Whats your idea of a dream car

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 05 Apr 2005, 22:40

You honestly think that car can run with a 454 SS?

These cars were in the 12's..... stock! However much money is put into that skyline would be more efficient on a BBC.

Btw, the vid didn't work but I own an 87

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 06 Apr 2005, 00:20

Youre kidding, right?

The first is a 650bhp CA-powered Nissan 200SX. The car was running 11.2 at low boost and 600bhp last year, and has been modified further this year to incorporate more traction and more boost.

The video is from a guys site who used to be a member of a street racing site Im part of. His name is Vivek, and he owns a particularly powerful Supra. The 87 from the video is a 10sec, street legal drag car, the car on the far left is another APU Supra of a lower output than Viveks car.

Taken from the vid:

You honestly think that car can run with a 454 SS

I certainly do.

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 06 Apr 2005, 01:56

Although, how much does it cost to get a Supra that quick? It's already been said, but it's more cost-efficient for the Monte Carlo, is it not? However, the Supra has the advantage of being able to do more than just go really fast in a straight line.

However, I doubt that a Monte Carlo has ever been a 12 second car, stock. At the very least, a car from the 70's comes with crap tires, restricting it. An old (stock) Monte is more likely a 14 second car.

My idea of a dream car, meanwhile? Right off the top of my head, a Series One Jaguar E-Type. But, if we're going for attributes, then there's a few of them. The first big one is that it's got to be fun to drive. So, it's got to handle fairly well, and accelerate and brake nicely. I'd like a useable back seat, because that's always nice to have. It's got to feel right being the wheel, comfortable, decent ergonomics, etc. I want it to look good, although at the same time, it's got to be subtle, because it's no fun if I get pulled over every time I try and enjoy the car a little. Because of those criteria, I'm leaning towards something like a Subaru Legacy GT or a Mazda 6, or moving out of the realm of cars I could potentially own some day, a Jaguar XJR.

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 06 Apr 2005, 04:05

Well that supra is not a 1.8L now is it? And that monte carlo is not even a 7.0, or SS!

As Hecubus stated, traction was an issue in the 70's but the 390hp, 454 big block was capable of reaching 12's in stock form with traction. 14's? No way.. thats about what my LS does with its tired LG4 5.0

You don't see modified Supra's contending with big blocks. Fact of the matter is there is no replacement for displacement.

Here is a 585c.i making 1150HP at the rear wheels and running LOW 8's in the 1/4 mile. Oh but your friends Supra could take him no problem right?

I'm not trying to be an ass but what you just compared is ridiculious. A highly modified supra racing "some" monte-carlo. There is more to racing than just power at the wheels. Driver, Weather, and Traction are main issues and if you think some picture of a Supra beating a monte carlo on a street is going to convince me, you're wrong.

Check out http://www.montecarloss.com and look at the ET database

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 06 Apr 2005, 04:36

Ahem: http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars ... tory.shtml

That's some serious traction issues, then. I still have my doubts that a Monte Carlo SS454 is a 12 second car. Firstly, I'm certain it weighs in excess of 4000lbs (is it as high as 4500lbs?). Secondly, the transmission, it's a three-speed, right? Given the powerband of the engine, it's not a huge issue, but something to take into consideration. Then there's the suspension. I imagine it would require some work to get all the available power to the ground. Take, for instance, the Chrysler 300C SRT-8. It weighs roughly the same as the Monte (I assume, I would think that if anything, it's lighter, but I'm uncertain about that). I know it's roughly 4200lbs. It's got at least the same amount of horsepower as an LS6-equipped Monte (they were rated at 465hp, but that's gross). It's got a modern five-speed, traction control, modern suspension, and big fat tires. It's only supposed to do the 1/4mile in 13.4 seconds. And the LS6 Monte Carlos were rare. Ergo, I think that it's safe to say, traction added or not, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo is a 12 second car. I'd like to see where you got those times though, I suppose I could be wrong.

EmptyWords · Post by **EmptyWords** » 06 Apr 2005, 04:38

isnt the 454 a 7.4L? cause the chevelle 454 is like about 738x CC. and those things are fast as hell. 0-60 in 3.8 secs. id love to have one of those.

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 06 Apr 2005, 05:16

The 1970 MCSS 454 rode on an air-ride suspension - something unheard of at the time and was fitted with the best available tires at the time, Eagle GT II's. 116" wheel base made turning unpleasant but didn't stop the car from prevailing NASCAR for the next decades..

4 speed tranny was available but designed for top-end speed. You know these cars topped out at 132mph? My LS with 3.08's and 6K redline has done that!

But really if you wan't to talk sense, compare the first generation Supra to first generation Monte Carlo! Car companies these days struggle to make high powered engines getting good gas milage. HAHA the MPG for a 454 is a single digit number, the MPG of the Z06, 427 BBC LS-7 500HP motor is about 24 highway

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 06 Apr 2005, 12:26

Although, how much does it cost to get a Supra that quick?

$33'000 for a full 1200bhp conversion kit. In English money, youre paying around 7k for a used MKIV TT Supra, then around Â£20k for said conversion kit.

The 700bhp Supra:

930bhp Evo, running 10s

But we're straying off topic. In closing, you asked for a 1.8 quicker than a Monte, I provided. Now lets just be happy that we have differing opinions.

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 06 Apr 2005, 21:16

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

North Americas Fastest STOCK cars. No need to put $30k in these TRUE powerful cars because they already ran 10's STOCK.

*** = Cars were under-rated and todays technology has shown anywhere from 575 to 675 horsepower in stock form.

You're comparing cars with thousands of dolars put into them while I compared a stock car. It was a simple bash you couldn't handle. The quarter-mile is a straight line, you've never been to a track have you?

This Starlet would smoke any Supra and he actually has a slip to prove it unlike you. Again, I am hoping the linke at top will make you re-think what you have said and take into consideration that those are STOCK numbers.

If if you wan't to compare 900+hp skylines and what not well take a look at the NASCAR homepage. Real stock cars with thousands to millions of dolars put into them making just 850hp but are able to take a turn at 200mph - something those cars you posted cant do with "body kits" and "wings".

Now lets see you find a naturaly aspirated import running 10's

Dont forget the slip..

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 06 Apr 2005, 22:08

You're comparing cars with thousands of dolars put into them while I compared a stock car

A stock car that would cost me more to import than it would to buy and tune a Supra. Again, youre the one comparing a 1.8 to a 7 litre.

The quarter-mile is a straight line, you've never been to a track have you?

And the beacon of ignorance shines through. Just something quick here, whats the car in my sig? In fact, since I took this account, what have all the cars in my sig had in common? They were all Nissan 200SXs, reason being, for the last year or so Ive been part of the UK owners club. Assumingly even you know they were never intended as drag cars, and are predominantly used for track racing. Almost every single track event that theyve participated in, Ive been to.

The picture of the Corvette up there? Taken at a track, not a strip.

Still think all imports are slow though, right?

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=hey- ... a-<--Civic

http://www.1320video.com/videos.php <--Eclipse

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=StillwayFD3S <--RX7

http://supra.sysadmin-racing.com/videos ... aSupra.wmv <--Supra

The AAP Supra on an 8.8 pass. The car has more recently accomplished an 8.6 practice run.
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=supra2

are able to take a turn at 200mph - something those cars you posted cant do with "body kits" and "wings".

Im still creased with laughter that you consider this a track:

But hey, we're already comparing apples to oranges, so lets pick an import race car shall we?

I do believe thats ever so slightly quicker round a track than your precious NASCARs.

EmptyWords · Post by **EmptyWords** » 06 Apr 2005, 23:02

thats an americans idea of a race track. no offecne to any americans. but nascar is crap honestly. it shouldnt be considered a track. thats like calling a boxing match while watching 2 guys just stand in a ring

Sir Ibi · Post by **Sir Ibi** » 06 Apr 2005, 23:10

But NASCAR is so fun to watch, so exciting, so intense, so fast, so incredible, watching a car driving really fast around a oval shaped track over and over and over and over again. SO AMAZIN!!!!!

ALERT! ALERT! SARCASM DETECTED! SARCASM DETECETED!!!

EmptyWords · Post by **EmptyWords** » 06 Apr 2005, 23:29

my dream car right now would be a. i dunno at this point in time id like a car

Post by **TheStig** » 07 Apr 2005, 01:34

oooh ooh we got a other stubern Yankieboy....

that lsit of car times you posted was that from a american propaganda poster or?? cause there where cars in the list that I find having slightly weird times...

and calling a nascar circle a track... that is the worst thing I ever heard since I came here... causse those things on the end of the flat steigt line are NOT corners!
man I can steer a 20.000 ton cargo ship there without loosing speed

DrewBoi · Post by **DrewBoi** » 07 Apr 2005, 01:38

actually Nascar in general is pretty cool. Except for the fact that people associate Rednecks with Nascar. Driving in Nascar is pretty hard. I went to a few races and i have to say that some of the drivers have talent to steer the car while having gripping issues and other things they factor in... all in all, Nascar is a fun sport that takes talent to drive.

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 07 Apr 2005, 02:25

Just because the drivers are talented, doesn't mean it's fun to watch. Nascar is nothing more than X-Treme highway driving. Strangely enough, they use cars that are rather plebian, and yet the race cars have absolutely nothing in common with the stock version of those cars (my Intrepid is a FWD unibody V6 sedan, with OHC and fuel injection. Sterling Martin's Intrepid is a RWD tubeframe racecar with a V8 that has pushrods and carburetors).

Nascar was interesting at a certain point in time, but it's been going downhill since about 1970

And, Monte, you may want to note that the three cars you posted that actually run ten-second times are extremely rare. The two Mopars were basically race cars sold through the dealer (and I imagine that they're both worth considerably over $30k right now). As for the ZL1 powered Corvette, there's something rediculous like two of them built - ever.

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 07 Apr 2005, 03:48

All the cars on that list are production vehicles.

I made my point clear.

By the way, I don't call this circular..

Have a nice day.

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 07 Apr 2005, 06:34

I don't question their status as production cars, I'm merely pointing out that they're rather rare, and unusually fast (and I'm sure in the case of the two Mopars, only designed with the slightest consideration for daily driving) . Most of the rest of the muscle cars on the list are more in the 13 second bracket. To say that American cars are clearly faster in a straight line by bringing up those three ten-second cars is like saying that German cars clearly have superior fuel economy because of the Smart car.

MonteCarloSS · Post by **MonteCarloSS** » 07 Apr 2005, 07:01

I just like to class the cars fairly. Most of the cars on that list are exotics, and gas mileage is the least of their worries. The 3 big guns at the top were built when gas was less than 50 cents a gallon and big blocks ruled the road.

Mopar took advantage of that and created the 426 HEMI which we all know produced anywhere from 500 to 600hp. No accurate number was ever recorded but the journalist stated the numbers were under-rated and thats not the first time I have heard that. Again, this is the internet, anything goes.

Technology allows cars these days to take corners at 100mph and not spin out. My friends Subara SVX can take a wide turn in the snow at 90 mph whereas my car would just spin out, or just go forward.

He made some good points but wasn't staying on target. He rebuttled well and I respect his opinion but some of the stuff he said was just clear shizzle.

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 08 Apr 2005, 00:39

All I'm trying to say is that those three cars are rare. Yes, it proves that you can fairly easily get a muscle car to run ten second quarter-mile times. It just doesn't state that it's hard to get a Japanese car to run the same times. They've got different priorities, that tend to focus on overall preformance, so it's less likely that you'll see a Japanese car run those kind of times straight from the factory. Furthermore, those cars have nothing to do with the argument that it's cheaper to get an American car to accelerate fast. There's no price listed for any of them. However, the Corvette would've undoubtedly been rediculously expensive, given it's rarity, and I believe the ZL1 was an all-aluminum motor (I could be wrong on that), adding to the cost. I imagine the same would go for the two Mopars, given that they're hemi-powered. I mean, on a conventional production Mopar, adding the regular 426 Hemi cost roughly $1000 - about a quarter of the base price of the car. The S/S Dart and Barracuda, being more heavily modified than a regular hemi-powered Mopar would undoubtedly be even more expensive.

Also, I think you misinterpreted my comment involving the Smart car. I never meant to indicate anything about fuel economy and muscle cars, I was drawing a comparison. The Smart car has incredeble fuel economy. Does that automatically mean that German cars in general have great fuel economy? Not really. Many of the German cars we get in North America (granted, that is because it's the higher-end luxury models that are getting imported, the average fuel economy of German cars is much better in Germany) is hardly stellar. Likewise, there were three American cars that could run 10-second quarter mile times, does that automatically mean that all American cars are fast (or, at least faster than Japanese cars)?

Grez~Supra_RZ-S · Post by **Grez~Supra_RZ-S** » 08 Apr 2005, 00:52

My point was not to say that bang for buck, Japanese cars were better. In the US, Im quite aware that a Fox body is extremely difficult to beat in that domain. However, my point was that Japanese cars were capable of keepig up.

There was no 'shiznit', just facts presented in the correct way.

EmptyWords · Post by **EmptyWords** » 08 Apr 2005, 01:58

i found my dream car. Buggati 16-4 veyron.

its got a W16 quad turbo 64 valve engine. its got about 980 something HP at 6k RPM. manufacturer estimated 0-62 mph time. 2.8... i thought that i wouldnt see a car with under 3 seconds for 0-60 anytime soon

heres the pic anyway

boganbusman · Post by **boganbusman** » 08 Apr 2005, 02:26

I thought it had 1001hp.

Anyway, it weighs 2000kgs so I wonder how it handles?

Sir Ibi · Post by **Sir Ibi** » 08 Apr 2005, 02:37

who cares how much it weighs, it looks freakin gorgeous!!!

Hecubus · Post by **Hecubus** » 08 Apr 2005, 02:57

boganbusman wrote:I thought it had 1001hp.

Anyway, it weighs 2000kgs so I wonder how it handles?

Two different horsepower ratings. By the European standards, it's 1001. However, according to SAE (American) ratings, it's "only" 987.