Love my Yaris...

[eTiMaGo]

hey hey calm down guys, sounds like just a misunderstanding, no harm done, let's leave it at that, ok?

[09TRD]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

What?....I stated that I sometimes get the two confused. It is not feasible that I make a typo in regards to missing the RPM points by 1000 points? If you think that you are Mr. Joe f'ing cool....well you are waaaay off. I own the 327 "fuelie" and happen to know just a few things about it. I also happened to pay $150K cash for it. In other words...I own it. Get off your high horse.

I don't think I'm Joe anything.

Rather, I'm simply stating that no 283 or 327 fuelie in anything resembling stock form can rev to 7,500 RPM or produce anything close to its advertised (Gross) output in its "as installed" condition. The "375 HP" 327 fuelies, for example, produced roughly 275 SAE NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). As such, they were mid 14 second/100 MPH cars...That's fast by early-to-mid 1960's standards, though nothing a brand new, bone stock V6 Camry family sedan couldn't match.

Nearly half a century has passed since the first 327 Fuelies hit the streets. Huge technological advancements have taken place during that period.


Anyway...I hope you enjoy yours. How about posting some photos of it so we can all see it?

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by 09TRD

I don't think I'm Joe anything.

Rather, I'm simply stating that no 283 or 327 fuelie in anything resembling stock form can rev to 7,500 RPM.

I'm also stating that the old fuelie 'Vettes aren't fast cars by modern standards; a new, bone stock V6 Camry would give any bone stock "fuelie" 'Vette a real good run.

Nearly half a century has passed since the first 327 Fuelies hit the streets. Huge technological advancements have taken place during that period.

ah the old "Joe pro"...gotta love em'. I also assume that you would rather have a V6 camry as opposed to a split window 'fueli' as well? You don't have to tell me about fast cars my friend...I have family, friends and I myself, have raced cars. Get a grip....go quote some more Road & Track.

And any day of the week when you'd like....I'll invite you to join me at LRP and race my e30 M3 against your vette. That'd be a hoot to see you get your ass wiped in a car that's 20 years older with 20 years of better technology.

[ChinoCharles]

Chupacabra, I think we can all agree you slap harder. Now let the dude bask in the glow of his new vehicle.

[09TRD]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

ah the old "Joe pro"...gotta love em'. I also assume that you would rather have a V6 camry as opposed to a split window 'fueli' as well? You don't have to tell me about fast cars my friend...I have family, friends and I myself, have raced cars. Get a grip....go quote some more Road & Track.

And any day of the week when you'd like....I'll invite you to join me at LRP and race my e30 M3 against your vette. That'd be a hoot to see you get your ass wiped in a car that's 20 years older with 20 years of better technology.

The E30 M3 (192 HP, 4 cylinder in a 2,900 pound car) is a slow car my modern standards...They also had handling issues due to their semi-trailing arm rear suspensions.

They required roughly 19 seconds to run from 0 - 100 MPH, while a new LS3 Corvette will do it in roughly 9 seconds flat. The 'Vette also as much larger brakes, superior suspension geometry and a lot more rubber. Top end is 190 MPH.

A new LS3 'Vette will run with a new M3; comparing a 20+ year old, 4 cylinder E30 M3 to either of them is ludicrous.

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by 09TRD

The E30 M3 (192 HP, 4 cylinder in a 2,900 pound car) is a slow car my modern standards...They also had handling issues due to their semi-trailing arm rear suspensions.

They required roughly 19 seconds to run from 0 - 100 MPH, while a new LS3 Corvette will do it in roughly 9 seconds flat. The 'Vette also as much larger brakes, superior suspension geometry and a lot more rubber. Top end is 190 MPH.

A new LS3 'Vette will run with a new M3; comparing a 20+ year old, 4 cylinder E30 M3 to either of them is ludicrous.

Ludicrous? How about this...I have connections at LRP. I will get them to open the track and I will give you 5 seconds. You beat me...I'll give you my 2.5L Evo spec M3 and if I beat you....I'll take your vette. I am not all afraid to put my money where my mouth is. AAMOF, I will have your car trailored for you at my cost and give you a limo ride to LRP. Just make sure to have plans on how you want to get home afterwards. Are you game....I'll make some calls and get it set up?

[Bob_VT]

[QUOTE=09TRD;179940]Either you're dreaming or you ran up against a lot of 5.0/automatic cars and/or people who couldn't drive.

Here's an original road test of a bone stock, '88 5.0 Mustang notch; it ran a 14.17 @ 99 MPH straight out of the box:

http://www.derekspratt.com/PDFs/Auto...May%201987.pdf


As you can see, the SHO (15.2 @ 93 MPH) wasn't in the same league:

[QUOTE]

Where's your TRD Yaris pictures? We want to see the dump.

As far as dreaming ....... The SHO had a better top end than the mustang and my SHO had a few mods.

Do you think I am new to this game? I was modding my 66 chevelle when I was in HS oh....... my chevelle was only 6 years old then.

What do I know? Your the proclaimed expert on every car!

[Chupacabra]

[QUOTE=Bob_VT;180825][QUOTE=09TRD;179940]Either you're dreaming or you ran up against a lot of 5.0/automatic cars and/or people who couldn't drive.

Here's an original road test of a bone stock, '88 5.0 Mustang notch; it ran a 14.17 @ 99 MPH straight out of the box:

http://www.derekspratt.com/PDFs/Auto...May%201987.pdf


As you can see, the SHO (15.2 @ 93 MPH) wasn't in the same league:

Where's your TRD Yaris pictures? We want to see the dump.

As far as dreaming ....... The SHO had a better top end than the mustang and my SHO had a few mods.

Do you think I am new to this game? I was modding my 66 chevelle when I was in HS oh....... my chevelle was only 6 years old then.

What do I know? Your the proclaimed expert on every car!

The SHO was a fast car...a friend of mine owns one. It hasn't been running for a few years but he loves that car and wants to do a rull restoration on it. Because of the rarity...it's not easy to get parts as you know. That 66 Chevelle wouldn't happen to have been an SS396 would it have? On of my favs with the Muncie!!

[Bob_VT]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

The SHO was a fast car...a friend of mine owns one. It hasn't been running for a few years but he loves that car and wants to do a rull restoration on it. Because of the rarity...it's not easy to get parts as you know. That 66 Chevelle wouldn't happen to have been an SS396 would it have? On of my favs with the Muncie!!

Yes it was my first car. I could not afford the insurance on a 58 vette so I got a 66 chevelle ss396 (two door). It went through 6 big blocks and 3 transmissions..... when it was all said and done I was bracket 1 racing it at National Speedway with a 327 coupled to a Muncie T10. Good old purple zoom clutch ..... it became a dedicated 1/4 mile car. As far as SHO parts there used to be a website called SHOtimes.

[09TRD]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

The SHO was a fast car...

So you must consider a 15.2 second, 93 MPH (in the 1/4 mile) a "fast car," since that's how stock SHOs ran

A new, bone stock Camry V6/automatic will run mid 14s @ 100 MPH right out of the box. That's enough to embarrass a bone stock SHO.

The SHO's cylinder heads were junk by modern standards; it only made 220 HP for God sake. The new Camry's V6 weighs about the same as the SHO, but makes 268 CERTIFIED SAE Net HP and is therefore a faster car.

I OWNED A SHO; it was a 1995 that I bought brand new. My 2006 V6/6 speed Accord coupe was a significantly faster car. Both are dog A** slow compared to my '09 'Vette and even that isn't overly "fast" by some of today's standards.

Here, compare the Taurus SHO test results with those of a new Camry V6; it's not even close.

SHO:


CAMRY V6:

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Bob_VT

Yes it was my first car. I could not afford the insurance on a 58 vette so I got a 66 chevelle ss396 (two door). It went through 6 big blocks and 3 transmissions..... when it was all said and done I was bracket 1 racing it at National Speedway with a 327 coupled to a Muncie T10. Good old purple zoom clutch ..... it became a dedicated 1/4 mile car. As far as SHO parts there used to be a website called SHOtimes.

One of my favorite muscle cars....loved the 66 SS. My old man bought a 63 vette roadster...spent every dime he had to buy it and got a great deal. He couldn't afford insurance when he first started college so the car sat until one day he risked it and brought it to school while his impala was in the shop. Welp...just so happens that the roadster was gone when he came out to go home for the day - stolen, never to be found.

[Chupacabra]

[QUOTE=09TRD;180865]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

So you must consider a low to mid 15 second, 93 MPH (in the 1/4 mile) a "fast car."

A new, bone stock Camry V6 will run mid 14s @ 100 MPH right out of the box. That's enough to embarrass a bone stock SHO.

So by your standards the new V6 Camry must be a race car.

I OWNED A SHO; it was a 1995 that I bought brand new. My 2006 V6/6 speed Accord coupe was a significantly faster car. Both are dog A** slow compared to my '09 'Vette and even that isn't overly "fast" by some of today's standards.

Here, compare the Taurus SHO test results with those of a new Camry V6; it's not even close:

SHO:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...lbum/CDSHO.jpg

So are you willing to race my 4 cylinder?

[09TRD]

Originally Posted by Chupacabra

One of my favorite muscle cars....loved the 66 SS.

The '66 SS 396 wasn't as fast a new, bone stock, V6 Camry, though.

It FELT faster because the old cars had lousy suspension and were noisy. The '66 SS 396 was 350 or pounds heavier than a new Camry V6 and it made less power...

Look, here's a vintage engine dyno test of a "350 HP" 396. (This one was a 1970 example, which was actually a 402 CID engine because it was factory over-bored by .030" that year.) It could only manage 288 peak HP in it's "as delivered" state and that's WITHOUT the factory exhaust system in place. (Figure 260 HP with the full exhaust system in place.) MOST SS 396s were the "325 HP" versions and made even less power!

[09TRD]

Here's a vintage road test of a 1966 SS 396; this one had the "360 HP" 396.

It ran a 15.85 @ 91 MPH; many modern, garden variety 4 cylinder cars (e.g. 4 cylinder, 5 speed Nissan Altima) could run with that.

Most of these old engines were DOGS by modern standards. The few that did go were rare, expensive and never made more than 375 SAE NET HP (the way modern engines are rated). Most of them made much, much less.

[drbilal]

Relax guys, you both have nice cars.


Now, lets see some pics of the the yaris.

[Bob_VT]

Would like to see a picture of the Yaris parked nose to nose with the Vette...............

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

[Chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Bob_VT

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

[09TRD]

Originally Posted by Bob_VT

Would like to see a picture of the Yaris parked nose to nose with the Vette...............

Or are we going to get a link to a site that has a magazine review?

I'll snap a picture of both cars together next week and will post it.

I have HUNDREDS of "magazine reviews" from "the muscle car era," have driven many of them and have a mechanical engineering degree on top of it.

Your "opinions" of those old boats, while common, is based primarily in myth and legend and, as such, is essentially baseless.

Here is the absolute king of "the muscle car era." The engine option (RPO ZL1) cost more than an entire base Camaro of the period and was all but useless on the street. It would barely idle, woudn't start in cold weather and fouled plugs quicker than a rattlesnake can bite. In its "as delivered" state it made a whole 376 SAE NET HP (as measured at the flywheel and in its "as delivered" state), despite the fact that it was essentially a racing engine with an exhaust system. Figure 320 HP at the drivewheels as measured on a modern chassis dyno.

http://www.camaros.org/copo.shtml

That's chicken feed by modern, high performance street car standards. Your favored "1966 SS 396" made but a fraction of that peak power and was nothing more than a glorified station wagon engine wrapped in a cheap car with some fancy trim and a lot of advertising hype.

So is this (315 peak drivewheel HP from a certified production line stock 426 Hemi): http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/r...426/index.html

My LS3 Corvette will put 380+ drivewheel HP to the ground without any real effort and will do it on 91 octane unleaded gas (as opposed to leaded racing fuel) and with just 6.2 liters and with catalytic converters and all other modern emissions equipment in place).

And that Corvette, while fast, is relatively mundane by modern performance standards (not to mention poorly built).

You've got a whole lot of learning to do if you don't understand why modern engines make a lot more power per unit of displacement than the old crap did. (Modern computational software and the cylinder head/chamber design breakthroughs that software has yielded represent the single greatest advantage in power and efficiency.)