FTO or S2K??!?!??
08-01-2003, 08:53 PM
#11
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,002
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
only reason i choose import is b/c i can make it pretty quick straight line and whip *** thru the turns. camaro on a road course.. ya right.
so you like to drive around at low rpms? wow that’s sweet i can do that in my mom's volvo. now thats homo. every project car on this site is a high revving import.. are you lost, this is homemadeturbo.com
what kind of badass turbo do you have on your domestic that makes all this sweet low end i keep hearing about?
so you like to drive around at low rpms? wow that’s sweet i can do that in my mom's volvo. now thats homo. every project car on this site is a high revving import.. are you lost, this is homemadeturbo.com
what kind of badass turbo do you have on your domestic that makes all this sweet low end i keep hearing about?
08-01-2003, 10:17 PM
#13
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
i don't need any power adder. if i had 3gs i could drop it on a g machine chassis from chassis works. and out corner anything you have, and out accelerate. and out brake. only about 3 grand for a 1st gen camaro chassis. with corvette disk brakes. with this package it would outhandle or at least be par with any import car. and see yah in the straights
also a 300 shot of nitrious is extremly easy to install. but then i would break every peice of drive train, even more than i do now.
my camaro already handles very well with poly mounts/bushings/and a huge swaybar. but the real reason i could not race it on a roadcourse is simply this: two 100+mph slowdowns and the drum brakes would be TOAST. they would be so hot they wouldn't work.
also a 300 shot of nitrious is extremly easy to install. but then i would break every peice of drive train, even more than i do now.
my camaro already handles very well with poly mounts/bushings/and a huge swaybar. but the real reason i could not race it on a roadcourse is simply this: two 100+mph slowdowns and the drum brakes would be TOAST. they would be so hot they wouldn't work.
08-01-2003, 10:32 PM
#14
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,002
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
wow that setup looks nice, too bad it costs 3g, my 90 crx si was $650, and the sportline springs were $50 from a friend. and it out handles your car. with 3k into the motor my crx would waste your mulletmobile.
this is a stupid arguement, you have no turbo and post how superior your car is and how crappy high reving cars are. wonderful wow, i am going out to buy a 6.6l trans am that makes 200hp. oh wait no i will keep my 30+ mpg.
your missing something here homemadeturbo.com
this is a stupid arguement, you have no turbo and post how superior your car is and how crappy high reving cars are. wonderful wow, i am going out to buy a 6.6l trans am that makes 200hp. oh wait no i will keep my 30+ mpg.
your missing something here homemadeturbo.com
08-01-2003, 10:59 PM
#15
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
oops my bad, the g machine chassis is $1,395 now. keep tryin!
http://www.cachassisworks.com/
your crx would not outhandle my camaro with that chassis. sorry. try again. crx have the worst weight dist of any newer car i have ever seen. what do you think your crx will run with 3k in it? about 11flat? it'll have to.
500 dollars for a NOS kit. and with jetting the sky is the limit. my engine is already built. and revs to past 7k how it is. and with a different intake manifold and bigger headers it would rev even higher. 3k in your motor, 1k in management, 3k in turbo setup, 1k in tranny/axels/all power train. the cost goes up and up. by the time you spool that turbo you already lost. its very hard to play catch up unless you completly overpower the other car.
the plain fact is an s2k is not a car for cruising around in. it gets terrible gas mileage for making 240hp. 6.6l? that is 383? no trans ams come with 383s. 5.7l is 350. and the ls1 is what 341ci or something?
i'd race in you on a road course with my drum brakes, for 2 laps. by the 2nd i'd be ready to lap you.
download and watch these movies, of a 383ci/lt1 stroked firebird dishing out what have you on all these import cars on a road course. sears point to be exact.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/fourpasses.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/loserx7spins.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/passnthump.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/w...ouldipass.mpeg
don't get me started on how a z06 corvette stomps any car on a road course. even ones with 250more hp and cost 75k more.
btw
http://www.cachassisworks.com/
your crx would not outhandle my camaro with that chassis. sorry. try again. crx have the worst weight dist of any newer car i have ever seen. what do you think your crx will run with 3k in it? about 11flat? it'll have to.
500 dollars for a NOS kit. and with jetting the sky is the limit. my engine is already built. and revs to past 7k how it is. and with a different intake manifold and bigger headers it would rev even higher. 3k in your motor, 1k in management, 3k in turbo setup, 1k in tranny/axels/all power train. the cost goes up and up. by the time you spool that turbo you already lost. its very hard to play catch up unless you completly overpower the other car.
the plain fact is an s2k is not a car for cruising around in. it gets terrible gas mileage for making 240hp. 6.6l? that is 383? no trans ams come with 383s. 5.7l is 350. and the ls1 is what 341ci or something?
i'd race in you on a road course with my drum brakes, for 2 laps. by the 2nd i'd be ready to lap you.
download and watch these movies, of a 383ci/lt1 stroked firebird dishing out what have you on all these import cars on a road course. sears point to be exact.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/fourpasses.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/loserx7spins.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/passnthump.mpeg
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/w...ouldipass.mpeg
don't get me started on how a z06 corvette stomps any car on a road course. even ones with 250more hp and cost 75k more.
btw
08-01-2003, 11:26 PM
#18
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,002
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
oh ya 6.6l trans am is the 1979 Pontiac Trans Am 403ci, my dads friend has one its fun to do burnouts in, 200hp / 400ft lbs
i am not saying there is a replacement for displacement, or imports are cheaper to build, no ------ way on that one.
there is a challenge in making I4 1.6l's go fast.
i am doing my car cheap *** because i am a poor college student. the goal was to build something to beat a c5 corvette for under 5g including the price of the car. ie beat a 13.3.
Well i gave up on that and bought rims, a cf hood and some other stuff. i will still be in the low 14s with the turbo setup. and have spent about 4k so far. i have an extra zc block that i will build later.
dude it is all up to you what you wanna build, compairing 97cu in vs anything more is stupid. both cars can be fast and its all what you perfer.
i just want to build something that hasnt been built 1000 times over.
i am not saying there is a replacement for displacement, or imports are cheaper to build, no ------ way on that one.
there is a challenge in making I4 1.6l's go fast.
i am doing my car cheap *** because i am a poor college student. the goal was to build something to beat a c5 corvette for under 5g including the price of the car. ie beat a 13.3.
Well i gave up on that and bought rims, a cf hood and some other stuff. i will still be in the low 14s with the turbo setup. and have spent about 4k so far. i have an extra zc block that i will build later.
dude it is all up to you what you wanna build, compairing 97cu in vs anything more is stupid. both cars can be fast and its all what you perfer.
i just want to build something that hasnt been built 1000 times over.
08-01-2003, 11:31 PM
#19
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 0
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
everything has been built a million times over. except i know what you mean about having something differnt. partly why i am turbocharging my integra. beating a 13.3 will be very hard without building you engine and/or swaping something.
jeff ran 12.7 with a ls/vtec turbo in his little crx. thats about what it takes. to beat a stock c5 vette. i guess he had a some traction problems but its not like a c5 vette wouldn't either...
220hp/320ft-lbs of tourqe.
with terrible gearing, would be faster with better gears. everyone knows late 70s and 80s muscle cars were dogs. had more to do with the price of oil rather than anything about the engine platform
jeff ran 12.7 with a ls/vtec turbo in his little crx. thats about what it takes. to beat a stock c5 vette. i guess he had a some traction problems but its not like a c5 vette wouldn't either...
As for the final iteration of the 400 (coded WH ), the rear end gearing was scaled back to 3.23:1, again for fuel economy, but this also allowed the '79's to go a bit faster on the top end. During road testing Car & Driver magazine sent the tach past the 5000-rpm redline to reach 132 mph at 5400 rpm. This was one of the last cars whose top speed was gearing limited rather than drag limited. The engine was still willing and trust me, has enough torque (320 lb/ft @2800 rpm) to take off in third gear, when brain faded individuals such as myself pick the wrong gear. (As much as the Hurst shifter impresses the heck out nearly everyone who sees the gleaming chrome stalk, it doesn't work as good as it looks!)
with terrible gearing, would be faster with better gears. everyone knows late 70s and 80s muscle cars were dogs. had more to do with the price of oil rather than anything about the engine platform
08-01-2003, 11:53 PM
#20
1.5 BAR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nashville
Posts: 807
Re:FTO or S2K??!?!??
man, y'all just need to calm down some.
First of all, the FTO is a v6 front wheel drive car and doesn't out perform the s2000.. I think that v6 is like a 2.0 so it's a small v6 and it doesn't make much power from what I remember. And no one should be talking bad about s2000's either unless you've driven one to talk about it. It's a fun, fast little roadster and it looks sweet. I wasn't crazy about it until I looked at one real close and got to drive it. You can't expect to make a 2.0 that revs to 9k + RPM to make much torque, but it moves the car pretty good.
0-60 is 5.8 sec
1/4 mile 14.2
and it will get up to 151mph alright... I think the computer stops it around there.
First of all, the FTO is a v6 front wheel drive car and doesn't out perform the s2000.. I think that v6 is like a 2.0 so it's a small v6 and it doesn't make much power from what I remember. And no one should be talking bad about s2000's either unless you've driven one to talk about it. It's a fun, fast little roadster and it looks sweet. I wasn't crazy about it until I looked at one real close and got to drive it. You can't expect to make a 2.0 that revs to 9k + RPM to make much torque, but it moves the car pretty good.
0-60 is 5.8 sec
1/4 mile 14.2
and it will get up to 151mph alright... I think the computer stops it around there.
