Your parents' ride

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 13 Dec 2005, 10:28

snobrdr2324
I'm with Grez and Boganbusman here.
Give me custard proof. Get a can of custard and place it by the wheel of each car, then take the photo. Then we know that you're not lying.

jacoja06 · Post by **jacoja06** » 13 Dec 2005, 11:49

@steelsnake00: Try reading his posts. He just stated that he cannot get anymore images.

boganbusman · Post by **boganbusman** » 13 Dec 2005, 11:57

jacoja06 wrote:@steelsnake00: Try reading his posts. He just stated that he cannot get anymore images.

I don't know why you're being so sympathetic. We've seen so many of these 'posers' around here and they never seem to give up.

I'll be suprised if he ever comes back.

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 13 Dec 2005, 12:11

Jacoja...its foolish to say that, because if his parent were split up and had THAT much money, he wouldn't be short of a phone call to get his mommy or daddy to send him some pics.
And that picture is cropped. I've never seen a resolution that strange taken from a digital camera. In fact, I think the image is from one of the fastcars sites. And anyway, the quality of the pic is shocking. Anyone with enough money to afford those cars should be able to afford a camera worthy of taking pictures of them.

boganbusman · Post by **boganbusman** » 13 Dec 2005, 12:15

Oops . . .

http://www.verdictoncars.com/jsp/vocmai ... &go=Search

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 13 Dec 2005, 12:24

Oh dear, hes been p0wn'd.
I hope he leaves now.

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 13 Dec 2005, 12:27

that original 396 is rated at 350

I correct you, the L34 402 is rated at 350bhp tuned, and wheel horsepower is much much lower due to poor drivetrain construction (but what do you expect out of a 37 year old car?)
I will accept that they are almost infinately tunable, but heres another example:
Quoted from Grez in This Thread http://forum.nfsunlimited.net/viewtopic ... c&start=40

'1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

-5700cc V8
-A whopping 275bhp (bahahahahahaha)
-An awesome quarter mile of 14.7 seconds at 97mph (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)'

Lets be honest, thats pretty damn shocking. I'm a fan of technology over displacement- a E30 series M3 with fairly minor tuning could reach that figure, and thats a 2.4l naturally aspirited 4-pot.

American engines are lazy and low-revving; they deliver the bulk of their torque from about 1750rpm, which means they make great tractors, and a fairly quick getaway on the dragstrip, but the fact they are so front-heavy means that round a track they loose out, badly. As Grez put it, a 911, RS4 or M3 would anally rape, long deep and hard, without lubrication. And they'll return twice the MPG. And look better (though thats my oppinion).

Oh and Underoath. That engine has probably been rebuilt several times in that period, especially if it has undergone head work or other major modification.
I would put a large sum on money on the fact that my M3, or Grez' MR2 even, with the equivilent ammount of modification that car requires to reach 500BHP, will flatten it in both a drag AND round a circuit.

Sorry 'Oath, but my money will always be on brains over brawn.

-EDIT-

Oh Look...

My Dad's toy......1969 Camaro RS/SS 396....recently took out the original motor and installed a bored and stroked 427...which makes a 496.....tons of HP!!!

That explains the time its lasted. Still think the M3 would pull pretty close in a 1/4 ML. 5.6 Sec 0-60 on 321BHP, and bore and stroke and it would reach well over 400 and probably 0-60 in sub-5. What really lets the Camaro down is the gearbox...c'mon, its a 4-spd!

The Gravedigger · Post by **The Gravedigger** » 13 Dec 2005, 14:09

I shall show you all a demostration of proof for any statements that you make (the picture should always be attached before you come out with some outrageous statement, before you get owned by people like boganbusman

)

Well... atm I only have some decent shots of my Dad's 1974 Holden HQ Kingswood
Details (well the modifications we have done to it):

1. The wheel package (used to have stock rims, which were rusted to buggery... and some rubber, that I wouldn't even call road-worthy)
2. The bodywork (We took it to one of Dad's mates workshops to cut out all the bogged up rust, and then got into it with welded sheets of metal..... so it still is a tank)
3. The paint (used to be a Candy Red, but because of all the crap that was taken out of it.... we changed our minds and went for a Phantom Metallic {Holden's metallic Black} again at the mate's Workshop)
4. Engine, exhaust and transmission change (was running an 186 + racinghead bored out to a 202 with a 5 speed Supra Gearbox with stock 2Â¼" exhaust.... replaced it with a small block V8 {308}, dual 4 into 1 extractors into a single cat-back 3Â½" exhaust, for the transmission a 4-speed auto gearbox {dad's an interstate truck driver... so cbf changing gears when he gets home each weekend

}
5. Minimal stereo install (removed the stock casette player and installed a homebrand cd player {im planning to go completely Pioneer in it, if I get it

} with, in the doors 6" speakers {210 Watts} and behind the seats, 2 6Â½" Sony Xplod speaker {250 Watts}.... don't ask me why Dad installed Sony into it

)

Around abouts $22 000 spent on it, the car itself costed $4500

Bwah, enough of it's life story

Here's the car

EDIT: also we installed the GTS grille you see so nicely

jacoja06 · Post by **jacoja06** » 13 Dec 2005, 15:00

boganbusman wrote:Oops . . .

http://www.verdictoncars.com/jsp/vocmai ... &go=Search

LOL... Damn you! I spent ages searching for photo's

He was pwned... and I cannot believe I had second thoughts for a couple of seconds.

@The Gravedigger:

@steelsnake00: Surely you know by now not to double post. >>

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 13 Dec 2005, 16:14

I know, but it was two totally unrealated topics.
Please forgive me!

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 13 Dec 2005, 18:23

steelsnake00 wrote:
that original 396 is rated at 350
I correct you, the L34 402 is rated at 350bhp tuned, and wheel horsepower is much much lower due to poor drivetrain construction (but what do you expect out of a 37 year old car?)
I will accept that they are almost infinately tunable, but heres another example:
Quoted from Grez in This Thread http://forum.nfsunlimited.net/viewtopic ... c&start=40

'1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

-5700cc V8
-A whopping 275bhp (bahahahahahaha)
-An awesome quarter mile of 14.7 seconds at 97mph (BWAHAHAHAHAHA)'
Lets be honest, thats pretty damn shocking. I'm a fan of technology over displacement- a E30 series M3 with fairly minor tuning could reach that figure, and thats a 2.4l naturally aspirited 4-pot.

American engines are lazy and low-revving; they deliver the bulk of their torque from about 1750rpm, which means they make great tractors, and a fairly quick getaway on the dragstrip, but the fact they are so front-heavy means that round a track they loose out, badly. As Grez put it, a 911, RS4 or M3 would anally rape, long deep and hard, without lubrication. And they'll return twice the MPG. And look better (though thats my oppinion).

Oh and Underoath. That engine has probably been rebuilt several times in that period, especially if it has undergone head work or other major modification.
I would put a large sum on money on the fact that my M3, or Grez' MR2 even, with the equivilent ammount of modification that car requires to reach 500BHP, will flatten it in both a drag AND round a circuit.

Sorry 'Oath, but my money will always be on brains over brawn.

-EDIT-

Oh Look...
My Dad's toy......1969 Camaro RS/SS 396....recently took out the original motor and installed a bored and stroked 427...which makes a 496.....tons of HP!!!
That explains the time its lasted. Still think the M3 would pull pretty close in a 1/4 ML. 5.6 Sec 0-60 on 321BHP, and bore and stroke and it would reach well over 400 and probably 0-60 in sub-5. What really lets the Camaro down is the gearbox...c'mon, its a 4-spd!

Alright, firstly, technology is just more that can go wrong (hey, you were the one who originally brought up the reliability argument). If I'm not mistaken, the most reliabile cars tend to be more simple (although the Japanese have been good at making more complex crap reliable). On that note, if I recall correctly, the highest mileage engine without a rebuild was a Cadillac V8.

Secondly, the ratings on American V8s from the 60's are all over the freakin map, so just because one engine is rated at a certain figure, doesn't mean that another isn't capable of the same number (seriously, I'm fairly certain that there was one Chevy 427 rated at 425 hp, and a second at 435, but when dyno tested, the 425hp engine was actually more powerful - there were alot of fudged numbers going on then). However, I'll conceed that all those factory numbers were gross rather net (until 1972), so that affects things a bit)

As far as the Camaro you mentioned goes, remember, what other car can you get for the same price that makes 275hp? Technology costs money, so the Americans have taken the cheaper (re. more accessable) way of making power. And for what it's worth, that Camaro gets pretty decent fuel economy (gearing, admittedly, but hey, change the gearing, and it gets faster), on the cheapest gas you can put in the tank

Oh, weight distribution? Again, that's so all over the map, you can't generalize like that. Hell, the Viper (which, as we'll remember, has over 500 cubic inches of V10) actually has a slight rearward weight bias. The Corvette Z06 is 50/50. The '05 Mustang only has 52% of the weight up front. And, yeah, the Camaro you mentioned is a little on the front-heavy side (58% in the front). And, well, handling, it's to be expected that a 37 year old car can't compete with brand new (and very expensive) cars. But try pitting something newer against them (or for that matter, put a vintage 911 or a 2002 up against one of those muscle cars), and things will even out a bit.

And there's nothing wrong with the Camaro having a 4-speed. Firstly, it's 37 years old, it's to be expected (the 911 Turbo had a 4-speed until 88!). Secondly, again, the power curve of a big block v8 means that more gears aren't entirely required. Although, if you'd like to play the gear game, the Camaro Z28 (from 93 on) and it's Trans Am twin, the Corvette (from '89 or so on), the Viper, the GT, the GTO, they've all got 6-speeds.

So, yes, American cars aren't perfect, but they're just compromised in different ways than European cars, so get over it (lay off the British automotive journalism for a bit, also, it'll help you get over the rediculous bias).

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 13 Dec 2005, 23:29

Ok well steelsnake, congratulations, you have beaten out a 16 year old....good job

as for the camaros, i just really like classic american muscle from a personal standpoint.
i never planned on getting in a big discussion about this, i just simply stated that i'm not a fan of the BMW's and the Porsche's.....i like the look and the sound and everything about the classics...

and to straighten up one more thing....When i mentioned that the car is a 396 with a 4spd i was talking stock....i didnt mention this because i dont know too much about exactly what my dad has done too it, but this is what i know for sure...

1969 Camaro RS/SS
427/454(im not 100% which one) bored and stroked to a 496..and yes we do have the original motor out of the car incase we decide to sell

and it does have a 5spd....but like i said im not 100% sure on all of this (as far as make and specs and waht not) so i didnt bother mentioning it incase someone had a question about it, i didnt want to sound like too much of a dumbbumbum.

but you and your comments made me say this^

what i have said now is as much as i know so dont bother commenting back with a smart ass remark asking be about this....the 496 and the 5spd. are 100% legit....as i said i just didnt mention it because i dont know enough about them to back it up...

wehn we bought the car 2 years ago it came with the 396 and the 4spd. but we took those out so we didnt have to worry about losing value if something were to happen to the original parts on the track or just driving....

so anyway...congrat-u-firetruck-lations...you beat a 16 year old...be proud

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 14 Dec 2005, 00:17

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 14 Dec 2005, 01:04

It wasn't my intent to flame you Oath, I've been in a bad mood recently. Work isn't going massively well and I'm having family problems. Sorry if you became the vent for my anger in that comment.
Hecubus managed to respond quite impressively. I take my hat (or lack of) off to him. His point about different specialisms for European and US cars is something I didnt think of.
Oath, sorry. It wasn't my intent to do more than voice my oppinions but I got out of hand, I'm the first one to admit that.
And your pretty damn clever for a 16 year old

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 14 Dec 2005, 01:10

It's cool man don't worry about it....i know how stress can get to ya, lol i AM in high school and i get enough of that as it is...i understand you're opinion also....i dont have much of education on the foreign imports...or even that of the american cars. I'm still learning on everything, i was just always taught that american muscle was superior to everything else, but i guess i to need to open up and learn more about everything before stateing that something is better than something else

but no hard feelings, just different opinions

and btw i do my best

donaldgladden · Post by **donaldgladden** » 14 Dec 2005, 01:11

underoath285 wrote:
steelsnake00 wrote:Lol, you mean real American weight? Real American unreliability?
Im sorry, the Americans do lots of things right. Building cars isn't one of them.
Ok first of all, as Hecubus mentioned, it does weigh around 3600lbs, which is NOT that heavy. And second of all that car is almost 37 years old and it still runs like a charm; I'd say thats pretty reliable, wouldn't you?

Grez~Supra_RZ-S wrote:those Porsches would rape that thing in the corners. And when I say rape, I mean in a dark alley with no lubrication, and a brass band playing the Valkyrie.
good point, these cars were not ment for the race track, thats why they ARN'T on the race track! they are always on the dragstrip and will always be on the drag strip...before you go criticizing, think about what you're saying.

steelsnake00 wrote:American idea of muscle is 280 bhp out of a big block chevvy, in car weighing several tonnes.
280bhp?!?! please tell me your kidding....that original 396 is rated at 350....although it is wayyy more than that because when manufactured, chevy said that they were only at 350 for insurance reasons....although stock it is easily pushing over 400hp....with all of the work we have done to it...it is 500+hp....280....good joke...

i had to revamp this topic

American cars have been in the Rolex 24 hrs in the 70s and 60s pleanty of times. The 12 Hours at Sebring. and even in TransAM. Muscle Cars have been on the Road Racing circuit much time. And theyve kicked ass and took name as well.

underdog2121 · Post by **underdog2121** » 14 Dec 2005, 01:38

My dad has a Porsche 2002 997 and my mom has a BMW wagon (no idea model or year). Sry for bad pics, I dropped my digital camera and it hasent been the same since.

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 14 Dec 2005, 04:45

Well, it's not a 997. 997 refers to the current generation 911 (yours is a 996). Still nice though.

And I'm guessing the BMW is a 330, although I'm not really sure.

Anyways, nice cars, and welcome to the site!

underdog2121 · Post by **underdog2121** » 14 Dec 2005, 04:50

O yes sry I ment 996 (typo) yea that sounds right for the BMW. And Thank You

EDIT: The BMW is a 323i wagon.

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 15 Dec 2005, 13:00

I cant believe Ive missed this argument, my apologies. Ive been working on my car a lot lately, the PC has taken a back seat...

good point, these cars were not ment for the race track, thats why they ARN'T on the race track! they are always on the dragstrip and will always be on the drag strip...before you go criticizing, think about what you're saying.

Whats your point? When badmouthing a Porsche for its ''slowness'', remember its application. Dont come crying to me when I point out it would rape that oversized heap on a track, saying the Camaro is made for the strip. I dont care. Either be more specific when youre generalising a manufacturer, or dont say anything at all.

American cars have been in the Rolex 24 hrs in the 70s and 60s pleanty of times. The 12 Hours at Sebring. and even in TransAM. Muscle Cars have been on the Road Racing circuit much time.

Oh God not another one who says T/As can handle... My Grans Civic could out-turn a T/A, probably even a WS6. They were built largely as a sports car with straight line performance in mind. If you want to see a T/A being used to the best of its abilities, look up a guy named HAVOC. Hes the admin of a forum I often frequent, great guy.

As for the Camaro making 275bhp, when the car still runs 15s, thats pathetic. My friends Del Sol runs 15s, gets 40mpg daily driving, and has 160bhp. Power/Weight is a wonderful thing. Furthermore, simple cars are not necessarily more reliable. Ford has a reputation for making unreliable cars, Honda doesnt. Remember that.

steelsnake00 · Post by **steelsnake00** » 15 Dec 2005, 13:55

Thanks Grez
How are things going

arabnight · Post by **arabnight** » 15 Dec 2005, 18:30

umm my mom rides a 2005 nissian armada LE (maxed to the top of line) but my dad is the one that pushes it to the 140mph mark...but my dad drives the 91' benz

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 15 Dec 2005, 22:32

steelsnake00 wrote:Thanks Grez
How are things going

A lot better now my cars back on the road.

underoath285 · Post by **underoath285** » 15 Dec 2005, 23:31

ok Grez~Supra_RZ-S.......i dont even know why your comment here....this had nothing to do with you but ok....

honestly, i could care less about your opinion....this was between me and steelsnake....and we got this out of the way and we came to an agreement....if you just come on here to start shiznit its pretty lame...and i also never said anything about porsche's being slow! so dont put words in my mouth, i simply stated that i feel classics are better

i like classics and i will always like classics and theres nothing you can do about it.....if you like the new porsche's and bmw's then thats fine, doesnt bother me...i just have my opinion that classics are better. so grow up and stop starting shiznit with ppl on their opinions

we came to an agreement that other people have different opinions, so deal with it

and btw....when you were talking about the camaro with the 275bhp....and the 15 sec. 1/4 mile, that was a 1993...i'm talking about a 1969....so that has nothing to do with it...the cars back then had more power and will always have more power

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 16 Dec 2005, 00:12

underoath285 wrote:ok Grez~Supra_RZ-S.......i dont even know why your comment here....this had nothing to do with you but ok....honestly, i could care less about your opinion....this was between me and steelsnake....

This was an argument about cars, it has nothing to do with the personal feelings between you and snake. Although, you did actually quote parts of my argument, therefore I had every right to counter that.

and we got this out of the way and we came to an agreement....if you just come on here to start shiznit its pretty lame...

Im an bumbumhead, welcome to the real world, theres plenty of us.

and i also never said anything about porsche's being slow! so dont put words in my mouth, i simply stated that i feel classics are better

Your actual words:

wow forget the crappy BMW's and Porsche's

In case you were unaware how English works, heres how you should have phrased your opinion if you didnt want to 'start shiznit'.

Opinion - I feel Classic cars, such as muscle cars, are better than modern sports cars

Opinion disguised as fact - Classic cars are better than modern sports cars

Argument causing - wow forget the crappy BMW's and Porsche's

when you were talking about the camaro with the 275bhp....and the 15 sec. 1/4 mile, that was a 1993...i'm talking about a 1969....so that has nothing to do with it...

My reference to the '93 was from a different argument, and it was Snake I believe who brought that quote back, not me.

the cars back then had more power and will always have more power

Bugatti Veyron anyone?

NFSUnlimited.net

Your parents' ride

Re: wow