Car Love Thread

Off Topic
163

[quote]cakewalk wrote:
Okay guys and gals, I don’t think we’ve had a car thread for a long time, not since jjackkrash posted photos of Ct. Rockula’s coffinmobile. That thread went sideways pretty fast.

So, post photos, descriptions, praise or condemnation of your sweet, sweet ride. Make us jealous; make us laugh or cry. Tell us about losing your virginity in the back of a Ford Fairlane wagon.

I was inspired reading this story earlier today:

This man Owned & Drove the same car for 82 YEARS. Can you imagine even having the same car for 82 years!?

“How Long Have You Owned a Car?”

Mr. Allen Swift (Springfield, MA.) received this 1928 Rolls-Royce Piccadilly-P1 Roadster from his father, brand new - as a graduation gift in 1928.

He drove it up until his death in 2010…at the age of 102 !!! He was the oldest living owner of a car that was purchased new. It was donated to a Springfield museum after his death.

It has 1,070,000 miles on it, still runs like a Swiss watch, dead silent at any speed and is in perfect cosmetic condition. 1,070,000 miles - not kilometers!! That’s Best British engineering of a bygone era. I don’t think they make them like that any more.
[/quote]
I used to live a block from where that picture was taken. A great city for getting fat and staying drunk.

I have a Jaguar XJR, best combo of luxury and speed, 390 hp, healthy torque. I hit 130mph by accident driving back from the dealership.

164

I thought pick-ups would have a better showing. I must have read the pamphley from the 80’s when picking a high testosterone vehicle.

Not mine, mine is the same though

165

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I thought pick-ups would have a better showing. I must have read the pamphley from the 80’s when picking a high testosterone vehicle.

Not mine, mine is the same though[/quote]

I want a diesel excursion…

166

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have owned a '70 Mercury XR-7 with a 351 Cleveland. Never should’ve sold it.[/quote]

Nor should you have sold the vette… You deserve a beating for both…I’ll call Prof X, to take care of that though :slight_smile:

167

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Motor on my old GTI. Ran roughly 12psi through the VR6.

I really want another VR6, ideally an 04 R32. no boost tho[/quote]

What were the numbers?

[/quote]

never dyno’d it. But similar setups put down 260-280 WHP. I hate using the 1/4mile to judge performance, but my best time was 14.1 @ 103mph with a 2.4 60’. That night C5 vettes were running 13.5’s @ 96-98 mph. My GTI had some traction issues…

Word of advice, never put a supercharger on a small displacement motor, Turbo all the way. I happen to get a smokin deal on my SC setup, and turbo kits at the time were not as developed as they are now.

another word of advice, NEVER get a front wheel drive car. Unless you’re one of those people who dont give a shit, in which case enjoy your kia or whatever econo shit box gives you the best lease rates. [/quote]

I am a little weary about investing a lot of money into rice power. I mean it has it’s place, but often times, by the time you are done you could have bought a fast car with the money, and invested about 4 times more than the car is worth. Especially with FWD. Getting big power is cool, but getting it to pull at the front wheels is murder. So then you have to mod the suspension, etc…[/quote]

exactly, although i would call it kraut power, not rice…
[/quote]
Good point. And I do really like the R32. For a hot hatch, it’s a really well done. I would like the 4 WD version. Then you can pump up the HP.

[quote]
Trying to do anything performance wise with front wheel drive is a waste of time. Similar to becoming a body builder, but keeping vegan to do it. I had a friend with the same car, only it had a turbo but he had installed a LSD; which helped a ton and made it a pretty badass car to drive. Still not ideal tho. [/quote]

You just have to understand that you are going to spend money and lose money on it. If you are comfortable doing that, then go nuts.
I personally don’t lie FWD cars, not for performance. I do really, really like the new BRZ, and the Scion FR-S.
Those I would love get up to 300 HP… I think shoving the STI engine under the hood of those cars would be epic.

168

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and a '73 Vette.

Wanted to kit it by putting the body on a 90’s Mustang frame. Never got it done. Had to sell it to keep the business going.[/quote]

I am soooo mad at you for this one… All we had to do was machine the heads down a couple millimeters, put a nice Edelbrock manifold, 850 CFM carb, and that think would be easily 400 HP.

The problem with the mid '70’s were the compression. Shaving the heads solves that problem quick. I am crying over this car…

169

1024×768 108 KB

So, no one thinks the 1973 AMC Hornet is sexy?

170

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]E901 wrote:
My first car![/quote]

Is this the 2013 Dodge avenger?

It is very nice.

[/quote]

Indeed it is. Although mine doesn’t have the black rims. Got a pretty good deal on it too. Couldn’t ask for more for a first car.

171

800×500 82.6 KB

…

172

700×404 53.7 KB

Apparently the AMC Hornet is John Cena’s daily driver.

173

1440×1080 691 KB

[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.

174

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
That also speaks to why electric motors, while having instant torque, suck at accelerating. And I hate electric motors with a passion.
And yes, if you are chasing speed and performance, horse power is the number you want. Torque is about moving load. That’s why diesel engines have high torque and low HP. It about moving load, not hauling ass.

You sure you wouldn’t want an air cooled 911?

Somebody around here was selling an '83 928 for 5 grand. It was tempting, but I knew that bitch would be a money and time pit and I don’t have enough of either. It was tempting. They seemed in serviceable condition.

[/quote]
I’ve never driven a 911, so I just don’t know.
[/quote]
Put it on your bucket list… I wasn’t ever a big 911 fan until I drove one. That changed my mine in a quick hurry. It’s just so good, it’s hard to describe how good it is. That’s why Porsche-files are so obsessive. It does not get old. It’s awesome every time.

[quote]

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.

175

640×426 86.6 KB

176

[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.

177

1024×640 181 KB

**

178

792×487 108 KB

Concept

180

1600×900 497 KB

…