Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 384

Thread: big engine and nothing else

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,323
    Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
    I strongly believe you had 200 HP in that Grand Prix. You do realize the difference between supercharging and turbo-charging right? Because that is the second time you have said "turbo" after I said "super". [quote}

    I am sure it had no super charger. (engine driven) nor a turbo charger (exhaust driven).


    I couldn't quite follow your explanation on the OHV, OHC, VVT thing... If the valves aren't overhead when you have OHC, where the heck are they?
    Irrespective whether you have OHC or OHV, valves are invariably overhead. Sidevalve engine are long gone.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    44
    Originally posted by Kahless
    they did kill the camaro because of the money. that 22,500 wasnt paying the bills and they couldnt afford to keep pumping them out at a loss.
    No man, that's not what I meant. People said that F-bodies became too close in price to the Corvette, so people just forked over a little extra cash and bought Vettes instead. I meant it died because it was too expensive for the customer to want to buy it... not too expensive for GM. And with that price, GM should have been able to sell a TON if they marketed it right.
    Jay 13.3 @ 109 stock.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28
    You can ADD Varible Valve timing AND liftto a push rod (Chevy 350 or Ford 5.0L) with aftermarket parts. It does not change the Cam profile as in OHC configurations, but instead changes the rocker arm

    Heres a link

    http://www.hotrocker.com/

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    28
    Over head cams also use over head valves.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    412
    When you guys are converting L/100 km to mpg, are you using US units of mpg, or the UK (Imperial?) units of mpg. That might explain some of the discrepancies you're coming up with.

    As with any sort of testing, there are variables. Changes in venue, driver style, overall conditions, etc. When in doubt, refer to same-day tests, such as this one done by Auto Motor und Sport. The Corvette tested there was the only one with a 4-speed automatic. The others had 5-speeds or, in the case of the Ferrari, a 6-speed. Consumption certainly didn't favor the Ferrari in that test.

    Also, in a head to head test between the 993 Turbo S, NSX-T, and Viper GTS conducted by Car & Driver in '97, all three cars (having been driven over the same route on the same days) recorded identical fuel economy figures: 16 mpg.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    201
    Originally posted by Guibo
    As with any sort of testing, there are variables. Changes in venue, driver style, overall conditions, etc. When in doubt, refer to same-day tests, such as this one done by Auto Motor und Sport. The Corvette tested there was the only one with a 4-speed automatic. The others had 5-speeds or, in the case of the Ferrari, a 6-speed. Consumption certainly didn't favor the Ferrari in that test.
    The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.
    Tdot owns you.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7
    Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
    No man, that's not what I meant. People said that F-bodies became too close in price to the Corvette, so people just forked over a little extra cash and bought Vettes instead. I meant it died because it was too expensive for the customer to want to buy it... not too expensive for GM. And with that price, GM should have been able to sell a TON if they marketed it right.
    People who wanted a Camaro wanted some options. $22,500 would get you a V8 in a Camaro body. Nothing else. Crank windows, manual locks, no floor mats, wheel covers instead of nice alloy rims, no power driver's seat, AM/FM cassette, no power hatch release, ........you get my point, it had nothing but the engine and the look. At the time you could get a Mustang with a decent amount of options for that price so people who were looking for a V8 sports car went for that instead. People who wanted a Chevy product fugured "hey screw this no option stuff, if I gonna buy a V8 sports car, I want to enjoy driving it." So adding options drove the price near $30,000. Then they figured for a little more they could get an SS but if they were going to shell out that much money they might as well go for a Corvette. I love F-bodies but you can't argue them against a Corvette's resale value, performance, and image, even if the 'vette puts a little more of a dent in your wallet.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    44
    Originally posted by vader
    People who wanted a Camaro wanted some options. $22,500 would get you a V8 in a Camaro body. Nothing else. Crank windows, manual locks, no floor mats, wheel covers instead of nice alloy rims, no power driver's seat, AM/FM cassette, no power hatch release, ........you get my point, it had nothing but the engine and the look. At the time you could get a Mustang with a decent amount of options for that price so people who were looking for a V8 sports car went for that instead. People who wanted a Chevy product fugured "hey screw this no option stuff, if I gonna buy a V8 sports car, I want to enjoy driving it." So adding options drove the price near $30,000. Then they figured for a little more they could get an SS but if they were going to shell out that much money they might as well go for a Corvette. I love F-bodies but you can't argue them against a Corvette's resale value, performance, and image, even if the 'vette puts a little more of a dent in your wallet.
    I agree with you everywhere, except for when you said that Mustangs would offer nice packages for the same price. A nice appointed Mustang GT would run $25 or $26K... and they would get the doors blown off by a Z28. I just think not enough people KNEW this - and lack of consumer awareness = poor marketing.
    Jay 13.3 @ 109 stock.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    8
    Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
    From now on, I am going to call you "Mister I contradict myself." Seriously, look at that sentence.

    So back to my previous question... why can't OHV's and VVT's go together? and where does a camshaft go in a non-OHC engine?

    By the way, I apologize. The 11 mpg highway that I saw was for the Enzo. However, the Murcielago was not far off from there.
    The camshaft is not in the cylinder head. It's inside the engine block using long rods to connect to the valves.

    VVT's only work on OHC's becuase they need an extra camshaft inside the cylinder head to keep the valve open a little longer. A pushrod doesn't enough cams to pull this off.

    You can learn more from this website.
    http://auto.howstuffworks.com/camshaft3.htm
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -- Robert Heinlein

    American by birth.
    Proud by choice.

    I collect Hot Wheels. Got a problem with that?

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    8
    Originally posted by jadotch
    You can ADD Varible Valve timing AND liftto a push rod (Chevy 350 or Ford 5.0L) with aftermarket parts. It does not change the Cam profile as in OHC configurations, but instead changes the rocker arm

    Heres a link

    http://www.hotrocker.com/
    I guess the rocker arms probaly can give some form of VVT in a pushrod. I never though of that.
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

    "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -- Robert Heinlein

    American by birth.
    Proud by choice.

    I collect Hot Wheels. Got a problem with that?

  11. #221
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    412
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by henk4
    [B]
    Originally posted by Guibo
    That's actually ProDrive that deserve the pat on the back, not Ferrari. Great results from such a small company.

    Thanks, yes I know that, and as Nildo was saying earlier on in this thread, the Ferrari was not designed as a racing car but much more like a grand tourer with decent long distance driving comfort. (The Viper from the outset is already much more of a racer and yes they did take a lot of wins). The only point I wanted to make is that the current Ferrari (whoever prepared it) with a much smaller engine is capable of beating the Vipers and more recently the Corvette's at LeMans. They are having some problems with the Saleen S7 though, but that is a mid-engined car.
    Right, but whether the 550 started out as a GT is largely irrelevant, since the Prodrive team gutted the car, and practically rebuilt the entire car. All of these cars (Corvette, Viper, 550, etc.) are pretty much very well prepped race cars.
    The Prodrive Maranello's engine isn't much smaller than the Corvette's (6.0 liters vs. 7.0 liters), and in the ALMS series, it's not leading in points. Chevrolet is leading.
    About the engine, they went to 6.0 liters (up from 5.5), and probably would've liked more, had the Maranello's engine been capable of that displacement. As it was, they felt the 92mm bore was as safe as they could possibly get away with, given the limited cylinder-to-cylinder spacing. In any case, the ACO rules pretty much equalize the playing field, with larger displacements receiving less advantageous restrictors.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    412
    Originally posted by Nash
    The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.
    Could be. Or could be due to conditions. Automatic Corvettes aren't too terribly quick, from what I've seen.



    Back to the issue of fuel economy, it's sorta pointless to look at magazine tests that are done on different dates, in different seasons, under different conditions. That being said, the EPA standards are a pretty good guideline to go by, because they are done under very controlled (indoor laboratory) conditions on a rolling treadmill that simulates a wide variety of driving scenarios. If they are optimistic for one model, chances are good they are optimistic for all models, as all are tested to the same guidelines. And the opposite can be true too.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
    Okay, thanks, that is kind of where I thought it was. So why then can't pushrod engines have VVT? Is it possible to have OHV and OHC together?

    The Grand Prix: 3.8 L V6, pushrod... if it was supercharged it made around 240 HP. The new Grand Prix GTP makes 260 HP, and 280 ft-lbs of torque!!!!
    OHV = overhead valve. Except for pump motors and cars from the 40s, all cars have overhead valves whether pushrod or overhead cam.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,991
    Originally posted by Nash
    The times he posted were more than a second off. That's a lot. I guess it's because it was a German mag.
    Please, it's the most respected car mag in the world...

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rozenburg, Holland
    Posts
    27,323
    Originally posted by Guibo
    That being said, the EPA standards are a pretty good guideline to go by, because they are done under very controlled (indoor laboratory) conditions on a rolling treadmill that simulates a wide variety of driving scenarios. If they are optimistic for one model, chances are good they are optimistic for all models, as all are tested to the same guidelines. And the opposite can be true too.
    Just a question, do the EPA scenario's take into account that there is a general speed limit in the USA? Are these standards comparable to what is used in Europe as normalised consumption figures? (taking into account a mix of mileage in the city, secondary roads and the motorways)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •