PDA

View Full Version : O/T: My sister's new BMW 118i!



cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:12 AM
Sorry to post this, but I just had to "show off"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We picked up this little beast today. It's a 118i with the new 143-horsepower 4-cylinder engine that boasts superb engine response and a nice little aggressive growl. Only the automatic transmission ruins the driving experience a little, but my sister isn't much into "driving". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Other than that, a superb car. Beautiful handling and quite comfortable too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Enjoy the pictures! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i20.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i2.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i3.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i5.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i8.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i10.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i12.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i11.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i13.jpg

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i18.jpg

F19_Orheim
07-10-2007, 09:24 AM
your sis only on ONE pic???? I am dissappointed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
your sis only on ONE pic???? I am dissappointed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Will this cheer you up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i1.jpg

JG52Uther
07-10-2007, 09:40 AM
I like your sister http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
We were looking at the baby BMW as well,but its just a bit too small for us,so we are getting a Zaphira 1.8 in a couple of weeks.

LStarosta
07-10-2007, 09:42 AM
Nice tan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
I like your sister http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
We were looking at the baby BMW as well,but its just a bit too small for us,so we are getting a Zaphira 1.8 in a couple of weeks.

LOL, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Are you talking about an Opel or Vauxhall Zafira? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Nice tan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yep, she doesn't play IL-2 in the basement, that's for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JG52Uther
07-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Vauxhall here,Opel where you are I believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Vauxhall here,Opel where you are I believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ah, a UK resident I believe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yep, Opel here. My sister also considered the new Opel Corsa, but they were too poorly equipped and didn't feel as solid as the BMW 1-Series. Her second choice was the Mercedes A-Class / C-Class Sportcoupe.

danjama
07-10-2007, 09:54 AM
Very nice! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

cawimmer430
07-10-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
Very nice! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MEGILE
07-10-2007, 10:36 AM
That's the only Beamer which looks turd.

Fortunately your sister makes up for it.

reisen52
07-10-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
That's the only Beamer which looks turd.

Its a bimmer - beamer is the motorcyle.

faustnik
07-10-2007, 10:58 AM
Nice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Don't like the car much to be honest though.

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
That's the only Beamer which looks turd.

Its a bimmer - beamer is the motorcyle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong my friend. Beemer/Beamer is a car. Bimmer is a bike.

By the way, nice car. A BMW is a BMW no matter which one you choose. I've had a few E30s, currently I own a E36 coupe and have plans on buying a E46 coupe. So yes, I'm a BMW nut. As a matter of fact, I'll visit BMW museum in München on monday. Can't wait!

Boandlgramer
07-10-2007, 11:18 AM
Christian.
Was ist denn das für eine Farbe ?
Netter Schnackler.

BTW: Deine Schwester ist aber auch ein süßer Käfer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Schade das es die Vielweiberei nicht mehr gibt heutzutage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

ojcar1971
07-10-2007, 12:01 PM
I like your sister much more than the car http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

LStarosta
07-10-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ojcar1971:
I like your sister much more than the car http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Careful, thems is fightin words...

Bremspropeller
07-10-2007, 12:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif


Err...nice car http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Hkuusela
07-10-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
I've had a few E30s, currently I own a E36 coupe and have plans on buying a E46 coupe. I highly recommend it! It's a joy. Germans, those guys know how to make automobiles!

waffen-79
07-10-2007, 01:09 PM
Your sister is a cutie, BE SURE! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

nice car BTW

stalkervision
07-10-2007, 02:22 PM
from the back it looks like an old Honda Civic.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I mean the car not your sister of course.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
07-10-2007, 02:24 PM
Germany is probably my 12th favourite country ever... no doubt.

BillyTheKid_22
07-10-2007, 02:31 PM
Wow!! Very COOL!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
07-10-2007, 02:31 PM
What do you drive Billy? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

reisen52
07-10-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:You are wrong my friend. Beemer/Beamer is a car. Bimmer is a bike.


BMW will disagree with you when you get to the museum & ask someone who knows.

They will tell you:

Bimmer is the proper term for BMW cars (vehicles with 4 wheels) while Beemer and Beamer are terms that are used for BMW vehicles that have less than 4 wheels (e.g. motorcycles).

Why all this different terms? BMW started big in motorcycles and was very active in motor sports back then. One of their biggest competitors at the racing track was BSA - which was also a big name in motorcycles then. Since BSA motorcycles were known as Beesers, BMW fans decided to call BMW motorcycles Beemers. As time went by, different people (who couldn't spell very well and didn't take the initiative to find out) started to use the term Beamer.

BMW went on to design and manufacture cars which subsequently outshone their two-wheeled cousins. The BMW car enthusiasts wanted a new term to differentiate cars from motorcycles and coined the term Bimmer.

You being a BMW expert & all should know that.

BTW my Bimmer is a 2004 330ci 6spd sport pack convertible, my bike however, is not a Beamer its a Yamaha

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
You being a BMW expert & all should know that.

BTW my Bimmer is a 2004 330ci 6spd sport pack convertible, my bike however, is not a Beamer its a Yamaha

Right. I never said I was an "expert", I'm a NUT - i.e. in love with BMW vehicles. Anyway, I believe you are right about Beemer/Bimmer thing, which simply means my "sources" were wrong. It's nice to learn new things, which is why visit these boars so often.

BTW - my next BMW is a 330 Coupé... unless fuel prices go through the roof! Although I've heard they're surprisingly frygal.

MEGILE
07-10-2007, 03:13 PM
Everyone in UK calls em Beamers, so hush naabs

Anti_Ship_Fella
07-10-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Nice tan. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yep, she doesn't play IL-2 in the basement, that's for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you never know... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2007, 03:43 PM
Nice looking sister

My hotrod could probably expell one of the Bimmer's pistons through an exhaust port, but the BMW's a pretty nice car

VW-IceFire
07-10-2007, 03:49 PM
Beautiful car! Question...BMW in North America (US and Canada I'm speaking of) is basically an expensive premium brand for people who love driving expensive and well put together (but not wholly reliable) cars. Is it the same in Europe or are they more commonplace and being of a similar price to competitors?

The BMW cars are very nicely designed and I can see why people love them but I could never ever think of buying one ever. I'll be probably buying a Honda or a Toyota or a Mazda likely.

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 04:15 PM
Well, yeah, they are pretty expensive, but everything depends on what you're looking for. Even as used they are regularily more expensive than other cars from the same vintage. For instance, 4-cylinder 3-series BMW is not particularily expensive here in Sweden. Add a few extras and a couple of cylinders and the price soars, ofcourse. But this is common for any brand.

As for reliability - they have some weak points (bushes!!!!), but overall, we're truly talking top quality here. My first two cars were Mazdas, and guess what? They both broke down more frequently, spares were more expensive, and they both succumbed to rust, while, for instance, my finest E30, a '89 318i was completely free from rust and NEVER broke down during the two years that I owned it. It passed all MoTs with flying colors.

Some people drive BMWs because they wish to get laid more frequently - I drive it because I just love to drive cars that are so well put together, have such fine ballance and poise and are rear wheel driven. Not to mention all the racing pedigree and technical excellence. A place where Audi wishes to be, but isn't quite yet.

Bremspropeller
07-10-2007, 04:20 PM
Well, BMW, Audi and Mercedes are also considered "premium" cars (well, depends on the series you buy, but each of them will cost more than VW or Opel of the same class for example).

However, they're cheaper to operate than SUVs or pickups. An importamt aspect is fuel consumption.
Given the local gas prices (today it was 1.37 Euros per litre unleaded regular), consumption is one of the most important factors.
BMWs had issues but they have improved a lot.

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 04:28 PM
And by the way - I truly hope somebody will shoot Chris Bangle in the hind for ruining the classic BMW lines! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

reisen52
07-10-2007, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
BTW - my next BMW is a 330 Coupé... unless fuel prices go through the roof! Although I've heard they're surprisingly frygal.

I will replace the 2004 with a 2008 retractable steel roof convertible 335 over the winter. As for reliability its a mix bag, some cars are great some are not & that's true brand to brand.

The 2004 has 55,000 miles on it now & has never been in for an unscheduled maintenance. All scheduled maintenance in the US is free regardless of what is replaced even window wipers.

Gas mileage have generally been in the low to mid 20's on 93 octane premium fuel. Best was 31 mpg on a 960 mile interstate run averaging 80mph.

I also have a 2006 Acura 3.2 TL 6 speed which was in the shop for unscheduled maintenance at 500 miles for a tail light with a section of dead LED's. Acura generally finishes at the top in most quality surveys.

Car now has 11,000 miles on it with no other unscheduled maintenance. Millage is quite similar to the BMW also with 93 octane gas.

Performance wise the TL with more horsepower 270/235 is a little quicker to 60 and in the quarter mile with about 25mph more top speed due to governor settings. The BMW coupe is governed the same as the Acura @ 155mph.

The BMW is much better handling & has a much more precise feel in its steering.

Braking is about the same. The BMW has what ever comes on the performance pack & the Acura has Brembo high performance units.

I would expect the new 335 with more horsepower, 300hp, will be quicker then the Acura, but I am not sure what they are governed at.

VW-IceFire
07-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Interesting...

I had a peek at the BMW Canada website just to see if I was totally off base and yeah they are a fair bit more expensive than anything I could consider. I'm looking at something like a top model Honda Civic which is going to run me roughly $23,000 Canadian (before taxes and all that nasty stuff) while a BMW 3 series...the cheapest one I could find on the website...starts at $35,600 (before taxes and nasty stuff there too). Not that the 3 series doesn't look like a rocking vehicle (not that I'm trying to compare a Civic to a BMW here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but BMW parts are expensive in Canada and the reliability isn't considered superb. Maybe its the weather...

I noticed also that we only have the 6 cylinder BMW's and nothing smaller so maybe its just that we're missing the entry level and thats what makes up the difference. Canadians are pretty fuel conscious as well...not as good as Europeans but given that the Honda Civic is the #1 selling vehicle in Canada (its also made in Canada) for years on end and the Mazda3 has edged its way into #2 you can see that Canadians aren't as big on the massive SUVs as the Americans are.

Curiosity on my part. The 118 there is a beautiful car...if it were available at a semi-decent price I'd definitely look at it.

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
I would expect the new 335 with more horsepower, 300hp, will be quicker then the Acura, but I am not sure what they are governed at.

They're limted to 250 km/h (155), unfortunately. But getting there shouldn't take much time. Anyway, E90-92 is the first decent looking BMW produced since Bangle started bashing the BMWs.

Jasko76
07-10-2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting...

I had a peek at the BMW Canada website just to see if I was totally off base and yeah they are a fair bit more expensive than anything I could consider. I'm looking at something like a top model Honda Civic which is going to run me roughly $23,000 Canadian (before taxes and all that nasty stuff) while a BMW 3 series...the cheapest one I could find on the website...starts at $35,600 (before taxes and nasty stuff there too). Not that the 3 series doesn't look like a rocking vehicle (not that I'm trying to compare a Civic to a BMW here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but BMW parts are expensive in Canada and the reliability isn't considered superb. Maybe its the weather...

I noticed also that we only have the 6 cylinder BMW's and nothing smaller so maybe its just that we're missing the entry level and thats what makes up the difference. Canadians are pretty fuel conscious as well...not as good as Europeans but given that the Honda Civic is the #1 selling vehicle in Canada (its also made in Canada) for years on end and the Mazda3 has edged its way into #2 you can see that Canadians aren't as big on the massive SUVs as the Americans are.

Curiosity on my part. The 118 there is a beautiful car...if it were available at a semi-decent price I'd definitely look at it.

It's pitty you have to get on the sixes right away. But they probably want to keep the brand in the exclusive bracket, which may be false economy for BMW.
I neither like nor dislike Japanese cars, but the new Civic looks awesome, especially the Type R. And it probably goes like stink!

Scen
07-10-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
Well, yeah, they are pretty expensive, but everything depends on what you're looking for. Even as used they are regularily more expensive than other cars from the same vintage. For instance, 4-cylinder 3-series BMW is not particularily expensive here in Sweden. Add a few extras and a couple of cylinders and the price soars, ofcourse. But this is common for any brand.

As for reliability - they have some weak points (bushes!!!!), but overall, we're truly talking top quality here. My first two cars were Mazdas, and guess what? They both broke down more frequently, spares were more expensive, and they both succumbed to rust, while, for instance, my finest E30, a '89 318i was completely free from rust and NEVER broke down during the two years that I owned it. It passed all MoTs with flying colors.

Some people drive BMWs because they wish to get laid more frequently - I drive it because I just love to drive cars that are so well put together, have such fine ballance and poise and are rear wheel driven. Not to mention all the racing pedigree and technical excellence. A place where Audi wishes to be, but isn't quite yet.


Same here I love my 2004 E46 M3... Great car and for reliability it's been top notch.

Scen
07-10-2007, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
I would expect the new 335 with more horsepower, 300hp, will be quicker then the Acura, but I am not sure what they are governed at.

They're limted to 250 km/h (155), unfortunately. But getting there shouldn't take much time. Anyway, E90-92 is the first decent looking BMW produced since Bangle started bashing the BMWs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I can't stand Bangle and your right the new E90-92 is a pretty nice looking ride. I still like the looks of my E46 M3 by far. One of the best looking sports coupe IMO. It will be interesting when the new M3 hits the streets. I seen some pics and its looking like the tweaked version of the E90-92.

rauparaha
07-10-2007, 10:46 PM
What about the new fiat bambina!!??

slo_1_2_3
07-10-2007, 10:54 PM
O c'mon people a BMW?I wish I had enough money for a bmw , I wouldn't buy a bmw I just wish I had enough money too. I would get something a little more less luxery, If your gonna spend that much for a car get a car
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevelless454021107.htm
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevellessred103003.htm

Now those are cars

WOLFPLAYER2007
07-10-2007, 10:56 PM
Nice car, but i prefer the sedan model.

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES.

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Scen:
Same here I love my 2004 E46 M3... Great car and for reliability it's been top notch.

Congratulations! Is it manual or SMG? Give me a E46 CSL and I'll be in heaven! (Probabaly from crashing and dying!)

JG53Frankyboy
07-11-2007, 12:31 AM
anyway, i still think this
http://www.monotracer.com/index.php?page=movie
is one of the most interesting ways possible to be "driven" by a BMW engine nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
anyway, i still think this
http://www.monotracer.com/index.php?page=movie
is one of the most interesting ways possible to be "driven" by a BMW engine nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hey, that's cool! But at € 52˜500.- (+ local VAT) it's a bit pricey. I'd rather have an M3 for that same money.

Badsight-
07-11-2007, 02:13 AM
1980's & 1990's BMW 4 cylinders were nothing special compared to any other brand , just more expensive

could take a thrashing tho , we caned my flatmates old 318i for months & it was the gearbox that failed first

reisen52
07-11-2007, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
O c'mon people a BMW?I wish I had enough money for a bmw , I wouldn't buy a bmw I just wish I had enough money too. I would get something a little more less luxery, If your gonna spend that much for a car get a car
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevelless454021107.htm
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevellessred103003.htm

Now those are cars

To bad a $29K 4 cyl Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (EVO) RS will kick their collective butts both 0-60 & 1/4 mile.

The problem with the old supercars is they are more super in peoples memories then they were in real life.

BTW: The 350HP Chevelle would have a hard time against a new Honda Accord 6 speed (0-60-1/4mile) & the Honda will blow its doors off in top speed.

danjama
07-11-2007, 03:21 AM
Yea ill take an Evo any day over anything. My fave car hands down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

KRISTORF
07-11-2007, 03:36 AM
Don't go for the Beemer, but the sister.......................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kurfurst__
07-11-2007, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The BMW cars are very nicely designed and I can see why people love them but I could never ever think of buying one ever. I'll be probably buying a Honda or a Toyota or a Mazda likely.

Same thing here. Problem with BMWs and German cars in general is that they'll bill you for all sorts of little gimnick, and in the end you'll end up at least 50% higher price tag in any comparable, and just as good quality Japanese car... I've peeked into an Audi saloon, checking out one their comparable small, compact A3s (personally hate Audi's design btw, just having been curious.) The story is always the same. For the base price, you get a car with a nice engine, a steering wheel, four seats and four wheels with it, plus a the logo of some prestigious German car manufacturer on the hood. Everything else is 1000 Euro extra, each. Ridiculus.

I guess their production methods which are a bit stupid imho. You can get the same basic chassis in at least 4 different shapes, and for each you can pick an 1.4, and 1.5, and 1.8, and 2.0, a 2.2, a 2.5 engine and so on, mulitply it with 2 because they have at least two variations for each engine with or without some 4-letter abbrevation standing for common-rail, injected, turbo-boosted, compressor boosted tech.

Makes no sense at all in far too many cases, after all, what the HECK justifies an 1.8 vs. an 2.0 engine on the palette?! It just means the development and production costs, which of course you'll have to pay in the end.

The-Pizza-Man
07-11-2007, 05:55 AM
Thats why you only buy the M's, very few options, excellent performance, excellent reliability. Compared to other similar cars they aren't exceptionally priced.

I love the Z4 M coupe, even if it is a bit impractical. I figure I'll buy it or a new M3 in 3 years time instead of a house.

Blutarski2004
07-11-2007, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Thats why you only buy the M's, very few options, excellent performance, excellent reliability. Compared to other similar cars they aren't exceptionally priced.

I love the Z4 M coupe, even if it is a bit impractical. I figure I'll buy it or a new M3 in 3 years time instead of a house.


..... I've owned four BMW's - 1968 1600, 1973 Bavaria, 1987 535is, and 1992 M5. Great cars all. Still driving the M5 as my everyday ride (144k miles on the odometer)

That having been said, I would NOT buy a new BMW (here in the USA). Reasons? highly over-priced in comparison to their competition, too much in the way of needless electronics, Chris Bangle.

Jagdgeschwader2
07-11-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Thats why you only buy the M's, very few options, excellent performance, excellent reliability. Compared to other similar cars they aren't exceptionally priced.

I love the Z4 M coupe, even if it is a bit impractical. I figure I'll buy it or a new M3 in 3 years time instead of a house.



I am at the moment debating on whether to buy a BMW instead of a house. Interesting.... Being a single man I figured I would enjoy myself for a while longer. However I think it would be much wiser to go for the house. Or maybe I could get one of the cheaper 328I's and have both. Decisions decisions. I wish this thread had not come up. The house is the way to go,but it's so tempting.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s3.jpg

The-Pizza-Man
07-11-2007, 06:18 AM
HUDs are cool though!! Seriously though, I'll have to look more closely at that when the time comes. I might be forced to buy an SLK 55 instead.

I love the styling on the Z4 and the 3 series. The 5 is ok but I don't like the 7.

Blutarski2004
07-11-2007, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Jagdgeschwader2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Thats why you only buy the M's, very few options, excellent performance, excellent reliability. Compared to other similar cars they aren't exceptionally priced.

I love the Z4 M coupe, even if it is a bit impractical. I figure I'll buy it or a new M3 in 3 years time instead of a house.



I am at the moment debating on whether to buy a BMW instead of a house. Interesting.... Being a single man I figured I would enjoy myself for a while longer. However I think it would be much wiser to go for the house. Or maybe I could get one of the cheaper 328I's and have both. Decisions decisions. I wish this thread had not come up. The house is the way to go,but it's so tempting.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... HOUSE!

Jagdgeschwader2
07-11-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jagdgeschwader2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Thats why you only buy the M's, very few options, excellent performance, excellent reliability. Compared to other similar cars they aren't exceptionally priced.

I love the Z4 M coupe, even if it is a bit impractical. I figure I'll buy it or a new M3 in 3 years time instead of a house.



I am at the moment debating on whether to buy a BMW instead of a house. Interesting.... Being a single man I figured I would enjoy myself for a while longer. However I think it would be much wiser to go for the house. Or maybe I could get one of the cheaper 328I's and have both. Decisions decisions. I wish this thread had not come up. The house is the way to go,but it's so tempting.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... HOUSE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Darn! I knew someone would come along and talk some sense into me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s3.jpg

Da_Godfatha
07-11-2007, 06:38 AM
Bavarian PoS..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif J/K !

You want a good German car.... buy a Mercedes. That is style and comfort. I bought my wife one and she never lets anyone drive it. And as it goes, when my youngest daughter was finished with the Uni.... guess what.... she wanted one too ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Thank goodness my sons and I drive Fords !

Oh, BTW, in Southern Germany they have a saying, "People who drive such cars....don't need to worry about gas prices!"

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 06:41 AM
Mercedes is for grannies with hats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Da_Godfatha
07-11-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Mercedes is for grannies with hats http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Well, she is a Grandmother... and likes to wear hats too.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 07:10 AM
Ha, stereotype confirmed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Dtools4fools
07-11-2007, 08:53 AM
Wonder if they ever will shot that designer working for BMW?
If it would be up to me firing squad would wait form him tomorrow morning 6am...
What an ugly car (at least on the outside).

Sister is pretty however.
****

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 08:55 AM
Well, an ugly car with a beautiful sister is better than vice-versa, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Hkuusela
07-11-2007, 09:16 AM
Guys, guys, let's not bring reason into the discussion. Buying a car is not a matter of reason, but a matter of emotion. If you like a Japanese car, go and get one. I've driven some Japanese and Swedish cars and none of them give ME the same feeling as the BMW. I like the design of the E46 and the feel of quality. And when I'm behind the wheel my d**k gains an inch or two, which is nice too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Is it childish and stupid? You bet, but I'm willing to risk it. If it works for you, go with it!

LStarosta
07-11-2007, 09:20 AM
Wow what a bunch of c*ckless snobs....

mortoma
07-11-2007, 09:25 AM
How much does one of those run in USD?? Not that I'd buy one, but just wondering. German cars are alright but the only thing I don't like is the electrics, same for Italian and British. I have owned or have had heavy use of cars from those countries and I got tired of electrical problems.

This is not as bad for Japanese cars. Actually Japanese cars are superb in this category because they got good at electronics/electrics a long time ago. US cars are kind of in between. Electric reliability is just as important for me as mechanical. Something to do with the fact that I've spent a good deal of my life as an electrician/electronic technician?

Looks and performance are not so important to me as I don't buy cars to impress myself, others or to show off in general. I have known people all my life who have had fancy cars and I swear many of them own them for no other reason than to emphatically and snobishly state, "Look at what I have and you don't."

I buy cars strictly for utilitarian purposes, practicality and foremost reliability. Gas mileage is also huge on my list. This might be boring, but my Honda Civic has happily cruised by many other cars of many nationalities that were stranded off the side of the highway. This includes BMW too.

I'm not unpatriotic but I refuse to buy American built autos any more and it's the manufacturers fault. Many have told me to go out and buy American just to support our economy. But simply to go out and buy a car for that reason alone does not give the American manufacturer any incentive to improve their product. I think they are finally seeing the truth though, that they have to improve reliability and economy. If they can make something comparable to my present car, maybe I'll switch back.

I don't expect makers like BMW to improve economy because their niche buyers are generally well-to-do and don't care about mileage so much. But I hope they improve their electrics!!!

LStarosta
07-11-2007, 09:28 AM
Actually, "American" cars are the ones that are made overseas, and more and more "Jap cars" are being made in the U.S. by American workers.

Next time someone tells you to buy American, tell them to do the same.

Hkuusela
07-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Wow what a bunch of c*ckless snobs.... That's one way of looking at it. You usually hear that from guys with bus passes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ploughman
07-11-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, an ugly car with a beautiful sister is better than vice-versa, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

What use is a beautiful sister? Now an ugly car, you can go places in an ugly car.

MEGILE
07-11-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:


What use is a beautiful sister?

Lots, if she isn't yours. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Preferebly your best friend's

Bremspropeller
07-11-2007, 11:29 AM
+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
O c'mon people a BMW?I wish I had enough money for a bmw , I wouldn't buy a bmw I just wish I had enough money too. I would get something a little more less luxery, If your gonna spend that much for a car get a car
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevelless454021107.htm
http://www.americandreamcars.com/1970chevellessred103003.htm

Now those are cars

To bad a $29K 4 cyl Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (EVO) RS will kick their collective butts both 0-60 & 1/4 mile.

The problem with the old supercars is they are more super in peoples memories then they were in real life.

BTW: The 350HP Chevelle would have a hard time against a new Honda Accord 6 speed (0-60-1/4mile) & the Honda will blow its doors o http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ff in top speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just don't like little cars like that at all, and they are entirely way too expensive in my opinion,but for me I like the sound and look of a car , you can't beat the rumble of a big block V8,I just can't stand the sound of those humming little engines.And I'm not real concerned about top speed and all that junk cause do I realy need to be able to go 200 mph? But realy my favorite car is 1971 chevelle ss with 454 V8 pumping out 450 horsepower http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and second would have to be a 70-72 el camino ,the useful muscle car http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi. As an owner of a car strikingly similar to a 1970 Chevelle (my car, a 1970 Buick GS455, uses the same frame and suspension), I can tell you first hand, after almost twenty years of ownership about these cars. I have raced, run, commuted, and yes, crashed these cars

"They are inefficinet"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My 1970 GS455 gets about 12 MPG- because I built it that way. I can tack another 8 or 9 mpg onto that by getting a dedicated, purpose-built, available, and high quality fuel injection manifold and throttle body. That would be 20 or 21 MPG from a 7.5 liter engine. The catch is it costs 4700 dollars. Hot rod magazines hwere have plans that will allow you to build V8s that get good milegae, and still perform. It's the combo. Final gear ratio, and transmission choice are just as much of the story as raw engine size. Overdrive transmissions are available that also increase MPG. And of course with all steel bodies, these cars weih about 3700 pounds with some options, in sedan form. You can get rid of 300 pounds easy by going fiberglass for the front end, and less weight equals more MPG. But as far as efficiency goes, it's really hard to blame a car designed in 1969 for not getting what is considered good gas mileage today

"They are dinosaurs"

Well, not really. Old yes, but I saw a 1940 Ford DeLuxe on the road Sunday night

"They can't handle"

This is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who came up with this rubbish, but it is a general misconception. When the cars were new, they were fair to good handlers, except when compared to sportscars. Incidentally, my brand and make was considered a very good handler, as were the 442s, mostly because although they had huge engines, the engines weighed little more than some of the 350s (5.7Ls) of the day. Today, in the 21st century, I can make that Chevelle out-handle a new BMW. You see, technology didn;t stand still at 1970 for these cars. Today's tech applies to them , and I can change any suspension or steering geomtery you like on that 1970 Chevelle. I can also knock the weight down on that car by over 500 pounds without blinking an eye, to around 3200 or 3300 pounds, and by using aluminum engine components, I can get the LS6 454 (The Big Bad Chevelle engine, at 454 cubic inches) down by 150 or 200 pounds as well. Engine tech also didn;t stand still at 1970. Throttle steer is also a nice thing, when you have some torque to play with that the CPU of the car won't prohibit you from using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But many new car owners have no idea what steering with the throttle even is, let alone how to do it. fast ratio steering boxes for these cars are also available, which helps handling. But thee cars were never F1 cars after all; they were not built to rival sports car handling. I however have never been in any situation, from 2 mph to 120 mph, in which my car lacked handling sufficient to the task. After 120 I found the steering quite light- but the car wasn't responding with what I'd call "alacrity" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. The brakes by contemporary standards are good; my 4 wheel drum brakes in my 1970 Buick will crack your head on the windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The discs offered on the same year had less surface area, and offered less fade. But if you know how to brake these cars, and you can tell what fade is and when it's happening, there is zero wrong with these brakes. if you like bigger and better brakes, brake tech aslo has not stood still, and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money

"They seldom go more than 200 km/h"

Ever been in one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have had my car up to some speed well off of the 120 mph speedo (200 kmh is 125 mph). Top speed is a question of gearing and aerodynamics...although the 1970 Chevelle is not a slippery design, cars of the era could top 200 kmh...and today, at tracks across the USA, cars in the FAST class (Factory Appearing Stock Tire- this means it looks stock, inside and out, and uses fibreglass bias tires) actually are having trouble, because track rules say anything over a certain speed needs a rollcage- and these 100% stock looking cars exceeed the speeds- but to modify the car disqualifies them from FAST races!

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. They were re-bodied Ford Falcons for several years, BTW. To make a legitimate (and safer) performance car, Ford made the "Hi-Po" Mustang, which made many chnages to the cars. Frankly, many early Mustangs were built like sh*t. I may offend people with that, but it's the facts. I've looked at may when I was looking to buy, and they are not well made. I really wanted a '67 fastback but they came in two flavors: perfect restos at 20,000 dollars, or complete chunks of sh*t at 5,000. Conversely, when I took apart my 1970's engine in 1998, I broke exactly two bolts- both exhaust manifold bolts. The engine had never been apart. I still have some original brake lines (from the master cylinder), and I have put over 200,000 miles on this car personally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. My Buick was a well made car, every first and second generation Mustang I saw was either made into a well made car by the owner, or it was a POS. That's my observation

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did

But anyway, you share the common misconceptions about these cars that many Americans have. Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Airmail109
07-11-2007, 03:41 PM
Im currently saving up for a Ducati Sport Classic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I cant wait until its all mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.ducati.ms/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9540

Scen
07-11-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Same here I love my 2004 E46 M3... Great car and for reliability it's been top notch.

Congratulations! Is it manual or SMG? Give me a E46 CSL and I'll be in heaven! (Probabaly from crashing and dying!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CSLs are really nice and I will probable make the move to one next year as I wait for the new M3 to go through it's teething in the first year.

My current M3 is a manual which I preffer but it looks like they finally got the SMG stuff worked out. All the new Ms are SMG only because of the 7 gears.

Scen
07-11-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, an ugly car with a beautiful sister is better than vice-versa, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

What use is a beautiful sister? Now an ugly car, you can go places in an ugly car. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple Answer to your question... Her Hot Friends!

Airmail109
07-11-2007, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, an ugly car with a beautiful sister is better than vice-versa, huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

What use is a beautiful sister? Now an ugly car, you can go places in an ugly car. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple Answer to your question... Her Hot Friends! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No man you got it all wrong.

Hot sisters have ugly friends, it makes them feel better. They go out and they surround themselves with an impenetrable wall of fat chicks, theyre equivilent of ex-cia body guards.

WOLFPLAYER2007
07-11-2007, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns...

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way.

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns..

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>the first part yes, the second part about beauty, no

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi. As an owner of a car strikingly similar to a 1970 Chevelle (my car, a 1970 Buick GS455, uses the same frame and suspension), I can tell you first hand, after almost twenty years of ownership about these cars. I have raced, run, commuted, and yes, crashed these cars

"They are inefficinet"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My 1970 GS455 gets about 12 MPG- because I built it that way. I can tack another 8 or 9 mpg onto that by getting a dedicated, purpose-built, available, and high quality fuel injection manifold and throttle body. That would be 20 or 21 MPG from a 7.5 liter engine. The catch is it costs 4700 dollars. Hot rod magazines hwere have plans that will allow you to build V8s that get good milegae, and still perform. It's the combo. Final gear ratio, and transmission choice are just as much of the story as raw engine size. Overdrive transmissions are available that also increase MPG. And of course with all steel bodies, these cars weih about 3700 pounds with some options, in sedan form. You can get rid of 300 pounds easy by going fiberglass for the front end, and less weight equals more MPG. But as far as efficiency goes, it's really hard to blame a car designed in 1969 for not getting what is considered good gas mileage today

"They are dinosaurs"

Well, not really. Old yes, but I saw a 1940 Ford DeLuxe on the road Sunday night

"They can't handle"

This is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who came up with this rubbish, but it is a general misconception. When the cars were new, they were fair to good handlers, except when compared to sportscars. Incidentally, my brand and make was considered a very good handler, as were the 442s, mostly because although they had huge engines, the engines weighed little more than some of the 350s (5.7Ls) of the day. Today, in the 21st century, I can make that Chevelle out-handle a new BMW. You see, technology didn;t stand still at 1970 for these cars. Today's tech applies to them , and I can change any suspension or steering geomtery you like on that 1970 Chevelle. I can also knock the weight down on that car by over 500 pounds without blinking an eye, to around 3200 or 3300 pounds, and by using aluminum engine components, I can get the LS6 454 (The Big Bad Chevelle engine, at 454 cubic inches) down by 150 or 200 pounds as well. Engine tech also didn;t stand still at 1970. Throttle steer is also a nice thing, when you have some torque to play with that the CPU of the car won't prohibit you from using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But many new car owners have no idea what steering with the throttle even is, let alone how to do it. fast ratio steering boxes for these cars are also available, which helps handling. But thee cars were never F1 cars after all; they were not built to rival sports car handling. I however have never been in any situation, from 2 mph to 120 mph, in which my car lacked handling sufficient to the task. After 120 I found the steering quite light- but the car wasn't responding with what I'd call "alacrity" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. The brakes by contemporary standards are good; my 4 wheel drum brakes in my 1970 Buick will crack your head on the windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The discs offered on the same year had less surface area, and offered less fade. But if you know how to brake these cars, and you can tell what fade is and when it's happening, there is zero wrong with these brakes. if you like bigger and better brakes, brake tech aslo has not stood still, and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money

"They seldom go more than 200 km/h"

Ever been in one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have had my car up to some speed well off of the 120 mph speedo (200 kmh is 125 mph). Top speed is a question of gearing and aerodynamics...although the 1970 Chevelle is not a slippery design, cars of the era could top 200 kmh...and today, at tracks across the USA, cars in the FAST class (Factory Appearing Stock Tire- this means it looks stock, inside and out, and uses fibreglass bias tires) actually are having trouble, because track rules say anything over a certain speed needs a rollcage- and these 100% stock looking cars exceeed the speeds- but to modify the car disqualifies them from FAST races!

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. They were re-bodied Ford Falcons for several years, BTW. To make a legitimate (and safer) performance car, Ford made the "Hi-Po" Mustang, which made many chnages to the cars. Frankly, many early Mustangs were built like sh*t. I may offend people with that, but it's the facts. I've looked at may when I was looking to buy, and they are not well made. I really wanted a '67 fastback but they came in two flavors: perfect restos at 20,000 dollars, or complete chunks of sh*t at 5,000. Conversely, when I took apart my 1970's engine in 1998, I broke exactly two bolts- both exhaust manifold bolts. The engine had never been apart. I still have some original brake lines (from the master cylinder), and I have put over 200,000 miles on this car personally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. My Buick was a well made car, every first and second generation Mustang I saw was either made into a well made car by the owner, or it was a POS. That's my observation

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did

But anyway, you share the common misconceptions about these cars that many Americans have. Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I like you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Scen
07-11-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns...

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that... Yes most guys drive in a straight line and yes a V8 is pretty much the king however I can certainly give any V8 a real tough time with my tiny 3.2 liter straight six. Add corners and I can leave most Monsters in the dust. 50/50 weight rules the corners.

V8 owns? Try V10s in the M5 and M6 and the new M3 will finally get a V8. The HP war has been on for the last 5 years despite all this hybrid stuff. M6s and M5s are killing cars 2 times their price and with a lot of luxury as well. Much nicer cars than anything American IMO. American muscle cars appeal to a completely different segment.

Sorry but the American stuff is for kids. They lack refinement in almost every way. Just sticking in a big fat motor and driving in a straight isn't going to earn points in my book.

In terms of looks and comfort I can assure you 120 mph in my M3 is almost the same as 65 mph.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2007, 05:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, it takes nothing but money to buy a new car that handles well and goes like stink from the factory

If stripping an engine block down, building it with your own two hands from component parts, degreeing your own cams, gasket matching your manifolds, tuning your own carbs, rewiring cars front to back, re-upholstering seats with new covers using hog rings and pliers, welding in your own floors and trunk pans, and putting on your own convertible tops after digging up all the old books, service bulletins and documentation and then tracking down hard to find parts for years is "kid stuff", then yes, I suppose "kids" do that all day long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


But it would seem to me that all of that stuff takes rather more effort than writing a check for a car payment every month. It is amusing to read that engine building is "for kids".

The attention to detail necessary for a restoration is not "for kids" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif On the other hand, any kid can write a check http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/eng2-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01920-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/eng4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01924.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01926.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01930-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/passsidefinish1-1.jpg

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns...

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way.

And who cares about drag races and street racing? At least the second is immature and very dangerous if done on ordinary streets. Drag races really tell you nothing about a car's true performance. I value the "Ring time" more than any 0-60 and 1/4 mile time. Or as Collin Chapman put it - How fast you can go in a straight line is not important. It's how fast you can go through a corner - or something similar...

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 05:49 PM
Posted only yesterday and already 5 pages. This place reminds me of work with a good looking woman from HR walks down the isle. Sharp little car by the way.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-11-2007, 05:51 PM
If you want performance without putting up your house get yourself an R1 or ZX-10. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its what I did.

DustyBarrels77
07-11-2007, 05:53 PM
cute sister, ugly *** car and doesnt qualify as a bmw in my book, good color tho. only the M series beemers do.. rest get out perfomed by kia hydia honda mazda toyota subaru minicooper etc... But thats what happens when ford owns bmw and jaguar, then crystler owns mercedez for a couple years now.

Blutarski2004
07-11-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Sorry but the American stuff is for kids. They lack refinement in almost every way. Just sticking in a big fat motor and driving in a straight isn't going to earn points in my book.



..... I have spent most of my adult life happily owning and driving (four) BMW's. I'm presently driving a 92 M5 - great car - so I think I can speak without bias on this topic. You might want to take a closer look at what has been going on in the US automotive industry over the past five years or so. Compare the 2007 Cadillac STS-V with the 2007 BMW M5. I think you'll be quite surprised.

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi. As an owner of a car strikingly similar to a 1970 Chevelle (my car, a 1970 Buick GS455, uses the same frame and suspension), I can tell you first hand, after almost twenty years of ownership about these cars. I have raced, run, commuted, and yes, crashed these cars

"They are inefficinet"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My 1970 GS455 gets about 12 MPG- because I built it that way. I can tack another 8 or 9 mpg onto that by getting a dedicated, purpose-built, available, and high quality fuel injection manifold and throttle body. That would be 20 or 21 MPG from a 7.5 liter engine. The catch is it costs 4700 dollars. Hot rod magazines hwere have plans that will allow you to build V8s that get good milegae, and still perform. It's the combo. Final gear ratio, and transmission choice are just as much of the story as raw engine size. Overdrive transmissions are available that also increase MPG. And of course with all steel bodies, these cars weih about 3700 pounds with some options, in sedan form. You can get rid of 300 pounds easy by going fiberglass for the front end, and less weight equals more MPG. But as far as efficiency goes, it's really hard to blame a car designed in 1969 for not getting what is considered good gas mileage today

"They are dinosaurs"

Well, not really. Old yes, but I saw a 1940 Ford DeLuxe on the road Sunday night

"They can't handle"

This is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who came up with this rubbish, but it is a general misconception. When the cars were new, they were fair to good handlers, except when compared to sportscars. Incidentally, my brand and make was considered a very good handler, as were the 442s, mostly because although they had huge engines, the engines weighed little more than some of the 350s (5.7Ls) of the day. Today, in the 21st century, I can make that Chevelle out-handle a new BMW. You see, technology didn;t stand still at 1970 for these cars. Today's tech applies to them , and I can change any suspension or steering geomtery you like on that 1970 Chevelle. I can also knock the weight down on that car by over 500 pounds without blinking an eye, to around 3200 or 3300 pounds, and by using aluminum engine components, I can get the LS6 454 (The Big Bad Chevelle engine, at 454 cubic inches) down by 150 or 200 pounds as well. Engine tech also didn;t stand still at 1970. Throttle steer is also a nice thing, when you have some torque to play with that the CPU of the car won't prohibit you from using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But many new car owners have no idea what steering with the throttle even is, let alone how to do it. fast ratio steering boxes for these cars are also available, which helps handling. But thee cars were never F1 cars after all; they were not built to rival sports car handling. I however have never been in any situation, from 2 mph to 120 mph, in which my car lacked handling sufficient to the task. After 120 I found the steering quite light- but the car wasn't responding with what I'd call "alacrity" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. The brakes by contemporary standards are good; my 4 wheel drum brakes in my 1970 Buick will crack your head on the windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The discs offered on the same year had less surface area, and offered less fade. But if you know how to brake these cars, and you can tell what fade is and when it's happening, there is zero wrong with these brakes. if you like bigger and better brakes, brake tech aslo has not stood still, and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money

"They seldom go more than 200 km/h"

Ever been in one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have had my car up to some speed well off of the 120 mph speedo (200 kmh is 125 mph). Top speed is a question of gearing and aerodynamics...although the 1970 Chevelle is not a slippery design, cars of the era could top 200 kmh...and today, at tracks across the USA, cars in the FAST class (Factory Appearing Stock Tire- this means it looks stock, inside and out, and uses fibreglass bias tires) actually are having trouble, because track rules say anything over a certain speed needs a rollcage- and these 100% stock looking cars exceeed the speeds- but to modify the car disqualifies them from FAST races!

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. They were re-bodied Ford Falcons for several years, BTW. To make a legitimate (and safer) performance car, Ford made the "Hi-Po" Mustang, which made many chnages to the cars. Frankly, many early Mustangs were built like sh*t. I may offend people with that, but it's the facts. I've looked at may when I was looking to buy, and they are not well made. I really wanted a '67 fastback but they came in two flavors: perfect restos at 20,000 dollars, or complete chunks of sh*t at 5,000. Conversely, when I took apart my 1970's engine in 1998, I broke exactly two bolts- both exhaust manifold bolts. The engine had never been apart. I still have some original brake lines (from the master cylinder), and I have put over 200,000 miles on this car personally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. My Buick was a well made car, every first and second generation Mustang I saw was either made into a well made car by the owner, or it was a POS. That's my observation

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did

But anyway, you share the common misconceptions about these cars that many Americans have. Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Great reply! I love it. You love your car and are passionate about it and as long as you are happy, so am I! Any guy that tears down his car, restore it and puts it back together is worthy of respect.

I have to reply to some of the things, though:

You say you can make that Chevelle outhandle a new BMW. Even with the mods and weight loss you've described, that seems kinda difficult. But then again, apply that much work on a new BMW and you'll still ouetperform that Chevelle.

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. - Actually, Top Gear tested a 1969 Charger and used that expression, so it kind of stuck on me.

"and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA" - Fine. BMW brakes can also be improved.

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money - Once again you're talking of modified cars. I'm talking stock stuff.

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist Smile There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. - My mistake. I was thinking of Fastbacks. My "dream" Mustang would be a 1967 GT Fastback, "Hi-Po" K-code 289 with 271 HP, preferably with kit giving some 305 hp.

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did. - No, early 70-73 T/As had no WS6 handling kit, I'm merely attracted by the cleanliness of their design and musclular appearance. I'd like a white one with single blue stripe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And finally: Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things. - I'd love to, at least for a day. But fuel prices are much too inhumane here in Sweden. And insurance costs would probably kill my economy. Plus, the spares are not that readily available over here. Anything can be bought, but it takes time and effort.

Have a nice day, and enjoy your Musclecar! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFPLAYER2007
07-11-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns...

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that... Yes most guys drive in a straight line and yes a V8 is pretty much the king however I can certainly give any V8 a real tough time with my tiny 3.2 liter straight six. Add corners and I can leave most Monsters in the dust. 50/50 weight rules the corners.

V8 owns? Try V10s in the M5 and M6 and the new M3 will finally get a V8. The HP war has been on for the last 5 years despite all this hybrid stuff. M6s and M5s are killing cars 2 times their price and with a lot of luxury as well. Much nicer cars than anything American IMO. American muscle cars appeal to a completely different segment.

Sorry but the American stuff is for kids. They lack refinement in almost every way. Just sticking in a big fat motor and driving in a straight isn't going to earn points in my book.

In terms of looks and comfort I can assure you 120 mph in my M3 is almost the same as 65 mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

V8s owns in any possible way V10s in acceleration and torque, just type Corvette Z06 vs Lamborghini Gallardo in you tube and see, remember that Lambos are v12s with that awful fly buzzing sound.

M6s and M5s?? i would like to see them against the New Camaro concept, its a muscle car that behaves more likely a tuner.

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
cute sister, ugly *** car and doesnt qualify as a bmw in my book, good color tho. only the M series beemers do.. rest get out perfomed by kia hydia honda mazda toyota subaru minicooper etc... But thats what happens when ford owns bmw and jaguar, then crystler owns mercedez for a couple years now.

Err... you don't know much about cars, do you? According to you, only M-cars are true BMWs, so the rest of the model lineup can be disposed off? Then I'd like to see that KIA than can outperform any BMW other than an M-car.

Ford most definitely DOESN'T own BMW! Thank God for that! And "Crystler" - you must mean Chrysler, doesn't own Mercedes-Benz. They're more like... partners.

Jasko76
07-11-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:

V8s owns in any possible way V10s in acceleration and torque, just type Corvette Z06 vs Lamborghini Gallardo in you tube and see, remember that Lambos are v12s with that awful fly buzzing sound.

M6s and M5s?? i would like to see them against the New Camaro concept, its a muscle car that behaves more likely a tuner.

Gallardo is powered by a V10, not a V12.
Awful buzzing sound? That's a new way to describe an Italian thoroughbred engine sound.

And finally - have you ever driven an M5 or M6? Much less the Camaro concept...

reisen52
07-11-2007, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No point in chewing up half a page repeating what you said but having been there in the very beginning, having done that, along with having the tee-shirt I will disagree with you.

I was very active at Englishtown Raceway Park back then driving local dealer sponsored cars

My first muscle car, although the term Muscle Car did you exist yet, was a 409/409 62 Chevy Impala SS the list then runs on to:

64 Pontiac Catalina 421 Super Duty
66 GTO Ram Air tri-power.
69 Firebird 400 Ram Air IV

The gas mileage sucked but it did not matter because gas was 20 cents a gallon for the highest octane leaded gas available.

The brakes sucked & even the optional sintered metallic ones offered as an option on the high performance cars were horrors till they warmed up. Yeah they were better then the stock US cars but the stock cars sucked so bad that no big endorsement.

The handling sucked because the cars were monumentally nose heavy, the suspensions were primitive & the tires like the Firestone red line wide ovals were **** & the Tiger Paws were history in 10,000 miles on the street. None of these cars could get good times on street tires as they quickly overpowered them.

As for you can get mileage by doing this or changing the handling by adding that you are putting in modern parts that did not exist in the 60's so its no proof of concept.

You can make a 33 ford go, stop & turn very well with modern parts, I have. I have also done it with my '67 Corvette Coupe with a 502/502 crate motor, modern manual trans, updated with a composite rear spring, updated brakes & running modern tires.

The thing is these cars after the modern parts are put in have no resemblance at all to what I drove off the new car dealers, or in the Vettes case my brother in law, lot way back then.

Today, off the showroom floor, most mom & pop V6 6 speeds will mop the floor with the old, off the showroom floor condition, Muscle Cars.

IMHO the pick of the litter for a US modern super car is the Corvette Z06. Runs, turns, stops, excellent mileage & can be driven as a daily drive without a plug change for 100,000 miles.

Very serious 0-60 & quater mile times as well as a close to 200mph top speed right after you break it in. No I cudda done this I shudda done that just get in & drive.

Second best is the Standard Vette with the Z-51 package.

Best bang for the buck Mustang GT coupe.

Thing I would personaly like to try next is the Miata V-8 conversion they are featuring on Gearz. Its the Shelby Cobra take II, should be great fun to build & drive.

reisen52
07-11-2007, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:M6s and M5s?? i would like to see them against the New Camaro concept.

I don't really think you would want to do that.

If you use the 2007 Corvette Z06 as a base one of the BMW's has 5 less horsepower the other 5 more.

Blutarski2004
07-11-2007, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
My first muscle car, although the term Muscle Car did you exist yet, was a 409/409 62 Chevy Impala SS the list then runs on to:

64 Pontiac Catalina 421 Super Duty
66 GTO Ram Air tri-power.
69 Firebird 400 Ram Air IV



..... Whoa! 421 SD Catalina. You were DEFINITELY on the front edge of the curve. Classic times - real racing, before the grossly big money (IMO) destroyed the sport.

If you have any photos from that time, PLEASE post a few of them.

S!

VW-IceFire
07-11-2007, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
Ford most definitely DOESN'T own BMW! Thank God for that! And "Crystler" - you must mean Chrysler, doesn't own Mercedes-Benz. They're more like... partners.
Not any more...Mercedes-Benz spun Chrysler off to Cerberus which is an investment group. So they are back in strictly American hands now...Mercedes-Benz was bad for them and Chrysler was bad for Mercedes.

XyZspineZyX
07-11-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No point in chewing up half a page repeating what you said but having been there in the very beginning, having done that, along with having the tee-shirt I will disagree with you.

I was very active at Englishtown Raceway Park back then driving local dealer sponsored cars

My first muscle car, although the term Muscle Car did you exist yet, was a 409/409 62 Chevy Impala SS the list then runs on to:

64 Pontiac Catalina 421 Super Duty
66 GTO Ram Air tri-power.
69 Firebird 400 Ram Air IV

The gas mileage sucked but it did not matter because gas was 20 cents a gallon for the highest octane leaded gas available.

The brakes sucked & even the optional sintered metallic ones offered as an option on the high performance cars were horrors till they warmed up. Yeah they were better then the stock US cars but the stock cars sucked so bad that no big endorsement.

The handling sucked because the cars were monumentally nose heavy, the suspensions were primitive & the tires like the Firestone red line wide ovals were **** & the Tiger Paws were history in 10,000 miles on the street. None of these cars could get good times on street tires as they quickly overpowered them.

As for you can get mileage by doing this or changing the handling by adding that you are putting in modern parts that did not exist in the 60's so its no proof of concept.

You can make a 33 ford go, stop & turn very well with modern parts, I have. I have also done it with my '67 Corvette Coupe with a 502/502 crate motor, modern manual trans, updated with a composite rear spring, updated brakes & running modern tires.

The thing is these cars after the modern parts are put in have no resemblance at all to what I drove off the new car dealers, or in the Vettes case my brother in law, lot way back then.

Today, off the showroom floor, most mom & pop V6 6 speeds will mop the floor with the old, off the showroom floor condition, Muscle Cars.

IMHO the pick of the litter for a US modern super car is the Corvette Z06. Runs, turns, stops, excellent mileage & can be driven as a daily drive without a plug change for 100,000 miles.

Very serious 0-60 & quater mile times as well as a close to 200mph top speed right after you break it in. No I cudda done this I shudda done that just get in & drive.

Second best is the Standard Vette with the Z-51 package.

Best bang for the buck Mustang GT coupe.

Thing I would personaly like to try next is the Miata V-8 conversion they are featuring on Gearz. Its the Shelby Cobra take II, should be great fun to build & drive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can disagree all you like, but you are comparing apples and oranges, and you're also taking what I'm saying and changing it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif New Vettes versus Chevies with truck engines (the 409 was based on one, and was hard to modify, if the Beach Boys hadn't wrote a song about it, it would never be so fondly remembered, and wasn't it replaced by an smaller and more powerful engine within 18 months?) is not exactly my idea of a fair comparison. In addition, the GTO was a "fast car"- when racing other GTOs of that era. They were Stones. Remember them? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you had the 421 Cat and the RA IV Firebird, then you can't recall that Goat as "fast!". You drove cars with big heavy engines...you didn't have to. You could have had aluminum block 427s, or 616 lb 455s if you chose to. Today those engiens weight even less. My 462 weighs about 570 pounds with an iron block

You are taking yesteryear and comparing it to today; I am not. I advocate taking the old cars and using some degree of new tech, not trying to say that "old muscle beats all". Take a good look at what's being done with these cars today

You seem to be confusing what I'msaying with the standpoint of "yesterday's cars were better and faster"

I haven't said that at all. I have said that if you take, for example, a 1970 Chevelle, and give it the benefit of the last 30 years worth of wisdom and technology, that it will rival new cars in speed, acceleration, handling, and braking

And it is true. Whenever I have this discussion with people, they very much want my standpoint to be:

"Old is better than new".

Often they refuse to accept that that statement is NOT my standpoint. Some even try to tell me that old cars cannot benefit from simple modifications such as better suspension geometry, urethane bushings or bearings in the suspension, bigger brakes, and modern discs- let alone X pipes and OD transmissions

But that is not my standpoint at all, if you read my comments. When compared to the vehicles that were around when the old cars were new, they were not comparitively inefficient. Have ytou forgotten that 20 MPG was very very good MPG back then? The didn't brake poorly at the time. Have you forgotten what manual drums were like in that 409?

How much dough is a new gee-whiz car? 60K? Take a 10,000 dollar plain jane '67 Chevelle, or better yet, a '69 Camaro project, and pump 50K into it. You'll have your braking, handling, acceleration, and if you build it right, respectable mileage. It's being done, this is no fairy tale http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am in no way saying that old muscle cars are better than new cars if you take both at stock trim. Please read my prior posts again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mercedes had automotive fuel injection in the '50s- and so did Chevy and Ford. I don't know what you're getting at with the "proof of concept" thing, but I don't care if tuned port injection wasn't available in a 1970 Chevelle. What stops me from doing it right now? I am talking real-world, what's possible right this minute, not what you could and couldn't do in 1970. You really have misunderstood almost everything I posted

But for old cars with old tech versus other old cars with old tech, I would take an original GT40 MKII with a 289 and up against your Cobra any day. They were and are street legal in Le Mans trim and had 20 gallon tanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MrMojok
07-11-2007, 08:15 PM
May we have more pics of the sister, please?

reisen52
07-11-2007, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:I haven't said that at all. I have said that if you take, for example, a 1970 Chevelle, and give it the benefit of the last 30 years worth of wisdom and technology, that it will rival new cars in speed, acceleration, handling, and braking

And what I am saying is after you are all done you will still have a 37 year old car, with a pile of new parts (that has just killed its value) which costs more then a new one, does not perform as well as a new one, with seams that don't match, poor interiors made out of cheep plastic, bondo in the doors & AM radios. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The case could have been made for this a good number of years ago when the smog era was in full swing but since then Muscle Car speculation has pushed the base price of the units up so much that the total investment when compared to a new car of equal cost leaves the muscles very flabby.

Beside every non stock part you add subtracts from the cars value so you are actually paying money to make the car worth less money then when you started out. Not a good plan when a restored to stock version can go for 80+ large.

Also there are way to many counterfeits out there with guys putting reproduction sheet metal & rebuilt engines on base versions of the car to create a muscle car.

They are nice "look at me machines" for cruise night but even with modern upgrades they are to big, to heavy, to unbalanced to be taken seriously as total performance cars. Play listen to the exhaust rumble, lay a little rubber, but be very careful when the road turns.

Basically they have one note to play, they are all about short term acceleration & they no longer hold the monopoly on that.

Muscle car guys may not like the way they look or sound but the rice rockets for $25-28K will beat the tar out of any 1960 muscle car you can put on the street for the same price starting from scratch. They also may not like what the rice rockets tail lights look like at the drag strip either.

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 09:02 PM
O you know you like it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk7mBJqmR5U&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXqJNKgvnM4&mode=related&search=

reisen52
07-11-2007, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
O you know you like it

Why is the redline at less then 5K?

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 09:20 PM
Because it's not a go kart as the video says now this is what a car sounds like


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuido2OBRbM&NR=1

reisen52
07-11-2007, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Because it's not a go kart

Or maybe its just a boat anchor out of a Caprice Classic not a high performance 454?

Guys use to play that game with the old vettes too. Most of the posers never knew the solid lifter high performance 427/454's had unique 6K+ Redline tack with an 8K face.

Well actually it was orange first then red on the tack & 80lb oil gauges. Big tip off on the fake 427's was still having a 60lb oil gauge.

reisen52
07-11-2007, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:as the video says now this is what a car sounds like

I am amazed that people really sit in thier drivways making videos of some moron making noise to impress the dorks.

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 09:49 PM
I'm curious, where do you live?

reisen52
07-11-2007, 09:55 PM
Right now Carolina but grew up in Jersey.

BTW that's really a great fit on the red Vetts hood, must let in a lot of cool air around the seams. Is it a stock one that just fits bad or a aftermarket high performance one that fits bad.

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 10:19 PM
I'm sorry but you sound very bitter old prudish to me, do you have to ride a moped to work?

reisen52
07-11-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
I'm sorry but you sound very bitter old prudish to me, do you have to ride a moped to work?

Nope dont own a moped, never have.

Curently 1998 Ford Ranger 4X4 V6 5spd, 2002 Ford Explorer 4X4 V-8, 2004 BMW 330Ci Convert 6sp, 2006 Acura TL 6 spd, 2005 Yamaha V Star Classic, '33 Ford 3 window coupe 406CI Chevy, 67 Corvette Coupe 502CI Chevy.

Do you really think its normal to sit on a drivway making vids of car exhausts?

slo_1_2_3
07-11-2007, 10:39 PM
Nope I probably wouldn't sit in my driveway doing that but some people like that, I wasn't trying to be rude or nothing but you were just sounding very anti muscle, there cool cars and that's how it is,
now why you gripping about the muscle cars when you got one?

reisen52
07-11-2007, 11:16 PM
I'm not..read what I said - they are not what people remembered them to be or younger guys heard them to be.

Off the dealers lot they were very rough & performed quite badly. A lot of what the muscle cars were was total myth.

Most of the people with on track experience back then know that the times published in the magazines for these cars were pure BS. A guy buying one of these cars could not match the speeds/time if he was going down hill.

People are running the same cars, they think, as the magazines but are sitting the 15's wondering whats happining.

The manufactures routinely supplied the mags with ringers to get good numbers & good sales. Royal Oak Pontiac in Michigan was the official cheat car supplier for John Z. De Lorean when he ran the PMD for GM. I had one of their "bobcat kits" in my goat. It was a lot quicker then the one you would drive home from the dealer.

Chrysler factory engineers ran in street races on Woodward Ave in Detroit using engines that would never see the light of day in a street car, but doing a great job of pumping up the Hemi image & so on.

You might have heard of John Z. in the De Lorean car scam or the big drug deal bust. There was a lot of real bad stuff going down in carland back then.

What I was saying is that cars have come a long way. Think about this; in real life the average 0-60 time of the Muscle flock was about 7.2 to 7.5. Most V-6 grocery getters of today can beat those times & to be quick now you need to be in the 5's. A lot of these 5 second cars are under 5 liters.

Despite what the "add new tech to old cars" guys say these cars as delivered could not turn or stop.

I took delivery of the BMW at the factory in South Carolina to take advantage of the free two day high performance driving school they throw-in with factory delivery.

One of the things we did was go out onto a wet down skidpad & with the stability control system switched on floored the throttle & held it down & went around the circle 2 or 3 time without letting up, the instructor without letting me know switched it off & I did 2 very quick 360's before I could get the car back under control.

Just about every new car has this thing & nothing existed like it back then.

Think about trying to keep a muscle car on the road following a car with this kind of gear in it going all out & it goes on & on. Can you put new stuff is an old car, yes I have done it myself. Does that make these cars perform like their new counterparts? no

BTW: I would sooner blow my brains out before I would sit on my driveway making exhaust noise vids but the Vette does have a ****** tube header 4 into 1 external sidepipe system. My wife hates it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:


And what I am saying is after you are all done you will still have a 37 year old car, with a pile of new parts (that has just killed its value) which costs more then a new one, does not perform as well as a new one, with seams that don't match, poor interiors made out of cheep plastic, bondo in the doors & AM radios. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Hold on a minute. You're talking about lots of things I'm not. The discussion was performance, not re-sale value or how to restore a car or how to swap out an AM radio or how to have a rust-free car. You have mentioned let's see...5 things here, only one of which is the topic:

1) Performance, which was the topic
2) Re-sale value
3) Misrepresented (fraudulent) automobiles
4) Restorations
5) Quality of fit and finish

Now, understand, I've been in this hobby for pretty much the last 19 years. I wasn't in it twenty years ago, and at the time I'd been doing it for twenty years. I'm in this hobby right now, and have been since July 30th 1989. I wrecked my first muscle car 13 days later, on my 18th birthday. Please beleive that I have some idea of what I'm talking about, I'm not a 12 year old playing with Daddy's old rustbucket http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You are of the opinion that no matter what, old cars will have "AM radios, lousy seams, and bondo". You also seem to think that cars that you raced on the drag strip must keep that level of performance down through the years- they will never be anything more than ther were some day in maybe April 1969, to read your replies. Then again, Trans Am and SCCA compettion was going strong at the time, too, and these cars braked, accelerated, handled, and definitely existed then. It's also hard for me to fathom the idea that a relacement fender or a rebuilt engine destroys value...the days of using a warped, thin, lousy knock-off repro fender are 12 years gone. As far as rebuilding an engine goes, I really have to say that the days of slapping together an engine and calling it a rebuild are long gone. Back in the day, "rebuilt engine" was a big "uh-oh" now it is expected that a correct restoration have a correctly restored and fresh engine as well. You have been away from the scene a long, long time

I'll tell you what. You pick the topic you'd like to discuss about these old cars; performance, re-sale value, fraudulent cars, restorations, or quality of fit and finish, and then we'll discuss. Your thinking is not straight for today's here and now, on each of these topics because you're mixing and matching "then versus now" with "then and now", but let's discuss one at a time, and please remember that I am not taking performance potential of 1970 and comparing it to today

cawimmer430
07-12-2007, 10:13 AM
Hi guys!

Thanks for the mostly nice reponses. I have to make this short as I am away from home and this is a friends computer.

The color is Havanagray by the way.

Will check this thread out once I get home in a few days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Blutarski2004
07-12-2007, 10:21 AM
I agree with Reisen about the less than stirring performance of untweaked muscle cars straight from the dealer's floor. But the limited performance was not strictly a question of engine output.

I can't think of any "muscle car" of that period whose stock tires were adequate to handle the torque of its engine.

Same goes for most stock rear suspensions. Without modification, they couldn't control wheel hop.

And 90 pct of the guys who bought muscle cars really didn't know how to drive them drag-race-wise.

OTOH, a really well set-up car in the hands of a competent driver could go like stink.

Apropos to nothing at all, someone ought to write a technical, hot-rodding and racing history of US high performance automobile engines from the late 50's through early 70's. I think it would make for a fascinating book.

Hell, I'd settle for a good book about Smokey Yunick.

badatflyski
07-12-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
Sorry to post this, but I just had to "show off"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We picked up this little beast today. It's a 118i with the new 143-horsepower 4-cylinder engine that boasts superb engine response and a nice little aggressive growl. Only the automatic transmission ruins the driving experience a little, but my sister isn't much into "driving". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


Nice girly-car, but something bothers me:
why didn't she buy the 2.0l Diesel engine with the same power? much more economical than the petrol engine!


Originally posted by Badsight-:
1980's & 1990's BMW 4 cylinders were nothing special compared to any other brand , just more expensive

could take a thrashing tho , we caned my flatmates old 318i for months & it was the gearbox that failed first

Have you ever drove the 2.2L E30 M3 Wide body M3 from88?...i'm sure you didn't...otherwise you wouldn't say that!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, it takes nothing but money to buy a new car that handles well and goes like stink from the factory

If stripping an engine block down, building it with your own two hands from component parts, degreeing your own cams, gasket matching your manifolds, tuning your own carbs, rewiring cars front to back, re-upholstering seats with new covers using hog rings and pliers, welding in your own floors and trunk pans, and putting on your own convertible tops after digging up all the old books, service bulletins and documentation and then tracking down hard to find parts for years is "kid stuff", then yes, I suppose "kids" do that all day long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


But it would seem to me that all of that stuff takes rather more effort than writing a check for a car payment every month. It is amusing to read that engine building is "for kids".

The attention to detail necessary for a restoration is not "for kids" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif On the other hand, any kid can write a check http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/eng2-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01926.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01930-1.jpg
[QUOTE]

Is that an engine for a car?? ... i'm sure a saw something similar in a 56 Lamborghini tractor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Such abominations should be forbidden by a whole world law! It' uses more fuel just on a start up than i use on the whole way to work!

If you want a nice ,economical, low taxes engine with a lot of power and a pure driving pleasure: buy an old Honda CRX with the 1.6 VTEC engine
160 HP/850Kg...you can drive that everyday to 9000RPM (or higher if a Vtec controller is installed) and after 200.000 Km, the engine will stil be running like on first day.
That's an engeenering miracle...not a 5.8L BigBlock,fuel sucking,poluting put in a car than can't even take a small turn (Yes, in europe, we have those "things"
that are called corners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Honda power! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Blutarski2004
07-12-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Is that an engine for a car?? ... i'm sure a saw something similar in a 56 Lamborghini tractor! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Such abominations should be forbidden by a whole world law! It' uses more fuel just on a start up than i use on the whole way to work!

If you want a nice ,economical, low taxes engine with a lot of power and a pure driving pleasure: buy an old Honda CRX with the 1.6 VTEC engine
160 HP/850Kg...you can drive that everyday to 9000RPM (or higher if a Vtec controller is installed) and after 200.000 Km, the engine will stil be running like on first day.
That's an engeenering miracle...not a 5.8L BigBlock,fuel sucking,poluting put in a car than can't even take a small turn (Yes, in europe, we have those "things"
that are called corners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Honda power! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif



..... Here in the US a 5.8 liter engine is considered to be a "small block". Big block engines displace about 7 liters and up. Chevy's current normal version of the big block "crate motor" is 502 cu inches - about 8.5 liters. It's the same engine as in the space shuttle ... ;-]

Don't get me wrong, though. I have great respect for Japanese auto engineering. One of the "little secrets" in the US hot-rodding community is the use of Honda connecting rods in small block Chevy engines - much stronger and lighter than normal Chevy item.

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2007, 02:48 PM
Badatflyski-

Please post photos of your cars, and some photos of yourself building your own shiny engines, and photos of you installing your own shiny engines in your clean cars. Do you really mean to say these insulting things to me, or do you think this is a joke I might like? Why do you feel the need to try to put me, my car, my work, and even my country down? Do I somehow make you feel threatened?

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I agree with Reisen about the less than stirring performance of untweaked muscle cars straight from the dealer's floor. But the limited performance was not strictly a question of engine output.

I can't think of any "muscle car" of that period whose stock tires were adequate to handle the torque of its engine.

Same goes for most stock rear suspensions. Without modification, they couldn't control wheel hop.

And 90 pct of the guys who bought muscle cars really didn't know how to drive them drag-race-wise.

OTOH, a really well set-up car in the hands of a competent driver could go like stink.

Apropos to nothing at all, someone ought to write a technical, hot-rodding and racing history of US high performance automobile engines from the late 50's through early 70's. I think it would make for a fascinating book.

Hell, I'd settle for a good book about Smokey Yunick.

It is well known that to acheive the various ETs, that cars of the day were routinely run with exhaust systems 'uncorked', and with slicks. Resien has some experience with some of the more notoriously "tweaked" performance cars from the day. The car mags of the day were running "Ferrari GTO vs Pontiac GTO" tests, with the Poncho winning. It is well known that Royal Oak Pontiac stacked the decks with a fantastically different than stock PMD GTO. But still, guys who ran cars like the butt-ugly Dodge 426 Ramchargers were getting ETs in the range of 12 secs, and had the slips to prove it. And again, they ran slicks, too. But cars like the Thunderbolt Fairlanes, not to mention the altered wheelbase Mopars, were (uncomfortable) street cars with mind blowing performacne then, and respectable performance now

But it is interesting to note the performance levels acheived in the 21st Century, in the FAST class of drag racing. They are required to use fibreglass bias tires and to have cars that appear stock- no external mods of any kind. No TPI, no supercharging, no turbos, door-slammer cars, full interiors, stock location for batteries and accesories, no vacuum cannisters for huge cams. Some even still have A/C installed. They run 10 second 1/4 mile times routinely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is a link:

Reisen, you may find this link interesting, too (http://www.fastraces.org/)

Greg Gesseler's a member of my Buick club. he does very nice head porting

here's his car (http://www.fastraces.org/fastraces/fastgg.nsf/822dcaaaa26c6da985256dd80023623d/97254463f1644c34852571500013c6c6!OpenDocument)

reisen52
07-12-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

Now, understand, I've been in this hobby for pretty much the last 19 years. I wasn't in it twenty years ago, and at the time I'd been doing it for twenty years. I wrecked my first muscle car 13 days later, on my 18th birthday. Please beleive that I have some idea of what I'm talking about,

Then again, Trans Am and SCCA compettion was going strong at the time, too, and these cars braked, accelerated, handled, and definitely existed then.

Some major differences between us - you have 20 years experence I have 40. You wrecked one or more of your muscle cars I never did. I held both NHRA & SCCA compitition licences & doubt you ever have.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc1.jpg

Comparing a Trans Am compitition car with a multi - million dollar development budget to a street car new or old makes as much sense as comparing a stock street car to a NASCAR stocker. Of course any one who knows anything about racing knows that.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc2.jpg

One interesting comparison you can make is the Mustanges of the late 60's them to the current GT. Curb weight factored with trap speed will give you a good estimation of available horsepower.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc3.jpg

Both weigh pretty much the same run about 102 -103mph in the quater. The 428ci CJ was rated at 335HP & the new 280ci GT at 300HP.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc4.jpg

The new car is quicker to 60, quicker in the quater, has a much higher top speed, gets better then twice the gas millage, handles better, requiers very little maintance & all on 148 less cubic inches or about 2.4 liters.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc5.jpg

By way of putting it in prespective 2.4 liters/148Ci is also the average size of the engine in the Toyota Camry & Honda Accord.

Its also interesting to note that the BMW this thread is all about gets on quite well with a 122ci engine.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc6.jpg

Finally, doing some engines & sticking them is some cars is really no big deal, anyone can be shown how to do it. We trained very competent track vehicle mechanics from scratch in 16 weeks & they could do it with the big gear

Kurfurst__
07-12-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Here in the US a 5.8 liter engine is considered to be a "small block". Big block engines displace about 7 liters and up. Chevy's current normal version of the big block "crate motor" is 502 cu inches - about 8.5 liters. It's the same engine as in the space shuttle ... ;-]

Never actually understood the reason why to pick such insane displacements... and then get 200 HP out of it or so. The best explanation I could come up with... plenty of resources when - the US had it's hayday after WW2... consumer society... no tough competition from outside markets, it's big internal market and only the US produces cars on the N-Am continent.. lazy engineers taking advantage of all that doing it the simpliest way : put a bigger engine in it. I'd be grateful if anyone can shed light on this mystery with a better explanation, for it's outright absurd for my crazed and evil Euro mind that the same size of engine you only see around here commonly in the big Mercades whales (S 600 et co.) are getting called 'small block' in the US. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Never really liked it though. It always feels like disrespect to the Engine by wasting so much, kinda like using a R-R to plow a field.. yeah it can be used in that way, but what a waste..!

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2007, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:

Some major differences between us

Yes. Many. For one I am not treating you as in inferior or trivialising anything you do or making light of your own proud accomplishments

You on the other hand like to do those things to me

Point blank: answer the question-

I say that these cars can be made to perform to today's standards. You claim this is not so. Please exaplin to me why, and do not simply say "too big"

reisen52
07-12-2007, 04:26 PM
Its very easy to understand, we have a difference of opinion. As they say opinions are like AH's everybody has one.

So when it comes to someone's opinion the only way value can be placed on it is to talk about ones background & experience.

You had no problem jumping on one of the guys about having never built an engine. As though its some major accomplishment & if he never did one he had no right to speak to you.

I also noticed you felt others in the thread are picking on you too. Its just the normal give & take not any different then a Ford vs. Chevy thing.

If you can't take it maybe you should not play.

XyZspineZyX
07-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
Its very easy to understand, we have a difference of opinion. As they say opinions are like AH's everybody has one.

What I am saying is not opinion, however. It is fact. It is not my own beleif; the cars exist


Originally posted by reisen52:
So when it comes to someone's opinion the only way value can be placed on it is to talk about ones background & experience.

But what you're saying is that your own makes mine worthless


Originally posted by reisen52:
You had no problem jumping on one of the guys about having never built an engine.

I did not jump on him, I asked him to post pictures of him doing it. If you didn't notice, he posted some things that are not hard to take as insulting. And in any case, that is between him and I, if you don't mind letting him speak for himself


Originally posted by reisen52:
As though its some major accomplishment

No, not major. But I take pride in what I do. I do not need to ask anyone's permission to take pride in my work. This is something I should not have to explain to you


Originally posted by reisen52:& if he never did one he had no right to speak to you.

No right to speak to me? How about: no right to put me down. may I stick up for myself, please? Thank you.


Originally posted by reisen52:
I also noticed you felt others in the thread are picking on you too. Its just the normal give & take not any different then a Ford vs. Chevy thing.

It was one person, his user name is "Badatflyski". Not "several". Describing it as "being picked on" is interesting


Originally posted by reisen52:
If you can't take it maybe you should not play.

I don't play the "Ford vs Chevy" BS. I also don't let on to mean things other than those that I say. I don't play word games and I expect others to shoot straight too

You have had some wonderful experiences and done things that I wish I could have done. You have owned some gorgeous driving machines. I'm not playing games with you. Good day

Scen
07-12-2007, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Sorry but the American stuff is for kids. They lack refinement in almost every way. Just sticking in a big fat motor and driving in a straight isn't going to earn points in my book.



..... I have spent most of my adult life happily owning and driving (four) BMW's. I'm presently driving a 92 M5 - great car - so I think I can speak without bias on this topic. You might want to take a closer look at what has been going on in the US automotive industry over the past five years or so. Compare the 2007 Cadillac STS-V with the 2007 BMW M5. I think you'll be quite surprised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm it might be worth a look however resale value is not so good compared to BMWs and that's a fact. American cars depreciate rapidly.

Scen
07-12-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Now those are cars

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who cares about handling? these v8 cars can make a nice exotic car looks like an piece of s...in drag races or even in "street racing" if the pilot is experienced, v8 owns...

now in question of beauty, yes...BMW all the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that... Yes most guys drive in a straight line and yes a V8 is pretty much the king however I can certainly give any V8 a real tough time with my tiny 3.2 liter straight six. Add corners and I can leave most Monsters in the dust. 50/50 weight rules the corners.

V8 owns? Try V10s in the M5 and M6 and the new M3 will finally get a V8. The HP war has been on for the last 5 years despite all this hybrid stuff. M6s and M5s are killing cars 2 times their price and with a lot of luxury as well. Much nicer cars than anything American IMO. American muscle cars appeal to a completely different segment.

Sorry but the American stuff is for kids. They lack refinement in almost every way. Just sticking in a big fat motor and driving in a straight isn't going to earn points in my book.

In terms of looks and comfort I can assure you 120 mph in my M3 is almost the same as 65 mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

V8s owns in any possible way V10s in acceleration and torque, just type Corvette Z06 vs Lamborghini Gallardo in you tube and see, remember that Lambos are v12s with that awful fly buzzing sound.

M6s and M5s?? i would like to see them against the New Camaro concept, its a muscle car that behaves more likely a tuner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up the specs on my car's engine... S54 straight six normally aspirated mind you putting out 333 HP with a 3.2 liter. That's more than a 100 HP per liter... Look at what American engineering has to say.... Just make everything big start with a 5.7 liter and go from there. Granted they are finally catching on by making more horsepower efficiently.

BTW M5s and M6s are crushing Lamborghini's and the M5 seats 5 adults in luxury. I would love to see a Z06 do that with 5 people... Oh wait you can't.. Granted the Vett has come a long way but it's not for the same segment.

You can stick a big V8 in a light car and make it go fast big deal...Nothing new. Now do the same thing in a Giant Luxury Sports Sedan and make it handle and perform almost as fast as a Z06 now that's some engineering.

Camero isn't out yet so time will tell again I have a feeling it's for a totally different segment and it's comparing apples and trash cans

reisen52
07-12-2007, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Scen:Camero isn't out yet so time will tell again I have a feeling it's for a totally different segment and it's comparing apples and trash cans

The new Camaro a 4 seat, 2 door Holden Commodore SS-V with a swoopy new retro body so you can work out its rough performance capability from there.

Scen
07-12-2007, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:Camero isn't out yet so time will tell again I have a feeling it's for a totally different segment and it's comparing apples and trash cans

The new Camaro a 4 seat, 2 door Holden Commodore SS-V with a swoopy new retro body so you can work out its rough performance capability from there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just saw Transformers last week and it looked cool. However it lacks sophistication on many levels. Just another Fast straight line car. It's perfect for a guy who wants a sub 30k car with tons of HP.

Scen
07-12-2007, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually, it takes nothing but money to buy a new car that handles well and goes like stink from the factory

If stripping an engine block down, building it with your own two hands from component parts, degreeing your own cams, gasket matching your manifolds, tuning your own carbs, rewiring cars front to back, re-upholstering seats with new covers using hog rings and pliers, welding in your own floors and trunk pans, and putting on your own convertible tops after digging up all the old books, service bulletins and documentation and then tracking down hard to find parts for years is "kid stuff", then yes, I suppose "kids" do that all day long http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


But it would seem to me that all of that stuff takes rather more effort than writing a check for a car payment every month. It is amusing to read that engine building is "for kids".

The attention to detail necessary for a restoration is not "for kids" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif On the other hand, any kid can write a check http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/eng2-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01920-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/eng4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01924.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01926.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/DSC01930-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/passsidefinish1-1.jpg

Yeah I would love to see a kid write a check for 90k car let alone a 100k Car like an M5 M6 for that matter. I don't think you appreciate the brain work that went into earning that check. Not many people can actually afford blow money like that on a top of the line sports sedan.

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Here in the US a 5.8 liter engine is considered to be a "small block". Big block engines displace about 7 liters and up. Chevy's current normal version of the big block "crate motor" is 502 cu inches - about 8.5 liters. It's the same engine as in the space shuttle ... ;-]

Never actually understood the reason why to pick such insane displacements... and then get 200 HP out of it or so. The best explanation I could come up with... plenty of resources when - the US had it's hayday after WW2... consumer society... no tough competition from outside markets, it's big internal market and only the US produces cars on the N-Am continent.. lazy engineers taking advantage of all that doing it the simpliest way : put a bigger engine in it. I'd be grateful if anyone can shed light on this mystery with a better explanation, for it's outright absurd for my crazed and evil Euro mind that the same size of engine you only see around here commonly in the big Mercades whales (S 600 et co.) are getting called 'small block' in the US. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Never really liked it though. It always feels like disrespect to the Engine by wasting so much, kinda like using a R-R to plow a field.. yeah it can be used in that way, but what a waste..! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ever take a long trip? That big American muscle in a limo sized vehicle makes for a pleasant drive. Most Eupies have no comprehension on the size of North America. Coast to coast takes 3-6 days depending on how fast you drive and how far you drive each day.

Jasko76
07-12-2007, 07:51 PM
Hmmm... we started discussing BMWs here, and now we're stuck with two muscle car owners going after each other's throats. But keep it up, I've learned a lot so far.

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
Hmmm... we started discussing BMWs here, and now we're stuck with two muscle car owners going after each other's throats. But keep it up, I've learned a lot so far. Wouldn't be so bad but one has an open mind while the other has myoptic tunnel vision.

R_Target
07-12-2007, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Ever take a long trip? That big American muscle in a limo sized vehicle makes for a pleasant drive. Most Eupies have no comprehension on the size of North America. Coast to coast takes 3-6 days depending on how fast you drive and how far you drive each day.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Berlin to Moscow: 1000 miles.

N.Y.C. to L.A.: 2400 miles.

To the OP: nice little car. Nicer sister.

Blutarski2004
07-12-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Look up the specs on my car's engine... S54 straight six normally aspirated mind you putting out 333 HP with a 3.2 liter. That's more than a 100 HP per liter... Look at what American engineering has to say.... Just make everything big start with a 5.7 liter and go from there. Granted they are finally catching on by making more horsepower efficiently.

You can stick a big V8 in a light car and make it go fast big deal...Nothing new. Now do the same thing in a Giant Luxury Sports Sedan and make it handle and perform almost as fast as a Z06 now that's some engineering.


..... Scen, I think you might want to do some closer research on US engine development. The US auto industry has been producing high tech engines for the past fifteen years - GM Quad-4, Chevy ZR-1, Cadillac Northstar series, and the new families of Ford and Chrysler modular engines.

The Cadillac STS-V 4.4 liter supercharged V8 delivers 469hp @ 6400rpm and gives 14/21mpg. It's a smaller displacement than the M5 V10, delivers 10-20 pct better mileage, produces 469hp @ 6400rpm compared to 500hp @ 7750rpm for the M5 V10 and 439 lb/ft of torque at 3900rpm compared to the M5's 383 lb/ft @ 6100rpm.

The fact that this sort of engine technology has not filtered down more aggressively into the family car world IMO is mostly due to marketing factors.

Red_lightning1
07-12-2007, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Berlin to Moscow: 1000 miles.

N.Y.C. to L.A.: 2400 miles.

To the OP: nice little car. Nicer sister.

What about the other half of Europe east of Berlin?

Lisbon to Moscow = 2,428 miles

N.Y.C to L.A = 2,448 miles

R_Target
07-12-2007, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Red_lightning1:

What about the other half of Europe east of Berlin?

Lisbon to Moscow = 2,428 miles

N.Y.C to L.A = 2,448 miles

No fair! Peninsula Hax. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k

Yes, quite a drive if you're in Portugal. Although I would imagine the NYC-LA traffic is heavier than Lisbon-Moscow.

Red_lightning1
07-12-2007, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:

No fair! Peninsula Hax. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

luftluuver
07-12-2007, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Red_lightning1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Berlin to Moscow: 1000 miles.

N.Y.C. to L.A.: 2400 miles.

To the OP: nice little car. Nicer sister.

What about the other half of Europe east of Berlin?

Lisbon to Moscow = 2,428 miles

N.Y.C to L.A = 2,448 miles </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Isn't Lisbon west of Berlin?

How many ppl actually drive from Lisbon to Moscow? Until the gas crunch ppl, thought nothing about doing a coast to coast on their family vacation.

Halifax to Vancouver > 6200km (3850mi)
Montreal to Vancouver > 4800km (2980mi)
Montreal to Yellowknife > 5275km (3280mi)

Red_lightning1
07-12-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Isn't Lisbon west of Berlin?

yup, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
http://www.ahapuzzles.com/homer_simpson_doh.jpg

You got me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

But in my defence it is 03:45 ish over here and I have been seeing the bottom of bud bottles a lot tonight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

StellarRat
07-12-2007, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi. As an owner of a car strikingly similar to a 1970 Chevelle (my car, a 1970 Buick GS455, uses the same frame and suspension), I can tell you first hand, after almost twenty years of ownership about these cars. I have raced, run, commuted, and yes, crashed these cars

"They are inefficinet"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My 1970 GS455 gets about 12 MPG- because I built it that way. I can tack another 8 or 9 mpg onto that by getting a dedicated, purpose-built, available, and high quality fuel injection manifold and throttle body. That would be 20 or 21 MPG from a 7.5 liter engine. The catch is it costs 4700 dollars. Hot rod magazines hwere have plans that will allow you to build V8s that get good milegae, and still perform. It's the combo. Final gear ratio, and transmission choice are just as much of the story as raw engine size. Overdrive transmissions are available that also increase MPG. And of course with all steel bodies, these cars weih about 3700 pounds with some options, in sedan form. You can get rid of 300 pounds easy by going fiberglass for the front end, and less weight equals more MPG. But as far as efficiency goes, it's really hard to blame a car designed in 1969 for not getting what is considered good gas mileage today

"They are dinosaurs"

Well, not really. Old yes, but I saw a 1940 Ford DeLuxe on the road Sunday night

"They can't handle"

This is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who came up with this rubbish, but it is a general misconception. When the cars were new, they were fair to good handlers, except when compared to sportscars. Incidentally, my brand and make was considered a very good handler, as were the 442s, mostly because although they had huge engines, the engines weighed little more than some of the 350s (5.7Ls) of the day. Today, in the 21st century, I can make that Chevelle out-handle a new BMW. You see, technology didn;t stand still at 1970 for these cars. Today's tech applies to them , and I can change any suspension or steering geomtery you like on that 1970 Chevelle. I can also knock the weight down on that car by over 500 pounds without blinking an eye, to around 3200 or 3300 pounds, and by using aluminum engine components, I can get the LS6 454 (The Big Bad Chevelle engine, at 454 cubic inches) down by 150 or 200 pounds as well. Engine tech also didn;t stand still at 1970. Throttle steer is also a nice thing, when you have some torque to play with that the CPU of the car won't prohibit you from using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But many new car owners have no idea what steering with the throttle even is, let alone how to do it. fast ratio steering boxes for these cars are also available, which helps handling. But thee cars were never F1 cars after all; they were not built to rival sports car handling. I however have never been in any situation, from 2 mph to 120 mph, in which my car lacked handling sufficient to the task. After 120 I found the steering quite light- but the car wasn't responding with what I'd call "alacrity" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. The brakes by contemporary standards are good; my 4 wheel drum brakes in my 1970 Buick will crack your head on the windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The discs offered on the same year had less surface area, and offered less fade. But if you know how to brake these cars, and you can tell what fade is and when it's happening, there is zero wrong with these brakes. if you like bigger and better brakes, brake tech aslo has not stood still, and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money

"They seldom go more than 200 km/h"

Ever been in one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have had my car up to some speed well off of the 120 mph speedo (200 kmh is 125 mph). Top speed is a question of gearing and aerodynamics...although the 1970 Chevelle is not a slippery design, cars of the era could top 200 kmh...and today, at tracks across the USA, cars in the FAST class (Factory Appearing Stock Tire- this means it looks stock, inside and out, and uses fibreglass bias tires) actually are having trouble, because track rules say anything over a certain speed needs a rollcage- and these 100% stock looking cars exceeed the speeds- but to modify the car disqualifies them from FAST races!

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. They were re-bodied Ford Falcons for several years, BTW. To make a legitimate (and safer) performance car, Ford made the "Hi-Po" Mustang, which made many chnages to the cars. Frankly, many early Mustangs were built like sh*t. I may offend people with that, but it's the facts. I've looked at may when I was looking to buy, and they are not well made. I really wanted a '67 fastback but they came in two flavors: perfect restos at 20,000 dollars, or complete chunks of sh*t at 5,000. Conversely, when I took apart my 1970's engine in 1998, I broke exactly two bolts- both exhaust manifold bolts. The engine had never been apart. I still have some original brake lines (from the master cylinder), and I have put over 200,000 miles on this car personally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. My Buick was a well made car, every first and second generation Mustang I saw was either made into a well made car by the owner, or it was a POS. That's my observation

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did

But anyway, you share the common misconceptions about these cars that many Americans have. Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So, basically, if you totally replace everything in the car with modern parts it will handle just as well as a modern car, WOW! I'm shocked... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LStarosta
07-12-2007, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Red_lightning1:

What about the other half of Europe east of Berlin?

Lisbon to Moscow = 2,428 miles

N.Y.C to L.A = 2,448 miles

No fair! Peninsula Hax. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k

Yes, quite a drive if you're in Portugal. Although I would imagine the NYC-LA traffic is heavier than Lisbon-Moscow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only when you're getting out of NYC and coming into LA. Otherwise it's empty wasteland.

Blutarski2004
07-12-2007, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Never actually understood the reason why to pick such insane displacements... and then get 200 HP out of it or so. The best explanation I could come up with... plenty of resources when - the US had it's hayday after WW2... consumer society... no tough competition from outside markets, it's big internal market and only the US produces cars on the N-Am continent.. lazy engineers taking advantage of all that doing it the simpliest way : put a bigger engine in it. I'd be grateful if anyone can shed light on this mystery with a better explanation, for it's outright absurd for my crazed and evil Euro mind that the same size of engine you only see around here commonly in the big Mercades whales (S 600 et co.) are getting called 'small block' in the US. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Never really liked it though. It always feels like disrespect to the Engine by wasting so much, kinda like using a R-R to plow a field.. yeah it can be used in that way, but what a waste..!


..... It was a different time in the 60's. Gas was 20-25 cents per gallon, since the US was then pretty much self-sufficient in oil. The population in general was very prosperous; the cost of a car in the 60's equalled, on average, only about 1/4 or 1/3 of a typical family's annual income. The national super-highway program, begun in the 50's by President Eisenhower (he had been highly impressed by the German autobahn system), had made long-distance auto travel MUCH more convenient.

I don't think that car and engine design was a matter of lazy engineering. Pre-war engine technology (valve in block) was replaced by overhead valve designs; V-8 engines replaced in-line engines as the standard auto engine; automatic transmissions replaced standard transmissions as the prevailing type. Compound curved glass, air-conditioning, mechanically-retractable hardtops, all sorts of luxury technologies were introduced. There was no lack of technological innovation during that period.

As far as engine design was concerned, the designers decided that the most economical (from a manufacturing and maintenance point of view) and reliable means of delivering large amounts of power was to build high torque large displacement engines running at very low stress levels. In the mid-60's, the average V-8 engine was about 350-400 cubic inches displacement and produced about 250-300hp at the flywheel at 4500rpm or so. It made good sense with gas at 20 cents per gallon. Cars with in-line 6 cylinder engines were quite uncommon. Volkswagens were a complete curiosity.

The nature of the automobiles then being built in the US was much the result of customer demand. Fuel economy was of no interest to the buying public. They wanted speed and luxury and that is what the US auto industry delivered - bigger and bigger cars with ever more powerful engines. For example, my father's 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado (an absolutely beautiful car, which he still possesses) weighed about 5000 lbs, had a 425 cubic inch 385 hp engine, automatic transmission, air-conditioning, climate-control, power steering, power brakes, electrically adjustable front seats, AM-FM radio with automatic electrically operated antenna, and pneumatically powered flip-up headlight pods.

A side-note - I owned a 1968 BMW 1600 here in the states. Great car. But people just didn't get it. They thought it was comical back then.

Times have changed.

slo_1_2_3
07-12-2007, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:

No. Those are inefficient dinosaurs that have no handling whatsoever, brakes made of chewing gum, and fuel consumption of a truck. The only thing they're good at is straight line acceleration, but even then they'll seldom go more than 200 km/h. Plus, I like the sound of a V8, but that's all. If I was ever to buy American, I'd go for a 65-71 Mustang GT/Mach 1, or 70-73 Trans Am. Now those are RIDES.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi. As an owner of a car strikingly similar to a 1970 Chevelle (my car, a 1970 Buick GS455, uses the same frame and suspension), I can tell you first hand, after almost twenty years of ownership about these cars. I have raced, run, commuted, and yes, crashed these cars

"They are inefficinet"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My 1970 GS455 gets about 12 MPG- because I built it that way. I can tack another 8 or 9 mpg onto that by getting a dedicated, purpose-built, available, and high quality fuel injection manifold and throttle body. That would be 20 or 21 MPG from a 7.5 liter engine. The catch is it costs 4700 dollars. Hot rod magazines hwere have plans that will allow you to build V8s that get good milegae, and still perform. It's the combo. Final gear ratio, and transmission choice are just as much of the story as raw engine size. Overdrive transmissions are available that also increase MPG. And of course with all steel bodies, these cars weih about 3700 pounds with some options, in sedan form. You can get rid of 300 pounds easy by going fiberglass for the front end, and less weight equals more MPG. But as far as efficiency goes, it's really hard to blame a car designed in 1969 for not getting what is considered good gas mileage today

"They are dinosaurs"

Well, not really. Old yes, but I saw a 1940 Ford DeLuxe on the road Sunday night

"They can't handle"

This is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who came up with this rubbish, but it is a general misconception. When the cars were new, they were fair to good handlers, except when compared to sportscars. Incidentally, my brand and make was considered a very good handler, as were the 442s, mostly because although they had huge engines, the engines weighed little more than some of the 350s (5.7Ls) of the day. Today, in the 21st century, I can make that Chevelle out-handle a new BMW. You see, technology didn;t stand still at 1970 for these cars. Today's tech applies to them , and I can change any suspension or steering geomtery you like on that 1970 Chevelle. I can also knock the weight down on that car by over 500 pounds without blinking an eye, to around 3200 or 3300 pounds, and by using aluminum engine components, I can get the LS6 454 (The Big Bad Chevelle engine, at 454 cubic inches) down by 150 or 200 pounds as well. Engine tech also didn;t stand still at 1970. Throttle steer is also a nice thing, when you have some torque to play with that the CPU of the car won't prohibit you from using http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But many new car owners have no idea what steering with the throttle even is, let alone how to do it. fast ratio steering boxes for these cars are also available, which helps handling. But thee cars were never F1 cars after all; they were not built to rival sports car handling. I however have never been in any situation, from 2 mph to 120 mph, in which my car lacked handling sufficient to the task. After 120 I found the steering quite light- but the car wasn't responding with what I'd call "alacrity" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Brakes made of chewing gum"

100% false. I don't know where you get your information from, but this is not true. The brakes by contemporary standards are good; my 4 wheel drum brakes in my 1970 Buick will crack your head on the windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The discs offered on the same year had less surface area, and offered less fade. But if you know how to brake these cars, and you can tell what fade is and when it's happening, there is zero wrong with these brakes. if you like bigger and better brakes, brake tech aslo has not stood still, and I can make that 1970 Chevelle rival the BMW in braking. It's done all the time by car guys here in the USA

"The only thing they are good at is straight line acceleration"

Again, false, and a common misconception. By contemporary standards, they did many things well, and by today's standards the only thing stopping the owner of these cars from improving handling, braking AND acceleration is know how and money

"They seldom go more than 200 km/h"

Ever been in one? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have had my car up to some speed well off of the 120 mph speedo (200 kmh is 125 mph). Top speed is a question of gearing and aerodynamics...although the 1970 Chevelle is not a slippery design, cars of the era could top 200 kmh...and today, at tracks across the USA, cars in the FAST class (Factory Appearing Stock Tire- this means it looks stock, inside and out, and uses fibreglass bias tires) actually are having trouble, because track rules say anything over a certain speed needs a rollcage- and these 100% stock looking cars exceeed the speeds- but to modify the car disqualifies them from FAST races!

"I'd get a 65-71 Mustang GT or Mach 1"

Some of those cars don't exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There was no Mach1 or Mustang GT in 65 for example. They were re-bodied Ford Falcons for several years, BTW. To make a legitimate (and safer) performance car, Ford made the "Hi-Po" Mustang, which made many chnages to the cars. Frankly, many early Mustangs were built like sh*t. I may offend people with that, but it's the facts. I've looked at may when I was looking to buy, and they are not well made. I really wanted a '67 fastback but they came in two flavors: perfect restos at 20,000 dollars, or complete chunks of sh*t at 5,000. Conversely, when I took apart my 1970's engine in 1998, I broke exactly two bolts- both exhaust manifold bolts. The engine had never been apart. I still have some original brake lines (from the master cylinder), and I have put over 200,000 miles on this car personally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. My Buick was a well made car, every first and second generation Mustang I saw was either made into a well made car by the owner, or it was a POS. That's my observation

"I'd get a '70 to '73 Trans Am"

Personally, I'd get the 1974 SD455 Trans Am. But I'd make sure it had WS6 suspension, which I do not reacll the '70 to '73 T/As having. I know my '78 did

But anyway, you share the common misconceptions about these cars that many Americans have. Owning one for an appreciable length of time may change your mind about these things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm surprised you mentioned nothing about safety, though. But that's my muscle car lesson for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So, basically, if you totally replace everything in the car with modern parts it will handle just as well as a modern car, WOW! I'm shocked... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
HEy , for the record that wasn't originally posted by slo_1_2_3

Interminate
07-12-2007, 11:25 PM
I want one of those in Amerika.

reisen52
07-13-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:So, basically, if you totally replace everything in the car with modern parts it will handle just as well as a modern car, WOW! I'm shocked... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BINGO!!

Jasko76
07-13-2007, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:So, basically, if you totally replace everything in the car with modern parts it will handle just as well as a modern car, WOW! I'm shocked... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BINGO!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it will still be on the heavy side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight-
07-13-2007, 07:30 AM
man , you gotta laugh at the die-hard muscle cars fans defending their performance - TRUE BELIEVERS!!!!!

lol those iron blocks with the cast iron pistons weighed enough to qualify for the titanic's anchors - i recently helped my brother do a Hilux re-power . we dropped the Toyota 4.0L V8 into the ute replacing the cast iron head/block 3.0L 4cyl - the ute rides high on the springs now!

heres a 360 Hp V8 that weighs 95kg (210 Lbs) - was used to gain the production record for around the Nordschlife

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/21074/2004657264665128771_rs.jpg

SeaFireLIV
07-13-2007, 07:36 AM
Though I am not a car man, it`s refreshing to see the bull-like machoism over cars is alive and well. Some of it`s beyond me, but I learned a little reading this also.

Badsight-
07-13-2007, 08:08 AM
heres what i wish Holden would make -

its just a show car from 2005 powered by a supercharged LS6 , used design cues from the 1950s Holden FJ model

http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07285/holden_efijy_concept_1.jpg

http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07285/holden_efijy_concept_2.jpg

http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/holdenefijyconcept3.jpg

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/21049/2000502793936262298_rs.jpg

http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/19966/2001786918729712306_rs.jpg

Scen
07-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Look up the specs on my car's engine... S54 straight six normally aspirated mind you putting out 333 HP with a 3.2 liter. That's more than a 100 HP per liter... Look at what American engineering has to say.... Just make everything big start with a 5.7 liter and go from there. Granted they are finally catching on by making more horsepower efficiently.

You can stick a big V8 in a light car and make it go fast big deal...Nothing new. Now do the same thing in a Giant Luxury Sports Sedan and make it handle and perform almost as fast as a Z06 now that's some engineering.


..... Scen, I think you might want to do some closer research on US engine development. The US auto industry has been producing high tech engines for the past fifteen years - GM Quad-4, Chevy ZR-1, Cadillac Northstar series, and the new families of Ford and Chrysler modular engines.

The Cadillac STS-V 4.4 liter supercharged V8 delivers 469hp @ 6400rpm and gives 14/21mpg. It's a smaller displacement than the M5 V10, delivers 10-20 pct better mileage, produces 469hp @ 6400rpm compared to 500hp @ 7750rpm for the M5 V10 and 439 lb/ft of torque at 3900rpm compared to the M5's 383 lb/ft @ 6100rpm.

The fact that this sort of engine technology has not filtered down more aggressively into the family car world IMO is mostly due to marketing factors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed... Like I've mentioned in a few posts it has to do with the market segments. People that purchase high end BMWs are not the same people buying Corvettes and new retro Cameros etc.

While I agree there are a few good examples of American engines most of those motors are not making their way into common American cars.

Blutarski2004
07-13-2007, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
man , you gotta laugh at the die-hard muscle cars fans defending their performance - TRUE BELIEVERS!!!!!

lol those iron blocks with the cast iron pistons weighed enough to qualify for the titanic's anchors - i recently helped my brother do a Hilux re-power . we dropped the Toyota 4.0L V8 into the ute replacing the cast iron head/block 3.0L 4cyl - the ute rides high on the springs now!

heres a 360 Hp V8 that weighs 95kg (210 Lbs) - was used to gain the production record for around the Nordschlife

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/21074/2004657264665128771_rs.jpg



..... Very interesting engine. What did it come out of?

reisen52
07-13-2007, 11:35 AM
Just some quick thoughts on Kurfies question.

Its mostly about the difference in government systems & economics.

Euro manufactures were forced to optimize small displacement engines because of the increased taxes as the displacement goes up. There was no equivalent tax system in the US.

The Euro solution in the 1950/60's was high tech finicky, highly stressed engine design to meet the tax requirements resulting in small cramped cars unless you were very wealthy.

The US solution to moving a very large car by Euro standards was a low tech V-8 with the philosophy that there is no substitute for cubic inches.

As for economics back when these cars were very very common a US factory worker on a hourly wage could afford to buy & drive one. Large comfortable 6 passenger cars, with interior room that was equal to or greater then a Rolls Royce runs on 18 cent a gallon gas were the standard car for everyone.

There was no such thing as compact or sub-compact card in the US.

A factory worker in Europe at the time most likely rode a bike to work or was in a 1.1 liter shoe box.

The US auto industry was intact at the end of the war. Ford stopped making B-24 at Willow Run & resumed making cars there. That was good news & bad news in a way was all the tooling was 1930's vintage. There was a huge demand for cars as the guys were released form the service, so you had high demand old tooling so you got updated 1930's cars in the late 40 early 50's.

In Europe that factories & tooling were rubble so they got to build all new stuff although some of the transition vehicles were amusing like the Me in Luftuuvers logo.

So the 1960's just evolved with bigger cars & more powerful bigger engines then what were available in the 50's. Typical adds were about "longer, lower, wider with a new bigger displacement engine".

Both systems worked for there respective requirements at the time. The main disadvantages for the average European worker was he was limited to a very small underpowerd car & could not afford to by a high performance car while a US worker could.

When I worked in the UK in the late 80's my bottom level management employees were given the choice of BMW 318 class cars up through Senior management who got Jaguar 4.0 Sovereign class cars. The non-management people had to buy their own cars & it was very rare to see much over a 1.3 liter with 2.0 being the max in the parking garage.

Things change over time & I am sure the average European worker must be doing better car wise by now but so are we. Blutarski2004has listed some & the proof is on the street. In the US the performance dollar will buy about twice what it will buy anywhere else, giving the non-wealthy a chance to by some very competitant hardware.

This is a list of cars performance & prices published last month. All the cars are pure stock effectively driven from the dealers to the test facility Virginia International Raceway. The track is 4.2 miles long, fast & slow turns with good changes in elevation.

The cars are ranked by lap times not price http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Corvette Z06 $77, 230 Lap 2.58.2
Porsche GT-3 $121,559 Lap 3.01.8
Corvette $56,056 Lap 3.03.6
*Lotus Exige-S $66,035 Lap?
*Audi R-8 $117,725 Lap?
Porsche 911 Turbo $141,510 Lap 3.05.8
Ford Shelby-GT500 $43,765 Lap 3.05.9
BMW 335i Coupe $ 46,200 Lap 3.10.5
Audi RS-4 $74,325 Lap 3.11.5
BMW Z4-M Coupe $57,500 Lap 3. 11.7
Pontiac Solstice GXP $31,096 Lap 3.13.5
Mazdaspeed-3 $24,650 Lap 3.15.0
Mini Cooper-S $ 26,170 Lap 3.22.9

*Overall finish position listed but not the lap times

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc7.jpg

IIRC this car was developed & designed in California & the build plate says "Made in the USA"

When I went to pick up the BMW 330ci in Spartanburg South Carolina in addition to the driver school we got a tour of the BMW factory. They build both the X series SUV & the Z series sports cars there.

Its getting harder to define foreign cars anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EDIT: The BMW Z4 was the "M" version.

reisen52
07-13-2007, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
heres what i wish Holden would make -

its just a show car from 2005 powered by a supercharged LS6 , used design cues from the 1950s Holden FJ model


Looks like a "lead sled" 1949 Mercury.

Blutarski2004
07-13-2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
heres what i wish Holden would make -

its just a show car from 2005 powered by a supercharged LS6 , used design cues from the 1950s Holden FJ model


Looks like a "lead sled" 1949 Mercury. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... or "Cadzilla's" brother.

Badsight-
07-13-2007, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Very interesting engine. What did it come out of? this V8 uses the top ends of one of the most powerfull roadbikes available , combined with their own in-house crankcase/gearbox it forms the PowerTec 2.6L V8

the engine was designed for the 600 Kg Radical SR8 - which took the nordschlife lap record off the Donkervoort D8

LStarosta
07-13-2007, 03:26 PM
Hey man, got any pics of your sis in a bikini?

Just wonderin...

LStarosta
07-13-2007, 03:29 PM
This message is from JG7_Rall...he miraculously managed to get word out from Siberia while serving the sentence placed on him by Ivan

'wow, i can't believe i just scrolled through 8 pages looking for more pics of your sister, and only found a nerdy discussion about cars.'

slo_1_2_3
07-13-2007, 07:24 PM
hey reisen what you got to say about this one?
it comes in around 3 or 4 on my list of favorites



http://www.americandreamcars.com/1957belair2dr112606.htm

reisen52
07-14-2007, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
hey reisen what you got to say about this one?
it comes in around 3 or 4 on my list of favorites

Really like that car, also on my favorites list. When I was just starting to drive my best friend had a red 220HP power pack convertible. It had what was called back then a California Rake (dropped front end)

A retro Hamburger place here in Raleigh, Char Grill, uses a red 2D hardtop with the rake as their logo on the back of the workers tee-shirts. They have one of those couches made from a replica '57 Chevy trunk in the takeout area + some of the best burgers in the area.

At the same time my ride & first car ever owned was a used 312ci '57 Ford Fairlaine 500 convertible. Paid $1100USD for it.

I am not sure what the total production of '57 Chevy's was but they did build about 47,000 convertibles most with dumb low tech 4.6 V-8's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The '57 Chevy & '57 Ford were at the bottom end of the food chain in the US auto industry & they produced over a million cars like these that the average worker could afford with the sedan version of the Chevy selling for $2,100USD.

Maybe Kurfie could tell us what high tech car the average working man in Europe was able to buy in 1957?

MEGILE
07-14-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:


'wow, i can't believe i just scrolled through 8 pages looking for more pics of your sister, and only found a nerdy discussion about cars.'

OK to suite everyones needs.

How about Christian's sister in a Bikini, ON a car. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

reisen52
07-14-2007, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I agree with Reisen about the less than stirring performance of untweaked muscle cars straight from the dealer's floor. But the limited performance was not strictly a question of engine output.

I can't think of any "muscle car" of that period whose stock tires were adequate to handle the torque of its engine.

Same goes for most stock rear suspensions. Without modification, they couldn't control wheel hop.

And 90 pct of the guys who bought muscle cars really didn't know how to drive them drag-race-wise.

OTOH, a really well set-up car in the hands of a competent driver could go like stink.

I was re-reading this thread & something in this post triggered an old memory. You seem to have solid knowledge of how things were back then with these cars.

The thing I can't remember is on the original 427 Street Hemi's (not the things they are selling today) they were placarded like a fighter plane on engine usage.

The placard said "Warning do not exceed 1X seconds at full throttle" IIRC it was around 14 seconds but can't really be sure.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 06:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stellar rat-

I posted that. If you want to take what I said and not know what I'm saying, that's up to you! Reisen was saying "no, that isn't possible". So where's your "Hey dummy, of course that can happen!" comment to him, I wonder? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

badsight-

Iron pistons! never stop your guesswork, it is refreshing. But my morning chocolate milk almost came up through my nose when I read that. I will send you the bill for cleaning next time

That's a nice V8. Repco was making them that made 400 bhp in 1967, that was a 3.0L, and it was based on the Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum block V8. So nothing new there, my old son! It was also (wait for it) powering F1 cars around the Nurburgring in 1967- the engine that got Brabham his Manufacturere's title that year and got Hulme the Championship. No, nothing here that isn't old news. But that's a pretty engine

Seafire-

be very careful about 'learning' anything from this thread! The only things being brought to light in the way of what's considered an "error" is what has been perverted out of my statments. I know what I know, and nobody changes that with their half-baked BS like iron pistons and such. Good for a laugh, but the dress code here is high rubber boots. Reisen knows what's what, if you can get a straight answer from him ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif ) and Bluto is on the ball. Anyone can take or leave what I say, it don't change the facts!

Reisen-

I'll assume you mean 426 and that "427" was a typo, unless you're still playing word games. That was the size for both the street wedge and the street hemi. Somebody may ask, you should explain the difference for them if they do. I'm sure I can't know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You'll also recall that the '57 Ford handily outsold the '57 Chevy when new, and the Ford could be had with factory supercharging or fuel injection

Now, understand, I wasn't there, so I can't know this no matter what I do, but the placard you recollect seems like a dealer-installed item. Factory installed ones noted that the car was intended for supervised time and acceleration trials

for anyone else-

the more you folks twist my comments, the more I'm getting a kick out of this. This isn't the last time you'll gang up on somebody, but boy are some of you guys out there. Who will be the brave soul to "pick on me" next? I may take the time to stop wiping my eyes and post in reply when I have the chance if the sobbing stops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif What else am I wrong about? Step up and hit one out of the park, gents! How about something new? Alrighty! Reisen, you may know this one

The 330 Polara would whoop just about any car in 1964 in the quarter mile. But why?

I'll check later, got to go shower and go down to the range

LStarosta
07-14-2007, 07:50 AM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/weightproblem.jpg

Airmail109
07-14-2007, 07:52 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

oh......your.....god

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 08:12 AM
What an interesting read this morning has given me.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/TallSmall2AP_468x391.jpg

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 08:30 AM
You know, there was one thing the old large displacement 'mericun cars did very well.

Towing.

Boats, trailers, other cars, campers, small houses . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Both my old '74 Mercury Cougar (7.5 liters) and '72 Dodge Charger (6.6 liters) had trailer hitches. I remember pulling other cars out of ditches and the mud. I kept a tow chain in the trunk back then and made some cash pulling a Porsche out of some deep wet sand once.

So, they were trucks with different sheet metal.

You ever notice how 'mericuns still need to tow the largest possible stuff? Another reason the V-8 SUVs and crew cab trucks are popular here.

Personally, I haven't owned a V-8 beast since 1984. Too costly to make fast, so I went the motorcycle route in 1985. Once I got back into cars, I was already used to using little gas and stayed with small engine stuff 3.3 liters or less.

Between my wife's car and mine, we only have 3.5 liters total.

Know what though? We can't tow hardly squat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i8.jpg


BTW, I think that is a pretty cool little Beemer. (My motorcycle influence on that pronounciation, so there.)

Anyway, I appreciate it because I drive a cheaper and more mundane version of it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/industrial_trix.jpg

reisen52
07-14-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/industrial_trix.jpg

Nice car.

Just a little tip, If you update it with a 455ci Buick it will be very fast in the quarter mile. Only down side it will be a tiny bit to heavy, won't turn, won't stop, have poor weight distribution & get crappy gas mileage.

That being said it will tow a really big trailer with the right hitch but not very far at 12 MPG (mileage certified by our forum Buick guy) because of the small fuel tank.

So you may want to think about adding a recommended towing option.

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/rc8.jpg

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 10:04 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

No thanks. I get 28 mpg combined city/highway, so I'm cool.

Blutarski2004
07-14-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
I was re-reading this thread & something in this post triggered an old memory. You seem to have solid knowledge of how things were back then with these cars.

The thing I can't remember is on the original 427 Street Hemi's (not the things they are selling today) they were placarded like a fighter plane on engine usage.

The placard said "Warning do not exceed 1X seconds at full throttle" IIRC it was around 14 seconds but can't really be sure.


..... I'm sure you mean the 426 cid Hemi. I honestly don't know. Never had a chance to play with any Mopars when I was young and all my reference books are in a big storage box somewhere in the same warehouse as Indiana Jones's Ark of the Covenant.

Blutarski2004
07-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That's a nice V8. Repco was making them that made 400 bhp in 1967, that was a 3.0L, and it was based on the Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum block V8. So nothing new there, my old son! It was also (wait for it) powering F1 cars around the Nurburgring in 1967- the engine that got Brabham his Manufacturere's title that year and got Hulme the Championship. No, nothing here that isn't old news. But that's a pretty engine.

..... That 215 cid was an all-aluminum engine. Once they solved the coolant versus aluminum alloy corrosion problem, it was a killer engine for its time. Rover UK later bought the manufacturing rights for that engine from GM and produced it through the mid-80's.

A 215hp turbo-charged version of the 215 was offered in the 1963 Olds Cutlass, as I recall.




You'll also recall that the '57 Ford handily outsold the '57 Chevy when new, and the Ford could be had with factory supercharging or fuel injection.

IIRC, 1957 was also the first year for the optional small block Chevy with Rochester fuel injecion. I know it was offered in the Vette of that year and I'm almost positive it could be had in the sedan as well.




for anyone else-

The 330 Polara would whoop just about any car in 1964 in the quarter mile. But why?

..... Because it could be had with a dual-quad 426 wedge, which was about the meanest motor on the street until the Hemi made its appearance in 1965. The 426 Wedge was no relation to the 426 Hemi and was based on the 361/413 block family.

I also remember the 413 "Max Wedge" - another very nasty, basically unstreetable powerplant with 14:1 compression ratio. That was the motor that in RL would have eaten Brian Wilson's fuel-injected Stingray for lunch in the Beachboys' song "Shutdown".

Ahhh, those were the days .....

reisen52
07-14-2007, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:..... I'm sure you mean the 426 cid Hemi. I honestly don't know. Never had a chance to play with any Mopars when I was young and all my reference books are in a big storage box somewhere in the same warehouse as Indiana Jones's Ark of the Covenant.

Yeah, just to used to working mostly with Chevys & Fords I guess so everything is a 427 when typing with two fingers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For no reason in particular I have never owned a Chrysler product. We had some Flathead Dodge 3/4 ton 4X4's in the Army & IIRC those are the only ones I ever worked on. They were very reliable & a much better ride then a jeep.

Your reference library sounds like mine. I have a large collection in Trans Euro shipping boxes in Indys warehouse I never opened since coming back from England in the mid 90's.

Every once in a while when I read a thread here I do an Arnold Horshack & go "oooh, oooh" knowing I have the answer in one of my aircraft or WWII related books.

I hope the mice have not munched them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the fulie 283 It was offered in the car line with a tag line of "283Ci/283HP". Not many were sold so originals are very big buck items today.

What further increased their value was the Back to the Future move of pulling the FI & replacing it with a 4 barrel or dual four barrels. The injection system was not very reliable, very hard to get serviced & was expensive to maintain.

Chevy dropped it from the car line pretty quickly & it became a Vette only item.

What a lot of guys are not aware of is the original Pontiac Bonneville convertible in 1957 also ran the same FI system. They are good for $160,000+ today in original non-upgraded to modern standards condition. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

reisen52
07-14-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:I'll check later, got to go down to the range

Shooting Range?

My grandson likes to go there maybe he will see you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c1.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c2.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c3.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c4.jpg

We take him & some of his friends out shooting on occasion. This was his very first time out & as you can see from the pictures he had a bit to learn about safety. The photos made good teaching tools for us & reinforcement for him.

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 01:02 PM
Double hi-jack thread. I can't say I've seen many of 'em.

Here's more fuel for the fire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

http://www.girlontheright.com/redneck.jpg

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/photos/07-22-05/guns1.jpg

http://www.kimmygirl.org/blog/images/IMG_1487.JPG

reisen52
07-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
Double hi-jack thread. I can't say I've seen many of 'em.
http://www.kimmygirl.org/blog/images/IMG_1487.JPG

Is Kimmy your sister & does she have a sub 2 liter car or a muscle car with all new parts? Or does it really matter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The shoulder patch on the guy kneeling down looks like the 11th ACR Blackhorse Regiment. Back in the old days it was Red & White with a black horse on it.

LStarosta
07-14-2007, 01:43 PM
Prolly still is, but that's just subdued on the Badooz.

That chick is hot, if it needs saying at all.


I'd set her atop the Hummer and perform a troop surge of my own.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:


Just a little tip, If you update it with a 455ci Buick it will be very fast in the quarter mile. Only down side it will be a tiny bit to heavy, won't turn, won't stop, have poor weight distribution & get crappy gas mileage.



I need to get one of them tow options! Does it come in blue?

Gas mileage is not great in my Buick 462, *ahem* , this is true! If I had the extra 4500 bucks I'd love to get the fuel injection manifold and laptop combo. Even better than the 8 or 9 MPG increase (about 40% increase in economy)is the 60 or so hp.

But I look at it like this- the car's paid for. I have no payments, full insurance is 120 bucks a month- fire, theft, vandalsim, optional bodily injury (we are quite litigious today!). If a new car uses 100 bucks a month for gas, 300 for car payments, and then 200 for insurance, that's 600 dollars a month in expenses, even though it's cheap on the gasoline. I don't use 600 dollars a month in gas for the 462. The silly Carter carb I'm running is part of the problem with gas mileage, the proper 800 cfm Q-jet will be better for mileage if I stay off the secondaries around town. but what would a new,s ay, Honda get for MPG if it used a carb? Has anyone tried that? I can't see why but that would be interesting

But the car turns and stops just fine. Weight distribution is no problem either; the car's a convertible with full frame, it's heavy everywhere! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The engine from those photos I posted weighs 515 pounds with an iron block. That's less than a stock Chevy 350 from 1970, correct? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It weighs 616 pounds stock, my aluminum intake is about 30 pounds and the aluminum heads are only about 30 each. Those two things take off about 100 pounds, actually a little more. The Buick 455 is not Poncho's or Old's 455, and it's not Chevy's 454. It certainly isn't that obese 426 Hemi. Good God, what's that thing weigh, close to 800 pounds? Or the silly NASCAR 429 of Ford's, or their 460. When I had the machine work done to my block and crank, I just picked up the block and put it in my Regal's trunk

Chevy Ford and Mopar may have had very heavy engines; Buick didn't by comparison. What does a new Hyundai's engine weigh, anyone know? I think I'll go look that up

No takers on the 330 Polara, eh? Got a guess, Reisen?

edit

can't find hyndai engine weight yet

But here's some engine weights for you to look at (http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html). Take with a grain of salt, a few pounds this way or that. The Buick 455 is listed at 600 lbs which is wrong; it's 616. Club members have weighed them. The 640 lb reference is probably a big valve 430 Stage 1, or maybe from a Riviera with dual carbs, the intake manifold might have weighed more, if possible. Anyone who chased an intake around the heads on these cars has my sympathy!. The 430s had meatier heads and are valued by drag racers for porting.

The 409 was a freaking porker, as was the 389

reisen52
07-14-2007, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:No takers on the 330 Polara, eh? Got a guess, Reisen?

If you would have taken the time to read it you might have noticed that BLUTARSKI has already answered the question.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:No takers on the 330 Polara, eh? Got a guess, Reisen?

If you would have taken the time to read it you might have noticed that BLUTARSKI has already answered the question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see it; I'm putting groceries away as I do this. I'll go take another look

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 02:48 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually he's close to right but no cigar, Reisen

The 426 Hemi was available in that car mid-year. Hard to get ahold of, and it was a drag car only- supposedly

Hamtramck's assembly line was making the "Maximum Performance Package" mid year 1964. It wasn't quite a street car, but the production line was going and they were out in '64. You may recall some of the altered wheelbase cars, Reisen. Not all of the 330s were altered wheelbase though. Probably a really lousy car to think you might drive it to or from the track, unless you lived next door!

Good guess though, Bluto

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 02:52 PM
Can't find a Hyundai engine weight. I did find a Viper's V10 at 8.0L and 649 pounds. Still looking...hard to find, which surprises me a little

can't find what I want

But this is interesting:

BMW M52 3.3,3.5 Big Six 500 (2)
BMW M60 B 40 4.0 V8 468 (17)
BMW M60 Small Six 388 (2)
BMW slant-6 turbodiesel 430
BMW 4.5L V12 607 (2) (50) "Fully dressed" prototype
BMW 4.5L V12 974 (57) iron prototype
BMW 5.0 V12 529 (22) (57) "fully dressed"
BMW V12 (1986) 528 (236)
BMW 3.0,4.0 V8 462 (70) all aluminum
BMW 3.0,4.0 V8 448-468 (79) all aluminum
BMW M105 Diesel 6 2.5L 430 (4)
BMW 2.3 turbo Diesel 408 (21) iron block, alum head, "complete"
BMW S14 four 350 (23) 318i motor


My 462 weighs just a touch more than a BMW M52 3.3L engine according to that list. Can't say the list is reliable; it's an online list:

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=97320&page=2

About halfway down the page

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:I'll check later, got to go down to the range

Shooting Range?

My grandson likes to go there maybe he will see you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c1.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c2.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c3.jpg
http://home.nc.rr.com/reisen52/c4.jpg

We take him & some of his friends out shooting on occasion. This was his very first time out & as you can see from the pictures he had a bit to learn about safety. The photos made good teaching tools for us & reinforcement for him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great though, teaching them young is the right way. I was eight when my Dad took me shooting the first time; I don't remember it but I was shooting his 30-06 Springfield 1903. We were at the same range today. Just blackpowder C&B, but it's fun. He's got a repro .44 Remington new Army revolver, and I just got a repro Colt 1862 "pocket Navy" .36, which is a blast to shoot, but it takes so long to load those things. I'm told it's the pistol that NY Met Police used, and that it was a popular personal sidearm during the Civil War. I don't have any pics though. All in the black at 21 feet- which I think is probably as good as I may ever get with the thing unless I convert it to fixed ammo. A couple grains this way or that will mess you all up when loading BP...then again, one guy down there ws shooting Pop's .44 and was hitting the same damn spot on every shot. In my defense, my Colt has a 5.5 inch barrel

The range officer was thrown a little for a loop about my pistol today. During a cease-fire he was nicely reminding me I didn't safe my pistol for the case-fire

I told him half-c0ck was the safe position...and that the cylinder and barrel were still in my pistol case! It was just the frame lying there on the bench http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But he's right in a way. I should have talked to him and explained the particulars of the pistol before we started setting up. We both learned something

Is the AK a '74? I am waiting on the CMP to have Garands again.

reisen52
07-14-2007, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually he's close to right but no cigar, Reisen

The 426 Hemi was available in that car mid-year. Hard to get ahold of, and it was a drag car only- supposedly


BLUTARSKI is correct about the P-330 426 wedge as you could actually buy one.

You seem to like to mix pure race cars not available to the public with street cars in an effort to prove a point. As you must know there was a major difference between race cars & street cars.

The 1964 426 HEMI was a pure race engine that went 1,2,3,4 at Daytona then got banned. They did not run NASCAR 1965 so during 64/65 some were fed to selected drag race teams

They were issued to factory sponsored or semi sponsored teams of selected dealerships, or specific individuals like Bill "Maverick" Golden who ran a 64 HEMI in the US/S class. They were not available to the general public, required racing gas & would have suffered terminal meltdown at a long traffic light.

Like the other HEMI racers in that time period Maverick had a parts deal with Chrysler going back to 1960 & by 1962 they were giving him complete factory built cars. The Ramchargers were given 2 factory cars to run and so on. This is where you needed to be to get a HEMI in 1964.

The altered wheelbase cars are the original "funny cars" & could not be registered as street cars.

The Street Hemi was introduced on 1966 "B" body cars which would have put them out on the street in September 1965. That being said even "de-tuned" for the street they were terrible, very high maintanance street cars.

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
and then 200 for insurance,

Bummer, my little '06 Toyota Matrix is only $75/month full coverage insurance through State Farm for Houston, Texas. Unfortunately, my cars are tools. I use 'em up for work needing a replacement every 6-8 years. For my job, I get a minimum $510/month in auto expenses. It's up to me what to do with it.

I remember back when I had my '72 Charger I only got about 5 mpg in town. That's because I was 18 and had to go everywhere like a comet chasing its own tail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I do miss two things about the big old cars I had. #1 - rear drive steering/sliding. #2 - long hoods. I haven't been able to do rear drive steering/sliding since my last motorcycle, but that's kind of a different art form. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BTW, look what pic I found on the net.

http://www.lssdigital.com/lwpilot/cawimmer.jpg

Man, this thread got hijacked!

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually he's close to right but no cigar, Reisen

The 426 Hemi was available in that car mid-year. Hard to get ahold of, and it was a drag car only- supposedly


BLUTARSKI is correct about the P-330 426 wedge as you could actually buy one.

You seem to like to mix pure race cars not available to the public with street cars in an effort to prove a point. As you must know there was a major difference between race cars & street cars.

The 1964 426 HEMI was a pure race engine that went 1,2,3,4 at Daytona then got banned. They did not run NASCAR 1965 so during 64/65 some were fed to selected drag race teams

They were issued to factory sponsored or semi sponsored teams of selected dealerships, or specific individuals like Bill "Maverick" Golden who ran a 64 HEMI in the US/S class. They were not available to the general public, required racing gas & would have suffered terminal meltdown at a long traffic light.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The production line was making them, Reisen. Ckecl Hamtramck's records if you like. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm not mixng ANY cars. I said "330 Polara". The 1964 330 Polar didn't get the 426 Hemi? Chrysler says they did.

No, they weren't generally available and most people had no idea they were out there. And no, they weren't just altered wheelbase cars. You could have bought one.

I didn't say street car, I asked a question about the 330 Polara. You may have assumed I meant street car, but there were 330s out there that weren't. Your assumption was wrong. I tossed you a curve and you're mad you swung and missed. Anybody could have just looked up what engines were available at any Chrysler dealer for the P 330 and read "426 wedge" in about a nanosecond, we're online. You think I should come up with easy questions??

Sorry you don't like the answer but I'm not gonna toss up meatballs when I invite you to hit one out of the park. If I meant the 426 street wedge, it would have been like shooting ducks in a barrel. What are you mad about? Jesus, here we were talking guns sorta-kinda friendly, and now I get this again. It was just a question, Reisen, it ain't combat

Badsight-
07-14-2007, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
[The engine from those photos I posted weighs 515 pounds with an iron block. That's less than a stock Chevy 350 from 1970, correct? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It weighs 616 pounds stock, my aluminum intake is about 30 pounds and the aluminum heads are only about 30 each. Those two things take off about 100 pounds, actually a little more. & it needs it

yank v8s were cast everything - it was the racers who replaced parts originally - the factorys were happy pumping out their 2+ ton luxo-barges . & for the capacity the Hp wasnt very high

you mentioned the repco V8 , that & the following cosworth were awesome engines , & had nothing to do with the american push-rod dinosaurs . what part of F1 ever did ? even the eagle followed suit with racing necessity

you want to stop , turn , accellerate fast without needing 7 liters you go low weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
[
Bummer, my little '06 Toyota Matrix is only $75/month full coverage insurance through State Farm for Houston, Texas.

Your own insurance dollar mileage will vary by city county or State http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Plus your Toyota ain't a BMW. Some palces have higher premiums based on engine layout, 4 cylinder, V6 V8, I hear. Seems like a scam to me

75 bucks a month here in Boston would get me compulsory, no vandalism, no theft, not fire, no glass. Heathens run amok here

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Boston ....... BMW.

Yep, Houston is one of the cheapest large cities in America to live in, no doubt. $150K will get you a nice 2500 sq/ft house.

BMW? This thread is about BMWs???? Who knew? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

-------------

Hijack count-
1. American muscle cars
2. Guns
3. Cost of living

Sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
[The engine from those photos I posted weighs 515 pounds with an iron block. That's less than a stock Chevy 350 from 1970, correct? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It weighs 616 pounds stock, my aluminum intake is about 30 pounds and the aluminum heads are only about 30 each. Those two things take off about 100 pounds, actually a little more. & it needs it

yank v8s were cast everything - it was the racers who replaced parts originally - the factorys were happy pumping out their 2+ ton luxo-barges . & for the capacity the Hp wasnt very high

you mentioned the repco V8 , that & the following cosworth were awesome engines , & had nothing to do with the american push-rod dinosaurs . what part of F1 ever did ? even the eagle followed suit with racing necessity

you want to stop , turn , accellerate fast without needing 7 liters you go low weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My engine weighs 15 pounds more than the BMW 3.3L six cylinder, badsight. And it displaces more than twice the liters. You're going to have to concede that my engine is pretty damn light no matter how you slice it

You don't know much about US cars of the '60s and '70s. Not putting you down, but you don't. The weights you describe are Mercury Marauder weights, badsight, not Camaro, Nova, GT350, etc weights

"2 tons+" is what you think muscle cars weighed. I invite you to investigate it. Also check out forged aluminum pistons and aluminum exhaust manifolds on street carshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yes, the manifolds melted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight-
07-14-2007, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That's a nice V8. Repco was making them that made 400 bhp in 1967, that was a 3.0L, and it was based on the Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum block V8. So nothing new there, my old son! except that your full-o-BS
310 Hp when it came out in 67 & was a 2-valve . next year the 4v came out & only made 380 Hp . didnt win anything cos of the cosworth

would like to know how little it weighed because the Powertec 2.4L is about as comapct & light as you could ask in a road-ready package - afaik its 115 kg with the gearbox

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Boston ....... BMW.

Yep, Houston is one of the cheapest large cities in America to live in, no doubt. $150K will get you a nice 2500 sq/ft house.

BMW? This thread is about BMWs???? Who knew? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

-------------

Hijack count-
1. American muscle cars
2. Guns
3. Cost of living

Sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BMW made a killer engine in the '40s. It wasn't a popular export though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here a starter home is about 300K. And the Commonwealth can't figure out why people are leaving! I can- education is too much, the cost of living is too much, the State drove out tech business, and housing is obscenely priced!

Badsight-
07-14-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
You're going to have to concede that my engine is pretty damn light no matter how you slice it & whats it got to do with factory spec like the BMW engine ?


Originally posted by BBB462cid:
"2 tons+" is what you think muscle cars weighed. who said muscle cars ?

you take your opinion too seriously & get real uppity with anyone else who also has an opinion - all the time

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That's a nice V8. Repco was making them that made 400 bhp in 1967, that was a 3.0L, and it was based on the Buick/Olds/Pontiac aluminum block V8. So nothing new there, my old son!

except that your full-o-BS
310 Hp when it came out in 67 & was a 2-valve . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got a source for that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hey, my memory is the Repco V8 made 400 bhp in Brabham's F1 cars in '67. I'm hardly full o BS if I misremembered something. My head's like a milk jug, there's only so much you can put in before something else spills out. I don't have my F1 facts and figures here for 1967, but you go right ahead and cite your source for 310 hp. if I'm wrong, I'll admit that. You might follow the example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Badsight-:
next year the 4v came out & only made 380 Hp . didnt win anything cos of the cosworth

So what? This has bearing on what I said because....why? The DFV is one of the winnigest engines in F1. It's a surpirse they did well in '68? Hill won the Championship. Clark won the Tasman series


Originally posted by Badsight-:
would like to know how little it weighed because the Powertec 2.4L is about as comapct & light as you could ask in a road-ready package - afaik its 115 kg with the gearbox

Is this a new thought? What are you talking about please

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
You're going to have to concede that my engine is pretty damn light no matter how you slice it & whats it got to do with factory spec like the BMW engine ?


Originally posted by BBB462cid:
"2 tons+" is what you think muscle cars weighed. who said muscle cars ?

you take your opinion too seriously & get real uppity with anyone else who also has an opinion - all the time </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif What has it got to do with the BMW engine? haven't you read ANYthing you're commenting on? I was comparing and contrsting my engine weight to newer engines. It has everything to do with it! How do I compare weights without using other cars? I don't have anybody's else's engine, I have mine. Is that OK? Too bad I don't have the cake for the new aluminum 455 block that's out. Hey, can you lend me 8 hundred bucks or so?? I'd really like that aluminum block

Who said "muscle cars?" I did! That's what I'm talking about. What are YOU talking about? The discussion was performance vehicles, not Cadillac Coupe de Villes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif if that's what you mean, what percentage of cars in the US during the time were "2 tons plus"? Do you know, or are you still guessing about iron pistons? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Uppity? Please, don't make me cry in my Coca-Cola. I can't have that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 05:01 PM
Back to BMWs, the only one that I really ever wanted was like this 635.

http://www.warrenguy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/bmw-635-csi-side.jpg

The only time I ever got to drive a BMW was my mom's old 730 way back when my '83 Chevy S-10 was without an engine for 3-days. The way people (women) reacted to me in that BMW was fantastic! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 05:04 PM
car's nice Han, but I'm not sure I like it in red. A steel blue or maybe silver would be sweet. There's a guy at work that races them on closed course, hot laps. He does very well. but if he had a Buick, he'd be King! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Seriously though, i can't even begin to comprehend the expense. he just buys new rims and tires at 2 grand a whack, like it's nothing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif 2 grand?? Jeez, I need to put two grand into my convertible for a new front suspension and hopefull a 4 speed transmission. After 38 years, the front end finally showed wear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It may be old, but it was over-engineered like crazy

han freak solo
07-14-2007, 05:06 PM
Ooooh, dinosaurs!!

http://members.aol.com/sweetlybee/entrance.jpg

If I had the garage space and the cash, I'd by a beemer motorcycle, too. Right after buying a couple of Triumphs, first!!

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2007, 05:09 PM
Now THAT'S a BMW I'd own

luftluuver
07-14-2007, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
you take your opinion too seriously & get real uppity with anyone else who also has an opinion - all the time You noticed as well.

reisen52
07-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

The production line was making them, Reisen. Ckecl Hamtramck's records if you like. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm not mixng ANY cars. I said "330 Polara".

You could have bought one.

I didn't say street car, I asked a question about the 330 Polara. You may have assumed I meant street car, but there were 330s out there that weren't. Your assumption was wrong.

I tossed you a curve and you're mad you swung and missed.

OK I understand now, you are getting your butt kicked in the main muscle car debate, making all kinds of new friends, so you now want to play gotcha with BS factoids that are more or less meaningless.

A production race car coming down a production assembly line in 1964. WOW will wonders never cease.

Hey guess what, they even had standard production numbers since Hamtramak's records say so. Zowie - maybe that was because if they did not have standard production numbers they could not race the NHRA stock classes.

These cars did not get into the public hands till they were sold years later & some never were. Most had contractual agreements as to their disposal when there usefull competition life was over.

No you did not say street cars even though that what we having been talking about for 8-10 pages so have a big yuck on that one. You pulled an interesting scam which I am sure anyone debating you in the future will remember.

But then the thing is since we are not talking, by your definition, about street cars your statement "The 330 Polara would whoop just about any car in 1964 in the quarter mile" is not valid.

It would do/did very well in the stock classes but would have gotten whooped big time in the Altered, Modified, Gas, Alcohol, F/X & Fuel classes.

So the answer, since we are not talking as you say, about street cars is it could not whoop just about any car in the quarter mile it would loose big time because it was to big, to heavy & underpowered to compete as a pure race car even though it was built as one.

It was only effective as a ringer in the stock classes.

Additionally, for about the 6th or 7th time, "No I could not have bought one". These cars were not 'bought' they were given under contract to specific race teams that had long term relationships with Chrysler. Which part of factory race team don't you understand?

Bottom line is we had been talking about street cars for 9 pages, not subject to weasel words, that anyone could walk in and buy so BLUTARSKI answer is correct & in the context of the past 10 pages I accept his answer as correct 100%.

The-Pizza-Man
07-15-2007, 01:09 AM
seems some might be interested in this
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/12/bmw135i08_03.jpg

Looks interesting to say the least, I'm not entirely convinced though, I may stick to the Z4 coupe.

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_135i.asp

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
OK I understand now, you are getting your butt kicked in the main muscle car debate, making all kinds of new friends, so you now want to play gotcha with BS factoids that are more or less meaningless.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Reisen, you're something else again.

Bluto was the one who answered the question and got it a little wrong, not you. What's with the mothering routine? I don't know why you're championing the cause, and I don't care. Your replies verify the answer!

I asked a legitimate question about the 1964 Polara 330. The question was about that specific year make and model. Racers had the Hemi 330 Polara in 1964, according to you? GOOD! That's the answer, you got it right this time, thank you for supplying my proof.

I invited anyone to try and "hit one out of the park" by answering the question, and I made it a tough one. You want it to have been as easy as typing "1964 Polara" into Google. Well, boo-hoo

There is one answer to that question, but you don't like it. You're crying "no fair". Well sorry, you're wrong! It's a good thing I didn't ask the question I was originally going to, you be steamed, then

Now if you have some kind of proof that the '64 P-330 DIDN'T get 426 Hemis at the Hamtramck assembly line, you post it. If you don't, shut your yap, man! Jesus! You're doing the same thing as you did with my original statements from like 50 pages ago- defining my statements in a way that suits your arguments. Enough of that noise. is this how you deal with people face to face? You don;t care to entertain what people say, so you just imagine they said things you want to hear?

I sat here and legitimately told you I thought your racing career was great. I told you I thought you had some great cars and bikes, and I said that truthfully too. You showed pics of your gransdon, and I said nothing but good things, I didn't say anything about what the kid was doing or what he wasn't wearing, I didn't say jack except how fantastic I thought is was that you're doing these things and trying to teach him correctly. Then I actually empathasied with you and related a story about how just that day, I learned to communicate with my range officer better, showing you that we ALL can still learn about firearm safety, even when we are technically doing the 'right' thing!

I'd just thought we were off on the wrong foot before but I can see I'm wrong about that. You may be king sh*t racer and builder and you may not, you may be NOMFWIC with guns and you may not. I never questioned your accomplishments and never belittled them and I sure as hell didn't even think about saying bad things when you showed pics of somebody in your family. I just assumed those things were true because I see no reason you'd lie

But you sure are a crybaby when somebody else's guess is wrong on a question that means absolutely nothing- but happens to be on a subject you've got the world by the balls of. I don't see Bluto here all p!ssed off.

Deal with it- the answer's the 426 Hemi and if you don't like it, pay attention to the question being asked next time. You're the type who whined to the teacher about getting an "A" when you thought you desreved an "A+"- 'that question's no fair, I deserve to get it right'. Whatever!

I'm gonna go make an omelette because's it's 6 am and I'm hungry! Later, Johnny Lugnuts

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
seems some might be interested in this
http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/12/bmw135i08_03.jpg

Looks interesting to say the least, I'm not entirely convinced though, I may stick to the Z4 coupe.

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bmw_135i.asp

....I don't like it. The side styling, under the windows, reminds me of the Hyundai Tiburon, which I think is hideous

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
you take your opinion too seriously & get real uppity with anyone else who also has an opinion - all the time You noticed as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a very fragile boy, stop hurting me with your mean words! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Badsight-
07-15-2007, 05:22 AM
you make out your posts are important

you getting offended by differing opinion doesnt mean others are interested

your type of posting insults that you think is funny as well as your nit-picking of meanings comes across as badly immature , ill be surprised if anyone takes you seriously at all after a while

The-Pizza-Man
07-15-2007, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
....I don't like it. The side styling, under the windows, reminds me of the Hyundai Tiburon, which I think is hideous

Fair enough, but I think that sort of styling always comes across badly in photos. I'm willing to wait untill I see it in person before passing judgement. It will never be the prettiest car though. It is a unique car though and I'm interested to see how it would handle.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
you make out your posts are important

you getting offended by differing opinion doesnt mean others are interested

your type of posting insults that you think is funny as well as your nit-picking of meanings comes across as badly immature , ill be surprised if anyone takes you seriously at all after a while

Well, well. When nobody takes me seriously, we'll have something in common. But first I'll have to start doing nothing in the community except complain, like you.

Have you looked up your '67 Repco V8 BHP figures yet? It was a big deal to you yesterday. Google it, I need to clean some dishes but I'll check back if I get a chance. If you use Wiki, get two references, willya? I can make Wiki say you're charming http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you'd like to complain about something else instead, I can ask another car question that will seem like it's unfair. Ready? I'm not tossing meatballs boys, do your homework!

What's the rarest Buick GSX of the '70s?

Don't say I didn't warn anyone this one was hard

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
....I don't like it. The side styling, under the windows, reminds me of the Hyundai Tiburon, which I think is hideous

Fair enough, but I think that sort of styling always comes across badly in photos. I'm willing to wait untill I see it in person before passing judgement. It will never be the prettiest car though. It is a unique car though and I'm interested to see how it would handle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might be right about the pic. To me it looks like the styling is too 'busy', but it could look better in the flesh

The only other thing I don't like on the car is the side mirrors- I hate the mirrors being on the window like that, it ruins the flow of the door to me. Much more aesthetic to have it on the door skin, in my opinion

I do however like just the hint of chrome around the grilles

I'm sure it handles like it's a roller coaster ride with crazy glue on the seats

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 07:55 AM
badsight-

found the BT24 engine ref for you-

I was thinking of net hp, which was 390

You were right, 311 bhp for the '67 Repco V8:

http://silverstone.fortunecity.com/cosworth/633/bt19-1.htm

Sorry I remembered that wrong but I did

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
seems some might be interested in this

That's pretty nice. If I only had the cash to purchase what I admire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

More BMWs . . .

http://www.cwwcardesign.com/cars/pics/bmw_730d_stretch.jpg

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:13 AM
This is the model I got the privilege to drive for a whole 3 days, way back in time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bmwcoupeclub.nl/images/images%20registerauto's/BMW%20E23.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 08:15 AM
That almost looks like Monte Carlo to me. Did you go to the race?

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:18 AM
http://www.irishbmw.com/img/08-01-07/z4coupe.jpg

http://static.highend3d.com/galleryimages/319/screen.jpg

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That almost looks like Monte Carlo to me. Did you go to the race?

That's just a stolen pic from the web. The model of car is the same though. My mom's old BMW was a German version brought over and made US/EPA legal. The instruments and radio all had German markings. The only thing non-German specific was the US version of the speedometer.

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:24 AM
BMW aircraft engine, straight out of a Fw190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.ultralightnews.com/engineinfo/images/BMWConversioncdrive.jpg

han freak solo
07-15-2007, 08:32 AM
Just another BMW . . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s235/cawimmer430c/Claudia%20Wimmer%20BMW%20118i/CBWBMW118i20.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 08:34 AM
cute car! is that your sister? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

LStarosta
07-15-2007, 08:48 AM
I dunno if anyone said this before, but that chick is bangin!

reisen52
07-15-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
OK I understand now, you are getting your butt kicked in the main muscle car debate, making all kinds of new friends, so you now want to play gotcha with BS factoids that are more or less meaningless.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Reisen, you're something else again.

Bluto was the one who answered the question and got it a little wrong, not you. What's with the mothering routine? I don't know why you're championing the cause, and I don't care. Your replies verify the answer!

I asked a legitimate question about the 1964 Polara 330. The question was about that specific year make and model. Racers had the Hemi 330 Polara in 1964, according to you? GOOD! That's the answer, you got it right this time, thank you for supplying my proof.

I invited anyone to try and "hit one out of the park" by answering the question, and I made it a tough one. You want it to have been as easy as typing "1964 Polara" into Google. Well, boo-hoo

There is one answer to that question, but you don't like it. You're crying "no fair". Well sorry, you're wrong! It's a good thing I didn't ask the question I was originally going to, you be steamed, then

Now if you have some kind of proof that the '64 P-330 DIDN'T get 426 Hemis at the Hamtramck assembly line, you post it. If you don't, shut your yap, man! Jesus! You're doing the same thing as you did with my original statements from like 50 pages ago- defining my statements in a way that suits your arguments. Enough of that noise. is this how you deal with people face to face? You don;t care to entertain what people say, so you just imagine they said things you want to hear?

I sat here and legitimately told you I thought your racing career was great. I told you I thought you had some great cars and bikes, and I said that truthfully too. You showed pics of your gransdon, and I said nothing but good things, I didn't say anything about what the kid was doing or what he wasn't wearing, I didn't say jack except how fantastic I thought is was that you're doing these things and trying to teach him correctly. Then I actually empathasied with you and related a story about how just that day, I learned to communicate with my range officer better, showing you that we ALL can still learn about firearm safety, even when we are technically doing the 'right' thing!

I'd just thought we were off on the wrong foot before but I can see I'm wrong about that. You may be king sh*t racer and builder and you may not, you may be NOMFWIC with guns and you may not. I never questioned your accomplishments and never belittled them and I sure as hell didn't even think about saying bad things when you showed pics of somebody in your family. I just assumed those things were true because I see no reason you'd lie

But you sure are a crybaby when somebody else's guess is wrong on a question that means absolutely nothing- but happens to be on a subject you've got the world by the balls of. I don't see Bluto here all p!ssed off.

Deal with it- the answer's the 426 Hemi and if you don't like it, pay attention to the question being asked next time. You're the type who whined to the teacher about getting an "A" when you thought you desreved an "A+"- 'that question's no fair, I deserve to get it right'. Whatever!

I'm gonna go make an omelette because's it's 6 am and I'm hungry! Later, Johnny Lugnuts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So many words...so little content, but hey, put all modern parts in it & it will be as good as new. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW: you want some cheese to go with that whine?

KIMURA
07-15-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
heres what i wish Holden would make -

its just a show car from 2005 powered by a supercharged LS6 , used design cues from the 1950s Holden FJ model

http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07285/holden_efijy_concept_1.jpg

http://xs217.xs.to/xs217/07285/holden_efijy_concept_2.jpg

http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/holdenefijyconcept3.jpg

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/21049/2000502793936262298_rs.jpg

http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/19966/2001786918729712306_rs.jpg

Did U hear my yaw drop......... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
So many words...so little content, but hey, put all modern parts in it & it will be as good as new. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tsk tsk tsk. The question was about the P-330 in 1964, and the answer provided was wrong, although very close. You didn't even try to guess, and yet you're this upset about an answer you didn't even provide. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif That's a touch nutty, you know it?

They made the cars mid year at Hamtramck, you know it very well: They put 426 Hemis in Polaras at Hamtramck in 1964, mid year. You couldn't go to the dealer and buy one as a passenger car, but that doesn't mean that the Polaras didn't get the 426 Hemi, now does it? You verify that they did, yourself. I love that word: Hamtramck, Hamtramck, Hamtramck! Write 'em a letter and ask if you don't beleive either me or yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I still can't figure out how you get so worked up over being wrong about a trivia question. It was just a question, Reisen. USA car culture trivia is fun, you didn't know this one, chalk it up to the experience, note it, and move on. Maybe you can surprise somebody with the fact, yourself.

Do you (or anyone else?) have a guess as to the Buick GSX question I aksed? It's a doozy! The car is still in existence (and even driven!) but to reveal the owner's name would give it away. (That's a hint http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

If it's too much of a stumper, how's this one, it should be easy for a '60s car guy like you, but anyone can try this one too if they want:

Why was the Dan Gurney Special not available at dealerships located in New Jersey?

That's a real easy one if you use Google