http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

Discuss.

2003 Ferrari Enzo 6.0L V12 660 10.8 135 MT
1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 427 V8 430 10.9 132 PM

a car made 34 years ago with 4 less cylinders is only a tenth of a second slower than a half a million dollar ferarri enzo?

2002 Porsche 911 GT2 3.6L H6 T/C 456 11.9 120.6 CD
2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6L H6 T/C 415 11.9 115.6 MT

the GT2 is a twin turbo. why would you spend twice as much for the car when it is just as fast as the model below it?

There is no comparison between the Enzo and the 69 Vette. The vette was made to go in a straight line with no hope in the heavens if it had to turn at the end of the quarter mile going 130Mph. I give the Vette Full respect for how fast it is in a straight line, but will never ever be in direct comparison with the Enzo.

NEVER!!! :nono:


Scooby Doo :smokin:



2003 Ferrari Enzo 6.0L V12 660 10.8 135 MT
1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 427 V8 430 10.9 132 PM

a car made 34 years ago with 4 less cylinders is only a tenth of a second slower than a half a million dollar ferarri enzo?

2002 Porsche 911 GT2 3.6L H6 T/C 456 11.9 120.6 CD
2001 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6L H6 T/C 415 11.9 115.6 MT

the GT2 is a twin turbo. why would you spend twice as much for the car when it is just as fast as the model below it?

"2003 Ferrari Enzo 6.0L V12 660 10.8 135 MT
1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 427 V8 430 10.9 132 PM

a car made 34 years ago with 4 less cylinders is only a tenth of a second slower than a half a million dollar ferarri enzo?"


The corvette was using slicks, and even though it has 4 less cylinders, it has more displacement.

I still give mad props to the Vette. Faster using 30 year old technology vs. some of the best now. I know it can't turn worth shit vs the Enzo but the car was made 30 years ago and back in it's day it wasn't the best handling car but it was far from the worse.

1968 Plymouth S/S Barracuda ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 130 MCR
1968 Dodge S/S Hemi Dart ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 129 MCR


no one has mentioned anything about these two machines that happen to be faster than the enzo and the vette. no dlaming on the vette though because it really is amazing for a car that old to go so fast

both the gt2 and the turbo are twin turbo.

the regular turbo makes 415 or so hp. and has awd, and electronic controls.
the gt2 is rwd, less electronic controls, and faster, with more hp.

it's all about what you're looking for in the car.

those 2 cars ran the 1/4mile in 10 sec stock?

1968 Plymouth S/S Barracuda ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 130 MCR
1968 Dodge S/S Hemi Dart ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 129 MCR


Ahhh...built by Hurst, and re-sold through dealerships...kinda like how AMG does with Mercedes, or Saleen does with Mustangs. Not exactly a "production" car, per sé, and it was usually the serious/professional dragsters that bought them.

They were also quite expensive compared to other musclecars cars from back then...almost cost 5 times as much in some cases.

lol so the stories of 10 sec stock cars my dad always tell me are true... rofl i always thought he was just telling me that to make me drool...

not in the least.

there's quite a few of those old cars that were rated low for insurance reasons.

there were vettes rated at "400"hp, but put more than that to the wheels... closer to the tune of 500...
the same was true for all of the muscle cars of the era...

not uncommon, and still praticed today, like the japanese "280hp", which, on some cars, like skylines, is closer to 330whp, as proven with the skyline, and the new evo 8, which, dynoed, makes almost the crank HP at the wheels...

Well the Dart is like having a Honda Civic with a 500+hp V8, with slicks maybe, but they fail to give you a lot of information. For one what size slicks? Probably damn big ones.

1968 Plymouth S/S Barracuda ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 130 MCR
1968 Dodge S/S Hemi Dart ** 426 Hemi V8 425 10.5 129 MCR


no one has mentioned anything about these two machines that happen to be faster than the enzo and the vette. no dlaming on the vette though because it really is amazing for a car that old to go so fast

Yes both both those cars make that old Vette look like an Enzo when it comes to cornering.

why would they give it slicks? i thought these were factory stock vehicles.

and that just shows to show that ferarri is inefficient. 50% more cylinders, less displacement.

[QUOTE=flylwsi]both the gt2 and the turbo are twin turbo.

the regular turbo makes 415 or so hp. and has awd, and electronic controls.
the gt2 is rwd, less electronic controls, and faster, with more hp.

it's all about what you're looking for in the car.

that just proves my point more.

you are paying even more for even less. so you get less cornering capability and less electronic control and are the same speed in a straight line

The corvette was using slicks, and even though it has 4 less cylinders, it has more displacement.

why would they give it slicks? i thought these were factory stock vehicles

and this just shows that ferarri is inefficient. 50% more cylinders, less displacement.

"that just proves my point more.

you are paying even more for even less. so you get less cornering capability and less electronic control and are the same speed in a straight line"

bullshit.

you don't know anything about these 2 cars, yet you're trying to compare them?

the gt2 can far outhandle a turbo.

you haven't the foggiest on what you just said.

oh, and while you're at it, prove me wrong. . .

[QUOTE=R1-riderThe corvette was using slicks, and even though it has 4 less cylinders, it has more displacement.

why would they give it slicks? i thought these were factory stock vehicles

and this just shows that ferarri is inefficient. 50% more cylinders, less displacement.

boy i thought you actually knew something about cars. but i guess not. how does it make it less efficent? you gettin more hp for per liter then that old push rod motor. the reason why the italians always use small displacement motors with a high number is cylinders is becsuae the engine runs alot smoother. compare if you have 12 small pistons goin up and down really fast, compared to 8 very large pistons about the size of a coffee mug each. which engine will be smoother? the big block v8 will be ruff as hell. that is why ferrari never went that route nor anyother major car manufacturer in the world. also generally those v8's doens't like to be reved as high as compared to a twin cam 4 valve per head engine. that motor might have a hemi head. but the hemi only maximizes air flow for a engine that uses 2 valves per head. thats as best as it gets for a pushrod motor. but when yoru comparing the CFM of a 4 valve per cylinder to a 2 valve. even with a hemi. the 4 valver will out flow the v8. plus the v12 will not have that crazy idle surge at idle cusae the cams will not try to stall the motor out. the v1 2 is alot more versitle of a motor in road racing. you try reving that big block and keep it near redline for the same amount of time as you do with a ferrari. the v8 might be strong enough to hold it self together for a short 1/4 mile pass at WOT. but in road racing your always near or at WOT near redline. thats F1 technology for you. also about the porsche. the GT2 will kill the turbo on the end cause its got less power train lose and weights a whole lot less. its almost better tuned in the suspension department and is more of a drivers car. while the turbo is for handling pussys. the GT2 takes real skills to drive. the end results is a car that is much faster in road racing if driven right.

the engine runs alot smoother. compare if you have 12 small pistons goin up and down really fast, compared to 8 very large pistons about the size of a coffee mug each. which engine will be smoother? the big block v8 will be ruff as hell.

total false hood.

big disp. big piston motors don't HAVE TO run rough to make big power.

thanks for the back up on the GT2 as well...

the GT2 takes real skills to drive. the end results is a car that is much faster in road racing if driven right.

total false hood.

big disp. big piston motors don't HAVE TO run rough to make big power.

thanks for the back up on the GT2 as well...

of course the main rule of how smooth engine runs depends on the degrees of the V in the engine and the firing degrees along with the number of cylinders. the V8 is theoricaly suspose to be very smooth. however, given the sheer size of hte piston of a big block motor. ( about size of a coffee mug) as compared to a smaller displacement v8 lets say the 3.6 from a modena then the modena will be alot quieter and less ruff compared to a standard small block v8. so yes a large v8 does run ruffer then a v12 to a certain extent.

the ferrari doesn't have to run smooth either...
it's all about how the motor is designed...

you could build a big block that runs smooth. it's all about how you build it.

balance it, knife edge everything, and you'll run smooth, even with big power and big everything.

you can definitely get a very smooth running big block or big v8.

it'll run "rough" b/c of the way it's mounted in the car. old cars had inferior engine mounts compared to new cars like the ferrari. of course it won't run as "smooth".

but compare that to the 427 in the new saleen s7. it's still a pushrod motor, and it's big. but it runs smooth.

or the 8.1L motors in the new chevy trucks, which run smooth, but are huge. or the viper motors. or...

it's not the motor, it's how you feel that it runs "rough".

and a race motor without a dampener will run roughly/shaky in the car. that's why they put dampeners on cars.

you can't say that simply b/c the motor is big cubes, big cylinders, it's gonna run rough.

i wouldn't exactly call a viper engine as being smooth. that is goin alittle too extreme here. but since i've never experienced it first hand i cannot have any input. however the only inputs i can say is that from magazine articles. and they never praised that v10 for being smooth. even for its size. they could've atleast said that " the motor is smooth for its size" but i've never seen that writen at all. of course the nature of that motor is to be raw and to be and sound powerful. i wouldn't exactly call a camaro or firebird smooth either. even the modern ones. but i do see what your tryin to say. bottom line if both engines are built the same. the exact same manufacturing process. if two engines are built identically but one is considerably larger then the other. the smaller one will be smoother.

edit: i just read what i wrote. what i said sorta makes sence and sorta doesn't. ahhhh forget it. i guess this arguement can go on just like the other age old argument "what causes torque steer?" one camp said its the delayed reaction of the longer drive shaft. the other camp says its becuase the CV joint can't work as efficent in a steeper angle. so one tends to be alittle slower then the other.

and this just shows that ferarri is inefficient. 50% more cylinders, less displacement.


WHAT? http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek7.gif


Do you SERIOUSLY equate more cylinders to more displacement, and displacement to efficiency?

Formula One cars have 3-liters of displacement, have V10's, and make 900+ HP. Are they inefficient?

I suggest you look up the differences between an oversquare and an undersquare engine, so you may qualify your statements better, at least in this issue.

but since i've never experienced it first hand i cannot have any input. however the only inputs i can say is that from magazine articles.

i have.
it's not big and lumpy and shaking the car.

it depends on what a "rough" engine is in your eyes.

just b/c it has a rough sound doesn't mean it runs rough.

are we talking about vibrating the car, or sounding rough?

again, it's still about the location of the engine and how it's attached.

the ferrari doesn't have to run smooth either...
it's all about how the motor is designed...

you could build a big block that runs smooth. it's all about how you build it.

balance it, knife edge everything, and you'll run smooth, even with big power and big everything.

you can definitely get a very smooth running big block or big v8.

it'll run "rough" b/c of the way it's mounted in the car. old cars had inferior engine mounts compared to new cars like the ferrari. of course it won't run as "smooth".

but compare that to the 427 in the new saleen s7. it's still a pushrod motor, and it's big. but it runs smooth.

or the 8.1L motors in the new chevy trucks, which run smooth, but are huge. or the viper motors. or...

it's not the motor, it's how you feel that it runs "rough".

and a race motor without a dampener will run roughly/shaky in the car. that's why they put dampeners on cars.

you can't say that simply b/c the motor is big cubes, big cylinders, it's gonna run rough.

Different methods to achieve the same thing. Engine power can be equated to fuel and air. The more of it you can combust within a given period of time, the more potential for power you have.

The big blocks achieve it with huge, pistons with long strokes that suck more air in...so that more fuel may be burnt. Oh, and they have more pistons...usually 8, 10, sometimes 16 (Cadillac).

Small, 4-cylinder motors achieve some semblance of high-HP, like in the S2000, by having ungodly RPMs, which also burns more air/fuel within a a given time. They also utilize turbos, which in a way artificially enhances their displacement, as they draw in atmosphere a motor twice or three times their displacement and cylinders.

Ferraris have gotten their HP by combining small-motor, and big-motor tricks. Their motors have fairly high RPM limits, but they also combine this with having more cylinders.

Smoothness of the motor has nothing to do with it's size...that's all in manufacturing. Efficiency has everything to do with how well any of these motors can translate the air/fuel combustion into mechanical movement of the engine's moving parts...that's all in the design.

heh when i say ruff. i was reffering to the sound.

do me a favor then...

go to www.corsaperf.com , go to the automotive side, and listen to their clips of the viper exhaust.

it's really not that "rough" sounding, and the corvette system screams at high rpms, especially with the titanium system on it.

and i wouldn't classify either as rough...

i must say that vette does sound mighty sweet. and so does that viper. i therefore stand corrected.

thanks.... :iceslolan

WHAT? http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek7.gif
Do you SERIOUSLY equate more cylinders to more displacement, and displacement to efficiency?

boy i thought you actually knew something about cars. but i guess not.


you don't know anything about these 2 cars, yet you're trying to compare them?

do you not see what im doing? i was playing devils advocate to get the conversation going. i usually post on g2ic (Generation 2 Integra Club) because the members are a lot more active in their posting. on here theres usually huge delays between replies, i was saying something that i knew would set some people off to boost the activity, at least in this thread. i KNOW the gt2 far surpasses the turbo in handling, i KNOW displacement per cylinder is not the equation for efficiency.

thats what i was thinkin casue i remembered you knowing more then that. but then you were talkin like a ricer all of the sudden. so i'm like huh? is this the same person that i remember?

yea i remember some n00b saying that thing about displacement per cylinder equals efficiency and he got SOOOOO flamed so i knew if i said that it would bring in some heat :D