|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Motors, best of the best.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: The-AoD
In light of a few members, including myself; loving cars. I felt an engine thread would be a kickin` idea. Maybe it'll be cool, maybe not. Either way, I guess I'll post my favorite motors.
First, the 1968 and 1967 general motors make of their small block V8, the notorious GM 302. The motor was pure insanity, originally designed as a lower model for the Camaro; it proved to perform better than other motors in the Camaro's wide selection. It was marked with a 7,000 RPM redline, which most would handle more. The motor would push about 330 horses at 5800RPM. Which, in the time was insanity. Matched with the few transmissions of the camaro, the car would hold gears longer with more acceleration over time. With the loss of constant shifting, the car performed quite well and became a mark in the camaro's performance. In the later half of '68 ford claimed a patent infringment against GM for thier "not as well performing" BOSS 302. Ford won the patent, and GM was forced to end production of the 302. With the power output and performance over the larger motors, the 302 was known as one of the best performance to size V8 engines.
Another one of my loved motors was the 351M/400 M-Block ford motor. Constantly confused with the 351 Cleveland, the 351M was a totally different block. Also considered as the "Long Block", the motor didn't show as powerful as some and really wasn't proclaimed well as one of fords motors. With a very low performance compared to other models, it wasn't a powerhouse. Though, the 351M and the 400 had only two major differences, the pistons and crank shaft; the 400 still had a bit different performance of most ford engines. Ford designed the motor as a "big powerhouse" for thier trucks, since the 460 big block didn't hit production trucks until 1983. The 400 had the longest piston stroke of any ford motor to date. Because of EPA regulations changing between 1971 to 1979, the 400 M-Block motors were slowly dissapated for thier major "smog" problems. They from then on were considered, the "smog motor". The majorly confused thing with the motors were thier real untapped power. Most of today's 400's that are still operable usually have retarted cam timings to lower smog output. With the right build from the block up, the 400's untapped power can be very comparable to the 460, and sometimes alot better. The 400 could have been considered as a stroker, with the longest piston throw of any other ford motor. The 351M / 400 M-Blocks were ended in the early 1980's, though there are still few lurking around today. The 351M/400 M-Block design is probably one of the most looked over ford engines today, but they have some of the best potential over other ford motors that showed.
And one last one, that I've seen two of in my life. The varation of the 454, seen in 1994 and a few late 1993 models. The 454 rat. Basically, the "RAT", was a 454 with a modified intake design, with a higher volume for larger amounts of fuel flow for the motor to work with. The increase of fuel volume, and some timing and crank adjustments, the 454 RAT could push astonishing horsepower from a stock model, pushing an astonishing 438 horses at 3,200 RPM. There have been quite a few modified 454's named the RAT, but the only ones that showed thier brute force, was the ones with the GM modified intake manifold. One of the few power V8's that really started to show thier power, from a stock point of view.
Those are my favorite 3 domestic motors, I have a few import motors that I like, but I figured I'd start with only the domestic models I like. 
Posted by: trekpsycho
My favorite Chevy small block: the 327. In my opion, one of the best engines Chevy had at the time. One of the engine models came had 325 HP from the factory. Big block had to be either the 427 or the 375 HP 396. I had one of the 396's in a '69 SS Chevelle that would run high 14's in the quarter (bone stock with street tires!)
My favorite Ford small block: the 289. One of my cousins had one in a Shelby mustang (not stock) that would pack the front wheels all the way through 2nd gear. Big block would have to be the 427 cobra jet. This engine was tested on the dyno (stock) with 500+ ft lbs of torque. Definetly a monster any way you looked at it. When it was put in the Shelby Cobra, which was on the international race circuit at the time, one of the other car manufacturers (fiat I think) was bragging about their car that would go from 0-100mph in 13 secs. One of Shelby's drivers took the Cobra out an went from 0-100mph and back to 0 in 13 secs.
And finally, may favorite Mopar is the 426 Hemi with the dual 4-barrel carbs mounted diagonally across from each other. This engine was so powerful that the cars with it installed came with a paper that informed the owners that their warranty was void because they had a high performance race engine! For a small block, I think I would pick the 318. Not much HP, but I had one in a '73 Dodge Dart and that thing was industuctible! I ran the hell out of that car and never had a minutes problem with the engine.
A point of interest Aod, did you know that the '67-'68 Camero SS with the 302 came with a set of headers in the trunk? It was part of the package, but the dealers were not allowed to install them on the car.
Posted by: Gerbilo
hrmm, AoD told me to post some imports, so lemme see what I can think of...
Toyota 2JZ-GTE(supra TT)
Honda F20C1, B18C5(S2000, ITR)
Nissan RB26DETT(R-34)
Ferrari 3.6l V8 found in 360 Challenge Stradale
Mercedes Benz 5.5l S/C V8 found in E55
Porsche 3.6l H6 found in the GT3
Koenigsegg 4.7l S/C V8 found in the C8 SS
that's all I can think up off the top of my head as far as imports... they seem to go from sporty, to exotic,... to hyper exotic haha
lemme know if you have any questions on WTF i just said.
Posted by: Bix VT
Although I'm a die-hard Ford man, I must admit Chevy made some good engines.
Favorite Chevy engine: 350sb. Bigger than the 327, but still not as heavy as the 454.
Favorite Ford engine: 429. The 1970 Boss 429 is one of the best cars of all time IMO. Maybe the 428 Cobra Jet. But then I'm totally in love with the 302.
Favorite import engine: The 2.0L in the original S2000. It's NA, yet makes 250hp! That's 125hp per liter!  Of course, they recently upped the displacement for better low end power, so it's not so crazy any more...oh well.
I like the engine in my '97 SC2 though. It's only rated at 124hp, but I've only lost 3 races: 2 5.0 Mustangs and a C4 'Vette. I've lost count of how many Civics I've beaten. Even took on an Integra and a V6 Accord Coupe and won.
Posted by: Gerbilo
lol, unless you have significant modifications, a civic EX with a stick, would give you a decent run, and Si would be a whompin. Integra LS/GS are faster than civic EX's too...
As far as the V6 accord... http://www.4thsequence.net/gerbilo/bsflag.gif
thems are quick ****ers 
Posted by: Bix VT
I speak the truth Gerbilo. The civics have been mostly EXs, but with some lower models thrown in. Never raced an Si. The Integra was one of the closest races I've had.
As for the V6 Accord Coupe, it wasn't one of the new 240hp models, it was a '97, and it had an auto tranny with a 20ish y/o girl driving. And my dad was in the car with me, screaming at me the entire time, so I have a witness. Probably would have pulled away from me if we had kept going, but we only got to 75ish before the lanes merged.
Posted by: The-AoD
Lance's Maxima would proven a good race for any civic. I know it trashed that 71? GTO he raced down passed out HS. Had a 3.4 (I belive) Turbo, with alot of mods. The thing was very well geared for acceleration throughout the car's speed range.
And the deal with Bix, I can believe him. The SC2's are rather light. Not sure of the other wieght/power ratio, but it could be done.
Though, I bet you that 94' chevy downtown here would blow you away in an 1/8th of a mile. lol hella truck, just no top speed to it.
Our old `82 van with the 460 (not original btw) had some hellacious acceleration with the C-9 auto underneath of her. But, she wouldn't hit 95 if you tried. She'd tach out in top gear before you could. But, going from 0-60, depending on how bad you lit up the duallies on the rear; could make for some exciting 0-60 times.
Posted by: Bix VT
Lol, yeah SC2s are light...you know why? Half the body is plastic! Oh, I'm sorry, at the dealership they called it a "space-age polimer" Lol, that's ok though, I liked it when this guy who was pissed at me kicked the door of my car and it bounced. It really killed his victory.
Posted by: The-AoD
lol fun
Trek, the 427 wasn't a bad motor, just not enough top end. I like the 454 for the big block chevy. But the 427 was a nice motor either way for it's time.
Personally I dislike dalmer/chrysler/dodge or whatever you want to call mopar. Never seen much luck with them.
Best beat around motor would have to be, in my opinion, 300 straight 6 ford. They just couldn't blow themselves up. I've seen so many of those things, just thrashed beyond all belief. Hell, I know where one, that was in a beater which had half the body left, still runs on all 6. A woods beater bronco looking ford. Just couldn't blow it up. Those kids tore the hell out of it.
Posted by: Gerbilo
For the Accord, i'm not disagreeing that you didn't beat it, but it was either a. not a V6, b. she wasn't on it, c. seriously broken
even the 200hp models weren't slow, the I4 models ran sub 9 0-60 and the V6s ran sub 8s.
for the SC2 power to weight...124hp...2400lbs...
oh, and btw, they didn't make '97 Accord Coupes w/ a V6.
only the 2.2l I4
as for the 460... yes.. badass... my friend has one in one of his work trucks.... im quite surprised there are rear tires left at all..
Posted by: Bix VT
It was the '97 body style...it's not like I asked her what year it was lol.
She may not have been on the gas 100%...but we were neck-and-neck close to the end. (having a stick, I got the advantage initially)
So I'd have to choose either B or C, because it was a V6. It had all the proper badging as well as having the factory V6 exhaust. And I doubt very much that she had taken her I4 and made it look like a V6...
And my Saturn will run sub-9s. I read a review in which the test driver ran a 7.9 to 60. Although I don't know how he did...I have personally never gotten better than 8.5...
Posted by: Gerbilo
i'm kinda surprised, but then again, i guess it does have the torque to back the HP up
Posted by: Bix VT
It'll scoot pretty nice, and the rev limiter doesn't kick in until 500 over redline, so that helps me when I shift, I get to shift it right into my power peak if I go about 250-300 rpm over redline. It's good until you get into 5th...real short gearing 1st-4th. I'll have to race you some day to see just how much faster your Integra is...
Posted by: The-AoD
I wonder what one of those turbo V6 modified festiva's that gerb showed me would do in 0-60. haha That'd be classic. Watch all kinds of cars get blown away by nothing else, but a festiva. hahah
Posted by: Gerbilo
haha, go-go festiva!!
The Integra GS-R with a good driver can do 0-60 in 7.0 and a 1/4 of 15.0 i think
btw, what's the redline on the saturn?
Posted by: Bix VT
Let me check *goes outside*...it's 6500.
60 in 7.0? Around 170hp, right?
Posted by: Gerbilo
yup 170hp
nice redline too
http://www.4thsequence.net/gerbilo/GS-R/DSCF0017.JPG
hehehe
Posted by: Bix VT
oh yeah...ever driven the orignal S2000? Now that's a redline!
btw, how much did you pay for that GS-R?
Posted by: Gerbilo
$13,000
it's an 00, you can see the miles, came w/ brand new Yokohama AV ES100s as well as a set of winter wheels w/ tires(under10k miles), and a bumper to bumper warranty that has 5 years and 68,000 miles left on it.
oh yeah, A friend of mine has the S2000 w/ the original motor
just gonna have to get an RX-8 now if you want the revs haha
Posted by: Bix VT
Well...I'm actually planning on getting a used S2000 in about 3 years after I have saved enoguh cash. Man, that S2000 though...it's fun until you hit 6k rpm, then you're simply...wow. Can't even explain it.
The RX-8 is ok, but I just can't see myself driving a 4-door with that little hp. I mean really, they should have at least offered a turbo version like the RX-7...I mean, 238hp just ain't enough for it to be amazing. Unless it were to lose a few pounds...
But the S2000...120hp/liter from an n/a eninge? That's the best in the world for road legal cars, btw.
Posted by: Gerbilo
It is a 4door but still classified as a coupe I do beleive. And as far as little HP? it makes 238hp the s2000 make 240hp. And the RX-8 has a 1.3liter while the S2000 has a 2.0(2.2 in newer). The mazda is rotary wankle though.
As far as a turbo RX-8, you probably won't see a factory option one, it wouldn't be able to pass US emissions, rotary exhaust is rather low temp, and adding a turbo to the system would lower the temp even further, and it would be below the point that a catalytic converter could function properly.
Oh yes, the old RX-7 had 255hp, the RX-8 has 238, not all that big of a loss.
yay car thread
Posted by: Bix VT
The S2000 weighs less though, and is capable of 0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
Also, the RX-7 is the same situation as the S2000: the RX-8 weighs in at around 3000 pounds, while the RX-7 is slightly less than 2700. Plus differences in the drivetrain make the difference clear: RX-7 0-60: 4.9 seconds. RX-8 0-60: 5.9 seconds.
But then, I'm an enthusiast, so I care more about speed and driving experience than just about anything else...call me crazy if you will, but my dream car is still one with a stiff suspension, low profile tires, and a non-forgiving attitude. The kind of car that makes you pay attention.
And car threads rule...we should start more! 
Posted by: The-AoD
You're welcome.
I got to drive something saturday.... I was amazed, beyond belief.
Now, you may not be into trucks or anything, but this was a suprising ride. I've driven many different trucks, probably the best being my dad's totally stock 2.3 driven 5-speed ranger. Gerb thinks they are slow, but a 2.3 with "high gearing" in the tranny lighting up in 3rd, it's nice. (btw gerb, she'll do 95 in third, then the engine limiter comes on with probably 1200 rpm left. Damned speed control crap. I didn't imagine it would have one, maybe just something you can't find. Anyways, it's nice. But, what I drove was nicer.
1976 Flare Side Chevrolet Pickup (1500 equivalent 1/2 ton). Still in the process of being rebuilt, drivable already, body needs finished, along with a new interior, but beside that. It has an all original 1971(?) 327, with only 1500 miles on the motor. He's in the process of putting a dual carb system on it. The 4 speed makes that thing shine. It's not the speed, but the ability of the motor to spin the rear tires, from an idle, while being locked on a hold. Which the hold simply stops the front from moving, and the truck along with it. That motor has no want/need to stall, even from an idle while dropping the clutch. I dropped the clutch at 1500rpm, and she let out a squeel. Makes me remember my uncles chevelle down in VA. That truck will probably be finished (body wise) this summer, while roger searches for some original interior parts to start the restoration of that. The flared rear is awesome, with the bucket bed design. shortbed at that, it's a sight of beauty, I'll have to get a picture of it sometime.
Posted by: Gerbilo
yeah bix, the RX-7 also made the most torque of any of the 3 we were talking about. I love 'em, but I don't think I would ever want to own one due to the fact that you can go thru 3 motors a year heh. The RX-8 should hopefully be a different story. And between the S2k and the RX-8 don't get me wrong, i'd take the S2000 as well, i'm a Honda Ho haha, the RX-8 is just a more practical car in most cases.
as for trucks... i'm a fan of them, but not for tire squealin and such, more for offroading. When it comes to a truck, if you only use it to go fast, why the hell didn't you buy something lighter and more aerodynamic? with that big truck motor it would go even faster hehe. And rangers are still slow! haha
Posted by: Bix VT
I can attest to the Ranger being slow...you put the gas to the floor and the only thing that changes is the engine gets louder.
My major problem with the RX-8 is the practical factor. I can't stand "practical" sports cars. It just goes against the nature of things. The only time a fast car should have more than 2 doors is if you are driving a "sports sedan" such as the beauty that is the M5.
Posted by: Bobaroo
My car goes 0-60 in 7.2secs, or so i have researched.
Nice 2400lb car :-P
Posted by: Bix VT
2400...do you drive a miata?
Posted by: Superfly3176
I'm actually thinking about a 88 Monte carlo SS. I can get one for about $800 yeah its not the greatest. I'm still in high school & i got a thing for speed, but my engine has to make noise (I think a 350 will do that) and it puts out over 200 HP compared to 170 in the malibu and 150 in the plymouth breeze which neither are mine.
But, I'm a fan of the classics not big on imports so can ne1 say chargers and challengers with 440 mags and 500 hemis?
Posted by: Gerbilo
Bob, I didn't think it was anywhere near that quick,
2450-2500lbs depending on year, 130hp, fastest I have seen a Zx2 is 7.8s and that's with stick... which I still don't believe.... hehe
btw, the miata is 2100-2300lbs depending on year
superfly, the Monte SS had a 305cid 5.0l V8
if it's the carbed one it makes 160hp and if it's FI it's 200hp
these are stock figures mind you, I like the Monte's of those years if they are in perfect condition.. .otherwise they tend to be mullet mobiles
Of that platform I like the Grand National the best.. those things are 1337 :-D
Oh yeah, my Dad had a Charger with the 440 sixpack I wish he still had it hehe
Posted by: Superfly3176
My mistake i guess they were 305s, but every monte later than 84 had 200+ hp im pretty sure this one is later than 84 http://www.automotiveforums.com/t180304.html
Once again that grand national comes up there.
Posted by: Bix VT
200hp...meh. It's the tourqe on those cars that matters. I'm guessing somewhere around 300ft-lb from that 305?
Posted by: Superfly3176
Is 300FT-lb good? I dont know that much about cars
Posted by: Bix VT
300ft-lb is pretty good by modern standards. Torque is low-end power, while hp is the top-end. In laymen's termns, anyway. It's a bit more complicated than that but I'm lazy today.
Posted by: Gerbilo
I think the motor you speak of had roughly 285lb-ft, same as the ford 5.0s in all them fun stangs haha
this is on the FI motor, I'm pretty sure yours is.
hrmm, i'mma find you a more technical definition of HP and torque if you care to read.. but... think of it somewhat as... HP is how fast you hit a wall, and torque is how far you go thru it hehe
Posted by: Gerbilo
The term horsepower was invented by the engineer James Watt. Watt lived from 1736 to 1819 and is most famous for his work on improving the performance of steam engines. We are also reminded of him every day when we talk about 60-watt light bulbs.
The story goes that Watt was working with ponies lifting coal at a coal mine, and he wanted a way to talk about the power available from one of these animals. He found that, on average, a mine pony could do 22,000 foot-pounds of work in a minute. He then increased that number by 50 percent and pegged the measurement of horsepower at 33,000 foot-pounds of work in one minute. It is that arbitrary unit of measure that has made its way down through the centuries and now appears on your car, your lawn mower, your chain saw and even in some cases your vacuum cleaner!
What horsepower means is this: In Watt's judgement, one horse can do 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute. So, imagine a horse raising coal out of a coal mine as shown above. A horse exerting 1 horsepower can raise 330 pounds of coal 100 feet in a minute, or 33 pounds of coal 1,000 feet in one minute, or 1,000 pounds 33 feet in one minute. You can make up whatever combination of feet and pounds you like. As long as the product is 33,000 foot-pounds in one minute, you have a horsepower.
You can probably imagine that you would not want to load 33,000 pounds of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to move it 1 foot in a minute because the horse couldn't budge that big a load. You can probably also imagine that you would not want to put 1 pound of coal in the bucket and ask the horse to run 33,000 feet in one minute, since that translates into 375 miles per hour and horses can't run that fast. However, if you have read How a Block and Tackle Works, you know that with a block and tackle you can easily trade perceived weight for distance using an arrangement of pulleys. So you could create a block and tackle system that puts a comfortable amount of weight on the horse at a comfortable speed no matter how much weight is actually in the bucket.
Horsepower can be converted into other units as well. For example:
* 1 horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts. So if you took a 1-horsepower horse and put it on a treadmill, it could operate a generator producing a continuous 746 watts.
* 1 horsepower (over the course of an hour) is equivalent to 2,545 BTU (British thermal units). If you took that 746 watts and ran it through an electric heater for an hour, it would produce 2,545 BTU (where a BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree F).
* One BTU is equal to 1,055 joules, or 252 gram-calories or 0.252 food Calories. Presumably, a horse producing 1 horsepower would burn 641 Calories in one hour if it were 100-percent efficient.
and for torque
Torque
Imagine that you have a big socket wrench with a 2-foot-long handle on it, and you apply 50 pounds of force to that 2-foot handle. What you are doing is applying a torque, or turning force, of 100 pound-feet (50 pounds to a 2-foot-long handle) to the bolt. You could get the same 100 pound-feet of torque by applying 1 pound of force to the end of a 100-foot handle or 100 pounds of force to a 1-foot handle.
Similarly, if you attach a shaft to an engine, the engine can apply torque to the shaft. A dynamometer measures this torque. You can easily convert torque to horsepower by multiplying torque by rpm/5,252.
Posted by: The-AoD
Well, the truck is a nice truck. You could most definetly haul a crapload with it. And as for rangers, yeah, the automatics really suck balls imho. I'm guessing since the 2.3 in my dad's isn't built ford weak, it's got more guts than they usually do. I know it's quite a nice ride, and it drives like it's physically STUCK to the road. Makes you think you're driving on rails or the like. The only thing I dislike is the high gearing. We live in a region with alot of hills, and the high gearing is no good for "driving the nieghborhood at 15mph". I mean, honestly, that thing shifts out of first at 30mph at 4200rpm on the tach. It's rather higher geared then most of the trucks I've seen/drove. I guess that comes with alot of people asking for "city" trucks instead of real backwoods trucks. It does get up and scoot around though
As for my 3.1 in my cutlass lol. I hit it pretty good last night going down this 0.8mi straight stretch near here. Got up to 80 in passing gear (3rd) at around 4500rpm before I let it shift into 4th. It didn't hesitate getting there at all. From about 15 to 80 in a few seconds. For a 3.1, I was suprised. Not quite as jumpy as the old 3.8 I used to have in the `88 Delta 88, but still; enough power to have a little fun. I really enjoy the twists in a local state route 213. Going up the hill at around 45mph is quite fun with all the tight S turns that are usually banked just right. I could take it faster, but the fun level decreases beyond that (for the fact that some are blind turns lol). I drove my brothers `96 Lumina, which has a 3.1SFI as well, and it just "lacks" compared to mine for some reason. I'm not sure that my car is heavier or anything. Maybe it has to do with the thinner tires, or maybe the different setup, but it just doesn't have a decent feel going up 213.
I saw one of my buds last night from highschool. And we got talking about the 140mph beast of a Maxima. I found out that it was a 1995 Nissan Maxima SE with all the factory options. They had installed quite a few things to it, including an aftermarket turbo charging kit, with quite a few intake/exaust modifications. Mainly the base top and bottom end in the motor as well. It was a 3.0V6 stock rated at 190hp with the DOHC design. After most of thier modifications were installed, the car would push around 280 horses, with from a v6, is quite a boost. It had a aero kit on the body, along with a custom wing built by a local shop to give the best rear downforce to go with the aero package, which all was done in white. I still remember the ride up SR11 at about 3AM pushing the 140 mark. I just kept thinking to myself, "One grain of sand, I'm dead, gonna die, flip over burn and die.". We make it from around lisbon to boardman, which is a 25 minute drive at 60mph in about 10 or so minutes. Which at 3AM, was scary as all hell. The total cost of everything was around 28,000 bucks, which his dad had more than enough to pay for said car. Just look at Lances 97 Tacoma. Stood 4 feet off the ground, no lies. But yeah, I got to catch up with a good old friend. We both aren't sure if he still has the nissan or not, but last we heard he moved down south and took it there. It was an amazing car at the time. And for being all white, it really did turn alot of heads.
This is for Gerb. I saw the worst ever case of american rice yesterday. 98-99 Cavalier. Set of BBS with low pro's. Blacked out everything, including windows. One of those stupid mufflers too! Dude tried to make it sound "badass", and must of ran it in low or something. Drove down the road, when he shifted, you heard the automatic tranny delay, and then it caught up with the tranny when hitting second. I almost died from laughing so hard. Specially when that yellow Lancer OZ Rally edition or whatever the OZ is, beat him off the line at the redlight. You couldn't even hear the lancer run, but still made that cavy look like a toy.
I guess it's all in what you like. If you like paying 14,000 bucks for a new cavalier, and putting 2,000 bucks worth of looks and sound to it... I guess that's your thing, even though it makes no sense. Personally, I'd rather have a car that doesn't turn heads, or bring attention to myself. Just something that I enjoy driving and that fits me well. Hence, the reason I drive my cutlass.
Posted by: Bix VT
I'm all about having a sleeper. '92 5.0 GT, all black (including rims) with a low rumble most of the time. But when I punch it...it'll get loud. I know a guy who has done this exact thing to his 5.0 and man...I want it!
btw, ever seen a twin-turbo 1990 Mustang GT? Talk about not having any rear tires...
Posted by: The-AoD
Well, I know where a sleeper sits, but rusts.
1972 Monte Carlo with the 283. NICE car. Bastard never drives it though. Definetly didn't sound like much until it splashed the gas. Wow, talk about improvement over the stock model. Almost all custom redone from the block up on that motor. Shame it's wasting away.
Posted by: Gerbilo
hahah, i've seen worse steve,
I saw some guy showin off his like 96 cavy with a whole buncha shit done to it. Rice tacular.. i couldn't tell what was bigger, his exhaust or his tachometer on his dash ahah. But he tells me he has $15,000 worth of work invested in the car, so i was like "ok, must be under the hood, i'll give him props for that" yeah... i guess it was under the hood, cept he could only run low 14s hahaha...
for sleepers.. i wouldn't exactly say the 5.0 GTs are... the LX is much more I'm not too big a fan of the 5.0s though, but if you wanna go fast for cheap, it's how it's done. Best sleeper I have seen was a civic. from the outside all you could see was slightly larger wheels(for better rubbers), and an exhaust(not a fart pipe, but something like the Apex'i world sport) so... you think it's a near stock civic... hrmm... it pushed 400hp and remember it only weighed 2300lbs
Turbo-stangs? i'll have to send you some vid's I got heheh, they are the 4.6s though... modular.. that's where it's at lol.
Posted by: Bix VT
Nah I don't like the 4.6s...stangs were just "there" from 1995-1998. I like the GT more than the LX mainly for the body work...and yeah, fast for cheap is the way it is for me until I go from having a "job" to having a "career". I love it when a Civic has all go and little show. Too bad most of them use coffee-can mufflers and clear tail lights...but still have the stock engine. Maybe a cold air intake if you're lucky.
Posted by: Superfly3176
I hate mustangs (a.k.a trash-stangs). And not to dis the civic but most are all show. I saw one with a huge ass spoiler and i wanted to rip it off. I hate spoilers.
Posted by: Bix VT
Wow...anti-Ford, anti-nVidia and anti-Intel...let me guess, you're anti-Bush too?
Posted by: Superfly3176
No, I actually like bush. And i'm not anti-nvidia they make good mobo chipsets dont they? I was just less than pleased by the FX graphics line.
Posted by: Bix VT
I see. For a moment I thought you were going to oppose me in every idea I had...and yes, I'm not too pleased with the FX line either. I have 3 and the only one up to snuff is my 5700Ultra. Hopefully the 6800 will prove nice as well as the X880 (?) from ATi.
Posted by: Gerbilo
shutup... this is about cars, take your computer related business elsewhere! hehehe
yeah, the 96-98 4.6 sohc stangs were kinda bleh...
i'm a fan of the 4.6 dohc.... ahhh.. i'm almost sad i didn't get that car..
a V8 that revved as high as my civic... and put down 305hp haha
Posted by: Bix VT
I dunno...that 5.0 has some grunt. I like the kind of car that feels american, not like something from across the pacific. While Japanese cars may be amazing, I like my tq.
Posted by: Gerbilo
yeah, torque is good... cept high torque = burning massive gas hehe
I think that all those old motors like the 5.0 were just not working to their potential... HP should atleast be as high as torque, unless you are diesel hehe.
supposedly my car can run with the old 5.0s despite my severe lack of torque hehe, i still gotta get better at launchin... all i knew is today i spun in first and then spun again in 2nd... and this is with the AV ES100s heheh
Posted by: Superfly3176
Yeah i like my cars all american too. Japanese cars just dont grunt and groan like the american V-8. Don't get me wrong they've done amazing things with those straight 4s but its just not american and not 8 cylinders.
There's an old saying "Nothing beats cubic inches."
Posted by: Gerbilo
 Quote:
Originally posted by Superfly3176
There's an old saying "Nothing beats cubic inches."
|
I think I found something!
http://carsmedia.ign.com/cars/image/image017.jpg
Posted by: Bix VT
now THAT'S a turbo!
Still...the old saying: "There's no replacement for displacement"
Turbos are good but the lag...not so great for everyday driving.
And your car can run with 5.0s? I don't know about that...they go to 60 in 6.2...
Posted by: Gerbilo
from a roll, yup, should be able too. atleast this is what i've been told. haven't tested it out yet.
and technology is a perfect replacement for displacement c'mon if those old 5.0s ran the same hp/disp as say... and S2k they'd make 600hp stock lol
Posted by: The-AoD
stangs are for tangs. In my honest opinion. Never liked them, never will.
Personally, I know where a 72 stang is, and it's nice and all, I just don't like it. Not that they don't look good or run good, just not my cream of chicken if you know what I mean.
I'd like to see you take on a BMW i series Gerb. Record it too! GOGO. Or at least race the super booty. Something. I wanna see the teg run. And  bout what you told me last night.
Posted by: Gerbilo
yeah, the teg is all dented up
some bastard smashed their door into it... normally I wouldn't get it fixed.. but this car is brand new to me, and i got extra money on selling my old car, so i'mma prolly go ahead.
but yeah, i'll try to get a video of the teg running, the problem is I don't really wanna do too much street racing, so easy to get busted, but i'll see if I can't get a video in the next coupla weeks or so
Posted by: Bobaroo
My friend just got a 1994 Mustang GT 5.0l, 5spd. That thing is fast and sounds so nice.
Posted by: The-AoD
MAn, if I knew who hit the teg, I'd slay them with my Oldsmobile Cutlass of Severed Body Parts, or something.
And you sold the shivic? How much you get out of it?
And there's a nice sounding motor down in hammondsville, it's sitting in a 92 camaro (not an RS ), the dude's restoring it, must be leaving the primer grey body for last or something. Nice looking, and definetly awesome sounding.
Posted by: Superfly3176
There's a ford dealer near where i work like 8 mustangs just sitting there and i thought i'd really just like to take my car at a high rate of speed and smash as many as i could.
Neighbor has an old corvette all restored my guess is it like around a 67. sounds amazing and looks awesome.
Posted by: Gerbilo
Sold the Civic for $3200
yeah, gotta take the teg in for an estimate soon, my friend's bro in law is gonna take a look.. he works for a paint shop but they 99% of the time only deal w/ allstate, and i don't have a claim w/ them so... i dunno
Posted by: Bix VT
I can attest...the 1992 5.0 GT will go from 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds. It may be only 225hp, but it also has 300ft-lb to back it up...you just have to know when to shift.
Posted by: Gerbilo
lol, 275lb-ft
I think i'm going this afternoon to get the car looked at by my friend's bro-inlaw. He works for a paint shop, the problem is they tend to be expensive and 99% of the time only work with Allstate Ins.
Posted by: The-AoD
Dangit Gerb, repeatitive posting! No more of that! C'mon!
It is such a shame morons do such things to others property. Myself, I'm always absolutely careful not to hit cars with my doors, because I know how pissed I'd be.
By the way, some damned cavalier wanted to race me earlier.. Didn't work for him. Moron thought his little wimp 4 banger could outpower the power of a gutless cutlass. GOGO!
BTW, that flowmaster looks quite nice. 
Posted by: Gerbilo
hahah cavy
I had a guy in a 300ZX try to race me light to light tonite.. cept it was on a busy ass commercial street... heavily patrolled by cops.. with a speed limit of 35... at 1030... on a saturday night...
yeah, he took off and i feathered the throttle... ain't that stupid
Posted by: Bix VT
I'm fairly sure it's 300ft-lb...and you should have followed the 300zx until you got to a more safe location...racing is teh 1337 sport of kings yo.
Posted by: The-AoD
Gerb, it was one of those early 90's cavaliers. Not the box shape, but not the rounded shape of the later 90's. Stupid moron. Pulled up beside me then hit the gas, slowed down, hit the gas, ect.. I waited til he slowed down again and punched it. Left him in the dust. heheh
Anyways, good logic there Gerb. Best to do it where it's safe.
Posted by: Gerbilo
yeah bix, the problem is that there isn't any real good place to race at all...not in that area atleast...
plus i was in a hurry on my way to my friends place to watch SNL... yay lindsay lohan hahaha
and damn.. your right.. i forgot the stangs weakened in later years.. fook heh
nice kill steve.... my friend has a 92 Z24 cavy with some minor work... it'd give ya a run... 3.1L
Posted by: Bix VT
Ah well...I've passed up the chance to race a few times myself...mostly because of time constraints as well heh.
Of course I'm right. You think I'd even think of getting a 5.0 if it wasn't at least under 7 seconds 0-60?
Lindsay Lohan is pretty hot...but I should save the details for 86ed.
Posted by: Gerbilo
Yeah, those 5.0s are all about going fast in a line for cheap.
a thirsty V8 on wheels... don't expect it to turn, be reliable, or pretty much anything other than something that drives in a line fast ... hehehe
but for $5000 you could have a car that runs low 14s or high 13s... it would look like absolute shit and run just once, but it'll do it haha
Posted by: Superfly3176
The malibu governs at 107, and trust me i've tried at least 3 times to push it farther. Damn computer chips damn them to hell.
Cavaliers have about as much horsepower as a ride on mower. I hate people who "trick" them out. I don't even see the point yeah some import 4 cyls are nice but american made 4s arent that great.
For fours i think RX-7s are nice and acura's integra and rsx.
Posted by: The-AoD
Well, the RX-7 isn't exactly a 4 cylinder... It's a rotary, well USUALLY. But I know what you're saying. The hottest american 4-banger right now, even though I hate them, I'll admit, is the SRT4 in the new neon's.. Neon's are a joke in my opinion anyways, just like most cavaliers.
And jim, I know where a cavalier sits with an inline 6. Damn thing runs like a bat out of hell. As a matter of fact, I believe it was a Z24 as well. My friend tried and tried to blow the thing up without overrev by downshifting. Motor just held together so well.
Posted by: Gerbilo
Yeah superfly, the RX-7 is a 2 rotor wankle engine.... which is gonna be a whole new conversation i have a feeling.
For the SRT-4... yeah... mean bastards. Helluva great bang for the buck car IMO... i just dunno though... it's a dodge.. and a neon at that hehehe....
Posted by: Bix VT
Good bang for your buck yes, but it looks like a college girl on steroids. Honestly, Neons and the new Beetle are chick cars. Not even going to go into my feelings about the PT Cruiser...
And my 5.0 will run more than just a straight line. First thing I'm doing won't be slapping headers on it, that's for sure. It'll be bracing that weak chassis and putting some good brakes on it. Then suspension work...followed by wheels...then the engine buildup. And btw, I think the 87-92 stangs look better than any of the 94-99 ones...Once they went back to a nice crisp shape it was all good though.
Posted by: Gerbilo
hehehe, I still loved the 97 Cobra I almost got, looked way better than the old foxbodies IMO
hrmm... what type of suspension does the 5.0 have? It'll be hard to get all that good of handling w/o IRS i'd assume hehe
Posted by: Bix VT
I'm not exactly sure of all the details, but the main problem is the chassis: it's just not stiff enough. And it wouldn't be that hard to get good handling from a 5.0...all you need is a few Chassis braces and a nice suspension setup. Maybe 5 grand. It would take a while, but it'd be worth it. Or course if all I did was drag it...then why bother. But I think about 75% of the grin factor from driving a car comes from the handling so...
btw, my post before about the PT Cruiser? It stands for Part Time Cruiser.
Posted by: Gerbilo
hehehe
that $5000 to handle thing you said, atleast you are aware. There are so many ppl that hate on imports and 4 bangers and such because they don't have out of the box power of some domestics.
Certain cars you can buy that'll run in a line but cant turn, so you invest $5000 so they can handle.
other cars you can buy that'll cut up the road, but don't have stock power, so you can spend $5000 to boost their power... hehe
Posted by: Bix VT
I don't know which would be better...getting a 5.0 and making it handle real well...or buying a used Miata and putting a 5.0 engine in it...but then you can buy a 5.0 for 3k and Miatas are more...thus I must conclude I should stick with my '92 GT.
Posted by: taco_fox
Quote:
Originally posted by Bix VT
thus I must conclude I should stick with my '92 GT.
|
Good choice.
Posted by: Bix VT
I'm assuming that's not sarcasm? Assuming it's not, I thank you. You must have good taste in cars.
btw, do you live within driving distance of San Antonio?
Posted by: taco_fox
Driving distance is a relative term.. it's five hours away
Posted by: Gerbilo
Yeah, but miatas won't blow up nearly as often as 5.0s lol
Posted by: Bix VT
taco: bummer man...I visit SA every so often but 5 hours is a bit much.
Gerb: can you think of what a 5.0 in a miata would do? ...
Posted by: Gerbilo
yes, force you to get a new rear suspension haha. The miata would lose all handling ability with that much weight up front.
I'm fairly sure the Mazdaspeed Miata would easily destroy a 5.0 miata on the track. autox that is
Posted by: Bix VT
I can just see it now...you pull up next to a supra in a miata and destroy him...then the look...ahhh, the look would be priceless.
Posted by: Gerbilo
haha, My friend has a 900hp supra... he said it's fun to just pull up on dimwitted domestic drivers that dunno what a supra is...... then send them to hell hahaha
Posted by: Bix VT
900hp? rwhp or at the crank? I think it's sad that some people don't know what a Supra is...it should be loved and revered by all. I say we make a new thread to post all of our favorite cars in!
Posted by: Gerbilo
Well, when he actually dynoed it, it broke lol.
It was 854RWHP @ 5000rpm when the head started to lift off the block. It'll rev to around 7000rpm, so you know it'll get a few more horses there. Plus it was running 30psi, you can turn the boost up to 36psi and figure 20hp per lb. Oh yeah, this is w/o nitrous as well.
Posted by: Bix VT
http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/cwm/cwm/eek2.gif
That's a whole mess of hp! I'll bet it runs 950 at least and that's rwhp...36psi of boost? Plus nitrous?? That would run at least 1200hp! At the rear wheels!!
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom...ctor/scared.gif
Posted by: Fury451
hey bix what happened 2 yur car thread yesterday , u know the one with the car interiors and stuff ? 
Posted by: Gerbilo
Yeah, it's a mean ****er, i'll have to send you some vids of another supra from the same area. 4th fastest in the world
Posted by: Bix VT
Fury: Canis decided he wasn't a true car enthusiast and took all of my happiness away...
i.e. he merged 75% of all the car threads together into one.
|
|
|
|
|
