TR Forums

On 2002-03-04 16:58, Speed wrote:
Alanzilla, I've heard the Supra claims before. I'm not saying that Supras are bad cars, but the proof is in the putting. The Supra guys in my area never show up at the track to put up, and thus they have to shut up. If it's different in Austin, then great! But I've known my share of surly ricers from Austin that talked a big story but couldn't produce, so you understand why I take it with a grain of salt.

BTW, there's a saying in the high performance world: "Going fast costs money; how much do you want to spend?" Another says: "The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic dollars." Those Supras that cost ~$40K new (+ the cost of extra work) <i>better</i> perform! But I can build a more tractable V-8 car for a lot less

You can pick up a used Supra for around $25K. Not a bad place to start. I don't think any of the guys that I know bought theirs new.

Supras aren't set up to drag race. They're set up to street race, and there are few vehicles that can hang with them at any price, and the Supra is definitely the most economical way to it. One guy outran a Hayabusa.

I have nothing to gain or lose from this discussion--I'm just telling you what I've observed with my own eyes.

Of course, when it comes right down to it, it doesn't surprise me they're getting big power out of that inline six--it's almost a direct copy of the old Chevy inline six.

Haha. Bowties rule the oval.

about this Supra thing....u can pick up a used cobra for 16,000-20,000 with the right springs and gears, and maybe a blower (400+hp, something like 325 at the wheel) and they will hang with anything if not beat it (and still not even over $25,000..... u can do alot with $$25,000 but like speed said it cost to go fast.....

<i>Street</i> race? That's an oxymoron.

The only thing that "street racing" proves is the stupidity of the participants. Sorry, but after working at a level 1 trauma center for a while I've seen too much of what those idiots accomplish.

Like Nelliesboo said, in the used marketplace $25K can buy a number of comptent cars. And like I said, cubic inches are cheaper than turbos & gizmos.

On 2002-03-04 16:58, Speed wrote:
But I can build a more tractable V-8 car for a lot less.

Preach on Brother Speed.

But that doesn't mean that RWD + 6 = sports car

Agreed.

Personally I don't think the 300ZX makes the cut.

I'll agree with that on the N/A version; however, based on personal experience I'd have to say that the 91-95 Twin Turbos are in no way slow (and those were the ones I was referring to in my original post).

Personally I don't think the 300ZX makes the cut.

I'll agree with that on the N/A version; however, based on personal experience I'd have to say that the 91-95 Twin Turbos are in no way slow (and those were the ones I was referring to in my original post).

Hrmmm, being the owner of a NA 1990 300ZX, I have to disagree with you. At the time it was introduced, it was quite respectable in the realm of sports cars. It has aged siginficantly but I would go so far are to say that it would still beat most American Iron on a lot of road courses ('Vette not included). Big engines and straight line speed does not a sports car make.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SecretSquirrel on 2002-03-04 22:17 ]</font>

As far as the 300ZX goes, all I have to go on is what other people tell me. While the 90s version looks sweet to be sure, I'm told that it is way too heavy for the amount of motor it has. And sticking a turbo on an anemic mill isn't going to magically cure everything. It's also a matter of perspective. What's fast and quick to one person might be a yawner to the next guy.

SecretSquirrel, you're assuming that acceleration and turning are mutually exclusive traits. That simply isn't true. Your car is 500lbs heavier than mine, and mine has more tire. Guess which one is going to turn harder?

I found out a long time ago that tires are 9/10ths of the battle in making a car turn. There ain't anything magical about one car over any other that makes it clearly superior. By the same token, there's nothing about powerful cars that prevents them from performing in other areas.

Since it hasn't been discussed, I think it's time to talk about what makes more cylinders better. The thing that makes tires turn is torque. Horsepower is nothing more than a function of RPM and torque. A 4-cylinder engine produces two power pulses per crankshaft revolution, and an 8-cylinder makes twice as many as that. Therefore, with everything else being the same, the 8 makes twice as much torque as the 4.

There are other things like the inherent smoothness of a V-8, thanks to its naturally balanced state, that make the good-old American V-8 desirable. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a 6. But the 6 is a compromise that makes many concessions to economy. I'd rather have a 6 than a 4, but I'd really prefer an 8 or 12.

1996 Pontiac Grand Prix SE. 160 HP at 5500 RPM. Not lightning quick but she gets the job done.

only six i have ever seen and road in that was fun to drive was a M3 but u buy that and money is all gone, even 97's are 25k but just wanted to say M3 six is nice but nothing beats a v8....and as far as turning...Springs and good tires baby

P.S.
i cant wait to post pics of that cobra...

On 2002-03-04 23:10, Speed wrote:

SecretSquirrel, you're assuming that acceleration and turning are mutually exclusive traits. That simply isn't true. Your car is 500lbs heavier than mine, and mine has more tire. Guess which one is going to turn harder?

Best numbers I have been able to find:
1990 NA 300ZX
222HP@6400RPM
3221lbs curb weigth
225/50ZR16 tires
0-60: 6.8s
1/4Mile: 15.0s @ 93mph
.87g lateral accel


2000 Mustang GT
260HP@5250RPM
3236lbs curb weight
225/55ZR16 or 245/45ZR17 tires
0-60: 5.9s
1/4Mile: 14.5s@101mpg
.87g lateral accel

It was near impossible to find slalom numbers that I could compare. No doubt the Mustang goes faster in a straight line. Also no doubt it turns well too. However, with numbers that close, it would most likely come down to driver skill on most road courses.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SecretSquirrel on ]</font>

Since it hasn't been discussed, I think it's time to talk about what makes more cylinders better. The thing that makes tires turn is torque. Horsepower is nothing more than a function of RPM and torque. A 4-cylinder engine produces two power pulses per crankshaft revolution, and an 8-cylinder makes twice as many as that. Therefore, with everything else being the same, the 8 makes twice as much torque as the 4.

You're absolutely right, except you left out gearing which is imho as important as a powerful engine.

There are other things like the inherent smoothness of a V-8, thanks to its naturally balanced state, that make the good-old American V-8 desirable. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a 6. But the 6 is a compromise that makes many concessions to economy. I'd rather have a 6 than a 4, but I'd really prefer an 8 or 12.

I think you pretty much summed out the main reason why V8's and V12's are even still around: their inherent smoothness. However an Inline 6 would be much smoother at the cost of being overall larger (hood space-wise) and has been shown to produce ungodly amounts of power with the proper gizmos (ie: the Supra). IMO an Inline 6 is problebly fine for today's "sports cars" with V8's and up being fine for the exotics.

But anyways, MR2 dyno'd (Bosh dyno) @ 173hp. No RPM though since Bosh dynos measure the x-axis as velocity. No torque since the dyno guy didn't convert the n/m figure to lb/ft^2.

OK SS, it looks like my friend's 300 was a lot heavier. Perhaps it had more factory options, or something. The GT numbers must have been made with 16" tires. Mine came with the 17s, but I have wider rims on the way

On 2002-03-05 01:46, Speed wrote:
OK SS, it looks like my friend's 300 was a lot heavier. Perhaps it had more factory options, or something. The GT numbers must have been made with 16" tires. Mine came with the 17s, but I have wider rims on the way

Yeah, I had a terrible time getting stats that I could trust. Stuff like that is so subjective.

I've been trying to come up with a way of classifying a "sports car". Unfortunately the concept has been so watered down that I don't think it has meaning anymore. Most people would consider a Miata to be a sports car. Same with a 'Vette. Whats wrong with that picture.

On 2002-03-05 00:50, MisterNi wrote:

You're absolutely right, except you left out gearing which is imho as important as a powerful engine.

Gearing can't make an 8 out of a 4. Yes, you can use gear ratios to multiply torque in static situations. The problem is that driving isn't static, and engines have redlines. For example, if the 8 makes 300 lb-ft at 3000 RPM and the 4 makes 150, you can use a 2:1 gear ratio to get 300 lb-ft, but your car is going half as fast now. You could zing it up to 6 grand to catch up in speed, but by the time you get there, my 8 would have accelerated as well, and still be going faster. In practice, gears only help you get a good launch. After that it's all up to the engine.

Scalar numbers like you see, giving one number for horsepower are misleading. What they should show is the integral of the torque curve, if they want to use one number.

I think you pretty much summed out the main reason why V8's and V12's are even still around: their inherent smoothness. However an Inline 6 would be much smoother at the cost of being overall larger (hood space-wise) and has been shown to produce ungodly amounts of power with the proper gizmos (ie: the Supra). IMO an Inline 6 is problebly fine for today's "sports cars" with V8's and up being fine for the exotics.

An inline 6 can be pretty smooth, just not as smooth as a V-8. I'd hardly call a V-8 exotic, at least here in America. The Supra stories have to be taken with a grain of salt. I hear many stories, but see very few dyno slips. You can't cheat physics. Yes, you can get 1000HP out of a Supra, for about 20 seconds! Then it's time for a teardown--not exactly practical.

I hear you, SS. "Sports car" is an oft-abused term. The strict definition says a sports car has to be a 2-seater. What about the cars that have useless rear seats that are only for insurance purposes? Are they disqualified? I don't think so.

I can see a Miata as a sporting vehicle, though. Open air touring has traditionally eschewed extreme acceleration, but it's fun nonetheless. I can't knock the simple pleasures. Little cars can be great fun to drive. Unfortunately, with the advent of the SUV jerk, most of that fun has been taken away.

I'm the proud owner of a VW GTI 1.8T. It's great fun blowing past the rice boys and BMW yuppies. They always look so confused and bewildered.

"It's a Golf"

2002 Subaru WRX Wagon. 227 bhp, 0-60 in 5.4 to 5.8 seconds, depending on the article in Car & Driver. I may lose to some hulking big V8 in the dry, but I'll run rings around you all in the wet and the snow. BTW, it does that a lot up here in Vermont (at least until this year). Best of all, it's a Subaru, so nobody pays any attention to it, excepting the teenagers who all ogle the car.

with 4-wheel drive u should kill anything in the snow, but then again who races in the rain and snow?

Nelliesboo, up here you don't have much choice 6 months out of 12. Besides, all my "racing" is against myself or the clock on twisty back roads. Got over the straightline thing 20 years ago when I was 18.

On 2002-03-04 19:27, Nelliesboo wrote:
about this Supra thing....u can pick up a used cobra for 16,000-20,000 with the right springs and gears, and maybe a blower (400+hp, something like 325 at the wheel) and they will hang with anything if not beat it (and still not even over $25,000..... u can do alot with $$25,000 but like speed said it cost to go fast.....

No, you can pick up a used Mustang Cobra for that price.

You can't pick up even a totaled Cobra for anything near that.

I must be an old timer, I still prefer the american muscle car to the rice rocket.

I have a ’67 Thunderbird with a 390gt .30 over, 12:1 dome-top pistons, edelbrock high-rise intake, performance cam.
Hmmmm, its been a while since I have worked on it, maybe this summer.

On 2002-03-06 13:42, Captain Ned wrote:
Got over the straightline thing 20 years ago when I was 18.

Ned, I've got two years on you and I don't think I'll ever get over acceleration, straight-line or otherwise. I had a Subaru on my short list when I was shopping, but where I live the roads are never that bad, and I couldn't deal with a car that light since I'm surrounded by semis and SUVs 99% of the time. But I am curious--how do they work in the snow? I mean, can you really get on the throttle, or do the tires break loose?

Speed:

I didn't say I was over straightline overall, just racing straightline. As for snow traction, the WRX is great. It's easy to hang the back out and balance on the throttle, as the fronts are still pulling you on track. Straight in the snow, I've yet to spin all 4 tires. Of course, I am running performance snows rather than the crappy all-season Bridgestones that come stock on the car.

As for light, the manual wagon weighs some 3100 pounds, so it's no pushover. Chassis structure is damn near indestructible. I've seen somewhere on the web (URL escapes me at the moment) a picture of a WRX sedan that rolled off a 30 foot cliff directly onto its roof, courtesy of the salesman who was showing a customer how to drive it. While the car was crunched up some, the cockpit had not been compromised and both people walked out of the car. In fact, one of the biggest gripes about the WRX on alt.autos.subaru is the fact that you can't get a sunroof due to the roll structure in the roof.

_________________
As soon as you idiot-proof something, the world just makes a better idiot.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Captain Ned on 2002-03-06 14:23 ]</font>

Alanzilla: i dont know what u are talking about but out here in cali all 1997-1999 Cobra go for $1700-21,000.....i know becaue i am about to buy one soon and have looked into it (maybe used maybe not)

Nelliesboo, I think Alanzilla is referring to the Shelby Cobra, and ironically committing the same sin of ommission that he's scolding you for. Given the context, I don't think too many people are going to assume you were thinking of putting a highly collectible 60s-era racing car up against a Supra.

no i wouldnt if i had one, but it i did i would probly smoke it....

Thanks for the info, Captain Ned. It's good to know. Since most AWD cars are really FWD cars with some extra stuff tacked on, they're still primarily FWD cars, with the attendant FWD push. I couldn't live with that! There wasn't a WRX available yet when I was shopping, or else I might have done some test driving. I was looking at the plain Impreza coupe, which was lighter, weaker and didn't have a live axle to help in side collisions. Maybe when I move back to the suburbs I'll get one as a 2nd car. I still can't give up the V-8 music on a summer day!

On 2002-03-06 14:58, Speed wrote:
Nelliesboo, I think Alanzilla is referring to the Shelby Cobra, and ironically committing the same sin of ommission that he's scolding you for

No. Shelby was the company. Cobra was the car. There is only one Cobra (well, two--the 289 and the 427).

That a Rustang has the name associated with it is offensive in the extreme.

On 2002-03-06 15:06, Nelliesboo wrote:
no i wouldnt if i had one, but it i did i would probly smoke it....

If you ever decide to race a Supra with your Rustang, don't bet money on the outcome.

On 2002-03-06 15:06, Speed wrote:
I was looking at the plain Impreza coupe, which was lighter, weaker and didn't have a live axle to help in side collisions. Maybe when I move back to the suburbs I'll get one as a 2nd car. I still can't give up the V-8 music on a summer day!

Don't want to get your hopes up, but the WRX doesn't have a live rear axle. What it does have is enough power to spin the rears in a corner and slide. Great fun, because it's tough to really overcook it and come around on you. That's one thing I don't miss about some of those older V-8s.

Alanzilla, the supra is a nice car but it would get smoked.....stock on stock against the current model of "Mustang" Cobra, and its alot cheaper to mod a stang than it is a supra..... wonder y the supra got discontinued..... anyone can go fast with a "extra" $20-30,000 under the hood.....