Ever wonder what a v6 mustang could do?
v604mustangjoe
10-08-2005, 01:17 PM
Well here is a video of what it can do, Justin Starkey's COMPLETLY STOCK 3.8 v6 engine, 4r70w automatic (transmission that comes with 99+ v6 mustangs) it had just a shift kit, PI torque converter, GT rear diff, and twin 16G turbos @ 17 psi combined boost.
its a 2000 automatic v6 mustang.
http://media.putfile.com/Justin00v6stocktimerecord
its a 2000 automatic v6 mustang.
http://media.putfile.com/Justin00v6stocktimerecord
SuperHighOutput
10-08-2005, 01:29 PM
Awesome car.
flatlander757
10-08-2005, 02:40 PM
Thats insane! :eek:
Awesome car man! The GNX that Ford never made :p
Awesome car man! The GNX that Ford never made :p
dimefury
10-08-2005, 03:35 PM
Well here is a video of what i can do, COMPLETLY STOCK 3.8 v6 engine, 4r70w automatic (transmission that comes with 99+ v6 mustangs) it had just a shift kit, PI torque converter, GT rear diff, and twin 16G turbos @ 17 psi combined boost.
its a 2000 automatic v6 mustang.
nice, but far from "stock"
if you are just refering to engine internals, a stock toyota 2jz can produce in excess of 900 hp with just boost and bolt-ons
still though, i'm impressed!! :smile:
its a 2000 automatic v6 mustang.
nice, but far from "stock"
if you are just refering to engine internals, a stock toyota 2jz can produce in excess of 900 hp with just boost and bolt-ons
still though, i'm impressed!! :smile:
v604mustangjoe
10-08-2005, 06:53 PM
nice, but far from "stock"
if you are just refering to engine internals, a stock toyota 2jz can produce in excess of 900 hp with just boost and bolt-ons
still though, i'm impressed!! :smile:
yea, ford has a 4.0 DOHC motor in ausralia I6, that can do about that, i think it made like 1000 hp. Considering the 3.8 was engineered more for minivans and ecnonoboxes more than a racing motors its impressive.
is the 2JZ the supra motor?
They've never broken a stock 3.8 ford yet, it has shitty cast iron rods, a very strong crank, and shity hypereutectic pistons. I'd like to see a 3.8 ford built to its fullest, we have some pretty nice supercharged ones, but supercharging has limitations, the turbo stuff is starting to come out finally.
The fasetst v6 mustang i know of currently is Mat Neuhearts 10.3 sec single turbo, older generation 3.8 (single intake runner and 1 intake port per cylander in the heads) It has built up internals and pushes 20 some psi, its automatic ofcourse. If he put in the split port heads and dual runner intake with the IMRCs (01+) it'd probably bust into the 9s easily. Justin is planning on building a fully built beast. Others do 4.2 strokers and superchargers, i believe matt had a 4.2 stroker. Its so easy to just throw in the 4.2 crank while they are putting in forged rods and pistons that just aobut everyone does it. I dont think there are any advantages to keeping it a 3.8 crank, unless you put in a forged supercoupe crank from the t-birds, i heard those arent that much stronger though.
To date no one with a proper tune has blown up a 3.8 block, or broke a 3.8 crank. rods and pistons are the only thing we have trouble with on the stock internals. They do make stud girdles and other block enforcing stuff as well. I'd say within a year there will be a 9 sec v6 mustang, and 8 and possibly 7s are probably the limit of the block hp wise, then you'd have to get a custom aftermarket block.
And to the GNX, the ford 3.8 is based on that motors designs, and the newest (last) rendition of the ford 3.8 block (technicly 3.9, just a refined 3.8, still 3800 CCs) is considered even stronger than the GNX block. GNXes have pushed over 1500 hp.
I am more of a fan of I6 motors, but ford refuses to put one in the mustang sadly.
My car will probably go with a centrifical supercharger when i get money, but i mgiht just get a turbo for it instead and run slower but still have the potential to do more. I figure 2500 dollars for the base 4.5 psi non fuel upgrade, stock tune turbo kit, that only gets you into the low 14s, high 13s, but with fuel injectors, fuel pump, new rear end and a dynotune i could get it into the 11s on the stock internals.
btw i think the v6 stang in the video was using 100 octane gas to prevent detonation since it was using the stock 9.35:1 compression ratio, relativiley high for 17 psi.
The motor is completely stock, its just coupled up to twin turbos and a few improvements in the drive train, like the rear end and the shift kit and the high stall converter. fuel injectors and fuel pump were also upgraded but thats no big deal.
my car stock did about 16.2 in the 1/4 mile, with a 480 dollar y pipe back exhaust system, 400 dollars in misc. things like roller rockers, chip, intake spacer and cold air intake i did a 15.48@ 89.48 mph, my tune on my automatic transmission needs adjusting because it misshifts, otherwise i'd probably do a 15.00-15.2, once i put on my x pipe, under drive pulley, and long tube headers, port match my intake manifold and get a bigger throttle body i should take it down to about a 14.4 n/a. Then its time to upgrade the suspension, new rear end, and a powerdyne. Then i'll be good for 12s and i will be officialy happy for a long time.
considering i spent 14,500 dollars for my car brand new in sept of 04, i am pretty happy with what it does, and deffinently satisified in its potential, 14,500 for any rwd sports car these days is cheap.
Insurance is a LOT cheaper than the GTes, gas is cheaper, i get about 30 mpg if i drive like grandma on the freeway at 70. GM pisses me off with their FWD GTP G6, that car would be insane rwd, 6 speed manual, n/a 240 hp v6 OHV. I'd also like to have seen the new eclipse rwd with that big v6 they through in it, coincidently 3.8 litres.
if you are just refering to engine internals, a stock toyota 2jz can produce in excess of 900 hp with just boost and bolt-ons
still though, i'm impressed!! :smile:
yea, ford has a 4.0 DOHC motor in ausralia I6, that can do about that, i think it made like 1000 hp. Considering the 3.8 was engineered more for minivans and ecnonoboxes more than a racing motors its impressive.
is the 2JZ the supra motor?
They've never broken a stock 3.8 ford yet, it has shitty cast iron rods, a very strong crank, and shity hypereutectic pistons. I'd like to see a 3.8 ford built to its fullest, we have some pretty nice supercharged ones, but supercharging has limitations, the turbo stuff is starting to come out finally.
The fasetst v6 mustang i know of currently is Mat Neuhearts 10.3 sec single turbo, older generation 3.8 (single intake runner and 1 intake port per cylander in the heads) It has built up internals and pushes 20 some psi, its automatic ofcourse. If he put in the split port heads and dual runner intake with the IMRCs (01+) it'd probably bust into the 9s easily. Justin is planning on building a fully built beast. Others do 4.2 strokers and superchargers, i believe matt had a 4.2 stroker. Its so easy to just throw in the 4.2 crank while they are putting in forged rods and pistons that just aobut everyone does it. I dont think there are any advantages to keeping it a 3.8 crank, unless you put in a forged supercoupe crank from the t-birds, i heard those arent that much stronger though.
To date no one with a proper tune has blown up a 3.8 block, or broke a 3.8 crank. rods and pistons are the only thing we have trouble with on the stock internals. They do make stud girdles and other block enforcing stuff as well. I'd say within a year there will be a 9 sec v6 mustang, and 8 and possibly 7s are probably the limit of the block hp wise, then you'd have to get a custom aftermarket block.
And to the GNX, the ford 3.8 is based on that motors designs, and the newest (last) rendition of the ford 3.8 block (technicly 3.9, just a refined 3.8, still 3800 CCs) is considered even stronger than the GNX block. GNXes have pushed over 1500 hp.
I am more of a fan of I6 motors, but ford refuses to put one in the mustang sadly.
My car will probably go with a centrifical supercharger when i get money, but i mgiht just get a turbo for it instead and run slower but still have the potential to do more. I figure 2500 dollars for the base 4.5 psi non fuel upgrade, stock tune turbo kit, that only gets you into the low 14s, high 13s, but with fuel injectors, fuel pump, new rear end and a dynotune i could get it into the 11s on the stock internals.
btw i think the v6 stang in the video was using 100 octane gas to prevent detonation since it was using the stock 9.35:1 compression ratio, relativiley high for 17 psi.
The motor is completely stock, its just coupled up to twin turbos and a few improvements in the drive train, like the rear end and the shift kit and the high stall converter. fuel injectors and fuel pump were also upgraded but thats no big deal.
my car stock did about 16.2 in the 1/4 mile, with a 480 dollar y pipe back exhaust system, 400 dollars in misc. things like roller rockers, chip, intake spacer and cold air intake i did a 15.48@ 89.48 mph, my tune on my automatic transmission needs adjusting because it misshifts, otherwise i'd probably do a 15.00-15.2, once i put on my x pipe, under drive pulley, and long tube headers, port match my intake manifold and get a bigger throttle body i should take it down to about a 14.4 n/a. Then its time to upgrade the suspension, new rear end, and a powerdyne. Then i'll be good for 12s and i will be officialy happy for a long time.
considering i spent 14,500 dollars for my car brand new in sept of 04, i am pretty happy with what it does, and deffinently satisified in its potential, 14,500 for any rwd sports car these days is cheap.
Insurance is a LOT cheaper than the GTes, gas is cheaper, i get about 30 mpg if i drive like grandma on the freeway at 70. GM pisses me off with their FWD GTP G6, that car would be insane rwd, 6 speed manual, n/a 240 hp v6 OHV. I'd also like to have seen the new eclipse rwd with that big v6 they through in it, coincidently 3.8 litres.
dimefury
10-08-2005, 09:07 PM
yea, ford has a 4.0 DOHC motor in ausralia I6, that can do about that, i think it made like 1000 hp.
is the 2JZ the supra motor?
They've never broken a stock 3.8 ford yet, it has shitty cast iron rods, a very strong crank, and shity hypereutectic pistons.
I am more of a fan of I6 motors, but ford refuses to put one in the mustang sadly.
.
They never let us have the good stuff....
yes, it is the supra motor, comes stock with forged internals!!!!!
Inline sixes are amazingly powerfull machines, add a twin turbo
revs and boost = the replacement for displacement :iceslolan
is the 2JZ the supra motor?
They've never broken a stock 3.8 ford yet, it has shitty cast iron rods, a very strong crank, and shity hypereutectic pistons.
I am more of a fan of I6 motors, but ford refuses to put one in the mustang sadly.
.
They never let us have the good stuff....
yes, it is the supra motor, comes stock with forged internals!!!!!
Inline sixes are amazingly powerfull machines, add a twin turbo
revs and boost = the replacement for displacement :iceslolan
crrrazy
10-09-2005, 04:01 AM
They never let us have the good stuff....
yes, it is the supra motor, comes stock with forged internals!!!!!
Inline sixes are amazingly powerfull machines, add a twin turbo
revs and boost = the replacement for displacement :iceslolan
Yeah Agree
:wink: :grinyes: :iceslolan :loser: :biggrin:
yes, it is the supra motor, comes stock with forged internals!!!!!
Inline sixes are amazingly powerfull machines, add a twin turbo
revs and boost = the replacement for displacement :iceslolan
Yeah Agree
:wink: :grinyes: :iceslolan :loser: :biggrin:
v604mustangjoe
10-09-2005, 12:04 PM
Yeah Agree
:wink: :grinyes: :iceslolan :loser: :biggrin:
Yea but the thing is, a big motor can always be modded to rev higher and handle a lot of boost too :-)
Look at the 428 LS7 V8 GM is building for the new corvette and God knows what else they are putting that beast in. 7k rpms the motor can make power to, its sold to only rev to 6,400 and the power is turned down stock for emissions, it has high compression(not sure the exact numbres but i believe it to be 11:1), TITANIUM lightweight strong pistons that could probably handle loads of boost if the the thing didnt have such high compression, but i imagine the high compression in conjunction with even low boost would make insane power. My neighbor works at the tech center in the town next to mine that builds the LS7. He said the motor can make over 550 hp@7k rpms if you let it do what GM intentended it to do. Now remmeber this is a push rod motor, however it has titanium valves, connecting rods, pistons, push rods, rocker arms, just about anything that moves in a recipocating motion in that motor is titanium. This allows it to make more torque at higher rpms which in turn equates to more hp.
Now you could do the same to any large displacement motor if you have enough money, then you could rev them high. Its hard to make a small motor bigger, and in the long run size does matter.
My ideal motor would be a 5.0 litre I6 with SOHC and 4 valves per cylander with variable valve timing much like hondas 4 valve SOHC set up with VTEC. Then you'd have the motor run at relativley low compression (since this thing would be a torque monster already down low) you could use low compression then have 2 turbos on it plumbed after a cross flow exhaust manifold. Have short runners for the small turbo, have long exhaust runners for the big turbo. This will allow for high boost levels at all rpms in conjunction with the low compression motor. Then have titanium rods, pistons, and a lighter crank, make the motor built to rev to 8k rpms. Use a dual runner intake manifold with IMRC valves to allow cross flow and to block off the long runners at high rpms and block the short runners at low rpms. Then you'd have the compressors hooked up to two seperate pipes that flow through an x pipe to two seperate TBs, the small low rpm turbo hooked up to the long runner TB, and have this long runner part of the intake manifold be somewhat rougher surface than the short runners to help atomize fuel better. Also inject the fuel closer to the TB in the long runners so that you could get more torque and better fuel atomization. Then the big turbo pipe would hook up to the other tb that hooks to the short runners.
At the exhaust end have variable geometry nozles on the turbo and have the two turbos have seperate exhaust pipes that run parrelel and through an x pipe then out two tips at the back, have a wider exhaust pipe for the high rpm turbo, and a narrower exhaust pipe for the low rpm turbo to regulate back pressure. The x pipe will help regulate the back pressure.
This is my dream motor, also the engine block would have to be built with the best strength possible, have 4 bolt main caps, a forged steel stud girdle, and have 7 main caps.
:wink: :grinyes: :iceslolan :loser: :biggrin:
Yea but the thing is, a big motor can always be modded to rev higher and handle a lot of boost too :-)
Look at the 428 LS7 V8 GM is building for the new corvette and God knows what else they are putting that beast in. 7k rpms the motor can make power to, its sold to only rev to 6,400 and the power is turned down stock for emissions, it has high compression(not sure the exact numbres but i believe it to be 11:1), TITANIUM lightweight strong pistons that could probably handle loads of boost if the the thing didnt have such high compression, but i imagine the high compression in conjunction with even low boost would make insane power. My neighbor works at the tech center in the town next to mine that builds the LS7. He said the motor can make over 550 hp@7k rpms if you let it do what GM intentended it to do. Now remmeber this is a push rod motor, however it has titanium valves, connecting rods, pistons, push rods, rocker arms, just about anything that moves in a recipocating motion in that motor is titanium. This allows it to make more torque at higher rpms which in turn equates to more hp.
Now you could do the same to any large displacement motor if you have enough money, then you could rev them high. Its hard to make a small motor bigger, and in the long run size does matter.
My ideal motor would be a 5.0 litre I6 with SOHC and 4 valves per cylander with variable valve timing much like hondas 4 valve SOHC set up with VTEC. Then you'd have the motor run at relativley low compression (since this thing would be a torque monster already down low) you could use low compression then have 2 turbos on it plumbed after a cross flow exhaust manifold. Have short runners for the small turbo, have long exhaust runners for the big turbo. This will allow for high boost levels at all rpms in conjunction with the low compression motor. Then have titanium rods, pistons, and a lighter crank, make the motor built to rev to 8k rpms. Use a dual runner intake manifold with IMRC valves to allow cross flow and to block off the long runners at high rpms and block the short runners at low rpms. Then you'd have the compressors hooked up to two seperate pipes that flow through an x pipe to two seperate TBs, the small low rpm turbo hooked up to the long runner TB, and have this long runner part of the intake manifold be somewhat rougher surface than the short runners to help atomize fuel better. Also inject the fuel closer to the TB in the long runners so that you could get more torque and better fuel atomization. Then the big turbo pipe would hook up to the other tb that hooks to the short runners.
At the exhaust end have variable geometry nozles on the turbo and have the two turbos have seperate exhaust pipes that run parrelel and through an x pipe then out two tips at the back, have a wider exhaust pipe for the high rpm turbo, and a narrower exhaust pipe for the low rpm turbo to regulate back pressure. The x pipe will help regulate the back pressure.
This is my dream motor, also the engine block would have to be built with the best strength possible, have 4 bolt main caps, a forged steel stud girdle, and have 7 main caps.
dimefury
10-09-2005, 03:56 PM
Yea but the thing is, a big motor can always be modded to rev higher and handle a lot of boost too :-)
Look at the 428 LS7 V8 GM is building for the new corvette and God knows what else they are putting that beast in. 7k rpms the motor can make power to......
7,000rpm is fast but when i said that revs can replace displacement i was refering to jap. engines like the RB26 and 2jz inline sixes that can rev into the 8k - 9k rpms, with mods (some at over 10k), the 13b rotary is only a 1.3 but can put out huge power at insane revs. Even on down to inline fours, small 2 liter motors like the SR20 can be made to produce 400+ hp with boost and rpm.
if you can make the same power from a lighter engine, why would you use the heavier powerplant?
mustangjoe, your dream motor sounds awesome (but huge, what would a 5.0 I6 block weigh?)
power isn't everything......its about balance.
Look at the 428 LS7 V8 GM is building for the new corvette and God knows what else they are putting that beast in. 7k rpms the motor can make power to......
7,000rpm is fast but when i said that revs can replace displacement i was refering to jap. engines like the RB26 and 2jz inline sixes that can rev into the 8k - 9k rpms, with mods (some at over 10k), the 13b rotary is only a 1.3 but can put out huge power at insane revs. Even on down to inline fours, small 2 liter motors like the SR20 can be made to produce 400+ hp with boost and rpm.
if you can make the same power from a lighter engine, why would you use the heavier powerplant?
mustangjoe, your dream motor sounds awesome (but huge, what would a 5.0 I6 block weigh?)
power isn't everything......its about balance.
SuperHighOutput
10-09-2005, 05:37 PM
7,000rpm is fast but when i said that revs can replace displacement i was refering to jap. engines like the RB26 and 2jz inline sixes that can rev into the 8k - 9k rpms, with mods (some at over 10k), the 13b rotary is only a 1.3 but can put out huge power at insane revs. Even on down to inline fours, small 2 liter motors like the SR20 can be made to produce 400+ hp with boost and rpm.
if you can make the same power from a lighter engine, why would you use the heavier powerplant?
mustangjoe, your dream motor sounds awesome (but huge, what would a 5.0 I6 block weigh?)
power isn't everything......its about balance.
Displacement has nothing to do with the engine's weight. A 427ci smallblock V8 is physically the same size as a 350ci smallblock, it's a smallblock. The LS7 is also all-aluminum and is physically smaller than an RB26, and weighs less as well. In almost every case an ohc engine is going to be physically larger and heavier than a comperable pushrod motor.
if you can make the same power from a lighter engine, why would you use the heavier powerplant?
mustangjoe, your dream motor sounds awesome (but huge, what would a 5.0 I6 block weigh?)
power isn't everything......its about balance.
Displacement has nothing to do with the engine's weight. A 427ci smallblock V8 is physically the same size as a 350ci smallblock, it's a smallblock. The LS7 is also all-aluminum and is physically smaller than an RB26, and weighs less as well. In almost every case an ohc engine is going to be physically larger and heavier than a comperable pushrod motor.
tistheman7
10-09-2005, 06:59 PM
nice car/vid man, what is the second song in that vid?
dimefury
10-09-2005, 07:08 PM
...... In almost every case an ohc engine is going to be physically larger and heavier than a comperable pushrod motor.
some things are worth the weight....
OHC engines have fewer moving valve train components, less moving weight, this greatly reduces valve float at high rpms and allows a OHC engine to rev higher. more revs = more power
some things are worth the weight....
OHC engines have fewer moving valve train components, less moving weight, this greatly reduces valve float at high rpms and allows a OHC engine to rev higher. more revs = more power
flatlander757
10-09-2005, 07:18 PM
I think horsepower ratings are just a big pissing contest. Torque is where it's at. :icon16:
dimefury
10-09-2005, 08:15 PM
I think horsepower ratings are just a big pissing contest. Torque is where it's at. :icon16:
i agree,
besides its not how much power you have that matters
its power to weight ratio and overall vehicle balance that is important
i agree,
besides its not how much power you have that matters
its power to weight ratio and overall vehicle balance that is important
SuperHighOutput
10-09-2005, 09:05 PM
some things are worth the weight....
OHC engines have fewer moving valve train components, less moving weight, this greatly reduces valve float at high rpms and allows a OHC engine to rev higher. more revs = more power
OHC engines generally also have worse powerbands (read: little low end power for OHC, better torque curve for OHV) are less fuel efficent, and cost more to produce. The point is both designs have their advantages and disadvantages.
OHC engines have fewer moving valve train components, less moving weight, this greatly reduces valve float at high rpms and allows a OHC engine to rev higher. more revs = more power
OHC engines generally also have worse powerbands (read: little low end power for OHC, better torque curve for OHV) are less fuel efficent, and cost more to produce. The point is both designs have their advantages and disadvantages.
dimefury
10-09-2005, 09:45 PM
mustangjoe- your video rocks
superhighoutput- this disscusion seems like it could be interesting, so i have created a tread and poll for it.....
AF car chat>cars in general>car comparisons>ohv vs ohc
edit:i guess there won't be a thread, some one locked it
superhighoutput- this disscusion seems like it could be interesting, so i have created a tread and poll for it.....
AF car chat>cars in general>car comparisons>ohv vs ohc
edit:i guess there won't be a thread, some one locked it
beef_bourito
10-09-2005, 10:59 PM
that car's sweet.
My little blurb on displacement: there's no replacement for it, not boost, not revs, not anything. bigger displacement will give you more power and torque, anything you can do to a small displacement engine you can do to a large displacement engine and get better results. run 2 bar on a 3.8 litre, get X hp, run 2 bar on an 8 litre, get 2Xhp. yes larger displacement engines can't rev as high becaue their parts are heavier but they'll still produce more power and torque than a smaller displacement engine. Although i find it very impressive when people make smaller displacement engines as fast or faster with the same or greater reliability. smaller engines are also a little better nowadays because you can have a monster at the strip and still get some OK fuel economy.
My little blurb on displacement: there's no replacement for it, not boost, not revs, not anything. bigger displacement will give you more power and torque, anything you can do to a small displacement engine you can do to a large displacement engine and get better results. run 2 bar on a 3.8 litre, get X hp, run 2 bar on an 8 litre, get 2Xhp. yes larger displacement engines can't rev as high becaue their parts are heavier but they'll still produce more power and torque than a smaller displacement engine. Although i find it very impressive when people make smaller displacement engines as fast or faster with the same or greater reliability. smaller engines are also a little better nowadays because you can have a monster at the strip and still get some OK fuel economy.
SuperHighOutput
10-10-2005, 09:56 AM
mustangjoe- your video rocks
superhighoutput- this disscusion seems like it could be interesting, so i have created a tread and poll for it.....
AF car chat>cars in general>car comparisons>ohv vs ohc
edit:i guess there won't be a thread, some one locked it
It would've been, I've had the discussion many times, and the result is generally the same, both are good engine designs, just different ways of going about it. In case anyone was wondering my car is OHC, so I do like OHC engines especially in 4cyl applications, but I also don't feel that an OHC engine is inherently better than an OHV counterpart and vice versa.
superhighoutput- this disscusion seems like it could be interesting, so i have created a tread and poll for it.....
AF car chat>cars in general>car comparisons>ohv vs ohc
edit:i guess there won't be a thread, some one locked it
It would've been, I've had the discussion many times, and the result is generally the same, both are good engine designs, just different ways of going about it. In case anyone was wondering my car is OHC, so I do like OHC engines especially in 4cyl applications, but I also don't feel that an OHC engine is inherently better than an OHV counterpart and vice versa.
Tunafish
10-11-2005, 09:48 PM
[QUOTE=flatlander757]I think horsepower ratings are just a big pissing contest. Torque is where it's at. :icon16:[/Q
yeh, off the line , but after that it's horsepower that maters. ;)
yeh, off the line , but after that it's horsepower that maters. ;)
v604mustangjoe
10-12-2005, 12:12 AM
I'd say torque was more important back in the days of 3 and 4 speeds, but now with 5 and 6 speeds, higher rpm motors, hp is now king.
flatlander757
10-12-2005, 01:32 PM
hp is now king.
Would that be why it takes 1000+ hp for a Supra to run a 10 second ET? :p
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
Would that be why it takes 1000+ hp for a Supra to run a 10 second ET? :p
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
v604mustangjoe
10-12-2005, 02:46 PM
Would that be why it takes 1000+ hp for a Supra to run a 10 second ET? :p
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
ummm the supra should be making a lot of torque for only 3 litres, considering its an I6, those are notorious for torque.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
ummm the supra should be making a lot of torque for only 3 litres, considering its an I6, those are notorious for torque.
Tunafish
10-12-2005, 07:46 PM
Would that be why it takes 1000+ hp for a Supra to run a 10 second ET? :p
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
you just dont get it. why do you always have to make stupid comments about Japanese cars? your comments about Japanese cars are getting annoying , and they are very ignorant.The 1000 horsepower Supra's can run 9's or better, seriously. the fastest street Supra in the world runs a 8.45@162 mph in the quater mile, with 1150 whp. Plus, Supra's can get 1000 hp on a stock bottom end.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23090.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/31450-651-23091.jpg
:lol2:
you just dont get it. why do you always have to make stupid comments about Japanese cars? your comments about Japanese cars are getting annoying , and they are very ignorant.The 1000 horsepower Supra's can run 9's or better, seriously. the fastest street Supra in the world runs a 8.45@162 mph in the quater mile, with 1150 whp. Plus, Supra's can get 1000 hp on a stock bottom end.
SuperHighOutput
10-13-2005, 05:13 PM
Some people just can't take a joke.
Tunafish
10-13-2005, 06:13 PM
Some people just can't take a joke.
you think he's joking, i mean you could be right , but if i were to see a post poking fun at a Japanese car from a guy who likes American cars, i wouldn't think he's joking, but i could be wrong. There are many posts of his like this one so i dont know i just think after a while the joke wouldn't be funny anymore :) just my opinion though, i really dont have that great a sense of humor is all.
you think he's joking, i mean you could be right , but if i were to see a post poking fun at a Japanese car from a guy who likes American cars, i wouldn't think he's joking, but i could be wrong. There are many posts of his like this one so i dont know i just think after a while the joke wouldn't be funny anymore :) just my opinion though, i really dont have that great a sense of humor is all.
SuperHighOutput
10-13-2005, 06:46 PM
you think he's joking, i mean you could be right , but if i were to see a post poking fun at a Japanese car from a guy who likes American cars, i wouldn't think he's joking, but i could be wrong. There are many posts of his like this one so i dont know i just think after a while the joke wouldn't be funny anymore :) just my opinion though, i really dont have that great a sense of humor is all.
Of course it's a joke, look at the shirt, the line loops for crying out loud. You've said some pretty ridiculous things about domestics (namely the Corvette) yourself so there is no reason for you to be jumping all over somebody for posting a funny shirt.
Of course it's a joke, look at the shirt, the line loops for crying out loud. You've said some pretty ridiculous things about domestics (namely the Corvette) yourself so there is no reason for you to be jumping all over somebody for posting a funny shirt.
Solidus
10-14-2005, 12:39 PM
With all that text we can write a book....
Mustang with V6=cool, lol :)
Fastest supra with a stock OEM 6sp manual gearbox is 8.99@166mph and 1550kg! is very good.
Mustang with V6=cool, lol :)
Fastest supra with a stock OEM 6sp manual gearbox is 8.99@166mph and 1550kg! is very good.
v604mustangjoe
10-14-2005, 12:53 PM
dude, i am pretty pro american cars, but still the supra is an amazing piece of engineering, so dont diss it, that'd be like a ricer dissing a corvette, cobra mustang, f-body or something fast like that.
DuiSonOfDarp
09-10-2007, 09:44 PM
I'm being an ass for ressurecting this but shit happens.. Just wanted to set some things straight there's an old joke that goes whats a 600hp supra an 800hp supra and a 1000hp supra have in common? they all run tens.. I don't care what you drive if you got to much power you'll have no traction! Which as far as I'm concerned can be alot of fun and sometimes dangerous.. Racing from a roll=the shit!... twin turbo v6 stang=beautiful thing!
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2024