1/4 mile acceleration : Old school vs New School [Archive]

NoOne

09-17-2003, 10:53 AM

Don't know how many of you guys hit the drags, but this is just a comment.
I've had quite a few '60's & 70's musclecars - mopars, chevys and a few pontiacs - and a few street rods, some faster than others, fastest was a '70 roadrunner - 440cid, rollercam big holly carb...all the proper go fast, make noise stuff, best track time was 10.85@ 131mph.
Now the point i'm slowly getting to, is that these "new school" ricers- no offence intended - are doing similar e.t.'s, better fuel economy, way more reliability, 600lbs of stereo, and they don't shake the crap outta you when your sitting at a stoplight.
I'm between hot cars right now - wife giving me the "not practical with the kids" speech;) - but I really do see a rice burner in my future, especially when I consider the insane prices of older cars lately.
Any comments are welcome.

Egg Nog

09-17-2003, 06:32 PM

Well, that certainly depends on your definition of "Ricer". A true Ricer doesn't goes fast at all... his only mods are visual, except for possible a fart cannon exhaust and a chromed intake. Other than that, it's all spoilers, stickers, paint, and bodykit.

Anyway, ricemobiles aren't great drag racers. The best of the best drag racers have always been (and likely always will be) are the v8 American Muscle cars. Of course, this isn't stock. I'm talking about the best of the heap, street legal or not. I've seen Mustangs, Firebirds, and Camaros that run mid 7s to low 8s with horsepower in the high 900s. The fastest I've ever seen an import do with a similar power levels is high 9s with 1060 horses. Anyway...

However, imports in general can be totally awesome :). I'm a huge fan of all the new-age Japanese Sports cars, as long as they're not tastelessly overdone without even touching the engine. Stock looks best to me, and money is well spent on power gainers. Definately a better choice for the street, and for a daily driver in general.

NoOne

09-18-2003, 06:04 AM

Good points, but around here there are as many "ricers" that run quick as there are the ones just looking the part. I've seen more than a few running mid 11's to bottom 12's with vortec superchargers, ECM, head and exhaust work.

I'm genuinely impressed and after having a few rides i'm also really surprised with these cars, they don't have that initial off the line torque like a big block musclecar.... but they accelerate like mad after that.

It's almost like its achieving the similar results thru finesse instead of just raw power..... and the best part is you don't shit your pants if you see a corner rapidly approaching :p .

I know what you are talking about with the 7, 8, 9 second cars.... but i'm a firm believer that real cars don't ride on trailers, they strut thru the gates on their own rubber.

Egg Nog

09-21-2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by NoOne
i'm a firm believer that real cars don't ride on trailers, they strut thru the gates on their own rubber.

I love that line. :) I'm totally going to quote you on that someday :)

Prowl

09-26-2003, 04:15 PM

Egg Nog, you summed it up right there. to many of these ricers (no offense, the I-6 Japanesse cars are awesome) are all show and no go. i hate the huge front spoilers that are on some, you don't get that on muscle cars. What is this front downforce of which you speak? the car should be trick on the track, not when it's parked, who needs neon, a stereo, or a dvd player when you have a car that can do a wheelie?

Prowl

09-26-2003, 04:16 PM

btw NoOne, what all has been modified on your Roadrunner?

Egg Nog

09-26-2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Prowl
...the car should be trick on the track, not when it's parked, who needs neon, a stereo, or a dvd player when you have a car that can do a wheelie?

Totally :)

A 600hp stereo ;)

NoOne

09-27-2003, 06:33 AM

btw NoOne, what all has been modified on your Roadrunner?

Sadly I don't own this car anymore, had to sell it :(

It is a 1970 Plymouth Roadrunner, factory 440cid, Holley 850 cfm double pump carb, NOS 125hp powershot nitrous system , 2 Holley "blue" fuel pumps 1 dedicated for nitrous runs to avoid detonation, weiand team G aluminum intake, Isky .620 lift camshaft, heads were ported, polished, 5 angle valve job, battleship valve springs. Hedman headers leading to 2 1/2" exhaust.

It ran 9.4 to 1 compression, factory 727 tranny, out to 4.10's in a Dana 60. Frame was tied, 6 cylinder torsion bar suspension out front ( for weight transfer) and Mopar performance super stock springs outback with "B" body adapters. Wheel wells were "boxed" to allow a 13 1/2 inch slick.

Best E.T. without nitrous was 10.85@131mph
Best E.T. with nitrous was 10.22@144mph, problem was the engine would be sinning at 7200 rpm going thru the traps.

But the very best part was it always drove to the track and back home without any problem. It rode a trailer only once, down to the Mopar Nationals down in Columbus Ohio several yrs ago, only out of practicality. :D

Anything else that I missed out please just ask :cool:

Later

BiTurbo

09-29-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by NoOne
Sadly I don't own this car anymore, had to sell it :(

It is a 1970 Plymouth Roadrunner, factory 440cid, Holley 850 cfm double pump carb, NOS 125hp powershot nitrous system , 2 Holley "blue" fuel pumps 1 dedicated for nitrous runs to avoid detonation, tranny, out to 4.10's in a Dana 60. Frame was tied, 6 cylinder torsion bar suspension out front ( for weight transfer) and Mopar performance super stock springs outback with "B" body adapters. Wheel wells were "boxed" to allow a 13 1/2 inch slick.

Best E.T. without nitrous was 10.85@131mph
Best E.T. with nitrous was 10.22@144mph, problem was the engine would be sinning at 7200 rpm going thru the traps.

But the very best part was it always drove to the track and back home without any problem. It rode a trailer only once, down to the Mopar Nationals down in Columbus Ohio several yrs ago, only out of practicality. :D

Anything else that I missed out please just ask :cool:

Later

F...k me - that's one hell of a sexy car.

Make very sure that your kids don't forget their automotive roots.

NoOne

09-30-2003, 08:14 AM

Thanx, what usually doesn't get mentioned with older cars is that no matter how cool or sexy people think they look.... they got a ton of hidden problems, that 'runner for example had squeeks and rattles I never could track down, the windows would leak when I washed it if I had the hose at the wrong angle, exterior trim was lifting due to the body twisting from heavy launches down the track.... and if all that wasn't enough ... it had that electrical burning smell, its hard to describe but once you smell it you won't forget it :D

Later.

BiTurbo

09-30-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by NoOne
Thanx, what usually doesn't get mentioned with older cars is that no matter how cool or sexy people think they look.... they got a ton of hidden problems, that 'runner for example had squeeks and rattles I never could track down, the windows would leak when I washed it if I had the hose at the wrong angle, exterior trim was lifting due to the body twisting from heavy launches down the track.... and if all that wasn't enough ... it had that electrical burning smell, its hard to describe but once you smell it you won't forget it :D

Later.

I agree,
but - there's always a but -
As a car fanatic I have developed a herd mentality and tend to associate with others of my kind.
My neighbour is a Landrover freak and has owned nothing else in the 11 years I've known him.
Everyone of the problems you mentioned have been duplicated in the 3 Discovery's he's owned. -
A rattle in the passenger side sill that could not be traced within the two year warranty - it drove him mad.
Headlights that would fog whenever he washed the car.
A split along the (plastic?) trim under the window within 6 months of picking up his 2nd Disco and in one of his earliest Landrovers he was unable to trace a headlight fault (turned out to be 2 faults).
Problems like these in cars manufactured 30 years ago, you can live with, it's part of their charm.:).
With the absence of ABS, PBS, ESP, HDC, DOHC's, traction control and fuel injection (Holley's rule) most people can work on an early model car - and at least get it running -
most of the time.

NoOne

10-02-2003, 06:44 AM

Ain't that the truth .... I've got squeeks and rattles in the wife's Windstar minivan that I can't find .... I think they build them into the cars to make you a frequent visitor to the dealership. :D

This is the only pic I have on my 'puter of the Roadrunner , its a poor pic , but until I get a scanner it'll have to do

Falcon500

10-06-2003, 07:27 AM

Its charicter thats why i like them older cars as well! and your right while lacking a lot of technology their quite simple to work on yourself though DOHC can be worked on it just not nice (damn english cars) and fuel injection is easy when you have the right gear (somthning im lacking) and i dont quite agree on the holley rule statement i quite firmly stand by webbers and DeLortos as my choice.
Like in my old mans studebaker its got a draft in it we cant fix the quad honda motor bike carbie set up (custom) is great! but the modern fuel corrodes the rubber and platic internals. The bolt hat holds down the passenger side Buckle for the seat belt is too close to the exaust and ive brunt mself on it once but its all character is a fantasic car!
And why get a modern rice rocket? why not get an older one? they have charicter also and you can tune them up so they fair move and you can still get decent fuel eccomeny around town eg my old mans 69 datsun 1000 41.5 mpg! and it can move like a dog shot in the arse when you floor it!

16-4Veyron

10-06-2003, 06:08 PM

hahaha, i forgot where i read this but u just reminded me of it. its great.

it has a 1000ci engine with 8 superchargers, 4 turbos, and a 500 shot of NOS. It does the quarter in 2.6 sec @ 600mph.

16-4Veyron

10-08-2003, 09:08 PM

by the way, im not a dumbass, i no its a joke

crisis

10-08-2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by NoOne

I'm between hot cars right now - wife giving me the "not practical with the kids" speech;) - but I really do see a rice burner in my future, especially when I consider the insane prices of older cars lately.
Any comments are welcome.
One problem with Jap cars is that despite the performance you are able to squeeze from them, they are generally small to medium sized at best. If the missus wants a car for her and the kids you wont find much in the way of perfomance oriented cars that can accomadate comfortably from Asia.

mechanixfetch

10-10-2003, 05:55 PM

Why not try a 4 door Gs-r They did come in 4 door didn't they? of an Rx-8 it has 4 doors all be it 2 are suicide doors.

Egg Nog

10-12-2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by crisis
If the missus wants a car for her and the kids you wont find much in the way of perfomance oriented cars that can accomadate comfortably from Asia.

Infinity Q45? Acura TL 3.2S? Nissan Maxima? Honda Accord V6?

NoOne

10-12-2003, 05:46 AM

Thanx for the input guys, but I think i've almost made up my mind, A Tahoe/Yukon for family outings (3 kids, the wife and myself), and something for myself ... not sure what yet ....tho the RX 8 really does appeal to me.

I should have mentioned the garage currently holds a 2000 Ford Windstar and a 1998 Hyundai Tiburan. I'm tired of both ... especially the van , as it is our 3rd minivan.

My garage used to be a place I wa proud of ..... now it is a shrine to family transportation and practicality. :D

Falcon500

10-12-2003, 06:02 AM

Get a station wagon:rolleyes: what is the skyline one the stagea (kidding of course)
But that seriously is somthing i would suggest a station wagon somthing that you can pack the family into and cart them around with luggage and in you apretime drive it around as a normal vehical. Now heres the hard part for me I know what we have here but not over there if you where here you could get a V8 holden wagon a brand new SS wagon or an Falcon wagon v8 or XR6 but over there i have no idea.
Also there are some euro cars that might be worth looking at puegots fair move though they aint too big and for jap cars one i would suggest is the nissan silvia they arnt brand new but if you look around youll find a good one they fair move and their ok for moving people around (though getting on the small side)

megotmea7

10-12-2003, 05:03 PM

some more japanese "practical" sports sedans are the infinity G35, the lexus IS300(and many other lexus's for that matter), and the new altima and maxima are nice cars bar the fact that they're fwd. im jelous of some of those aus. cars you guys have down there, why dont we have any domestics like that up here...

crisis

10-12-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Egg Nog
Infinity Q45? Acura TL 3.2S? Nissan Maxima? Honda Accord V6?
Do any of these qualify as hot/performance cars. My point is that there are very few Asian performance cars that can effectively double as genuine 4-5 seaters with any degree of comfort.

BiTurbo

10-12-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7

im jelous of some of those aus. cars you guys have down there, why dont we have any domestics like that up here...

Oh yeah - right:rolleyes:

We don't have Dakotas, Rams, Silverados, Vettes, Saleens or Vipers.

I'd be real jealous if I was you.

We're finally building some V8 crew cabs and 4x4's which will give us something to thrash 'outback':)

crisis

10-12-2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
Oh yeah - right:rolleyes:

We don't have Dakotas, Rams, Silverados, Vettes, Saleens or Vipers.

I'd be real jealous if I was you.

We're finally building some V8 crew cabs and 4x4's which will give us something to thrash 'outback':)

What do the yanks have that compares dollar for kw with a SS or XR6T. There are not many cars available from any manufacturers worldwide that can compare with these. There are faster, better built cars available but all for a lot more money. You wont find 230+ kw rear wheel drive large sedans anywhere else.

crisis

10-12-2003, 11:47 PM

One for the Ford fans

megotmea7

10-13-2003, 06:02 PM

man thats what im talking about... we have cadillacs but their FWD with 300hp, i want a RWD car with ~300hp that i can take 4 friends along with a V8 and room for mods...

crisis

10-13-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7
man thats what im talking about... we have cadillacs but their FWD with 300hp, i want a RWD car with ~300hp that i can take 4 friends along with a V8 and room for mods...
The closest you'll get will be a Pontiac GTO which is a two door version of the Commodore. They do have fairly good rear seating for a two door. This is the Oz series three version called a Monaro.

crisis

10-13-2003, 06:36 PM

Just another shot of a HSV enhanced Commodore.

Egg Nog

10-13-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by crisis
The closest you'll get will be a Pontiac GTO which is a two door version of the Commodore. They do have fairly good rear seating for a two door. This is the Oz series three version called a Monaro.

Mercury Marauder? Can you say 300hp RWD sedan? ;)

crisis

10-14-2003, 12:43 AM

A little bland looking but I cant argue with that much HP, V8, RWD and a blower.

Falcon500

10-14-2003, 12:59 AM

I know this is a little off subject but why not a mustang or a F-body? the v6 models wouldent be too far off some of the import stuff for speed and they might actually be a little bit more practical. And the v8 ones would be fine performers just a little thirstier but if your looking at hot hatched and other such speedy jap stuff you wouldent be too much more out of pocket the Mach 1 mustangs get somthing like 24 or so mpg around town i read ill have to double cheak to be sure.

megotmea7

10-14-2003, 01:30 AM

ok aus. is the king of performance sedans...

Falcon500

10-14-2003, 02:48 AM

Yeah but id rather have some performance coupes instead of mostly sedans and very very expensive coupes.

crisis

10-15-2003, 12:40 AM

Dont knock it. Europe has a lot of coupes and a lot of front drive 4cyl.

crisis

10-15-2003, 12:41 AM

Also I wouldnt consider a stock 245kw CV8 overly expensive.

BiTurbo

10-15-2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by megotmea7
ok aus. is the king of performance sedans...
BUT -
not ONE SPORTS CAR.

Falcon500

10-15-2003, 02:12 AM

well our saloons are the worlds most popular class of touring cars so thats saying somthing...

BiTurbo

10-15-2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Falcon500
well our saloons are the worlds most popular class of touring cars so thats saying somthing...
I agree - but,
I WANT A SPORTS CAR!
GM could have done it with the Torana -
Ford could have done it with the Cortina (shudder):D
I WANNA SPORTS CAR and I WANT IT 10years AGO!:mad:

Falcon500

10-16-2003, 12:56 AM

Well have a bolwell nagri.

crisis

10-16-2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
I agree - but,
I WANT A SPORTS CAR!
GM could have done it with the Torana -
Ford could have done it with the Cortina (shudder):D
I WANNA SPORTS CAR and I WANT IT 10years AGO!:mad:
What is your definition of a sports car?

crisis

10-16-2003, 01:04 AM

Not the best example but.....

Falcon500

10-16-2003, 02:11 AM

A eureka fibrglass kit car. Very popular been around for a very long time are 1m high and are typically ford powerd.

BiTurbo

10-16-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by crisis
What is your definition of a sports car?
1). Two doors
2). 2 + 2 seats - ie; the 2nd set either not there or useless for anyone but the vertically challanged:)
3). RWD ONLY!
4). ENGINE - anywhere it'll fit:)
5). Composite body of some sort
6). Stiff suspension with NO roll.
7). Sub 6.0 sec 0 - 60
8). .... wait I'll get back to you.... :)

BiTurbo

10-16-2003, 04:12 PM

...........
8). Must be a production vehicle - not a limited number - but maybe with 'special' editions.
:)

crisis

10-16-2003, 05:53 PM

Motorer1

10-26-2003, 10:39 PM

BiTurbo

10-27-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Motorer1
The Infiniti G35 fits that description. Also the M3 CSL.

Nope :)

Must have 'Composite' body -
glass/carbon fibre

megotmea7

10-28-2003, 01:38 AM

how does what a cars made of determine what its catagorized? if a car has a composite body its more into the supercar/exotics area asuming it has the performance to match, the corvette is a sports car so is the G35 and the RX-7 none of these have composite bodys but they performe just as good or better than the their composite body'd counterparts. matirial composition of the car has nothing to do with its abilitys

megotmea7

10-28-2003, 01:41 AM

also RWD only? the zzII, skyline GT-R, WRX and STi's, all the evos, the murcialago, the 911 turbo, and many others arent sports cars because they arent RWD?

Egg Nog

10-28-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
1). Two doors
2). 2 + 2 seats - ie; the 2nd set either not there or useless for anyone but the vertically challanged:)
3). RWD ONLY!
4). ENGINE - anywhere it'll fit:)
5). Composite body of some sort
6). Stiff suspension with NO roll.
7). Sub 6.0 sec 0 - 60
8). .... wait I'll get back to you.... :)

I think we need to re-work this definition...

I partially agree with number 1, and I agree with number 4. Then again, number 4 only says it "must have an engine but it doesn't matter where" so its not really a restriction :)

Most of your points have been countered already, so I'll offer some for number 6: Must have sub 6.0 sec 0-60?

What about older cars? Is my 914 not a sports car? Is a Toyota MR2 not a sports car? A Miata? An MGB?

Sorry for all the people you've had disagree with you, but I just had to mention that...

BiTurbo

10-28-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7
how does what a cars made of determine what its catagorized? if a car has a composite body its more into the supercar/exotics area asuming it has the performance to match, the corvette is a sports car so is the G35 and the RX-7 none of these have composite bodys but they performe just as good or better than the their composite body'd counterparts. matirial composition of the car has nothing to do with its abilitys
It's how I want it - that's how :)
and BTW
1). corvettes have composite bodies
2). RX7's are no longer built
3). Never seen a G35, but isn't it (and the RX7's) japanese - that puts them out of my list :)

BiTurbo

10-28-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7
also RWD only? the zzII, skyline GT-R, WRX and STi's, all the evos, the murcialago, the 911 turbo, and many others arent sports cars because they arent RWD?
This is fun :rolleyes:
RWD is what I want -
it's the way I want a sports car -
and BTW :)
the 911 Turbo GT2 is RWD -
and the rest are japanese - so who cares
But keep trying :D

BiTurbo

10-28-2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Egg Nog
Must have sub 6.0 sec 0-60?

What about older cars? Is my 914 not a sports car? Is a Toyota MR2 not a sports car? A Miata? An MGB?

Sorry for all the people you've had disagree with you, but I just had to mention that...
Yep - MUST HAVE sub 6.0 sec 0-60. if it didn't most late model 4WD's could drag it off - not the japanese ones of course :D
Never apologise, unless YOU'RE wrong, this site would be worthless without opinions and disagreements - it's cool. :cool:

Egg Nog

10-28-2003, 06:35 PM

So, just double checking... the following cars, according to you, are not sports cars:

Year Make & Model (0-60)

1981 BMW M1 6.2
1987 BMW M3 8.1
1988 BMW M3 7.1
1995 BMW M3 6.2
1997 BMW Z3 6.2
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z28 7.0
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 6.6
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z L98 6.8
1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z 7.0
1990 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.5
1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6.7
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 Conv. 6.2
1968 Chevrolet Corvette 327 7.7
1968 Chevrolet Corvette 427 6.3
1970 Chevrolet Corvette 427 6.1
1975 Chevrolet Corvette 350 9.6
1976 Chevrolet Corvette 350 8.1
1977 Chevrolet Corvette 8.8
1979 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.3
1980 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.4
1982 Chevrolet Corvette 9.2
1984 Chevrolet Corvette 6.7
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.0
1991 Dodge Stealth ES 7.1
1991 Dodge Stealth R/T Turbo 6.0
1967 Ferrari 275 GTS/4 NART 6.7
1977 Ferrari 308 GTB 8.2
1980 Ferrari 308 GTS 6.9
1981 Ferrari 308 - Dino GT4 7.8
1983 Ferrari 308 GTBi Quattrovalvole 6.8
1988 Ferrari 328 GTS 6.7
1968 Ferrari 330 GTS 6.9
1970 Ferrari 330 GTS 6.9
1990 Ferrari 348 tb 6.0
1986 Ferrari 412 6.7...............................

Look, I could go on and on... :)

So an 1986 Corvette coupe is a sports car in your terms at 0-60 in 5.8 while the convertible isn't at 6.0?

BiTurbo

10-28-2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Egg Nog
So, just double checking...

Look, I could go on and on... :)

So an 1986 Corvette coupe is a sports car in your terms at 0-60 in 5.8 while the convertible isn't at 6.0?
Geeezus - you go on and on and on.....
OK I apologise - I was wrong - change 0-60 to sub 6.1 sec :D

Egg Nog

10-28-2003, 10:43 PM

Ahhh...the things I do to prove a point :)

Still, denying that a Ferrari 308 is a sports car? That's just shameful... ;)

BiTurbo

10-28-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Egg Nog
Ahhh...the things I do to prove a point :)

Still, denying that a Ferrari 308 is a sports car? That's just shameful... ;)
WELL - I REFUSE TO BE ASHAMED :mad:
Early Ferrari's just aren't that great besides being what I (me that is:)) call slow.
Now let's see you try and prove something else!
Go on - lets see it :D

megotmea7

10-29-2003, 03:32 AM

a little late but who the hel said anything about the 911 GT2? not me....

Egg Nog

10-29-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
Now let's see you try and prove something else!
Go on - lets see it :D

I don't beleive this, now I'm just ashamed of you. :p

I can't beleive you don't think this qualifies as a sports car:

http://www.testarossa.nl/gallery/348spider_red_top.jpg

And that this is not a sports car:

http://www.barchetta.cc/All.Ferraris/images/0923/lamborghini-442.jpg

Now, can't you realise that you can't put such exact definitions of what a sports car is?

crisis

10-29-2003, 10:27 PM

BiTurbo

10-29-2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7
a little late but who the hel said anything about the 911 GT2? not me....
Gee wiz Batman, I'm really sorry:rolleyes:

BiTurbo

10-29-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by crisis
I think it will suffice to say that your definition is at odds with most other peoples, therefore we are really only debating if you opinion is valid, not what is a sports car.
Hoo(f...king)ray -
It IS (only) my opinion -
and in case no one has guessed -
This is a forum of opinions -
which makes it perfect for the self opinionated :)

Falcon500

10-30-2003, 05:28 AM

Well im with the rest of them you cant label somthing a sports cars because of traits it has to be purposly built and it needs to be viewed in the public that way.

BiTurbo

10-30-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Falcon500
Well im with the rest of them you cant label somthing a sports cars because of traits it has to be purposly built and it needs to be viewed in the public that way.
Exactly -
and as a member of the public, I expect modern 'Sports' cars to provide a certain 'look & feel' including handling and acceleration.
If we were talking about -
1). Sedans... 4 doors, 4seats (min.)
2). 4WD's... AWD, extra clearance, 4 seats (min.)
3). Crossovers... AWD, 4 doors, 4 seats (min.)
4). People movers... 4 doors, 6 seats (min.)
5). Utes... 2 doors, 2 seats, min. 500kg load (opt. 4WD)
6). Crew cabs... 4 doors, 4 seats, min. 500kg load (opt. 4WD)
7). Sports... 0-60 under 6.1secs
:) etc...........
Now lets hear ewe's prove me wrong :)

megotmea7

10-31-2003, 01:14 AM

this isnt about proving anyone wrong as theres nothing to prove, it use questioning your defenition....

BiTurbo

11-02-2003, 05:50 PM

Look - lets talk about something else -
I know -
Let's discuss religion -
Something new to turn our collective minds to - :)
not that I think our collective minds would come up with much - about religion that is.
:rolleyes:

crisis

11-02-2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
Look - lets talk about something else -
I know -
Let's discuss religion -
Something new to turn our collective minds to - :)
not that I think our collective minds would come up with much - about religion that is.
:rolleyes:
Check out miscellaneous for religion. It ended in tears. (its under politics strangely enough..... or then again maybe not).

Motorer1

11-03-2003, 12:07 PM

If I were to define a sports car, I would go by brand. For example, Acura is the sporty side of Honda (Don't get pissed at the asian, Biturbo, just hang on), and in my opinion they have two sports cars in their line, the NSX and the RSX type S. These two are nice cars if you want to pass people on the freeway, whereas the TL type S is not a sports car due to its weight.

Another Example: Porsche is a huge sports car maker. The Porsche 911 turbo (not the GT2, that debate is dead) is a beautiful machine. But the Porsche Cayenne Turbo is NOT a sports car. Unfortunatly, it fits Biturbo's definition. There is the problem, it is a fast SUV.

I guess what i am trying to say is you can't define a sports car. It is just known that it is a sports car by enthusists. whew, i am tired. :yawn:

BiTurbo

11-03-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Motorer1
If I were to define a sports car

But the Porsche Cayenne Turbo is NOT a sports car. Unfortunatly, it fits Biturbo's definition. There is the problem, it is a fast SUV.

I guess what i am trying to say is you can't define a sports car. It is just known that it is a sports car by enthusists. whew, i am tired. :yawn:
You're right -
the Cayenne (dumb name!) Turbo is a one of a kind.
It may not be a sports car, but it sure as hell comes close.
I could think of nothing better than to pull alongside an S2000 and blow the little ricer's doors off (I'm kidding, honestly) :D

Motorer1

11-05-2003, 12:27 PM

We need to start a coalition against the Porsche Cayenne. They are Satan in SUV form.

BiTurbo

11-06-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Motorer1
We need to start a coalition against the Porsche Cayenne. They are Satan in SUV form.
Cool - aren't they :D

Motorer1

11-07-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
Cool - aren't they :D

no.

Fleet 500

11-14-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by NoOne
Don't know how many of you guys hit the drags, but this is just a comment.
I've had quite a few '60's & 70's musclecars - mopars, chevys and a few pontiacs - and a few street rods, some faster than others, fastest was a '70 roadrunner - 440cid, rollercam big holly carb...all the proper go fast, make noise stuff, best track time was 10.85@ 131mph.
Now the point i'm slowly getting to, is that these "new school" ricers- no offence intended - are doing similar e.t.'s, better fuel economy, way more reliability, 600lbs of stereo, and they don't shake the crap outta you when your sitting at a stoplight.
I'm between hot cars right now - wife giving me the "not practical with the kids" speech;) - but I really do see a rice burner in my future, especially when I consider the insane prices of older cars lately.
Any comments are welcome.
Among the fastest 1/4 mile times I've seen for a stock (unmodified), production, readily-available and affordable 4-6 passenger car is the '69 Plymouth Road Runner with 440-6 bbl, 4-speed manual and 4.10 gears. These cars ran consistant low 13s and into the high twelves (Drag Racing magazine, in their July, 1969 issue, got a 12.98 sec. @ 111 mph. time with the above car).
This same magazine, in the same issue, also tested a '69 440 Dodge Dart GTS. With a change to wider tires (not racing slicks) because there was absolutely no traction with the equipped E-70x14s, they got 12.7 secs @ 112 mph. With just a tire change! Completely stock engine, factory exhaust and relatively small Carter 4-bbl carb. (I think 650 cfm). It should be noted that the above two cars, because their engines were not "built," and because the engines from the factory, while high-performance, were not super-radical, these cars generally had good reliability. There are still some of these (and other U.S. muscle cars) from the '60s/early '70s driving around with the original engine (no rebuild).

As for the "new school," I think there is no comparison. Back in the '60s, there were several cars built that would run sub-12-sec. 1/4 miles. The L88 Corvettes, which were not available with a heater, ran in the 11s. The Plymouth Super Stock and Dodge Max Wedge from '62-'63 (with 413 and 426 engines) ran in the mid-11s to low 12s. The Motion-Baldwin Camaro, with a 454 horsepower engine and 500 horsepower ran 11.85s. And the '68 Dodge Dart and Plymouth Barracuda, with the race Hemi (426 cu. in. and about 550 horsepower) ran 10.40s. Remember, this was without nitrous or super/turbo charger. These were actual production cars, about 60 of each built, and had operating windshield wipers and headlights.

So, take the turbos off the "rice" cars and you'll see performance nowhere near the levels of the '60s U.S. supercars.
Yeah, the ricers have better fuel economy, but try to drive one with 5 passengers (and yourself) and about 8-10 pieces of luggage. Also, as we all know, the old, big cars (made of actual steel) will survive a crash much better than today's plastic cars.

megotmea7

11-15-2003, 01:33 AM

as we all know, the old, big cars (made of actual steel) will survive a crash much better than today's plastic cars.
just because the car will survive doesnt mean the ocupants will. newer "plastic" cars are safer than older solid steel cars, they are designed with crumple zones that absorb impact energys and protect the occupants from some of the more deadly forces of inertia

Fleet 500

11-15-2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by megotmea7
just because the car will survive doesnt mean the ocupants will. newer "plastic" cars are safer than older solid steel cars, they are designed with crumple zones that absorb impact energys and protect the occupants from some of the more deadly forces of inertia
I've seen one accident photo after another in which the occupants of the large car survived and the occupants of the compact or subcompact did not.

Fleet 500

11-15-2003, 12:42 PM

Here is one example:

The caption reads... "Test crash above shows what happens when a small compact is rear-ended by a full-size car. At 60 mph., small car is almost completely demolished."

NoOne

11-16-2003, 07:26 AM

How old is that photo? It looks as if the small compact car is against a wall or something else immovable.

I believe the point that was that if 2 modern cars were involved in an accident, the chance for occupant survival is much higher than if 2 older cars were involved in an equally severe accident.

You could argue that if an older car (ie: a '77 Newport-approx.5400lbs) was involved in a head-on collision (at equal speed) with a small modern car (ie: a '97 Escort- approx.3000lbs), the older,larger,heavier car would come out on top. The chances of this are small as older cars are getting fewer on the roads.

The exception to this is the small modern car involved in a collision with a modern SUV, as SUV's are considered trucks and not regulated to a standard bumper height that cars are required to adhere to, trucks/SUV's generally do not make proper contact with the car to allow the crumple zones designed into the car to properly protect the occupants. As if that wasn't enough, the trend for a lot of modern cars (sorry to stereotype) is to lower them, thus increasing the afore-mentioned bumper height difference.

Fleet 500

11-16-2003, 12:02 PM

It is an old picture. I believe from Popular Mechanics magazine from the late '70s. It doesn't mention if there was a wall.

Since there are many large SUV's and trucks on the roads today, they, of course, are much safer than a subcompact or compact. So are my '76 Cadillac Limousine (6,040 lbs.) and '71 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (5,060 lbs.).

BiTurbo

11-16-2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Fleet 500

So are is my '76 Cadillac Limousine (6,040 lbs.) and '71 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (5,060 lbs.).
I'm not going to get into the safety issue because I'm into outright pleasure :D
Post some pics of the caddy's - please.

Fleet 500

11-16-2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo

Post some pics of the caddy's - please.
Okay, here's a few of the '76 Limo...

Fleet 500

11-16-2003, 09:50 PM

And here's two of the '71 Fleetwood Brougham...

BiTurbo

11-16-2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Fleet 500
Okay, here's a few of the '76 Limo...
It's a factory car!? :confused:
What's the control panel on the driver's side door.

Fleet 500

11-17-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by BiTurbo
It's a factory car!? :confused:
What's the control panel on the driver's side door.
Yes, it is a factory car. Cadillac built about 2,000 of these per year, available with two body styles, limousine (has power glass partition) and 9-passenger sedan (no partition).
My limo is #246 of 834 limos built for the '76 model year.

The driver's side door has a rotating map light and the usual controls (power windows, side view mirror control, etc).
There is another panel above the right rear passenger's armrest which I'll post when I find it. This has a second set of radio controls and the seperate climate control system.