street race

who would win 1990 chevy berreta manual vs. 1996 pontiac firebird auto vs. 1993 240sx auto vs. 1996 mazda mx6 manual vs. 1996 for contour auto. (huff huff)
who would win 0-60, 1/4, burnout pleaase help huge fight between guys at work with me for fastest car
pleaase put the cars in order of who would win
thanx

u gotta tell us what motor is in each car....

instead of arguing all the time, why don't you just go race and then you will have proof? I am sorry if that sounds a little ticked, but my friends ALWAYS argue about their car being faster but when I tell them to just race to see who really has, they never do...

like fastrthanu said, it depends on the motor in each. If it's one of the stronger beretta's, it may actually have a chance.

firebird 3.8 v6 200hp 225 torque
berreta 3.1 v6 130hp 180ft lb torque
240sx 2.4 i-4 155hp 160ft lb torque
mx6 2.5 v6 165hp 160ft lb torque
contour 2.5 i4 125hp 130 lb torque
so there you go thanx

I bleieve the friebird will probably take the wins in all of the above, except for the the 0-60.

Some of the other cars are lighter and the bird is heavy with the crappy engine option.

But the burnout it will definitely take due to the highest horsepower-torque ratio. The 1/4 mile it will definitely win due to the fact that the acceleration is good, but with the bigger V6 in it, it has the top end power. The berreta will probably come in second, followed by the 240 and the mx6, but the contour will give them a run for their money as it also has the top end.

If my info is mixed up feel free to let me know, but to the best of my knowledge that's how it will go down.

:)

A berreta with 130HP and 180 lbs/f. torque? whats up with that? Maybe it's jsut not a common enough thing for me to ahve seen before but that seems like an incredibly large gap, i mean i know it's not that rare for a domenstic to have more torque then horsepower, but that much? i mean thats 50% more torque then HP.

Originally posted by CAptynCrunch
A berreta with 130HP and 180 lbs/f. torque? whats up with that? Maybe it's jsut not a common enough thing for me to ahve seen before but that seems like an incredibly large gap, i mean i know it's not that rare for a domenstic to have more torque then horsepower, but that much? i mean thats 50% more torque then HP.

I agree with him the numbers for the berreta seem a bit off. Only 130hp foa V6? And this kind of difference in torque in met only in truks and mustangs.

Originally posted by Neutrino


I agree with him the numbers for the berreta seem a bit off. Only 130hp foa V6? And this kind of difference in torque in met only in truks and mustangs.

What about viper? I think this is the most torquey engine , i would even risk saying that so much torque isn't necesary and it makes the car kinda hard to drive , but again that's me only... And no , i'm not a shitty driver , i just have driven a viper , and with this torque it's hard to launch it nicely... as for the rest torque is definitely an advantage... er maybe not at the gas station :bloated: , but you don't buy viper for it's MPG... or is it GPM(gallons per mile) ;) ?

I need to disagree with you on the torque difference. I dont think its too uncommon to find that. My old car had a big difference too. But I also feel that the HP was grossly underrated. My 89 towncar was rated at 270 ft/lbsof torque and 150 hp. These numbers being from when it was made and they stil measured power at the crank. The crank numbers are gonna be a bit more than that. I feel though that the power was underrated though. I dont see any other way I could have beatsome of the cars i did.

I actually agree with youit is not that uncomon to find a torque/hp ratio like that. I ment too say mostly not only.
What I really surprised me was the V6 doing only 130HP.

Firebird
MX6
240SX
Beretta
Contour

In that order as far as 1/4 mile goes.
For the burnout competition....None. They're all too slow to do a REAL burnout. But if I had to pick, I'd say Firebird.

I agree with Blackbird of everything in his list, except the Berretta i think should be in the #2 spot as said..........i checked out some stuff with a guy i know who really knows his numbers, and he think the bird will definitely take the burnout, it's got enough power, just won't be a big burnout as nothing seems to have the power to really impress.

For the 0-60, this is whiat he figured:

T/A
MX6
Berretta
240
Contour

These aren't my predictions, this is the guy i know.......hope this helps.:)

well, lets see, considering that i've raced all of those cars, 0-60 would go bird, mx6, 240, contour, berretta, as for 1/4, it would go 240, mx6, bird, contour, berretta, peace

my car is pretty fast

needless to say the car is fast,200hp/187lbhttp://files.automotiveforums.com/uploads/977433customcar2.jpg

c'mon..... only 200hp? i like the rims, though.

Those wheels, as nice as they look, are probably costing you .6 seconds!
Is that what you used to run 14.2?
Rotating mass is a drag!

Robert

as to the hp torque difference there are some cars now witha huge difference. One of the pickup concepts floating around has a turbo diesel that has 600 ft/lb and something like 300 hp. different style but the argument is there.

funny note about that engine is it is on the new tonka concept which has a braking system that charges hydraulic resevoirs and then converts it back to torque at accelaration for another 600 ft/lb . personally I think that 1200 torque is unnecessary.

Originally posted by Fast_4sho
firebird 3.8 v6 200hp 225 torque
berreta 3.1 v6 130hp 180ft lb torque ===> I see 140hp/185tq for 91 so.... figures are correct
240sx 2.4 i-4 155hp 160ft lb torque
mx6 2.5 v6 165hp 160ft lb torque
contour 2.5 i4 125hp 130 lb torque
so there you go thanx

I see...

Car 0-60 1/4

96 Firebird 3.8 V6 9.8 17.0
90 Berreta 3.1 V6 9.7 17.2
93 240SX 9.0 17.0
96 Mazda MX6 8.4 16.0
96 Contour 11.1 17.8

Those times are from RoadReport of the corresponding years -
now I know that source to be very good and even for each car -
don't give me shit about this car can run faster , I have time slip etc...
The car guide do the testing with a full thanks of gas, on street tire, on a street-like pavment (no drag strip!)

Now as you can see, the Mx6 have the edge, but it takes a good pilot to
start the car w/o too much spinning etc. If it does, all others are toasts. If not, the Firebird should win. Plase ask the Contour guy to go fetch a V6 24V Contour, then he will toast anybody there. In fact, you should all consider another car/model/trim of the same year ! lol :

Firebird V8
Berreta GTZ
240SX : Keep the car man, but mod it ! These things have a strong bottom end for mods... put some turbos !!!
Contour : You definitely, definitely, need a V6 model !
Mazda mx-6 : Not bad too, but not a lot of aftermarket. Go for a late rx-7 !

PONTIAC GTX :flash:

Originally posted by pbourgeois
Car 0-60 1/4

96 Firebird 3.8 V6 9.8 17.0
90 Berreta 3.1 V6 9.7 17.2
93 240SX 9.0 17.0
96 Mazda MX6 8.4 16.0
96 Contour 11.1 17.8

wow... beasts of raw acceleration... :rolleyes: :)

I have to go against the grain here, I think the 240 would come up on top. they are so light, there is a huge advantage there.

I drag raced a Firebird v6 with an auto at the dragstrip, and he could only manage 16.5 second quarter miles, and it was a 1999. Maybe he sucked, but I kicked his ass with a 14.5 in my wrx.

The 240 will also be my choice with a manual - but L4 + AUTO = SLOW
(Try to find a L4 with AUTO trans. that is fast !? Can't think of any)

By the way, your WRX is stock ? What was your trap speed ? I would tough you will be in the high 13 with that pocket rocket... guess you need to tweak the turbo even more !

PONTIAC GTX :flash:

Originally posted by pbourgeois
By the way, your WRX is stock ? What was your trap speed ? I would tough you will be in the high 13 with that pocket rocket... guess you need to tweak the turbo even more !

i get high 14s in my non turbo impreza???

yeah, the wrx is stock for now, I just bought it recently. It won't be for long. The trap speed was 98 mph. Also I live at a fairly high altitude, and my times are not adjusted for sea level.

Originally posted by xcaliber
Also I live at a fairly high altitude, and my times are not adjusted for sea level.

ahh now it makes sense