Lets slay some ricers!

I think that the test driver for car and driver does not know what he is doing. The Camaro does much better than 13.8 in the 1/4 in the right hands, and the Lancer does MUCH better than 14.4. and that 5.4 0-60 that is nonsence how come the Motor Trend guy did it over a second faster? a third of a second difference I can understant, different grades of pavement could make that difference, but 1.1 seconds! That is just an stupid driver. (or maby he just weighs 500lbs) They aparently dont know how to powershift. Well I guess that I cannot expect too much from them, they are more of a luxury car magazine insted of a proformance magazine.

Would be interesting to know when and where they did their testing. That'll make a huge difference.

Great news guys the Evo RS is coming to America! The American Version is said to be about 200lbs lighter, and with front LSD. Just imagin what kind of launch that will have. It is said to cost about 2k less than the normal Evo. It gets even better, they are planing on releasing a 330hp version. SWEET. The stock Evo is a BAD car already just imagin how fast the new versions are going to be. Lets see how the new GTO Judge stacks up. (if they really build it)

I bet it'll run 10's...

the lancer was estimated performance they did not do real testing for it. they tested it twice, this one was from thier first meeting with it on a track in Japan.(C/D-estimated performance:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.2 sec @ 98 mph) not given time to do testing i believe.

(What's new? Nothing. Familiar shape, familiar concept -- potent V-8 up front, live axle at the rear -- and after 35 years, it should be familiar.

Like the Mustang, the Camaro is the antithesis of the kind of finesse represented by the Eclipse, except more so. There's nothing subtle here: Stab the throttle and hang on. Our Z28 was far and away the fleetest of these fair-weather specialists, hitting 60 mph in a brisk 5.2 seconds and 100 mph in 12.3, and covering the quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds at 104 mph. Top speed was 158 mph.)

I dont think they did real testing for this eather. It was a compraro with other cars, i think c/d deletes their info on discontinued cars,cause this is all i can find in their website about it, they probibly did real testing just deleted it when chevy stoped making them.

Not anotehr one of these stupid Japanese versus American car arguments. Why cant the mod get in here and close this stupid thread.
You like a fucking evo? Go to the evo forums, not bitch and whine about one in here, yes. The F bodys ended last year, muscle cars didn't die in 1975, if they did everyone in the whole world would be driving a piece of shit hybrid car, with no HP. Musclecars are really dead now are they? Try saying that to the millions of die hard musclecar fans out there that still restore cars that are 40 years old, so that future generations of kids can appreciate the cars that started the big horsepower crazes today.

'WHO LOOKS STUPID NOW?!?!' - You.

dudes with mods both cars are gunna whoop @$$ they already do.

I agree whole heartedly...i like imports, i respect my friends heavily moded Integra GSR. I dont like jack ass deuche bags like Jared_80 though who pull numbers out of their ass and make shit up instead of admitting that they are wrong. And even if it does turn out to be faster the Camaro SS will be running circles around it while it's broken down on the side of the road, waiting to go to a shop to have it's transmission fixed(temporarily)

I am no muscle car fanatic but I think that the muscle cars died after 1975, I think that that was the year they started enforcing the emmisions laws. Just look at how much power droped between 1972 and 1975. It reached it's low in 1982 (from what I have heard) the 1982 Mustang GT made only 128hp on the dyno.

I had a 77' Chrysler Newport. It's not considered a muscle car by most, but I did. It has layed the smackdown on many a ricer. The 440 in it was only rated at 195 HP, and weighed in at over 4K pounds-but it could stomp a 170+ mods HP integra weighing 2800 pounds. I believe all the cars in the ''smog'' era were just severely underrated. My dad said he had a 78 King Cobra, with the 302 rated at 139 HP and he raced a 71' Mustang with a 351 Cleveland 4 BBL (not the BOSS, 330 HP one) which was rated at like 280 HP I think, and beat him. The guy stopped him 1/2 mile later just to ask him what mods he had done to the car that he was so fast and when my dad said it was all stock he thought my dad was joking. But he wasn't.


On a different topic, who is this ''Jared 80'' that thinks the EVO will ''smoke any SS ever made''???
Why doesn't he try racing a 69' SS 427? LOL, dumbass.

Sorry I am coming to the conversation a bit late, but I just read mention of a 69' SS 427 :worshippy

That is one of the sweetest looking cars ever made - bar none. :bigthumb:

Sorry I am coming to the conversation a bit late, but I just read mention of a 69' SS 427 :worshippy

That is one of the sweetest looking cars ever made - bar none. :bigthumb:
:lol: HAHAHAHAHAHAH, W3rd!

Sorry I am coming to the conversation a bit late, but I just read mention of a 69' SS 427 :worshippy

That is one of the sweetest looking cars ever made - bar none. :bigthumb:

:naughty:

BTW, an EVO will not beat an 02' SS in the 1/4 anyway-let alone the 69' SS427. Any big block Camaro in the 60's will make quick work of an EVO.

:naughty:

BTW, an EVO will not beat an 02' SS in the 1/4 anyway-let alone the 69' SS427. Any big block Camaro in the 60's will make quick work of an EVO.

um ,,,,,,, ive been away from chevys for awhile now , but as far as i can remember there was never a SS 427 car made . unless your talking about the C.O.P.O. or YENKO , NICKEY or the one from the west coast . and the BALDWIN MOTION PERFORMANCE cars .

um ,,,,,,, ive been away from chevys for awhile now , but as far as i can remember there was never a SS 427 car made . unless your talking about the C.O.P.O. or YENKO , NICKEY or the one from the west coast . and the BALDWIN MOTION PERFORMANCE cars .
I was pretty sure there was, but even if there wasn't an SS 396 would still destroy a EVO for sure.

There were 427's in all of the cars mentioned above...

There were 427's in all of the cars mentioned above...


in what cars ? the dealers that i mentioned ? as far as i know the only chevy that was avilible with a 427 from the FACTORY was the VETTE . all others were C.O.P.O. cars or special dealler installs .

quote: " SS 396 would still destroy a EVO for sure " your right on that PWMAN .

Well a restoration company I know of makes emblems for the front fender-SS 427. Whether they are original or not I don't know.

http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html

The dealer cars, Yenko, Baldwin, etc., most certainly had 427's...

http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html

The dealer cars, Yenko, Baldwin, etc., most certainly had 427's...



:grinno: BlkCamaroSS , um we are on the same page right ? thats what i said in the first place . :biggrin:

but im going to say that i was wrong about chevey never having a factory 427 car other that the VETTE , i totaly for got about the 427 BISCAYNE and the 66-67 CHEVELLEs . but im stilll sticking to my guns that they NEVER put a 427 in a CAMARO . UNLESS it was a COPO or special dealer install . IE: YENKO , NICKEY ect .

Ah, well, maybe, damn. LOL, I need some sleep, I can't wait to graduate and get the hell out of this town.

Sleep anyone???

Slay some ricers? Yet you have an EVO listed in the poll... Not that an Evo is a ricer.. far from it. Just thought that was pretty odd.


And your list of 'sports' cars is pretty limited...hey! stop picking on the ricers. :icon16:

hey! stop picking on the ricers. :icon16:

maybe it would be a good thing if u actually read it, and then maybe u would have noticed i changed it(it does not say that ricer thing anymore), and i later said(probibly on page 4, i dunno) if it looks good it aint rice, right now we are talking about muscle cars,i also dont know what u mean with the whole smiley face?

:naughty:

BTW, an EVO will not beat an 02' SS in the 1/4 anyway-let alone the 69' SS427. Any big block Camaro in the 60's will make quick work of an EVO.




What are you talking about? The 60s muscle cars were very slow off the line in stock form. Not even the GT500 could smoke the US Evo much less the J-spec RS. Look it up for yourself, don't just jump into an argument without knowing what you are talking about. Quit quoting estamated proformance specs and look at the real numbers. The SS looses any way you look at it.

Jared, you're allowed to have the last word, but everyone here knows that it's wrong.

"Know" what you like but the truth is on my side and it is not subject to your oppion. Besides I looked up the "11 second" Yenko Camaro with a 427. Motor Trend said that it did the 1/4 mile in 13.8! On modern tires! So much for your 11 second car. Where do you get your numbers from?

"Know" what you like but the truth is on my side and it is not subject to your oppion. Besides I looked up the "11 second" Yenko Camaro with a 427. Motor Trend said that it did the 1/4 mile in 13.8! On modern tires! So much for your 11 second car. Where do you get your numbers from?


What are you smoking kid? You think an EVO is going to be faster off the line with it's turbo 2.0L compared to a N/A 7L? Not to mention the Yenko has 425 HP/460 F/P's VS 271/2??. HELLO? Here is the link where he got his info from, you must not have been paying attention :disappoin :banghead:
http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html

Let's see this link in Motor Trend, Jared. Oh wait, it's another mystic link that you can never prove. I can post links all day long verifying the authenticity of a 1st Gen Yenko doing 11's. If that mystic link has anything to do with the 2F2F Yenko, that everyone and their mother knows is a fake, I'm gonna laugh my ass off...

Now if I could only have a video to this race at the end to prove my point (a 67 Yenko and a 69 Yenko)...

http://www.yenko.net/reunion/00race1.JPG

"Know" what you like but the truth is on my side and it is not subject to your oppion. Besides I looked up the "11 second" Yenko Camaro with a 427. Motor Trend said that it did the 1/4 mile in 13.8! On modern tires! So much for your 11 second car. Where do you get your numbers from?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I saw that article in Sport Compact Car where they tested the cars from the fast and the furious. The "Yenko" was a clone, not a real yenko and ran 13.7. It was the fastest of the group. The Evo ran a sorry 15.3. My 86 Turbo Volvo runs 15.6. So much for your supercar.

Now I will give the benefit of the doubt that the Evo was out of tune, but so was the Camaro. Besides the fact that the Camaro is 35 years old and running stock heads, etc. The production tolerances back then were terrible and the cars lost their tune quickly. You have to be really smart and persistant to tune a completely mechanical car. Modern parts are available so all you have to do is add a little technology and you gain back the efficiency that was missing from the factory.

The writers at SCC admitted that they loved the Camaro. They pointed out that it didn't corner or stop well but it was still a blast to drive, and as long as you have fun thats all that matters.

"Know" what you like but the truth is on my side and it is not subject to your oppion. Besides I looked up the "11 second" Yenko Camaro with a 427. Motor Trend said that it did the 1/4 mile in 13.8! On modern tires! So much for your 11 second car. Where do you get your numbers from?

:banghead: What an idiot....... :banghead:

I dont really care about the american vs Imports. but i got to tell u this as far as looks go the american cars got to go they are to round and to big. oh and about the technology in the new cars if they can get a 2.0L car to do high 13s, what the hell is up with the 7.0L running low 13s. if the imports came with the 7.0L size engine i wonder what they would do at 1/4 with all the technology.

Let's see this link in Motor Trend, Jared. Oh wait, it's another mystic link that you can never prove. I can post links all day long verifying the authenticity of a 1st Gen Yenko doing 11's. If that mystic link has anything to do with the 2F2F Yenko, that everyone and their mother knows is a fake, I'm gonna laugh my ass off...

http://www.yenko.net/reunion/00race1.JPG


I did not get this off the net so I have no site to give you try reading the real magazine.
I have been looking all over the web for the fastest stock 1/4 mile out of a Yenko, and the fastest that I have seen so far is 12.80 which I admit is a 1/4 second faster than the Evo, but will it be faster then the forthcoming Evo RS I doubt it. Even though the Yenko is a touch faster I would not trade a 1/4 second for the handeling and breaking of the Evo, and only a drag fanatic would. (not that there is anything wrong with being a drag fanatic.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I saw that article in Sport Compact Car where they tested the cars from the fast and the furious. The "Yenko" was a clone, not a real yenko and ran 13.7. It was the fastest of the group. The Evo ran a sorry 15.3. My 86 Turbo Volvo runs 15.6. So much for your supercar. .


No I am not quoting that clone in SCC though I did see that article. The car that I am quoting was fetured in Motor Trend magazine not SCC, and it was not a clone, or at leased they did not mention that.

I dont really care about the american vs Imports. but i got to tell u this as far as looks go the american cars got to go they are to round and to big. oh and about the technology in the new cars if they can get a 2.0L car to do high 13s, what the hell is up with the 7.0L running low 13s. if the imports came with the 7.0L size engine i wonder what they would do at 1/4 with all the technology.

So now we are comparing 60's technology to the 21st century? Give me a break :banghead:
Plus you are comparing N/A for FI. Try getting a 2.0L N/A in the 13's, it's quite a bit harder and a lot more expensive than getting the 60's technology 7L in the 13's, which it's already there. All you have to do is put headers and dual 3'' exhaust on the camaro, then add some sticky back tires and you should be into 11's territory.
The only reason it does 13's is because it has so much power you can't get traction off the line :rofl:

Posted this before, but here it is again. Took me two minutes to find versus looking all over the net. Simple searches on any search engine give fast results. An 11.94 example right there...

http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html

Posted this before, but here it is again. Took me two minutes to find versus looking all over the net. Simple searches on any search engine give fast results. An 11.94 example right there...

http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html


For some reason your link does not work. Are you sure that this is a stock Yenko or are they racing on street legal slicks with a locking diff?? I found low 12s but they were all modified. Check you source, I highly doubt that it is stock.

http://scnc.britton.k12.mi.us/~markh/cars/pages/69'%20Yenko%20Camaro.html

Oh sorry I thought that you had a real source. Get a lagit source for your data, not some po-dunk hey momme look I made a website crap. In case you did not notice they list modified cars on there too, not just stock cars. Get me a nationaly known source several of them were around in 1969.

Here is another that backs up the exact same time:11.94

http://www.ebms.edu/fredjefinal/yenko.htm

Oh and BTW you really need to stop skipping school so you can catch english class to learn how to spell :loser:

A: your link does not work
B: I have never heard of them before, what makes them a lagit source??
C: Keep qouting crap and I will keep saying the same thing. GET A LAGIT SOURCE!
If you can find a real source that I have heard of than I will admit that I am wrong but untill then I will continue to dissagree with you.

The link works fine for me.

What was your lagit source saying it was in the 13's again?

The link works fine for me.

What was your lagit source saying it was in the 13's again?

For some reason your link does not work on this computer, not that I have ever heard of them anyway. My source was Motor Trend magazine, that is about as lagit as you can get, although I will admit that it is hard to test a 30+ year old car and expect it to be as good as it was new, but it was restored.

OK I finaly got your link to work (it took a few tries) I hate to rain on your parade but they built so few of those things that I would hardly consider them a production car. Lets try to find a muscle car that is mass produced that can take an Evo or an STi. But I would still like to see a lagit source for the 11 second times, because that would be truly impressive.

Well what i dont get is all the muscle cars are V6,V8 and also rear wheel drive and all the little ricers are v4 and front wheel drive and they still keep up with ur v8 with the 7.0L. Oh and the 30,000 u would spend on a camaro i would put that money in to a f----- civic and it will smoke the shit out of ur camaro. OH the thing u were all talking about having these new cars running nos and turbos they have crx's running i belive low 10s all motor and its a front wheel drive.
Now the fast and the furious evo was built for a show car not a drag car.
It has a full sound system and all the little shit that u wouldnt need for a drag car. and it is not tuned for the 1/4.

First thing get it right it is an inline 4 not a V4. Secondly rear wheel drive is much better than front wheel drive especaly for drag racing. For the same amount of money that you would put into that civic, you could push a Stang or a Camaro into to low 10s or the 9s. Don't beleve me ask those FWD racers which one is faster! Plus squeezing that much power out of that small of an engine kill the reliability even on a Honda. If you want to push a 4 banger into the 10s you better get somthing that was designed for high boost not a 16b or 18b. Try a 4g-63 or an SR20. The last thing that this world needs is another poser Civic, so if you do tune it please don't make a joke of the rest of us. Note: A body kit, rear spoiler, and crome rims don't help in the 1/4 mile. Only power and traction count there.

LOL, Jared 80 you got to the V4/inline 4 before me! This Prelude 97 seems like a true ricer to me........NAWSSSSSS

And Prelude 97 by all-motor that means no nitrous either. And I would like to see proof of this CRX in the 10's. And even if it is true, it's probably bored and stroked for increased displacement. Plus the CRX is so stripped that it is not streetable at all. The Muscle cars all do these numbers in stock form street trim.

All of the top of the line 1970 A bodies ran mid 13's stock on crappy tires and through manifolds and smog tuned carbs. They were mass production but expensive for what they were just like the Evo and STI. I think its a little harder to wring more power out of an STI or Evo than it was to get it out of one of those muscle cars because the 4 cyl cars already have a lot of trick parts on them, while the stock muscle cars have a lot of room for improvement.

He is the kind of "ricer" that makes me ashamed of the import scene.

All of the top of the line 1970 A bodies ran mid 13's stock on crappy tires and through manifolds and smog tuned carbs. They were mass production but expensive for what they were just like the Evo and STI. I think its a little harder to wring more power out of an STI or Evo than it was to get it out of one of those muscle cars because the 4 cyl cars already have a lot of trick parts on them, while the stock muscle cars have a lot of room for improvement.


The Japs have tweeked the Evos block to over 700hp I call that room for improvment don't you?

Also, Jared you can probably vouche for this, when you go to the run-what-you-brung races you often see mustangs and camaros and a whole plethora of imports. The times for the domestics ranges from about 13-16 while the times for the imports range from about 15-18. Their are fast cars on both sides, but the majority of the people there, the regular guys that can't afford $3000 blowers or risk running NOS and blowing the motor are running those numbers. Their are fast ones on both sides, but the fastest average goes to the mustangs and camaros because they were designed to be fast and inexpensive.

The Japs have tweeked the Evos block to over 700hp I call that room for improvment don't you?

I'm sure People have tuned the muscle V8's to 2000 hp. Full-Race blocks based on Chevy V8's put out 5000+. So my point is the same.

He is the kind of "ricer" that makes me ashamed of the import scene.
Hmm, we finally agreed on something! Imagine that.
BTW, I am not an all-out V8 muscle car motor head. I own a 4 cylinder, and 2 V8 vehicle. I like the 4 banger just as much as the V8's. I really do believe in their potential, I'm just saying it's much harder and more expensive to get it there compared to a larger displacement engine. I mean, you can build a 500 HP small block chevy for under 4K including labor and everything. The turbo kit and engine management for those kind of HP levels on a 4 cylinder alone are going to cost you about 4K. Then all the internals will cost 2K, then all the labor and machine work probably another 3K. So it's atleast twice the price, plus it's never going to have the torque that the V8 will.

I'm sure People have tuned the muscle V8's to 2000 hp. Full-Race blocks based on Chevy V8's put out 5000+. So my point is the same.
Top fuel dragsters have 6-7 thousand HP. See any 4 bangers with those kind of HP ratings lately?
The most powerful 4 banger I ever heard of was 4000 HP, and that was 4.5L-much more displacement than the average racer is going to have. And I'm sure the torque was no where near that of the top fuel dragsters.

I'm sure People have tuned the muscle V8's to 2000 hp. Full-Race blocks based on Chevy V8's put out 5000+. So my point is the same.


No I mean 700hp in street trim driving on street tires. I have seen over 1200hp on the dragstrip on alcohol.

Yea you are right it is alot easier to get alot of horses out of a big block than a 4 banger, but the 4 is a more driveable engine in high hp trim because of their (some of them) VVTi and the sort. Plus a turbod car can run a street cam and still get alot of power when spooled up.

Plus a turbod car can run a street cam and still get alot of power when spooled up.

VVTI is great, I wish they would put it on V8's, but their is no way for the manufactures to justify it on a street car. As far as the turbos I agree, but the same goes for a larger engine, 6, 8 whatever, with more power strokes it will have a better power band. Their are people with 800hp street trim V8's that are running automatic trannys!

Howdy.

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally Posted by Jared_80
The Japs have tweeked the Evos block to over 700hp I call that room for improvment don't you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much money did they spend? 60's and 70's muscle cars most of the time dont have s/c or turbos so put one of those on and its makin even more horse power, if u have alot of $ u can do any thing, though i really dont think its as easy to get any of these cars to go 10 sec 1/4, as u guys seem to be saying, 500 horses gets a Ford GT to a 12.2 1/4 so u need mucho horse power to get 10s not at all saying its imposible though. how supposidly did did they get up to 1,000hp? the dude who said he'd rather have a fwd car than a rwd, whats up wit that?

Well it's a matter of weight VS HP. That CRX in the 10's probably weighs less than 2000 pounds. And muscle cars weigh 3500 or so pounds. And going by the 10 HP per hundred pounds rule of thumb, the Muscle car needs 350 more HP than the CRX to get the same time. I know that there is a lot more factors like torque and all that, but I'm just being pretty general right now.
Most muscle cars weigh atleast a half ton more than civics.

Weight is definitely the enemy of performance. Imports weigh less and thus need less power to achieve any given performance target. Of course, there are issues like weight transfer and torque that affect acceleration and tend to favor muscle cars.

How much money did they spend? 60's and 70's muscle cars most of the time dont have s/c or turbos so put one of those on and its makin even more horse power, though i really dont think its as easy to get any of these cars to go 10 sec 1/4, as u guys seem to be saying, 500 horses gets a Ford GT to a 12.2 1/4 so u need mucho horse power to get 10s not at all saying its imposible though. how supposidly did did they get up to 1,000hp? the dude who said he'd rather have a fwd car than a rwd, whats up wit that?[/QUOTE/]






I think that all he did to that lancer was reduced compression ratio pistons, larger innnercooler, larger injectors and a T-88 turbo, but I'll try to find that article again and tell you for sure, but I don't think that it was as expensive as you think. As far as the 10 second 1/4 milething you are not even takinging traction into account when you quoted the GT. I would bet anything that it could get into the mid to low 11's if it had drag slicks, or AWD. There have been FWD dragsters not only get into the 10s but the 9s and one that I know of actualy the high 8s. They get this power the good old fashon way lots of killer boost, aprox 2.5 bar and raise the redline to 9000RPM! But for street cars if you gave an Evo RS aprox 550hp (and a HD cluch) it would hit the 10's with it's stock weight. (yes the drivetrain can handle it) That "ricer" that thought that FWD is better than RWD is just an ignorent Newbee wannabe tuner don't mind him, he does not represent us. Make no mistake the ONLY thing better than RWD is AWD, and even that depends on the situation.

VVTI is great, I wish they would put it on V8's, but their is no way for the manufactures to justify it on a street car. As far as the turbos I agree, but the same goes for a larger engine, 6, 8 whatever, with more power strokes it will have a better power band. Their are people with 800hp street trim V8's that are running automatic trannys!


Here is a great newsflash for you the new Corvette ZO6 has Z-tech, which is Chevys equivlent to VVTi and V-tech. Unfortunetly they do not make the redline high enough (6500RPM I think) so it is a mere 405hp, which is nothing to be laughed at. But it still does not approch the spacific output of a Civic Si or an S2000. There are several problems with turbocharging V8s the first and most annoying is the crossflow issue which makes it hard to use a single turbo without extreamly expensive headers (the heat makes the bent downpipe expand and crack near the Y pipe). You could just install a twin turbo but then you have to deal with a whole new set of problems, especaly pipe work and the innercooler. The second issue that you face is that most V8s were not built for forced induction, hence their cooling suffers, and the blocks tend to blowout under the extreme high pressure and heat of high boost (except for speciality made blocks). This too can be fixed with water injection but since it is illigal in almost every form of racing (except drag racing) it is pure shooting in the dark to find a good system. These are the primary reasons that you don't see nearly as many turboed V8s as you see turbo 4 bangers. There are people who overcome all these chalanges and build very fast cars, but you can be assured that they know their stuff, even better than I do.