[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
Yep.
I will buy again some day.[/quote]
But there is also a Corvette coming out with a seven speed transmission…
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
I test drove one. I love the way it looks, but I just didn’t care for the way it drove. The sparse interior didn’t bother me, but the driving experience was underwhelming. I don’t know if you’ve read many reviews of it, but many have described the car as ‘lacking character’. I have to agree.
I was actually really disappointed in the whole experience. Nevermind having to deal with followup calls and emails from salespeople for the next couple months. (But I expect that when dealing with a non-luxury-brand dealership.)
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I test drove one. I love the way it looks, but I just didn’t care for the way it drove. The sparse interior didn’t bother me, but the driving experience was underwhelming. I don’t know if you’ve read many reviews of it, but many have described the car as ‘lacking character’. I have to agree.
I was actually really disappointed in the whole experience. Nevermind having to deal with followup calls and emails from salespeople for the next couple months. (But I expect that when dealing with a non-luxury-brand dealership.)[/quote]
Oh wow.
The reviews I looked at were from last year before it was available at dealerships.
Even Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear had a good review on it.
The fact that is was very low and close to the ground giving it the sensation of a faster car.
Could it be because you are used to huge amounts of horse power here in America?
Interesting feedback, by the way.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I test drove one. I love the way it looks, but I just didn’t care for the way it drove. The sparse interior didn’t bother me, but the driving experience was underwhelming. I don’t know if you’ve read many reviews of it, but many have described the car as ‘lacking character’. I have to agree.
I was actually really disappointed in the whole experience. Nevermind having to deal with followup calls and emails from salespeople for the next couple months. (But I expect that when dealing with a non-luxury-brand dealership.)[/quote]
Oh wow.
The reviews I looked at were from last year before it was available at dealerships.
Even Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear had a good review on it.
The fact that is was very low and close to the ground giving it the sensation of a faster car.
Could it be because you are used to huge amounts of horse power here in America?
Interesting feedback, by the way.
[/quote]
I feel as tho the engineers thought that a rear wheel, manual setup would be enough to excite people, which for some it’s all it takes, but the reality is that it’s not that interesting of a car. It needs boost, or some kind of interesting feature.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[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 
[/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 
[/quote]
My bad, I meant the 928’s engine was a 4.6 in 83-84.
[quote]
[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.)[/quote]
That’s the good thing about the 928’s nobody wants them. I suppose it may be the low power to displacement ratio. They were fast for the early '80’s. The 911’s were far better engineered. It’s hard to believe they wanted to replace it with the 928.
I’d imagine you’d have to replace the entire drive train, right? I don’t suppose the tranny hooks right up to a Chevy small block?
Or you could go a different route an get an old Miata with a Ford 5.0. Apparently, the motor mounts were in the exact same place for both engines so they pretty much bolted right in. There was a shop in California that used to do the conversions. That would be a fun sleeper car. Except the exhaust burble might give something away.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
I love this car for it’s simplicity. No bullshit, just a properly made car with proper design in mind. Low boxer engine as close to the middle as possible, good weight distribution, etc. They took all the common sense design principles that make a car run and handle well and just did that and nothing else.
Literally, all you need is a pair of sticky tires and you are track ready.
Of course, I’d like to boost it to over 300 hp, but that won’t help much on track day any way. I just like big horse power.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
Yep.
I will buy again some day.[/quote]
But there is also a Corvette coming out with a seven speed transmission…
[/quote]
I was reading about the motor in this new vette and it’s pure genius. And still uses push rods. If people think that GM has not been innovative and ahead of the curve in many cases, they don’t know what they are talking about.
The 2002-2004 Z06 vette would get regularly 28 MPG on the highway. No shit. And of course Ferrari borrowed the magnetic ride control that had already been in vettes and Cadillacs for years.
Hell, the current gen z06 has no gas guzzlers’ penalty. Sit down and try to build a 427 with 505 HP and also get 28 MPG highway.
American cars have been better than people have thought for years now. The public is just now catching on.
Don’t get me wrong, the industry created their own bad reputation, but in the past 15 years, there has been a lot of good come out of America, car wise.
Gotta give some love to the Foose…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.)[/quote]
That’s the good thing about the 928’s nobody wants them. I suppose it may be the low power to displacement ratio. They were fast for the early '80’s. The 911’s were far better engineered.[/quote]
How so? The 928 was a completely excellent car to drive, but for not having particularly much power.
The 928 uses a torque tube between the front mounted engine and the rear mounted transmission rather than bolting directly. There’s an already-engineered kit for the conversion: http://www.renegadehybrids.com/928/928.html . The Porsche transmission is retained.
I really don’t care for the Miata 1/100th as much as the 928 though.
Just for fun. This is the car I worked on back in college. It was a formula-style autocross car.
Someone pulled together a video presentation for recruiting and alumni purposes.
Actual competition video footage starts around 2:15.
I was what I guess is considered a “race engineer”. Responsible for suspension tuning, alignment, tire selection, aerodynamics settings, ride heights, weight distribution… all that stuff. Lots of time spent track testing and tuning. It paid off, we got #1 of 140 teams in the autocross competition.
So when I judge a car, that’s the background I come from. Obviously road tires don’t perform like race tires and there’s a ton of tradeoffs in suspension design when balancing comfort and handling, but I generally have an idea of what a car could be capable of, and then judge it in terms of how well the engineers actually reached that capability.
One of the cars that surprised me was the Lexus IS350. It’s a fun car to drive, good acceleration and the appearance of good handling. However, when I actually pushed it, I realized that it was just an illusion; when pushed, the car falls apart when the tires start hitting their friction limits. I honestly didn’t feel safe in that car. The suspension design was mechanically unsound (imo).
Another car that surprised me was the Scion TC. A friend of mine bought one, and I took it out and pushed it a little bit. They made a weird design decision to make it “feel” like a rear wheel drive car. It felt like they used a stiffer anti-roll bar up front than in the rear, or relatively softer springs in the rear. Something like that. Anyway, the rear tires just didn’t grip the road the way they should have. I mean, I understand they wanted to make it feel sporty, but I just didn’t feel like their attempt at “sportiness” was a good tradeoff for safety.
A month or so later, after making that assessment, she managed to total the car when swerving to avoid a crate on a bridge. Fortunately the car didn’t go over the bridge, but the handling failed exactly as I thought it would. She was fine, her passenger was fine, the crate flew into the lake, and the car was totaled.
I’ve been unimpressed with Toyota’s engineers when it comes to handling, specifically in emergency situations where the car starts to lose some control. It might be safe from a crash rating, but I’d rather not crash in the first place.
The FRS, I think I was just underwhelmed. I expected more, but I’d have to go drive one again to be more specific.
On a more positive note, I think Honda’s engineering is good for front wheel drive, Nissan’s engineering is good for rear and all wheel drive (go test drive a G37 and 350z/370z if you haven’t), and the Corvette/XLR are probably the best production American cars out there.
that Auto-X car is sweet. A local guy had one and set times atleast 10sec faster than anyone else at the event.
The Scion is a chick car.
And big motor vettes get good mpg because the gearing ridiculously high, and the completely retarded 2nd gear lock out.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
My Blacked out 2013 challenger r/t that i’ve been working on got side swiped on my way to work this morning. Lady wasn’t paying attention and tried to change lanes into my lane. She claimed she didn’t see my car because it was hard to see…WTF???
So…a car love thread…makes me sad right now…and happy at the same time. lol[/quote]
New pretty cars are a magnet for idiots just dying to put a dent in it somehow…Sorry man.[/quote]
Thanx pat, hopefully I’ll get the car back soon and keep tunning it up.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
My Blacked out 2013 challenger r/t that i’ve been working on got side swiped on my way to work this morning. Lady wasn’t paying attention and tried to change lanes into my lane. She claimed she didn’t see my car because it was hard to see…WTF???
So…a car love thread…makes me sad right now…and happy at the same time. lol[/quote]
New pretty cars are a magnet for idiots just dying to put a dent in it somehow…Sorry man.[/quote]
Thanx pat, hopefully I’ll get the car back soon and keep tunning it up.[/quote]
the way ppl act these days towards nice vehicles is starting to make me want a new hobby, most people just dont give a fuck and figure A. screw them, theyre rich and can afford to fix it. or B. fuck them, i bet theyre attention seeking assholes anyways.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Just for fun. This is the car I worked on back in college. It was a formula-style autocross car.
On a more positive note, I think Honda’s engineering is good for front wheel drive, Nissan’s engineering is good for rear and all wheel drive (go test drive a G37 and 350z/370z if you haven’t), and the Corvette/XLR are probably the best production American cars out there.[/quote]
LoRez, what a fantastic and wholesome project - congratulations!
Are you in the video?
No wonder you felt the FRS was not good enough,
Yes, I did think about the Infinity G37 because my colleague had one and said it had superb traction and I saw him accelerating in front of me after we left work and it was super responsive.
Congratulations again on your engineering experience and thanks for sharing.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[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?
[/quote]
Yep.
I will buy again some day.[/quote]
But there is also a Corvette coming out with a seven speed transmission…
[/quote]
I love this new vette, especially the engine. I cannot wait for the new Z06. That will give me priapism.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.)[/quote]
That’s the good thing about the 928’s nobody wants them. I suppose it may be the low power to displacement ratio. They were fast for the early '80’s. The 911’s were far better engineered.[/quote]
How so? The 928 was a completely excellent car to drive, but for not having particularly much power.
[/quote]
At that point? 20 years of refinement. Plus the coolness factor of having an air cooled flat 6 which was putting out 172 HP, which gets very little power loss through the drive train. I bet if you were to dyno the to cars from that year at the wheels, the WHP would be very close.
[quote]
The 928 uses a torque tube between the front mounted engine and the rear mounted transmission rather than bolting directly. There’s an already-engineered kit for the conversion: http://www.renegadehybrids.com/928/928.html . The Porsche transmission is retained.
I really don’t care for the Miata 1/100th as much as the 928 though.[/quote]
Well of course it’s personal preference and this is all opinion, but you can’t argue much with a miata pushing 300+ HP. I am sure it very dangerous, but would leave some mighty long drags
[quote]But that would have made it a 468 before its time, not a 308
[/quote]
Ah! I should have realized that’s what you meant. It turns out I’d misremembered my own car’s displacement, which is sad. Five liters didn’t appear until 1985. The value for the '83 may have been 4.7 liters: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Porsche_928_-_928_evolution/id/5387289
And I appear to have misremembered the hp as well: the value may have been 234.
Still the engine was truly nothing special!
But I should have had the details right.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
My Blacked out 2013 challenger r/t that i’ve been working on got side swiped on my way to work this morning. Lady wasn’t paying attention and tried to change lanes into my lane. She claimed she didn’t see my car because it was hard to see…WTF???
So…a car love thread…makes me sad right now…and happy at the same time. lol[/quote]
New pretty cars are a magnet for idiots just dying to put a dent in it somehow…Sorry man.[/quote]
Thanx pat, hopefully I’ll get the car back soon and keep tunning it up.[/quote]
the way ppl act these days towards nice vehicles is starting to make me want a new hobby, most people just dont give a fuck and figure A. screw them, theyre rich and can afford to fix it. or B. fuck them, i bet theyre attention seeking assholes anyways.[/quote]
I know, people are assholes, but the passion runs deep, you can’t just turn it off. And you have another hobby, lifting.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]But that would have made it a 468 before its time, not a 308
[/quote]
Ah! I should have realized that’s what you meant. It turns out I’d misremembered my own car’s displacement, which is sad. Five liters didn’t appear until 1985. The value for the '83 may have been 4.7 liters: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Porsche_928_-_928_evolution/id/5387289
And I appear to have misremembered the hp as well: the value may have been 234.
Still the engine was truly nothing special!
But I should have had the details right.
[/quote]
I expect better from you Bill
[quote]pat wrote:
I expect better from you Bill ;)[/quote]
Indeed I should have done better!
