Quote:
racerx said:
Also michael shumacher in a cop car could not catch elmer fudd in a cgt, unless elmer wanted to be caught especially on a curve.
Quote:
racerx said:
YOU simply can not do what your car is not capable of.
Quote:
racerx said:
You give way too much credit to the average cop.
Quote:
racerx said:
Are we not led to believe that cgt owners are seasoned high performance drivers, if not club racers.
Oct 3, 2004 6:52:57 PM
Quote:
brunner said:Quote:
flawed design
Bullsh*t. There's nothing fundamentally flawed in a rear-engined setup, only advantages and disadvantages.
Oct 3, 2004 7:25:46 PM
Quote:
carlos fromspain said:Quote:
brunner said:Quote:
flawed design
Bullsh*t. There's nothing fundamentally flawed in a rear-engined setup, only advantages and disadvantages.
No kidding brunner I always get a kick out of that popular misconception. Optimun mid-engine design aside, if the 911 rear-engine's design (commonly regarded as the most succesful platform in car racing history) is flawed then what is front-engine design used in many sportcars then?
and the '72 911 2.7RS didn't have 40 yrs development behind it nor tens of millions at the time to out handle anything on the streets either.
Oct 3, 2004 7:43:15 PM
Quote:
racerx said:
Low, wide, perfect weight balance is what its all about unless you spend 40 years and tens of millions to perfect a flawed design (the 911).
Quote:
racerx said:
Hey Adias, I do and i couldn't be happier.
Tom
Oct 4, 2004 6:26:54 AM
Quote:
racerx said:
A 50-50 weight balance is ideal. Not 30-70 or 70-30. Thats just comon sense.
Oct 4, 2004 6:49:21 AM
Quote:
ADias said:
Hey... we agree to disagree. For me a 911 is a Porsche. The 928/944 are interesting vehicles but they are not Porsches.
The Boxster is a Porsche too, and I do not consider it a poor man's Porsche at all. It is the present-day 550.
Oct 4, 2004 4:07:02 PM
Quote:
On the other hand, GM still sticks to the push-rod V8 in the Vette, though nobody else does. How come?
Quote:
JS said:
Read this in my local paper. nsnews
Quote:
I'm really surprised to read how "anal" North American police is about speed. I wish they would be the same about drugs, violence and posession of arms.
Quote:
ADias said:
The 928/944 are interesting vehicles but they are not Porsches.
Quote:
GM Austin said:
...I was very puzzled when GM redesigned this motor in 1997. It was a complete redesign and yet they retained many of the characteristics of the old Chevy small block. It had been my belief that they had retained these features in the past because it was too expensive to redesign and retool. And yet, when they start with a clean sheet of paper, the design looks much as before. No overhead cams, not more than two valves per cylinder, no variable valve timing, the valves in fact were still inline, they had not even given it canted valves for better airflow!
I was baffled! And yet, as new models of this motor begin to appear in the Corvette, I saw horsepower figures approach, and then surpass, what had been achieved with the dual overhead cam, 32 valve, Lotus designed LT5 engine. Maybe there's more to horsepower production than what we motorheads understand.
There is also the weight factor. If you compare the current LS2 to other motors on a horsepower/displacement basis, the comparison often does not look so good. But, if you compare horsepower per pound, or kilo, of motor weight, which is really a much more valid comparison for a sportscar engine anyway, the comparison looks much better. The GM small block is a very compact, lightweight design. That seemingly backward inline valve, pushrod design results in very small, lightweight heads!
The characteristics of a pushrod engine design are also more fitting for the expectations of the Corvette's intended audience. It has great torque and develops maximum horsepower at a comparatively low RPM. That's great for how Corvette owners like to drive.
Oct 4, 2004 7:41:51 PM
Quote:
GM Austin said:
Quote:
On the other hand, GM still sticks to the push-rod V8 in the Vette, though nobody else does. How come?
The obvious answer is that it's cheap and easy to manufacture. And, that's probably the major reason.
I was very puzzled when GM redesigned this motor in 1997. It was a complete redesign and yet they retained many of the characteristics of the old Chevy small block. It had been my belief that they had retained these features in the past because it was too expensive to redesign and retool. And yet, when they start with a clean sheet of paper, the design looks much as before. No overhead cams, not more than two valves per cylinder, no variable valve timing, the valves in fact were still inline, they had not even given it canted valves for better airflow!
I was baffled! And yet, as new models of this motor begin to appear in the Corvette, I saw horsepower figures approach, and then surpass, what had been achieved with the dual overhead cam, 32 valve, Lotus designed LT5 engine. Maybe there's more to horsepower production than what we motorheads understand.
There is also the weight factor. If you compare the current LS2 to other motors on a horsepower/displacement basis, the comparison often does not look so good. But, if you compare horsepower per pound, or kilo, of motor weight, which is really a much more valid comparison for a sportscar engine anyway, the comparison looks much better. The GM small block is a very compact, lightweight design. That seemingly backward inline valve, pushrod design results in very small, lightweight heads!
The characteristics of a pushrod engine design are also more fitting for the expectations of the Corvette's intended audience. It has great torque and develops maximum horsepower at a comparatively low RPM. That's great for how Corvette owners like to drive.
Oct 4, 2004 7:43:08 PM
Quote:
GM Austin said:
Quote:
I'm really surprised to read how "anal" North American police is about speed. I wish they would be the same about drugs, violence and posession of arms.
I agree RC, except that possession of arms here is no crime. In fact, the right to possess them is Constitutionally guaranteed and, at present, no permit or registration is necessary in most states. Certainly none required in Texas.