mar3

iTrader: (8)

Now that's some BS...

RX-Heven

iTrader: (1)

I didn't see that quote anywhere in that article but I'll take your word for it.
They'll still have traction problems with those tires too.
My friends and I originally were into bb chevy muscle cars...then I learned how to turn and how much fun that was.

RX-Heven

iTrader: (1)

thats funny

mar3

iTrader: (8)

The tire thing is mentioned on the first page....notice how there is no 0-60 for the Chevelle but all the others are listed? Because it prolly sucked big time due to ....you guessed it, TRACTION ISSUES.....the owner prolly asked for it not to be published...we all knew those freakin' Buick GS tanks were monsters...but a 12.56 with basically some porting and a bump in compression? Damn....then again Jim Minos has his stock '68 FBird with the RamAirIII 400 into the low twelves, so maybe that ain't so crazy after all...the turbo Regal was also interesting, so I can see how a little turbo help could get you down into musclecar territory, but don't the FDs hate getting more boost w/o a lot of other things being taken care of at the same time? Hell, that guy just pumped up the boost, poured in some race gas and got within half a second from catching the Viper in sheer times...with 231 cid!!!.....

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Only from someone like yourself who knows know better.

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Here is the page with the quote.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...tml?page=1&c=y

I also have owned and restored muscle cars. (Pantera, W-31, Ford Gt BB, etc) I also realized new technology was a lot more fun so I moved on.

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

The owner asked for it not to be published? Hey lets make up bs conjecture!

The Chevelle doesn't weigh any more than the Hemi Cuda, 442, GSX or Mach I. Do you think only the Chevelle had problems?
If the Chevelle was so fast the trap speed would be significantly faster even with "traction issues". I always love the tires argument and then when the tires are changed to modern rubber the car runs the same times. Uh..oh.

Performance: LS6 454/450: 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.

If you are ignorant enough to believe a RAM Air 400 runs low 12's stock I have some land in Florida for you.

Technology is great, look at the Buick.

Kevin T. Wyum

Actually it's not. Feel free to look up some back issues of Turbo magazine from the mid 90's. I also pulled a 13.3 from the car in show floor condition. You're on a rotary forum quit thinking big displacement means everything.

Kevin T. Wyum

mar3

iTrader: (8)

Boldface originally posted by Mr rx-7 tt

The owner asked for it not to be published? Hey lets make up bs conjecture!

Prolly=probably, doofus......since you're in the know, impress by giving us the reason it's not there....



The Chevelle doesn't weigh any more than the Hemi Cuda, 442, GSX or Mach I. Do you think only the Chevelle had problems?

It actually weighed less...with less weight on the rear wheels, which is more likely to blow the tires off the line? 300 ft.lbs of torque or 500 ft.lbs of torque? Especially when 90% of that 500 ft.lbs of torque is coming on around 2500 rpm? The 'Cuda is down 10 ft.lbs and that also happens almost 1500 rpm higher than the Chevelle's PEAK torque...again, 90% of that Chevelle torque is available by 2500 rpm, 2500 rpm below the peaky Hemi 'Cuda....traction was an issue...



If the Chevelle was so fast the trap speed would be significantly faster even with "traction issues". I always love the tires argument and then when the tires are changed to modern rubber the car runs the same times. Uh..oh.

Performance: LS6 454/450: 0-60 in 6.1 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.7 sec @ 103mph.

The trap speed was 3 mph faster than either of the two competitors you mentioned and one mph over your oft quoted times for the stock SS...mind you, both of these times are traction-limited........remember, trap speeds are a good indicator of total horsepower, but they are NOT concrete indicators....you spin the first 40 feet out of the hole and your trap speed will suffer....



If you are ignorant enough to believe a RAM Air 400 runs low 12's stock I have some land in Florida for you.

No thanks, too many hurricanes...but yer talking out yer a$$ regarding Mino's RAIII FBird....he was forced to pull the heads at virtually every NMCA event he ran because the rules stated no extreme over-bore, no stroker cranks, no port work to the head, period and the intake could only be gasket matched...carb modifications were also verboten...blue-printing was allowed and his'Bird was regularly in the twelves from the beginning of the fastest stock street car competitions when all the Hemi's, GSX's and SS's could only muster mid to low thirteens....they all thought he was cheating, thus the teardowns...aaannnnnddd

He ALWAYS passed tech.....stock cam, stock heads, stock carb, stock RAIII block, which is the one with O-port exhausts and 3" mains...



Technology is great, look at the Buick.

Which speaks back to hot dog, KT Ummmmmm.....read again..


Think twice, speak once, grasshopper KT ErrrrrrrWyummmmm.....

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Exactly made up bs conjecture.


Ignorance at it's finest. The hp and torque ratings are GROSS but I am sure you haven't a clue. Here is some educational reading just for you.

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm
BOTTOM LINE:
Unless you want to do the specific inertial math, I tend to use 82.5% for automatic cars with stock converters and 86.5% for stick shift cars or automatics that were tested with the converter locked up. Thus a manual-trans car that was rated around "265 Gross HP" previous to 1972 would have been rated "200 Net HP" after that change, and would typically see a peak of 170 to 175 "at the wheels" on an inertial dyno.

Your Chevelle makes less tha 400 Net Torque to the flywheel ! Thus it's a pig.


Also your little theory doesn't work for the Viper...it weighs less makes far more hp and torque is lighter and guess what? Traps 118 not 104...


Your traction limited arguments are complete BS and the trap times indicate it. Look at the VIPER. It absolutely decimated every muscle car while weighing less making MORE hp just as I have said. The Chevelle has 104 mph trap speeds vs the Vipers 118!


I love hearing this bs. the RA III made 345 hp GROSS! No bone stock Firebird EVER ran 12's nor can they now. Here is an article on a 521 hp L-88 with a race exhaust, 4:56 rear end on SLICKS driven by a pro NHRA drag race driver. It is running against an original 427 side oiler Cobra.






Yeah, a bone stock Firebird is going to run with a modified L-88 on slicks and a side oiler Cobra...

Jonny-87-rx7

man you guys are cool.......haha how do you put video **** on here ill record something this weekend and ill post it maybe then youll believe me
wooot woot

mar3

iTrader: (8)

Boldface originally posted ta-ta

Exactly made up bs conjecture.

It's better than having no answer like yerself, dawg....



Ignorance at it's finest. The hp and torque ratings are GROSS but I am sure you haven't a clue. Here is some educational reading just for you.

Ohhhh, none at all....



BOTTOM LINE:
Unless you want to do the specific inertial math, I tend to use 82.5% for automatic cars with stock converters and 86.5% for stick shift cars or automatics that were tested with the converter locked up. Thus a manual-trans car that was rated around "265 Gross HP" previous to 1972 would have been rated "200 Net HP" after that change, and would typically see a peak of 170 to 175 "at the wheels" on an inertial dyno.

Your Chevelle makes less tha 400 Net Torque to the flywheel ! Thus it's a pig.

Exactly.....gee...I wonder what all that white stuff is coming out of the rear wheel wells?....



Also your little theory doesn't work for the Viper...it weighs less makes far more hp and torque is lighter and guess what? Traps 118 not 104...

Gee, I wonder how much of a footprint the Viper has to the Chevelle???...mega...and gee, I wonder what that V-10 can spin to?



Your traction limited arguments are complete BS and the trap times indicate it. Look at the VIPER. It absolutely decimated every muscle car while weighing less making MORE hp just as I have said. The Chevelle has 104 mph trap speeds vs the Vipers 118!

Gee, I wonder what the Viper would've done with 205/20s??...



I love hearing this bs. the RA III made 345 hp GROSS! No bone stock Firebird EVER ran 12's nor can they now. Here is an article on a blah, blah, blah, blah....Yeah, a bone stock Firebird is going to run with a modified L-88 on slicks and a side oiler Cobra...

Why don't you tug yer chain and get yer girl skydivr69 to do the 'Net trolling and find out what he can on John Minos so you can enjoy a nice hot plate of crow....contrary to what you believe, you do not know everything about musclecars....in fact, you sound like a trailer queen restorer to me...

..

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

I am giving you answers not making up bs.


How did I know you didn't have a clue about gross hp?


It doesn't take 500 ft lbs of torque to make white smoke. I have seen cars with less than 200 do a fine job.



I knew you'd take the bait. It shows you don't know what you are talking about. Even without great traction you still get decent traps...Is your Chevelle making more power and carrying a better power to weight than the modified L-88? The same for the side oiler cobra?



Because it won't happen. The car isn't BONE STOCK. You already said it was blueprinted. I guarantee it has been lightened and probably has a modified exhaust, maybe a gear etc. Anybdy with an IQ higher than a squirrel knows the tricks around the rules. It is done ALL the time.

I just found an article with the rules and your boy at the bottom of the page! The cars are MODIFIED! Your boy is named JIM not John and he ran consistent 13 second runs with one dipping into the 12's! (12.937) You just got schooled hard!!!

http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/re...10purestck.pdf

Did I say I did? Nope, I corrected you on your ignorance which is nothing new. Trailer queen restorer? Wrong, again more bs conjectuer.

You should at least know some basic facts before you open the naive pie hole of yours. I and others get tired of schooling you. What a joke.

DrifterX

don't even have to read all this topic to say it's ******* bs that car would have smoked you so ******* bad it's not even funny N/A fc is nice but it's no rocket even a t2 would have had a hard time against that.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

I pretty much dusted a fully rebuilt 350ci Camaro (headers, carbs, exhaust) from 0-90 in my 87 N/A. And we raced 3 times. Maybe it was an SS clone, seems to be popular with chevy's. I can see you beating a 350 but a 454 is unlikely, i'm not doubting you beat him (maybe he was a bad driver) but i'm doubting that it's what you thought it was. Oh yea, arguing about muscle cars is pointless take em to a real track (road course) and you'll see why they suck. Stop fighting, 454's are fast big deal who cares about net an gross HP on muscle cars this is a rotary forum. NO DISPLACEMENT allowed

RotaryEvolution

iTrader: (30)

like i said, any fool can drive a muscle car, not all fools can tune a muscle car. i would have raced the n/a any day of the week, my elcamino would have dusted my T2.


when i sold the car i think the lady left a **** stain on the passenger seat. i'm not into muscle cars anymore but i still respect them.

DrifterX

if you know about muscle cars and when you see a true muscle car you will be able to tell by the engine sound and know that the car will **** you up.

Jager

iTrader: (10)

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

B.S. it's easy to make a v8 loud and grumbly, doesn't scare me. That 350 camaro i beat sounded mean as hell and i still smoked him in my NA. Most, not all, muscle cars aren't that fast. stop giving them so much credit.

mar3

iTrader: (8)

BS by Mr Ta-Ta

I am giving you answers not making up bs.

I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the Chevelle is missing the 0 - 60....that's the BS I'm waiting for......ps., I think you meant, "I am giving you answers, not making up bs."...lol



How did I know you didn't have a clue about gross hp?

You still don't know....



It doesn't take 500 ft lbs of torque to make white smoke. I have seen cars with less than 200 do a fine job.

Unless you got bleach on the tires, you are not going to make THAT kind of tire smoke...let's see a viddie of one of those 200 TQ cars...what a bunch of BS...



I knew you'd take the bait. It shows you don't know what you are talking about. Even without great traction you still get decent traps...

Oooooo, you're so clever! So you're saying that a 6000 HP Funny Car that smokes the hides half the track, then gets the traction back to finish the quarter mile race is still going to have a trap speed in the 330 mph range which is indicative of that HP range?? REALLY?!...What a bunch of f@*king BS! Quit sniffing the medical adhesives...



Is your Chevelle making more power and carrying a better power to weight than the modified L-88? The same for the side oiler cobra?

While it's true that I sold him that very car for that contest (j/k), the times would suggest otherwise...however, I didn't even bother to read those links, so I don't know....



Because it won't happen. The car isn't BONE STOCK. You already said it was blueprinted.

That doesn't make it non-stock if it has all stock components, nimrod....



I guarantee it has been lightened

Of course, but it still had to have the stock dash...



and probably has a modified exhaust

Headers are not allowed but long branch Pontiac exhaust castings are allowed since those were offered for the car....RaimAir Enterprises makes a really nice repro set...



maybe a gear etc.

Again, only what was offered by the factory for the car...4.33s were offered, though I have no idea what he was running...it's been a while since I read anything on him....



Anybdy with an IQ higher than a squirrel knows the tricks around the rules. It is done ALL the time.

And teardowns usually catch them...the engine block, heads, manifold and carb passed every time......if it wasn't for the obscene margin he had in elapsed times, Mino wouldn't have been subjected to the teardown routine as often as he was...



I just found an article with the rules and your boy at the bottom of the page! The cars are MODIFIED! Your boy is named JIM not John and he ran consistent 13 second runs with one dipping into the 12's! (12.937) You just got schooled hard!!!

"I knew you'd take the bait. It shows you don't know what you are talking about."....In 1993, before your link, JIM Mino ran a 12.79 @ 111.95 mph......to win his class in the NMCA STOCK division.....oooo, YOU just got .....and you know I hate to use that baby emoticon, but you need it, I told you to ask for skydivr68's help....there is a JOHN Mino and a JIM Mino, both of whom competed in the NMCA Musclecar series but in different classes at different times....I mixed up the front names, so sue me....that was all from memory, anyway...something I read a decade ago....a little bit better than a squirrel...or not? Hell, do they even live that long??



Did I say I did?

No, you talk like you think you do, you answer like you think you do...a smart squirrel doesn't need to have it spelled it out to recognize one of those kinds of shade-tree bench racer/trailer queen restorers......."Hail, boy, I done blew the apex seals on my rear rotor an' that sumbtich FD could still do 90 mph in quarter an' top out at 130 mph!!! I left that Poch GT like it was a dawg caught inna tar trap!! Yeehaw!!"...



Nope, I corrected you on your ignorance which is nothing new. Trailer queen restorer? Wrong, again more bs conjectuer.

So far, you've corrected me on a name you had to look up and I didn't...your trap speed analogy was a piece of crap as dissected above and a stock '68 RamAirII Firebird has run mid-twelves....exactly why are you LYING here?



You should at least know some basic facts before you open the naive pie hole of yours. I and others get tired of schooling you. What a joke.

blah, blah, blah, blah.....WTF are you talking about? You have yet to prove me wrong except on the name....damn, that thar skoolin' shoh do hoat, boss dawg....



Re: live2drive15's reply

Those would be the ones that Mr rx-7 tt and his buddies "restored" as they screwed their clients....yeppers....

Outkast

Muscle cars suck... Heavy *** cars with humongous engines that just to get that hunk of **** down the track a little faster than the rest..... back in the days!!! Now even the best of them lightly modded cannot keep up with the average $30,000 sports car.

Can we compare accurate 1/4 mile times for a 60s GTO or a Hemi vs. SRT-4 and 350Z contemporary trash??? You will see my point. **** musce cars they are gay. The only thing worse is shoving those huge low technology ignorant brute motors into refined and (once) balanced RX7s...........

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

Re: live2drive15's reply

Those would be the ones that Mr rx-7 tt and his buddies "restored" as they screwed their clients....yeppers....


Which Reply are you talking about, this isn't making sense.

Outkast

Just rambling on in general

mar3

iTrader: (8)

This is the one for those having troubles........

Mr rx-7 tt

iTrader: (5)

Maybe because they didn't post it?
It is also irrelevant. The difference between 0-60 in 5 seconds or 6.5 seconds won't make much of a difference in TRAP SPEED. Trap shows hp... something you just aren't bright enough to understand.



Man you're ignorant.
http://thrashcar.com/articles/data/1...ca-burnout.wmv
I had a W-31 that I could roast the tires with. On a set of Goodyear comp T/A's the car would run 13.9's-14-2's at 102.


Let me explain this in simple terms for you. First we aren't talking about any 6000 hp funny car, we are talking about 300 hp street cars which are losing a bit of traction out of the hole. There are MANY cars that are almost the same weight and hp in that article as the Chevelle and they ALL trap close to the same speeds...EXCEPT the VIPER. Why ? The Viper makes more power and is much faster...see the TRAP SPEED.

The viper is at a disadvantage with low profile tires anyhow.
"Secondly, ditch those 18-inch rims with those stiff low-profile tires, and slap on your old stock 15-inch wheels with high-profile tires. This will absorb the initial jolt when you launch, and reduce tire spin and wheel hop".


Of course you did you just don't like the facts it points out. A 521 gross hp 427 vette with slicks and a 4:56 rear end in a 3200 lbs car trapped mid 12's at low to mid teens. Wake the hell up.




Blueprinting improves performance and is considered a MODIFICATION.

WTF? You just lost the debate. It's lightened it is NO longer stock! Who gives a rats azz about some 35 year old gutted car with a blueprinted engine and modified exhaust running high 12's? What a joke.



And you are allowed in that class to modify the exhaust after the header, again not stock.



And they are irrelevant as the cars are allowed modifications in other areas so they are NOT stock. Is this sinking in yet?




It makes NO differenece! They both ran HIGH 12 second 1/4's with MODIFIED CARS! NOT STOCK!



No, I correct you on your ignorance. I guess in the eyes of a novice like yourself it seems that way though.

You also don't know anything about rotaries. A chipped apex seal causes you to lose a bit of power it doesn't kill the engine as in my case. The car boosted 15 psi and pulled very hard. When the engine was disassembled the rotor and housings were fine. The seal has a small chip in the corner. It was an older vette btw and he got crushed with a bad motor. Try and get your story straight.


I have corrected you on multiple subjects. I dare you to ask any drag racer if a chevelle that traps 13.35's at 104 mph on street rubber with trap mid 12's at 115 plus on wider street rubber like the viper. They will LAUGH at you. Look no further than the modified L-88 on slicks.
Secondly your RAM Air Firebird ISN'T STOCK it is MODIFIED! Read the rules of the class. You were and are WRONG.


Wrong, see above.