I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked, and Mustangs suck. . . I humiliate Mustangs on a weekly basis. In the end, though, the built-in displacement of the Camaro really helps if running quarters is your goal. As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top.
<strong>Why spend $10,000 to make an intergra run fourteen seconds when you could spend $2,000 to make a Camaro, Firebird, or Mustang run twelve seconds?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahhaa
*sigh*
ok, yet again. hahahahhahahaha
never bring domestic POSs into this conversation again, ok? thx
<strong>How is a convertible more fun to drive than a hardtop?
I don't care about drag effects of convertibles, I just find them repulsive because of the attitude behind them.
--
Racing in general is fine on tracks and such. People who race in the street are dangerous morons who deserve the fiery deaths they often meet.
I might race on a track sometime, but I would never put a lot of work into modding a car to make it faster, it's just that interesting to me.
(Also, not all of us are spoiled children given thousands and thousands of dollars in toys to play with.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
driving 135 down an empty road w/ wind blowing through yer hair on a beautiful sunny day...
its a certain freedom that u cant experience w/ a hardtop--being so close to the elements, and so close to certain death. its exilerating. but i guess yer a bit too "careful" fer that, eh?
<strong>I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I spent $100 to put my Trans-Am into the 12's, it certainly doesn't require a supercharger. The LT1s, sure. But there are several 12 second stock LS1 cars around. All it takes is some traction and a lid. $2000 properly spent can sometimes put an LS1 into the 11s (rarely, but it happens).
[quote]<strong>First of all, I don't think the M roadster is 12.7, but I'm not going to argue.
But what I really have to say is that its a lot more fun to drive around hard turns and freak out your friends (or in my case friend) than it is to drag. Dragging isn't really that fun. Been there, done that. So be wise. Buy a car that can hit turns.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've seen a few M roadsters in the high 12's, though of course most of them are in the mid 13s. But I tend to look at the best numbers for each car for the purposes of argument. And I'll agree that dragging isn't too much fun, but drag statistics do say a lot about the acceleration of the vehicle which is why I use them to compare power.
[quote]<strong>As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top</strong><hr></blockquote>
It also helps in SOLO II and road racing. Hell, it helps everywhere! (As long as you know how to use it.)
You put $100 into a TransAm and you're running 12's? I am skeptical. The stock TransAm, as far as I know, doesn't do much to break 14. (mid 13's is the best I've seen stock) Going from 13.5 to 12.5 takes some work, too.
I am not doubting you, I just am surprised. I know that Mustangs are crap, though. Modify them all you want. . .
As for American cars being good racers, The Corvette is sweet, but I don't think any other mainstream American car is adept at handling. I felt quite unsafe in the Camaro SS I drove.
I've never, ever seen an LS1 based T/A run slower than 13.8. It depends on the driver, the year of the car and the environmental conditions of course, but the 1993-1997 T/As had ETs of about 14 - 14.2. The 1998-2000 cars are usually around 13.4-13.6, and the '01 and '02 cars are around 13.1-13.2. That's average, and some cars just make more power than others. I have a 2000, and I ran a severely traction limited 13.3 @ 107 bone stock. Threw on a pair of used Nittos I picked up for $100 and ran a 12.98 @ 107 with a 1.9 short time. It was a freak run, obviously, but 12s are 12s. It usually takes an automatic equipped car to break into the 12s stock, and I've personally seen a bone stock paper-plated '02 automatic run a 12.85 @ 112. The 12 second stock cars seem to be about 1 of every 100 or so, and I've never seen a 12 second stock manual transmissioned car.
It takes a very good driver to handle a powerful rear-drive solid axle car, certainly. But if you check out the national championship autocross results for this year (<a href="http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2001/results/index.html"; target="_blank">SCCA website</a>) you'll see that the F-bodies (in F-stock) turned a best time of 50.5 seconds. The Corvettes had a low of 49.191, while the top Honda S2000 pulled a 50.38, the top MR2 pulled a 51.87, the best Toyota Celica got a 53.09, Integra Type R turned a 51.36, etc. On a road course it's usually just a slaughter, but even completely out of their element (the autocross) American muscle holds its own against the best the imports have to offer.
[EDIT] Also, it's not a mistake that a stock Camaro SS feels so clumsy stock... GM sets them up that way. Since they are so inexpensive the suspension and alignment are set up for major understeer. A performance alignment, a set of decent tires and the 1LE factory option package completely transforms the Camaro into a very competent handling vehicle. It will still feel like a boat, but that's just the nature of the beast.
I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked, and Mustangs suck. . . I humiliate Mustangs on a weekly basis. In the end, though, the built-in displacement of the Camaro really helps if running quarters is your goal. As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point. I hate mustangs and anything else that comes off a FOrd assembly line as well. I was merely using it as an example of a car that is designed to be a sports car and not an economy car like the civic or integra. There are plenty of options, other than a supercharger, that can make an Camaro SS or a Firebird WS6 blazing fast, and all without coffee can exhaust and the large mouth air dam.
I am still a bit skeptical. The 01/02 F-Bodies have the same power/torque as the 98's. and weight more or less the same. According to the magazines I've read, 01/02's are good for about 13.8 stock.
And they're still clumsy. You have to understand that I drive a 3rd gen Rx-7, which can corner harder than damn near anything.
<strong>How do you fit yerself into that RX-7? You must be about 5'5" tall to want to keep that thing as a road car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am about 6 feet tall, maybe 6'1," and 6'4" with shoes on and my 2-3" of vertical hair The car punishes width more than height, and I'm only 163 lbs. I don't even have the seat pushed back all the way, and it fits a lot better than a lot of other cars I've been in that are much larger.
I also have a friend who is 6' and 200 (he's a javelin throwing ball of muscle) who manages to fit in fairly well. The only people who have trouble are the elderly and the obese, who tend to fare better in the Camaros and Corvettes out there. (75% of vettes are automatic. . . hurl)
<strong>I am still a bit skeptical. The 01/02 F-Bodies have the same power/torque as the 98's. and weight more or less the same. According to the magazines I've read, 01/02's are good for about 13.8 stock.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Magazines mean nothing. The numbers they get are applicable only to that specific altitude, road condition, etc. But as far as magazines go, Motor Trend took a '98 Formula to a 13.15, and MM&FF ran an '02 SS to 12.87. Just because the guys at car and driver can't drive doesn't mean the car isn't capable of more.
There were several engine changes for the '01 and '02 LS1 engines:
· Intake manifold from the '01 Z06 Corvette
· Camshaft from LQ4 6.0-liter V8 (Vortec 6000) Truck Engine
· Eliminate Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
· Increased Volume Fuel Injectors
· Increased Flow Air Cleaner with Larger Mass Air Flow sensor (MAF)
· Pup Catalytic Converters
· Cast Exhaust Manifolds with New Gasket
· Reduced Tolerance Main Bearings
· Revised Oil Level Tube and Indicator
· Two-point Water Pump Vapor Vent
· Sleeveless Coolant Sensor
· Revised Powertrain Control Module Calibrations
· Revised Rocker Cover Castings
The ratings only changed by 5 hp, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The '98 - '00 cars are putting usually around 300 to the rear wheels, or 350 at the crank, despite the 305 hp rating. The '01-'02 cars dyno at 310-320, or 370hp at the crank.
This is a dyno from a stock 1998 Trans-Am. It is putting about 305HP down at the rear wheels. It was an M6 car, so with a 15% drivetrain loss the engine is actually putting out 359HP despite the 305HP factory rating.
This is a dyno from a stock 2001 Z28. As you can see, it is putting about 329HP at the rear wheels. It was also an M6 car, so with a 15% drivetrain loss the engine is actually putting out 387HP despite the 310HP factory rating, about the same as the 2001 Corvette Z06.
The lower weight and better aerodynamics of the corvette account for the difference in performance, but the engines are basically the same. GM rates them differently to make the corvette buyers feel better, that's it.
[quote]<strong>And they're still clumsy. You have to understand that I drive a 3rd gen Rx-7, which can corner harder than damn near anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are clumsy, but they have enough power to overcome that disadvantage in most situations (all but the shortest autocross courses). I don't autocross, so I can only go by what those who do tell me, as well as the results from the nationals.
Comments
[edit]
And it just screams (literally), "Look at me! Look at me and my car!"
[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>I don't see what the point of it is.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
cause its fun to drive, maybe???
yeah, since we all know that grover is a racing fanatic.
I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked, and Mustangs suck. . . I humiliate Mustangs on a weekly basis. In the end, though, the built-in displacement of the Camaro really helps if running quarters is your goal. As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top.
<strong>Why spend $10,000 to make an intergra run fourteen seconds when you could spend $2,000 to make a Camaro, Firebird, or Mustang run twelve seconds?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hahahhaa
*sigh*
ok, yet again. hahahahhahahaha
never bring domestic POSs into this conversation again, ok? thx
I don't care about drag effects of convertibles, I just find them repulsive because of the attitude behind them.
--
Racing in general is fine on tracks and such. People who race in the street are dangerous morons who deserve the fiery deaths they often meet.
I might race on a track sometime, but I would never put a lot of work into modding a car to make it faster, it's just that interesting to me.
(Also, not all of us are spoiled children given thousands and thousands of dollars in toys to play with.)
<strong>How is a convertible more fun to drive than a hardtop?
I don't care about drag effects of convertibles, I just find them repulsive because of the attitude behind them.
--
Racing in general is fine on tracks and such. People who race in the street are dangerous morons who deserve the fiery deaths they often meet.
I might race on a track sometime, but I would never put a lot of work into modding a car to make it faster, it's just that interesting to me.
(Also, not all of us are spoiled children given thousands and thousands of dollars in toys to play with.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
driving 135 down an empty road w/ wind blowing through yer hair on a beautiful sunny day...
its a certain freedom that u cant experience w/ a hardtop--being so close to the elements, and so close to certain death. its exilerating. but i guess yer a bit too "careful" fer that, eh?
nothin like it in the world...
<strong>I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I spent $100 to put my Trans-Am into the 12's, it certainly doesn't require a supercharger. The LT1s, sure. But there are several 12 second stock LS1 cars around. All it takes is some traction and a lid. $2000 properly spent can sometimes put an LS1 into the 11s (rarely, but it happens).
[quote]<strong>First of all, I don't think the M roadster is 12.7, but I'm not going to argue.
But what I really have to say is that its a lot more fun to drive around hard turns and freak out your friends (or in my case friend) than it is to drag. Dragging isn't really that fun. Been there, done that. So be wise. Buy a car that can hit turns.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've seen a few M roadsters in the high 12's, though of course most of them are in the mid 13s. But I tend to look at the best numbers for each car for the purposes of argument. And I'll agree that dragging isn't too much fun, but drag statistics do say a lot about the acceleration of the vehicle which is why I use them to compare power.
[quote]<strong>As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top</strong><hr></blockquote>
It also helps in SOLO II and road racing. Hell, it helps everywhere! (As long as you know how to use it.)
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
I am not doubting you, I just am surprised. I know that Mustangs are crap, though. Modify them all you want. . .
As for American cars being good racers, The Corvette is sweet, but I don't think any other mainstream American car is adept at handling. I felt quite unsafe in the Camaro SS I drove.
It takes a very good driver to handle a powerful rear-drive solid axle car, certainly. But if you check out the national championship autocross results for this year (<a href="http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2001/results/index.html"; target="_blank">SCCA website</a>) you'll see that the F-bodies (in F-stock) turned a best time of 50.5 seconds. The Corvettes had a low of 49.191, while the top Honda S2000 pulled a 50.38, the top MR2 pulled a 51.87, the best Toyota Celica got a 53.09, Integra Type R turned a 51.36, etc. On a road course it's usually just a slaughter, but even completely out of their element (the autocross) American muscle holds its own against the best the imports have to offer.
[EDIT] Also, it's not a mistake that a stock Camaro SS feels so clumsy stock... GM sets them up that way. Since they are so inexpensive the suspension and alignment are set up for major understeer. A performance alignment, a set of decent tires and the 1LE factory option package completely transforms the Camaro into a very competent handling vehicle. It will still feel like a boat, but that's just the nature of the beast.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
<strong>A mustang? Hah Hah Hah.
I'll take the Camaro, but a supercharger costs more than 2000 last I checked, and Mustangs suck. . . I humiliate Mustangs on a weekly basis. In the end, though, the built-in displacement of the Camaro really helps if running quarters is your goal. As far as quarters go, Detroit's displacement is hard to top.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point. I hate mustangs and anything else that comes off a FOrd assembly line as well. I was merely using it as an example of a car that is designed to be a sports car and not an economy car like the civic or integra. There are plenty of options, other than a supercharger, that can make an Camaro SS or a Firebird WS6 blazing fast, and all without coffee can exhaust and the large mouth air dam.
And they're still clumsy. You have to understand that I drive a 3rd gen Rx-7, which can corner harder than damn near anything.
<strong>How do you fit yerself into that RX-7? You must be about 5'5" tall to want to keep that thing as a road car.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am about 6 feet tall, maybe 6'1," and 6'4" with shoes on and my 2-3" of vertical hair The car punishes width more than height, and I'm only 163 lbs. I don't even have the seat pushed back all the way, and it fits a lot better than a lot of other cars I've been in that are much larger.
I also have a friend who is 6' and 200 (he's a javelin throwing ball of muscle) who manages to fit in fairly well. The only people who have trouble are the elderly and the obese, who tend to fare better in the Camaros and Corvettes out there. (75% of vettes are automatic. . . hurl)
<strong>I am still a bit skeptical. The 01/02 F-Bodies have the same power/torque as the 98's. and weight more or less the same. According to the magazines I've read, 01/02's are good for about 13.8 stock.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Magazines mean nothing. The numbers they get are applicable only to that specific altitude, road condition, etc. But as far as magazines go, Motor Trend took a '98 Formula to a 13.15, and MM&FF ran an '02 SS to 12.87. Just because the guys at car and driver can't drive doesn't mean the car isn't capable of more.
There were several engine changes for the '01 and '02 LS1 engines:
· Intake manifold from the '01 Z06 Corvette
· Camshaft from LQ4 6.0-liter V8 (Vortec 6000) Truck Engine
· Eliminate Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
· Increased Volume Fuel Injectors
· Increased Flow Air Cleaner with Larger Mass Air Flow sensor (MAF)
· Pup Catalytic Converters
· Cast Exhaust Manifolds with New Gasket
· Reduced Tolerance Main Bearings
· Revised Oil Level Tube and Indicator
· Two-point Water Pump Vapor Vent
· Sleeveless Coolant Sensor
· Revised Powertrain Control Module Calibrations
· Revised Rocker Cover Castings
The ratings only changed by 5 hp, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The '98 - '00 cars are putting usually around 300 to the rear wheels, or 350 at the crank, despite the 305 hp rating. The '01-'02 cars dyno at 310-320, or 370hp at the crank.
This is a dyno from a stock 1998 Trans-Am. It is putting about 305HP down at the rear wheels. It was an M6 car, so with a 15% drivetrain loss the engine is actually putting out 359HP despite the 305HP factory rating.
This is a dyno from a stock 2001 Z28. As you can see, it is putting about 329HP at the rear wheels. It was also an M6 car, so with a 15% drivetrain loss the engine is actually putting out 387HP despite the 310HP factory rating, about the same as the 2001 Corvette Z06.
The lower weight and better aerodynamics of the corvette account for the difference in performance, but the engines are basically the same. GM rates them differently to make the corvette buyers feel better, that's it.
[quote]<strong>And they're still clumsy. You have to understand that I drive a 3rd gen Rx-7, which can corner harder than damn near anything.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are clumsy, but they have enough power to overcome that disadvantage in most situations (all but the shortest autocross courses). I don't autocross, so I can only go by what those who do tell me, as well as the results from the nationals.
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
hopefully I'll have one of these babies soon.
or a 66 mustang