_ said:I would like to see a stock na Miata vs. a stock ND, base models, and same tire and size. Could be interesting. Just a simple AX course too.
Well I don't think 14" wheels will fit around ND brakes.
Just the 0-60 is vastly quicker with the ND. It wouldn't really be much of a contest. The ND would wipe the floor with the NA.
bobzilla said:Just out of curiosity the Tib was a 7.0 0-60 in 2002 (03 MY)and the quarter at 15.6@86mph. That was Hyundai's fast coupe at the time. The new version, the Veloster N is a 5.9 0-60, 14.0@101mph. so in 16 years they've entered truly fast car territory.
The '69 Charger Hemi that I linked to earlier ran a 6.9 0-60, 14.1 in the 1/4 and that was a SUPER CAR for its day.
z31maniac said:_ said:I would like to see a stock na Miata vs. a stock ND, base models, and same tire and size. Could be interesting. Just a simple AX course too.
Well I don't think 14" wheels will fit around ND brakes.
Just the 0-60 is vastly quicker with the ND. It wouldn't really be much of a contest. The ND would wipe the floor with the NA.
Yup. Even if you simplify "tire size" to "section width", the ND will run away and hide. Same weight, more mechanical grip, better brakes, more power and a bunch more torque. It's not even close. Our local kart track is basically a permanent autox course and we've driven just about every Miata variation around it.
The Toyota 2000GT had 150 hp. Chew on that for a while.
ProDarwin said:... But... your daughter's Fiesta SE is banned from autox so it doesn't matter
Ouch - I didn't think of that. I assumed that since the Fiesta ST is fine, the SE would be as well. I just checked the rulebook, and that's not the case at all. However, the ban is only in Street class. A bit of lowering and anti-roll bars and it would be fine in ST, if uncompetitive.
rslifkin & Daylan C said:In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
Bumper/fender dumped nitrous cars have been a thing for a while now. I've seen few Fox bodies with headers going forward with 90 degree bends out through the fenders.
I guess I've seen it some, with DragWeek and some Youtubes drag racers... but I guess I assumed that was mostly a "turbo.Lyfe" thing. Also, being a VA/NoVA native, it's not really something I can dream about owning.
In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
It definitely started with turbo cars but somebody must have realized doing the exhaust that way helps with packaging even if you don't have any turbos.
Almost hour later edit: When I was trying to figure out the exhaust on my V8 swapped AWD Bravada, at one point I may have thought "I should put a turbo on this so I can use at as excuse run the exhaust through the fender"
sleepyhead the buffalo said:rslifkin & Daylan C said:In reply to sleepyhead the buffalo :
Bumper/fender dumped nitrous cars have been a thing for a while now. I've seen few Fox bodies with headers going forward with 90 degree bends out through the fenders.
I guess I've seen it some, with DragWeek and some Youtubes drag racers... but I guess I assumed that was mostly a "turbo.Lyfe" thing. Also, being a VA/NoVA native, it's not really something I can dream about owning.
Both sides have fender exhaust exits. No one makes a decent in chassis header with a large enough primaries and collectors for a nine second ZJ. This is a 5.9 MoPar small block stroked to 387 Cu.In, with the aforementioned 150 shot with 2" primaries and a 4" collector.
As mentioned in the video info, density altitude during the run was 1850' So no LS, turbos and anything that fancy, just a slightly stroked small block with a bottom end designed all the way back in the 50s.
sleepyhead the buffalo said:yup, even the mods are getting faster at fixing thread titles!
It must have been a misspelling, as I had both the faster and (quicker) in the original title.
pinchvalve said:The original Countach went 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.
Would not kick out of garage but my f150 is a second faster to 60 and can pull a boat.
In reply to chandler :
Now what?
chandler said:pinchvalve said:The original Countach went 0-60 in 6.8 seconds.
Would not kick out of garage but my f150 is a second faster to 60 and can pull a boat.
Yeah, but you get a different kind of big hair with an F150.
I want to see a Dodge Demon on Blue Streaks!
jharry3 said:It would be really interesting to see someone do an article that compares accelerations/cornering g's published in road tests of cars in the 60's and 70's, find some good examples of those cars still extent, put some modern sticky rubber on them, and publish the data.
As far as the Dodge Daytona vs Honda Odyssey test goes: How about putting them both on a Super Speedway and give the Dodge a shot at redeeming itself in its preferred environment?
It’s not autocross, but if you look not even very hard on YouTube you’ll find channels of exclusively supposed bone stock muscle cars running the 1/4 mile. I was literally amazed to see how fast those big kids can run
John Welsh said:bobzilla said:Just out of curiosity the Tib was a 7.0 0-60 in 2002 (03 MY)and the quarter at 15.6@86mph. That was Hyundai's fast coupe at the time. The new version, the Veloster N is a 5.9 0-60, 14.0@101mph. so in 16 years they've entered truly fast car territory.
The '69 Charger Hemi that I linked to earlier ran a 6.9 0-60, 14.1 in the 1/4 and that was a SUPER CAR for its day.
and my 2012 Fiat 500 Abarth can do the same in 6.7 and 15 flat..
Daylan C said:In reply to chandler :
Now what?
Oh Burn!
Daylan C said:In reply to chandler :
Now what?
Looks to be a CLC cocktail class racer. Look them up on youtube. Their races are insane!
P3PPY said:jharry3 said:It would be really interesting to see someone do an article that compares accelerations/cornering g's published in road tests of cars in the 60's and 70's, find some good examples of those cars still extent, put some modern sticky rubber on them, and publish the data.
As far as the Dodge Daytona vs Honda Odyssey test goes: How about putting them both on a Super Speedway and give the Dodge a shot at redeeming itself in its preferred environment?
It’s not autocross, but if you look not even very hard on YouTube you’ll find channels of exclusively supposed bone stock muscle cars running the 1/4 mile. I was literally amazed to see how fast those big kids can run
Are you talking FAST (Factory Appearing, Street Tire) drag cars? Those are stock LOOKING. Still impressive how fast they are with iron heads, no headers, etc.
Daylan C said:In reply to chandler :
Now what?
That can go in the bed and we can tow a Countach behind it instead?
When people quote performance figures for muscle cars from the late 60s and early 70s they are completely meaningless. It is now accepted that all the manufacturers provided ringers for testing that had balanced and blueprinted engines, often with a more work done than that. I think you’ll find real stock vehicles from the era to be significantly slower than anything quoted in a magazine from the period.
FAST class cars are weird and awsome. Definitely not representative of what those cars were like new though. They were advertised with Gross HP numbers which were basically best case scenario, no accessories or load on the engine, then we round up for good measure". And on top of that all the magazine test cars were hopped up ringers.
Adrian_Thompson said:When people quote performance figures for muscle cars from the late 60s and early 70s they are completely meaningless. It is now accepted that all the manufacturers provided ringers for testing that had balanced and blueprinted engines, often with a more work done than that. I think you’ll find real stock vehicles from the era to be significantly slower than anything quoted in a magazine from the period.
Which is funny, because some of the magazine numbers for performance cars of that era were truly awful. I need to go find that gt350 vs Corvette test where they ran 17s.
Adrian_Thompson said:When people quote performance figures for muscle cars from the late 60s and early 70s they are completely meaningless. It is now accepted that all the manufacturers provided ringers for testing that had balanced and blueprinted engines, often with a more work done than that. I think you’ll find real stock vehicles from the era to be significantly slower than anything quoted in a magazine from the period.
Doesn't Ferrari/Lambo, etc, still do the same thing?
Daylan C said:FAST class cars are weird and awsome. Definitely not representative of what those cars were like new though. They were advertised with Gross HP numbers which were basically best case scenario, no accessories or load on the engine, then we round up for good measure". And on top of that all the magazine test cars were hopped up ringers.
Except for the really bonkers stuff, which was "we rounded down, then subtracted a hundred" because they didn't want insurance companies to refuse coverage on them.
dculberson said:Daylan C said:FAST class cars are weird and awsome. Definitely not representative of what those cars were like new though. They were advertised with Gross HP numbers which were basically best case scenario, no accessories or load on the engine, then we round up for good measure". And on top of that all the magazine test cars were hopped up ringers.
Except for the really bonkers stuff, which was "we rounded down, then subtracted a hundred" because they didn't want insurance companies to refuse coverage on them.
Right. Street Hemi, ZL1 427, Ford SOHC 427, and the like were all considerably underrated. Also some of the considerably more pedestrian stuff like the Mopar 340 were underrated for (depending on who you talk to) insurance purposes or better NHRA classing.
Also, when we're talking about how slow performance cars were back in the 60's and 70's, we've got to consider how GAWDAWFUL slow regular cars were by comparison. I have owned a stock slant-six Duster with 2.76 gears; it was slow enough that I would consider it almost dangerous on modern highways. It would lose a drag race with continental drift. It could not do a burnout on regular all seasons. I remember multiple occasions where I would pull onto the highway, mat the accelerator, and still piss off the people who I had pulled out in front of because it just wouldn't accelerate fast enough to get out of the way. (It would, however, break 100 mph, given a lot of straight road). I've driven some other old cars that were less than sprightly as well. At the time, 55 mph was the effective highway speed and that was all that some economy cars were built to cruise at. By comparison, most of the '90's economy cars that a lot of us grew up driving will easily cruise at 75 and hit 60 in under 10 seconds.
z31maniac said:Adrian_Thompson said:When people quote performance figures for muscle cars from the late 60s and early 70s they are completely meaningless. It is now accepted that all the manufacturers provided ringers for testing that had balanced and blueprinted engines, often with a more work done than that. I think you’ll find real stock vehicles from the era to be significantly slower than anything quoted in a magazine from the period.
Doesn't Ferrari/Lambo, etc, still do the same thing?
Ferrari definitely does, I don't know if Lambo is quite so blantant about it.
You'll need to log in to post.
