jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) (02/28/85)
> > I can't really identify with a guy like you, Jeff. Gimme a break! I have never said that I think a 170 hp turbo 4-banger is the ultimate street car. However, do you think a 60's rat-motor 'vette is the ultimate? I hope not. I expect both of us have our ideal set somewhere in the Porsche 959/Ferrari GTO land. So what? Well, this leaves us with the question of where to compromise when our financial resources run out. If I had to compromise, I'd like to keep a nice handling and a good cockpit as opposed to the raw power. I believe that you, Jeff, would choose otherwise. But even a nice turbo 4-banger like the 944 engine is not that bad, is it? In any case, I (and several other people in net.auto) believe that the most fun is to be had not by street racing rat motors and injected hemis but by driving small, nimble cars with reasonable engines (here again, we go our separate ways --- I'm sure 100 hp is not reasonable to you) but with a lot of emphasis on handling and maneuverability. Like a Fiero (140 hp with a V6). Like a GTI (100 hp). Like a CRX (85 hp I think). These little cars are a h*ll of a lot of fun, even if they do get blown off the road at the lights by big V8s. However, you can't take your GTO Judge or '68 Corvette to a Solo II contest either without being blown off the course by little Mini Cooper S's... I can live without a V8 --- can you? \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982 Dear Tom, What's the deal?! I never said you said a 170 hp 4-banger is the ultimate street car. As far as the mini Cooper is concerned, I don't know what a Solo II is, but it would have to be extremely tight for a 68 Vette to lose to a mini Cooper, e.g. 10 foot straight aways, turns less than the turning radius of the Corvette. You put a 68 Corvette in the same catagory as a GTO Judge. This tells me everything I need to know about your level of sophistication as a car enthusiast. Why is it that so many people on net.auto think that great handling and great acceleration are mutually exclusive? Can people really be so ignorant? Is 100 HP reasonable? In what context? 100 ponies is plenty to motivate a 2000 lb. car to 35 MPH so that one can drive to the grocery store, work, or wherever. Is 100 ponies enough to feel some acceleration when you pull away from a stop light? Of course not! As far as the comment about nimble cars is concerned, how nimble is a car with so little power that when you step on the gas, the only indication you've done so is a change in the sound of the exhaust? If you want to feel nimble, I'll take you for a ride in my '66 L-88 Vette. The cars you mention are no match in straight line nimbleness or side to side nimbleness for an '84 Corvette with Z-51 suspension. It has the nice cockpit you wanted and the handling is literally the worlds best. It isn't a fast car in terms of acceleration, but it isn't dangerously slow. Of course it costs far more than those put-put cars you mentioned. The Porsche and Ferrari you mentioned are so exotic, I can't take you seriously, especially at around $100,000 a copy. But think what you could have at 1/3 the price? For that kind of money, the buyer expects to have sensational performance. You could buy an '84 Corvette for say, $24,000, buy a ZL-1 aluminum motor for it for another $10,000 (including all mods to yield 800+ HP non turbo charged, blown, or injected), drop the motor in the Vette, and you would have a car that would blow away those "high price spread" cars. Jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/02/85)
Here we go again... :-) ? In article <281@oblio.UUCP> jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) writes: >What's the deal?! I never said you said a 170 hp 4-banger is the ultimate >street car. As far as the mini Cooper is concerned, I don't know what >a Solo II is, but it would have to be extremely tight for a 68 Vette to >lose to a mini Cooper, e.g. 10 foot straight aways, turns less than the >turning radius of the Corvette. Solo II is slalom racing, usually driven in large parking lots or wide race courses with lots of pylons you have to drive around. And yes, Mini Cooper S's blow away just about anything else on a stock chassis. >You put a 68 Corvette in the same >catagory as a GTO Judge. This tells me everything I need to know about >your level of sophistication as a car enthusiast. Ooooohh! I clasified these two as American `muscle cars'; i.e. cars intended for sporty driving with the main emphasis on power. It's no different from putting a GTI and a 944 in the same group. No offence intended by my classification... >100 ponies is plenty to motivate a 2000 lb. car to 35 MPH so that one can >drive to the grocery store, work, or wherever. Is 100 ponies enough to >feel some acceleration when you pull away from a stop light? Of >course not! The GTI has 100 hp and about 110 lbs-ft of torque. It weighs 2000 pounds (900 kg). With its close-ratio 5-speed, you damn well do feel acceleration from a stoplight. 50 hp and 2000 lbs is in fact sufficient for groceries --- look at all the people still happily driving VW Beetles (25 hp to 48 hp) as daily drivers. >The cars you mention are no match in straight line >nimbleness or side to side nimbleness for an '84 Corvette with >Z-51 suspension. It has the nice cockpit you wanted and the handling >is literally the worlds best. A nice cockpit? In the '84 Corvette? Sorry, those `Tokyo by Night' gauges just turn me off completely. For the ultimate cockpit, check out the 928. Many other German cars have excellent cockpits as well. As for the handling, in the C&D tests, Z-28 beat out the 'Vette, and 944 beat out the Z-28. >It isn't a fast car in terms of acceleration, >but it isn't dangerously slow. Of course it costs far more than >those put-put cars you mentioned. What's dangerously slow? Nine seconds from 0-60? Ten? Fifteen? >The Porsche and Ferrari you mentioned are so exotic, I can't take you >seriously, especially at around $100,000 a copy. But think what you >could have at 1/3 the price? For that kind of money, the buyer >expects to have sensational performance. You could buy an '84 >Corvette for say, $24,000, buy a ZL-1 aluminum motor for it for >another $10,000 (including all mods to yield 800+ HP non turbo >charged, blown, or injected), drop the motor in the Vette, and >you would have a car that would blow away those "high price spread" >cars. For that money, I could also buy a completely stock 911 Carrera with the 16" Fuchs forged wheels and P7s. It'd likely last several times as long as the aluminium engine as well. Not to mention the lovely sound of an air-cooled flat-six behind your back... :-) Jeff --- I propose a temporary truce: I won't flame you, you won't flame me. We'll agree that we disagree on how to compromise when the money runs out. We'll also agree that you CAN get handling out of US cars, and power out of European cars if you spend enough money. We'll agree to disagree on what the starting point should be. A '66 Corvette is nice, but it just doesn't appeal to me the same way a '66 911 does... OK? \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (03/04/85)
I think that people tend to forget that a car's accelleration should be considered in two dimensions, i.e., made up of two orthogonal vectors, one in the direction of travel, one perpendicular. Thus, straightline forward acceleration, lateral acceleration and braking are all equally important to a "good handling car" (Interestingly, I've never heard of a school of automotive enthusiasts who covet braking performance over all others.) I agree with Jeff that a '63+ Corvette with a big block does well as a good handling car with these parameters. Also, when we extoll the virtues of American cars, the inevitable response is, "well, what about the Lamborghini so and so, or the Porsche 917..." That's a pretty childish response. After all, Jeff OWNS an L-88 Corvette, I OWN a 427 Vette (only an L-72 unfortunately). Can these detractors claim to own their Porsches, Ferraris, etc? Chances are that they own a VW Dasher and drool like high-schoolers over issues of Car & Driver. I think an interesting thing about guys who own american hi-po cars is that they like to work on their cars. Hi performance driving is fun, but what's even more fun is driving after doing work on your car and seeing how well it turned out. Since my Vette is my only car, I haven't been able to take out of service to do anything radical, but I did install triple carburetion, Hooker sidemount headers, FE7 stabilizers, F-41 springs front and rear, and Konis. I used to have to change the sidemounts with a hooker/thrush underbody system and back again every year to pass NJ auto inspections. I must have had a bad starter in and out of the car about ten times. By the way, doing work on your only car can be very amusing. It can be a lot of fun breaking loose balljoints at 3:00 in the morning knowing you'll have to work all night because you need the car in the day. I have a 3HP compressor, and on a few occaisions my neighbor has threatened to call the police if I didn't shut the damn thing off. Oh well, such is the price of automotive devotion. (signed) "R"
hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) (03/07/85)
To TOM:
(I ain't to blame, this ain't no flame)
1) The alloy Porsche and Mercedes-Benz now uses in their aluminum engines
is known as 390 alloy and was developed, you guessed it, for Chev-
rolet's ZL-1 racing engine. Flame on about American engines if you
wish, but the Chevy 427 is the exception. This motor was developed
ground-up for international 24 hour racing.
2) I challenge your assertion about the new Vette and the Porsche. If
I recall the article, C&D rates the Z-28 better almost purely
subjectively--the Vette beat it out on almost every test.C&D
writers are entertaining enough, but most should be put away for
their own safety. In addition, they tested the '84 Vette which
has an inferior suspension to the 85 and a far less powerful engine.
Road and Track ran a similar test under RACING conditions at Willow
Springs raceway. This test was also with the '84 Vette and it wound
up on top in lap times. The Z-28 was 4th, the Porsche 944 5th. In
lateral accelerati, the Corvette again took top honors, the Z-28
5th, the 944 6th.
I'm not saying that one test is better than another, but that you
can't trust tests blindly.
(signed) Speed Racer
p.s. Jeff & I both drive 427 Vettes. Out of curiosity, what do you drive,
Tom?
jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) (03/08/85)
> > Jeff --- I propose a temporary truce: I won't flame you, you won't flame me. We'll agree that we disagree on how to compromise when the money runs out. We'll also agree that you CAN get handling out of US cars, and power out of European cars if you spend enough money. We'll agree to disagree on what the starting point should be. A '66 Corvette is nice, but it just doesn't appeal to me the same way a '66 911 does... OK? \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Tom- You are right. Why argue over things which are subjective, like whether or not a cockpit is nice? But you are mistaken about the Car & Driver test comparing the Z28 to the '84 Corvette. The tests they performed proved the Corvette far superior to the Z in terms of handling. The Corvette did much better on the skidpad and went faster in the slalom. They said it leaned less in the corners and had "knife-edge" steering response. No such compliments for the Camaro. They said it had "asphalt wrinkling" road holding ability, again, Camaro road holding not as good. All the parameters that define good handling came out in favor of the Corvette, a fact which few readers overlooked. I do seem to remember an out-of-place statement in which something was said about the Camaro handling being better. This was obviously a misprint since all tests and subjective opinions about road feel and steering response favored the Corvette. I tried to find a catagory in which the Z28 was superior and I seem to remember that the seats were more comfortable. Also, I think it had a softer suspension which again proved the Corvettes' handling superiority. If the article had been entitled "Worlds most comfortable riding car" then the Camaro would have possibly won. As far as comparing the Porsche to the '84 Corvette in terms of handling, I just wish I had a nickel for every car magazine that ran both cars on a skidpad and slalom course, and always showed the Corvette blowing away the Porsche (not to mention the Ferrari, 300ZX, etc.). Even the $100,000 Lambrogini was inferior in the handling department (.86 g's vs .89 g's on the skidpad, the best measure of road holding ability, re: Road & Track magazine). OK, Tom, now tell me about all those tests you've seen that showed a Porsche could hold onto the skidpad better than an '84 Corvette. Jeff
shelby@rtech.ARPA (Shelby Thornton) (03/09/85)
> .....You could buy an '84 > Corvette for say, $24,000, buy a ZL-1 aluminum motor for it for > another $10,000 (including all mods to yield 800+ HP non turbo > charged, blown, or injected), drop the motor in the Vette, and > you would have a car that would blow away those "high price spread" > cars. There are stupid comments and then there are stupid comments. Jeff, you sound like one of those guys I race a Baylands Raceway each weekend. You think you can put mega horse power in a stock car and turn nines! Drop a ZL-1 into an '84 vette and if the transmission doesn't the blow up, the frame (or lack of) will be twisted like a pretzel. I much prefer big-block to any 4-banger, but please discuss it coherently. I build and drive ten second cars and it takes alot more than horsepower to do it. Shelby Thornton Relational Technology
shelby@rtech.ARPA (Shelby Thornton) (03/11/85)
> $100,000 Lambrogini was inferior in the handling department (.86 g's > vs .89 g's on the skidpad, the best measure of road holding ability, > re: Road & Track magazine). Jeff, sometimes I wonder if you're for real. If you put the 84 vette on a race track, that .89 means something. If you put that vette on a normal street, with the associated terrain differences (pot holes, uneven pavement), that number becomes VERY misleading. If you put the vette on the street (where it belongs), the Porche will out handle it on 9 out of 10 roads. The bump steer on the vette is horrible, whereas the Porche's is excellent. What that means is that if the vette hits a bump in a turn, the vette suspension panics. The 84 vette is a very good car, but don't be selective and incomplete about your facts. Shelby Thornton Relational Technology
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/12/85)
In article <330019@acf4.UUCP> hkr4627@acf4.UUCP (Hedley K. J. Rainnie) writes: >To TOM: > (I ain't to blame, this ain't no flame) > > 1) The alloy Porsche and Mercedes-Benz now uses in their aluminum engines > is known as 390 alloy and was developed, you guessed it, for Chev- > rolet's ZL-1 racing engine. Flame on about American engines if you > wish, but the Chevy 427 is the exception. This motor was developed > ground-up for international 24 hour racing. I don't flame about *all* American engines. There are exceptions (such as the ZL-1 you mention), but in general the US made engines are not as refined as their European counterparts. > 2) I challenge your assertion about the new Vette and the Porsche. If > I recall the article, C&D rates the Z-28 better almost purely > subjectively--the Vette beat it out on almost every test.C&D > writers are entertaining enough, but most should be put away for > their own safety. In addition, they tested the '84 Vette which > has an inferior suspension to the 85 and a far less powerful engine. > Road and Track ran a similar test under RACING conditions at Willow > Springs raceway. This test was also with the '84 Vette and it wound > up on top in lap times. The Z-28 was 4th, the Porsche 944 5th. In > lateral accelerati, the Corvette again took top honors, the Z-28 > 5th, the 944 6th. Yes, the handling tests are subjective. If you want top lap speeds, however, give an experienced driver a 911 Carrera (better yet, a 1972 Carrera RSR) and he can ake it go 'round faster than any of the ones above. BUT, he's got to know how to drive a rear-engined car... >p.s. Jeff & I both drive 427 Vettes. Out of curiosity, what do you drive, > Tom? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Oh-oh. Here the truth comes out. Being that I am a poor student (3B Computer Science at U of Waterloo) my transportation is restricted to a 1972 VW Super Beetle. Before you choke completely, let me note that it is equipped with some niceties such as P6s, two-piece wheels, Weber carburation, headers, etc. A good bottomless pit to sink my money into. I really like my car, but due to financial considerations I will need to sell it in order to make it through fourth year. Even so, it's sitting in winter storage right now... :-( I hope that when I graduate I will be able to buy a reasonably nice car, and I'm sure I will buy something on par with a 944 in the foreseeable future (the nearness of which depends on whether I end up getting a Master's and how good a job I get upon graduation...) As you may have noted, I'm not comparing my Bug to 427 'Vettes or much anything else either. Most of my experience comes from driving other people's cars, which I do a lot. I've driven all kinds of VWs and Audis, and also various types of American cars (OK, not a 427 'Vette) as well as Volvos, BMWs, Japanese cars, ... So I don't have long-term ownership experience, but I have driven many different cars giving me at least some view of what things are like. As to powerful engines, I have driven (for about a day) a 400 (or thereabouts --- 6.6 litre) Trans Am with a 4-speed. I felt it had too much power for the amount of traction it had. The acceleration was nice, for sure, but it was *work* trying to control it when th road wasn't quite dry. I would expect that a 427 would cause even greater problems. Am I right? As for what I would *like* to drive --- If it had to be reliable, daily transportation, I'd likely go for a new GTI. If I didn't care about reliability, I'd try find a 916 (or at least a 914/6). That car was something that the Fiero will have a hard time matching. Alas, there were less than 20 916's built, and only about 3500 914/6's. But someday... \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (03/12/85)
> > You are right. Why argue over things which are subjective, like > whether or not a cockpit is nice? But you are mistaken about the > Car & Driver test comparing the Z28 to the '84 Corvette. The tests > they performed proved the Corvette far superior to the Z in terms of > handling. The Corvette did much better on the skidpad and went faster > in the slalom. They said it leaned less in the corners and had "knife-edge" > steering response. No such compliments for the Camaro. They said it > had "asphalt wrinkling" road holding ability, again, Camaro road holding > not as good. All the parameters that define good handling came out in favor > of the Corvette, a fact which few readers overlooked. I do seem to remember > an out-of-place statement in which something was said about the Camaro > handling being better. This was obviously a misprint since all tests > and subjective opinions about road feel and steering response favored the > Corvette. I tried to find a catagory in which the Z28 was superior > and I seem to remember that the seats were more comfortable. Also, > I think it had a softer suspension which again proved the Corvettes' handling > superiority. If the article had been entitled "Worlds most comfortable > riding car" then the Camaro would have possibly won. > > As far as comparing the Porsche to the '84 Corvette in terms of handling, > I just wish I had a nickel for every car magazine that ran both cars on > a skidpad and slalom course, and always showed the Corvette blowing away > the Porsche (not to mention the Ferrari, 300ZX, etc.). Even the > $100,000 Lambrogini was inferior in the handling department (.86 g's > vs .89 g's on the skidpad, the best measure of road holding ability, > re: Road & Track magazine). > > OK, Tom, now tell me about all those tests you've seen that showed > a Porsche could hold onto the skidpad better than an '84 Corvette. > Jeff The problem with this whole evaluation is that the Car and Driver staff were trying cars more for drivability rather than handling. I will put some words in their mouths and say that I believe that they were looking for a car that was truly pleasant to handle as well as performing well. Objectively measured, few people can find fault with the '84 vette and in my opinion those that do are nit-picking. True the '84 corvette has near race car performance but it also has near race car attention requirements i.e. the use of the word knife- edged was a criticism, not praise. This kind of performance is fine if you want to always be sitting on the edge of the seat anytime you drive the car but I have the feeling the staff of Car and Driver wanted to have their cake and eat it too i.e. the excellent handling yet maintaining the ability to drive the car without constant seat of the pants alertness when you're not seat of the pants driving. One review of the '84 vette even invented a vocabulary of words to describe various tendencies of the car to take to the weeds if the driver loses attention to the chassis. This is why the car though clearly superior in the objective ratings was not similarly superior in the subjective ratings. The '84 vette seems to sponsor somewhat of a love hate relationship among car magazine people they love some aspects of the handling and hate others, most seem to think it was in need of refinement and the reviews of the '85 I have seen seem to indicate that it is much improved. David Albrecht