Car Love Thread

Off Topic
181


I saw this for sale for under $80 K about 4 years ago. Now while $80 K is no small amount of money, I haven’t see good examples of Countach’s for under $100 K. Especially the triple white was very rare… This would have been a good car to flip quick. Woulda, shoulda, maybe coulda… I kinda wish I had looked more seriously into it at that time, because I could have turned a decent profit in a month I am pretty sure.

EDIT: The one I saw was an '88. I just did some checking, you can’t touch these for under $125 K now… Damn.

182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I thought pick-ups would have a better showing.[/quote]

I am liking the Jeep conversions…if only they came with a diesel engine I would be sold.
[/quote]

You could jam a 572 in it…That will get it through the mud…while towing a crane.[/quote]

Can you do such a conversion and how much are we talking about?

I actually asked my mechanic if he could put a diesel engine on a Toyota Tacoma or an FJ cruiser and he talked about computer problems.

183

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
So, no one thinks the 1973 AMC Hornet is sexy?[/quote]

Ha, my first car was a '70 Hornet.[/quote]

OMG

Why did you sell it?!!

I love that car!!

185

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I thought pick-ups would have a better showing.[/quote]

I am liking the Jeep conversions…if only they came with a diesel engine I would be sold.
[/quote]

You could jam a 572 in it…That will get it through the mud…while towing a crane.[/quote]

Can you do such a conversion and how much are we talking about?

I actually asked my mechanic if he could put a diesel engine on a Toyota Tacoma or an FJ cruiser and he talked about computer problems.

[/quote]

If I had a fully stocked shop and about 3-4 months, sure I could do it. It would not come cheap, the motor is almost $18 K by itself. Then you got to replace the tranny and differentials to take the torque. Might need to beef up the frame so it didn’t twist, etc. Basically that would be a pipe dream. You’re probably looking at a legit $30 G’s for a conversion like that done correctly.

187

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I thought pick-ups would have a better showing.[/quote]

I am liking the Jeep conversions…if only they came with a diesel engine I would be sold.
[/quote]

You could jam a 572 in it…That will get it through the mud…while towing a crane.[/quote]

Can you do such a conversion and how much are we talking about?

I actually asked my mechanic if he could put a diesel engine on a Toyota Tacoma or an FJ cruiser and he talked about computer problems.

[/quote]

Actually Mopar would work better since it is a Jeep. It would be less of a head ache, but not much less of one.

188

[quote]pat wrote:

If I had a fully stocked shop and about 3-4 months, sure I could do it. It would not come cheap, the motor is almost $18 K by itself. Then you got to replace the tranny and differentials to take the torque. Might need to beef up the frame so it didn’t twist, etc. Basically that would be a pipe dream. You’re probably looking at a legit $30 G’s for a conversion like that done correctly.

Ouch.
Might as well put that money towards an M5.

Or I would rather buy an AMC Hornet and pay to have the transmission changed to a manual - I absolutely refuse to drive automatic and I doubt I would find a manual AMC available ( all the one’s I have looked at were auto ).

That is a beautiful engine, by the way.
Is it just for special projects or are there any cars that come with it?

720hp, eh?

I will put this quote here to see if my husband bites:

“The ZZ572/720R is rated at 720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 685 lb.-ft. of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm.”

Pushing the torque button…hee hee hee

189

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

If I had a fully stocked shop and about 3-4 months, sure I could do it. It would not come cheap, the motor is almost $18 K by itself. Then you got to replace the tranny and differentials to take the torque. Might need to beef up the frame so it didn’t twist, etc. Basically that would be a pipe dream. You’re probably looking at a legit $30 G’s for a conversion like that done correctly.

Ouch.
Might as well put that money towards an M5.
[/quote]
I would. Money better spent.

[quote]

Or I would rather buy an AMC Hornet and pay to have the transmission changed to a manual - I absolutely refuse to drive automatic and I doubt I would find a manual AMC available ( all the one’s I have looked at were auto ).

That is a beautiful engine, by the way.
Is it just for special projects or are there any cars that come with it?

720hp, eh?

I will put this quote here to see if my husband bites:

“The ZZ572/720R is rated at 720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 685 lb.-ft. of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm.”

Pushing the torque button…hee hee hee[/quote]
It all the depends on what you are into. If you want a ridiculous, over the top Jeep, then it’s worth it. Knowing, of course, you will never, ever get your investment back.

190

[quote]pushharder wrote:

My second car: 1973 Mercury Capri

With headers and the stock V-6 it was pretty darn snappy.

Sold it to my brother and he turbocharged it.[/quote]

This is similar to the AMC. I would just change the wheels.

Have you sold all your beautiful muscle cars, then?

191

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Although later versions of the 928 became somewhat porked up with luxury items, the earlier ones weighed 3300 lb, of which 300 lb reportedly is very easily removed ( 928 Weight Loss - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums ) although personally, in Florida, I would not remove the air conditioning. And apparently another 200 lb can be saved by using a Chevy engine. So I think 2900 lb would be a very reasonable goal.

When I had the car I was impressed with the very many weight-saving details. At 2900 lb and with a modern Chevy engine of about 500 hp, the car would have to be good.

I have to agree that the car can readily become a time and money pit. Some of the parts are just ridiculously expensive.[/quote]

Hmm, I don’t know that I would want to throw a Chevy small block in a porsche… I thought that’s what the Beetle was for.[/quote]
There was just nothing to be said for the early 928 engines, other than being prettier to look at than a small-block, and I can’t imagine there’s that much to be said for the later S4 engines either. My '83 was era-weak, about 220 hp or something, and I don’t think they ever got much past 300 or 350 hp. Being 200 lb heavier while being no better performing and far more costly has to go down, to me anyway, as an engineering fail.

192

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

“The ZZ572/720R is rated at 720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 685 lb.-ft. of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm.”

Pushing the torque button…hee hee hee[/quote]

He said this equals 587hp 4500 rpm.

Edit: I understand now that it is better marketing to say “685 lb-ft of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm” than to say …"720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 587 horsepower at 4500 rpm.

193

[quote]pat wrote:

Actually Mopar would work better since it is a Jeep. It would be less of a head ache, but not much less of one.

I just realized both engines are gas.

I want diesel not for power but because I like the noise of a diesel engine on a truck and it is a longer lasting engine and the gas mileage.

194

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Although later versions of the 928 became somewhat porked up with luxury items, the earlier ones weighed 3300 lb, of which 300 lb reportedly is very easily removed ( 928 Weight Loss - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums ) although personally, in Florida, I would not remove the air conditioning. And apparently another 200 lb can be saved by using a Chevy engine. So I think 2900 lb would be a very reasonable goal.

When I had the car I was impressed with the very many weight-saving details. At 2900 lb and with a modern Chevy engine of about 500 hp, the car would have to be good.

I have to agree that the car can readily become a time and money pit. Some of the parts are just ridiculously expensive.[/quote]

Hmm, I don’t know that I would want to throw a Chevy small block in a porsche… I thought that’s what the Beetle was for.[/quote]
There was just nothing to be said for the early 928 engines, other than being prettier to look at than a small-block, and I can’t imagine there’s that much to be said for the later S4 engines either. My '83 was era-weak, about 220 hp or something, and I don’t think they ever got much past 300 or 350 hp. Being 200 lb heavier while being no better performing and far more costly has to go down, to me anyway, as an engineering fail.
[/quote]

It was the '80’s, engineers didn’t fail, the government made it impossible for them to make efficient engines because they had to figure out how to make power, while piping the exhaust into the intake. 220 HP in '83 was impressive, considering the '84 Vette came out with a whopping 205 HP. Hell even the Ferrari 308’s of time were only producing 230 HP.
It was all that emissions garbage killing HP.
It’s definitely weak by today’s standards though.

195

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

There was just nothing to be said for the early 928 engines, other than being prettier to look at than a small-block, and I can’t imagine there’s that much to be said for the later S4 engines either. My '83 was era-weak, about 220 hp or something, and I don’t think they ever got much past 300 or 350 hp. Being 200 lb heavier while being no better performing and far more costly has to go down, to me anyway, as an engineering fail.
[/quote]

It was the '80’s, engineers didn’t fail, the government made it impossible for them to make efficient engines because they had to figure out how to make power, while piping the exhaust into the intake. 220 HP in '83 was impressive, considering the '84 Vette came out with a whopping 205 HP. Hell even the Ferrari 308’s of time were only producing 230 HP.[/quote]
From 3 liters I think, not 5.0 :slight_smile:

[quote]It was all that emissions garbage killing HP.
It’s definitely weak by today’s standards though.[/quote]
So it would really have to go. Even if the trouble were taken to get it to perform, which I’m sure could be done, it would still be 200 lb heavy, for (so far as I can tell, but I could be wrong) no real value from that added weight.

197

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

There was just nothing to be said for the early 928 engines, other than being prettier to look at than a small-block, and I can’t imagine there’s that much to be said for the later S4 engines either. My '83 was era-weak, about 220 hp or something, and I don’t think they ever got much past 300 or 350 hp. Being 200 lb heavier while being no better performing and far more costly has to go down, to me anyway, as an engineering fail.
[/quote]

It was the '80’s, engineers didn’t fail, the government made it impossible for them to make efficient engines because they had to figure out how to make power, while piping the exhaust into the intake. 220 HP in '83 was impressive, considering the '84 Vette came out with a whopping 205 HP. Hell even the Ferrari 308’s of time were only producing 230 HP.[/quote]
From 3 liters I think, not 5.0 :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Well, 4.6 L’s but yeah, the Ferrari engine was clearly better.

[quote]

[quote]It was all that emissions garbage killing HP.
It’s definitely weak by today’s standards though.[/quote]
So it would really have to go. Even if the trouble were taken to get it to perform, which I’m sure could be done, it would still be 200 lb heavy, for (so far as I can tell, but I could be wrong) no real value from that added weight.[/quote]

It achieved a 50/ 50 weight distribution. Dropping 200 lbs from the front would change the car’s dynamic quite a bit. I guess my big problem is it really wouldn’t be a Porsche anymore. I think some old fashion porting and polishing, removing all the pollution control could easily get 300 hp or more from that motor and still keep it a number’s matching car. Hell, you could do it in a way that nobody without a wrench could tell anything is different.

I am kind of into making cars a better version of themselves. It depends on what you have to work with. If you just got a shell, you can go nuts.

198

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

“The ZZ572/720R is rated at 720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 685 lb.-ft. of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm.”

Pushing the torque button…hee hee hee[/quote]

He said this equals 587hp 4500 rpm.

Edit: I understand now that it is better marketing to say “685 lb-ft of gut-wrenching torque at 4500 rpm” than to say …"720 horsepower at 6250 rpm and 587 horsepower at 4500 rpm.
[/quote]

Horse Power Peaks higher in the RPM range than torque. Ideally, you want your torque curve as flat as possible, which this motor does. And will pull like hell all the way to 6250 where you will feel some of the pull start to degrade, if you were able to keep your foot in it long enough.

With diesel, you’ll get your high torque numbers, but you’ll lose a lot in the HP dept. That being said, it’s better on gas and if you are towing or doing a lot of low and slow terrain climbing it may be better. You’ll be able to handle a heavy load, but you won’t kick ass doing it.
Well there are some modded out diesel engines that break the mold, but typically speaking.

The nice thing about diesel is you can boost the shit out of them endlessly. Since they don’t rely on spark for ignition, they can take as much boost as the head and block can. So they can be fun in that dept.

199

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

There was just nothing to be said for the early 928 engines, other than being prettier to look at than a small-block, and I can’t imagine there’s that much to be said for the later S4 engines either. My '83 was era-weak, about 220 hp or something, and I don’t think they ever got much past 300 or 350 hp. Being 200 lb heavier while being no better performing and far more costly has to go down, to me anyway, as an engineering fail.
[/quote]

It was the '80’s, engineers didn’t fail, the government made it impossible for them to make efficient engines because they had to figure out how to make power, while piping the exhaust into the intake. 220 HP in '83 was impressive, considering the '84 Vette came out with a whopping 205 HP. Hell even the Ferrari 308’s of time were only producing 230 HP.[/quote]
From 3 liters I think, not 5.0 :slight_smile:
[/quote]
Well, 4.6 L’s but yeah, the Ferrari engine was clearly better.[/quote]

But that would have made it a 468 before its time, not a 308 :wink:

[quote][quote]

[quote]It was all that emissions garbage killing HP.
It’s definitely weak by today’s standards though.[/quote]
So it would really have to go. Even if the trouble were taken to get it to perform, which I’m sure could be done, it would still be 200 lb heavy, for (so far as I can tell, but I could be wrong) no real value from that added weight.[/quote]

It achieved a 50/ 50 weight distribution. Dropping 200 lbs from the front would change the car’s dynamic quite a bit. I guess my big problem is it really wouldn’t be a Porsche anymore. I think some old fashion porting and polishing, removing all the pollution control could easily get 300 hp or more from that motor and still keep it a number’s matching car. Hell, you could do it in a way that nobody without a wrench could tell anything is different.

I am kind of into making cars a better version of themselves. It depends on what you have to work with. If you just got a shell, you can go nuts.[/quote]
Ideally I’d find a car that was in great shape but had engine issues, or alternately, would have it lined up where someone else really needed the engine and would benefit from it.

I just view the 928 engine as being where the car fundamentally has a very “blah” aspect to it. Otherwise, regardless of vintage the car seems to me still excellent. There is little to no collector value to 928’s in any case. An excellent example can be had for $7K.

A large number of 928 owners have done the conversion: it’s well-traveled territory. On the weight balance, if desired I suppose it could nearly be restored simply by moving the 42 lb battery from the rear to the front (though I’d go for a lighter battery as well.)

200

1024×680 211 KB

[quote]pat wrote:

The nice thing about diesel is you can boost the shit out of them endlessly. Since they don’t rely on spark for ignition, they can take as much boost as the head and block can. So they can be fun in that dept.[/quote]

That is exactly why I think diesel for trucks.

For a performance car gas all the way.

By the way, I think you mentioned the FR S a page back.

I had my heart on it because it was a six speed manual transmission and I saw an interview with the Japanese engineer who said they kept the interior really simple ( no busy dashboard ) for those who truly love the experience of driving.

I think it is a sin to have facebook apps on the dashboard and enough cup holders for octopus arms and all the junk that takes the focus out of driving.

The FR S is also supposed to give good gas mileage, a sensation of speed at low hp, at an affordable price.