1/4 mile acceleration : Old school vs New School

[BiTurbo]

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

[BiTurbo]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[crisis]

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.

Check out miscellaneous for religion. It ended in tears. (its under politics strangely enough..... or then again maybe not).

[Motorer1]

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]

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)

[Motorer1]

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

[BiTurbo]

Originally posted by Motorer1
We need to start a coalition against the Porsche Cayenne. They are Satan in SUV form.

Cool - aren't they

[Motorer1]

Originally posted by BiTurbo
Cool - aren't they

no.

[Fleet 500]

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]

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]

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.