at launch at the HP
levels these guys are making.
Copy reply to sta...@aol.com, I don't get in here much <G>.

STANGL T

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 7:29:58 PM2/21/95
to
Uh, about the 4valves/cyl V8 - whatsamatta, you guys haven't heard about
the Ford modular V8? <G>

Dirk Broer

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 12:41:51 PM2/21/95
to
In article <EWZ.365....@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV>, E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb) says:
>
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950213...@PEAK.ORG> James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU> writes:
>>From: James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:29:01 -0800
>
>
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Eric M. Webb wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Especially the Russian cars :-) What $33,000 car will easily outperform my
>>> LT1 Corvette?
>>>
>
>>Well, it doesn't cost $33,000, and it won't actually outperform your LT1
>>Corvette, but a $19,000 LT1 Camaro will come damn close.....and with a
>>Lingenfelter intake duct on that Camaro (perhaps some headers) will
>>outperform a LT1 Vette....for LESS.
>
>Again, we're comparing a non-stock vehicle to a stock vehicle. And the last
>time I looked, a Z28 Camaro was over $21,000.

A loaded Camaro...

>However, the first thing most LT1 Corvette owners do is replace the stock
>intake with a bigcold air scoop and performance filter located behind the
>front air dam. The Camaro LT1 is shoehorned too tightly into the engine
>compartment to allow the installation of a such a large air intake. Even so,
>the Camaro doesn't have true dual exhaust of the Corvette, so the Camaro can't
>exploit an air intake increase to the extent that the Corvette can.
>
>Also, if you are comparing more than straight-line performance, remember that
>the Camaro has a solid rear axle while the Corvette has an independent rear
>suspension.

For straight line performance a solid axle is often better. (smooth
surface). It is easier to harness the solid axles torque to produce
anti-squat. I understand the newer (post '82 vette) are much better
at anti-squat than the earlier ones.

>Speaking of numbers, the original LT1 was, like the Buick GN, rated by GM on
>the conservative side of the BHP and torque curves. There are several reasons
>for this marketing strategy: insurance cost, comparison to other models, etc.
>
>Truth be told, quarter mile times of average stock Camaros and Corvettes with
>LT1 engines, and similar weights, suggest Camaros produce about 260 hp at 4500
>RPM and Corvettes generate 315 hp at 5000 RPM. Of course, these numbers will
>vary by car, options, and weight of the vehicle.
>
>From a marketing perspective, GM wanted to maintain a generous difference in
>BHP between the LT1 and LT5 Corvettes, and advertise a closer difference
>between the Camaro and Corvette LT1. Why? So LT5 owners could feel that the
>$28k LT5 option was worth the pricetag. And to convince lots of folks that
>they are buying Corvette performance for a Camaros price.

You understand the LT5 was rated at 405hp right? The corvettes LT1 is 300
hp. It is identical to the Camaros, save the air-cleaner and exhaust. But
note the Firebird Firehawk is rated beyond 300hp - something like 315. So
with bolt-on parts (exhaust, intake/aircleaner, and hood) the performace
really picks up.

Is the LT5 worth it? At least one owner who put his up against a
"Super Natural" thinks so (corvette mailing list). But a $25K price increase?
At the local track I saw one ZR-1 - he dialed in at 14.00 and ran at 13.99
and thus lost. I noticed he left really soft (not alot of wheel spin)
and his time trials where with the power key turned off (to the tune of
16 seconds or so). I haven't seen a LT1 Camaro yet - hopefully more will
show up this year.

Eric M. Webb

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 11:58:25 AM2/21/95
to
In article <D46HM...@sunfish.usd.edu> dwjo...@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>From: dwjo...@charlie.usd.edu
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 04:25:24 GMT

>>Seriously, though foreign cars frequently run higher compression and are
>>sometimes turboed. They use 4valve heads, which for some reason haven't
>>hit the American aftermarket in numbers yet. I'd like to hear other real
>>design differences......

>IMO, the main reason you have not (and likely will not) see four valves
>per cylinder on an american v8 is because of the operating engine rpm.

Snip

>Four valves per cylinder raises the torque rpm level, not a real problem
>on a light car but hell on a heavier one. I have an RV cam in my 350
>Chevy 3/4 ton pickup. It develops torque at very low rpm's, just what
>is needed for pulling. A Vette cam that develops the same torque at 1,000
>higher rpm it would be worthless in that application.

The point being that it takes more force to overcome the inertia of more
camshafts and valve stationary weight. Pushrod engines are generally better
able to make low RPM torque because they better overcome inertia by using
the rocker arms as a mechanical advantage. Especially when using true
roller systems where the rocker arms have a roller pivot at the fulcrum.

Of course, these pushrod designs fall short of OHC designs in maintaining the
engine at high RPM. Even NASCAR stockers on superspeedways keep RPM under
7000 (love that telemetry stuff like that CBS had at Daytona).

A good example of trying to get the best of both worlds is the LT5 engine made
for the Corvette by Mercury Marine. It is a DOHC, 4VPC design that displaces
the classic GM 350 cubic inches. However, to regain some of the low RPM
torque loss by the DOHC design, the bore was decreased and the stroke was
increased. Instead of a 4" bore and a 3.48" stroke, the engine has about a
3.85" bore and 3.75" stroke.

Actually, I'm not sure I see the benefits of more than one intake and exhaust
valve per cylinder (unless controlled for economy like a 4bbl carburator).
For good performance, I would think that a SOHC engine with big valves angled
properly, and matched to an optimum combustion chamber, would perform just as
well as a DOHC design, if not better, and have less parts to fail.

Can anyone suggest advantages of more cams and valves?

Robert A Walker

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 8:30:30 PM2/21/95
to
>IMO, the main reason you have not (and likely will not) see four valves
>per cylinder on an american v8 is because of the operating engine rpm.

I believe that any motor can benefit from 4 vavles. Instead of
having one valve that has to open up .5 inches, you have two smaller
valves that only have to open up .3 inches. This allows the vavles to
fully open quicker, and also close quicker since they do not have to
travel as far and also the valves are lighter. This allows you to
run a shorter duration cam for the same results. Since the valves aren't
open as long more cylinder pressure develops (more torque), and also with
less overlap you have less chance of losing part of your incoming fuel
and air mixture.
Another advantage of 4 valves per cylinder is that you can
shut off one of the valves or restrict the air flow to one of the intake
valves, as on the SHO (I believe). This leaves you with one operating
small valve which will keep up the velocity of the incoming charge, meaning
more low end torque than with a conventional 2 valve per cylinder setup.

>It takes much less effort to turn high rpm's on a smaller motor. My
>little model airplane engines turn 15,000 to 27,000 rpm's at 5-hundredths
>and 1-hundredth of a cubic inch. And they start and stop instantly. The
>rotating mass of a 454 may weigh as much as the above mentoned Honda engine.
>(don't quote me on that)

I'm not sure about taking less effort, but on a smaller motor
you have a smaller rotating mass, which means it is easier to contain
the rotating mass. A 460 rotating at 8000 RPM is going to be much
more difficult to hold together than a 2 liter motor at the same speed.
Since The more RPMs you turn, cam allowing, the more horsepower you can
produce, obviously a smaller motor will make more horsepower per liter.
There is also the problem of most old american V-8s don't have the
lower end to hold together at high RPMs. Newer motors are much
better in that respect in that many of them have the walls of the
block come down past the main bearings, and some even have structural
oil pans. Combine this with newer casting techniques and better materials
and a new smaller motor will be able to produce more HP per liter than
slightly antiquetated V-8s.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate either type of motor, I enjoy both.
A big gas hungryu V-8 belongs in a pickup or an old Chevelle. An old ark of
a cadilac would not seem right unless it had 500 cubic inches of inefficient
cruising motor in it. On the other hand would a true sports car be any
fun if it didn't have a slightly peaky high revving motor?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If I haven't broke it yet, I will soon
wal...@wpi.wpi.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

M.D.COLEMAN

unread,
Feb 21, 1995, 5:27:54 AM2/21/95
to

The multi-valve per cylinder is really useful on the high rev small motors
and apparently pretty good for emissions, as engine breathing is
wonderful, but in order to build a V-8 or V-12 with all those valves, you
really need to redesign from scratch to deal with the revs and you get an
out and out racing engine at the end of it. The whole point of the Great
American Two Valve V-8 is a vast spread of usable torque across the rev
range, so you never really wear the motor out-25 years of boulevard burning
beckons.

In the UK, BMW, who now own Rover, wanted to put their 4 valve small block V-
8's in the new off road Range Rovers, but the low end torque is just not
there and as the guy above says, in an off roader, low end torque is what
you need. Instead they are staying with the two valve Buick 215-bored out to
273.
Ferrari have just brought out a 5 valve per cylinder V-8, its got four
cams I think and revs to 8000-its emissions are good, but its fuel
consumption is dire (< 11 mpg). Its power at higher revs is astonishing-you
are meant to keep that motor in the 6000 band all day to get the best from
it. I would have thought it is not really a street machine.
I think the (the '69 I think) two-valve hemi Charger was the apotheosis of
US car design. Twenty six years on from Woodstock like Alvin Lee (saw him
last week) they sound great and still do the business.

MDC

Marty Bose

unread,
Feb 22, 1995, 12:07:10 AM2/22/95
to
In article <EWZ.374....@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV>,
E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb) wrote:

-The point being that it takes more force to overcome the inertia of more
-camshafts and valve stationary weight. Pushrod engines are generally better
-able to make low RPM torque because they better overcome inertia by using
-the rocker arms as a mechanical advantage. Especially when using true
-roller systems where the rocker arms have a roller pivot at the fulcrum.

Spoken like someone who has never tried to turn over the cam by hand in a
high lift race motor. One advantage of multi valve motor is that they use
much lighter springs than single valve heads.

-Of course, these pushrod designs fall short of OHC designs in maintaining the
-engine at high RPM. Even NASCAR stockers on superspeedways keep RPM under
-7000 (love that telemetry stuff like that CBS had at Daytona).

You're watching the wrong races. The only place you'll see that low an
RPM is where carb restrictors are mandatory; the same cars on a short
track (unrestricted) will run 8800 RPM.

-Actually, I'm not sure I see the benefits of more than one intake and exhaust
-valve per cylinder (unless controlled for economy like a 4bbl carburator).
-For good performance, I would think that a SOHC engine with big valves angled
-properly, and matched to an optimum combustion chamber, would perform just as
-well as a DOHC design, if not better, and have less parts to fail.
-
-Can anyone suggest advantages of more cams and valves?

It is physically impossible to get the same area under the valve with a
single set of valves that you can get with a pair of smaller valves, given
that the bore size is the same. In the long run (or the higher RPM), the
four valve will outbreathe a two valve head, not to mention that the valve
springs will last longer.

Marty

--
not smart enough for a relevant signature