Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: pirhana6 on January 19, 2011, 03:36:10 AM
-
Quite a few automotive enthusiasts here. I'm wondering what you value most from an engine for normal road use - torque or power?
-
Quite a few automotive enthusiasts here. I'm wondering what you value most from an engine for normal road use - torque or power?
Horse power creates torque
-
Horse power creates torque
True, but the amount of torque you get out of each HP depends on the engine design. For example you can have a new Chevy Corvette V8 with near 640 HP and maybe 600 lb-ft of torque. Or you can have a Cummins inline 6 diesel with only 280 HP and over 650lb-ft of torque.
HP is a measurement of power or work / time, and torque is a measurement of torsional force or energy x distance of lever arm, so...
It all depends on what the demands of your vehicle are. If you want a sports car or muscle car that accelerates fast, and has a high top speed and cruise efficiency you need both. In simplest car terms; HP= top speed, torque= acceleration/pulling/towing. Which is why sports cars usually have near = amounts of both. While work vehicles like trucks, and tractors have lower HP but gobs of torque. With the same torque but only half the HP that Corvette would get off the line just as fast, but start to run out of power the faster it went, and have a much, much lower top speed.
PS. when I got bored one day studying electricity in school I figured out that my cell phone has .027 HP :rock
-
True, but the amount of torque you get out of each HP depends on the engine design. For example you can have a new Chevy Corvette V8 with near 640 HP and maybe 600 lb-ft of torque. Or you can have a Cummins inline 6 diesel with only 280 HP and over 650lb-ft of torque.
HP is a measurement of power or work / time, and torque is a measurement of torsional force or energy x distance of lever arm, so...
It all depends on what the demands of your vehicle are. If you want a sports car or muscle car that accelerates fast, and has a high top speed and cruise efficiency you need both. In simplest car terms; HP= top speed, torque= acceleration/pulling/towing. Which is why sports cars usually have near = amounts of both. While work vehicles like trucks, and tractors have lower HP but gobs of torque. With the same torque but only half the HP that Corvette would get off the line just as fast, but start to run out of power the faster it went, and have a much, much lower top speed.
PS. when I got bored one day studying electricity in school I figured out that my cell phone has .027 HP :rock
very well written and agreed to all points saggs :aok
-
Saggs maybe a bit over generalizing....
As an extreme Formula 1 cars have very little torque compared to horsepower yet they are one of
the highest performing piston powered cars on earth. A more real world example would be a high
performance rotary engine or inline four cylinder, very high rpm with little torque yet quite a bit of
HP. There are plenty of examples that buck the trend Saggs has posted, a ton of European sports
cars come to mind, especially the ones with low (relative to number of cylinders) displacement high
rpm V-10/12s.
My 1,900lb dragster (548 CID big block Chevy) runs 7.70's at 170+ mph in the 1/4 mile and the
converter is to stall above the peak torque. We don't use torque to accelerate the car, we use
horsepower, if not the car would slow down quite a bit.
Another wrench, the drive train does not care how torque is manufactured, whether by raw power
or mechanical leverage. You can take a high rpm engine and put 5-8 gears behind it and create all
the wheel torque you want. Create a lot of horsepower in very narrow high rpm band, put as
many gears as you can row and you will get somewhere very fast.
As far as normal every day use torque moves you car along though, specifically high torque at low
RPM which will yield the best MPG as well.
Strip
-
much prefer the torque curve to peak high up the rev band - nothing like an engine with a bit of top end fizz :aok
-
Horse power creates torque
Well not quite ... My 73 trans am has 250hp and 370tq. Its because its a small epa cam into a 455 cu. Diesel engines might be the same, need that tq for towing.
-
Both are important but for day to day use I'd choose a high torque engine even if it sacrifices some power. Max power usage is very rare in normal traffic in the end while you constantly need torque accelerating out of turns etc. in while cruising peacefully.
My Jeep Commander has a 3.0 crd engine that puts out around 220hp but a nice 510nm torque on a wide rpm range (1500-4500). It moves that chunk of steel surprisingly fast. With 6200lbs gross weight that thing is far from a rocket but the torque makes hauling it around very effortless all while getting mpg that the gas versions can only dream of.
My E320 Merc is certainly faster when pushed to kickdown but in regular traffic it's lower torque makes it feel much more sluggish despite the fact that it's 2000lbs lighter and has also 220hp engine but only with 315nm torque at much higher rpm. It has to be pushed hard to reach the kind of takeoff the diesel puts out with half throttle. Nobody wants to drive the car pushing kickdown in the middle of city, right? :)
-
Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5252
Torque is the actual measure of the rotating force generated by an engine. Horsepower is merely the speed at which that force called torque is produced.
Horsepower does not "make torque".
What is really most important on the street is throttle response.
Most people find that low speed and mid range torque work best on the street. You simply do not have a place to use the high RPM power. Nor do you have the gearing required to do so in most street cars.
The really serious hardcore street guys, however, do use high RPM horsepower, mostly because that high RPM power comes at the cost of low speed torque, and making that exchange allows them to get traction.
Diesel engines make massive amounts of torque by their nature, most of them have a very long stroke compared to their bore. The weight of their internal components precludes high RPM use, the forces created by moving that amount of weight fast are not easily contained. Further, the nature of diesel fuel, and the design intake and exhaust is ideal for low RPM use. Diesel has a considerably higher BTU content than gasoline. And the ports in a diesel head are designed to create their best cylinder filling efficiency at well under 3000 RPM, and in the case of big diesels, such as those found in heavy trucks, that RPM can be as low as 1500 to 2000 RPM. Look at the formula for horsepower above, and consider how much torque is necessary to create 650HP at 2000 RPM, as is done with the old Detroit Diesel 8V92TTA.
-
The really serious hardcore street guys, however, do use high RPM horsepower, mostly because that high RPM power comes at the cost of low speed torque, and making that exchange allows them to get traction.
This is also why a diesel combined to full time 4wd is an excellent platform.
By the way, the true limiting factor on top diesel rpm is not moving masses and such, it's the maximum available rail pressure. Due to the nature of the diesel engine, the fuel needs to be sprayed the faster the rpm rises and yet you're supposed to pump out MORE fuel at the same time. This can be achieved with modern piezo-controlled injectors that can cycle very fast but there is a practical limit to the flowthrough you can get.
The fuel has to be sprayed through a needle thick nozzle in order to create a combustible spray (which is needed to create non-smoking low pollution cycle). This means it's not possible to just enlarge the injector when you need more power. Now, when you need to spray more fuel the only way is to increase pressure given the time for spray is constant. Current high power diesels deploy very high rail pressures to achieve power and rpm but it makes the engines vulnerable to leaks and the pumps very very expensive to manufacture (and repair). High rail pressure makes the engines sensitive to water contamination, too. Water doesn't compress like diesel fuel does so adding water drops into a diesel pump is near equivalent of inserting rocks to your mouth while chewing gum. A technician can visually see the damage done by water as crazy as it sounds.
-
Quite a few automotive enthusiasts here. I'm wondering what you value most from an engine for normal road use - torque or power?
for a normal street car, decide what type of street driving you're going to be doing most. what will be your redline? where will you be shifting? then build the engine so that your horsepower and torque curves intersect near this rpm.
-
Horse power creates torque
Actually it's almost the opposite: Engines create torque, horsepower is calculated based on that torque and rpm. In a manner of speaking, torque creates horsepower!
In simple terms, torque gets the fun started (that seat of the pants kick when you stomp the pedal and the tires hook up), and horsepower keeps the fun going.
From an automotive point of view, what's best? Horsepower, as high of rpm as possible, so that you can take advantage of *gearing* to multiply that power. (edit: I make this statement from the perspective of a sports car owner and "part-time race car driver" - obviously if you're talking about towing or freeway cruising and not "high performance driving" then the magical "what's best?" answer changes...)
Case in point comparison. My 1990 Corvette versus my 1999 Corvette.
The 1990 featured the L98 engine, long tube runner intake design great for low-end torque, but unable to breathe above about 4800 rpm. Heavily modified, that car produced IIRC about 310 hp rwhp at about 4300 rpm on a chassis dyno, but over 525 lb/ft of torque. With so much torque and 315-wide Hoosier DOT-R competition tires it would hook up so hard coming out of corners that it would lift an inside front tire and twist the chassis of the car. It however couldn't rev and lots of shifting was required to keep it in it's very narrow low-end power band. Best 1/4 mile was a 12.99 at 105mph and a 3:33 rear gear.
The 1999 Corvette features an LS1 engine, a wonderful lump that breathes well right past 7000 rpm. Mine is once again heavily modified, 245 stage II heads, LS6 intake, long tube headers, very aggressive cam, VaraRam CAI, underdrive pulleys, a few other things I can't remember. Dyno'd 445 rwhp at about 6400 rpm and 456 lb/ft of torque. 3:45 rear gear. More hp than the 1990 but significantly less torque. Difference? best 1/4 mile of 11.54 at 119 mph at 295-wide cheap Firestone street tires. Would very easily be in the 10-second range with a 3:73 rear gear and better tires.
Horsepower RULES.
THIS LINK is all you need to read to answer all your questions re: Torque vs Horsepower
http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/torqueHP.htm (http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/torqueHP.htm)
-
From an automotive point of view, what's best? Horsepower, as high of rpm as possible, so that you can take advantage of *gearing* to multiply that power.
That would be the case if unlimited rpm would be available without subjecting the engine to extreme wear and tear and passengers to excessive noise levels. If those weren't objects we'd be driving screaming 2-stroke monsters or jet engines instead of easy going soft 4-strokes.
In practice the more power you get with low rpm the better for passenger comfort and engine durability. Of course that's adversely true to the durability of the transmission but that's a whole another story there.
-
That would be the case if unlimited rpm would be available without subjecting the engine to extreme wear and tear and passengers to excessive noise levels. If those weren't objects we'd be driving screaming 2-stroke monsters or jet engines instead of easy going soft 4-strokes.
In practice the more power you get with low rpm the better for passenger comfort and engine durability. Of course that's adversely true to the durability of the transmission but that's a whole another story there.
I agree entirely, and there's a huge variable missing in the discussion if we're only talking about torque, hp, and rpm's.... as Carroll Shelby said "there's no substitute for cubic inches."
DISPLACEMENT
I'll take a bigger engine turning at lower rpm over a smaller engine turning higher rpm, equal horsepower, any day of the week.
But when we're comparing two engines of equal displacement, higher rpm horsepower is gonna be faster all day long. The grannmas and grandpas are gonna want low rpm, smooth, and quiet, but if we were talking about quiet and comfort instead of performance I doubt we'd be having a discussion about horsepower vs torque in the first place. :cool:
-
remember....he was talking street car. there's no reason to take a street engine much above 5500rpm, maybe 6,000. even that's a little high. build the power and torque in low in a street car to make it usable.
-
depends what you like really, most fun car ive owned redlined at 7800rpm :aok
-
i've always driven fast. it never took my 12 second mustang anything over 5800rpm to do what i wanted it to do.........nor any of the hot rods i've driven. hell, my track car ran 9.9's shifting at 6400rpm.
-
The best RPM for any engine will be dictated by a number of factors (cam, heads, intake, headers, main bearing size, rod length, valve springs and others).
I was riding with a friend, in his AC Cobra, and we got caught ona two lane, behind an 18 wheeler doing 50MPH. He decided to pass the truck and by the time he got passed the nose of the truck, the speed-o was reading 135MPH. I was grinning from ear to ear.
His engine dynos at 705HP and 695ft/lbs of torque at 5500RPM. Running 3:73 gears through a T56. Sixth put his 80MPH cruise RPM at around 1,900RPM, which was fine for his engine. Oh, it is a 582 cubic inch Robert Pond engine. It is in a pretty mild state of tune.....relatively speaking.
Cubic inches,...oh yeah, definately the way to go.
-
See Skuzzy, Carroll Shelby was right! :devil
-
The best RPM for any engine will be dictated by a number of factors (cam, heads, intake, headers, main bearing size, rod length, valve springs and others).
I was riding with a friend, in his AC Cobra, and we got caught ona two lane, behind an 18 wheeler doing 50MPH. He decided to pass the truck and by the time he got passed the nose of the truck, the speed-o was reading 135MPH. I was grinning from ear to ear.
His engine dynos at 705HP and 695ft/lbs of torque at 5500RPM. Running 3:73 gears through a T56. Sixth put his 80MPH cruise RPM at around 1,900RPM, which was fine for his engine. Oh, it is a 582 cubic inch Robert Pond engine. It is in a pretty mild state of tune.....relatively speaking.
Cubic inches,...oh yeah, definately the way to go.
i like 3.73's for the street. they're perfect combination for pretty much everything.
-
See Skuzzy, Carroll Shelby was right! :devil
... says the man who races Hondas ;)
ok heres a question - if low end torque is so great, why arent you all driving turbo-diesels? can you buy a turbo-diesel vette or viper? :headscratch:
-
... says the man who races Hondas ;)
ok heres a question - if low end torque is so great, why arent you all driving turbo-diesels? can you buy a turbo-diesel vette or viper? :headscratch:
aahh...he runs hondas? that would explain the need for rpm. :devil
-
i like 3.73's for the street. they're perfect combination for pretty much everything.
They really are, especially with a 6 speed tranny.
He road races his car and last year at the Texas Motor Speedway road course, there were 25 Cobras, and about the same number of Porsches on hand. His Cobra could keep up with the Porsches in the curves and blow them away coming out of the curves into the straights.
One of the Turbo Carreras was bound and determined to beat him. The Cobra would top at about 165MPH before braking into the first turn, the best the Porsche could do was about 150MPH and they stayed even in the turns.
In the middle of the straight, the Porsche engine blew. You could hear his engine screaming. My guess is he missed a shift as he was pushing to red line (if not farther). My friend ended up with best time of the day and won out.
What he likes about his car is he can push it around the track all day long and then, swap out the tires and drive it home. Most of the Porsches were trailered in. Too radical for street driving.
That is not a ding against small engines. Small engines can be far more efficient, per cubic inch, but they will strain a lot more to produce the same horsepower as a bigger engine can.
-
My R/T crusies at 75mph at 1400 RPMs'.......has a 3.73 rear end. By the way it's a 6 speed manual.
Gears folks....gears. Don't forget'em... Torque/HP + Gearing......decisive factors
-
my wife has the power of talk :old:
-
Robert Pond is a major player in my chosen arena, NHRA Stock Eliminator. He's a long time racer and builder of Ford FE engines. A Robert Pond engine is certain to be an outstanding piece.
-
... says the man who races Hondas
aahh...he runs hondas? that would explain the need for rpm. :devil
Hey hey, I road raced Hondas and Acuras with NASA and SCCA because ..... :drum roll: I couldn't afford to do it Corvettes!
Trust me, if I had the budget to road race a Corvette in T1 or Super Touring, I'd be doing it. I do enjoy the Hondas, tho.... 7000+ rpm all day long, bouncing off the rev limiter (yes, I do like rpms, my ITB class '87 CRX Si had a 4.93 FD :devil ) and never break a sweat... you just can't kill a Honduh. All ever used to have to do in a whole season of road racing was keep adding gas, every 3rd weekend or so a set of tires, once a season a set of brake pads, and once every 4-5 events an oil change. Otherwise those "race cars" thought they were just plain old street cars and were reliable as you could ever want.
My '87 CRX Si, 2006 SEDiv ITB champion
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v317/14/65/1415742882/n1415742882_30037496_747.jpg)
My 86 Acura Integra LS, 2002 NASA Honda Challenge H5 National Champion
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v317/14/65/1415742882/n1415742882_30034360_7296.jpg)
For reference sake, the lap times I turned in that CRX in race trim were within 1.5 sec a lap of the times I was able to turn in the 1990 Corvette, with 200 fewer horsepower (granted the CRX weighed 1500 or so lbs less :lol )
-
I don't know the numbers but after I bought this 2010 Camaro SS, I put a Billy Boat custom performance exhaust on it. They claimed it increases HP by at least 40, but I got it for the sound more than anything. Stock SS has 423hp apparently. Love this car.
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa409/Christopher_Morris/camaro.jpg)
-
i'm waitin for the 2012 boss 302. 5.0L DOHC 440hp and 425 lb/ft of torque at 7500rpm. street car. runs 12's. laps laguna seca faster then the m3's and the other euro cars there. pulls over 1g on the skid pad.
they say the boss will be starting at $40k. :aok
-
Displacement 4.0L/242 in-line 6 At least it's not a 4-cyl
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 190 @ 4600 meh...
SAE Net Torque @ RPM 235 @ 3200 not going to win any burn-out contests @ Wildwood
Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1) 3.73
Trans Type 6-speed Manual (gives me 2200 rpm @ 65 mph in 6th gear)
Ability to go anywhere I want to, anytime I damn well please?
Priceless
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/100_1453.jpg)
If I feel the need to go fast, my dad has one of these that he has had since he was 16 that we are almost finished restoring and not to stock specs, either :devil
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/69pontiacgtogreen.jpg)
-
We run 4.30 gears with a two speed Powerglide, interestingly enough it would slow down with a three or four speed or manual. The converter stalls at 6,000, shifts at 7,000 rpm and goes through the 1/8 at 6,900. The amount of gear(s) that a particular car needs depends on the torque, weight, and engine combination. It also is greatly effected by the area in which the vehicle optimized for. Our car gains only 400 rpm through the back half yet picks up an additional 30 mph.
Figure that one out... ;)
Strip
-
it's probably the rest of the car catching up to the engine. :devil
our camaro has a turbo 400 in it. we got that from another local racer that switched to a powerglide. i forget the exact number, but he said it hurt his 60' times, but his overall et was the same.
we have a 5,500 converter in the camaro, but it stalls at 5000rpm. se set the low rpm limiter at 4600rpm, as that seems to be where she likes to launch. hi rpm is set at 7,000. we shift at 6400rpm on the 1/2 and 2/3, go through the traps at 9.96(best time on that engine) at 131 mph, turning just a hair under 6400rpm. on a good pass, the shift light if flickering in the traps. we run a trans brake, but shift the car manually.
-
ok heres a question - if low end torque is so great, why arent you all driving turbo-diesels? can you buy a turbo-diesel vette or viper? :headscratch:
Here in euroland most family cars are already turbodiesels. They're very comfortable to drive and get great mpg. Vettes and Vipers are mostly for teenagers who want to compensate. Even the police force largely uses diesel nowadays in many countries.
-
BMW 516d is a nice ride . i have a customer with one. probably tear a camero a new one 0-60 and will actually turn too not just plough on when you turn the wheel .
I'd rather have a smaller car with better power to weight like the lotus exige . 1.8ltr engine 0-60 in 4.5 sec and has buckets loads of grip and cheaper than yank crapmobiles . Great fun to drive too . It just points and shoots . No fuss no stupid 4ltr that produce almost no power just well engineered sports car that looks damn sexy too . It drives like a kart , you can throw it into corners at silly speeds and it will stick .
-
Vettes and Vipers are mostly for teenagers who want to compensate.
You clearly need to look at the customer base of these two automobiles, you are way off base.
Strip
-
You clearly need to look at the customer base of these two automobiles, you are way off base.
Strip
viper>vette any day.
doesnt the viper have the most torque of any other vehicle? top gear kept saying this a couple of times in there review of the viper.
plus hennesey has been running tests to prove the're viper is the fastest car in the world. i believe the highest unofficial speed its reached was 302. but something allways nocks it out of qualification (on-board computer fries,transmission goes, etc)
-
Most torque in stock trim....not a chance!
The Hennesey Viper is a wicked fast ride but there is not much Dodge left in that car. That is like saying a Pro 5.0 Mustang is the fastest 1/4 mile vehicle in the world. Sure its fast, but its not a Ford anymore, it certainly has very few OEM parts left other than the basic shell. By your own admission you have acknowledged the biggest downfall with the Hennesey Viper, durability. Nearly every article, magazine, TV show and gossip story involves some sort of breakage at some point.
As far as the Viper being better than a Corvette, you clearly have never driven both vehicles. The Corvette has much better street manners, sporting a better ride, better comfort and better fuel economy. The Viper rides like a tank, radiates heat from transmission tunnel and the AC is adequate at best. The maintenance on a Corvette is far cheaper, its easier to work on and more parts available. On track performance is nearly identical, the lap times at Nurburgring were within a couple of seconds.
The Viper might beat the Corvette in a couple of areas but it will punish you at the same time. The Corvette is much more forgiving and is actually a street car that performs like racecar. The Viper is a racecar that pretends to be a street car, a piss poor one at that.
So no, Viper>Vette does not compute....
Strip
-
The Camaro I bought for my Daughter... we like the horse power. The Tahoe for my Wife.... horse poser. My 3/4 ton chevy crew cab has a Duramax and Allison trans... you can figure that one out. :)
I've been to Hennessey's shop several times. We have several Hennessey Camaros in the Club.
I actually was at the unvailing of the Hennessey Venom that was on Car & Driver's cover.
-
Most torque in stock trim....not a chance!
The Hennesey Viper is a wicked fast ride but there is not much Dodge left in that car. That is like saying a Pro 5.0 Mustang is the fastest 1/4 mile vehicle in the world. Sure its fast, but its not a Ford anymore, it certainly has very few OEM parts left other than the basic shell. By your own admission you have acknowledged the biggest downfall with the Hennesey Viper, durability. Nearly every article, magazine, TV show and gossip story involves some sort of breakage at some point.
As far as the Viper being better than a Corvette, you clearly have never driven both vehicles. The Corvette has much better street manners, sporting a better ride, better comfort and better fuel economy. The Viper rides like a tank, radiates heat from transmission tunnel and the AC is adequate at best. The maintenance on a Corvette is far cheaper, its easier to work on and more parts available. On track performance is nearly identical, the lap times at Nurburgring were within a couple of seconds.
The Viper might beat the Corvette in a couple of areas but it will punish you at the same time. The Corvette is much more forgiving and is actually a street car that performs like racecar. The Viper is a racecar that pretends to be a street car, a piss poor one at that.
So no, Viper>Vette does not compute....
Strip
actually yes, i have driven in both. my friends dad owns an 09 corvette and a friend who own an 08 viper. and i got to say the viper is just alot more fun to drive. it feels like a sportcar should. it has pure raw power to it. why would you buy a sportscar for comfort anyways? i would take a hennesey dodge viper venom twin turbo with spartan interior over some posh lambo sporting leather seats and etc. if i wanted that stuff i'd buy a sedan.
and many auto-magazines name the viper ACR as a better track car than the corvette. (car&driver, motortrend) sure the viper has some wear&tear issues, but ever good car has its faults. even top gear named the viper better than the vette.
most ppl ive seen who like a vette over a viper is because of 3 reason.
1.the styling (personally i love the vipers aggresive "GTFO of my face!" look)
2. they like the vette simply because it has a longer history than the viper.
3. there hardcore chevy fans.
only thing ive seen from a vette i like, is that headsup display it has. other than that i'd take a viper over it.
a vipers meaner,faster,better looking(opinion)better engine(opinion) and cmon, it has a HEMI, whats not to love about that?
-flame suit upgraded to resist angry chevy fans- :noid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsiUJ8aPMs
-
You clearly need to look at the customer base of these two automobiles, you are way off base.
Strip
Pardon me, toys for mid-life-crisis dads that their teenagers can then use :aok
Well to be honest in warmer climate I could see someone actually using a Vette, here in the north you can drive it max 4 months a year so they're very rare.
-
Vettes and Vipers are mostly for teenagers who want to compensate.
That's funny right there.
I could say something about smug diesel sedan-driving "holier than thous" who look down their noses at sports car owners, in an effort to look superior, but I won't...
<----- Vette owner who doesn't give a "rat's arse" whether anyone else likes his car, but owns it because it is one hello'va blast to drive.
FWIW I like sedans, diesels, 2-strokes, 4-strokes, classics, imports, domestics, muscle cars, sports cars, kit cars, race cars, etc etc etc.... I'm not an arrogant enuff bellybutton to look down at anyone for owning and driving what they like.........
-
actually yes, i have driven in both. my friends dad owns an 09 corvette and a friend who own an 08 viper.
What flavor Corvette is your "friends dad's" ? My guess is it's probably a pretty basic Vette, an auto trans even.
Do me a favor, and compare apples to apples. Take that Viper, look at what it cost to purchase new, around $90K, compared to around $45K for a new "basic" Vette. Why would you compare the two and expect the Viper to not be better? A more reasonable comparison for you to make would be to go and compare a Corvette that is in the same price range as the $90K Viper, say maybe a Z06. The Z06 stomps the Viper. Well, then one would say "But what about the Viper ACR?" Well, for $120K you could get a Viper ACR, but what you get is a car that is pretty much undriveable on the street. It does put down some pretty impressive numbers, but remember it comes from the factory on race tires that will be worn completely out after just a couple thousand miles of street driving (if even that), and a suspension that will compress your vertibrae on anything but the smoothest of roads, where the ZR1 Corvette, for the same money, is smooth as silk, MUCH more civilized, and offers nearly identical performance as the track-only Viper ACR, and does it on street tires, not special race rubber. Dollar for dollar, the Vette is a "better buy" than the Viper.
and many auto-magazines name the viper ACR as a better track car than the corvette. (car&driver, motortrend) sure the viper has some wear&tear issues, but ever good car has its faults. even top gear named the viper better than the vette.
As long as you're only ever driving it on a race track, the Viper ACR is a better choice.
-
What flavor Corvette is your "friends dad's" ? My guess is it's probably a pretty basic Vette, an auto trans even.
Do me a favor, and compare apples to apples. Take that Viper, look at what it cost to purchase new, around $90K, compared to around $45K for a new "basic" Vette. Why would you compare the two and expect the Viper to not be better? A more reasonable comparison for you to make would be to go and compare a Corvette that is in the same price range as the $90K Viper, say maybe a Z06. The Z06 stomps the Viper. Well, then one would say "But what about the Viper ACR?" Well, for $120K you could get a Viper ACR, but what you get is a car that is pretty much undriveable on the street. It does put down some pretty impressive numbers, but remember it comes from the factory on race tires that will be worn completely out after just a couple thousand miles of street driving (if even that), and a suspension that will compress your vertibrae on anything but the smoothest of roads, where the ZR1 Corvette, for the same money, is smooth as silk, MUCH more civilized, and offers nearly identical performance as the track-only Viper ACR, and does it on street tires, not special race rubber. Dollar for dollar, the Vette is a "better buy" than the Viper.
As long as you're only ever driving it on a race track, the Viper ACR is a better choice.
if i was going to buy a sports car, i wouldnt want it to be "civilized" the viper just gives a ride no other car can match, its so unique.
sure, it beats you up after awhile, but at the end of the day its worth it.its a beast on and off the track, and the raw power you get from it is like nothing a vette could ever reproduce.
the vette is a car your mother could drive to the grocery store and back. the vipers a weekend warrior that has the best attitude a sportscar could ever have.
and how does a zo6 "stomp" a viper? you have a 8.3 ltr 600hp engine going up against a 406hp engine. at stock the viper would smoke it in a race and on the drag strip.
stats for z06
Event Performance
0-60 mph 3.9 sec[5]
0-100 mph 9.2 sec[6]
0-100-0 mph 13.56 sec[6]
1/4 Mile 11.9 sec [3]
Skid Pad 1.03 G[6]
Top Speed 171 mph (275 km/h)
Nürburgring Nordschleife Lap Time * 7:56[7]
now the viper's.
0–60 mph (0–97 km/h): 3.4 sec [15]
0–100 mph (0–160 km/h): 7.6 sec [15]
quickest quarter mile: 10.92 sec @ 127.79 mph (205.66 km/h) [16]
average quarter mile: 11.6 to 11.9 sec.
top speed: 202 mph (325 km/h)
slalom: 74.2 mph (119 km/h)+
skidpad average acceleration: 1.06 g (10.4 m/s²)
100–0 mph (160–0 km/h): 270 ft (82 m)
viper has faster acceleration, bigger engine. more horsepower. a higher topspeed. faster on the quarter mile (its average beats the zo6's quickest, and the vipers quickest blows the zo6 away)
only thing (i think) the vetter has over a viper is mantenance and price. a vette is just too tame for me to take seriously as a sportscar. especially when lined up next to a viper.
-
put a super charger on the vette, and it would smoke the viper and still save 40k. :ahand
-
put a super charger on the vette, and it would smoke the viper and still save 40k. :ahand
put a super charger on the viper, and it'll smoke the vette and anything else in its way :ahand
i hate when people say one car can "smoke" the other when the first car is all tuned up and the other is just stock.
its like saying a man all shot-up with steriods is gonna beat up a normal reguler man. of course he will! duh! :rolleyes:
-
the viper is not a completely dodge built, or powered car. the frame is handbuilt. it's a racing chassis. the engine is a race engine built by an external race shop. i can't remember the name, but my buddy(who has a 96 modded to just over 900hp, and an 06 putting out just over 1200hp) had to have his engine pulled, and sent to that shop for internal repairs. while it was there, he had it modded. lamborghini also did a LOT of the design in this engine.
the corvette on the other hand, is designed, and built by chevy. it is not a race chassis, nor is the engine built outside of chevy.......so you're still comparing apples to oranges.
that being said, i think this.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mEirkQN8o&feature=channel
is slightly faster than the viper time you quoted.
there's also this......you will realize that this vehicle is only .03 of a second slower than that viper time you quoted. so there's a luxury car out there costing less that does this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8ZiO6ebn0
-
and another thing unique to the viper was its plant. i motortrend had an article about the viper (made front cover) 2 months ago and it detailed the dodge plant vipers were built at. it was unique in that the viper was the only sportscar still hand crafted (instead of all machines putting it together). you guys should read that article, it was actually a pretty good read.
-
the viper is not a completely dodge built, or powered car. the frame is handbuilt. it's a racing chassis. the engine is a race engine built by an external race shop. i can't remember the name, but my buddy(who has a 96 modded to just over 900hp, and an 06 putting out just over 1200hp) had to have his engine pulled, and sent to that shop for internal repairs. while it was there, he had it modded. lamborghini also did a LOT of the design in this engine.
the corvette on the other hand, is designed, and built by chevy. it is not a race chassis, nor is the engine built outside of chevy.......so you're still comparing apples to oranges.
that being said, i think this.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6mEirkQN8o&feature=channel
is slightly faster than the viper time you quoted.
there's also this......you will realize that this vehicle is only .03 of a second slower than that viper time you quoted. so there's a luxury car out there costing less that does this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky8ZiO6ebn0
the Zr1 will smoke a viper stock yes, but the viper hasent had a major upgrade since 08 i believe?
your comparing an 08 viper to a newly built, redone 10' vette.
plus the zr1 is supercharged, the viper is not. if you wanted to tell which was better you'd atleast need to supercharge the viper then have them go 1v1.
without that supercharger the zr1 would just be a redone z06.
also, yes that sedan is a beast. could most likely smoke a vette too :lol
-
the Zr1 will smoke a viper stock yes, but the viper hasent had a major upgrade since 08 i believe?
your comparing an 08 viper to a newly built, redone 10' vette.
plus the zr1 is supercharged, the viper is not. if you wanted to tell which was better you'd atleast need to supercharge the viper then have them go 1v1.
without that supercharger the zr1 would just be a redone z06.
they;re stock to stock.
what about the cts? that's an 09.
wouldn't you be pissed after spending 100k+ on a factory built race car, and get hammered in a stop light challenge by your neighbors wife driving a cadi?
-
they;re stock to stock.
what about the cts? that's an 09.
wouldn't you be pissed after spending 100k+ on a factory built race car, and get hammered in a stop light challenge by your neighbors wife driving a cadi?
i could ask you the same thing. wouldnt you be pissed if your beloved corvette got smoke by some granny driving her cadi from the grocery store&back?
and yes, a stock 10'zr1 will beat a stock 08' viper just because its supercharged. put a supercharger on that viper and the vette would fall behind as usual.
-
i could ask you the same thing. wouldnt you be pissed if your beloved corvette got smoke by some granny driving her cadi from the grocery store&back?
and yes, a stock 10'zr1 will beat a stock 08' viper just because its supercharged. put a supercharger on that viper and the vette would fall behind as usual.
i'm not a chevy nut, nor am i nuts over corvettes. i'm someone that works on cars for a living, and i tend to know what cars are and are not.....and what they can and cannot do.
and the fact still remains that dodge does not build that engine. :devil
-
You need to compare Apples to Apples there Tyrannis....
If your gonna do a comparison take a look at the Corvette ZR1 and the Dodge Viper ACR. The Z06 was never meant to compete with a pure bread supercar but you seem to ignore that. You also seem to ignore the fact that Viper costs 50% more than the average Vette.
Take a look at the car that beat the ZR1, its the highest end Viper available with the least amount of creature comforts. The Viper ACR deletes the audio system, rear cabin insulation, tire inflator, and few more parts. In all Dodge says this package deletes about 50lbs from the car and helps performance. This is the car that beat the ZR1, barely I might add, at Nurburgring by 1% of the total lap time.
The Corvette has a faster top speed, more HP (638 vs 600), better interior comforts and true street-ability. The ZR1 does not delete components in the name of saving weight at the cost of comfort. Its suspension will not abuse you on the streets nor will the AC leave you sweating on a hot day like the Viper. The ZR1 is meant to be a car Grandma can drive and yet turn some of the fastest lap times seen at the track for a production car. This is the fastest Vette made too, the base model drives like a Cadillac, something the Viper could only dream of in any trim.
The suspension system is widely considered to even surpass the Z06 model in terms of street manners. The Viper has a mechanically adjusted shock system, you cant change the setup on the fly. The electro-mechanical system on the Vette can be changed from touring to sport with a button. Did I mention the Corvette comes with leather power seats? The Viper that set the record had a fixed seat from Racetech and was not in factory stock condition. The Vette is rumored to have set that time with the AC on and optional interior package.
Dollar for dollar the Corvette Zr1 OWNS the Viper ACR, even heads up the Corvette is far superior in many regards.
Take your go-kart I will settle for a true sports car!
Strip
-
Your argument that the Corvette is supercharged is not only invalid its asinine! The Viper has a naturally aspirated V10, the Corvette has a supercharged V8.
If your gonna compare just compare in as factory condition on both accounts....none of this well "they have an advantage" crap!
Strip
-
That's funny right there.
I could say something about smug diesel sedan-driving "holier than thous" who look down their noses at sports car owners, in an effort to look superior, but I won't...
Umm yea I drive a Jeep due to the climate I live in. A Vette in this climate _is_ purely for compensation since you can't drive it even 6 months on a typical year. In Florida it might be more appealing as an everyday car I guess.
-
and how does a zo6 "stomp" a viper? you have a 8.3 ltr 600hp engine going up against a 406hp engine. at stock the viper would smoke it in a race and on the drag strip.
First, the current Z06 gets 505 hp from a 427 cu in LS7 engine. You (because you don't know of what you speak) quoted the hp numbers for a Z06 model from 6 years ago, the LS6-powered C5 Z06.
stats for z06
<snip>
now the viper's.
<snip>
viper has faster acceleration, bigger engine. more horsepower. a higher topspeed. faster on the quarter mile (its average beats the zo6's quickest, and the vipers quickest blows the zo6 away)
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
You do understand that my comparison was between a Z06 and a base Viper SRT-10, NOT the Viper ACR, right?
You do understand that the Viper SRT-10 and the Viper ACR are two different cars, as different as the Z06 is from the ZR1, right?
You're cutting and pasting performance figures and we're not even talking about the same cars. You're quoting times for the $120K Viper ACR (which you cannot even buy anymore if I understand correctly), which I would take the ZR1 over ANY DAY. I'm talking about the base $90K Viper SRT-10 coupe.
FACT: Every review and test of the base Viper and the Z06 puts their performance figures (not the rubbish you posted) at a virtual dead-heat. Their 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking, handling, and stopping figures are all virtually identical. Truthfully the choice between either of these cars is a matter of personal preference. I only say the Z06 "crushes" the Viper (once again, the SRT-10 coupe, NOT the Viper ACR) because for virtually the same price you get virtually identical performance from both cars, but the Z06 is WAY WAY WAY easier to live with and drive on a daily basis. It's just a way better car, at least from the perspective of being the "whole package."
a vette is just too tame for me to take seriously as a sportscar. especially when lined up next to a viper.
completely and totally your subjective opinion, and oddly enough one apparently not based on any real evidence or fact, but solely on your emotion. :aok
-
Did someone say throw a supercharger on a vette :D. Power for dollar you can't beat a GenIII or Gen IV small block chevy. I was a big block chevy guy for years (sig makes sence now "SB ford guy before that"), now owning two LS motors (FRC and GXP grand prix), I can't say enough good things about them. IF the 468 in my 69 corvette ever goes, an LS motor will be going in. The ruler of the roost is the FRC at my house, more power then a ZR1 and still gets 22-24 on the highway.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/2000%20FRC/001.jpg?t=1295805589)
the engine
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/2000%20FRC/newmaggie.jpg?t=1295806124)
But at some point we are exceeding what anybody needs in a street car, about 500rwhp (about 600 engine) is about the cut off for anything you will need on the street (new ZR1 is about 520-530rwhp stock tune). For some reason we always want more though, I keep on telling myself I will be happy at that 550 rwhp mark (533 now, no meth), adding meth injection this summer since I'm way behind where I want my timing, but IAT too high to push it. Oh well us car guys are nuts anyway :noid
:salute
BigRat
-
First, the current Z06 gets 505 hp from a 427 cu in LS7 engine. You (because you don't know of what you speak) quoted the hp numbers for a Z06 model from 6 years ago, the LS6-powered C5 Z06.
:bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead
You do understand that my comparison was between a Z06 and a base Viper SRT-10, NOT the Viper ACR, right?
You do understand that the Viper SRT-10 and the Viper ACR are two different cars, as different as the Z06 is from the ZR1, right?
You're cutting and pasting performance figures and we're not even talking about the same cars. You're quoting times for the $120K Viper ACR (which you cannot even buy anymore if I understand correctly), which I would take the ZR1 over ANY DAY. I'm talking about the base $90K Viper SRT-10 coupe.
FACT: Every review and test of the base Viper and the Z06 puts their performance figures (not the rubbish you posted) at a virtual dead-heat. Their 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking, handling, and stopping figures are all virtually identical. Truthfully the choice between either of these cars is a matter of personal preference. I only say the Z06 "crushes" the Viper (once again, the SRT-10 coupe, NOT the Viper ACR) because for virtually the same price you get virtually identical performance from both cars, but the Z06 is WAY WAY WAY easier to live with and drive on a daily basis. It's just a way better car, at least from the perspective of being the "whole package."
completely and totally your subjective opinion, and oddly enough one apparently not based on any real evidence or fact, but solely on your emotion. :aok
LOL those were the figures for the viper srt-10, not the acr. :s
and yes its my opinion, opinion backed up by the fact that ive driven both cars.
-
LOL those were the figures for the viper srt-10, not the acr. :s
Umm, no they're not. Source? Link? Those almost perfectly match the times I've seen for the ACR, and are way better than the times I've seen in various mags for the SRT-10. Exactly where did you quote those figures from?
and yes its my opinion, opinion backed up by the fact that ive driven both cars.
As much as I highly doubt that there's even 1% truth to that statement, that's irrelevant. Which Corvette was it you drove?
-
GORGEOUS car BigRat! :aok
Mine's much more of a sleeper.... looks pretty much 100% stock from te outside, but the exhaust note gives it away when it's sitting at a light idling. :devil She has a very nasty, big cam, really more aggressive than I wanted when I was discussing the expectations with the engine builder.... but I think I have learned to love the results! :cool: She sounds like a cammed out '60's big block at idle, actually shakes the whole car. LG Motorsports stainless long-tube headers, removed cats, X-pipe, and Z06 titanium mufflers (I had Corsa Indy Pace Car stainless mufflers but with the headers and removed cats she was so loud it sounded like a whole pack of NEXTEL Cup cars when I stomped the gas, it actually was too scary loud to live with, I had to go to the Z06 factory mufflers) - the exhaust note is what gives away that it's not a "stock" Corvette.... I'm only making 445 rwhp (guestimating about 520-530 crank), but it's all motor.
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-ash1/v307/14/65/1415742882/n1415742882_30034327_201.jpg)
-
Umm yea I drive a Jeep due to the climate I live in. A Vette in this climate _is_ purely for compensation since you can't drive it even 6 months on a typical year. In Florida it might be more appealing as an everyday car I guess.
Umm that's a totally different statement from your first two statements, which did in fact come off as very condescending and belittling. Sure there are a few Vette or Viper owners that might be "compensating" for something, just like there are plenty of Jeep owners that are trying really hard to play the part of "outdoorsy rugged guy" with big off-road tires, lifted suspensions, brush guards and off-road lights galore, when the closest they over come to off-roading their Jeep is accidentally driving accross the grass when pulling into the Starbucks or Bed Bath & Beyond parking lot. But they're not "compensating" for anything, no. :rofl
Most Vette and Viper owners, I'd bet (based on the hundreds of Corvette owners and a few Viper owners I've met and been friends with in 15 years of Corvette Club, NASA and SCCA memberships) are people who just love the look, feel, and thrill of driving their cars, even if it's only 5 or 6 months out of the year, and quite frankly couldn't give a rat's bellybutton about what anyone else thinks of their cars or them, and aren't "compensating" for a thing, thankyouverydamnmuch. :aok
-
This is all rather silly, though, when you think about it.... if I was in the market to spend $120K on a ZR1 or a Viper ACR, I'd have one of these built instead, with a breathed-on LS7, SMOKE the ZR1 and the ACR on the strip and the track, and have about $20K left over........
(http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/108/l_c72b909a645ede63fa9cc0269062ba2e.jpg)
-
LOL those were the figures for the viper srt-10, not the acr. :s
and yes its my opinion, opinion backed up by the fact that ive driven both cars.
again, the vette is a much better car bang-for-the-buck wise than the viper.
everyone's gonna have their opinions, but facts are facts.........vette is totally built and designed by chevy. not so with the viper. the vette does everything the viper does, plus more.
i've never driven either, but i have enough friends with each to get good info from. of course my friends 1200hpsrt10 viper will hammer anything on the street.....but then it's not stock. nor is his 96 viper. or his 68 goat.
and so you don't think i;m playing favorites......i turn wrenches for a living. i work on pretty much anything that rolls through my doors.
i own a 9 second 68 camaro, and used to own a 12 second street mustang(which averaged 24 mpg, and could easily cruise at higher speeds than the speedo displayed.
i currently drive a dodge dakota sport with a 318.
-
Thanks Reaper90,
445 rwhp, is not to shabby, especially since you haven't mentioned any headwork. That's fairly close to where mine was sitting before the Maggie. Even at my power levels I'm still a small fish if I get very far from my area (I'm a big Fish in Moro IL. :lol). Quite a few 700+RWHP C5's and C6's if I get around West or South St. Louis. Where you from Reaper?
Since I work on cars for a living I normally hate engineers, but the guys who developed the LS-1 and all the LS engines that followed, I'd love to shake their hands and say thanks :aok. You made one of the strongest easiest to work on engine platforms ever known. You understood that overhead cams wasn't the only answer to performance and decided to stay with something light, small, and relatively simple.
:salute
BigRat
-
Thanks Reaper90,
445 rwhp, is not to shabby, especially since you haven't mentioned any headwork.
The heads are Patriot Stage II 243 heads, CNC'd.
If I can recall it all correctly, the car has:
Stock LS1 bottom end
Patriot Stage II 243 heads
LS6 intake manifold
custom ground cam
hand ported throttle body
Ford Motorpsort injectors (I can't remember what size, something like 50#)
VaraRam cold-air intake
LG Motorsports long tubes, cat delete and X-pipe
Z06 titanium mufflers
custom tune on chassis dyno by a real wizard, the secret to making it all work
That's fairly close to where mine was sitting before the Maggie.
I'd love to do the maggie, that'll be the next big mod, but I'm sure the cam I have is way too aggressive for a blower. Have to make a change there. Then that'll require a high-rise MCM hood to clear the blower... then I'll need the L5 motorsports rear fender flares to cover the 345-wide ZR1 wheels and tires.....
It'll never end..... :x
Where you from Reaper?
The Redneck Riviera, Myrtle Beach, SC! Actually I'm about 15 miles inland in a pretty rural area between two smaller towns, outside of this small community you might as well say Myrtle Beach.
Since I work on cars for a living I normally hate engineers, but the guys who developed the LS-1 and all the LS engines that followed, I'd love to shake their hands and say thanks :aok. You made one of the strongest easiest to work on engine platforms ever known. You understood that overhead cams wasn't the only answer to performance and decided to stay with something light, small, and relatively simple.
Ain't that the truth! I have a lot of friends with "other" types of sports cars, and having raced Acuras and Hondas I've been around it a lot, the mindset that DOHC engines are just the greatest and pushrod engines are somehow inferior just makes me :bhead :bhead :bhead. I don't give a rat's butt how much hp you make per liter of displacement....I'll take a 6 liter pushrod engine over a 3.5 liter DOHC engine that weighs more and takes up more space under the hood any day.
-
both
-
Reaper,
Well with the headwork that number makes a bit more sence. You can still run a fairly aggressive cam with a positive displacement supercharger, just has to be aggressive in the right spots. This sounds like some odd cam numbers I'm going to throw at you, but they make sense when you think of it in terms of what's going to be your weak spot with a blower. 228/242 .613 .613. My guess is your probably running something in the 230ish/230ish range with about a .600? am I close? With a blower you don't need a whole lot of intake duration, after all it's being forced in there, the trouble is getting it all out :lol Depending on your wanted power level under 600rwhp stick with the positives, over 600rwhp you almost have to go centri. The other advantage of the centris is you can keep a stock hood, the disadvantage is they tend to have to spin up a bit before full boost while a positive is almost instantly there. Then there becomes the bottom end question, I think the most commonly agreed on safe range for a stock LS1 bottom end is around 550 rwhp, that's where I'm planning on stopping, since it still has the stock bottom end. the Meth injection should get me there easily, since there was a lot more timing we wanted and couldn't get with the high Intake air temps.
:salute
BigRat
-
My guess is your probably running something in the 230ish/230ish range with about a .600? am I close?
Sounds about right, IIRC somewhere around 232/232 and .600, been a couple of years ago I'd have to dig out the spec sheet on the cam.
The guy who runs the shop where the work was done has another customer with one of the newer LS1 powered GTOs... runs a ProCharger with methanol injection.... I don't know what else was done heads and cam wise, but I saw them do the dyno pulls and tune it... ended up with a hair over 700 rwhp. I was insane, especially since he ran the stock wheels and tires (255's I think). He said it would break traction and smoke the tires at just about any speed or gear, and he was afraid to give it full thottle just about ever, figuring if the tires didn't give it would destroy the clutch in a heartbeat.
:salute
-
Whats the point of build a killer engine and then being afraid to break parts if you put the hammer down?
Strip
-
Whats the point of build a killer engine and then being afraid to break parts if you put the hammer down?
Strip
Beats me... I think the clutch and everything behind that were next on the list.....
-
Reaper that cam would probably be ok, centerline would have an influence on it as well (I'm 115, normally aspirated normally runs tighter) obviously a blower cam like I have would be better. Fortunately cam changes in LS engines aren't that bad (especially with a two piece cover :D).
As far as building an engine greater then the drivetrain can handle. Well it's kinda one of those things where if you know what power level you want it really won't matter till your all done where you start. Obviously if you build your drivetrain first, you can beat on it without worry till your power level gets to it's limits. The other way around works too, except you have to be nice to it until you build the drivetrain to handle it. Either way you end up at the same point with the same amount of cash, as long as you had a plan.
Going back to the GTO's, you know I didn't really care for them when they first came out. But the mechanic side of me had them grow on me. They do have the easiest engine compartment to work in out of all the LS1 cars. I have a friend with one of the later ones with an LS2, he's like 470rwhp NA, running E85. I actually have a lot of friends with GTO's now, seems my tuner has a like for them. He's got one right around 1200rwhp now, quite the monster, and still a streetable car. He complaigns that my FRC sounds better though :lol . I actually think the rear tires are only 245's or something like that, so the guy with 700rwhp, will have the tires as a fusible link for the drivetrain (unless he puts slicks on it).
:salute
BigRat
-
well im a bit late....hehe....but the greatest car EVER made is a 71 ragtop Hemi cuda bar none.......I have broke so many chevy's they are crap,350 giant paper weights. I took a 73 Dodge Challenger with a 72, 340, 289 in the rear,I beat that car for over 6 years, across country 3 times, with never any major breaks, broke a torsion bar once, it had a minor cam but thats all, it was an absolute beast, I drove about 1600 miles in about 17 hrs derry NH to Daren Georgia,at which point the rear tread came off at 125mph,when I say I beat that car its an understatement,I went from Casa Grand AZ to Tuscon AZ a normal 60min drive in 19 min..this thing was unbreakable,an I cant even begine to express how bad bellybutton that car was,yup there were faster, in the 6 1/2 years I owned it I lost 3 street races,but nothing had as much muscle and beauty as that car,except that 71cuda,nothing like an old MOPAR,"Move Over Pentastar Approaching Rapidly"the chevelle that tried to race me in Texas lol that one was clasic.topped it at 150
-
well im a bit late....hehe....but the greatest car EVER made is a 71 ragtop Hemi cuda bar none.......I have broke so many chevy's they are crap,350 giant paper weights. I took a 73 Dodge Challenger with a 72, 340, 289 in the rear,I beat that car for over 6 years, across country 3 times, with never any major breaks, broke a torsion bar once, it had a minor cam but thats all, it was an absolute beast, I drove about 1600 miles in about 17 hrs derry NH to Daren Georgia,at which point the rear tread came off at 125mph,when I say I beat that car its an understatement,I went from Casa Grand AZ to Tuscon AZ a normal 60min drive in 19 min..this thing was unbreakable,an I cant even begine to express how bad bellybutton that car was,yup there were faster, in the 6 1/2 years I owned it I lost 3 street races,but nothing had as much muscle and beauty as that car,except that 71cuda,nothing like an old MOPAR,"Move Over Pentastar Approaching Rapidly"the chevelle that tried to race me in Texas lol that one was clasic.topped it at 150
How's this? You find the biggest baddest 'cuda Challenger you can, any year, and come to Roebling Road Raceway in Pooler. GA, outside Savannah. It's a 2.1 mile 9-turn road course, but plenty fast and no "tight" corners - heck the front straight is over 3/4 mile long, so it ought to be a muscle car's dream, right?
I'll bring my 350 chevy crap paper weight, and we'll do 25 laps each at the same time. If I don't lap you twice I'll buy you a year's supply of whatever you like to drink. If I don't lap you once you'll never have to buy a bottle again as long as you live.
How's that, Hemi man? :D
<---- lapped a n00b driver in a Viper once at Roebling, in my CRX race car, during a track day. Made the pass on the outside of turn 9, too. :t
-
How's this? You find the biggest baddest 'cuda Challenger you can, any year, and come to Roebling Road Raceway in Pooler. GA, outside Savannah. It's a 2.1 mile 9-turn road course, but plenty fast and no "tight" corners - heck the front straight is over 3/4 mile long, so it ought to be a muscle car's dream, right?
I'll bring my 350 chevy crap paper weight, and we'll do 25 laps each at the same time. If I don't lap you twice I'll buy you a year's supply of whatever you like to drink. If I don't lap you once you'll never have to buy a bottle again as long as you live.
How's that, Hemi man? :D
<---- lapped a n00b driver in a Viper once at Roebling, in my CRX race car, during a track day. Made the pass on the outside of turn 9, too. :t
that course could be fun in my fairmont. :devil
-
Ink,
How many years ago are we talking here. When I was still streetracing a 12 second car was to be feared in the early 90's. Now if it doesn't run 10's, don't even bother. Different ballgame now as far as power levels, hemi cuda's, L88 vettes, Shelby GT500KR, LS6 chevelles, aren't feared anymore, but they are worth tons of money :lol. A 350 of the 60's or early 70's even the LT-1's, aren't comparable to a modern LS-1 (actually 346) or any LSX engine currently.
:salute
BigRat
-
The LSX platform is going to change the face of performance engines....
Strip
-
Reaper~lol that would be fun but I dont have the cash to fork out for a classic MOPAR(I paid $2000) and besides I said there are faster cars out there no doubt, I would bet money though, your car could not handle what I put that 340 challenger through! 340 not Hemi.....;-)
-
Bigrat~I bought the Challenger in 94 I paid $2000 even for it....lol the rearend is almost worth that now, it was not great of the line but she could do 130+ all day long,I topped it at 150 in AZ racin a benz,couldnt quite catch him.thats the thing with the old Mopars insanly strong and durable.....it would go and go and go 6 plus years of my crazy bellybutton behind the wheel and never Broke except torsion bar,that was after I hit 120, pulled into drive,next morning came out and front tire was suked up into the well,hmm I say,look underneath and torsion bar is hanging in two...sickest Mopar I ever saw was a 1400 hp cuda,lol that was just sick. and I know its different now a days, I drove a sick STi Subaru, WoW that sucker was fast, but id still take a complete rusted out MOPAR over any of todays cars especially some crap chevy no matter how "nice" it is. im just a true blue die hard MOPAR guy,dont need to be the fastest just needs to be MOPAR but of course with 6 kids....no Mopar for me maybe one day.
-
actually yes, i have driven in both. my friends dad owns an 09 corvette and a friend who own an 08 viper. and i got to say the viper is just alot more fun to drive. it feels like a sportcar should. it has pure raw power to it. why would you buy a sportscar for comfort anyways? i would take a hennesey dodge viper venom twin turbo with spartan interior over some posh lambo sporting leather seats and etc. if i wanted that stuff i'd buy a sedan.
and many auto-magazines name the viper ACR as a better track car than the corvette. (car&driver, motortrend) sure the viper has some wear&tear issues, but ever good car has its faults. even top gear named the viper better than the vette.
most ppl ive seen who like a vette over a viper is because of 3 reason.
1.the styling (personally i love the vipers aggresive "GTFO of my face!" look)
2. they like the vette simply because it has a longer history than the viper.
3. there hardcore chevy fans.
only thing ive seen from a vette i like, is that headsup display it has. other than that i'd take a viper over it.
a vipers meaner,faster,better looking(opinion)better engine(opinion) and cmon, it has a HEMI, whats not to love about that?
-flame suit upgraded to resist angry chevy fans- :noid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsiUJ8aPMs
Actually the stock viper is not that quick. The Hemi (hemispherical head) engine is an old design. Most of the new engines are nothing like the old original big blocks.
-
Quite a few automotive enthusiasts here. I'm wondering what you value most from an engine for normal road use - torque or power?
Everyday driving: Low-end torque.
Road racing: Horsepower.
1/4 mile racing - Both.
-
Bigrat~I bought the Challenger in 94 I paid $2000 even for it....lol the rearend is almost worth that now, it was not great of the line but she could do 130+ all day long,I topped it at 150 in AZ racin a benz,couldnt quite catch him.thats the thing with the old Mopars insanly strong and durable.....it would go and go and go 6 plus years of my crazy bellybutton behind the wheel and never Broke except torsion bar,that was after I hit 120, pulled into drive,next morning came out and front tire was suked up into the well,hmm I say,look underneath and torsion bar is hanging in two...sickest Mopar I ever saw was a 1400 hp cuda,lol that was just sick. and I know its different now a days, I drove a sick STi Subaru, WoW that sucker was fast, but id still take a complete rusted out MOPAR over any of todays cars especially some crap chevy no matter how "nice" it is. im just a true blue die hard MOPAR guy,dont need to be the fastest just needs to be MOPAR but of course with 6 kids....no Mopar for me maybe one day.
i have a customer that drivew his subaru wrx sti every day to work. it's a 40 mile 1 way trip. his car was dyno'd to show 540hp to the tires. :devil
-
i have a customer that drivew his subaru wrx sti every day to work. it's a 40 mile 1 way trip. his car was dyno'd to show 540hp to the tires. :devil
Those Sti's can be nasty cars if you dial out the understeer with some creative suspension work.
Bit heavy and under-braked, though, it seems. Never fails, during a DE weekend, that at least one WRX or Evo goes off on a gravel tour at the end of a long straight because they put mucho cash into the engine and nothing into the brakes.
Five or six laps and the pads and fluid are cooked.
-
Those Sti's can be nasty cars if you dial out the understeer with some creative suspension work.
Bit heavy and under-braked, though, it seems. Never fails, during a DE weekend, that at least one WRX or Evo goes off on a gravel tour at the end of a long straight because they put mucho cash into the engine and nothing into the brakes.
Five or six laps and the pads and fluid are cooked.
he's done all of his homework. once he put the bigger turbo, intercooler, methenol injection, and associated electrronics, he realized it was hard as hell to stop it. so he upgraded it all.
it's funny......he's a kid sorta(28, and been to iraq 2x) but he has enough sense to realize that the car needs to be built as a complete package.
-
The Sti I drove was stock 300 hp, it was insanly fast and handled incredable, woulda smoked my challenger.....does not matter to me id still take the challenger over it any day :-)
-
The Sti I drove was stock 300 hp, it was insanly fast and handled incredable, woulda smoked my challenger.....does not matter to me id still take the challenger over it any day :-)
i'd take an old mustang over it......but then i'm a ford nut. :devil
-
i have a customer that drivew his subaru wrx sti every day to work. it's a 40 mile 1 way trip. his car was dyno'd to show 540hp to the tires.
jeez I bet thats laaaaaaGGGGY! :uhoh
-
but he has enough sense to realize that the car needs to be built as a complete package.
Good stuff. Keep your customers informed and they'll be safer, all around. :aok
Last year... in June, I think, we had a kid total his Evo during his very first event. Felt horrible for him. Car was almost brand new - younger fella - early 20's - had about 400WHP and nothing else done. Street-racer type who was making an honest attempt to get away from that garbage and try the real thing. No attitude or anything - had promise - good kid.
His brakes lasted half-way through the second 30-minute session. End of the main straight at what was probably about 135MPH, his pedal went to the floor and nothing happened. Panicked, spun the wheel and is lucky he didn't roll over, frankly. Thankfully, he was ok - but the car was pretty far from it.
The Sti I drove was stock 300 hp, it was insanly fast and handled incredable, woulda smoked my challenger.....does not matter to me id still take the challenger over it any day :-)
I didn't read the whole thread; but if it's a newer Challenger or an older, even slightly-worked one, a stock Sti shouldn't pose a threat in a straight line - beyond the advantage of an AWD launch (assuming he doesn't bog it).
While the car "feels" fast due to the forced-induction nature of the torque curve, it suffers from a very high percentage of drivetrain loss.
It's a 13-second car that traps a hair over 101-102MPH, if I recall correctly. A new Challenger should be in the mid-12's but, more importantly, traps around 110MPH, which is the significant statistic, as I'm sure CAP will agree.
-
jeez I bet thats laaaaaaGGGGY! :uhoh
i asked him about that. nada. he puts his foot down, and the power's there.
-
Good stuff. Keep your customers informed and they'll be safer, all around. :aok
Last year... in June, I think, we had a kid total his Evo during his very first event. Felt horrible for him. Car was almost brand new - younger fella - early 20's - had about 400WHP and nothing else done. Street-racer type who was making an honest attempt to get away from that garbage and try the real thing. No attitude or anything - had promise - good kid.
His brakes lasted half-way through the second 30-minute session. End of the main straight at what was probably about 135MPH, his pedal went to the floor and nothing happened. Panicked, spun the wheel and is lucky he didn't roll over, frankly. Thankfully, he was ok - but the car was pretty far from it.
I didn't read the whole thread; but if it's a newer Challenger or an older, even slightly-worked one, a stock Sti shouldn't pose a threat in a straight line - beyond the advantage of an AWD launch (assuming he doesn't bog it).
While the car "feels" fast due to the forced-induction nature of the torque curve, it suffers from a very high percentage of drivetrain loss.
It's a 13-second car that traps a hair over 101-102MPH, if I recall correctly. A new Challenger should be in the mid-12's but, more importantly, traps around 110MPH, which is the significant statistic, as I'm sure CAP will agree.
mid to low 12's should be around 110 to 120mph. generally with those et's and mph readings, you're making good power all the way through.
i'd take an old challenger over the new one, just because. i'd take a 2011 or 2012 mustang over an old one, because the mustangs are the best looking of the retro cars(and they're the first retro hot rods). i think the camaro looks good too, but if i was buying for an american muscle car.....the camaro's outta the running, as it's not an american car.
-
Cap~69 mach1 was a very sweet car, I have to admit I like all the old American Muscle, 67 camaro ragtop my dad had was real nice, I just love the MOPARS the most.
-
Cap~69 mach1 was a very sweet car, I have to admit I like all the old American Muscle, 67 camaro ragtop my dad had was real nice, I just love the MOPARS the most.
oh yea... i love em all. my favorites are the 67-68 fastbacks(think bullit), closley followed by the 69-70 fastbacks. i love the 67-69 camaros(which were an answer to the mustang), and i friggin love the challengers and cudas.....although neither one comes close in beauty to the 68-69 charger. :devil
and of course there's the 66(or was it 65?) novas, the early 60's galaxys with the 427's, and the thunderbolt fairlanes.
-
I love the Chargers they do have a look that is quite awesome, but I like the E Bodies better, I think they are tougher looking especially the 71 Cuda with that insanly awesome grill, by far my fav car of all time, Bullit was a great movie:-) how about the 69 Hurst Baracuda that came out of the factory as a 9~10 second car....that was insane......you know a origional 71 Hemi Cuda ragtop with the pistol grip sold at the Barret Jackson auction sold for 2.2 mil ?holy cow thats crazy, I have a friend that sold his numbers matching 440 Superbird, for a 71 Hemi cuda that wasnt even origional, I think it was a 318 car...haha,I took out a new Challenger for test drive,I was very impressed they are sick,and I think they are the best "retro's" done.funny the guy at the dealership tried tellin me the Challengers where first made for the quater mile..I laughed in his face,asked him if he ever heard of the T/A Challenger and AAR Cuda,which were the First to be made,for road tracks lol those are sweet rides.big money
-
mid to low 12's should be around 110 to 120mph. generally with those et's and mph readings, you're making good power all the way through.
i'd take an old challenger over the new one, just because. i'd take a 2011 or 2012 mustang over an old one, because the mustangs are the best looking of the retro cars(and they're the first retro hot rods). i think the camaro looks good too, but if i was buying for an american muscle car.....the camaro's outta the running, as it's not an american car.
Retro mustang looked good till they ruined the back end.
Camaro is made in Canada.
-
Retro mustang looked good till they ruined the back end.
Camaro is made in Canada.
i know......butr the camaro is not a true chevy.
don't take me wrong...i still like the looks of it. the only thing i've never liked about them, is the tail lights.....they look like modified corvette tail lights to me.
-
Actually if a car is trapping in the 120's it's deep in the 11's with ease (many in the high 10's), if the car hooks at all and doesn't weigh 4000lbs. SRT8 Challengers are in stock form mostly a high 13 car due mostly to being grossly over weight, over 4000lbs (remember 300 chassis). New Camaros have the same weight issues (not as bad though, basically a 2 door G8). Ford has finally got he picture, of trying to drop a little weight on the mustangs, still around 3500lbs though, about the same as my Grand prix GXP (LS4).
Ink,
You should have hung onto that car, sounds like you let it go just before the market skyrocketed. Which is the reason I never plan on selling my 69 vert, besides I have to much blood, sweat, money, and tears restoring it.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/69%20vert/0062.jpg?t=1295913857)
Now as far as the original post about torque vs horsepower. Big torque curves are what make street cars easy to drive, something that can make good torque from just off idle to high in the rpm band. If you compare the FRC to the 69 is a good example. FRC while not a chore to drive is not easy, big cam, aluminum flywheel, etc., have to feather the clutch from a stop. The 69 on the other hand, will idle itself around with almost no feathering, my wife enjoys driving this car becouse it's easy. Why is it easy, about 400ft/lbs of rwtq 2500-4500rpm . Torque curve on the dyno looks like a table.
early dyno sheet, final one didn't test at as low an rpm.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/69%20vert/dynosheetswnotes001.jpg?)
:salute
BigRat
-
Actually if a car is trapping in the 120's it's deep in the 11's with ease (many in the high 10's), if the car hooks at all and doesn't weigh 4000lbs. SRT8 Challengers are in stock form mostly a high 13 car due mostly to being grossly over weight, over 4000lbs (remember 300 chassis). New Camaros have the same weight issues (not as bad though, basically a 2 door G8). Ford has finally got he picture, of trying to drop a little weight on the mustangs, still around 3500lbs though, about the same as my Grand prix GXP (LS4).
Ink,
You should have hung onto that car, sounds like you let it go just before the market skyrocketed. Which is the reason I never plan on selling my 69 vert, besides I have to much blood, sweat, money, and tears restoring it.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/69%20vert/0062.jpg?t=1295913857)
Now as far as the original post about torque vs horsepower. Big torque curves are what make street cars easy to drive, something that can make good torque from just off idle to high in the rpm band. If you compare the FRC to the 69 is a good example. FRC while not a chore to drive is not easy, big cam, aluminum flywheel, etc., have to feather the clutch from a stop. The 69 on the other hand, will idle itself around with almost no feathering, my wife enjoys driving this car becouse it's easy. Why is it easy, about 400ft/lbs of rwtq 2500-4500rpm . Torque curve on the dyno looks like a table.
early dyno sheet, final one didn't test at as low an rpm.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/69%20vert/dynosheetswnotes001.jpg?)
:salute
BigRat
my 89 gt was running 12.2's all day long at 117mph. 5 liter, gt40 intakes, big bellybutton maf, 30# injectors, x303 cam, 3.37 gears....but i gave up nothing to make her fast. i would come down the return road with the a/c blasting. :devil
BTW./....that is the last year that vettes looked good till the newer generations.
as for the mustangs? to the best of my knowledge, they weigh in around 3800 pounds or so.
-
Bigrat~ yup but I had to sell it though I LOVED IT, I wanted to be in it every moment of every day, the motor was still as strong as ever, the body was a bit beat, but I became addicted to it bad,I sold it for a grand :-( I still have dreams about it...literly I dream about it quite often, even though it's been almost 12 years since I sold it. I miss that car..I feel guilty I miss and love it so much, we are not supposed to "love" that stuff, Love should be reserved for family and friends. Certainly not a car. I hate to admit it but I did love it :-(
-
CAP,
That's good numbers back in those days, was a 5.0L guy for quite a while, till the mod motors, but that's a whole other rant from way back. As I said a 12 second car 10 years ago was a very fast street car. Also my trap speed comparisons tend to be with much lighter cars, 120 trap with a 3200-3300lb car is well in the 11's. The FRC in stock form is actually less then 3200, 3170 I think it was quoted as, but the blower adds a bit of weight. My buddy back from way back then had a 90 GT, that was one of the faster cars around back in the early 90's, it was 12.80's N/A or 11.80 with spray. It was a total package car too, with upgraded suspension and brakes. I remember that thing sticking with me through the corners with my 86 Z-51 vette, not bad at all for a unibody car.
:salute
BigRat
-
Bigrat~ yup but I had to sell it though I LOVED IT, I wanted to be in it every moment of every day, the motor was still as strong as ever, the body was a bit beat, but I became addicted to it bad,I sold it for a grand :-( I still have dreams about it...literly I dream about it quite often, even though it's been almost 12 years since I sold it. I miss that car..I feel guilty I miss and love it so much, we are not supposed to "love" that stuff, Love should be reserved for family and friends. Certainly not a car. I hate to admit it but I did love it :-(
Ink,
If you really want another one, and it sounds like you do. Keep working toward it, keep the dream out there. Every once in a while an opportunity will present itself. That 69 of mine I found for 12k, as a partially completed project. Frame off was already done just had to finish the interior, engine compartment, windshield, and trim and paint. The entire Chassis, suspension, and most of the engine stuff was done. Managed to buy the car and finish it for less then 21k, including paying someone to shoot the paint. Took 3 years and a lot of labor, but it was all worth it when finished. You may run across a similiar project, buy it cheap and work on it as time and cash is available. Make it a family project, that everyone can take pride in. It's not wrong to love a car, you love it for what it brings to you when you drive it and look at it, "happiness".
:salute
BigRat
-
NICE dyno sheet, Rat.
-
NICE dyno sheet, Rat.
Thank you, that's actually a very mild 468 BBC, runs fairly well in a 3300lb car w 4spd, should see the stairs my wife gets when she's driving it. I just ride behind her sometimes to watch the show :lol The FRC is the far meaner one, dyno sheet below 4th gear run, believe it was a 6500rpm pull, 6250 is peak power.
(http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af288/BigRatphotos/2000%20FRC/cid_X_MA1_1271967932aol.jpg?t=1295930362)
I just realized I'm doing a lot of free advetising for my tuners :lol, they are both great guys if your in the St.Louis area. Steigemeier is primarily a Modular Ford Supercharged guy, but like the old school stuff too. Turbo connection is primarily an GM LS motor guy.
:salute
BigRat
-
i know......butr the camaro is not a true chevy.
don't take me wrong...i still like the looks of it. the only thing i've never liked about them, is the tail lights.....they look like modified corvette tail lights to me.
Built by Chevrolet (GM). Not sure what you mean by not a true chevy. :)
This is her car after AAC did the custom lighting install...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c)
-
The new Camaro looks like it does because GM didn't want ot pay the kid that drew the original, which looks better.
I'm a Chevy guy, but the new Camaro is too wide, too heavy, and too expensive. It needs to go on a diet and lose 800 pounds. The Camaro is the size and weight of a loaded early seventies Chevelle. And that's a Chevelle with an all iron big block (700 pounds by itself) and a steel perimeter frame, compared to the Camaro having an all aluminum LS generation small block and a mostly sheetmetal floor pan.
Chevrolet needs to build one that weighs 3100 pounds and has a live rear axle, but doesn't have all the high dollar added options. If they left out all the crap, and just had power steering, power brakes, and A/C, they could have a stunningly quick Camaro that could be sold for about $25K list. The emissions would be lower, and the fuel economy higher. Even the V6 version would be pretty quick, and it would probably get 35MPG on the interstate, my 98 Firebird V6 does that.
It's funny, Ford and Chrysler both build drag race "specials" of the Mustang and the Challenger, but Chevrolet won't build one with the Camaro, and they have the "parts bin" to build the best of the three.
The Challenger is the best looking of the three "retro" muscle cars, but street version is just as much of a tank as the Camaro. The thing is, the "Drag Pack" Challenger is almost 900 pounds lighter than the street car.
-
The 2013 Camaro is going to be sized to match the 1969 model. It will be built on a modified version of the new Cadillac small chassis. The Caddy chassis makes use of a lot of carbon fiber, but Chevy will remove that and replace it with steel and aluminum to save money.
-
The Z-28 is coming. Weight wise the camaro is in between the Mustang (which weighs less) and the Challenger (which weighs more).
You can remove the stock mufflers and replace with after market and save over 50 lbs on the Camaro.
It is amazing how much these new car weigh. It is also amazing how much HP they are generating and how they get it to the ground.
-
Built by Chevrolet (GM). Not sure what you mean by not a true chevy. :)
This is her car after AAC did the custom lighting install...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKVcrJ9G6_c)
it's a holden. :aok
-
The new Camaro looks like it does because GM didn't want ot pay the kid that drew the original, which looks better.
I'm a Chevy guy, but the new Camaro is too wide, too heavy, and too expensive. It needs to go on a diet and lose 800 pounds. The Camaro is the size and weight of a loaded early seventies Chevelle. And that's a Chevelle with an all iron big block (700 pounds by itself) and a steel perimeter frame, compared to the Camaro having an all aluminum LS generation small block and a mostly sheetmetal floor pan.
Chevrolet needs to build one that weighs 3100 pounds and has a live rear axle, but doesn't have all the high dollar added options. If they left out all the crap, and just had power steering, power brakes, and A/C, they could have a stunningly quick Camaro that could be sold for about $25K list. The emissions would be lower, and the fuel economy higher. Even the V6 version would be pretty quick, and it would probably get 35MPG on the interstate, my 98 Firebird V6 does that.
It's funny, Ford and Chrysler both build drag race "specials" of the Mustang and the Challenger, but Chevrolet won't build one with the Camaro, and they have the "parts bin" to build the best of the three.
The Challenger is the best looking of the three "retro" muscle cars, but street version is just as much of a tank as the Camaro. The thing is, the "Drag Pack" Challenger is almost 900 pounds lighter than the street car.
ford is also going for the road race crowd with the boss 302. it pulls over 1g on the skid pad, laps laguna faster than a beemer m3, and can stop so hard it'll rip your eyeballs out. :devil
-
The Z-28 is coming. Weight wise the camaro is in between the Mustang (which weighs less) and the Challenger (which weighs more).
You can remove the stock mufflers and replace with after market and save over 50 lbs on the Camaro.
It is amazing how much these new car weigh. It is also amazing how much HP they are generating and how they get it to the ground.
chevy's using a 6 liter? ford's using a 5 liter. still only putting about 400ho to the ground on the base gt's, but they're claiming 440 to the ground on the boss versions.
-
The new Boss 302 also has a trick exhaust system with removeable baffles. With the baffles out, it will not pass sound tests in most states, but for the track, it does cause things to get even more hectic.
It has been a long time since Ford has been really serious about a hot rod. I LIKE IT!
-
The new Boss 302 also has a trick exhaust system with removeable baffles. With the baffles out, it will not pass sound tests in most states, but for the track, it does cause things to get even more hectic.
It has been a long time since Ford has been really serious about a hot rod. I LIKE IT!
Yup..... The mustang looked really nice till they fubared the rear end. I personally think all three retros look great except the stang rear as stated.
-
Yup..... The mustang looked really nice till they fubared the rear end. I personally think all three retros look great except the stang rear as stated.
i didn't like it at first....but it's grown on me.
i didn't like the tail lights in the first of the stang retros, as at night they looked like crap. the new ones you can see the tell-tale 3 bar lights on it.
besides.....if i'm driving one, i'll never need to worry about looking at the tail lights. :neener:
-
The new 2011 charger looks very nice as well. still retaining that aggressive styling in the front while its getting a redone rear.
only thing i dont like about it is it's still 4-door. :(
-
if it's gonna be a dodge, then it HAS to be the challenger.
-
Not trying to derail this thread but, since I saw the Challenger thrown around a few times in this thread,
Last October I bought my first Mopar (Besides a 2008 JK Jeep which I also have) after about 30 years of non-stop Mustang ownership in about every conceivable performance model. I still have two Mustangs (One SN-95 GT Vert and One 84 Fox 5.0 20th Anny Car).
I traded in my seldom used 03 Mach 1 (9,000 miles after 7 years) on a 2010 R/T Classic, Super Track Pack, 6-Speed Challenger and couldn't be happier.
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs264.snc4/39553_1666629826648_1264355985_31793181_6139460_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs904.snc4/71729_1668143784496_1264355985_31795516_4035721_n.jpg)
I thought about a GT-500 a few times, thought about holding out for a Boss but the S-197 just doesn't do it for me. Nothing against the car, I even set up my Daughter for a S-197 Convert (her 3rd Mustang).
As far as I am concerned, the Challenger and Mustang are not the same class of car. Challenger is more "personal luxury performance coupe" than Pony Car. People seem to compare the two on an apples to apples comparison when the cars are not really the same class. It more follows what the Chevelle-T-Bird style was.
I am actually sad I only got about two months of driving on the Challenger before putting it away for the winter. It by far is the best road trip car I have ever had, unlike most Mustangs you don't need a visit to a chiropractor after 3 states of driving.
Handling and ride is excellent, I like the IRS and you would be very surprised on what an STP equipped car can do in that department. Sure it's gonna trail a new Coyote powered S-197 with Ford's track pack around Watkins Glen or Summit Point but, not as much as one might think. Everybody rags on it's 4K curb weight, realistically B.F.D! You don't notice it's weight and with the amount of crap people carry around anyway. Granted jumping into my 84 2600lb Fox putting down about 270hp from the almost 400hp in 4K lb Challenger is a night and day difference in driving styles!
Straight line performance is wonderful but, it will lose again to a new Coyote S-197. As far as it being a mid-12's car, not going to happen. Realistically very low 13's, you can achieve mid 12's with an auto much easier than with a 6 speed car but I don't do slushboxes. Even at best, I would wring 12.8's out of that SN-95 DOHC Mach 1 and I was running 4:10's, Drag Radials, 31 Spline shafts and a Auburn Pro locker. Plus, that was an aggressive launch slightly slipping the clutch under track conditions. Street Light to Street Light, the nod goes to the Challenger. It will sit in low 13's with zero drama unlike the majority of most 4.6 DOHC cars. Sorry to the Ford faithful but, the 5.7 VVT is way more usable throughout the entire spectrum than the SOHC and 3-valve 4.6 cars. My Daily Drive is a 2010 4.6 Grand Marquis and I still own a 4.6 SOHC GT Convert, I'll take the "Hemi" (even though they aren't true hemi's anymore) over the 2 valve Modular any day.
I chose the 'Classic" R/T with the Super Track Pack over the SRT-8 for my own reasons and at the end of the day, with this Challenger optioned the way I wanted it actually came in more than I could have taken an SRT-8 home for. A car length here or there isn't my main consideration anymore, the only real "downside" is not being able to get the Brembo's on the "Classic" (performance pads for the STP package, otherwise the normal R/T calipers) since they only come with the SRT (the PBR's on the Mach1 were awesome)
I am really really happy with this car, the only thing (and it's a long shot) would to be get rid of this one later in 2011 or early 2012 for the new 392 SRT Challenger. That motor is a quantum leap compared to the older 6.1
I don't know if anyone saw this but, after Sema Dodge took the stock "show" 392's out to Infineon just to run. Scary Impressive for this stock 6 speed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbxZZtywZ0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFbxZZtywZ0&feature=player_embedded)
The other ones out which have been dyno'd and run by independent sources confirm just how much of a game changer this car and powertrain are.
-
That's a good-looking car, right there. Well done.
Get some coilovers, drop it a couple inches and you'll have some show AND some go.
And WTF is Hajo in this thread? Is his MOPAR alarm not going off? :D
-
chevy's using a 6 liter? ford's using a 5 liter. still only putting about 400ho to the ground on the base gt's, but they're claiming 440 to the ground on the boss versions.
mod 5.0L is rated 400 sae (that's flywheel, not RWHP) big difference. 440 net figure will be lucky to hit 390 to the ground. Eg. 405hp C5Z06, normally put down 350-360 to the ground. Then again Ford did under rate the 03 cobras at 390 net. I wouldn't get too excited about the new 5.0L's, having seen the mod motors due much without a blower on top of them, from the factory. Remember the 4v cobras without the blower and the lawsuites when the GT's were outrunning them. Plus the fact have you priced out modifying a Ford Modular motor vs doing an LSX engine. Power for dollar you can't beat the LSX engines, plus their lighter and easier to work on. This is coming from a former Ford guy. Ford went the wrong way when they went to modular engines from a performance standpoint. Don't get me wrong they are fine engines, for daily drivers. Wife had an 02 5spd GT, was a reliable, semi-fun car, albeit my FRC has far more trunk space then it did :lol. Ford ticked off a lot of it's faithfull in the late 90's early 2000's, when chevrolet came out with the LS-1's and Ford didn't have anything comparable for a long time (2003). I remember two buddies buying 1993 5.0L notch backs for $13,700, quite the performance bargain. Then the mustang got heavier and slower for a long time.
Don't get me wrong here I'm not saying that Ford makes a bad product in the mustang, not at all. They sell the crap out of them. From a hobby standpoint, and from someone who works on these things, I find the LSX engines superior for my needs in almost every respect to the Ford modular engines. Same goes for the new Hemi's as well, not a bad engine but larger, heavier, and more complex, then a comparable LSX.
:salute
BigRat
-
mod 5.0L is rated 400 sae (that's flywheel, not RWHP) big difference. 440 net figure will be lucky to hit 390 to the ground. Eg. 405hp C5Z06, normally put down 350-360 to the ground. Then again Ford did under rate the 03 cobras at 390 net. I wouldn't get too excited about the new 5.0L's, having seen the mod motors due much without a blower on top of them, from the factory. Remember the 4v cobras without the blower and the lawsuites when the GT's were outrunning them. Plus the fact have you priced out modifying a Ford Modular motor vs doing an LSX engine. Power for dollar you can't beat the LSX engines, plus their lighter and easier to work on. This is coming from a former Ford guy. Ford went the wrong way when they went to modular engines from a performance standpoint. Don't get me wrong they are fine engines, for daily drivers. Wife had an 02 5spd GT, was a reliable, semi-fun car, albeit my FRC has far more trunk space then it did :lol. Ford ticked off a lot of it's faithfull in the late 90's early 2000's, when chevrolet came out with the LS-1's and Ford didn't have anything comparable for a long time (2003). I remember two buddies buying 1993 5.0L notch backs for $13,700, quite the performance bargain. Then the mustang got heavier and slower for a long time.
Don't get me wrong here I'm not saying that Ford makes a bad product in the mustang, not at all. They sell the crap out of them. From a hobby standpoint, and from someone who works on these things, I find the LSX engines superior for my needs in almost every respect to the Ford modular engines. Same goes for the new Hemi's as well, not a bad engine but larger, heavier, and more complex, then a comparable LSX.
:salute
BigRat
to be honest, i'm not familiar with the lsx or the coyote 5.0. from what i understand, the coyote is a totally different engine. i did think they were quoting rear wheel hp though.
i have a customer whos son has a 2011 5.0, and loves it. he claimed 35mpg(that's just hearsay) at about 75mph, and not much problems so far reliability wise....
reports i've read puts the stock gt's into the mid/high 12's. i haven't read a 1/4 mile time on the boss yet, but as mentioned it's been being run all last year in the continental tire series, supposedly with not too many problems.
it almost looks like ford got a bug up their ass, and that's why the new boss mustang is happening. they seem to cruise along for a couple of years....then get that bug, do something really kick ass, then cruise along again........
as for the 4.6.....the single cammer....not so hot......the dual cammer..........had/has potential. i think that what went on with those engines, is that ford cheesed out a little to keep prices down, knowing that mustang owners tend to modify the poop out of their cars.
just found this.......2011 gt comparison to a 2011 m3. you all might be surprised. :devil
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/index.html
and here......SAE net is flywheel? or rear wheel?
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/
all in all.......as much as i like fords.......i don't give a dam if it's a camaro, mustang, or challenger....all i really care about is that i'm getting to see a version of the horsepower wars that i was too young to appreciate back in the 60's. :aok
-
Did some checking on the new 5.0L, 412 advertised net rating (at engine), actual rear wheel numbers range from 375-395 (dyno's #'s vary quite a bit, even of the same make), but they give you a good ballpark, so average it at 385 (more then I thought it would). Considering a C5 Z06 at 405 net HP, normally dynoed in the 350-360 range. So it's probably actually underated quite a bit,should be closer to 425 net. Now the question then becomes, is the boss equaly underated or is it closer to actual?, dyno numbers will be the telling.
Cap,
LSX engines just refer to an engine family LS1,2,3,4,6,7,9, and the truck engines such as the 5.3L 6.0L. So I'm sure you already have been working on them, also referred to as Gen III or IV small blocks. My only major complaint with modifying them is the non adjustable valvetrain, so you sometimes have to change pushrod lengths with cam changes. But you can change the cam without pulling the intakes :aok
:salute
BigRat
-
What has 435 HP at 1800 rpm and 1650ft/lbs of torque at 1200 rpm?
-
all in all.......as much as i like fords.......i don't give a dam if it's a camaro, mustang, or challenger....all i really care about is that i'm getting to see a version of the horsepower wars that i was too young to appreciate back in the 60's. :aok
I was just talking about this with my uncle recently. It's exciting to see. Was just getting into cars when all this started so I guess I'm lucky.
Yup..... The mustang looked really nice till they fubared the rear end. I personally think all three retros look great except the stang rear as stated.
I actually like the new rear end, but then I'm a youngin' so my tastes are a bit different. Only slightly though. :cheers:
-
to be honest, i'm not familiar with the lsx or the coyote 5.0. from what i understand, the coyote is a totally different engine. i did think they were quoting rear wheel hp though.
i have a customer whos son has a 2011 5.0, and loves it. he claimed 35mpg(that's just hearsay) at about 75mph, and not much problems so far reliability wise....
reports i've read puts the stock gt's into the mid/high 12's. i haven't read a 1/4 mile time on the boss yet, but as mentioned it's been being run all last year in the continental tire series, supposedly with not too many problems.
it almost looks like ford got a bug up their ass, and that's why the new boss mustang is happening. they seem to cruise along for a couple of years....then get that bug, do something really kick ass, then cruise along again........
as for the 4.6.....the single cammer....not so hot......the dual cammer..........had/has potential. i think that what went on with those engines, is that ford cheesed out a little to keep prices down, knowing that mustang owners tend to modify the poop out of their cars.
just found this.......2011 gt comparison to a 2011 m3. you all might be surprised. :devil
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/index.html
and here......SAE net is flywheel? or rear wheel?
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/
all in all.......as much as i like fords.......i don't give a dam if it's a camaro, mustang, or challenger....all i really care about is that i'm getting to see a version of the horsepower wars that i was too young to appreciate back in the 60's. :aok
The bug was the camaro. The 6 cyl camaro was putting out almost as much HP as the mustang GT. They pumped up the 2011s and the HP wars are on again. :D
The Z28 will be supercharged from the factory.
-
and that's after chevy dissed ford for using 5.4L supercharged engined. :devil
and the 6 cylinder mustang has more power than the 6 cylinder camaro i think.......
funny thing is....check that link i put up. it was motortrend. you know as well as me that those guys pretty much hate american cars. yet they admitted that bang for the buck, the standard gt is far better than the bmw m3.........they did their laps within .1 of a second. that pretty much equates to the first guy to make a mistake loses.......and the stang still uses a solid axle. i don't think that's a weak point as much as people want to think it is.
-
just found this.......2011 gt comparison to a 2011 m3. you all might be surprised.
no surprises there, apart from the 1/4m maybe - with equal peak HP, the stang should be a fair bit quicker than the M3 (its a 2008my M3 btw) as its a little lighter and has way more torque on a flatter curve. I'm guessing the M3's M-diff and multilink rearend give it better traction off the line, and a slightly sharper gearbox helps make up the difference. the M3 would murder the stang on a british b-road though. :uhoh
-
no surprises there, apart from the 1/4m maybe - with equal peak HP, the stang should be a fair bit quicker than the M3 (its a 2008my M3 btw) as its a little lighter and has way more torque on a flatter curve. I'm guessing the M3's M-diff and multilink rearend give it better traction off the line, and a slightly sharper gearbox helps make up the difference. the M3 would murder the stang on a british b-road though. :uhoh
i don't know what a b-road is.
i didn't honestly expect the gt to do that though.
-
ahh we have motorways, a-roads, b-roads and unclassified. a-roads are major routes, usually well surfaced, sometimes dual-carriageway. b-roads are usually tight, twisty and a bit bumpy with less traffic - good roads to play on :aok
-
and that's after chevy dissed ford for using 5.4L supercharged engined. :devil
and the 6 cylinder mustang has more power than the 6 cylinder camaro i think.......
funny thing is....check that link i put up. it was motortrend. you know as well as me that those guys pretty much hate american cars. yet they admitted that bang for the buck, the standard gt is far better than the bmw m3.........they did their laps within .1 of a second. that pretty much equates to the first guy to make a mistake loses.......and the stang still uses a solid axle. i don't think that's a weak point as much as people want to think it is.
The 2011 mustang v6 has something like 2 hp more than the 2010 camaro. The Same engine in the 2010 camaro is in the 2011 and has been certified as 312 hp now. So while the 2010 camaro said 3004 hp they actually put out 312.
But yes the new 2011 mustang does put out slightly more. In 2010 the V6 camaro had almost as much as the 2010 GT mustang though. :D.
-
Our so called A roads are usually 6, 8, or 10 lane (carriage way?)
Here in Texas our farm roads (known as FM for Farm to Market) are better than many states main thoroughfares.
-
Our so called A roads are usually 6, 8, or 10 lane (carriage way?)
Here in Texas our farm roads (known as FM for Farm to Market) are better than many states main thoroughfares.
to say our roads here in nj suck balls would be a gigantic understatement.
-
Cap1~lol so true about jersey roads.
-
Like I said, torque is power and power is torque.
-
Like I said, torque is power and power is torque.
horsepower is a byproduct of torque.
-
horsepower is a byproduct of torque.
Torque is power and power is torque. how hard is it to understand?
-
Torque is power and power is torque. how hard is it to understand?
noooo.....power is torque and torque is power. :noid :neener:
-
noooo.....power is torque and torque is power. :noid :neener:
nowwwwwwwww you get it :aok :devil
-
Like I said, torque is power and power is torque.
you were wrong the first time then, they are not the same thing.
-
I got a question, what is the formula to get HP? I was explaining the workings of a engine to my 14year daughter, and she asked me how Horse power is made, I guess someone told her it was how many horses could pull the car lol.....I dont know the exact math, something to do with the piston size, combustion chamber......????
-
See Rule #4
-
I got a question, what is the formula to get HP? I was explaining the workings of a engine to my 14year daughter, and she asked me how Horse power is made, I guess someone told her it was how many horses could pull the car lol.....I dont know the exact math, something to do with the piston size, combustion chamber......????
There is no formula, I am aware of, for calculating the horsepower an engine will produce. I would imagine it would be possible to produce a formula which could closely approximate the amoutn of horsepower, but that would include a number of variables most people would not have direct access to.
-
skuzzy~ I thought it had something to do with diameter of pistons, Volume of cumbustion chamber, and size of valves....So how the heck do they get it? Dyno?
-
I already posted the formula for horsepower.
Horsepower = torque X RPM / 5252
There are various conversions, for example "kilowatts to HP" (because early engine dynomometers were "eddy current", meaning the engine was used to generate electricity to determine how much power it produced).
One horsepower is the power to lift a specified weight (550 pounds) one foot in one minute. Or about 750 Watts.
You use an engine dynomometer of some sort to measure torque and RPM, and the formula tells you what the HP is.
These days, the most common type of dyno is the water brake dyno, however the older eddy current dynos are still used, and the current "hot ticket" is the inertia dyno, which has a flywheel that the engine accelerates.
-
I got a question, what is the formula to get HP? I was explaining the workings of a engine to my 14year daughter, and she asked me how Horse power is made, I guess someone told her it was how many horses could pull the car lol.....I dont know the exact math, something to do with the piston size, combustion chamber......????
CHECK THIS.
http://www.web-cars.com/math/horsepower.html
-
cool beans thanx guys
-
cool beans thanx guys
-
skuzzy~ I thought it had something to do with diameter of pistons, Volume of cumbustion chamber, and size of valves....So how the heck do they get it? Dyno?
My experience the only way to know is to Dyno it. Been to plenty of Dyno days and seen bone stock LS1 engines put out different numbers or cars with identical setups put out different numbers. Mine was 13 hp and 17 lb trq higher than what GM was stating it should be for a stock LS1. On the other end of the extreme scale was a guy that was only putting 10hp less then GM listed.
-
oops
-
double oops