Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
06-16-2003, 03:28 PM
#41
0.0 BAR
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 7
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
Originally Posted by Dr.Boost
That means I donated to the site you freeloading bitch. 
06-16-2003, 03:56 PM
#42
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,991
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
According to SCC, they were exact replicas of the Yanko Camaros, and the one they tested had the 427, that hit the 13.4, they said they had incredible traction problems.
Jeff
Jeff
06-16-2003, 05:01 PM
#43
1.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 590
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
I never said you could not run it, but run it properly. Dyno it, and stress test it. Then we will see who the stupid ---- is. (why do you people always resort to name calling, I'm tough because i'm on a keyboard)
Why do think there was all that controversy over switching to unleaded gas. sure it will run, will it run the same ---- NO!!! You WILL need to retune to get the same high hp numbers. It's the same thing with leaded paint, does todays paint works the same way, no it doesn't. But it's enviroment friendly like todays petrol. hmmmmmm maybe this explains why the camaro is slower than back in the day.
Also I know that yank engines are pushrod, it was statement that included 'crank submarine' as well. Just an exageration on old tech.
Some of you people are so jerkoff over mullet machines, hell my all time fav is a chevelle ss with the 454. If you ever get a ride in one you can feel the chasis flex when open up on it. Is this a well made car, i don't think so. Can it handle, no. Neither would my del sol if I put an NSX engine it, which is beside the point.
The point is, those old *** cars have no bearing on todays engineering. Whack off as much as you want over them. Spend 50 grand on some old ------- T-bird or mach 1 'stang trans am, Because it's 'original' drive it never and get mad at someone like me who spend less on a 350Z and a turbo and smokes your sorry *** through every gear, slalom and braking. If that ---- was so great, the engines would not have changed radically, like MPFI over carb jets. I admit old cars had gobs of torque, but what restrictions did they have, no emissions, cheap *** gas so economy was little to no concern. Guys you know I'm right. Todays tech by far outdoes old ----. You just don't want to admit it.
Note: yes I know turbos date back 75+ years ago, so don;t thow that in my face. But todays turbo's are much better, more efficient, and can pump out more air with less backpressure. like the concept double compressor turbo's.
Why do think there was all that controversy over switching to unleaded gas. sure it will run, will it run the same ---- NO!!! You WILL need to retune to get the same high hp numbers. It's the same thing with leaded paint, does todays paint works the same way, no it doesn't. But it's enviroment friendly like todays petrol. hmmmmmm maybe this explains why the camaro is slower than back in the day.
Also I know that yank engines are pushrod, it was statement that included 'crank submarine' as well. Just an exageration on old tech.
Some of you people are so jerkoff over mullet machines, hell my all time fav is a chevelle ss with the 454. If you ever get a ride in one you can feel the chasis flex when open up on it. Is this a well made car, i don't think so. Can it handle, no. Neither would my del sol if I put an NSX engine it, which is beside the point.
The point is, those old *** cars have no bearing on todays engineering. Whack off as much as you want over them. Spend 50 grand on some old ------- T-bird or mach 1 'stang trans am, Because it's 'original' drive it never and get mad at someone like me who spend less on a 350Z and a turbo and smokes your sorry *** through every gear, slalom and braking. If that ---- was so great, the engines would not have changed radically, like MPFI over carb jets. I admit old cars had gobs of torque, but what restrictions did they have, no emissions, cheap *** gas so economy was little to no concern. Guys you know I'm right. Todays tech by far outdoes old ----. You just don't want to admit it.
Note: yes I know turbos date back 75+ years ago, so don;t thow that in my face. But todays turbo's are much better, more efficient, and can pump out more air with less backpressure. like the concept double compressor turbo's.
06-16-2003, 05:40 PM
#44
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
you're so uninformed it makes me sad. any small block chevy will run PERFECT with unleaded gas. which chevelle are you talking about? 1970? they were made for big blocks, and they perform like they are supposed to. acceleration. and they CAN HANDLE IT. THEY WERE MADE FOR BIG BLOCKS.
what ------- country are you from? not all YANK engines are OHV. almost every new car made is OHC.
today's tech? name a car that performs like a 03 z06 vette that is anywhere near its price range. the ls6 engine is OHV 5.7l v8 and gets 19/28mpg and makes 405hp 400ft-lbs of tourqe.
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/detai...src=autos/home
2003 Nissan 350Z Track
3.5L V6
6 Speed Manual
287@6200
274@4800
20 / 26 combined 22
p/w ratio 11.2
curb weight 3225
Road & Track Magazine
3.5 L, V-6, 6 Speed Manual
Skidpad 0.88 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 122.00 ft
Slalom 67.30 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 14.40 sec
80-0 Braking 213.00 ft
0-60 5.80 sec
Skidpad 0.89 g (200-ft Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 119.00 ft
Slalom 65.60 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 14.30 sec
70 mph 78.00 dBA
0-50 4.40 sec
Idle 49.00 dBA
80-0 Braking 217.00 ft
1st Gear 82.00 dBA
0-60 5.60 sec
0-70 7.60 sec
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/detai...src=autos/home
2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
5.7L V8
6 Speed Manual
405@6000
400@4800
19 / 28 combined 22
p/w ratio 7.7
curb weight 3118
Road & Track Magazine
5.7 L, V-8, 6 Speed Manual
Skidpad 0.98 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 114.00 ft
Slalom 67.60 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 12.80 sec
80-0 Braking 204.00 ft
0-60 4.50 sec
Skidpad 0.89 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 134.00 ft
Slalom 62.40 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 13.40 sec
70 mph 73.00 dBA
0-50 3.70 sec
Idle 59.00 dBA
80-0 Braking 214.00 ft
1st Gear 79.00 dBA
0-60 4.90 sec
0-70 6.20 sec
the 350z is almost 2 seconds slower adn they both perform about the same in regards to handling and braking. put a turbocharger on the 350z and crank the boost and you may break even in the 1/4 with the vette. but the ls6 engine will last forever how it is. can't say that same for the 350z beign raped by a turbocharger.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=2834
read the section on the 2nd place porsche. it ran the same time around a road course as a stock z06 vette. and this porsche was the autoauthority stage V twin turbo something like 670bhp. and all the turbo cars could use water injection. they even had to change the course so all the cars could make it to 150mph. except the vette of course.
the winner, lingefelter stage TWO TT vette. which isn't even close to the fastest lingefelter STREET vette. the LPE stage III 427TT vette is a street car that goes wild when you press on the gas. 725 BHP / 650 lbs-ft of torque 8.9@153mph. i don't know what the boost is set at on this car the website doesn't say. but i'm sure its very modest because of the fact that is such a everyday driveable car.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/home.asp
"The most powerful and drivable Corvette ever! Call today for a limited time discount offer! Take out some local Hayabusa today!"
what ------- country are you from? not all YANK engines are OHV. almost every new car made is OHC.
today's tech? name a car that performs like a 03 z06 vette that is anywhere near its price range. the ls6 engine is OHV 5.7l v8 and gets 19/28mpg and makes 405hp 400ft-lbs of tourqe.
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/detai...src=autos/home
2003 Nissan 350Z Track
3.5L V6
6 Speed Manual
287@6200
274@4800
20 / 26 combined 22
p/w ratio 11.2
curb weight 3225
Road & Track Magazine
3.5 L, V-6, 6 Speed Manual
Skidpad 0.88 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 122.00 ft
Slalom 67.30 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 14.40 sec
80-0 Braking 213.00 ft
0-60 5.80 sec
Skidpad 0.89 g (200-ft Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 119.00 ft
Slalom 65.60 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 14.30 sec
70 mph 78.00 dBA
0-50 4.40 sec
Idle 49.00 dBA
80-0 Braking 217.00 ft
1st Gear 82.00 dBA
0-60 5.60 sec
0-70 7.60 sec
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/detai...src=autos/home
2003 Chevrolet Corvette Z06
5.7L V8
6 Speed Manual
405@6000
400@4800
19 / 28 combined 22
p/w ratio 7.7
curb weight 3118
Road & Track Magazine
5.7 L, V-8, 6 Speed Manual
Skidpad 0.98 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 114.00 ft
Slalom 67.60 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 12.80 sec
80-0 Braking 204.00 ft
0-60 4.50 sec
Skidpad 0.89 g (200-ft. Skidpad)
60-0 Braking 134.00 ft
Slalom 62.40 mph (700-ft. Slalom)
1/4 Mile 13.40 sec
70 mph 73.00 dBA
0-50 3.70 sec
Idle 59.00 dBA
80-0 Braking 214.00 ft
1st Gear 79.00 dBA
0-60 4.90 sec
0-70 6.20 sec
the 350z is almost 2 seconds slower adn they both perform about the same in regards to handling and braking. put a turbocharger on the 350z and crank the boost and you may break even in the 1/4 with the vette. but the ls6 engine will last forever how it is. can't say that same for the 350z beign raped by a turbocharger.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=2834
read the section on the 2nd place porsche. it ran the same time around a road course as a stock z06 vette. and this porsche was the autoauthority stage V twin turbo something like 670bhp. and all the turbo cars could use water injection. they even had to change the course so all the cars could make it to 150mph. except the vette of course.
the winner, lingefelter stage TWO TT vette. which isn't even close to the fastest lingefelter STREET vette. the LPE stage III 427TT vette is a street car that goes wild when you press on the gas. 725 BHP / 650 lbs-ft of torque 8.9@153mph. i don't know what the boost is set at on this car the website doesn't say. but i'm sure its very modest because of the fact that is such a everyday driveable car.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/home.asp
"The most powerful and drivable Corvette ever! Call today for a limited time discount offer! Take out some local Hayabusa today!"
06-16-2003, 06:34 PM
#45
3.0 BAR
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 21,479
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
Originally Posted by rEdeEmEr
Originally Posted by Dr.Boost
That means I donated to the site you freeloading bitch.
Tisk, tisk, tisk noobie. Your first three posts are just ---- talking to the rest of the members. Is that the only reason you joined HMT? Eat my *** with a spoon you little ---- stain. This thread sucks.
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
06-16-2003, 10:36 PM
#46
1.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 590
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
I never said all yank engines are OHV, but who other than american car corps make ohv engines, really. And I was comparing a 350z to and old musclecar. The fact the vette is the best bang for your buck car has absolutely no affect on yenko camaro getting raped by a 350z TT making 650 whp and a hell of a lot better than .78g skidpad. Reliability was never mentioned either, because a yenko isn't that high in that department.
Besides I already gave props to the lingenfelter vette for it's capabilities. Hell it even won the gumball 3000 challenge. Old *** musclecars like the general lee are just not up to par with todays technology. It's obvious that a larger engine puts out more power, but even smaller engines of today put out more torque per litre that older cars.
look at the 350 ford engine in the saleen S7, is that the same engine that they had back in the day, hell no. Re engineered, no carb, your old get over it. musclecars have their place in TIME. They ruled 40 years ago. I think you better retract you chevelle statement because it was made to hold the 454 but it DID flex when you jumped on it, and the one I was in was a '71.
Also what is the 1/4 time on a pontiac gto, can it beat a ferrari gto, god no, but car and driver said it would on thier first writeup. A pontiac GTO would not do 11's stock if it was dropped out of a plane. So how sure are you about that yenko doing 11's with real timing devices.
Besides I already gave props to the lingenfelter vette for it's capabilities. Hell it even won the gumball 3000 challenge. Old *** musclecars like the general lee are just not up to par with todays technology. It's obvious that a larger engine puts out more power, but even smaller engines of today put out more torque per litre that older cars.
look at the 350 ford engine in the saleen S7, is that the same engine that they had back in the day, hell no. Re engineered, no carb, your old get over it. musclecars have their place in TIME. They ruled 40 years ago. I think you better retract you chevelle statement because it was made to hold the 454 but it DID flex when you jumped on it, and the one I was in was a '71.
Also what is the 1/4 time on a pontiac gto, can it beat a ferrari gto, god no, but car and driver said it would on thier first writeup. A pontiac GTO would not do 11's stock if it was dropped out of a plane. So how sure are you about that yenko doing 11's with real timing devices.
06-17-2003, 02:54 AM
#47
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
the chevy small block was first made in 1942. and pretty much the same block is used on a 2003 z06 corvette.
pontaic gto = $5000 new in 1969
ferrari gto = $350k ?
little price difference there. no one is arguing smaller cars handle better than huge muscle cars. get over it
yenko camaros came out of the showroom running 11s with street slicks. 350z come out of the showroom running 14s. go for the 350z TT, but thats modded, and you can get more power out of a 427ci engine rather than whatever the 350z has.
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/featuredvehicles/527/
1969 yenko camaro street dragster (diff engine 477ci rat instead of 427)
9.97 e.t. on STREET SLICKS. yeah thats right this car is street legal.
the chassis flex is all part of the fun, its CALLED TOURQE. you can't build a car stiff enough to not flex when you pound the pavement with 450ft-lbs of tourqe. my POS crx bounces up and down when gettin on it and shifting with 60ft-lbs of tourqe.
there is nothing more fun than shift gears in my camaro and having the entire body jump about a foot.
in 1967 a yenko camaro went for $4245.00 brand new.
of course a car made today will out handle a car made 40 years ago, no one is arguing that fact. why did you start this dumbass conversation with your out of the *** fact that because the cam shaft in below the valve, you can't run on unleaded gas. thats the stupidest ------- comment i've ever heard anyone say and i know a lot of stupid people. same concept from 40 years ago.
1971 camaros have LOW COMPRESSION 454s. they're DOGS. you've never been in a fast muscle car don't talk like you have been homeboy.
pontaic gto = $5000 new in 1969
ferrari gto = $350k ?
little price difference there. no one is arguing smaller cars handle better than huge muscle cars. get over it
yenko camaros came out of the showroom running 11s with street slicks. 350z come out of the showroom running 14s. go for the 350z TT, but thats modded, and you can get more power out of a 427ci engine rather than whatever the 350z has.
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/featuredvehicles/527/
1969 yenko camaro street dragster (diff engine 477ci rat instead of 427)
9.97 e.t. on STREET SLICKS. yeah thats right this car is street legal.
the chassis flex is all part of the fun, its CALLED TOURQE. you can't build a car stiff enough to not flex when you pound the pavement with 450ft-lbs of tourqe. my POS crx bounces up and down when gettin on it and shifting with 60ft-lbs of tourqe.
there is nothing more fun than shift gears in my camaro and having the entire body jump about a foot.
in 1967 a yenko camaro went for $4245.00 brand new.
of course a car made today will out handle a car made 40 years ago, no one is arguing that fact. why did you start this dumbass conversation with your out of the *** fact that because the cam shaft in below the valve, you can't run on unleaded gas. thats the stupidest ------- comment i've ever heard anyone say and i know a lot of stupid people. same concept from 40 years ago.
1971 camaros have LOW COMPRESSION 454s. they're DOGS. you've never been in a fast muscle car don't talk like you have been homeboy.
06-17-2003, 07:07 AM
#48
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,230
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
Oh gawd.. If your gonna fight with johnny you need valid points.. your making us look bad buddy..
-CF
-CF
06-17-2003, 09:14 AM
#49
0.5 BAR
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 70
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
I don't want to but into a good debate but back in the day they had leaded gas and all the stock motors had mad compression. You couldn't run them on the gas we have today, unless you use CAM2 fuel.(113 octane) Thats where the big diff comes in. If we still had gas like that at every gas station that 350z would come out of the box with 12.1 compression.
06-17-2003, 11:15 AM
#50
0.5 BAR
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 163
Re:Just saw 2Fast2Furious.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of your fight but I just wanted to say some ---- about the movie. If you compare the 1st movie to the 2nd one, the 1st one should get a grammy, and the first on sucked my -------. I didnt even pay to see it and I felt ripped off. I just think that if you are going to make a multimillon dollar moive about street racing you could do a little research.
