I'm A Little Bored, So...

[3rd gen noob]

looking at balamm's sig, reminds me of the question i often ask myself: Why can't American's make supercars?

don't take this as a troll and please don't flame me (too much :P), but apart from possibly the Mustang, there have been no American supercars.

by supercar, i'm talking of a car which is not only fast in straight long lines, but also in corners...

can anyone provide All-American supercars, or is everyone bored already?

p.s. Saleen S7 is part-built in the uk, so can't count...

[balamm]

Mustang? You do NOT know cars!
Musclecars are not mass produced, poorly handling, cheap pieces of shit like Mustangs.
Even Corvettes are too mass produced and frail to be considered a true musclecar.
(or supercar as you put it)

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@14 August 2003 - 06:01
Mustang? You do NOT know cars!
Musclecars are not mass produced, poorly handling, cheap pieces of shit like Mustangs.
Even Corvettes are too mass produced and frail to be considered a true musclecar.
(or supercar as you put it)
i said supercars, not musclecars...:P

and the first true musclecar (ac cobra) was based on a british car (ac ace)

[balamm]

the ac was not first. There were many others, the GTO actually beat the ac by several months, going into production for the 62 model year. Which means they were being produced in 61. Ac only had a prototype in 62 and production is questionable as there never were enough of them made in any early year to actually qualify as a "production vehicle" for most events.

[3rd gen noob]

the gto may have been in production before the cobra (though the ace was in production before the gto), but that's not the point.

the question was why can't america make supercars?

also, there is a large difference between a musclecar and a supercar

for example, a musclecar, goes very, very quickly, when faced with a straight, however, a supercar goes very, very fast when faced with straights or corners

p.s. also, the cobra qualified for Le Mans more than once

[balamm]

Doesn't say much for le'Mans then does it? A lotta wierd shit gets thrown in there.
Daytona and most others require a minimum production run of 500 identical cars and that doesn't include prototypes or mockups.

I'm guessing you've never ridden in a GTO. You might be surprised at the handling for such a heavy car.
The weight distribution ratio actually isn't that bad considering the weight of both the car and the engine.
It's not much different from a chevelle of the same year. All were basically "A" bodies with a front end package that differed for each. The chevelles had a bit of weight advantage with the small block though. With the big block 396 option in the chevelle, the GTO was the winner with a LOT more torque. 450+ ftlbs in some cases.
Most of the performance reviews you'll see were done on polyglass tires that were popular at the time. The GTO's can't use them. With fatter, softer radials, a lot has changed.

[3rd gen noob]

no, i've never ridden in a gto, sadly
the closest i've gotten was an american ex-police car (don't know what it was), that had a supercharged 5.7 litre V8.
the handling on that was "interesting", and i walked away seasick after all the body roll

do you have any laptimes for gto's? i can't find any on tracks where comparison can be drawn between american and european/japanese cars

[balamm]

There weren't really any japanese cars around then. 64- 72ish. Hondas didn't arrive till the 80's. British cars weren't in the same league at all, Rovers don't generally roll off the boat ready to run at daytona and most other europian cars are just too damn expensive to chance body or engine damage.
I'd guess the australians would be the best source for some sort of comparison. They always ran a bit of everything including GTO's , strange Fords, and some japanese stuff.
The real problem is how do you compare a 3800lb GTO to a 1700lb japanese shopping buggy? They drive different, the engines work differently, the tire sizes and wheelbases, are all too far apart to accurately show any comparison.

This is probably the best info I can get from the web right now >>

http://caranddriver.radicalmedia.com/membe...ber/anniv/1964/ (http://caranddriver.radicalmedia.com/member/anniv/1964/)

[3rd gen noob]

i'm just talking about in the history of car production.
for example, i could list 5 non-american supercars easily:

McLaren F1
Ferrari F40
Pagani Zonda
Lamborghini Murcielago
Porsche 911

however i find it very hard to list 5 bona-fide american supercars
most american cars which claim to be supercars (and are in fact musclecars) are simply cars with very large engines, the dodge viper possibly being best known currently (8.0 litres for mark 1).

[Celerystalksme]

Supercars...Australian Style

http://www.v8supercars.com.au/v8data/2003/EVNT_147/PHOTOS/PHITP_7348.JPG

[3rd gen noob]

australian "supercars" are much like american ones...i.e. they don't exist :P

all the Holden is is a family saloon with a large engine and uprated brakes/suspension

it's a great car, but it's not a supercar

the holden is very much like an Audi RS6, which is a 4 door saloon (or estate), but it has 450bhp, and can do 0-100mph in 12 seconds dead. not bad for an estate

[Ron]

No offence intended, but when it comes to cars, Americans are just a bunch of spoiled brats.
They want to sit in their cars like they are sitting in their livingrooms. I think there is just not a big enough market for American companies to get involved in that niche.
So if you want to get some nice wheels, go Italian.
That goes for bikes too. HD sucks!!!!
Italian all the way!!!!

Again, no offence intended, just my 2p.

[j2k4]

I have owned many "musclecars", and still have a pile of parts waiting for the right piece of sheet-metal to fall in to my lap.

My very first car was a '64 Tri-power GTO.

My last musclecar was a maxed-out (for the street, anyway) '71 Mach I Super Cobra Jet 429; 1/4 mile in 11.2 @ 118 mph.

It must be granted the "Musclecar" was a peculiarly American phenomenon-for the most part, straight-line acceleration was of paramount concern, with handling a secondary consideration.

While time and technology (tires, etc.) has made it possible to extract reasonable handling from some of the old faves, it would be safe to say the only domestically-produced iron which could qualify as "super" would be the Corvette (probably the best performance value on the planet), and the Dodge Viper (also a good value/cost car).

While neither could be considered "cutting edge" when compared with the handful of hand-built European cars (with their attendant unmatchable sophistication), all things considered, they hold their own.

[balamm]

Well look at the prices of the cars you listed. We just don't make that kind of money here. And we don't have a lot of "old money".
The american automakers have contributed, the McLarens used GM engines. Ford has europian interests.
There just isn't a market for any large production runs and that precludes any specially manufactured "supercars" from being thrashed on a track.
There are many companies in California that produce some very radical cars though.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@14 August 2003 - 07:15
Well look at the prices of the cars you listed. We just don't make that kind of money here. And we don't have a lot of "old money".
The american automakers have contributed, the McLarens used GM engines. Ford has europian interests.
There just isn't a market for any large production runs and that precludes any specially manufactured "supercars" from being thrashed on a track.
There are many companies in California that produce some very radical cars though.
McLaren had a purpose built BMW engine
Noble M12 GTO is more of a real world performance car than corvettes
it'd be interesting to see them on a track, on anything more tight than an oval, the noble would come out on top
also, talking extreme overkill for track cars, the caterham r500 has the best performance to price ratio

it does hold the world record for 0-100-0mph, afterall, and only costs £36,200

[balamm]

McLaren and GM have worked together for some time and it is possible to buy a Reynolds Aluminum McLaren big block if you have the cash.


"As the original engine development company for Bruce McLaren Motor Racing, McLaren Engines has enjoyed a long heritage of racing success with General Motors' powertrains -- beginning with our multiple Chevrolet-based, Canadian American Challenge (Can-Am) championships, through the front row (pole position) performance of the stock-block Buick V6 at the Indianapolis 500. Most recently, our continued involvement with GM Racing led us to LeMans, where we continue to accelerate as the engine development partner for the Cadillac Northstar Prototype (LMP) racer," said Steven Rossi, president and chief executive officer, McLaren Performance Technologies.



And the whole article >> http://www.blairracing.com/2002/team_news/...ews_011602.html (http://www.blairracing.com/2002/team_news/news_011602.html)

[Ron]

£ 32.000 in Europe. ;)
As a kitcar, that is.
Dunno if they come ready-to-drive.

[3rd gen noob]

a little confusion here, methinks...

i'm referring to McLaren F1 as the McLaren F1 road car, which has a purely BMW engine built specially for the McLaren F1 road car...

here (http://www.supercars.net/Pic?s=1&id=1177&i=0&p=1997_mclaren_f1-1.jpg&y=1997&m=McLaren&o=F1)

@Ron, yeah, it comes as a kit or ready built, the £36,200 is for one ready-built in the UK

[Jay]

Ever seen the Dodge Viper

[merlin-1]

I personaly don&#39;t care for the European cars or the rice burners either. <_< I&#39;m 6&#39; 3" so little cars don&#39;t interest me at all,I perfer good ole American muscle anyday.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by Jay@14 August 2003 - 13:00
Ever seen the Dodge Viper
funnily enough there is a viper in the town next to mine
it&#39;s very wide, very low and very red.

the problem i have with the viper is that it has an 8.0 litre engine, however, only produces 400bhp (mark one)

this is another "flaw" in american engine production. american engine builders are very good at building large engines, however, the specific outputs are terrible in comparison to most othher countries cars.

there aren&#39;t any examples of american naturally aspirated angines producing over 60-70 bhp/litre, however, there are many europeans cars which do just that

[balamm]

That may be because we don&#39;t use that rating. Ours are rated hp/ci and there are quite a few engines that easily pass the one horse power per cubic inch mark.
The last real GTO engine produced, the ram air 5, was killed by the EPA because of noise concerns but at 455 ci, it put out over 650 hp. The Z28 302ci zapper is another one, 375 hp if I recall correctly. There are a lot more that can do it with just a little work to unrestrict the ports. My Pontiac 455, now 472, has made 520 hp without too much work at all. A few hours with a die grinder to open the valve bowls and ports was all that it really needed besides factory street parts.

[3rd gen noob]

ah...ok...i&#39;d never heard of that measurement before
ok, so a Honda Civic Type-R (2003 UK) has a 2.0 litre naturally aspirated engine producing 197bhp

therefore, its hp/ci rating is

197/(2000/(2.54^3)) = ~1.6

which is higher than ram air GTO (which of course, isn&#39;t truly naturally aspirated due to the ram air effect)

plus remember we&#39;re talking about production cars here, with no aftermarket fettling

i suppose the most used argument for american engine builders is the increased torque of a larger engine compared to a smaller one, however, surely an engine with a larger hp/ci rating would also have a higher specific torque?

[balamm]

Well that&#39;s the most important part, torque. Since japanese engines have to spin at up to 10,000 rpm to produce the equivalent (hp/ci )horse power an american car produces at 5,000 rpm.
Horse power is rated over a period of time. Torque is an instantaneous result.
Torque is what you feel when you open the throttle on a muscle car. The reason you have to warn your passengers to avoid giving them whiplash.
Horse power only matters at speed and over a determined time period. Torque is available at any time.
With a larger engine, the torque will often surpass both the cubic inches, and the rated horse power. And in big bore, stroked engines, torque is more desireable than horse power.
The GTO figures I gave you were not after market by the way. All performance parts for GTO are available as regular production options or standard production.

And the Ram effect is negligable. The fact that cold air is ducted to the intake is a bigger bonus.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@15 August 2003 - 01:56
Well that&#39;s the most important part, torque.
which brings me nicely onto my next car: the TVR Cerbera Red Rose
this car is a british car available for £48,850, which has a 4.5 litre (274ci) naturally aspirated V8 engine.
it produces 440bhp (at 7,250rpm) and 390lb ft of torque (at 5,500rpm)

this means it has a hp/ci figure of ~1.6 and a lb ft/ci figure of ~1.4

not too bad for a "small" engine

you also have to take into account that the engine in this car is the first V8 engine TVR have built completely themselves, so better performance figures should be expected for future engines.

the above is impressive enough, humbling all of the american cars mentioned above (in terms of power/ci), and a few supercars at the same time. however, possibly the most important figure is the weight of the car: just 1,100kg.
this makes it good for 0-60mpg in 4.0 seconds exactly, 0-100 in 9.0 seconds exactly and the quarter mile in 12.1 seconds (at 119mph).
all of the above on completely standard road tyres.

also, the big brother to the Cerbera, the Speed 12, is a little bit more special than the Cerbera

it&#39;s got a 7.7 litre (470ci) engine producing over 940bhp at 7200rpm. the reason i say "over" is that it actually broke the dyno being used to measure it (which was rated at 1000bhp). no torque figures have ever been given, due to the fact that it&#39;s not a production car. however, the only factor stopping it being a production car is that the boss of TVR has deemed it too fast to be used on public roads

[3rd gen noob]

found this (http://www.supercars.net/cars/1969@&#036;Pontiac@&#036;GTO%20Covertible%20Ram%20Air%20IVg.html) page on the gto ram air 4

it&#39;s got a 400ci engine, producing 370bhp (at 5,500rpm) and 445lb ft (at 3,400rpm)

which yields

hp/ci = ~0.93 and lb ft/ci = ~1.1

[balamm]

Almost 450 ft lbs at 3400 rpm&#33;&#33; Smokin. Those are box stock figures by the way. Not many cars actually left the factory that way and most went through wangers or a shop in detroit that tweaked them for some rediculously low figure. Under &#036;100 for a cam and lifters, headers, carb overhaul, distributer curve kits, etc. Almost all factory part numbers as well.

These sites will give you a truer picture of what they were like.
My GTO has been featured in the first one.

http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/

http://www.pontiacpower.net/links1.html

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@15 August 2003 - 08:17
Almost 450 ft lbs at 3400 rpm&#33;&#33; Smokin.
it is pretty impressive for what is essentially a classic car

p.s. where is your car on that site? i don&#39;t really know where to look on the site, and searching for 71 gto doesn&#39;t yield any results other than an estate

[balamm]

You won&#39;t find it on the site, it was submitted in about 97-98 I think. Search doesn&#39;t go back that far and I think they were out of print for a year or two. I have a bunch of back issues in my storage room but I don&#39;t recall the exact issue. It was in starlight black with full judge dressing at that time though.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@15 August 2003 - 08:32
You won&#39;t find it on the site, it was submitted in about 97-98 I think. Search doesn&#39;t go back that far and I think they were out of print for a year or two. I have a bunch of back issues in my storage room but I don&#39;t recall the exact issue. It was in starlight black with full judge dressing at that time though.
ah...ok

it is a pretty nice looking car though, and from the spec looks pretty quick

p.s. what kind of tyres are you using for the performance runs?
also, have you got any other figures for it? e.g. 0-60mph, 0-100&#39;?

[balamm]

I don&#39;t really remember the 0-60 times but my best speed was 125 mph with a 410-1 rear gear running on bridgestones at about 20 lbs pressure. With that year GTO it&#39;s almost impossible to get a decent tire under the fenders without tubbing it and I didn&#39;t want to do that. I was actually disqualified for not having a roll bar, NHRA approved harmonic balancer, and forged axles.
The axles and balancer I would have done but not the roll bar. At anything below 11.99 et you need a roll bar. Below 10.99 it&#39;s a roll cage.
They do have old timers and street shoot outs once in a while but the slips don&#39;t count for anything.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by balamm@15 August 2003 - 08:47
I don&#39;t really remember the 0-60 times but my best speed was 125 mph with a 410-1 rear gear running on bridgestones at about 20 lbs pressure. With that year GTO it&#39;s almost impossible to get a decent tire under the fenders without tubbing it and I didn&#39;t want to do that. I was actually disqualified for not having a roll bar, NHRA approved harmonic balancer, and forged axles.
The axles and balancer I would have done but not the roll bar. At anything below 11.99 et you need a roll bar. Below 10.99 it&#39;s a roll cage.
They do have old timers and street shoot outs once in a while but the slips don&#39;t count for anything.
sounds pretty good :D

shame about the nhra situation, it&#39;s a pain having to have the roll bar/cage

here&#39;s (http://mysite.freeserve.com/MSchumiFTP/R500.JPG) a little article about the 0-100-0 i was talking about earlier

i hadn&#39;t noticed how long the cobra held the record before i read this

[balamm]

11.44 to 100 and back to 0? that is quick. I wouldn&#39;t have thought the cobra could stop like that with a 427 in the front end. The weight ratio on those cars was horrible.

[3rd gen noob]

it was the r500 that did the test in 11.44, the cobra took 12.4 secs

still extremely impressive for 1965 though

[balamm]

My daughter is coming to visit tommorow and she takes care of all my filing, she has a photographic memory&#33; Makes up for my aging brain lol.
I&#39;ll get her to dig up what she can and see if we can get it scanned. I wouldn&#39;t mind doing some cropping and cleanup on the pictures anyway and then I&#39;ll post a few.

[3rd gen noob]

sounds good

looking forward to seeing some more pics

[lynx]

I&#39;ve seen reports of the possibility of a production Cerbera S12, though how reliable these reports are remains to be seen, but with 0-60 in 2.9 seconds (I think 0-100 was about 6 seconds) this car would certainly smash the 0-100-0 record.

I wish I could remember where I saw these figures, I know it was in a magazine which had a list including hp/ton, and I scanned the list to find the highest.

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by lynx@15 August 2003 - 11:10
I&#39;ve seen reports of the possibility of a production Cerbera S12, though how reliable these reports are remains to be seen, but with 0-60 in 2.9 seconds (I think 0-100 was about 6 seconds) this car would certainly smash the 0-100-0 record.

I wish I could remember where I saw these figures, I know it was in a magazine which had a list including hp/ton, and I scanned the list to find the highest.
i&#39;m sure it&#39;d be near the top of such a list...over 900bhp (940 at 7,200rpm, with more to come) in a car weighing 1150kg leads to more than 800bhp/tonne

kind of makes the current fastest production car (mclaren f1) with 627bhp and weighing 1137kg (550bhp/tonne) a little bit silly

it also makes the bugatti veyron (estimated 984bhp, estimates of 1400kg (702bhp/tonne) look slow

however, bhp/tonne isn&#39;t always the most telling factor, as the Dauer 962 "only" has a power to weight ratio of 675bhp/tonne (730bhp, 1080kg), however, its race-bred technology and huge rear tyres means it can hit 60 in 2.6 seconds and top out at 250mph

pretty impressive

[lynx]

The list was alphabetical, but it certainly had the highest power/weight ratio, note this was the Cerbera S12 not the original Speed 12. I believe they had trimmed a little off the weight too, giving a figure over 850bhp/tonne.

Hate to think what they could do if they started tuning that engine :&#39;(

[Assultsniper]

I drive a folkswagen (I dont know anything about cars) :lol:

[3rd gen noob]

BUMP

The Ford GT doesn&#39;t count as it&#39;s not fully american built :)

[Rappy]

well im not the biggest car person but i know few cars these days are built in 1 country or even mostly in one its very funny

[LovePotion nr. 9]

I drive a Love GT 69&#33;&#33;

It runs like heaven.

With it&#39;s 987bhp and weighing 1436kg it takes me high&#33;&#33;&#33;

Lp9

[FunkyDawg76]

Hey guys, what car do YOU guys own?

[bujub22]

Originally posted by FunkyDawg76@6 January 2004 - 10:28
Hey guys, what car do YOU guys own?
grand am 99

[3rd gen noob]

Originally posted by FunkyDawg76@6 January 2004 - 13:28
Hey guys, what car do YOU guys own?
http://www.arap78.dsl.pipex.com/zondacarbon.JPG
http://www.arap78.dsl.pipex.com/zondacarbon2.JPG

[RGX]

You&#39;ve gotta love a Zonda, especially in black...want Mclaren F1 :( :lol: :D :huh:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by FunkyDawg76@6 January 2004 - 15:28
Hey guys, what car do YOU guys own?
http://www.automobilepic.com/images/ls-lse-300.jpg
Lincoln LS

and Toyota Camry (use it to commute to work when not using the subway)