plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
SVENNE BRAATEN
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
>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
: I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
edman
: 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
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
>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
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
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
Ever hear of the Quad 4???
You must be stuck back in the '70's.......
Joshua J Head
: 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 !
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
>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
> 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
: I don't see why anybody would want to drive an american car. Any european,
: 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
>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
>>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
- 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
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 $19,000 LT1 Camaro will come damn close.....and with a
Lingenfelter intake duct on that Camaro (perhaps some headers) will
outperform a LT1 Vette....for LESS.
TheNig...@bah.com
>says:
>>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm. Jap. engine
>>: (Honda V-tec, for example) has as much horsepower as an american engine
>>: three times it's size.
>>
can the honda experts out there do me a favor? an acquaintance of mine just
bought a new acura integra and I was curious as to why [as listed in Consumer
Guides] the available engines are rated as follows:
base engine: 129 hp with 127 ft-lbs of torque and the all-mighty
vtec engine: 170 hp with 128 ft-lbs of torque.
only 1 ft-lb of torque difference? where's the difference in performance, at
75 mph when you want to pass someone? who cares? I want to step on the gas
pedal and feel my guts being sucked back into the seat.
Marty Bose
->In article <3hkck2$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
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 $33.000, 5.7 and 14.1 for the
Vette. Handles better too.
Richard Doughty MS-110
To the original poster,
When your little import has 425 hp/410 ft lbs bone stock then you can talk....but
all you did with this post was expose you lack of knowledge about cars for all to see.
Richard
9.422@142
Donnie James Poe
> In article <3hkck2$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
>>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
>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
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
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
>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
>From: gash...@mtu.edu (Gearhead Gary)
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>: 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
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
KENT A ROGERS
>From: sve...@oleg.hiof.no (SVENNE BRAATEN)
>Subject: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:23:35
>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
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
S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz
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
: ->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
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
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
>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
>From: sdba...@cca.rockwell.com (Scott D. Bartholomay)
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>In article <EWZ.364....@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV>, E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV
>(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
>From: jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127)
>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
>From: bs...@po.cwru.edu (Brian Lucas)
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>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
>
>>: Amcars get nothing out of their huge engine volumes. A 1600 ccm.
>>: 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...
>>
>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
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
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
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
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
>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
> 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
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
>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
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
: 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
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
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
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
the Ford modular V8? <G>
Dirk Broer
>
>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
>Subject: Re: plenty of substitutes for cubic inches
>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
>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
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
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
Torrey Breeden
>
>>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.
>
Another thought is that the luxury cars are starting to use the 4 valves
on their engins. Mercedes uses a DOHC/4valve head on their S-series
sedans which are 5.x liters. The FoMoCo uses the same on their newer
Lincolns. There must be some advantage. It would reason that there might
be a more responsive throttle if the air is moving at a higher velocity.
Kelly Murray
My understanding is the two valves increase the air flow,
by giving more valve area, but at the same time increase velocity
since you've got two smaller ports verse one huge one.
The other factor is that with two smaller, lighter valves instead
of one, you can rev the engine higher without getting valve float.
Having more than one cam I believe is simply because the
the intake and exhaust valves are not in the same plane,
so you need a cam for each.
I believe high-rpm motorcycle engines have used multi-valve,
overhead cams designs for a long time.
--
-Kelly Murray (k...@prl.ufl.edu) <a href="http://www.prl.ufl.edu">
-University of Florida Parallel Research Lab </a>
Eric M. Webb
>From: James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG>
>Subject: Re: Camaro and Corvette LT1
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:30:32 -0800
>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.
Excuse me? Dividing 33 by 21 does not equal two.
> 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.
Excuse me? Dividing 33 by 21 does not equal two.
>>
>> 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.
You can't fit the same size intake into the Camaro. Plus, the Corvette
LT1 has a longer duration camshaft with higher lift than the Camaro -
especially the 92 camshaft. It better exploits intake air increases. Also,
new headers and exhaust systems are not required for the Corvette - stock is
just fine.
So what is the ratio now 27/33? And still slower.
>>
>> 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.
As the ratio decreases once more.
> 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....
Huh?
>>
>> 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.
> 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.
Yep. You have to pay a bit more to get a real car :-)
>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.
Fact of the matter is stock Corvettes are more than smoking stock Camaros.
Again, 40 does not equal 33. What kind of math are they teaching these days?
> 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.
Howls of uncontrollable laughter :-) And I suppose the new Mustang pastes the
Camaro ? :-)
>> 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.
I said stock to stock. But, give us both $4K, and I'll buy a blower and you
can prepare the Camaro to be able to exploit a supercharger :-)
>>
>> 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.
The orignial thread posed the following question: What other $33k car compares
to the Corvette. So far, no answer. And I love waxing the $40K+plus cars
too. I just prefer doing it in America's only true sports car - Corvette.
All in good fun :-)
Eric M. Webb
>From: James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG>
>On 16 Feb 1995, gallant wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 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.
pre-LT1 Corvettes might as well be designated a previous generation. There is
no comparison in handling, shifting, and power.
And a low-end $33k Corvette is a bargain.
it's only a flesh wound
James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG> wrote:
>
>
>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
You, sir, have to get your head out of your ass. YOU must read one
of those artices CAREFULLY, not just looking at the numbers at the end, and
jumping up and down while you chant my '93 Camaro can beat a Hurst/Olds!!!'
Many of us take all those C+D Retrospect numbers with a grain of salt
because 95% of them are run on OE tires. Let's see an LT1 vette run a 13.5
on minispares. Perhaps sometime you should leave the warmth and serenity
of your colon and actually head to the dragstrip. You'll notice that old
cars run pretty damned respectably, even in stock form. I'm not saying
that ANYTHING from the late 60s will beat ANYTHING from the present but
you'd be surprised to see some very close to stock musclecars turning high
12s/low 13s.
As far as handling goes, there was an aticle in Car Craft about a year ago
that featured a 64 GTO that outhandled a ZR-1! The suspension was modified
but they claimed that the GTO even rode betterthan the vette. Other than
the tires, the mods to the suspension were less than $3k.
>
>At the very least, let's see the GSX do it on modern crappy PUMP gas, and
>get 25MPG while it's at it.
>
>
Stick some well tuned fuel injection on it and an overdrive tranny in it
and a GSX will get damned close to 25 mpg (with a small block, of course).
Lets see a new Geo-on-testosterone Camaro turn heads like a GSX
--
"There's someone in my head, but it's not me"
-Pink Floyd
Eric M. Webb
>From: James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG>
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:30:32 -0800
I have strayed from my original intent to suggest that, compared to more
expensive sports car imports, a $33K Corvette was a great deal. Of course,
even that isn't sticking to the charter of hotrods (although subsequent
modification discussions were closer).
So, for the record, we all know that one can extract much more horses and
pounds of feet than in stock 350s - in whatever chassis. There is enough
ragging among GM, Ford, Chrysler, and Import lovers. The last thing this
group needs is Chevy lovers eating their own young :-)
Apologies for creating flame bait.
Hey, on the way to the eye doctor this morning, I saw a real live purple
Superbird! Yep, wing and all.
Eric M. Webb
>From: pdu...@mitre.org (Pete Dunton)
>Subject: Re: Camaro and Corvette LT1
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:28:16
>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.
I'll assume you're referring to the 92 to present LT1 rather than the LT-1
built in 1970.
The camshaft profiles are different as are the ECM fuel control modules.
>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?
Sure, from John Lingenfelter's bench and track testing. But this is not a
problem of design but of manufacturing. As every engine is not balanced and
blueprinted, and variations in suspension action vary, there will always be a
horsepower curve for mass-produced automobiles. Marketing decides what
numbers to advertize.
It is entirely possible for someone to drive a 280 hp Camaro and a 280 hp
Corvette off the same lot on the same day. It simply isn't likely.
Take 100 Yadas and benchmark them and plot the numbers. As the Yadas are made
on an assembly line, some produce 120 hp, some 150 hp, and some 170 hp. If
the manufacturing process is essentially sound, one would expect a normal
distribution with 120 and 170 being outliers (or some measure of standard
deviation, if you like).
Now you can claim any point and be truthful. But the competition may assist
your definition of the truth. If you also make Yahoos advertized at 120 hp,
it might be wise to claim 140 hp. If you compete against another company
producing Xanadus with claims of 155 hp, it might be smart to claim 165 hp.
Lingenfelter, and others, will balance and blueprint engines for you. And
he'll run them down the 1320 for you too. His conclusions suggest that, of
the cars bought or submitted by his company, the Camaros tend to average
about 260hp and the Corvettes about 315hp. After balancing and blueprinting
alone, he claims 280 and 330 respectively.
Of course, then JL will be glad to massage much more performance from either
or both cars :-)
>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.
DAMN good point - especially because I researched this myself. Insurance for
"sport" vehicles is graduated on a power/weight basis. When the LT1 first
arrived, and I traded my L98 for one, State Farm would not cover the vehicle
because it exceeded their ratio (despite the car having traction control -
that can be disabled with a switch).
The Camaro is only 150lbs heavier than the Corvette. If GM had installed
a 300 hp engine, insurance would have been closer to that of the Corvette. GM
lobbies the major insurance companies before a car hits the streets. The last
thing you want is lots of inventory that people couldn't purchase for only
insurance cost reasons.
> 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.
The Corvette body changed in 91 to have a rounded rear fascia with oval
instead of round taillights. Also, the front turn and fog lights wrap around
the front end. The gill slits changed and the black body molding disappeared.
Personally, I don't think the current Corvette needs a body change. It's
already the best looking production sports car made. Don't even try to sell
me on the looks of the Insect versus the looks of the Corvette :-).
>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).
NOT. Again the engine is the LT1 not the old LT-1. And if you think the
Corvette's straight line acceleration and handling are similar, you must be
confusing the Camaro back seat and solid axle with the 4-link independent
Corvette suspension. Evidently you haven't driven both, or raced either.
>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.
If you have to ask, don't drive a Corvette :-)
>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.
In other words, the most bang for the buck? I agree :-) Couldn't say it
better.
Talk to you later, Pete.
S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz
S.I.Le...@massey.ac.nz writes:
Can't recall writing this. Don't even like these jelly mold, out of fashion
next year, faster than ever cars. Give me some chrome and fins like the cars
I used to own when I was a teenager. To hell with "hi-tech", screaming,
multi valve,blah blah engines. Laid back is where its at!.
>>>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
STANGL T
ago
>that featured a 64 GTO that outhandled a ZR-1! The suspension was
modified
>but they claimed that the GTO even rode betterthan the vette. Other than
>the tires, the mods to the suspension were less than $3k.
I remeber this - they used either 1 1/8 or 1 1/4" swaybars, high pressure
gas shocks, and REAL soft shocks. It gave a 1.1g cornering (YES, ONE
POINT ONE!!!) load, but softer-than-stock-or-Corvette ride.
svr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov
>Apologies for creating flame bait.
>Eric Webb / Lockheed Martin / RTP, N.C.
>92 Corvette LT1, 68 Camaro Rat, 86 Mazda 626 Turbo, 79 Ford F150
But you're so good at it!
TODD
Eric A. Sproul
:pedal and feel my guts being sucked back into the seat.
Then I suggest something like the 455 V-8 that I've got in my '67 Firebird.
There's nothing like the feeling when that 4-barrel carb kicks in and
you just hang on! I guarantee you'll have your guts rearranged...
:-)
Cheers,
--
Eric Sproul, a.k.a. Eric the Red Check out The Orchard:
esp...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (W&L '96) The Happy Apples Home Page
-------> http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/~esproul/apples.html <--------
Ducharme Simon Zachary *
is an extra vehicle, I want to turn it into a project truck. I would
like to drop in a bigger engine, preferably a 302 or 351 Ford. I was
wondering if this would require installing a new transmission and rear
end, and a custom drive shaft, or would the equipment already in place
handle the job. Also, could anyone recommend a swap kit. I have seen a
few ads for companies in Street Truck magazine.
Zac.
Eric Typpo
> compares to the Corvette. So far, no answer.
A RX-7 compares rather nicely.
Jon Dubovsky
In article <colema...@aston.ac.uk>, cole...@aston.ac.uk (M.D.COLEMAN) says:
>In article <marty_bose-16...@mbmac.bdt.com> marty...@bdt.com (Marty Bose) writes:
>>In article <3hu29h$q...@gatekeeper.svl.trw.com>, e08...@sparc55.svl.trw.com
>>-In article <marty_bose-13...@mbmac.bdt.com>,
>>marty...@bdt.com (Marty Bose) writes:
[bunch o stuff deleted because we've gotten way off topic, and I'm
continuing that tradition]
>McLaren F1 is a new car built in the UK for a cost of œ650,000 ($980,000).
>It has a 6 litre normally aspirated BMW motor, which I think is a V-12 or V-
>8. I do recall it puts out somewhere around the 500-600 horse level. It has
>a titanium tool kit, and has 18 carat gold as a heat shield on the bulkhead (
>firewall). It is the fastest and best handling production car in the world,
>ahead of Bugatti Jag XJ220. It has not radio (the designed doesn't like
>them) andthe driver sits in the middle.
Hey, the Bugatti is a lead slead. A great car, mind you, but is way
too heavy to be as exciting as the F1. The BMW V12 will turn out the
horses, but you won't see this car in the US (crash-test regulations are
tough to meet when barely make enough a year to call it "production").
> Formula 1 cars are like Indy cars but are lighter and not quite as fast
>as they have engines llimited to normally aspirated 3 litre V-8's. I think
>teh Indy cars ar all supercharged , I could be wrong on that.
Turbo (boost is limited by race regulations -- pop-off valves on the
boost systems). That's why acceleration off the line is tough for an
Indy car... you've really got to jam the throttle to get the turbo spinning
and then light the tires up until you can make many thousand RPM at
speed... now _that's_ a car.
Does anyone out there know the engines Formula guys use? I've
heard V10, V8, and V6. I know they're normally asiprated, but that's
about the extent of it...
-jld (jdub...@vt.edu)
Ken Mosher
E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb) writes:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95021...@PEAK.ORG> James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
> >From: James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG>
> >Subject: Re: Camaro and Corvette LT1
> >Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 23:30:32 -0800
>
> > 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....
>
Well, to answer the question ... not bad. I know of several 100+ mile
GN/TRs running around. Two in particular in the local club ... one has
115K miles and turned a 12.75 at the track last year (new GM
refurbished turbo ... $400). The original turbo had a *STICK* ( and
god knows what else) shoved thru the impeller blades because the first
owner was a dufus. New turbo, some tuning, new fuel pump, sticky tires
and off to the track! This was a car that had a HARD life before the
current owner. By the end of the year, he had to have the tranny
rebuilt, but I guess that can be expected with a high mileage car like
that.
Another, an '86 GN has 130K+ on it now ... it's been autocrossed (what
a kill!) and drag raced from day one. Never had the valve covers off,
original turbo. Turns consistent 12.90s at the track. The owner
concedes it's time for at least some valve springs, since the valves
are starting to float just before it shifts at 4800 rpm. He's also had
the tranny rebuilt (twice).
The point? The GN/TRs aren't any worse than most American cars of the
era. Parts are available ... many engine parts are shared with the
gabillions of naturally aspirated 3.8s made since 1978, and
body/driveline parts are shared with many G bodys (Olds Cutlass,
Pontiac Grand Prix, Chevy Malibu, other models of Buick Regals).
Sensors and stuff are standard GM issue. Engine parts that are special
are easily found from the many aftermarket suppliers of Buick
performance parts. Even Summit and Jegs carry some of the basics, like
timing gears/chains, pushrods, etc.
I'll concede that parts were NEVER as available as the venerable small
block parts, but I'll bet that LT1 parts aren't as easy to get either.
Even when the car was new, I couldn't walk into Stupor Shops and buy
stuff for the Buicks....
Ken Mosher (ken_m...@sterling.com)
Buick Grand National: "... A *BOOST* of Buick Performance! ..."
Dirk Broer
>
>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.
True - the average American car is designed for 55mph - and stop and go city
driving. Torque is king. Also note that Automatic transmissions are much
more popular in the US than abroad (although this may be changing). Automatic
equiped cars typically have to make power as low as 1000 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.
Ask anyone who owns a ZR-1 corvette. At the right rpm its a killer - but at
low rpm, cannon fodder for the average 5.0 mustang/camaro etc. In the stop-light
wars the ZR-1 needs to rev higher to win.
>
>The point being that it takes more force to overcome the inertia of more
>camshafts and valve stationary weight. Pushrod engines are generally better
The inertia of the camshafts is trivial when compared to that of the flywheel which
in tern is trivial when compared to the mass of the car.
>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.
Hog wash. The valve train is a recipricating assembly. Meaning the valve itself
must accelerate, stop, accelerate the other way, stop etc... In one direction
this is forced by the cam - in the other it is done by valve springs (standard
OHV anyway). The vavlve spring must accelerate the valve, keeper, retainer,
rocker arm, push rod, lifter. At 8000rpm this could be a problem. The overhead
cam engine may have a rocker arm but in general you do away with the rocker arm,
pushrod, lifter etc. esp with 4 valve engines (there is a lifter of sorts that
follows the cam lobe). Also with 4-vavles - each individual valve is lighter -
requireing a lighter spriing. End result is less friction (due to lower spring
pressures) and more rpm capability (due to lower intertia). Reliability is
compromised but as millions of modern cars testify, you can live with it.
>
>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).
Early in the race the motors can easily reach 7800rpm and maintain it. Near the end
the end, the overstressed valve springs will no longer allow that kind of rpm.
Not to mention Daytona is a restrictor plate race. Due to the high restriction
in the intake manifolds these motors normally run 45psi oil pressure (the absolute
minimum they can get away with) and 15:1 compression - every 1/4 hp. counts.
>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.
Total valve area dictates how much air can flow into a cylinder. 4 valves can
more efficiently use up the cylinder's combustion chamber. Remember, when a
valve is open, the open area is equal to the _circumfrence_ * height. So if you
have normally two 2" valves you may be able to install 4 1.5" valves. Add to this
the fact that the spark plug goes right in the middle - for the best burn possible.
As I mentioned before, the total recipricating mass is less. Thanks to the valves,
the high rpm breathing is better. Ultimately you've just upped the rpm range.
Assuming torque is directly proportional to how much air gets into a cylinder
(volumetric efficiency) and the fact that HP = Torque * rpm / 5252 - you can
see that upping the rpm will directly increase the horsepower.
Dirk
PaceCarNut
Somewhere along this flamin thread between the Camaro & Vette LT1's,
someone said that it was unlikely that someone bought and rolled off the
showroom one of each of the above. Well, in early 1993 my sister bought a
'92 Vette and 10 days later I took delivery of my '93 Indy 500 Pace Car.
Now, to this date I still can not beat her in the dead off the line heat,
but she only gets about 1/2 car length on me over the 1/4 mile.
Now to me, the difference of her $38k Vette versus my $22k Camaro, I like
having the extra $16k in my pocket !!!! I think thats what this all
started about.
Just my $.02
Bruce
'93 Indy 500 Pace Car, '87 Monte SS, '78 Vette Pace Car, '82 Indy Pace
Car,
'69 Camaro COPO, & just recently purchased '95 Vette Pace Car.
Pete Dunton
>From: E...@NCCIBM1.RTPNC.EPA.GOV (Eric M. Webb)
>I'll assume you're referring to the 92 to present LT1 rather than the LT-1
>built in 1970.
Of course I am. What point would it serve for me to compare the LT-1 of the
'70 Corvette to the new LT-1 in the Camaro Z-28.
>Sure, from John Lingenfelter's bench and track testing. But this is not a
>problem of design but of manufacturing. As every engine is not balanced and
>blueprinted, and variations in suspension action vary, there will always be a
>horsepower curve for mass-produced automobiles. Marketing decides what
>numbers to advertize.
>It is entirely possible for someone to drive a 280 hp Camaro and a 280 hp
>Corvette off the same lot on the same day. It simply isn't likely.
>Take 100 Yadas and benchmark them and plot the numbers. As the Yadas are
>made on an assembly line, some produce 120 hp, some 150 hp, and some 170
>hp. If the manufacturing process is essentially sound, one would expect a
>normal distribution with 120 and 170 being outliers (or some measure of
>standard deviation, if you like).
>Now you can claim any point and be truthful. But the competition may assist
>your definition of the truth. If you also make Yahoos advertized at 120 hp,
>it might be wise to claim 140 hp. If you compete against another company
>producing Xanadus with claims of 155 hp, it might be smart to claim 165 hp.
>Lingenfelter, and others, will balance and blueprint engines for you. And
>he'll run them down the 1320 for you too. His conclusions suggest that, of
>the cars bought or submitted by his company, the Camaros tend to average
>about 260hp and the Corvettes about 315hp. After balancing and blueprinting
>alone, he claims 280 and 330 respectively.
>Of course, then JL will be glad to massage much more performance from either
>or both cars :-)
GM has everything to lose by overrating the new Z-28's output and nothing to
gain by it. That is why the new Camaro Z-28's average output on a rear
wheel dyno is 275 hp. I think you are a little upset that you payed over $30K
for a '92 Corvette only to find in the next year ('93) that a LT-1 was
available in a $17K Camaro Z-28 with almost the same performance as your
Corvette.
>The Corvette body changed in 91 to have a rounded rear fascia with oval
>instead of round taillights. Also, the front turn and fog lights wrap around
>the front end. The gill slits changed and the black body molding disappeared.
That was not a body change in '91 that was a slight (and I mean a slight
update). The new '95 Corvette has the same general body style as
the '84 Corvette. Put a '95 Corvette side-by-side to a '84 Corvette and the
average Joe on the street could not tell the difference, however we could.
>Personally, I don't think the current Corvette needs a body change. It's
>already the best looking production sports car made. Don't even try to sell
>me on the looks of the Insect versus the looks of the Corvette :-).
Agreed the '84 to current Corvette body style is one of the best ever made
however it is now a little dated. The '63 to '67 Corvette body design
was also one the best looking body styles ever produced however they were
changed. Corvette sales the last few years have slumped and a new body style
is needed that is why GM will be introducing a all new Corvette in '97.
>NOT. Again the engine is the LT1 not the old LT-1.
Now are we that picky about hypens. I have seen the new LT-1 ('92 to current)
referred to in many different publications as being LT-1 and LT1, just like I
used to see the L98 called the L-98 and L98, Whats the difference? I prefer
LT-1 so that is the way you will see it typed in my posts.
> And if you think the
>Corvette's straight line acceleration and handling are similar, you must be
>confusing the Camaro back seat and solid axle with the 4-link independent
>Corvette suspension. Evidently you haven't driven both, or raced either.
I have driven them both. The new Z-28 certainly does not drive like the
average solid rear axle car. After driving both a new Corvette and a new
Z-28, (As much as I love the new Corvette) I just could not see dishing out
the extra $10K-$20K for new Corvette when the new Z-28 has near equal
performance. It would be fiscal stupidity. Some of us don't have padded
wallets.
>In other words, the most bang for the buck? I agree :-) Couldn't say it
>better.
Not quite. The Corvette is the most bang for the buck in the 2-seater market
however in the overall performance car market the Corvette just does not hold
a candle to its (more bang for the buck) little brother, the Camaro Z-28. If
the new Z-28 is the poor man's Corvette then I have no problem with being a
poor man.
Regards,
Pete
~name
Organization: IQuest Network Services
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
In article <bluenoteD...@netcom.com>, blue...@netcom.com (Bryan
Hinkle) says:
>
>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.
>
You could take the engine out of both of those fucking rice burners
and put them on a go-cart frame and still could'nt pull up in the
exhaust fumes of my 84 5.0 LITER HIGH OUTPUT 5 SPEED P-TRAC 4BBL
CAMARO Z-28.......... End of story........
Irv Robinson
>>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
There are other differences. Off the top of my head, the Camaro LT1 has
two-bolt main bearing caps, the vette LT1 uses four-bolt caps. The
exhaust manifolds on the cars are also different. The Camaro also has
somewhat shorter effective gearing, largely due to using tires with a smaller
outside diameter.in back. The vette LT1 is factory filled with Mobil-1 oil,
the Camaro with conventional oil.
BTW, the exhaust system on the vette is not "true straight dual". There's
a common resonator between the cats and the mufflers.
James Wood
On 22 Feb 1995, it's only a flesh wound wrote:
> >
> >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
>
> You, sir, have to get your head out of your ass. YOU must read one
No.....YOU are the one who seems to have the affinity for his
bunghole....I figured I'd post "don't flame me" in a peeble attempt to
head off messages like yours......YOUR head is up there so far I'm
surprised you can read. Do you have a window in your stomach so you can
see where you're going?
> of those artices CAREFULLY, not just looking at the numbers at the end, and
> jumping up and down while you chant my '93 Camaro can beat a Hurst/Olds!!!'
No....my 93 Camaro can't beat a Hurst/Olds (in the quarter) because it's
mostly stock. However....It will beat it in any other competition, and
the Final Frontier (quarter) is just a matter of modern hot rods, and
chucking the cat. converters....(They're the only modern aspect I can do
without.
> Many of us take all those C+D Retrospect numbers with a grain of salt
> because 95% of them are run on OE tires. Let's see an LT1 vette run a 13.5
> on minispares. Perhaps sometime you should leave the warmth and serenity
> of your colon and actually head to the dragstrip. You'll notice that old
More of your anal predilections.....Please....save your anal fantasies
for solo activities....or at least with your buddies...off the net.
MINISPARES INDEED! Hah! I suppose your rust bucket could run a 13.5 on
minispares? I suppose when Super Chevy mag. gets a LT1 Camaro into the
13s STOCK and on STOCK (OE) tires? Give it a rest...quit dreaming and
put the kleenex box down and look at what Lingenfelter has been doing
with the modern LT1.
> cars run pretty damned respectably, even in stock form. I'm not saying
> that ANYTHING from the late 60s will beat ANYTHING from the present but
> you'd be surprised to see some very close to stock musclecars turning high
> 12s/low 13s.
>
> As far as handling goes, there was an aticle in Car Craft about a year ago
> that featured a 64 GTO that outhandled a ZR-1! The suspension was modified
> but they claimed that the GTO even rode betterthan the vette. Other than
> the tires, the mods to the suspension were less than $3k.
>
> >
> >At the very least, let's see the GSX do it on modern crappy PUMP gas, and
> >get 25MPG while it's at it.
> >
> >
>
> Stick some well tuned fuel injection on it and an overdrive tranny in it
> and a GSX will get damned close to 25 mpg (with a small block, of course).
> Lets see a new Geo-on-testosterone Camaro turn heads like a GSX
>
Sorry to piss on your campfire...... Your rustbucket won't turn more
heads than a LT1 6-speed with the T-tops off....but I don't really care
about turning heads.... I like a RELIABLE, fast car with a comfortable
interior, minimal squeaks and rattles (Camaros have gotten LOTS better
with this new body; I've had all flavors of the 3rd gen). I want to haul
ass (14 or quicker to start), and I want upgrade options. I want to top
out on the far side of 160, and I want 25 MPG when I'm not....and it has
to get me to the office in the morning. The LT1 Camaro does all of those
things.
Sorry you can't deal with that.
Charlie Irvin
> You could take the engine out of both of those fucking rice burners
> and put them on a go-cart frame and still could'nt pull up in the
> exhaust fumes of my 84 5.0 LITER HIGH OUTPUT 5 SPEED P-TRAC 4BBL
> CAMARO Z-28.......... End of story........
Ok, so you're proud of your car... but don't be stupid. I don't know
what a P-TRAC is, but I do know you're talking about a 305 and
those 305 Camaros might have turned at BEST a 16 or 17 second
quarter mile in 1984... so unless it's bored, stroked, ported and
polished, nitroused, cammed and twin-turbocharged, then you don't
stand a chance. At least make the comparison to a car with
more than 185 horsepower. (yes, that's what those "high-output"
305 4bbls put out.)
Charlie
jfm127
ji...@iquest.net (~name) writes:
> <3hhe9f$s...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <bluenoteD...@netcom.com>
> Organization: IQuest Network Services
> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>
> In article <bluenoteD...@netcom.com>, blue...@netcom.com (Bryan
> Hinkle) says:
> >
> >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
No, I think that you're too full of your "big block" crap to admit
that a 4 cylinder can run with you. Just recently he ran an
11...@122.6MPH WITHOUT NITROUS! BTW, he hasn't had the head or cams
removed and the bottom end is factory original. These 10-11 second
times are with BOLT-ONS!
> >: 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.
Bring it on! Let me put another 4 grand into MY car so the $$$ spent
will be even, then we'll see if you can get lower than 12 sec. BTW,
I haven't touched the engine internals, I've done this with BOLT-ONS.
If you want, I can bore out, polish, and nitrous my engine too tho.
> > 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.
Nope, stock 4 cylinder paper weight is in. Sorry, we'll attach you
real good to HIS bumper when he launches so your piece-of-shit car
won't feel left out. Try not to get too much shit kicked back at you
when he launches with all 4 STREET tires.
> You could take the engine out of both of those fucking rice burners
> and put them on a go-cart frame and still could'nt pull up in the
> exhaust fumes of my 84 5.0 LITER HIGH OUTPUT 5 SPEED P-TRAC 4BBL
> CAMARO Z-28.......... End of story........
>those 305 Camaros might have turned at BEST a 16 or 17 second
>quarter mile in 1984... so unless it's bored, stroked, ported and
>polished, nitroused, cammed and twin-turbocharged, then you don't
>stand a chance. At least make the comparison to a car with
>more than 185 horsepower. (yes, that's what those "high-output"
>305 4bbls put out.)
WOW, 185 horses. I'm REALLY scared now. Please don't beat up on me
with your BIG muscle car? Please don't write back until you get a
semi-fast car. Are you on the right list? This is rod-n-custom,
you're looking for low-tech-n-slow right?
Jim McKenna *jfm...@psu.edu*
Penn State University
*BOOSTED 1990 HKS Laser RS Turbo*
Jon Dubovsky
In article <3ils72$5...@gatekeeper.svl.trw.com>, e08...@sparc55.svl.trw.com (Richard Doughty MS-110) says:
>>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:
>[lots o' stuff deleted]
>Go watch any of the fastest street car shootouts....guess what...there
>is not one 4-banger....WHY??? Because they cant even compete....if
>all these fast little rice burners are out there why dont they ever
>surface at a national shootout???
Hey, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't trade a cubic inch to this
guy, but you are possibly missing one thing. High-performance
non-V8 cars are a whole lot more expensive and require
exponentially more technology to build. Its hard to make a
car go 9.something reliably, but, compared to making a race-
only Formula/Indy/IMSA/etc from the ground up, it's pretty
straightforward. Neither you nor I have the money or know-how
to make such a race car, I'd wager. (yeah, I've seen a lot of
cars on the strip that will run the traps faster than an Indy car,
but I'd bet an Indy team could put together a car that could
hold it's own.) Bottom line, V8 power is simpler, cheaper,
and more surefire, but that doesn't mean a flat-6 959 wouldn't
make some guys sweat if they pulled up next to it... <grin>
-jld (jdub...@vt.edu)
Long Live American Performance
Roland Dishongh
very do able. company out of michigan is the best i think
but the trans and rear end may not take it . buy a complete car if all
possible. wrecked mustang the best. 351 will be the hardest to use but
a 460 can be used also. auto trans the best bet. good luck.
roland
svr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov
jfm...@psu.edu (jfm127) writes:
>In article <D4HM1...@dorite.use.com>
>ji...@iquest.net (~name) writes:
>
>> <3hhe9f$s...@hearst.cac.psu.edu> <bluenoteD...@netcom.com>
>> Organization: IQuest Network Services
>> X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.91.6
>>
>> In article <bluenoteD...@netcom.com>, blue...@netcom.com (Bryan
>> Hinkle) says:
>> >
>> >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
>
>No, I think that you're too full of your "big block" crap to admit
>that a 4 cylinder can run with you. Just recently he ran an
>11...@122.6MPH WITHOUT NITROUS! BTW, he hasn't had the head or cams
>removed and the bottom end is factory original. These 10-11 second
>times are with BOLT-ONS!
>Nope, stock 4 cylinder paper weight is in. Sorry, we'll attach you
>real good to HIS bumper when he launches so your piece-of-shit car
>won't feel left out. Try not to get too much shit kicked back at you
>when he launches with all 4 STREET tires.
>
I've got to back Jim up on these stories about the 4 banger Mitsu's turning
11's in the quarter. I've seen at least two at Norwalk Raceway in Ohio turning
mid-high 11's in the quarter on street tires. No internal engine mods.
either. Pretty amazing. I also have to add that they were both missing
front passenger/rear seats and as lean as could be.
TODD
M.D.COLEMAN
Really high performance racing engines benfit from multi-valve multi-cam set
ups as you get your torque in a much narrower band at the high rpm end.
These guys have to run up and down the ratios so rapidly to get
the mega acceleration that they need max torque in a narrow band all the
time-lots of low end torque in this setting I suppose is no use to them. I
saw another Ferrari, the F130 which is a 48 valve 4.7 litre V-12 which puts
out over 470 bhp and revs to an 11000 redline. It is said that two or
four cams are no less reliable than one provided the oil supply to the
bearings is OK.
Personally, I like the low end torque of a two-valve V-8
as it seamlessly pulls you along in normal traffic with no apparent effort-
and most importantly, you don't need to change gear often. When you need to
floor it, you get plenty of wham even with a three-speed auto. Most of the
European multi-valve V-8s and 12's have 5 and 6 speed 'boxes. Someone else
said that it is good to have two quite large valves-the Mopar 340 cu.in is
a great example of this I have always wanted one, preferably in a Dart GT.
MDC
jfm127
svr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
> >> >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
> >
> >No, I think that you're too full of your "big block" crap to admit
> >that a 4 cylinder can run with you. Just recently he ran an
> >11...@122.6MPH WITHOUT NITROUS! BTW, he hasn't had the head or cams
> >removed and the bottom end is factory original. These 10-11 second
> >times are with BOLT-ONS!
>
> >Nope, stock 4 cylinder paper weight is in. Sorry, we'll attach you
> >real good to HIS bumper when he launches so your piece-of-shit car
> >won't feel left out. Try not to get too much shit kicked back at you
> >when he launches with all 4 STREET tires.
> >
>
> I've got to back Jim up on these stories about the 4 banger Mitsu's turning
> 11's in the quarter. I've seen at least two at Norwalk Raceway in Ohio turning
> mid-high 11's in the quarter on street tires. No internal engine mods.
> either. Pretty amazing. I also have to add that they were both missing
> front passenger/rear seats and as lean as could be.
>
> TODD
Hey, someone who finally makes sense! Yeah, Dave Buschur is the guy
out in Norwalk with the 10-11 second Talon. Amazing to see that
thing launch, huh? He was also in Turbo Magazine about a year or so
back. There are also a few guys in NJ, PA and CA in the 11's. On
May 26 all of these cars (50-100 total) will be at Norwalk Raceway.
BTW, the HP/Weight ratio in Daves car is about .1714 or 5.83 lbs per
HP. That equals 10 second runs no matter what car you drive! For
that H.O. - 21 lbs per HP. ENOUGH SAID!
Charles Copeland
It maybe impressive, but pushing a tiny engine this hard spells
trouble in a short period of time. After they've put 50,000 miles
on these cars give us a report on their repair record, or let us
know if they are even running at all.
Pumping up a V-8 to get these times will shorten its life, but
will last a relatively normal lifetime.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| There are two types of people in this world, those who separate |
| people into groups,and those who don't. KC5LWF cope...@metronet.com|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Randall S Conn
<jam...@PEAK.ORG> writes:
> >From: James Wood <jam...@PEAK.ORG>
(The two above argue about the new Camaro vs the new Corvette)
Ok, so you're saying a new Z28 is between $21k and $28k, and the
new Corvette is between $33k and $100+k? And the 'vette is still
the dominant species? Hah! I beat both of you! The '84 four-speed
'vette is still the better buy. It's got under 100 hp, under 100 ft-lbs
of torque, gets 36+ mpg, has a 0-60 time of 14.8, yet is still priced
at around $2k MINT, and can be found for less than $200 without
dents, and running. This is the best buy in all history, if you ask me...
Oh... forgot to mention something... that's an '84 CHE 'vette.
A little comic relief from all the arguing,
-The Randy Man
jfm127
cope...@fohnix.metronet.com (Charles Copeland) writes:
> It maybe impressive, but pushing a tiny engine this hard spells
> trouble in a short period of time. After they've put 50,000 miles
> on these cars give us a report on their repair record, or let us
> know if they are even running at all.
>
> Pumping up a V-8 to get these times will shorten its life, but
> will last a relatively normal lifetime.
Well, for starters, my car has 94000 miles on it with NO PROBLEMS.
Daves car has well over 450 HP and over 80000 miles with the only
problems being a rear axle or two broken and tranny problems.
Another guy in the 11's with a 80+HP nitrous kit has over 120000
miles with no problems. The engines on these things may be small,
but they're strong as hell! Suspension/drivetrain components give
out WAAAAAAAY before the engine ever will. As for V-8's . . .
PLEASE! Normal??? You MUST be kidding! Why do you think parts are
so readily available for 5.sl0w's and other V8's? Because they break
all the time! My freinds with pumped up 5.sl0w's never come out to
the track with me because they're broken ALL the time! Either that
or they're scared . . . like most 5.sl0w's are after they see me run
:-)
Robert W. Hall
of powerful and fast cars with small engines.
*Nissan Skyline GT-R-- 3.0 liter 6.
*BMW M-3
*Lotus Esprit Turbo
*Toyota Supra Turbo
*Porsche 911
...
--
Robert W. Hall rh...@eecs.umich.edu------------------------
Graduate Student, Computer Science and Engineering---------
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor--------------------
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~rhall
die-cast collector/model builder/restorer/driving enthusiast
/music fan/computer scientist
Robert W. Hall
|>
|> That was not a body change in '91 that was a slight (and I mean a slight
|> update). The new '95 Corvette has the same general body style as
|> the '84 Corvette. Put a '95 Corvette side-by-side to a '84 Corvette and the
|> average Joe on the street could not tell the difference, however we could.
Yes, just plastic fascia/side trim changes. The big changes have been in the
interior.
I would be content to see the current Corvette continue on the '911' path
of continual evolution, not revolution.
Of course, sports car sales have slumped period. All sports cars' sales are
down, I think. The popularity of sport utilities and insurance rates have
cut deeply into the market.
|> I have driven them both. The new Z-28 certainly does not drive like the
|> average solid rear axle car. After driving both a new Corvette and a new
|> Z-28, (As much as I love the new Corvette) I just could not see dishing out
|> the extra $10K-$20K for new Corvette when the new Z-28 has near equal
|> performance. It would be fiscal stupidity. Some of us don't have padded
|> wallets.
|>
When I can afford a car in the Corvettes price range, I would probably
have to go with a more practical, but equally good handling and fast,
alternative such as the BMW M3 because I would have to have a car I
could use daily. I don't think I could live with the Camaro/ Firebird's
lack of headroom and awful interior design.
Rob
Robert W. Hall
to the 'Vette.
Though not as sleek or a two seater, the M-3 is a seriously
entertaining driver's car.
M.D.COLEMAN
>-jld (jdub...@vt.edu)
The fastest ones are Honda V-10's and Cosworth V-8's as well as Renault and
a couple of others. They are as you say normally aspirated as Turbos were
banned about 10 years ago. They are multi-valve per cylinder and do about 3
or 4 to the gallon. They are limited to 3 litre and usually put out between
600-800 hp. The engines cost about $120,000 each and the teams have two or
three, which arrive vacuum packed from the factories. They strip em and
put em back together and use a practice engine for a manic couple of
qualifying laps then a race engine for the real thing. I have never heard of
a sport that costs so much. Active suspension was banned last year as the
cars were getting faster and faster so that the circuits were just not up to
it.
The thing is that last year the best driver in the world, Ayrton
Senna was killed when his steering locked on him. He hit a wall at 150 mph
and the wheel of his car crushed his skull. Barricello crashed and another
guy was killed also. It is bloody dangerous for sure. I don't know how many
guys get killed in Indy, but I wonder if those Ovals are even more dangerous.
Don't fancy it myself,
MDC
^Barnum^
>Bring it on! Let me put another 4 grand into MY car so the $$$ spent
>will be even, then we'll see if you can get lower than 12 sec. BTW,
>I haven't touched the engine internals, I've done this with BOLT-ONS.
> If you want, I can bore out, polish, and nitrous my engine too tho.
you bring your piece of shit next to my sunbird and we'll see what you can
do. BTW, how much would you have to disconnect to reduce your investment to
$4000?
I don't use nitrous, and all my additions (except rear suspension) are bolt-
on.
let's go, pal. ;-D
>Nope, stock 4 cylinder paper weight is in. Sorry, we'll attach you
>real good to HIS bumper when he launches so your piece-of-shit car
>won't feel left out. Try not to get too much shit kicked back at you
>when he launches with all 4 STREET tires.
this is funny. someone want to spank this guy off the track?
where do you live, son? where's the closest track?
>>stand a chance. At least make the comparison to a car with
>>more than 185 horsepower. (yes, that's what those "high-output"
>>305 4bbls put out.)
how about my 275 bhp 'bird, 400 cid?
---
pt {barnum} advice, 5 cents
exu...@exu.ericsson.se no charge for extra sarcasm
GAT au-^- a !p g? s+:- H+ d w+ v- c+ UL++ P? 3- N++ K---- W++ M-- V--
(po+ | po---) Y t+ 5+ jx R G'''' tv- b+ D+++ B- e+ u** h- f r++ n+ y++++
R. Craig Dodson
ARGH ARGH!!) writes:
> hmm... i think you are tryin to justify spending 20k for somethin that can
> be blown away by an $1100 car (shitbox cutlass w/455'll do it easily).
Yeah right. I've got a new 6-speed Formula and I live right near where you go
to school. You just let me know where you want me to meet you and your $1100
Cutlass and I'll give you a quick education in modern muscle cars.
FYI one of the quickest cars I've ever been in was a 68 Cutlass with a 500hp
455, but he had at least $4k in the motor alone. Thinking you can drop an old
station wagon 455 into a beater Cutlass and turn low 14's (or 13's if I take
your "blown away" meaning literally) is a fantasy. You'll either:
a) sit at the line a melt your tires on your way into the high 15's
b) blow up the engine/tranny/diff/axle because you're dealing with a bunch
of old, worn parts (remember $1100 TOTAL investment here)
c) admit you were wrong
Craig Dodson (Stratus Computer)
cdo...@cac.stratus.com
Bryan Hinkle
: Yeah, a little more. I bought the car used for $5200 and I've put
: about $2000 into it so far. TOTAL = $7200 As for spouting my *big
: block crap* you came into the middle of this little debate so that
: may not apply to you. Let me correct my phrase by saying that you're
: spouting *small block crap* :-) It's really easy to run a 12 second
: flat when your using a big cu. in. engine or port and bore the hell
: out of it. It takes a little creativity tho to run a 10, 11, or 12
: with a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder while maintaining perfect drivability and
: flawless reliability. This subject isn't about who's car is fastest,
: it's just about the fact that there are other things out there that
: can keep up with guys running big block engines. Do you run your
: Nova on the street?
Damn right I run it on the street ,I built it as a street
project after all.And your an idiot if you don't think it takes
some creativity to run into the 10's in anything thats streetable.
As for guys keeping up with v-eights well some of us have been
watching people do that with Vws and other things since 1970 or
so.Big deal
: > 3. Bring either one or both of the cars you mention on and
: > I'll quite willingly run them as many times as you guys care to.
: That's fine. Englishtown on the 12th of March.
Sears Point or Sacto on any Weds or Sat night ,this becomes a
moot point since we seem to be on opposite coasts.
: Sure, once you reach a certain point, your engine won't cut it
: anymore either.
Yeah and that point is far far after the point in which
you whizbang turbo four has gone WWWHHHIIIZZZ BANG!!!!!
: Those have been improved too. Happen to see the Archer Brother's AWD
: Talon in SCCA racing? Not only have they taken first in their class
: for 5 years straight, but the regularly beat class A Porches,
: Camaros, Vette's, and others which sometimes have almost twice the
: HP. Why? Because they handle so great too.
And I regularly give 'em credit and get a laugh at them
beating the big bucks guys ,but then I've been watching the
Archers ever since their sport truck days.
: That's fine. You have a fast car. Whooptie doo. Way off the whole
: point tho. BTW, he'll be in the 10's soon on street tires and no
: nitrous or engine work...through the muffler.
No I think that is the WHOLE point ,you jumped in here
Bubba and started in about how your Lamer and your Buddies Talcum
(powder puff car that it is) could eat any v-8 alive ,this is
patently untrue just as the reverse is untrue.IF your car
runs mid 12s well around here you would have your way with
the 5.0 and IROC crowd but thats about it ,to run with the
REALLY big dogs in a street environment out here a HELL of a lot
more than that what with things like 530 inch street Anglias ,
blown alcohol burning Hemi-Cudas ,endless rat motored chevies
of various types and some seriously twisted Ford types stuffing
all sorts of things into 5.0s and t-Birds.
Me I like sleepers ,it's a kick to drive around in a low
10 second car that doesn't look it ,you'd have to look under
it or maybe notice how much tire it carries to even guess other
than that the tach and the 'cage are the only giveaways.Anyway
it has yet to beaten by ANY 4 or 6 cylinder motored car ,all
this means is that I haven't run into the right one yet just like
it seems that you haven't been hammered by a serious v-8 car
yet note that YET in both cases ,thats the nature of it all
sooner or later there is always someone quicker.
B.
ar...@vax.rhodes.edu
> Speaking of substitutes for cubic inches- I can think of plenty
> of powerful and fast cars with small engines.
>
> *Nissan Skyline GT-R-- 3.0 liter 6.
>
> *BMW M-3
>
> *Lotus Esprit Turbo
>
> *Toyota Supra Turbo
>
> *Porsche 911
> ...
>
> --
How about Rx-7?... 255 hp stock from a 1.3l... ouch... 0-60 in 4.9
totally stock.
Taylor Armstron
ar...@Rhodes.edu
Torrey Breeden
>>Well, for starters, my car has 94000 miles on it with NO PROBLEMS.
>>Daves car has well over 450 HP and over 80000 miles with the only
>>problems being a rear axle or two broken and tranny problems.
>
>Two axles and at least one tranny ... doesn't spell trouble free.
>
>>Another guy in the 11's with a 80+HP nitrous kit has over 120000
>>miles with no problems. The engines on these things may be small,
>>but they're strong as hell! Suspension/drivetrain components give
>>out WAAAAAAAY before the engine ever will. As for V-8's . . .
>>PLEASE! Normal??? You MUST be kidding! Why do you think parts are
>>so readily available for 5.sl0w's and other V8's? Because they break
>>all the time! My freinds with pumped up 5.sl0w's never come out to
>>the track with me because they're broken ALL the time! Either that
>>or they're scared . . . like most 5.sl0w's are after they see me run
>
>My 5.0 has 70,000 miles. I put a paxton supercharger on at 20,000.
>No broken axles. No broken trannys. Engine is perfect.
>
>11 second mustangs are common. 10 second mustangs are common.
>9 second mustangs common. There are a few 8 second mustangs.
>At least two 7 second mustangs as of to date.
I keep seeing all this TALK about superpower from a small car. I want
someone to explain the design of one of these things to add credibility
to the claims! If you can do it to a 4 cylinder.......