are there any other import tuner fans out there? come on so we can discuss import car [Archive]

blackice111288

11-21-2002, 12:49 PM

I HATE MUSTANGS!!!!!!! ive got a friend that was with 1 of his boys in a nissan (i cant rember if he said sentra or 240 zx) and his friend raced a guy in a brand new fresh off tha lot 2002 Mustang and won. i belive anybody that likes mustangs are, well, im not gonna say because i dont want to start a verbal war or one of those inflammotory posts of whatever they call em. Why would you spend 30,000 or 40,000 :slap: (i cant remember the price)on a "performance car" when you could save a couple more grand and get a corvette or buy a use civic for about 10grand or a old CR-X for about $2000 and spend about $5000-$10000 (depending who you get your parts from) and have a fast street car for about $20,000 less than if you wasted your money on a :ack: mustang :ack: . Now i have to admit, some of you mustang guys are pretty fast, but most of the mustangs i see are driven by a bunch of posers who think they are cool cause they got a mustang cobra, but could get smoked at any time by a guy in a tuned nissan, honda, or toyota. I love Dodge Viper GTS 's but i have seen a civic beat one with a 11.27@ 127mph. had it been a Venom(the viper i mean), nothing would come close.And there is something else i dislike. When i see a mustang with a fake bodykit that was originally designed for an import, and sporting Alltezza tail lights and a huge spoiler, it makes me wonder if the guy was stuck on stupid or somthing. I'm not saying that every thing import guys do is cool, because some body kits are extremely hideous or ecsessive,and some spoilers should be returned to the stores they were bought from. I mean, why would you buy a chome spoiler? and im starting to get tired of seeing the same body kits over and over again. But why would you try to turn a mustang into a JDM-type vehicle? or why would you buy one in the first place?

FDA

11-21-2002, 03:30 PM

I've got a 1993 Trek 24' class A motorhome and I've "raced" a Nissan and "won". So what. Winning on the street means absolutely nothing. Absolutely. If you're on the street, neither one of you are really racing -- pay your money, take it to the track where it means something, and be prepared to watch tailights all day. Until you go to the track, and don't watch tailights, stop talking trash.

Commander

11-21-2002, 06:13 PM

Yep, FDA about summed it up for me too! :rolleyes:

11-21-2002, 07:27 PM

You people can tune any thing you want, but, just leave good stuff like the NSX alone. :)

And about that racing on a track stuff. That's no good, either, because, it is usually intended as, racing on track, for a 1/4 mile, or 400 metres..

Why not race a lap of the entire track, and time it. That is what sorts the real cars out from the pretenders. So, a car might do a 1/4 mile in -0.3 seconds, but, what if it can not turn, or stop?

FDA

11-21-2002, 07:36 PM

Race whatever: 1/4 mile, roadrace, dirttrack, ice racing... whatever. It all means something, while "racing" on the street can never REALLY mean anything.

(And I wouldn't refuse an NSX that'd been leaned on a touch :) Just do a quality job.)

11-21-2002, 10:57 PM

Yeah I basically hate most imports cos I veiw them as Japans left overs (they have to sell the car after three years) cos it makes everyone else look bad. And V8 engined cars copying Import styles like the body kits and tail lights. I mean look at the VS ute Psyco!! It beat all the imports at the Auto Salon and became king of the Auto Salon.

And with the civic/crx thing it can beat a Mustang but you would have to spend more to get the car looking good as well as going and wat about making the car legal?

blackice111288

11-22-2002, 02:04 PM

vqcaprice, im startin 2 see you as someone that just says stuff that the majority of the crowd is sayin so you can stay "cool". Im not saying that you have to agree with everythinr im sayin, but on every forum i see, you always add in one of your " i hope i know what im talking about,but it sounds good" comments. your the same guy that said that a bigger exhaust piping makes less horse power than the stock unit. And it doesnt matter how a car looks, its how well you can burn somebody on the 1320(the 1/4, for all who don't know). And I have never heard of quad cams in any street performance car. maybe they have then in your australian holdens or something, but i'm talking about import and domestic cars in AMERICA. I ve seen on tv and on the street where some V8's got there hind parts handed to them. and chris is right about the difference of racing a strait line and racing a lap. but one thing i dont agree with is that street racing doesn't mean any thing, every race means something. if you got served up, then you got served up. and when you say you raced a nissan in a motor home and won, #1, it makes me just a little bit doubtful of that statement. When you dont say what kind of nissan,that makes meven more skeptical. Not all of there cars are fast(mini-van, old ones that say datsun, stanzas). It could have been a hoopde for all i know.

FDA

11-22-2002, 03:58 PM

Well, many street cars have 4 cams (sold enough of 'em to know) and larger is not necessarily better in exhaust piping -- in fact, for some cars, and loads of motorcycles, larger exhaust pipes ARE a detriment unless the rest of the intake and combustion system is upgraded. This is because it is all a system; it all works together. Street "racing" needs the quote marks cause it really is nothing like racing. Race and you'll find out what I mean. In street "racing" you can "win" by being crazier; and you can "win" consistently by being crazier. In actual racing, you just can't do that -- that's why they came up with the phrase: When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.

Commander

11-22-2002, 04:22 PM

@ FDA: <clap clap clap clap clap> well put mate.

blackice111288

11-22-2002, 06:23 PM

the reason japanese people get new cars every 3 years is because their govt imposes heavy taxes on older cars and they must be update for new saftey features, so they just buy new cars. sounds like a bunch of bull to me, they just need to make their cars stonger. i wish toyota would bring back the supra twin turbo. that and Mazda's 3000 gt VR-4. i think that they are called FTO's every where else. Do they get Civic type r's in canada?

11-22-2002, 07:18 PM

You mean the fast by frumpy 1720kg Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4. :)

Hard to believe such a car could be so heavy.

FDA

11-22-2002, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by blackice111288
the reason japanese people get new cars every 3 years is because their govt imposes heavy taxes on older cars and they must be update for new saftey features, so they just buy new cars. sounds like a bunch of bull to me, they just need to make their cars stonger. i wish toyota would bring back the supra twin turbo. that and Mazda's 3000 gt VR-4. i think that they are called FTO's every where else. Do they get Civic type r's in canada?

The Japanese govt has always had a hand in promoting their industries, and this is one of the ways they do it. It has the added benefit of having fewer polluting cars on the street, which in a densely populated place is a good thing. The Japanese also tend to like new gadgets; maybe they also like new cars.

No Type R's in Canada, AFAIK.

11-23-2002, 12:14 AM

Ok first of I do know some things about cars but tothers I am basing on wat I have read and wat I have heard. I am predijuced against Japenese imports because there are too many on the road when really there were already enough cars on the road. then we get these cars from overseas and people still keep the old cars on the road unlike in New Zealand where they have to have roadworthy check ever year or something. I see all these people go around with their Skylines witht he big exausts and they think there original when 100 people before them have done it. Now I'm going toignore this thread and continue on with my life thank u very much.

11-23-2002, 02:33 AM

Uh, forgive me because I'm stupid, but, what has imported cars got to do with old cars and too many cars being on the road.

Regardless of if imported cars existed or not, their would still be as many cars on the road, anyhow, that is just how most Australians are.. Rather than taking the more sensible (and environmentally friendly) option and using things like trains, a hell of a lot of people commute to work and back, in their cars, when they don't need to.

It is not efficient utilisation of the transport infrastructure that we have, and, it also causes massive traffic jams in peak periods, too, such as morning and afternoon.

If I did have my way, cars would be banned from the centre of Sydney, and everyone would be forced to use forms of public transport.. Or, you'd set up an intelligent community vehicle system, using fuel cell vehicles, or electric vehicles. The only other vehicles allowed in would be those making deliveries or picking up goods.

Their would be a number of stations for these vehicles through-out the centre of the city, and, to use one, people would purchase a smart card, and, when they want to use one, they just put the smart card in the card reader, and, start driving. When they have finished, they return it to a vehicle station, for someone else to use (and for it to be recharged, if it is electric powered).

This would immediately improve air-quality in the inner city, and, remove traffic jams, too, and would have other flow-on benefits, such as removing a lot of the morning and afternoon traffic jams, since less people would use their cars to get to and from work. (They would be encouraged to use other transportation systems like trains, and so on).

Nex thing on my list, is for the government to offer subsidies for people to buy hybrid-engined cars. This may encourage Ford and Holden to build more environmentally friendly hybrid engined vehicles, too. These cars typically have very low fuel consumption, and low emissions, too.

blackice111288

11-23-2002, 01:57 PM

what does owning a skyline have to do with being "original"? What about how if you go to even the smallest of cities, you will always see at least 30 mustangs. and probably just as many civics. If i could get my hands on a skyline, i would even if every body and their mommas had one. they run 13.5 sec. in the 1/4 mi. And thats with the power limiter that restricts the monster twin-turbo inline 6 RB26DETT to 280 bhp. I am particually fond of the 4 door version for some reason. but i would just order the body and tranny, cause i would swap the power plant for a RB26DETT. Are the 3000 gt's called FTO's or GTO's every where else? what is the difference between the 2 models? Does any body besides me think that a RX-7 or a Supra twin turbo would take a mustang cobra?

Justin Martin

11-23-2002, 03:32 PM

A couple of suggestions:

1. Paragraphs were invented for a reason, if you want people to understand more than one or two words of what you say, then use them.

2. VQ was refering to the ordinary Skylines (not the Skyline GTR) with his "original" comment, and in Australia, where ordinary Skylines are, well, ordinary, a Skyline with a big exhaust is probably about as common as Civics with big exhausts are here. Which is about as unoriginal as you can get when modifing your car. Yeah, I took my Civic and put a ehaust tip big enough for a gopher to sleep in on it, I am soooooo damn creative. :rolleyes: Switch Civic for Skyline and say it with an Aussie accent, and you now will understand what VQ was getting at.

3. Who cares whether or not a stock Mustang Cobra would beat a Supra or RX7, they're so close it'll come down to driver skill.

By the way, how many times have you watch "The Fast And The Furious"?

bogs

11-23-2002, 03:58 PM

Does any body besides me think that a RX-7 or a Supra twin turbo would take a mustang cobra?

The other possible question might be " Does anyone else care ?"

On reading through this thread , I see some interesting stuff , black , mostly coming from you . In the very first post , you state what would be the equivalent of the post from this forum
http://www.mustangworld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22230 , but then say you aren't looking to start a flamewar .

When some disagree with your basic premises , stating their opinions , you then try to shoot them down by insulting them , such as this :
vqcaprice, im startin 2 see you as a follower, or should i say a wannabe that just says stuff that the majority of the crowd is sayin so you can stay "cool". Im not saying that you have to agree with everythinr im sayin, but on every forum i see, you always add in one of your " i hope i know what im talking about,but it sounds good" comments.
vqc has as much right to say he doesn't care for ricers , and put it about as well as you put your dislike for stangs , as you do .

On top of all that , you tend to compare a lot of apples and oranges , not only in this post , but in the last about stangs and firebirds .

Saying things like " Why would you spend 30,000.....on a "performance car" when you could save a couple more grand and get a corvette or buy a use civic for about 10grand or a old CR-X for about $2000 and spend about $5000-$10000.....and have a fast street car for about $20,000 less than if you wasted your money on a mustang ...." doesn't compare the same things , exactly .

A new car should be compared price wise to another new car , preferably in the same class of car . Mustangs sell new in the following price range :
$17,615-37,545

Corvettes sell new at this range :
$41,680-50,430

Civics sell new at this range :
$12,810-20,550

Mustangs are in a different class than Corvettes , and are certainly in a different class than Civics . Applying your arguments to only new cars , why on earth would you pay 20k for a top of the line Civic , when for a few grand less you could get a bottom of the line 'Stang and stick the 3k back into it to make it go faster ? ( If you dont think a bottom of the line 'stang with 3k in gofast parts could take a stock top of the line civic , I've got a bridge I think you might be interested in ) .

Extending your argument , but comparing apples to apples , why would you buy a used Civic at 2k dollars , when I'm sure all over the place you could find used stangs , camaros , and firebirds going for less than 500 ? And , as a side benefit , since parts to make them go faster are so common , you could easily spend a lot less than your upper limit to make a 9 or 10 second car in legitimate 1/4 competition out of one .

<-- Kicking out the :soap:

Opinions are fine , black , they are so good almost everyone has one . But try comparing things that are the same , and dont knock other people that dont share yours .

FDA

11-23-2002, 07:04 PM

There was a guy who owned a racing team -- shop was up on the hill between San Jose and Santa Cruz. He had a his guys take a Camaro and strip it down and beef it up as for racing, then got Russ Joseph to build him an engine (aluminum 350 block with all the trimmings -- 600 hp I think), and the result was a car that would go VERY fast and yet looked like -- anybody's Camaro. It was incredibly plain. Cost him a lot -- 50, 60 grand maybe (this was a while back -- 20 years). Why did he do it? I'm sure our boy here doesn't know, but I'll bet bogs does, and commander. It's a sleeper; a car that people just don't think will do anything, but which then romps and stomps. That was part of the original idea behind the ricers, I bet -- take a car that people don't take seriously, and make it serious. The idea gets lost when posers take over and tart up their machines so it screams visually instead of just screams.

Commander

11-23-2002, 07:42 PM

Although only mildly related to the topic, I can easily buy and beef an older F-Body or 'Stang and make it run high 11's for about $8000. Another $500 on some serious stickies and it would probably see 10's. That is the way to go if you ask me.

bogs

11-23-2002, 07:56 PM

;)-^

KV12supercharge

11-23-2002, 08:40 PM

I am a pure fan of European cars... Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and the whole roster...

I usually perfer my cars stock, with maybe some small cosmetic modificatons that's it. I have no problem with tuners, or people who like american cars, or whatever... I don't see why we have to argue over that again... it happens on all cars messageboards, sigh. :nono:

:)

Justin Martin

11-23-2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by KV12supercharge
I have no problem with tuners, or people who like american cars, or whatever... I don't see why we have to argue over that again... it happens on all cars messageboards, sigh. :nono:

:)

If only everyone was like you....

For those of you who can't make a post without trashing cars you don't like, memorize KV's post, they're words of wisdom.

blackice111288

11-24-2002, 04:04 PM

#1, i use paragraphs in english class, not on the web. #2 , I did not really care for the movie Fast and the Furious, but i got it on DVD. i can see why u thought i was a fast n the furious junkie( RX-7, Supra twin turbo against a mustang cobra) but i know my stuff and i take that as a really offensive insult. I was just trying to change the subject. All i really wanted was a yes or no answer, then we would discuss it and then change the subletc again,then so on and so forth. And i dont shoot down anybody that dissagrees with me. if you read carefully what i said to vqcaprice,youll see that i said "Im not saying that you have to agree with everything im sayin". i said what i said because what most of his statements didn't make any sence at all. everybody on this forum basically disagrees with me, but i dont go dissing them. i never said civics were 20 grand. if they were, nodody would buy them. i said you would SAVE 20,000 DOLLARS, so read carefully before trying to get at somebody,OK? The mustang price i was talking about was for the gt or cobra or SVT version. I only said i dont like the newer mustangs I love the 1990 saleen mustangs. Thank you FDA for kinda seeing it my way. i have to say, there are a lot of posers whn it comes to imports. watch, they will spend thousands of dollars on body kits and oversizied rims and spoilers, and putting rediculous sound systems in them, but you can pop the hood, and the only mods youll see is a cold air intake or maybe some NOS. And on that one post, i meant Mitsubishi 3000gt. i must have been thinking about mazdas or something :confused: no i REFUSE TO USE CORRECT PUNCUATION!!!!:D:

Justin Martin

11-24-2002, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by blackice111288
#1, i use paragraphs in english class, not on the web. #2

Try it some time, it's easy. When you finish one thought, just press the enter key twice, and start typing your next thought. You have no idea how difficult it is to read your posts.

All i really wanted was a yes or no answer, then we would discuss it and then change the subletc again,then so on and so forth.

If you go around saying "I HATE MUSTANGS!!!!!!!" and only giving a bunch of lame street racing "victories" to back up your claims, you will never get a simple yes or no answer, you will make people mad. That's the way life works. Personally, i'm not a Mustang fan. But I don't go around dissing people who drive them or who like them.

And i dont shoot down anybody that dissagrees with me. if you read carefully what i said to vqcaprice,youll see that i said "Im not saying that you have to agree with everything im sayin". i said what i said because what most of his statements didn't make any sence at all. everybody on this forum basically disagrees with me, but i dont go dissing them.

You called him a "wanna be" and a "follower", that is DEFINETLY shooting him down. Okay, so you said he doesn't have agree with you, well damn right he doesn't, that's his right to disagree nicely. Those comments are rude, it's uncalled for, and it's Jerry Springer debate tactics.

The mustang price i was talking about was for the gt or cobra or SVT version. I only said i dont like the newer mustangs I love the 1990 saleen mustangs.

As for the price on Mustangs, a Mustang GT is about $25,000. A Mustang Cobra now is about $35,000, but that's after they went to the supercharged engine, which gives performance in the neighborhood of the Corvette. The previous, non-supercharged Cobras were under $30,000, and I don't think I need to tell you that it's no simple matter to just save up an extra $10,000 to buy a Corvette over a Cobra. Not to mention that Corvette insurance is much higher than Mustang Cobra insurance.

Of course, now that the Mustang Cobra costs $35,000, you might have a point on saving up a few extra grand for a 'Vette, (I certainly would try) but then you have to consider that a new Mustang Cobra is as fast as a 'Vette for $5,000 less, so if all you're doing is going in a straight line, the Mustang Cobra makes more sense. You can take that $5000 you saved and spend it on modifying the Mustang to be faster than the Corvette.

Thank you FDA for kinda seeing it my way. i have to say, there are a lot of posers whn it comes to imports. watch, they will spend thousands of dollars on body kits and oversizied rims and spoilers, and putting rediculous sound systems in them, but you can pop the hood, and the only mods youll see is a cold air intake or maybe some NOS.

I agree 100% on that, I think my generation has lost it when it comes to performance sense.

11-25-2002, 12:17 AM

Well I'm going back over my word but ne way. Yes there are Posers even in the V8 World. I saw a Vn Group a and my mate was getting a lift with him so I asked if I could get a look under te bonnet so he pooped the bonnet and wat was there? I was expecting a Twin Throttle body and I was confronted by a Banana Manifold! The car looked like a VN group a outside but the interior was Calais and the wrong engine type (the Vn Group a engines have four bolt mains and a 6 speed manual.) THe car also has 19 inch rims and is lowered so much that to get over a speed hump he has to take it on a angle.

And on the Mustang being cheaper to the vette - yes it is cheaper with same power but the interior is CHEAP so would you want a car that has quality all throughout (as far as I Know about the Vette') or something that is cheaper with the same speed but less quality.

And who said that cars would eenhave nos? I mean itz illegal in all states in AUs but maybe some places in USA it ain't.

Commander

11-25-2002, 01:43 AM

As far as I know it is not illegal in North America period to have an engine equipped with Nitrous Oxide injection, but I might be mistaken. At worst, it would only be illegal in a handful of states.

bogs

11-25-2002, 08:57 AM

Nos and the law in the U.S. -- http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/N20_state_laws.htm

Justin Martin

11-25-2002, 11:55 AM

Heh, Texas has a simple law on N20, as long as you're not breathing it, it's legal. :D

blackice111288

11-25-2002, 03:37 PM

sorry vq, i shouldnt have dissed you like that. Mr. cophater, Thanx for tha price break down, thats what i was trying to get at. But you all see my point, right? Nitrous is legal as long as the bottle is not open, it's legal. So lets quit the debatin' and get to some gear grindin' car stuff!!! adn i StIlL wOnT uSe PaRaGrApHs.:D Just kidding! i'll use them next time.;)

DCMattius

12-05-2002, 09:42 AM

If you guys are really insterested in fun, santioned, amatuer racing, you should check out your local Autocross. I'm in the SCCA and it has local events monthly all over the US. I'm sure other countries have something similar.

My brother and a friend of mine both have regular Mustangs. They are not bad cars. Relatively inexpensive, easy to fix, lots of available upgrades. I do think the Cobra is too overpriced for what you get. But any limitted production run usually is. I'm sure a RX7 twin turbo or a Supra twin turbo could beat one at an autocross and probably even a drag race stock from the factory. However I've seen some very very quick Mustangs out there that are tuned to the max that would pose a challenge.

Street racing was commonly accepted back in the 70s and 80s because there weren't viable alternatives. Now there are many clubs where you could go well over the posted speed limit legally and safely. I've been to large autocrosses where cars got over 100mph. Racing on the street or down the interstate is just stupid. Weighing out what you could win (nothing) vs. what you could lose (everything) should make it pretty obvious.

http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/index.html

DC_Mattu
Fair-Fun-Fast
Demolition Crew

ps. my '91 rx7 won't beat a thing nowadays..hehe

FDA

12-05-2002, 11:19 AM

Most of the "special" cars have loads of unneeded trim "packages" that boost their price but not their performance; this is a long-standing practice.

Autocrosses are great. I've only raced in one (a bet between me and a friend about whether I could beat him in his Sunbeam Tiger with my Chevy van) but it was a blast. And the best thing about autocross, or other sanctioned racing of any sort (as opposed to street "racing") is that it's difficult for "non-combatants" to get hurt. Only those who chose to take the risk are at risk, and that's how it should be. Putting innocent bystanders at great risk is an egotistically vicious and cruel thing to do.

blackice111288

12-05-2002, 01:02 PM

what is a sun beam tiger? is sunbeam the company or somethin?
Hey, dont go about dissin '91 RX-7's.:D . If you fix it up, im sure it will dust some some unsuspecting victims. Rotory engines are no joke(even though im still trying to figure how in the heck they work:007:). if you are lookin to bring your mazda up to speed, give me your e-mail address and i can send you some web-sites and performance products and things of that nature.

FDA

12-05-2002, 02:19 PM

I like rotaries (had an RX4 Mazda wagon that was really quick) but then I like 2-strokes (had a Kawasaki III that was REALLY quick :) ). Rotaries work much the same as 2-strokes, in that the piston is basically covering and uncovering holes (2-stroke) or gaps (rotary) in the combustion chamber. They react to tuning in much the same way as well (although you don't just carve a higher hole in the cylinder wall with a rotary).

Sunbeam was a British car company, which I believe was connected with Roots, and later with Chrysler in some way). The Sunbeam Alpine was a British sports car with a British engine, and the Tiger was that car, beefed up, with a Ford 289 V-8. It was known as "the poor man's Cobra" and was pretty fast (so was my friend when he learned to drive it after our autocross matchup :) ). In the opening of the TV show "Get Smart" (in the first seasons) Maxwell Smart drove a Sunbeam Tiger. If I remember right, the Chrysler connection lead to the demise of the Tiger, since they were a bit embarassed about having a Ford engine in one of their cars. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) There was also a perception problem in the States that the Sunbeam cars had something to do with the appliance maker Sunbeam, which didn't help in selling performance sports cars.

This was one of a number of European cars in the 1960s which followed the Cobra craze, like the TVR (aka Grittith, Intermeccanico (sp?)) and some others that used either Ford 289's or one of the Chrysler V-8 engines.

DCMattius

12-06-2002, 06:05 AM

Blackice, you're preaching to the choir ;) My '91 and I won C-Stock 2 years in a row (99-00). It's got Koni shocks, HKS cat-back exhaust, stiff front sway bar, aluminum flywheel, 3 core-Mazdaspeed radiator, an aftermarket airbox, light Konig stock size wheels, and Hoozier autocrossing slicks. That's about as far as one can go in stock before getting bumped to Prepared. That car was setup for autocrossing. The reason I said it wouldn't beat anything now is it has 290k miles on it and I need to it keep going till that RX8 comes out. Autocrossing does wear a car out faster than just street driving.

It's easy to pick out the racer-wanna-bs at these autocrosses. A lowered boom car with neon lights, low profile street tires on oversized wheels. Humungous exhaust tips. Some giant fin. They actaully turn out to be the laugh of the event...hehe They usually get miffed because of all the cone marks on their bumper and doors..lol.

The two people I've talked to on the PU servers that I know have rx7s are RCADE and Chey. I know Chey races hers too. Doug, the former DCRacecar use to race alot in his Honda up in Canada. I don't see him around anymore though.

DC_Mattu
Fair-Fun-Fast
Demolition Crew http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/animations/together1a.gif http://home.earthlink.net/~burntoast/images/rx7/rotaryani.gif

blackice111288

12-06-2002, 03:58 PM

Was your RX-7 turbo-charged or naturally aspirated? If I get a RX-7, I want a 1994 RX-7 twin turbo. Then throw a pair of trust t88 turbos or some apexi units, apexi N-1 cat-back exhaust and header, blitz air box( probably out of cash at this point) Tein shocks and coilovers,c-west or apexi aero kit, 18x10 inch O Z superleggra wheels (silver) with bridgestone potenza tires. yes that would be nice, But im going to get my beloved 1988 Honda CR-X Si and then drop a B16A power plant in the engine bay. Did you know that the 1988 CR-X Si ran 16.3 in the 1/4 mile? i know it sounds sorry, but consider this: America's CR-X Si was powered by the 105bhp D16AZ engine. I think that was the engine model in our model. but the B16A Came from the Britsh and Japanese
Si-R, wich produced 160 BHP! can you say MID 15's?!

Commander

12-06-2002, 04:25 PM

That's a great animated diagram of the rotary engine Mattius! How'd you come across that anyway?

Aw614

12-08-2002, 05:42 PM

I think I might be a Eurosnob, everything european rules, but I also like a lot of Japanese cars.
Not a fan of American cars, but would be fun to learn how to work on them. I know how to work on VWs to an extent and its very fun, but when I look at a Japanese car I get confused on the parts. A lot of the stuff on the VW's I have worked on are really easy after reading about them. Modifing them look like fun, but making it run right is my first priotiy

Commander

12-08-2002, 07:38 PM

The problem with working on a lot of Japanese cars is that the engineers don't seem to have designed the things with mechanics in mind. There are so many parts blocking other parts, excessive use of bolts, parts crammed into places only a nano probe could reach.... I could go on. It's really a pain in the arse. Honda is a bit kinder in that they tend to stick with only a few bolt head sizes for the whole machine. Often, all you need is a 10mm, 12mm and 14mm to get most of your work done, but then again, if your forearms are any bigger in diameter than a film container, you won't be able to reach a lot of things without ripping a bunch of other stuff apart (including your flesh).

bogs

12-08-2002, 10:22 PM

Toyota does that a lot as well , heck , I'm quite sure I could tear down my entire toy '84 pu with just a 12 and 14 mm socket . Unlike Honda , though , theres more than enough room to work under the hood of my toy pu -^

Actually enough room in there for me to have considered ( at one time ) shoving in a 351c )=) Thankgoodness my gf put a stop to that nonsense . :nono:

FDA

12-08-2002, 10:38 PM

The mechanics at Chinetti's were always complaining about engineers and how they'd design things that were a pain to reach. That was Italian stuff -- Ferraris and some other stuff, like ASA's -- so the Japanese don't have a monopoly on that. In fact, some of the American stuff is awful -- I mean like having to remove a fender to replace a heater core or fan. Now that's insane.

The main thing I found on Hondas was how the h___ do they manage to get those 12mm bolts so incredibly tight?

12-08-2002, 11:54 PM

Well speaking of American cars I'm helping pull apart one of the 6 Ford Edsels in Austraia (2 door 1959 model with a 289 Winsdor I think) and just removing the fron bumper took a while and all Im helpuing to do is take off all the bloddy chrome bits and panels s it can be bead blasted as the owner is going to restore it to original specs.

bogs

12-09-2002, 08:54 AM

:eek: < Drooling > ah , Vqc , ah , wanna send oh , 2 or 3 of those back to the U.S. for me ? ah , I'll take just the carcases ..... not nice being selfish and all you know , hogging up classics like that ..... [ insert major drool smiley ]

Justin Martin

12-09-2002, 12:11 PM

Actually TJ, i've been pretty impressed with how easy it is to work on my Celica. Granted, it's an old rwd one, and rwd cars with inline engines are always easy to work on, but everything i've had to do on it is very easy to get to. There's only a few things i'd change on it if I could, and the two big ones are that the airbox and the brace for the intake plenum conflict with some parts underneath. However, both the engine and car were originally designed for carburators, and the airbox and that brace had to go were the were put, so it's understandable.

Even working under the dash isn't too bad, at least by sports car standards. I also suspect they built the whole car out of 12mm bolts. ^_^ By comparison, I need a whole standard and metric tool set to work on my truck.

The worst car i've ever worked on was my mom's previous car, a 1996 Chrysler Cirrus. (okay, I lied, the worst car i've ever worked on was a Renault Dauphine, but it has an excuse, it's French ;)) The Cirrus body was designed by Chrysler, but it used a Mitsubishi engine and transmission, and it's a tie as to who designed the most unserviceable parts.

The Mitsu engine's totally insane, just to change to spark plugs requires removing the intake upper plenum because the plenum covers the rear cylinder bank. That in itself is no big deal, I could pull the plenum of my Celica in minutes, but this car has two bolts hidden around the back of the plenum that take ten minutes or more to undo. Each. I think the service charge for changing the spark plugs is for two or three hours, and I can tell you that you won't do it in anywhere near that the first time.

The car itself is pretty bad too, the battery is located in the front left corner of the bumper, which means you have to remove the wheel and fender liner just to service the battery. Luckily, they did put a set of leads under the hood to attach to if you have to jump it off. But if you need to replace the battery, off comes the wheel and fender liner.

I've seen things on all cars that annoy me, like the way GM hides the power steering pump under the air conditioning compressor on their older cars. Granted, air conditioning was a later addon added to an engine not originally designed for it, but a remote resorvoir like my Celica would have made that much nicer.

DCMattius

12-09-2002, 03:18 PM

I hate typing a long post only to lose it because of some login problem..grr.

BlackIce, the 3rd gens are very sweet. I was thinking maybe they're putting off the RX8 until a 2004 model so it'll be a 25 yr anniversery addition. The one you described would be well suited for drag racing (except those tires). In the SCCA, it would be thrown in with the race prepared though. I'm not sure about drag racing rules, but in autocrossing, going up 2" in the wheels is instant category bump...stock = no change, prepared = +1", race = +2". So you better make sure it would be tweaked all around (especially the tires ;) )

Commander, this '91 is my 3rd RX7. I've had a rotary car since '87 and have visitted about every websight relating to them. One big advantage I found was joinging Mazda Motorsports. Being a member lets me by Mazda parts for about 70% of what the dealer charges. I ran across those two surfing one day and thought they'de be cool to show others. I'm glad they're still up. It's hard to explain how a rotary works without pictures.

See ya'll in the pits,

DC_Mattu
Fair-Fun-Fast
Demolition Crew

blackice111288

12-11-2002, 01:24 PM

If anybody drag raced in Bridgestone Potenzas, i'd smack em. i'd use them for the auto crosses. If i drag raced in a RX-7, i would use Toyo Proxes.

Do you like 1988 Honda CR-X SI's? Those are my favorite. They run 16.4 in the 1/4 mi. That's on the 108 bhp d16a6. After you put a b16a in it, thats 160 bhp.

DCMattius

12-11-2002, 09:47 PM

Here's a picture of my wheels (and my brother) at an autocross last year: http://www.cnel.ufl.edu/~markskow/pictures/rx7Me.jpg

blackice111288

12-13-2002, 07:40 PM

you actually race a geo storm? is it any good, i mean, where in the world did you find any performance parts for it? i hope you are a good driver, cause ,not yours, but those cars are kinda, well, sorry.

Yo, i was real mad earlier for 2 things:
#1. I saw a hot CR-X's on ebay,it was white(inside and out) with candy blue flames(also in the seats and floor and junk) coming off the wheel wells and the cowls in the hood, had a erubini areo kit, some 18's, a sound system, and a hot spoiler. The caption sad "The perfect CR-X", so i am expecting a b16a or b16a1 with some mods, but listen- it was the stock 1.6li SOHC d16a6 with an aem cold air intake, a "performance" muffler, and a Venom nitrous kit. All i have to say to that person is to smack herself:slap: . What dummy spends all that money for looks, but ends up adding a hundred or so lbs more weight, and risking a detonated engine.

#2. I was on ebay looking at mustangs ( i was making a picture of a crx beating a mustang) when i came across a 14 sec. 450 bhp Mustang Saleen:( . are you serious? i cant wait for WRX STi's to come out so supercharged v8 fords can get murdered by 13sec. turbo charged inline 4's

bogs

12-13-2002, 08:17 PM

Um , I used to wonder if you even read the posts , black , but now I guess I might be able to figure out what the problem really is .

blackice111288

12-14-2002, 08:42 AM

QUOTE by bogs
Um , I used to wonder if you even read the posts , black , but now I guess I might be able to figure out what the problem really is .

i wouldn't read your post even if you made sense.

blackice111288

12-14-2002, 08:45 AM

hey DC, i saw a geo storm one time in florida with custom ferrari testarosa side air ducts. i also knew a guy at my church that had a tricked out and lowered 1990 Blazer like that

FDA

12-14-2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by bogs
Um , I used to wonder if you even read the posts , black , but now I guess I might be able to figure out what the problem really is .

It seems we've seen the limits of blackice's knowledge... and well beyond. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but too little knowledge is at least funny.

Justin Martin

12-14-2002, 10:42 AM

Geo Storm? I don't see any Geo Storm, unless blackice thinks Matt's red RX7 convertible is a Storm.

Actually blackice, basically any car can be autocrossed because cars are catagorized by how fast they are. A Storm isn't going to race in the same class as Corvettes and Porsches, it's going to run in the same clases as other low powered sport compacts, like the CRX or my Celica.

A car doesn't have to run 13's to be fun on an autocross, many people run ordinary, stock, commuter cars. A stock Geo Storm would be about as good an autocross car as any other low powered fwd sport compact.

Vette Boss

12-14-2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by blackice111288
QUOTE by bogs
Um , I used to wonder if you even read the posts , black , but now I guess I might be able to figure out what the problem really is .

i wouldn't read your post even if you made sense.

It sounds like someone has missed their nap today. If you can't make a decent post, don't post it at all. Take your bs somewhere esle, because we don't want it here.

bogs

12-14-2002, 11:14 AM

Yah , FDA , I can agree with that -^

I'm pretty sure FDA and Justin got what I was referring to , Vette I'm not to sure on what you mean ( less your talking to black as well ), but you are also correct , and since I can't think of something nicer to add , it probably isn't too important .

Vette Boss

12-14-2002, 01:04 PM

I was talking to blackice. Sorry for not pointing that out . :")

blackice111288

12-14-2002, 05:09 PM

My bust, i didn't know that was an RX-7. I did not know that thay came in convertibles, i have only seen hardtops. How are yall gonna crack on me because i never saw a RX-7convertible? In all actually, i was talkin to DC any way.All you had to do was correct me, not start cracking on me because i made a mistake. If you dont want me to get an attitude with you, then dont give me any bs, alright? and vette boss you can take your self somewhere. I started this thread and maybe i dont want any of your bs. i hope you get smashed by a Viper or NSX.

Vette Boss

12-14-2002, 05:22 PM

Ohh, smart ass.. :rolleyes: Somebody give his pacifier. ^_^

12-14-2002, 05:54 PM

Okay people, you've had your fun, but, now it must come to an end..

blackice111288 & Vette Boss: If you must argue with each other, do it via private message system..

Edit: Okay, post unlocked again, on the condition that Vette Boss and blackice111288 can be good to each other..

Now be nice, people..

01-09-2003, 10:13 PM

Well I would have thought that we could have just made a new thread but ne way I like some Rice conceptts, like smoked tail lights (not Altezza) and they have helped more powerfull cars go faster (if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have intercoolers on our Supercharged V8's or Twin TUrbo V8's!)

bogs

01-10-2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Vqcapricedude
.... and they have helped more powerfull cars go faster (if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have intercoolers on our Supercharged V8's or Twin TUrbo V8's!)

um. I can't speak for things down under , of course , but in the U.S. super chargers have been in use since the early 50's at least , certainly , possibly even earlier ( some of the Auburn 851s were super charged , and that car is from the 30's : http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=564 )
Japanese cars had nothing to do with supercharging here , as far as I know .

FDA

01-10-2003, 10:24 AM

Superchargers and turbochargers have indeed been around a long time,

From the web, a little history...
On turbocharging:
"The history of turbocharging is almost as old as that of the internal combustion engine. As early as 1885 and 1896, Gottlieb Daimler and Rudolf Diesel investigated increasing the power output and reducing the fuel consumption of their engines by precompressing the combustion air. In 1925, the Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi was the first to be successful with exhaust gas turbocharging, and achieved a power increase of more than 40 %. This was the beginning of the gradual introduction of turbocharging into the automotive industry."

On supercharging:
"In 1885, only eight years after Nikolaus Otto patented the four-stroke engine and nine months before Carl Benz patented his three-wheeled automobile, Gottlieb Daimler received a German patent for supercharging. It stated, "With this engine, greater amounts of combustible mixture are delivered into the cylinder and at the same time the exhaust gases are more effectively removed. This is done by means of a pump alongside the cylinder."
"Due to technological limitations and the sheer difficulty of building automobiles in the 19th century, Daimler had no success with his supercharged engine patents. Instead, it was up to others to exploit the concept. Lee Chadwick of Pottstown, Pa., made the first noteworthy advancements in 1908 when he constructed a supercharged Vanderbilt Cup racer which was clocked at 100 mph. The marriage of a spinning air compressor to a gasoline engine worked and the all-American high-performance automobile was born."

Justin Martin

01-10-2003, 12:03 PM

Like FDA said, both have been around pretty much since the beginning. Chevrolet and Oldsmobile made the first production turbocharged cars in 1962, (Corvair Monza and Olds Jetfire) and i've seen a picture of a prototype twin-turboed Olds V8 from aboout 1966, though i'm sure other twin turbo prototype engines were around long before then. Intercoolers have been around quite some time as well.

FDA

01-10-2003, 12:30 PM

Plus, in our focus on cars, we tend to forget that these power-making extras were often used on trucks and marine engines, which could handle bulky extras and needed the power. In fact, one of the two (I forget which) was in use mostly on marine engines much earlier than cars.

Cheyenne

01-10-2003, 03:53 PM

Also during WWII many aircraft turned to supercharging methods (and even Nitrous Oxide and Oxygen injection) that not only added power, but allowed the aircraft to perform signfiicantly better at a variety of alititudes.

Radical-Al

01-10-2003, 06:36 PM

variety of HIGHER attitudes*

bogs

01-10-2003, 10:01 PM

heh , close Al , but I think the operative word she was trying for was ' altitudes ' . Would you believe I could only find that word in the singular , not the plural on 3 dictionary sites ? :eek:

blackice111288

01-11-2003, 02:41 PM

but still, which is better for a sport compact drag racer, a turbo or super charger?

FDA

01-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by blackice111288
but still, which is better for a sport compact drag racer, a turbo or super charger?

Well, if they have racing classes for these things, just look at what wins in those classes, and that's probably the best.

01-11-2003, 06:34 PM

I mean using intercoolers on Supercharged v8's and turbo v8's wouldn't be around because Ricers have made the technology better I meant. I also meant supercahrgers like the vortech units. Not the 6/71 super chargers and stuff.
And I think turbo charging is better in lots of appliactions I mean Vl Turbo drag cars can still be street legal and do 9 second qaurters and make a lot of power and then the bring the boost down andd they mkae it streeble compared to supercharging using vortech units where they make less power but it goes right throuch the rev range.

FDA

01-11-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Vqcapricedude
I mean using intercoolers on Supercharged v8's and turbo v8's wouldn't be around because Ricers have made the technology better I meant. I also meant supercahrgers like the vortech units. Not the 6/71 super chargers and stuff.
And I think turbo charging is better in lots of appliactions I mean Vl Turbo drag cars can still be street legal and do 9 second qaurters and make a lot of power and then the bring the boost down andd they mkae it streeble compared to supercharging using vortech units where they make less power but it goes right throuch the rev range.

Well, they used both on V-8s before they used them on the Japanese Ricers. And I'd be amazed if intercoolers weren't first used on either marine or aircraft engines a long LONG time back. I haven't seen a link about this but I would be surprised.

Justin Martin

01-12-2003, 11:13 AM

http://www.turboneticsinc.com/history.html

And if you think intercooling and supplemental injectors are a recent development, note that in 1965 "Honker" not only featured massive water-to-air intercoolers but eight more nozzles to the Hilborn injection system to help things at high boost. The intercoolers were in each front fender and were fed coolant stored in trunk-mounted 15-gallon tanks. With the potential to make 2,000 horsepower, the engine was ahead of its time as there was no transmission or racing tires that could make full use of the 1,300 hp the Honker already produced.

I don't know who or when exactly intercoolers were invented, but here's a drag racer (and Turbotechnics found) who was using them on his Hemi V8's in the mid '60s, nearly a decade before the Japaneese manufacturers started inventing innovative technology (like the CVCC Civic's) and decades before the import drag racing movement started.

And generally, once a engine technology has been invented, it can pretty much be applied to any engine without a huge amount of additional work. In other words, there's no fundamental difference between intercooling a V8 or a 4 cyl, or even intercooling a marine or aircraft engine versus a car engine. The real work was with whoever invented the intercooler originally. The fact that someone thought to put them on a import engine or whatever is no major innovation. The idea to put a intercooler on an import engine may have revolutionized how import drag racing engine are built, but it's no major innovation beyond that.

As for Vortech Superchargers, they're just a standard centrifugal supercharger, (as opposed to the Root-type Megablowers) which have been around since the beginning of superchargers. Off hand, I think the Bently Le Mans racers of later '20s and '30s used a centrifugal blower.

FDA

01-12-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by IH8COPS
And generally, once a engine technology has been invented, it can pretty much be applied to any engine without a huge amount of additional work. In other words, there's no fundamental difference between intercooling a V8 or a 4 cyl, or even intercooling a marine or aircraft engine versus a car engine. [/color]

I suspect the main problem was in making things smaller and lighter, but even that probably had little to do with cars. The transition from marine engines (loads of room and not too much concern about weight) to aircraft (less room and major concerns about weight) was probably the big change. I notice that the guy mentioned in your link came out of the aero industry, so it's a natural that he'd try applying some of that tech to cars, just as people looked to the areodynamic work done in planes for ideas about making cars faster (and ducts (the ducts on sixities race cars were often called "NACA" ducts [NACA = "National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics"] as they just copied them from the specs suggested for planes). There'd be some work, naturally, applying these things from planes to cars. In power issues, it'd be that cars vary the throttle settings a lot more often than planes; in aerodynamics, it'd be that under a plane is air, while under a car is ground.

01-13-2003, 12:56 AM

I'm talking about in Australia not overseas and from 80's onwards.

chris

01-13-2003, 08:37 AM

I wonder who was really responsible for the turbocharger.. Renault tells us, it created the turbocharger, before 1925, even. I can't remember the exact date they said, but, it was a long time ago..

But, the people who have really brought the advances in engine technology, have been the race teams, in Formula 1. And it was especially noticeable in the later stages of the "turbo era" in F1, where some of the top cars in qualifying tune where pushing out nearly 1600hp (and that from engines of not much more than 1.5 litres displacement).

Quite remarkable.

And these days, the European manufacturers (well some of them at least) seem to be racing to apply superchargers, or twin-turbocharging to their main stream models, in a frantic effort to out-do new upstart rivals, that have suddenly arrived in a area of the market where they do not normally sell cars, with some very impressive new products, with prices that are not quite so bad, either.

The manufacturer in a panic then rushes to fit its premium luxury limousine engine (which should have remained exclusive, and not put in a lesser model) to it's flagship executive saloon, in a frantic bid to out-do the upstart rival's new executive saloon (which is better in almost every way that matters).

But, the smart buyer will see past that manfacturer's power illusion, and see that the basic car itself is not quite as good as it once was, only faster, and much more powerful, and sadly lacking the brilliant quality that it's maker was once renowned for.

DCsplash

01-13-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by chris
[ and sadly lacking the brilliant quality that it's maker was once renowned for. [/B]

Do you mean the manufacturer that uses the three pointed star

01-14-2003, 06:28 PM

I though they only put on other parts fromt here bgger cars like the brakes and stuff?

FDA

01-14-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by chris
I wonder who was really responsible for the turbocharger.. Renault tells us, it created the turbocharger, before 1925, even. I can't remember the exact date they said, but, it was a long time ago..

Renault tells us wrong then. See my post a dozen posts before the one your above quote came from.

02-20-2003, 01:03 AM

well Saab made the first Low Boost Turbo succesfully in the 90's but that doesn't really help does it?

blackice111288

03-03-2003, 01:08 PM

i got a friend that thinks that mclaren f1's are the fastest USA street legal cars in the world. i keep telling him that the viper venom 800 and that crazy liginfelter 'vette are faster than the mclaren. that viper(0-60=2.4sec) burns tha 400m (1/4 mile) in 10.1 sec. and the vette(0-60=1.8sec) in 9.9 or something while the mclaren(0-60=3.4 sec) does the quarter in 12 or 11.8.

sorry didn't mean to change the subject. I dont know who invented turbos and superchargers. ive read something saying that daimler-benz had used turbos on early cars, like in tha 1900's. i think it said 1909 or something. i know that bently first used superchargers in their cars around the early 1930's.

japanese auto companies were not the first to introduce forced induction. i dont think they started to untill the early 80's for that matter. most of japans early engines sucked. i saw one car, the nissan president, it had a v-8 and only made 190 bhp. the car was tight though, kinda like a smaller version of a 64 impalla.

i was on a japaneze web site and veilside(im asuuming yall know what veilside is) hade a Skyline R34 GT-R VspecII that they tuned and it made 1,300 bhp!! in february's super street magazine, veilside has a Skyline R32 GT-R VspecII that lays down a 8.6 in tha 400m, 0-300km in 13sec(someone convert that to mph) and hold the record holder for the radial tire class. it has the standard RB26DETT inline-6 engine and is tuned to put out 1360ps @9,200 rpm and 118kgf. Could someone translate ps to horespower and torque from kilogram-foot to pound-foot. thats a tight car fa-sho :007:

FDA

03-03-2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by blackice111288
most of japans early engines sucked. i saw one car, the nissan president, it had a v-8 and only made 190 bhp. the car was tight though, kinda like a smaller version of a 64 impalla.

You have to remember that most places were using an accurate horsepower rating at that time, while the US companies and press were only starting to do so. Let's see how the 4.4 liter (about 270 cubic inches) Nissan President V8 stacked up to various Chevy 350s of the time, keeping in mind the Chevy (a great engine, BTW) was over a liter bigger.

From Hot Rod's history of the Chevy 350 engine http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/62079/index1.html:

"1976: The Corvette 350 gets a two-pronged shot in the arm: The base L48 adds 15 hp (to 180), and the optional L82 gains 5 hp (to 210). Despite the modest output, L82s still use a four-bolt block. The only 350 option offered in Camaro is the LM1 with a four-barrel and 165 hp; no four-bolt blocks here. Though the Nova SS is viewed by serious enthusiasts as a blasphemous charade, the little-known COPO 9C1 law enforcement option transforms Nova coupes and sedans into exceptional handlers. Even though the mandatory-option LM1 350 is only capable of 155 hp and 250 lb-ft, a cult hero is born."

Sounds like the Nissan was more than holding its own to me, especially since the President was not a performance car.

BTW, the US change to using SAE net ratings was in 1972, as the Hot Rod link mentions:

"1972: More realistic SAE “net” ratings replace the previous “gross” rating system; advertised power levels drop drastically, and Detroit enters a very dark period. The LT-1 is removed from the Camaro order book, and the hottest Z28 falls to 255hp and 280-lb-ft. More depressing is the output of the base Corvette’s ZQ3 350, a measly 200hp and 300-lb-ft. Smog-friendly (and otherwise) aftermarket hop-up parts come on strong."

Mind you, that engine (stock) was enough to push my 1971 Chevy van up to 100 mph, even with 180,000 miles on the clock. It would've done it at 190,000 miles too, except the 3-speed Hydromatic tranny was finally slipping due, frankly, to abuse. Not bad for a large brick.

Justin Martin

03-03-2003, 06:18 PM

He's baaaaccckkk...

Actually, the Japaneese have had nice engines for a long time. The Datsun 240Z's 2.4l inline 6 put out an honest 150hp, not bad for back then and not too shabby for a 2.4l today. The Toyota 2000GT tops this even, it was produced in 1968 and has a 150hp 2.0l DOHC six. At that time, the top-of-the line Porsche was the 911S, which had a 2.0l flat six producing only ten more horsepower.

Toyota's DOHC 2 liter 18RG four cylinder dates back to the very early '70s, I don't recall exact figures, but I think horsepower then was in the 120+hp range, again, not bad for a carburated non-performance engine in the '70s. Most non performance 2.0l engines today don't top that by much, off hand I think my mom's Focus has 135hp.

By the early '80s, the 18RG had evolved into the 3T-GTE which was rated at 160hp. It was sold in quite a few models, including the Japaneese spec Celica GTS, which was probably the best Celica ever made, much better balanced than the fwd Celicas made since '86, and almost as fast as a new Celica. American spec Celica GTS's like mine, unfortunently, had to make do with the 110hp 22RE.

Also during the early '80s, a race version of the 3T-GTE called the 4T-GTE was used in the Group B rally Celica's. It is believed to have produced over 350hp....

FDA

03-03-2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by IH8COPS
He's baaaaccckkk...

Actually, the Japaneese have had nice engines for a long time.

Not to mention virtually every Honda engine of the time. The whole Datsun 512 was a nice little bulletproof machine too, just made for the kind of racing it did in the 70s.

blackice111288

03-09-2003, 07:55 PM

i thougt celica's used 3S-GTE, or is that the inline-4 supra engine? i think starions were pretty tight. i didn't know that chevy's 350's wrer that weak. if thats the case, then why are all these people bragging that their stock musle car could beat any tuned import? i know they cant, but if a Integra GSR has 180 horses from a 1.7litre inline 4, why brag about a heavy car with not much more but with twice the displacement:confused:

FDA

03-09-2003, 09:18 PM

This is over 25 years ago we're talking about here, with these Nissan Presidents and 350 Chevys. You can get more power out of cars nowadays. Really though, the 350 Chevy was an amazing engine. Like I said, my stock van with a stock 4-bolt 350 and a single 4-barrel carb would go an honest 100 mph, even after 150,000 miles. On my 350 Chevy van I replaced the points and plugs for the first time at 112,000 miles. That's pretty amazing.

The stock 350 Chevy you could buy in a crate for $1000 in 1979 could be stuck in the back of a Turbo Porsche and would push that car faster than the stock Porsche engine (and the Chevy engine was lighter, even though it was iron vs. aluminum for the Porsche). Plus the Chevy 350, if you looked at the stock motor torn down, had so few parts that the first time I saw the valve train from one out of the car, I thought most of the parts were missing (I was used to looking at Ferrari parts). And if you wanted to tune the car, you could get parts as fancy as you wanted and push out 600 hp on the street -- more on the track (also think torque -- massive torque). It was super simple, super reliable, and had plenty of power. It was an incredibly impressive engine in many ways.

You're often comparing apples and oranges -- in this case carbed engines with distributors from 25-30 years ago with modern engines with electronic ignitions with fuel injection, often with variable valve timing and other ultra-trick and new features. (Those old Chevys had a fuel line and a throttle wire going in to the carb, an electric line going to the starter, and that was it.)

Justin Martin

03-11-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by blackice111288
i thougt celica's used 3S-GTE, or is that the inline-4 supra engine? i think starions were pretty tight. i didn't know that chevy's 350's wrer that weak. if thats the case, then why are all these people bragging that their stock musle car could beat any tuned import? i know they cant, but if a Integra GSR has 180 horses from a 1.7litre inline 4, why brag about a heavy car with not much more but with twice the displacement:confused:

Celica's didn't get the 3S-GTE until 1990 I think. In the Celicas it was only available on what was called the Celica All-Trac here, GT4 elsewhere. It was also sold here in the second gen MR2 Turbos. The S series engines are mainly fwd engines, meaning that the water inlet and outlet are at opposite ends of the block which works best for fwd. The Japanese spec Altrezza uses a S series engine modified with water inlet and outlets on the front of the engine for easy rwd placement.

The T series of engines were rwd engines, starting with the 18RG, then when Toyota introduced their current engine designation scheme, they renamed it the 2T. Then it had a major overhaul and became the 3T.

Supra's never had a four cylinder here, though a Supra used to be nothing more than a six cylinder Celica, so there was a four in the very similar Celica.

As for the muscle car vs import question, FDA pointed out several good things, but another good issue is when doing a drag race launch. Your Integra may put out 170hp or whatever, but it's putting out that power at very high rpms. At low rpm's, it produces very little power. Which is why you need to make clutch-destroying high rpm launches to launch a Integra quickly. On the other hand, a muscle car puts out lots of power at low rpms. You can hop in a Camaro and make 2000 rpm launches all day without damaging the clutch much, and all things being equal, (which they aren't) would be getting off the line faster than the Integra.

And of course, like FDA pointed out, you can't compare a modern fuel injection engine to an old carburated engine. Camaros, before they were killed, put out an honest 300+hp stock. Nearly twice the horsepower with less than 1/3 more weight. Add in the lauching advantages, and yes, a Camaro will be faster.

Though i'd add again, what people claim to have done in street racing is pointless comparisons on apples to oranges, and boasts that people make about performance only invite a good, embarising, ass-whopping. When I hear a muscle car guy claim he can beat all imports, or a import guy claiming he can beat any muscle car, I laugh.