Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > Vehicle Specific > Asian Imports
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: who owns who?
Imports 0wn American muscle 16 44.44%
American muscle 0wn Imports 20 55.56%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-03-2004, 04:04 AM   #31
Z-man_Dan
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13
Iím sorry VASSAR you are right the dimensions of the RB26DETT is longer and taller then a V8. My point was not about dimensions but rather mass. The Skyline with its additional mechanics weighs a little more then the fiberglass Vette. Thatís what I was getting at.

I also do not care about just the launch. AWD is flat out superior to two-wheel drive period. Traction in all conditions (acceleration, cornering, wet roads,Ö) is improved. I did not learn this from video games but rather by attending GaTech for four years. Last year our Formula SAE racecar lost to the AWD racecars from the different Universities (the wet weather caused traction problems).

Video does not mean crap. You can easily get a video of any car beating any other vehicle. If you honestly feel an F-Body is constantly better then a Skyline in performance then you are delusional. Most of all, I am sorry that this is affecting you so badly.

So how is the weather in Detroit?
Z-man_Dan is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 04:14 AM   #32
Vassar
CF Newbie
 
Vassar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-man_Dan
Iím sorry VASSAR you are right the dimensions of the RB26DETT is longer and taller then a V8. My point was not about dimensions but rather mass. The Skyline with its additional mechanics weighs a little more then the fiberglass Vette. Thatís what I was getting at.

I also do not care about just the launch. AWD is flat out superior to two-wheel drive period. Traction in all conditions (acceleration, cornering, wet roads,Ö) is improved. I did not learn this from video games but rather by attending GaTech for four years. Last year our Formula SAE racecar lost to the AWD racecars from the different Universities (the wet weather caused traction problems).

Video does not mean crap. You can easily get a video of any car beating any other vehicle. If you honestly feel an F-Body is constantly better then a Skyline in performance then you are delusional. Most of all, I am sorry that this is affecting you so badly.

So how is the weather in Detroit?

This doesn't affect me, but I just want some people to see that just because a car has a Nissan or Honda badge, they are not God-like. Either way, thanks for the discussion.
__________________

Last edited by Vassar : 03-03-2004 at 04:20 AM.
Vassar is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 05:23 AM   #33
jmyers0341
CF Enthusiast
 
jmyers0341's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern Cali
Posts: 94
got a little heated in here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassar
This doesn't affect me, but I just want some people to see that just because a car has a Nissan or Honda badge, they are not God-like. Either way, thanks for the discussion.


OK, just because it has a Nissan or Honda badge doesn't make anyone or their cars god-like. It has gotten almost degrading--probably why VW hasn't posted anymore--The Skyline and the Vette are both awesome cars--no doubt. But saying things like "american cars have been using the same technology" is just insane. Cmon, man. Japan has had Detriot beat on the tech side of things for YEARS. And quit saying F-Body...it's getting old.

Videos do not mean anything. Neither does the fact that a Skyline motor is bigger than a Vettes. Give the Vette AWD, AWS, and many of the other technological advances the Skyline has---THEN give the Skyline a fibergalss body and other Vette characteristics and I think that the Skyline would be lighter.

In fact--this post has so many topics I am getting a headache thinking about them all.

FINAL WORD: Ricers are stupid. Neon, huge wings and mufflers etc. are digusting and degrading to the import community. (you see far less euro imports with gaudy sh!t on them...wonder why?) But then there are the V6 Mustangs with stupid tailights and dumb cobra body kits....I could go on forever!!

I forgot where I was going....oh well.
__________________
My wife has hijacked this account...pay no attention to me.
jmyers0341 is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 06:04 AM   #34
Vassar
CF Newbie
 
Vassar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmyers0341
Give the Vette AWD, AWS, and many of the other technological advances the Skyline has---THEN give the Skyline a fibergalss body and other Vette characteristics and I think that the Skyline would be lighter.

That isn't the point! They are to separate cars, that is why they are compared. If the Skyline is so God-like, why does the 'Vette tie for the N'Ring record with a 911 Turbo? Yes, that's right. The 'Vette has killed the Skyline on the Skyline's own turf.

Seriously, take your Japanese fanboy ass back to your "Import Tuner" magazine.
Vassar is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 06:06 AM   #35
Vassar
CF Newbie
 
Vassar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmyers0341
And quit saying F-Body...it's getting old.

Do you even know what an F-body is?
Vassar is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 08:38 AM   #36
jzxTT
CF Addict
 
jzxTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near by
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassar
That isn't the point! They are to separate cars, that is why they are compared. If the Skyline is so God-like, why does the 'Vette tie for the N'Ring record with a 911 Turbo? Yes, that's right. The 'Vette has killed the Skyline on the Skyline's own turf.

Seriously, take your Japanese fanboy ass back to your "Import Tuner" magazine.
Whats wrong with import tuner..? I eat vettes on a daily basis..
May I ask What you drive "!?!?!new thread : off topic?!?!?!"
__________________
please wait. . .
jzxTT is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 03:56 PM   #37
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
You know, no matter where you go on the web, this tired, lame, uneducated argument comes up. You'd think by now that at least a few more people would have been able to actually learn something.

Let's break down some of the arguments, shall we?

1): Japanese cars are more "high tech." In general that hasn't been true in a while. When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and "intelligent engine management." Not engine layout. DOHC? Not modern at all. DOHC engines have been around in production engines since 1912. Even the US had production aluminum, DOHC, 4 valve per cyl engines in 1932, and not just one company! Turbos? The first production turbocharged cars were American: the 1962 Corvair and the 1962 Olds F85 (in fact, the Olds had a 3.5 liter all aluminum V8 that was turbocharged with water injection).

In fact, the thinwall pushrod V8 was designed as a "high tech" alternative to the overly complex and overly expensive OHC engines. Advanced metallurgy made it possible to make a larger displacement engine in a much more simple, compact form. This made power available reliably for very little money. That's what advancing tech ALWAYS does. And the tech in pushrod V8s doesn't sit still: advancements in metallurgy, manufacturing, and electronic controls mean that the new V8s make more power than the big ones before, while prividing cleaner air and better fuel mileage AND daily driveability that they never had in the heyday of the musclecar.

2) moddability. Sorry, but the argumment that you can't mod the musclecar V8 is rank bullsh!t Anything that can be done to one engine can be done to another. Turbocharging, supercharging, nitrous, changing displacement, changing compression ratios, cam changes, induction and exhaust, all of it is available. Someone was talking about the 1300+ hp japanese engine. Very impressive. But John Kaase was building 1600 hp normally aspirated Ford V8s as far back as the early '90s. Supercharged versions are hitting 3000 hp. Top Fuel V8, which are displacement limited, are making 6000 hp. True, it isn't for very long, but it IS proof of the ability to mod the V8 for more power...

The BMW in my sig is getting a street V8 that is a suplicate of the ones I've built that make around 700 daily driver hp normally aspirated. the last one I built was together for 10 years with no more work, and only cost $1500. I believe that's pretty decent modding potential.

3) No replacement for displacement. Now, when I was working with sport compacts back in the '80s, it was fun to take a small engine and make teh car fast. But the truth is, there IS no replacement for displacement, and every engine builder knows it. That's why the Honda S2000 doesn't use a modded 1.6 liter or 1.8 liter version of the engine in the ITR. They could easily make the same hp with the smaller engine, but they decided to make it larger. And this year, they made it larger yet, though the hp isn't really different. Why do you think that is? Larger displacement makes better power for street use. The engine is more flexible, providing greater power over a wider rpm range.

Anyone can make a small engine make good power: make it rev more. We've been doing that for decades with Fiats, BMWs, Mazdas, MGs, Triumphs, etc. There's no secret. But the small engine making good hp numbers loses it's flexibility. USUALLY, the engine builder tries to increase displacement as well. That's why Porsche does not run heavily tuned 2 liter 6 cyl engines in teh 911 anymore. over the years, teh engine has risin in displacemtn from 2 liters, to 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6 liters. even the turbo ones have gone from 3 liters to 3.6. Why? More flexibility. I mean, it isn't hard to make 300-400 hp from a turbo 2 liter, so why haven't they? Because the larger displacement gives the same power over a wider powerband AND has less stress on it.

Even in racing, the engine builders tend to use the largest engine allowed by the rules. the only exception is the race series where the car weight is tied to the engine size, and you may gain an overall handling or power to weight advantage by running a smaller engine. Those cars won't put out the same power, but by being lighter they don't really neeed to, and since every car is tuned as much as possible, engine stress levels are similar, so there isn't a reliability penalty.

3) hp/liter. Closely tied to the last argument. Hp/liter is a meaningless phrase, when used the way most import fans do. it is only important in racing series where displacement is limited, and in countries where displacement is taxed. Otherwise, it's making an engine more complex and expensive for no real benefit. AND, when comparing a small displacement engine to a larger one, it IS easier to get a larger hp/liter figure. A typical R/C car gas engine makes on the order of 450-600 hp per liter. Do you think it would move your car around very well?

A lot of times, you hear the argument, "because they get 200hp from a 2 liter engine, if Honda/Toyota/etc made a 5.7 liter engine it would make 600-700 hp!" Unfortunately, that's not true. Otherwise why can't Honda get the same hp/liter they already get out of their 600cc sport bikes? If they got the same hp/liter from their car engines that they get from their street bike engines, the ITR would make over 350 hp in stock form, and the S2000 would be pumping out more hp than the Corvette Z06! Going back to the previous section, you can see why they increase the displacement instead of increase the hp alone. The resulting power is much more flexible and useful in non racing form.

Going back to vwhobo's relm, the air cooled VW is a good example of how increasing displacement is important. The early '60s VW 40hp 1200cc engine is only used as a basis for building a racing engine in the classes that require it. otherwise, the 1600cc engine is a better starting point. The VW 1600 cc flat four has been increased in size to 1776cc and 1835cc as stout street engines, and 2110, 2180, and larger for street/strip and pure racing use. But as has been found out, at larger displacemetns, so much has to be done to kee the engines reliable that a better choice is to start with the VW/Porsche Type IV 4 cyl (which comes in stock displacements of 1.7, 1.8, and 2 liters), which have now been built up to over 3 liters for racing use. Why? The larger displacements make more torque, and make more power over a wider powerband.

(The VW is also a case where overall power isn't as important: a 150 hp 2180cc engine can propel a 1700 lb air cooled VW to 12 second quarter miles.)

4) Physical size. The typical small block Chevy is physically smaller than an inline 6, or DOHC V8 or V6. Since 'the early '90s, they've been all aluminum, so they weigh less than most I6 or V6 (or imported V8s). the engine is not the reason the cars that hold them are heavy. And if they are put into smaller cars, they rarely change the weight balance or overall weight by any noticeable amount. Same for the small block Ford (which is physically smaller yet, but only comes in an iron block).

5)Drag racing. Guys, the late model import stuff is pretty impressive to those of us who were around in the heyday of the musclecar, and the beginnings of teh sport compact movement. But as vwhobo knows, air cooled Bugs beat them all there with simple pushrod engines running 9 second quarter miles a couple decades ago...

But when it comes to straight line accellearation, it's only now that the most serious imports are getting to the zone of the more serious domestic cars. It's a good thing (and I for one am glad to see it, having been a fan of Japanese sport compacts for decades), but it isn't a case of superiority of the imports. The fastest emissions legal Mustang is running 7s... On a street legal small block V8. The imports running 7s are not street legal. But street legal domestics doing that are not a new thing. And ones running 8s and 9s are not uncommon, while 8 and 9 second imports are still pretty rare. And vastly more expensive.

6) road racing/autocross. The argument is domestics can't handle. Usually spouted by someone who has never seen american cars road racing or autocrossing, or someone who drove a buddy's drag race Camaro or Mustang and assumed that's a representative sample. The truth is they work pretty good, and any trip to a major road race or autocross event will confirm that. If you don't go to one of them, and still think they can't handle, your opinion is without merit. I've been doing both for a couple decades, in both american and imported cars. My opinion is that either domestic or imported are good choices.

Next post discusses the OTHER direction...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline  
Old 03-08-2004, 04:39 PM   #38
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
The other side of the coin is domestic people who bash on the imports...

1) VTEC is unimportant/not impressive/cheating/cheap substitute for a turbo, etc.

In the old days, building an engine (any engine) for performance meant tradeoffs: hp or driveability. the domestics, due to havining cheap fuel available, went for increased displacement in a cheaper, more compact package. Europeans and Japanese, due to tax rules and fuel costs, needed to use smaller displacement engines. But in order to make good power form a small engine, you needed to make it rev. This meant that higher hp small engines lost low end flexibility and driveability to gain that hp.

At the same time, if you were building a high power domestic V8, you faced the same choices. In order to make high hp numbers, you either increased the displacement or you increased the revs. Increasing displacenet was costly in a small V8, and the big V8s did get too large physically. the most common thing was to swap cams, intake manifolds, carbs and exhausts. Byswapping teh cams, you could increase the power made, but lose teh low end driveability (you would hear these cars rumbling around with a heavy lope at or near idle). Often this made the cars slower, as they had to wait for power to be made at higher rpm.

There were various workarounds for years: hot rodders would "degree" the cam (adjusting the cam timing in relation to the crank), dialing it in to make either maximum power or maximum driveability. A couple companies came up witha way to adjust the cam on the fly, allowing the cam to be in "driveabilty mode" at lower speeds/throttle settings, and turn to "power mode" at higher rpms. this helped, but the range of adjustment was necessarily small, as the cam lobe shape never changed. the other option was to swap out cams before heading to the races, then swap teh street cam back in when you came home.

Honda came up with an ingenious way to basically swap whole cams on the fly, having a daily driver cam for around town use, and a race cam that was installed automatically ONLY when you needed it! This WAS a serious technological breakthrough for small engine management!

Contrary to ricer belief, VTEC doens't make more power than the engine could with a race cam alone, and thus when ON the high rpm cam, it's no different than any other engine ever was with a performance cam in it. The beauty was that haivng the performance cam in the car no longer meant you lost the smooth running daily driveabilty when NOT performance driving. This was still a major accomplishment, and it was almost a decade before anyone else had anything like it. Not BMW, not Porsche, not Toyota or Nissan or Alfa.

2) Wings can't do anything for fwd cars. This is a bit of misinformation that is very prevalent, as people automatically assume a rear wing is ONLY used for accellerative traction. Thus a FWD car supposedly has the wing on the wrong end. Nothing could be further from the truth. Wings are there for downforce (or reducing lift) but also for stability. In fact, I can show you how a proper wing can reduce the road race lap times of a car like a Honda Civic without adding a single horsepower...

First, however, you need to understand how a FWD car works when on the track. In stock form, they are set up to understeer. A nice safe way to be for the average driver. But, under sudden decelleration, they can transition to oversteer as the weight is transferred forward. This could be dangerous (and has proven so in numerous occasions). This means you have to slow down considerably in a straight line before turning, increasing lap times. In order to combat this you could increase the front swaybar size, but that would mean you are making the car understeer even worse under power or in lower speed corners. Since in road racing, more corners are lower speed than high speed, you want to reduce understeer as much as possible. By increasing rear stiffness and increasing rear swaybar size, you can reduce understeer (and in fact, generate oversteer) to make the car turn in crisply. But this increases the tendency to oversteer under braking for higher speed coerners, and become genereally unstable. To keep the crisp turn in you've created for lower speed corners, but remove the oversteer tendencies, you add a rear wing. At low speeds (35-50 mph, the wing has little to no effect, thus allowing the rear to come around cleanly and be neutral. At higher speeds, (such as decellerating from 100-120 for an 80 mph corner) the wing keeps teh rear planted so the car doesn't spin, and keeps it in line at 80 or so. This means you can brake later for the corner and no slow down as much, reducing lap times and increasing average speed, without adding even one horsepower...

Since the wing doesn't add significant drag until you reach 130-150 mph, and you tend not to go that fast in most places, it's a perfect tradeoff.

3) Of course this is the other part of the put down: the thought that a wing only works at high speed (120 mph and up) and that a car with one MUST go 150-200 before needing it. That's just not true. Any aerodynamic device starts working as soon as air is flowing over it. The lower the speed it needs to work at, the larger it has to be to provide the necessary effect on the object it's working on. That's why a Piper Cub airplane can FLY at 35 mph! Most inverted airfoil wings are good at speeds as low as 70-80 mph, and thus could easily be tuned to keep the rear planted in the typical freeway cloverleaf offramp...

Look at the typical SCCA A-Mod autocrosser, with HUGE wings front and rear, to provide enough downforce for 2 G cornering at speeds as low as 35-40 mph...




Now, this isn't to say the average ricer knows how to make a setup work, but remember, just saying it can't makes you no more knowledgeable than those you put down.

Also, a few people say a wing can't do anyting when bolted to the decklid, as it would just dent the decklid rather than push the chassis down. these people usually cite the Plymouth Superbird and Dodge Charger Daytona NAASCAR racers where the wing went through the quarter panel and was welded to the chassis. That may have been necessary then, but modern touring cars have proven that it isn't necessary. Just bolting it on the decklid does indeed work, and it doesn't make the car pop wheelies, either, or reduce traction on the front:

__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 12:06 AM   #39
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
You know, no matter where you go on the web, this tired, lame, uneducated argument comes up. You'd think by now that at least a few more people would have been able to actually learn something.

Let's break down some of the arguments, shall we?

1): Japanese cars are more "high tech." In general that hasn't been true in a while. When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and "intelligent engine management." Not engine layout. DOHC? Not modern at all. DOHC engines have been around in production engines since 1912. Even the US had production aluminum, DOHC, 4 valve per cyl engines in 1932, and not just one company! Turbos? The first production turbocharged cars were American: the 1962 Corvair and the 1962 Olds F85 (in fact, the Olds had a 3.5 liter all aluminum V8 that was turbocharged with water injection).

In fact, the thinwall pushrod V8 was designed as a "high tech" alternative to the overly complex and overly expensive OHC engines. Advanced metallurgy made it possible to make a larger displacement engine in a much more simple, compact form. This made power available reliably for very little money. That's what advancing tech ALWAYS does. And the tech in pushrod V8s doesn't sit still: advancements in metallurgy, manufacturing, and electronic controls mean that the new V8s make more power than the big ones before, while prividing cleaner air and better fuel mileage AND daily driveability that they never had in the heyday of the musclecar.

2) moddability. Sorry, but the argumment that you can't mod the musclecar V8 is rank bullsh!t Anything that can be done to one engine can be done to another. Turbocharging, supercharging, nitrous, changing displacement, changing compression ratios, cam changes, induction and exhaust, all of it is available. Someone was talking about the 1300+ hp japanese engine. Very impressive. But John Kaase was building 1600 hp normally aspirated Ford V8s as far back as the early '90s. Supercharged versions are hitting 3000 hp. Top Fuel V8, which are displacement limited, are making 6000 hp. True, it isn't for very long, but it IS proof of the ability to mod the V8 for more power...

The BMW in my sig is getting a street V8 that is a suplicate of the ones I've built that make around 700 daily driver hp normally aspirated. the last one I built was together for 10 years with no more work, and only cost $1500. I believe that's pretty decent modding potential.

3) No replacement for displacement. Now, when I was working with sport compacts back in the '80s, it was fun to take a small engine and make teh car fast. But the truth is, there IS no replacement for displacement, and every engine builder knows it. That's why the Honda S2000 doesn't use a modded 1.6 liter or 1.8 liter version of the engine in the ITR. They could easily make the same hp with the smaller engine, but they decided to make it larger. And this year, they made it larger yet, though the hp isn't really different. Why do you think that is? Larger displacement makes better power for street use. The engine is more flexible, providing greater power over a wider rpm range.

Anyone can make a small engine make good power: make it rev more. We've been doing that for decades with Fiats, BMWs, Mazdas, MGs, Triumphs, etc. There's no secret. But the small engine making good hp numbers loses it's flexibility. USUALLY, the engine builder tries to increase displacement as well. That's why Porsche does not run heavily tuned 2 liter 6 cyl engines in teh 911 anymore. over the years, teh engine has risin in displacemtn from 2 liters, to 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6 liters. even the turbo ones have gone from 3 liters to 3.6. Why? More flexibility. I mean, it isn't hard to make 300-400 hp from a turbo 2 liter, so why haven't they? Because the larger displacement gives the same power over a wider powerband AND has less stress on it.

Even in racing, the engine builders tend to use the largest engine allowed by the rules. the only exception is the race series where the car weight is tied to the engine size, and you may gain an overall handling or power to weight advantage by running a smaller engine. Those cars won't put out the same power, but by being lighter they don't really neeed to, and since every car is tuned as much as possible, engine stress levels are similar, so there isn't a reliability penalty.

3) hp/liter. Closely tied to the last argument. Hp/liter is a meaningless phrase, when used the way most import fans do. it is only important in racing series where displacement is limited, and in countries where displacement is taxed. Otherwise, it's making an engine more complex and expensive for no real benefit. AND, when comparing a small displacement engine to a larger one, it IS easier to get a larger hp/liter figure. A typical R/C car gas engine makes on the order of 450-600 hp per liter. Do you think it would move your car around very well?

A lot of times, you hear the argument, "because they get 200hp from a 2 liter engine, if Honda/Toyota/etc made a 5.7 liter engine it would make 600-700 hp!" Unfortunately, that's not true. Otherwise why can't Honda get the same hp/liter they already get out of their 600cc sport bikes? If they got the same hp/liter from their car engines that they get from their street bike engines, the ITR would make over 350 hp in stock form, and the S2000 would be pumping out more hp than the Corvette Z06! Going back to the previous section, you can see why they increase the displacement instead of increase the hp alone. The resulting power is much more flexible and useful in non racing form.

Going back to vwhobo's relm, the air cooled VW is a good example of how increasing displacement is important. The early '60s VW 40hp 1200cc engine is only used as a basis for building a racing engine in the classes that require it. otherwise, the 1600cc engine is a better starting point. The VW 1600 cc flat four has been increased in size to 1776cc and 1835cc as stout street engines, and 2110, 2180, and larger for street/strip and pure racing use. But as has been found out, at larger displacemetns, so much has to be done to kee the engines reliable that a better choice is to start with the VW/Porsche Type IV 4 cyl (which comes in stock displacements of 1.7, 1.8, and 2 liters), which have now been built up to over 3 liters for racing use. Why? The larger displacements make more torque, and make more power over a wider powerband.

(The VW is also a case where overall power isn't as important: a 150 hp 2180cc engine can propel a 1700 lb air cooled VW to 12 second quarter miles.)

4) Physical size. The typical small block Chevy is physically smaller than an inline 6, or DOHC V8 or V6. Since 'the early '90s, they've been all aluminum, so they weigh less than most I6 or V6 (or imported V8s). the engine is not the reason the cars that hold them are heavy. And if they are put into smaller cars, they rarely change the weight balance or overall weight by any noticeable amount. Same for the small block Ford (which is physically smaller yet, but only comes in an iron block).

5)Drag racing. Guys, the late model import stuff is pretty impressive to those of us who were around in the heyday of the musclecar, and the beginnings of teh sport compact movement. But as vwhobo knows, air cooled Bugs beat them all there with simple pushrod engines running 9 second quarter miles a couple decades ago...

But when it comes to straight line accellearation, it's only now that the most serious imports are getting to the zone of the more serious domestic cars. It's a good thing (and I for one am glad to see it, having been a fan of Japanese sport compacts for decades), but it isn't a case of superiority of the imports. The fastest emissions legal Mustang is running 7s... On a street legal small block V8. The imports running 7s are not street legal. But street legal domestics doing that are not a new thing. And ones running 8s and 9s are not uncommon, while 8 and 9 second imports are still pretty rare. And vastly more expensive.

6) road racing/autocross. The argument is domestics can't handle. Usually spouted by someone who has never seen american cars road racing or autocrossing, or someone who drove a buddy's drag race Camaro or Mustang and assumed that's a representative sample. The truth is they work pretty good, and any trip to a major road race or autocross event will confirm that. If you don't go to one of them, and still think they can't handle, your opinion is without merit. I've been doing both for a couple decades, in both american and imported cars. My opinion is that either domestic or imported are good choices.

Next post discusses the OTHER direction...
Ok, I read one sentence of the quoted post and I am almost certrain I agree, Jap cars are without doubt more technologically advanced than most other cars on the road....It's a fact, get over it guys, also I think that most people who are writing in this thread are people who dont have a clue about cars in general let alone Jap cars (apart from the regulars obviously, like vwhobo, satty, superjew and obviously any other Brits too lol). Also, whilst I agree with vassars statment about AWD only being an advantage on take off and on exiting corners, it wouldn't hurt you to do some of your own research and find out that most new stock Skylines can have the AWD system adjusted to make the usual 60/40 split of power, Rear - Front more so in either direction ie; you could have it as a 80/20 split instead...Ok, there's my
Cliffy is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 02:36 AM   #40
Vassar
CF Newbie
 
Vassar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
Ok, I read one sentence of the quoted post and I am almost certrain I agree, Jap cars are without doubt more technologically advanced than most other cars on the road....It's a fact, get over it guys, also I think that most people who are writing in this thread are people who dont have a clue about cars in general let alone Jap cars (apart from the regulars obviously, like vwhobo, satty, superjew and obviously any other Brits too lol). Also, whilst I agree with vassars statment about AWD only being an advantage on take off and on exiting corners, it wouldn't hurt you to do some of your own research and find out that most new stock Skylines can have the AWD system adjusted to make the usual 60/40 split of power, Rear - Front more so in either direction ie; you could have it as a 80/20 split instead...Ok, there's my

"Japanese cars are more "high tech." In general that hasn't been true in a while. When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and "intelligent engine management." Not engine layout. DOHC? Not modern at all. DOHC engines have been around in production engines since 1912. Even the US had production aluminum, DOHC, 4 valve per cyl engines in 1932, and not just one company! Turbos? The first production turbocharged cars were American: the 1962 Corvair and the 1962 Olds F85 (in fact, the Olds had a 3.5 liter all aluminum V8 that was turbocharged with water injection)."

If you actually read more than just the first sentence, you would see that Chris was defending American cars in this bogus claim that the Japanese are more advanced. Specifically the sentence, "When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and 'intelligent engine management.'"

Don't be ignorant and read the whole post before you come to conclusions.
__________________
Vassar is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 02:49 AM   #41
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassar
"Japanese cars are more "high tech." In general that hasn't been true in a while. When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and "intelligent engine management." Not engine layout. DOHC? Not modern at all. DOHC engines have been around in production engines since 1912. Even the US had production aluminum, DOHC, 4 valve per cyl engines in 1932, and not just one company! Turbos? The first production turbocharged cars were American: the 1962 Corvair and the 1962 Olds F85 (in fact, the Olds had a 3.5 liter all aluminum V8 that was turbocharged with water injection)."

If you actually read more than just the first sentence, you would see that Chris was defending American cars in this bogus claim that the Japanese are more advanced. Specifically the sentence, "When it WAS true, it only meant electronics and 'intelligent engine management.'"

Don't be ignorant and read the whole post before you come to conclusions.
Ok, listen up...at the begging of my post I said 'I am almost certain I agree' this is because after being here a few months I realsed that you do indeed have to defend yourself from time to time, the reason I didn't read the whole post was because, quite frankly I couldn't be bothered as I dont have 4 hrs to spare (btw, four hours was an exageration before you start on me)..And I aint ignorant, that's why I only post when nessecary. Oh and you will also notice that I said Jap cars in general are more advanced...that's why I didn't single any particular aspecs out...
Cliffy is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 04:06 AM   #42
Vassar
CF Newbie
 
Vassar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy
Ok, listen up...at the begging of my post I said 'I am almost certain I agree' this is because after being here a few months I realsed that you do indeed have to defend yourself from time to time, the reason I didn't read the whole post was because, quite frankly I couldn't be bothered as I dont have 4 hrs to spare (btw, four hours was an exageration before you start on me)..And I aint ignorant, that's why I only post when nessecary. Oh and you will also notice that I said Jap cars in general are more advanced...that's why I didn't single any particular aspecs out...

Just the fact you don't have the time to read a well thought out post is a sign of ignorance.
__________________
Vassar is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 04:20 AM   #43
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassar
Just the fact you don't have the time to read a well thought out post is a sign of ignorance.
I'll tell you a sign of ignorance shall I......Not getting all the facts straight before calling someone ignorant, the reason I did't read the whole post was because I'm on a PC at work that I shouldn't be and if I'm caught I could lose my job, okay? good..Now I dont for one moment think that post was anything other than well though out otherwise I wouldn't have agreed with what I did..So, here's how it is, from what I've read here these past few weeks with all the bickering and whining between people, there are a lot of far worse cases than me!
Cliffy is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 04:26 AM   #44
SuperJew
I like pie.
 
SuperJew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Suburbia Central, New York
Posts: 2,584
how about you both shut the f*ck up!
__________________


CF's Resident Pimp Slapper

Pimp Slap Count (as of 30 May 2004): 34
SuperJew is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 04:29 AM   #45
Cliffy
CF Loafer
 
Cliffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NE Hampshire, England, UK
Posts: 8,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperJew
how about you both shut the f*ck up!
Appologies SJ and everyone else *Shuts up* oh and anyway..how come we get told to shut...up and everybody else gets popcorn
Cliffy is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.