Author Topic: A Car (Read 3038 times)

CAP1 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 08, 2008, 05:03:41 PM »

Quote from: eagl on October 08, 2008, 04:29:52 PM

Regarding mustangs vs. anything else...

Look at the SCCA autocross PAX ratings for F-Stock and Super-Stock. Cars like the mustang, camaro, certain non-turbo imports (like non-turbo 300z), and other v8 cars are typically in F-Stock. The Vette is in Super Stock. Only the stangs and camaros with big mods end up in super stock, and they are simply not competitive against the vettes. In F-Stock, look at the national results, and you see that every year for the last 10 years, there hasn't been a mustang anywhere near the top 10. Again, there is not a stock mustang that is competitive against even a 1998 camaro Z-28 unless it is a limited run model, and even then they're not nearly as fast as an equal-price vette.

The SCCA results are definitive - these are real drivers of ALL skill levels, driving each of these cars on a variety of tracks to the limit of the cars. Some of these guys have been racing their daily driver for years, so you can bet that they are getting every millisecond out of the car. And the mustangs simply do not match up against anything comparable if handling is part of the contest.

In my very first SCCA autocross event, a very experienced mustang driver was racing against me in my brand new trans-am. I beat him in my very first race on the first day of the race weekend. The next day, he offered free driving lessons in exchange for co-driving my car. He won the event driving my car. There is no comparison on a real track between a stock mustang and stock f-body, even today. If you don't believe me, check the SCCA solo2 rulebook and vehicle classification guide and nationals results.

Of course, a well driven miata is about as fast as a mustang in solo2 competition... Just ask Andy Hollis

1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 305 auto 3.23 165@4200 240@2400 9.4 17.13@80.70mph MT 1/82
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 305 auto 3.23 165@4200 240@2400 7.9 16.0@85mph CD 1/82
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 305 auto 3.23 165@4200 240@2400 9.7 17.5@80mph RT 1/82
1982 Ford Mustang GT 302 4 spd 3.08 157@4200 240@2400 8.0 16.3@n/a RT 1/82
1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 305 auto 3.23 165@4200 240@2400 8.8 16.75@80.50mph MT 1/82
1982 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 305 auto 3.23 165@4200 240@2400 9.2 17.0@80.5mph R&T 9/82
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 305 AOD n/a 215@4400 275@3200 6.8 15.30@89.1mph MT 10/84
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 305 AOD 3.42 215@4400 275@3200 7.0 15.2@91mph C&D 10/84
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 305 AOD 3.27 215@4400 275@3200 6.9 15.30@89.1mph MT 10/84
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 4bbl L69 305 5 spd 3.73 190@4800 240@3200 7.5 15.4@90mph C&D 10/84
1985 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 4bbl L69 305 5 spd 3.73 190@4800 240@3200 6.8 15.32@89.6 mph MT 7/85
1985 Ford Mustang GT 302 5 spd 2.73 210@4600 265@3400 7.1 15.51@89.7mph MT 10/84
1985 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 305 AOD 3.27 205@4400 270@3200 7.7 16.07@84.5mph MT 10/84
1985 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 4bbl L69 305 5 spd 3.73 190@4800 240@2400 7.6 15.6@87mph C&D 4/85
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 350 AOD 3.27 230@4000 330@3200 6.6 15.23@91.2mph MT 11/89
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 305 5 spd 3.08 215@4400 295@3200 6.6 14.9@95mph R&T 4/87
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 Conv 305 AOD 3.23 190@4000 285@2800 8.1 16.45@85.1mph MT 11/86
1987 Chevrolet Corvette 350 AOD 3.07 240@4000 345@3200 6.7 15.32@90.8mph MT 11/89
1987 Ford Mustang GT 302 5 spd n/a 225@4200 300@3200 6.5 15.13@94.1mph MT 11/89
1987 Pontiac Firebird Formula 305 5 spd 3.27 205@4400 285@3200 7.7 16.09@87.6mph MT 11/86
1987 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 3.27 210@4400 320@2800 6.8 15.35@91.6mph MT 6/87
1987 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 3.27 210@4400 320@2800 6.9 15.36@91.7mph MT 11/89
1987 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 2.73 210@4000 315@3200 7.1 15.5@89.5mph
1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 350 AOD 3.27 235@4200 335@3400 7.2 15.67@91.6mph MT 9/88
1988 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 305 5 spd 3.08 215@4400 295@3200 6.6 14.9@95mph Perf Cars 1988
1988 Chevrolet Camaro, Chevy Raceshop 454 454 AOD 3.27 400@5600 420@3600 5.5 14.0@102mph MT 1/91
1988 Chevrolet Corvette 350 4 spd n/a 245@4300 340@3200 6.5 15.04@93.6MPH MT 9/88
1988 Ford Mustang GT 302 5 spd 3.08 230@4200 310@3300 7.1 15.60@91.5mph MT 9/88
1988 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 2.73 225@4200 330@3200 7.3 15.88@90mph MT 7/88
1988 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 3.27 220@4400 330@3000 7.6 16.08@90.2mph MT 9/88
1988 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD n/a 210@4400 315@3200 7.1 15.5@89.5mph
1989 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 350 AOD 3.27 230@4000 330@3200 6.9 15.54@91.7mph MT 1/88
1989 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 Conv 305 AOD 2.73 195@4000 295@2800 7.8 16.28@84.31mph MT 11/89
1989 Chevrolet Camaro, Chevy Raceshop 350 5 spd 3.45 345@5000 380@3600 5.2 13.7@103.3mph MT 1/91
1989 Chevrolet Corvette 350 6 spd 3.42 245@4300 340@3200 6.4 15.02@94.6mph MT 5/89
1989 Chevrolet Corvette 350 6 spd 3.54 240@4000 335@3200 5.6 14.46@95.27mph MT 11/89
1989 Chevrolet Corvette Callaway TT 350 6 spd 3.54 382@4250 562@2500 4.4 12.9@111mph C&D 5/89
1989 Ford Mustang GT 302 5 spd 2.73 225@4000 300@3200 7.2 15.77@92.8 MT 1/88
1989 Ford Mustang LX 302 5 spd 3.08 225@4200 300@3200 6.6 15.38@91.52mph MT 11/89
1989 Ford Mustang Saleen SC 302 5 spd 3.55 292@5200 327@3500 5.9 14.2@98mph C&D 5/89
1989 Pontiac Firebird Formula 305 5 spd 3.08 215@4000 285@3200 7.5 15.95@88.5mph MT 1/88
1989 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 20th Ann 231 AOD 3.27 250@4300 340@2800 5.4 14.18@95.8mph MT 3/89
1989 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 20th Ann 231 AOD 3.27 250@4000 340@2800 5.1 14.18@98.86mph MT 11/89
1989 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 350 AOD 3.27 235@440 325@2400 6.5 15.40@90.28mph

HERE'S THE LINK
http://www.cobranet.com/roadtest.htm

CAP1 · « **Reply #46 on:** October 08, 2008, 05:12:57 PM »

1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 1LE 305 5 spd 3.42 230@4400 300@3200 6.3 14.8@95.4mph MT 6/90
1990 Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z28 1LE 350 AOD 3.23 245@4400 345@3200 6.1 14.8@96mph MT 6/90
1990 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 350 6 spd 3.42 380@6200 370@4200 4.7 13.13@110mph MT 6/89
1990 Ford Mustang GT Roush Twin Turbo 351 5 spd 3.55 375@5200 390@3500 5.8 14.5@100.7mph MT 1/91
1991 Ford Mustang LX 302 5 spd 3.08 225@4200 300@3200 6.2 14.8@96mph

JUST to kick more dirt around, since some of you are taking this too personally......

note that the iroc with a 350 and 3.23 rear is onl the same performance as the 302 stang with a 3.08 rear.
in the one i just did previously, also note that the firebirds with the BUICK turbo engines hammered both the stang AND the camaro.

BTW, a buddy here in joisey has a GN for sale...it'll need restoring, but it was a 10 second street car. he blew the tranny, and parked it.
anyone interested, pm me, and i'll get ya his contact info.

eagl · « **Reply #47 on:** October 08, 2008, 05:34:42 PM »

Those appear to be dragstrip times CAP... I never said that you couldn't make a mustang go fast in a straight line. Also note that in 1998 the camaro/firebird got a brand new engine that took nearly 10 years to be matched by ford. Your data conveniently stops just before the LT-1 f-bodies that hit the street around 1994. I think that most enthusiasts would agree that the pre-1994 f-body was somewhat outmatched by the mustang, but it's no contest after 1994 until the f-body production ended. Plus, you just can't make mustangs turn. Even the newest ones handle like crap compared to post-1994 f-bodies or any vette made in the last 12 years, and that's the only point I'm making here. When trying to compare mustangs to vettes you said stangs handle great in addition to going fast in a straight line, and I'm saying nope.

CAP1 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 08, 2008, 06:02:14 PM »

Quote from: eagl on October 08, 2008, 05:34:42 PM

Those appear to be dragstrip times CAP... I never said that you couldn't make a mustang go fast in a straight line. Also note that in 1998 the camaro/firebird got a brand new engine that took nearly 10 years to be matched by ford. Your data conveniently stops just before the LT-1 f-bodies that hit the street around 1994. I think that most enthusiasts would agree that the pre-1994 f-body was somewhat outmatched by the mustang, but it's no contest after 1994 until the f-body production ended. Plus, you just can't make mustangs turn. Even the newest ones handle like crap compared to post-1994 f-bodies or any vette made in the last 12 years, and that's the only point I'm making here. When trying to compare mustangs to vettes you said stangs handle great in addition to going fast in a straight line, and I'm saying nope.

no..i only stopped there as i as making it too long. at the bottom, i posted the link to where i got it.

and it's the same as i've said in the past.....79 to about 93 or so, stangs were always quicker. then ford had a serious brainfart, and slowed em down, while chevy made the camaros faster.

also, think my words were something like decent handling?

""
Online

Re: A Car
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2008, 08:40:05 PM » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: superpug1 on October 06, 2008, 10:54:15 AM
Seeing as politics is verboten, lets talk about the next best thing, cars!
I am going to field training next summer and as kind of an atta boy my whole family is pitching in to help me get a new car. So far I like the idea of getting a new Camaro SS (black, 6 spd, LS3, teh sexxy pretty much), but thats the stratosphere of my price cap. If thats not attainable I was thinking 4 door cobalt ss tc. If not that then maybe a nice use 911. Anyone had any personal experience with the last two? Any ideas other than the mentioned?

""ferget the camaro. it's pretty, but just a copy....once again.

go for a mustang gt. good looking, fast, good handling, and somewhat affordable. ""

theres my original post. was comparin it to a camaro, not a vette....someone else brought the vettes in, then i started the comparisons to vettes.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #49 on:** October 08, 2008, 06:36:16 PM »

Wow...talk about helplessly myopic.

pxdig · « **Reply #50 on:** October 08, 2008, 07:45:17 PM »

Quote from: Steve on October 06, 2008, 09:22:00 PM

Lowered?

pxdig's car needs bigger wheels or needs to be lowered.

Bigger wheels are for kids in hondas with hugh mufflers!! the bigger the rim the more weight you put on the tire the more speed you loose for what? "pimping a ride" no thanks.

Lowering the car affects both the driveability and the manuverablity (those in AH should appreciate the latter) so lowering it is a strict NO.

As far as the mustang vs Vette discussion,

I an a HUGE mustang fan, but I will admit that the Vette is obviously the better sports car. It has better cornering, acceleration, etc. but then again you can get a loaded Mustang GT for about $30k, a vette would be twice as much, it would not have a back seat or a decent trunk, and the mechanical reliability is hightly questionable.

All things taken into account, Mustang is the only way to go....

Steve · « **Reply #51 on:** October 08, 2008, 08:06:17 PM »

Quote from: pxdig on October 08, 2008, 07:45:17 PM

Bigger wheels are for kids in hondas with hugh mufflers!! the bigger the rim the more weight you put on the tire the more speed you loose for what? "pimping a ride" no thanks.

Lowering the car affects both the driveability and the manuverablity (those in AH should appreciate the latter) so lowering it is a strict NO.

As far as the mustang vs Vette discussion,

I an a HUGE mustang fan, but I will admit that the Vette is obviously the better sports car. It has better cornering, acceleration, etc. but then again you can get a loaded Mustang GT for about $30k, a vette would be twice as much, it would not have a back seat or a decent trunk, and the mechanical reliability is hightly questionable.

All things taken into account, Mustang is the only way to go....

Wow, you are wrong on so many fronts, that I don't know where to start. I guess I'll just leave it at your car looks like a roller skate with those tiny little wheels. Now I'll be done with you since you are beyond redemption. Bye.

CAP1 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 08, 2008, 10:35:56 PM »

Quote from: pxdig on October 08, 2008, 07:45:17 PM

Bigger wheels are for kids in hondas with hugh mufflers!! the bigger the rim the more weight you put on the tire the more speed you loose for what? "pimping a ride" no thanks.

Lowering the car affects both the driveability and the manuverablity (those in AH should appreciate the latter) so lowering it is a strict NO.

As far as the mustang vs Vette discussion,

I an a HUGE mustang fan, but I will admit that the Vette is obviously the better sports car. It has better cornering, acceleration, etc. but then again you can get a loaded Mustang GT for about $30k, a vette would be twice as much, it would not have a back seat or a decent trunk, and the mechanical reliability is hightly questionable.

All things taken into account, Mustang is the only way to go....

actually, as much as i like my mustangs, i do not believe there to be any reliability problems with the vettes

Grayeagle · « **Reply #53 on:** October 09, 2008, 01:19:35 AM »

Well.. pug was lookin for ideas.

Lotta folks dont consider the Vette because they think they are unobtainable, when in fact .. they are very much available, in all kindsa performance levels. I know I never looked twice at 'em for decades, I just wasnt interested in a 2 seater.

I was very much surprised when we got our first Vette. It just blew me away on so many levels.
I got a pretty good laugh outta that post above about 'no trunk' .. ROFL.

On a C5 or C6 coupe ..that whole back glass area back there opens up.
I mean.
Just how much trunk do you need?

The rims are CnC cut aluminum, chromed, from Halibrand.
They weigh less than the stock ones that were on it.
They are the stock sizes that came on the car.
The back tires are an inch and a half wider than stock, and they still dont hook very well,
..but a lot better than the run flats that were on it.

Ya, the car is lowered, about as far as I can go without gettin caught on gravel bits

With the Z-51 suspension, it handles like a frik-kin go cart.
Even moreso lowered.
Lowering a car, with a decent suspension, decent size tires,
does in fact make it corner better due to lower roll center, CG, less suspension reaction time
.. trade off is it does ride a bit harsh..if the road is bumpy, it's bumpy,
..then again .. it's not a Cadillac. -evil grin-)

I've never driven a car that has such a secure feeling on the highway,
..it goes exactly where I point it right when I point it there.
Then again ... never driven a Porche 911 .. I imagine it would be similar, if underpowered.
(we have Porche clubs accompany us on runs now an then ..
..they bring up the rear on any of our hi-speed runs thru the twisties,
..the Z06's are up front, usually coupla miles out there across the desert in no time.)

That's just real world tho.
They may not want to get sideways thru the corners like some of our club members do

..because we can.

-Frank aka GE

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #54 on:** October 09, 2008, 12:41:04 PM »

Quote from: pxdig on October 08, 2008, 07:45:17 PM

Bigger wheels are for kids in hondas with hugh mufflers!! the bigger the rim the more weight you put on the tire the more speed you loose for what? "pimping a ride" no thanks.

Unsprung weight is a factor if you intend to put ridiculously large wheels on a car. Beyond that, weight is more affected by material than size. I had 19"s on my 03 M3 that weighed less than the stock 18"s and increased the contact patch at the same time.

In a straight line, you will lose some of the ability to play with tire pressures, but on a road course, a high profile tire and its propensity to deform under heavy lateral G's will hurt you more than any additional weight will - if it even exists in the first place.

Quote

Lowering the car affects both the driveability and the manuverablity (those in AH should appreciate the latter) so lowering it is a strict NO.

Reducing ride height does change the driving dynamics of any car, yes, but a lower center of gravity is always better than a higher center of gravity and the change, if done properly, will almost always improve cornering speeds.

Now, we're not talking some punk cutting the springs on his Civic. Full coilovers, camber plates, roll bars, arms, etc, etc - adjusted properly to work in conjunction with each other, depending on your needs, will always trump whatever factory garbage was in there when you bought it (any car).

The only thing that will suffer is your front lip if you go into a parking garage too quickly.

Lukanian-7 · « **Reply #55 on:** October 09, 2008, 03:39:34 PM »

Nah, You Need One Of These.

O-Right

DiabloTX · « **Reply #56 on:** October 09, 2008, 05:09:26 PM »

Whoa....far out, man!

RTR · « **Reply #57 on:** October 09, 2008, 07:28:42 PM »

Welp...We own a 2007 Mustang convertible. I can tell you that we really like it. But....It handles quite well for a heavy car, but it is not a nimble ballerina. No, it's more like a large girl at a Polka me-thinks. Twirls okay but gets a little sloppy at the edges

We do like the car however, but then again we are old.

Cheers,
RTR

pxdig · « **Reply #58 on:** October 09, 2008, 11:38:20 PM »

Quote from: Saurdaukar on October 09, 2008, 12:41:04 PM

Unsprung weight is a factor if you intend to put ridiculously large wheels on a car. Beyond that, weight is more affected by material than size. I had 19"s on my 03 M3 that weighed less than the stock 18"s and increased the contact patch at the same time.

In a straight line, you will lose some of the ability to play with tire pressures, but on a road course, a high profile tire and its propensity to deform under heavy lateral G's will hurt you more than any additional weight will - if it even exists in the first place.

Reducing ride height does change the driving dynamics of any car, yes, but a lower center of gravity is always better than a higher center of gravity and the change, if done properly, will almost always improve cornering speeds.

Now, we're not talking some punk cutting the springs on his Civic. Full coilovers, camber plates, roll bars, arms, etc, etc - adjusted properly to work in conjunction with each other, depending on your needs, will always trump whatever factory garbage was in there when you bought it (any car).

The only thing that will suffer is your front lip if you go into a parking garage too quickly.

Amazing how everyone knows better and is more informed than automotive engineers! so, I should get bigger wheels, so the car ends up sitting higher then drop it so it can sit lower, makes sense

?

Bigger wheels may add some rubber to the road but dont kid yourself this is more than offset by the additional weight. Bigger wheels are mostly for looks, if your into that type of thing which I am not, and since it is my car that is the end of that suggestion.

I said that dropping the car affects the manuverabltiy and drivability. this is correct. Although it can improve cornering charactericts (hence changing the manuverablity) this is only a significant plus if your going to do very hard cornering. I do 1/4 mile, so it does nothing for me. It does affect drivablity in that the comfort of the daily drive is significantly affected. Since I drive my pony everyday, this is not an opption for me.

Now, anything else? anyone want me to put on fuzzy dice or maybe a big airbrush painting of elvis on the hood??

CAP1 · « **Reply #59 on:** October 09, 2008, 11:57:22 PM »

Quote from: pxdig on October 09, 2008, 11:38:20 PM

Amazing how everyone knows better and is more informed than automotive engineers! so, I should get bigger wheels, so the car ends up sitting higher then drop it so it can sit lower, makes sense ? actually, i get to spend my days fixing automotive engineers screw ups. and trust me, they make more than any of you know.
that being said, i completley disagree with the big wheels thing. todays cars are too sensitive. you will change the suspension geometry, and will find that you'll lose a bit of handling, the car will ride like crap, due to less sidewall, and you will wear those tires out ungodly fast. work with better rate springs, shocks, and/or struts, anti-roll bars, and better tires. stiffen the car up. again, you'd be surprised how much your car flexes.

Bigger wheels may add some rubber to the road but dont kid yourself this is more than offset by the additional weight. Bigger wheels are mostly for looks, if your into that type of thing which I am not, and since it is my car that is the end of that suggestion.

I said that dropping the car affects the manuverabltiy and drivability. this is correct. Although it can improve cornering charactericts (hence changing the manuverablity) this is only a significant plus if your going to do very hard cornering. I do 1/4 mile, so it does nothing for me. It does affect drivablity in that the comfort of the daily drive is significantly affected. Since I drive my pony everyday, this is not an opption for me.generally, when you lower a car for handling, the only time you're really gonna feel inprovement will be pushing to extremes....like in an autocross. you'll never ever need or use it in day to day driving. also..refer up to the previous comment.

Now, anything else? anyone want me to put on fuzzy dice or maybe a big airbrush painting of elvis on the hood?? how's about a nice set of flames?