This lady Likes her car

[darin]

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r13/reedred/Lighthouse%20Prerun%20042107/P1010385.jpg (http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=484380&postcount=200)

Why shouldn't she? It's a neat little car.


But...She can't drive.


So it was me who flipped their Solstice on the Tail of the Dragon.

One correction to the reported incident - it was not raining at the time of the wreck - although I did get drenched by a brief thunderstorm as I waited for the wrecker to come and haul away my car.

As far as a description of the incident, I was coming up on a left hand curve on the Dragon and took the curve too wide. My right tires went off the pavement into the gravel along the side of the road. Unfortunately, I was unable to get my wheels back onto the road, and the car headed down into a slight ditch and up a sharp incline, which rolled the car over.

When the car came to rest, I was conscious and generally uninjured, but my left forearm was pinned between the top of the headrest and the ground. Luckily for me, a fellow Solstice owner was driving along behind me, and several motortcylists also stopped to help out. After a few moments of panic where I tried to dig the dirt out from around my trapped arm, a group of volunteer helpers gathered around to lift the side of the car up enough so that I could pull my arm out. Once I was unstuck, I was able to crawl free through the passenger door, which my rescuers were able to pull open.

I am amazingly uninjured, other than a little swelling and tenderness in the arm that was pinned. But no broken bones, head trauma, etc. Hardly even any scratches or bruises. My Baby was sacrificied, but gave its life to keep me safe. These cars are just amazing in how well they are designed to save us from injury.

Pictures probably give a better idea of the terrain, so here are a few for those who can handle it...

This is how the car ended up:

http://www.sticko.net/i/a/3372

http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=520780&postcount=14

[Jon]

Reading through that thread, it sounds like she wants to get a GXP next.

:rolleyes:

I doubt she'll be as fortunate next time. Hopefully she stops going to this sort of event.

:cuckoo:

[Pale Rider]

This lady likes her car.

Why shouldn't she? It's a neat little car.

Looks like she likes Crispy Creme too... :laugh:

[BBA]

BS

She's in the Sostice Forum calendar. I bet she was posing on the car for some pictures, crushed the windshield, then decided to set the car upside down at the gap after beating it up a little more so, out of shame, she could claim to have rolled it. :)

[darin]

BS

She's in the Sostice Forum calendar. I bet she was posing on the car for some pictures, crushed the windshield, then decided to set the car upside down at the gap after beating it up a little more so, out of shame, she could claim to have rolled it. :)



^^^^:laugh2::laugh2:

[BBA]

^^^^:laugh2::laugh2:

What? Woman really are that sneaky. You should know, Darin, you used to be one, right? :p

[darin]

What? Woman really are that sneaky. You should know, Darin, you used to be one, right? :p

Interesting thought. If I was a woman, I'd want to be Alyssa Milano or Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba.

:)

[Pale Rider]

Interesting thought. If I was a woman, I'd want to be Alyssa Milano or Jessica Biel or Jessica Alba.

:)

I take it you KNOW this BBA.

[darin]

I take it you KNOW this BBA.

We dated - back when i was a woman, it seems.

:)

[BBA]

We dated - back when i was a woman, it seems.

:)

Hey now, if you were one of those women you mentioned, I'd gladly admit to that. :)

[darin]

Re: the Wreck -


the windshield did not collapse nearly as low on the driver's side as it did on the passenger side

That's cuz you were in a ditch, woman...

If she had a passenger, she'd likely be charged with negligent homicide.

[Pale Rider]

We dated - back when i was a woman, it seems.

:)

I take that as a yes.

[Abbey Marie]

We dated - back when i was a woman, it seems.

:)

Lordy, D, was it one of those nights when you can't remember what you did?
:coffee:

[shattered]

Daaaamn. Well, it was a nice car...

I'm trying to come up with a foolproof method of stealing the black one that lives around here. :D

[glockmail]

Is the Soltice RWD?

[Abbey Marie]

Daaaamn. Well, it was a nice car...

I'm trying to come up with a foolproof method of stealing the black one that lives around here. :D

I think you'd probably look like you belong driving it, unlike our thread lady.

When I look at the picture, I think "female mid-life crisis". :laugh2:

[BBA]

Is the Soltice RWD?

yes it is
You can see the differential in this pic:
http://www.sticko.net/i/a/3376

[glockmail]

yes it is
You can see the differential in this pic:


That's pretty nice. I was not aware GM had any RWD IRS cars except the Corvette. Have they been making the Caddys with this feature? I thought they were all FWD semi-cars.

[shattered]

I think you'd probably look like you belong driving it, unlike our thread lady.

When I look at the picture, I think "female mid-life crisis". :laugh2:

I'm not sure I'll ever have a mid-life crisis, since I refuse to age beyond 29, and 29 isn't the middle of anything. :)

But, if I figure out how to swipe it, I'll let you know.

[BBA]

That's pretty nice. I was not aware GM had any RWD IRS cars except the Corvette. Have they been making the Caddys with this feature? I thought they were all FWD semi-cars.

The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.

As far as Cadillacs, I believe the CTS and STS are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.

[glockmail]

The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.

As far as Cadillacs, I believe the CTS and STS are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.

Interesting. GM is making the same marketing mistake Ford did with the late 80's TBird/ Lincoln Mark 8.Those where both V8 RWD-IRS and no one knew about it. These were the finest riding vehicles on the road for the money and they stopped production of both due to dismal sales. As I recall the introduction of that chassis occurred along with their aquistion of Jaguar, long known for its IRS technology.

The Ford Explorer has been IRS for about 6 years now, and they redesigned the Expedition to use a similar platform about 2 years ago. They both handle unimproved, rutted roads like big cats yet the feature is not marketed.

[The ClayTaurus]

The Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.

As far as Cadillacs, I believe the CTS and STS are both RWD with 4-wheel independent suspension.
Two roadsters, the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky, will be rear-wheel drive entries. Other rear-wheel drive GM cars include the Cadillac CTS and STS sedans, the Chevrolet Corvette and the Pontiac GTO. Source (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/21/A01-123402.htm).

[darin]

Interesting. GM is making the same marketing mistake Ford did with the late 80's TBird/ Lincoln Mark 8.Those where both V8 RWD-IRS and no one knew about it. These were the finest riding vehicles on the road for the money and they stopped production of both due to dismal sales. As I recall the introduction of that chassis occurred along with their aquistion of Jaguar, long known for its IRS technology.

The Ford Explorer has been IRS for about 6 years now, and they redesigned the Expedition to use a similar platform about 2 years ago. They both handle unimproved, rutted roads like big cats yet the feature is not marketed.

I'm pretty sure Car guys/gals are aware of GM's IRS cars. I didn't know anyone who knows what IRS is who wasn't aware of a shift back to rwd platforms by major manufacturers.

:)
People in SUVs like IRS because it rides better. People in Trucks like Solid rear axles because they're stronger (no CV joints to snap, etc).

People in Sports cars prefer IRS because it typically handles better. People in Muscle Cars like solid rear axles for the same reason as truck guys (also, IRS has more of a tendency to wheel-hop under power, IIRC).

[darin]

Source (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/21/A01-123402.htm://).


The GTO has been stopped - But Chevy is making an All-new RWD impala in the coming years - AND bringing back the Camaro.

:)

[The ClayTaurus]

The GTO has been stopped - But Chevy is making an All-new RWD impala in the coming years - AND bringing back the Camaro.

:)Stopped, yes, but still on the streets. The car was also about as under the radar as a sports car could be.

[darin]

Stopped, yes, but still on the streets. The car was also about as under the radar as a sports car could be.

Yup - have you driven one? I test-drove a 2004 before buying my RX8. I liked it - until the first on-ramp.

Felt like I was riding in a car with mattress springs for suspension - HUGE amounts of body-roll, Vague braking, and numb steering. I'd never call it a "sports car".

[glockmail]

Source (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/21/A01-123402.htm).


I'm pretty sure Car guys/gals are aware of GM's IRS cars. I didn't know anyone who knows what IRS is who wasn't aware of a shift back to rwd platforms by major manufacturers.

:)
People in SUVs like IRS because it rides better. People in Trucks like Solid rear axles because they're stronger (no CV joints to snap, etc).

People in Sports cars prefer IRS because it typically handles better. People in Muscle Cars like solid rear axles for the same reason as truck guys (also, IRS has more of a tendency to wheel-hop under power, IIRC).


I searched Clay's source and found no mention of the works "independent" or "suspension", although there is plenty of mention of "rear wheel drive" and 'did not sell enough to justify'. This confirms my analysis that GM has failed to market the IRS cars properly, as Ford did.

US car manufacturers build fine products, but flunk out in marketing.

[darin]

I searched Clay's source and found no mention of the works "independent" or "suspension", although there is plenty of mention of "rear wheel drive" and 'did not sell enough to justify'. This confirms my analysis that GM has failed to market the IRS cars properly, as Ford did.


No - it only means the Car was too heavy and ugly for people to buy. (shrug)

The GTO had near corvette levels of straight-line performance in a bathtub, non-exciting body. That was the real problem. IRS is so common nowadays I hardly think of it as a selling point - it's what is to be expected in a performance (other than straight-line performance) car.

[glockmail]

No - it only means the Car was too heavy and ugly for people to buy. (shrug)

The GTO had near corvette levels of straight-line performance in a bathtub, non-exciting body. That was the real problem. IRS is so common nowadays I hardly think of it as a selling point - it's what is to be expected in a performance (other than straight-line performance) car.

I dunno about the weight issue so I won't comment on that, but ugly is a marketing failure, is it not? Several posters here commented positively on the OP car's looks, so it could be said that it is you who have not been marketed correctly.

IRS is only common on higher end vehicles, such as Volvo on up. Most lower priced cars marketed as "sporty" as simply FWD with trailer rear ends. So for a car in an reasonable price range to have RWD-IRS it is indeed someting to be flaunted.

[darin]

I dunno about the weight issue so I won't comment on that, but ugly is a marketing failure, is it not? Several posters here commented positively on the OP car's looks, so it could be said that it is you who have not been marketed correctly.


No, Ugly is a design failure - NOT a marketing failure. You were stating GM failed to market IRS correctly. I'm saying IRS isn't unique enough for ppl to get past the car's looks.


IRS is only common on higher end vehicles, such as Volvo on up

I believe Volvo has no RWD cars. The ONLY volvos with IRS would be their Car-platform-based SUVs, or AWD cars.


Most lower priced cars marketed as "sporty" as simply FWD with trailer rear ends. So for a car in an reasonable price range to have RWD-IRS it is indeed something to be flaunted.

Car guys aren't typically into FWD cars (which ALL have IFS -Independent FRONT Suspension, fwiw), save the Mini, and to some extent the 'tuner' variants of other pocket-rockets (Mazdaspeed3, Cobalt SS, etc). Frankly, IRS is the NORM for RWD cars nowadays - especially sports cars (Maybe we can thank the Miata for that, starting in 1989?) In fact, other than the Mustang, I can't think of another current RWD car with a solid axle.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yup - have you driven one? I test-drove a 2004 before buying my RX8. I liked it - until the first on-ramp.

Felt like I was riding in a car with mattress springs for suspension - HUGE amounts of body-roll, Vague braking, and numb steering. I'd never call it a "sports car".I haven't driven one, actually. From what I've heard, they're torque monsters and THE definition of straightline performance.

Some people say they're bland to look at, but I think they have a minimalist/sleeper appeal to them.

I will agree that they don't attract attention like a 'vette does. Or a rex :)

Perhaps instead of sports car we should call it a "power car."

[darin]

I haven't driven one, actually. From what I've heard, they're torque monsters and THE definition of straightline performance.

Some people say they're bland to look at, but I think they have a minimalist/sleeper appeal to them.

I will agree that they don't attract attention like a 'vette does. Or a rex :)

Perhaps instead of sports car we should call it a "power car."

Muscle Car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car)

;)

:D

I have seen some ppl do great things w/ the GTO at the track - they just let the body roll (as it does) and just go.

:)

[BBA]

Perhaps instead of sports car we should call it a "power car."

I think it fits the definition of Muscle Car; no need to invent new classifications. :) Unfortunately, many of the people interested in a muscle car seem to prefer a solid axle, ride quality be damned. Those interested in a car that handles well go for the IRS.

As far as IRS only being common on higher-end cars, I'd have to disagree. Most RWD cars anymore have IRS. You just don't find a whole lot of inexpensive cars with RWD - most are FWD econoboxes. The least expensive of the RWD cars, as far as I know, are the little roadsters (Miata, Solstice, Sky), and they all have IRS.

[glockmail]

No, Ugly is a design failure - NOT a marketing failure. You were stating GM failed to market IRS correctly. I'm saying IRS isn't unique enough for ppl to get past the car's looks.



I believe Volvo has no RWD cars. The ONLY volvos with IRS would be their Car-platform-based SUVs, or AWD cars.



Car guys aren't typically into FWD cars (which ALL have IFS -Independent FRONT Suspension, fwiw), save the Mini, and to some extent the 'tuner' variants of other pocket-rockets (Mazdaspeed3, Cobalt SS, etc). Frankly, IRS is the NORM for RWD cars nowadays - especially sports cars (Maybe we can thank the Miata for that, starting in 1989?) In fact, other than the Mustang, I can't think of another current RWD car with a solid axle.

1. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, several posters have stated otherwise.
2. Unless things have changed Volvo has no FWD cars. It's been a while since I looked at Volvos so it is possible that I am wrong. But I doubt it. Saab, the other Swedish manufacturer, is all FWD.
3. All FWD cars have IFS. It's not necessary to specify "FWD-IFS". Any car guy would cuff you off the side of the head for that.
4. I see "car guys" (take Clay Taurus for example) driving those FWD rice rockets all the time. You must be referring to college kids with rich parents or the more well heeled penny loafer types. I never hung with either.
5. Other than the Mustang, I can think of no other low priced "sporty car" on the market with RWD.

[glockmail]

I think it fits the definition of Muscle Car; no need to invent new classifications. :) Unfortunately, many of the people interested in a muscle car seem to prefer a solid axle, ride quality be damned. Those interested in a car that handles well go for the IRS.
.... .

I think muscle car lovers would jump at the chance for IRS in an affordable package. The only way to get one is with a Mustang fitted with a Motorsports conversion. Large dollars and large weight penalty.

The last time I read about that was in Hot Rod magazine years back when they still had the FOX chassis, and before they began to go retro in '97. Remember that boxy body they had for over 10 years? As I recall the IRS was a bolt-on subframe, added a bit of weight and did not improve skid-pan performance at all. But they still claim it rode better, and I suspect that it did, especially on bumpy turns.

[The ClayTaurus]

1. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, several posters have stated otherwise.
2. Unless things have changed Volvo has no FWD cars. It's been a while since I looked at Volvos so it is possible that I am wrong. But I doubt it. Saab, the other Swedish manufacturer, is all FWD.
3. All FWD cars have IFS. It's not necessary to specify "FWD-IFS". Any car guy would cuff you off the side of the head for that.
4. I see "car guys" (take Clay Taurus for example) driving those FWD rice rockets all the time. You must be referring to college kids with rich parents or the more well heeled penny loafer types. I never hung with either.
5. Other than the Mustang, I can think of no other low priced "sporty car" on the market with RWD.I can guarantee you that Volvo makes FWD cars, as a friend of mine has an S60 that is FWD.

Also, my "rice rocket" is RWD and you can get one starting around 24-25K, same as a stang. :)

[glockmail]

I can guarantee you that Volvo makes FWD cars, as a friend of mine has an S60 that is FWD.

Also, my "rice rocket" is RWD and you can get one starting around 24-25K, same as a stang. :)


Well I stand corrected on both counts then. I always figgered the rice rockets were FWD because they all handle so poorly. :poke:

[darin]

1. You're entitled to your opinion, but again, several posters have stated otherwise.

Otherwise? Otherwise to what?



2. Unless things have changed Volvo has no FWD cars. It's been a while since I looked at Volvos so it is possible that I am wrong. But I doubt it. Saab, the other Swedish manufacturer, is all FWD.

Well - as of 2007 the S40, S60, S80, V50, V70, XC70, XC90, C30, AND the C70 are either FRONT or ALL wheel drive.

I know it's been the case for some time.



3. All FWD cars have IFS. It's not necessary to specify "FWD-IFS". Any car guy would cuff you off the side of the head for that.

That's my point.


4. I see "car guys" (take Clay Taurus for example) driving those FWD rice rockets all the time.

Clay's car isn't FWD.


You must be referring to college kids with rich parents or the more well heeled penny loafer types. I never hung with either.

Weird - it's like you live in bizzaro world because The VAST majority of the college kids around here have Civics and Junk. Ricers.



5. Other than the Mustang, I can think of no other low priced "sporty car" on the market with RWD.


I can help you:

MX5, Solstice/Sky twins, RX8, and GTO, off the top of my head, too.

[darin]

I think muscle car lovers would jump at the chance for IRS in an affordable package. The only way to get one is with a Mustang fitted with a Motorsports conversion. Large dollars and large weight penalty.


Research late model Mustang Cobras, with IRS. The Mustang Crowd Shit a brick - and demanded the solid axle be returned.

[The ClayTaurus]

Well I stand corrected on both counts then. I always figgered the rice rockets were FWD because they all handle so poorly. :poke:My car does not handle poorly. Not in the slightest. :) It doesn't accelerate exceptionally, but it handles well.

[darin]

My car does not handle poorly. Not in the slightest. :) It doesn't accelerate exceptionally, but it handles well.

Caveat - it accelerates WONDERFULLY....laterally. ;) Straight-ahead acceleration, though, is it's weak point.

If it were silver, it'd be faster. Course, like mine, it might be on it's 2nd engine, 2nd Transmission, and 3rd Cat. :(

[The ClayTaurus]

I think it fits the definition of Muscle Car; no need to invent new classifications. :) Unfortunately, many of the people interested in a muscle car seem to prefer a solid axle, ride quality be damned. Those interested in a car that handles well go for the IRS.

As far as IRS only being common on higher-end cars, I'd have to disagree. Most RWD cars anymore have IRS. You just don't find a whole lot of inexpensive cars with RWD - most are FWD econoboxes. The least expensive of the RWD cars, as far as I know, are the little roadsters (Miata, Solstice, Sky), and they all have IRS.I guess you're right... for whatever reason when I hear muscle car I have an age qualification in my head. Muscle car makes me think 1970's/early 1980's. It works for the GTO, though, I suppose.

[The ClayTaurus]

Caveat - it accelerates WONDERFULLY....laterally. ;) Straight-ahead acceleration, though, is it's weak point.

If it were silver, it'd be faster. Course, like mine, it might be on it's 2nd engine, 2nd Transmission, and 3rd Cat. :(:) Your car can't be faster without a functioning powertrain, silly man. It should also be pointed out that you can get decent straightline acceleration, so long as you clutch drop around 7-8K... :p

No thanks on replacing the clutch every 10k.:cool:

[darin]

:) Your car can't be faster without a functioning powertrain, silly man. It should also be pointed out that you can get decent straightline acceleration, so long as you clutch drop around 7-8K... :p

No thanks on replacing the clutch every 10k.:cool:

:D Straight line Acceleration isn't bad either, from 5,000rpms up. Keeping the tach 'on the boil' can mean fairly good passing power.

And yup - I'm losing love for the car...quickly. :(

S4 maybe? 911? as replacement 4-seaters?

BOTH of those, btw, For the record HAVE IRS. :p:

[The ClayTaurus]

:D Straight line Acceleration isn't bad either, from 5,000rpms up. Keeping the tach 'on the boil' can mean fairly good passing power.

And yup - I'm losing love for the car...quickly. :(

S4 maybe? 911? as replacement 4-seaters?

BOTH of those, btw, For the record HAVE IRS. :p:11K in camera equipment and a 911? What are you; made out of money?

[glockmail]

[1] Otherwise? Otherwise to what?

[2]Well - as of 2007 the S40, S60, S80, V50, V70, XC70, XC90, C30, AND the C70 are either FRONT or ALL wheel drive.

I know it's been the case for some time.

[3]That's my point.

[4]Clay's car isn't FWD.

[5]Weird - it's like you live in bizzaro world because The VAST majority of the college kids around here have Civics and Junk. Ricers.

[6]I can help you:

MX5, Solstice/Sky twins, RX8, and GTO, off the top of my head, too.


1. Otherwise to the opinions of the fat chick pictured in the OP, the bitchy one in post 14, and the tall one in post 16.
2. I stand corrected as stated earlier. When did they switch from all RWD?
3. As I indicated, it was pointless to make the point.
4. Ditto to 2 above.
5. Perhaps you misunderstood. Most kids do drive ricers, all FWD, except for the ones with rich daddies, who drive beemers, all RWD-IRS.
6. That was the purpose of my question, post 15. But those are all under powered cars, are they not?

[glockmail]

Research late model Mustang Cobras, with IRS. The Mustang Crowd Shit a brick - and demanded the solid axle be returned.
I find that hard to believe. It must have been something to do with capacity. I'm sure if they offered an IRS with the same capabilities as the 8.8" pumpkin everyone would be gism-happy.

[BBA]

I think muscle car lovers would jump at the chance for IRS in an affordable package. The only way to get one is with a Mustang fitted with a Motorsports conversion. Large dollars and large weight penalty.


Muscle Car lovers believe, at least from what I've read and heard from a few friends that are muscle car lovers, is a solid axle is the only way to make a true muscle car. Some of these people are huge fans of the Camaro, and have flat-out refused to buy one if it comes with IRS.



Well I stand corrected on both counts then. I always figgered the rice rockets were FWD because they all handle so poorly. :poke:

I'm not sure what Clay drives, but he has alraedy commented on the handling of his car. I also drive little a Japanese RWD car and it handles wonderfully. :)

[glockmail]

My car does not handle poorly. Not in the slightest. :) It doesn't accelerate exceptionally, but it handles well. If you drive it off a cliff you'll get at least 1g out of it- for a short while, anyway.
I don't see any other way of getting any real speed out of it though.

[glockmail]

....

S4 maybe? 911? as replacement 4-seaters?

BOTH of those, btw, For the record HAVE IRS. :p:

Dunno what an S4 is, but the 911 has always been the epitome of mid-engine RWD IRS performance, as well as large dollars.

[BBA]

1. Otherwise to the opinions of the fat chick pictured in the OP, the bitchy one in post 14, and the tall one in post 16.


I think there's some confusion on the issue of looks here. You seem to be talking about the Pontiac Solstice that was rolled, whereas Darin seems to be talking about the looks of the Pontiac GTO being bland. So, you're going back and forth but talking about different cars, or so it seems. Just wanted to try to clear that up.

[darin]

1. Otherwise to the opinions of the fat chick pictured in the OP, the bitchy one in post 14, and the tall one in post 16.

What did I say about the fat chick or the bitchy one in post 14, or the tall one in post 16? wha?



5. Perhaps you misunderstood. Most kids do drive ricers, all FWD, except for the ones with rich daddies, who drive beemers, all RWD-IRS.

Not All fwd cars are ricers...and beemers are motorcycles. Bimmers are cars.
Not every bimmer is rwd. ;)



6. That was the purpose of my question, post 15. But those are all under powered cars, are they not?

The purpose was to name inexpensive rwd cars? By asking if the solstice was rwd?

None of the cars I listed in that response are under-powered - all are sporty. In fact, the argument could be make the MX5 and Solstice/Sky twins are the only true sports cars listed. The Mustang and GTO are 'muscle cars', the RX8? No idea - probably closer to sports car than anything else.

[darin]

I find that hard to believe. It must have been something to do with capacity. I'm sure if they offered an IRS with the same capabilities as the 8.8" pumpkin everyone would be gism-happy.

It's your choice to believe it or not - I was 'into cars' when the Cobra debuted with IRS and teh REAL mustang guys went ape-shit.



If you drive it off a cliff you'll get at least 1g out of it- for a short while, anyway.
I don't see any other way of getting any real speed out of it though.

He and I drive the same make/model of car. I've had my car's speedometer up to 184mph...(shrug) What do you consider 'real speed'? Timed acceleration in the 1/4 mile? Top Speed? I haven't measured - but I know my car has seen WELL Over 1 G :) (laterally)

[The ClayTaurus]

If you drive it off a cliff you'll get at least 1g out of it- for a short while, anyway.
I don't see any other way of getting any real speed out of it though.A G of speed? Perhaps you could clarify... are you talking acceleration or velocity?

[darin]

I think there's some confusion on the issue of looks here. You seem to be talking about the Pontiac Solstice that was rolled, whereas Darin seems to be talking about the looks of the Pontiac GTO being bland. So, you're going back and forth but talking about different cars, or so it seems. Just wanted to try to clear that up.

I think you're correct. I'm glad somebody isn't corn-fused. :D

[glockmail]

I think there's some confusion on the issue of looks here. You seem to be talking about the Pontiac Solstice that was rolled, whereas Darin seems to be talking about the looks of the Pontiac GTO being bland. So, you're going back and forth but talking about different cars, or so it seems. Just wanted to try to clear that up. I thought we were talking about GM RWD-IRS "sporty" cars in general.

[darin]

Dunno what an S4 is, but the 911 has always been the epitome of mid-engine RWD IRS performance, as well as large dollars.

Thought you were a car guy?

Were you into older cars? Say, circa 1980? 1985ish?

I'm considering 2004 S4 as a replacement -

If I could find one like this, I'd be thrilled!

http://www.zeckhausen.com/images/Cars/Audi/S4_B6.jpg

It's 340hp Motivator:

http://www.audiworld.com/features/tests/2004_s4_012.jpg

All wheel drive, 0-60 5.4 seconds, 1/4 mile ~13.5@102mph, electronically limited to 155mph top speed.

heavy though...no where near as balanced as my current car.

[glockmail]

[1]What did I say about the fat chick or the bitchy one in post 14, or the tall one in post 16? wha?

[2]Not All fwd cars are ricers...and beemers are motorcycles. Bimmers are cars.
Not every bimmer is rwd. ;)

[3]The purpose was to name inexpensive rwd cars? By asking if the solstice was rwd?

[4]None of the cars I listed in that response are under-powered - all are sporty. In fact, the argument could be make the MX5 and Solstice/Sky twins are the only true sports cars listed. The Mustang and GTO are 'muscle cars', the RX8? No idea - probably closer to sports car than anything else.

1. LOL! We are talking about the opinions of each person, on the styling of the cars.
2. No, of course not. I never said that they were. BMW makes a FWD? No shit?
3. Isn’t the Solstice considered inexpensive? I assumed that it was. Perhaps that’s why it’s a sales-flop.
4. I don’t know how powerful those cars were. I’ve always thought of them as econo-boxes with louder exhaust and jazzier sheet metal (or plastic).

[darin]

I thought we were talking about GM RWD-IRS "sporty" cars in general.

As GM makes no solid-axle rwd cars, you can leave off the "IRS" part. In fact, generally, Most car guys I know 'assume' IRS until told otherwise....things like "You mean the MUSTANG STILL has a solid axle in the back? Yikes!!"

And

"You mean the Corvette STILL uses LEAF SPRINGS??"

;)

:D

[glockmail]

A G of speed? Perhaps you could clarify... are you talking acceleration or velocity?
I'm sure even dmp would agree with me on this: a "g" is a unit of acceleration.

[darin]

2. No, of course not. I never said that they were. BMW makes a FWD? No shit?

Not that I know of. The do make a few AWD cars, though :)



3. Isn’t the Solstice considered inexpensive? I assumed that it was. Perhaps that’s why it’s a sales-flop.

Yes, it's considered inexpensive. As is it's twin - the Saturn Sky.


4. I don’t know how powerful those cars were. I’ve always thought of them as econo-boxes with louder exhaust and jazzier sheet metal (or plastic).

The solstice GXP would give a Mustang GT a good run for it's money in a straight line. The GTO would SMOKE a mustang in a straight line (As it had up to 150 MORE HP). The Miata is powered 'just about right' - while it (nor the rx8) would win many drag races, they are 'momentum' cars; where the driver is rewarded for fighting the urge to use the brakes. :)

FWIW, I'm not sure what you drive, but if it's a car with less than 300 hp, and you come across a Little Wagon which reads Mazdaspeed3 on the back...don't try to race him. Even being a FWD, he'd probably smoke ya! ;)

[darin]

I'm sure even dmp would agree with me on this: a "g" is a unit of acceleration.

....not reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly.....

'G' is only relevant when used with a number - such as 1G. That means the acceleration of the car (Generally it's used for lateral acceleration only) is equal to the force Gravity is applying downward.

:)

[glockmail]

Thought you were a car guy?

Were you into older cars? Say, circa 1980? 1985ish?

I'm considering 2004 S4 as a replacement -

If I could find one like this, I'd be thrilled!

…..


1. I used to be a car guy, back in the 70s and 80’s!! I had a relapse with a ’98 Mustang GT, which I called my “mid-life crisis car”, but after 3 years I went back to practical transportation.
2. If it costs more than 6 months pay I’ve never been interested.

[darin]

1. I used to be a car guy, back in the 70s and 80’s!! I had a relapse with a ’98 Mustang GT, which I called my “mid-life crisis car”, but after 3 years I went back to practical transportation.
2. If it costs more than 6 months pay I’ve never been interested.

You must make a LOT of money. I can only think of a few new cars which cost > than half my annual salary +/-. No new car costing that little is a car I'd want to drive. To me, a car isn't transportation, it's part of my identity. It's passionate and emotionally rewarding.

[glockmail]

....not reaaaaaaaaaaaaallly.....

'G' is only relevant when used with a number - such as 1G. That means the acceleration of the car (Generally it's used for lateral acceleration only) is equal to the force Gravity is applying downward.

:)

G is the unit, 1 is the value.

[glockmail]

You must make a LOT of money. I can only think of a few new cars which cost > than half my annual salary +/-. No new car costing that little is a car I'd want to drive. To me, a car isn't transportation, it's part of my identity. It's passionate and emotionally rewarding. I don't make a lot of money, and I have never been passionalte about wasting it. My philosophy about cars is to maximize the performance/ price ratio. So I'd rather have a Mustang with a "paltry" 250HP and turns .9 on the skid pan than a Porche 911 with 500 / .98 (although I'd still be envious of the IRS).

That way when I retire I can sit on my ass and collect interest from investemnts rater than to droll over pictures of cars that I have owned.:poke:

[darin]

My philosophy about cars is to maximize the performance/ price ratio.

You'd LOVE an early 90s Miata + FlyinMiata Turbo system. 250 hp (at the wheels) in a 2000lbs car! :)WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


So I'd rather have a Mustang with a "paltry" 250HP and turns .9 on the skid pan than a Porche 911 with 500 / .98 (although I'd still be envious of the IRS).

When has a mustang ever got .9G on the skid pad??? Plus, Skid-pad #'s aren't a function of suspension so much as a function of the car's tires' ability to hang onto the the surface :)


That way when I retire I can sit on my ass and collect interest from investemnts rater than to droll over pictures of cars that I have owned.:poke:

I'd rather stroll out to my garage in my Middle-Class house and SEE all the cars, than sit back and collect interest on the money I didn't spend.

:D

[glockmail]

You'd LOVE an early 90s Miata + FlyinMiata Turbo system. 250 hp (at the wheels) in a 2000lbs car! :)WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE



When has a mustang ever got .9G on the skid pad??? Plus, Skid-pad #'s aren't a function of suspension so much as a function of the car's tires' ability to hang onto the the surface :)



I'd rather stroll out to my garage in my Middle-Class house and SEE all the cars, than sit back and collect interest on the money I didn't spend.

:D

I'm more of a tourque guy, not appreciative of turbo lag.

I never measured my '98 GT when I had it, but when I was into it, I had an 85 Tbird that I dialed in to get around .86 or 7 or so. Since the newer Mustangs are supposedly better than te older FOX chassis, I have no doubt I could do .9.

Such is America. :salute:

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm sure even dmp would agree with me on this: a "g" is a unit of acceleration.Of course it is, but you said speed in that particular post, hence my question. My car can develop all kinds of speed - acceleration as well, providing I don't mind burning up the clutch. :)

[Pale Rider]

Car guys aren't typically into FWD cars (which ALL have IFS -Independent FRONT Suspension, fwiw), save the Mini, and to some extent the 'tuner' variants of other pocket-rockets (Mazdaspeed3, Cobalt SS, etc). Frankly, IRS is the NORM for RWD cars nowadays - especially sports cars (Maybe we can thank the Miata for that, starting in 1989?) In fact, other than the Mustang, I can't think of another current RWD car with a solid axle.

Chevy Cobalt... I drove one of these. It was a loner while they were working on my truck. What a claustrophobic piece of shit....


http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9420/chevycobalt1101024wn0.jpg

[glockmail]

Of course it is, but you said speed in that particular post, hence my question. My car can develop all kinds of speed - acceleration as well, providing I don't mind burning up the clutch. :) You have to accelerate in order to make speed, as I said in the post that you misunderstood.

[glockmail]

Chevy Cobalt... I drove one of these. It was a loner while they were working on my truck. What a claustrophobic piece of shit....


....

What are the little slits in the fenders supposed to be, gills? It looks stoopid.

[The ClayTaurus]

You have to accelerate in order to make speed, as I said in the post that you misunderstood.No misunderstanding; just a lack of clarity. Regardless, cliff jumping is far from the only way I can get any speed (or acceleration) out of my car.

[The ClayTaurus]

Chevy Cobalt... I drove one of these. It was a loner while they were working on my truck. What a claustrophobic piece of shit....Now THAT is a ricer! What's with the maroon side mirrors?

[glockmail]

No misunderstanding; just a lack of clarity. Regardless, cliff jumping is far from the only way I can get any speed (or acceleration) out of my car.


I would argue that your error was due to poor comprehension, as you have exhibited in the past.

Yes, I suppose you could have your car pulled by another, or strap on a jet pack.

[The ClayTaurus]

I would argue that your error was due to poor comprehension, as you have exhibited in the past.

Yes, I suppose you could have your car pulled by another, or strap on a jet pack.You are free to argue, as you have demonstrated in the past.

As for my car, I'm perfectly content with you thinking it's a FWD with an inability to attain any speed under it's own power. :2up:

[darin]

I'm more of a tourque guy, not appreciative of turbo lag.

I never measured my '98 GT when I had it, but when I was into it, I had an 85 Tbird that I dialed in to get around .86 or 7 or so. Since the newer Mustangs are supposedly better than te older FOX chassis, I have no doubt I could do .9.

Such is America. :salute:

Turbos create MOUNTAINS of torque. It's one reason they are popular in the diesel truck platform. Well-designed turbo systems produce VERY VERY limited amounts of 'lag' or 'boost threshold' - See the new BMW 335i for an example.

What did you do to dial-in your TBird?

Doing a bit of googling, I've found a Car and Driver showing .89 for the '05 Mustang GT. Keep in mind, going from .89 to .9 could be as difficult as a complete tire/wheel swap, OR as easy taking the car to a different test facility. :)


I wouldn't have believed it - but I found a Mustang Shelby GT showing .92(!!!) on a skidpad. That's the same as a 2007 RX8! (Makes me wonder if my particular RX8 would generate 1G? .95 at least, I'd bet, on a skidpad. I'm very sure I've seen MORE than 1G on some of the corners on one of the tracks I've ran) WOW! Thank GOD for WIDE, sticky TIRES on that mustang - it surely wasn't the suspension doing the work, hence the comment from one reviewer in the test:


The live axle, on the other hand, is responsible for the worst handling of the group. In truth, the blame isn’t all located at the rear. The front suspension is lousy enough that one tester compared the whole package to a 20-year-old pickup truck. On a particularly rough stretch of road, the vibrations were severe enough that the hood clips worked themselves loose. Combine that with the greatest curb weight and its overboosted, numb steering, and it’s easy to see why the Mustang was the last choice on the curvy roads surrounding Lake Mead.

Interestingly enough - In this same review (Pitting the Mustang Shelby GT vs. The Nissan 350z, Audi TT 2.0T, and the RX8), the RX8 WON - these comments summarize why:


Get off the highway, and the annoyance caused by the wheezy engine subsides as cornering speeds increase. The suspension takes hits from the road like a champion prizefighter, so much so that during our driving loop the RX-8 was actually the fastest car on real-world roads.

...But just as on the street, the RX-8 inspires confidence in the driver to carry more speed through the corners, and the challenge of maintaining velocity in this car is ultimately more rewarding than relying on the gas pedal in the others to make up for your mistakes.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12900/2007-mazda-rx-8.html

[BBA]

Turbos create MOUNTAINS of torque. It's one reason they are popular in the diesel truck platform. Well-designed turbo systems produce VERY VERY limited amounts of 'lag' or 'boost threshold' - See the new BMW 335i for an example.

wait, so you're saying they use turbos on diesels now? Next you're gonna tell me that the whole 'fuel injection' fad actually caught on. :p

[The ClayTaurus]

wait, so you're saying they use turbos on diesels now? Next you're gonna tell me that the whole 'fuel injection' fad actually caught on. :pWait... so they inject the hamsters onto the wheels?

BRILLIANT!

[Pale Rider]

At the prison I worked at, we had two, gigantic, V-16 Detroit diesels with quad turbos blowing into duel supercharges. Even with a massive exhaust system, it was deafening in the generator room when they were running. They'd generate enough electricity to not only power the prison, but half the town of Boscobel as well. The most awesome engines I've ever seen. No, I've never seen the diesel in a locomotive or a ship.

[glockmail]

Turbos create MOUNTAINS of torque. It's one reason they are popular in the diesel truck platform. Well-designed turbo systems produce VERY VERY limited amounts of 'lag' or 'boost threshold' - See the new BMW 335i for an example.

What did you do to dial-in your TBird?

Doing a bit of googling, I've found a Car and Driver showing .89 for the '05 Mustang GT. Keep in mind, going from .89 to .9 could be as difficult as a complete tire/wheel swap, OR as easy taking the car to a different test facility. :)


I wouldn't have believed it - but I found a Mustang Shelby GT showing .92(!!!) on a skidpad. That's the same as a 2007 RX8! (Makes me wonder if my particular RX8 would generate 1G? .95 at least, I'd bet, on a skidpad. I'm very sure I've seen MORE than 1G on some of the corners on one of the tracks I've ran) WOW! Thank GOD for WIDE, sticky TIRES on that mustang - it surely wasn't the suspension doing the work, hence the comment from one reviewer in the test:



Interestingly enough - In this same review (Pitting the Mustang Shelby GT vs. The Nissan 350z, Audi TT 2.0T, and the RX8), the RX8 WON - these comments summarize why:



http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12900/2007-mazda-rx-8.html

A turbo on a diesel is not even comparable to a turbo on a gas engine. They've always delivered good performance with a diesel setup.

It doesn't surprise me that Car and Driver would be biased in favor of foreign cars. They always have been.

[glockmail]

wait, so you're saying they use turbos on diesels now? Next you're gonna tell me that the whole 'fuel injection' fad actually caught on. :p Don't be a douche-bag. A diesel can't work without fuel injection.

[BBA]

Don't be a douche-bag. A diesel can't work without fuel injection.

My statements were separate; the comment about fuel-injection had nothing to do with the question regarding diesels.

And if using sarcasm to emulate your apparent ignorance of the modern automobile makes me a "douche-bag," then so be it - I'm a douche-bag. I think I can live with that.

Also, on the subject of a gas engine with a turbo, to paraphrase a quote credited to Carroll Shelby: if you have lag, you're not driving it right.

Have you ever driven a modern car with a well-designed turbo system? If not, I think any comment you make in regards to such a setup is moot, and that's putting it lightly.

[darin]

A turbo on a diesel is not even comparable to a turbo on a gas engine. They've always delivered good performance with a diesel setup.

Why? It's absolutely comparable. Turbo systems on gasoline engines produce FANTASTIC results. Absolutely fantastic. Buick Grand National - Turbo V6. AMAZING engine. Stock they were no slouch - tuners have done great things with the platform - 10 second 1/4 mile times are common in GN circles. Course, i've never seen a GN on a road-race course.


It doesn't surprise me that Car and Driver would be biased in favor of foreign cars. They always have been.

Could it be the foreign cars just perform better? Car and Driver is biased in favor against cars which are the most fun to drive. Any Car-enthusiast mag worth it's salt is, too.

[glockmail]

Why? It's absolutely comparable. Turbo systems on gasoline engines produce FANTASTIC results. Absolutely fantastic. Buick Grand National - Turbo V6. AMAZING engine. Stock they were no slouch - tuners have done great things with the platform - 10 second 1/4 mile times are common in GN circles. Course, i've never seen a GN on a road-race course.



Could it be the foreign cars just perform better? Car and Driver is biased in favor against cars which are the most fun to drive. Any Car-enthusiast mag worth it's salt is, too.

It all depends on how you want to drive. In the practical world, gas-turbos just don't have the low-end torque needed for most situations. Now if you want to rev the car up while holding the brakes and wait for a light tree, then that's your thing.

"Fun" is a dependent on the observer, is it not? When I was into it, fun was out-handling the so-called "great handling" ricers, climbing hills faster than expensives Saabs or BMWs, all in my grocery-getter '85 Tbird.

Tuning for that car, BTW, started by ordering it right from the factory. It took a little research to find out that the avalialble trailer towing option was actually the handling suspension from the same chassis Mustang. This included much larger anti-sway bars, polyurethance bushings, stiffer springs and quad-shock rear end. Tuning also included replacing the power steering valve spring with a slightly harder one from the local harware store for about 10 cents, turning the one-finger variable ratio power steering to one that you could actually feel the road. I also use to do my own front end alignments with an oak block, string, tape measure and carpenters level, and set up the camber to up to +3, toe to zero. Also locate junk parts for shock tower connectors. And never forget the chalk test for tire inflation.

[darin]

It all depends on how you want to drive. In the practical world, gas-turbos just don't have the low-end torque needed for most situations. Now if you want to rev the car up while holding the brakes and wait for a light tree, then that's your thing.


Hold the brakes? What're you driving, an AT car? :)

Lessee if your claim about turbo gas engines not having low-end torque holds water:

Full torque at 3500rpms - Mistu Lancer EVO
http://www.meganracing.com/uploadimage/dynochart/EVO%20manifold%20dyno%20after.JPG

750lbs-ft at 3000rpms, LS2 Twin Turbo

http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/ls2950.jpg

MazdaSpeed6 - 250lbs-ft at 2800 rpms

http://www.streetunit.com/EasyEditor/assets/ms6_dp_tq.jpg

Another Mazdaspeed6 - 250+lbs-ft at 1500? rpms

http://home.att.net/~coasterswim/speed6.jpg

Audi S4 Biturbo - 350lbs-ft @3000 rpms

http://nyet.org/cars/images/harman_motive_dyno_91_100.jpg

As you can see, PLENTY of power down low. Turbos make power based on how they are tuned.


"Fun" is a dependent on the observer, is it not? When I was into it, fun was out-handling the so-called "great handling" ricers, climbing hills faster than expensives Saabs or BMWs, all in my grocery-getter '85 Tbird.

'out-handling' is dependent on the observer too.



Tuning for that car, BTW, started by ordering it right from the factory. It took a little research to find out that the avalialble trailer towing option was actually the handling suspension from the same chassis Mustang. This included much larger anti-sway bars, polyurethance bushings, stiffer springs and quad-shock rear end.

None of that on an 85 Tbird would make it what I consider a 'good' handling car. Those changes should make it 'adequate' at best.


I also use to do my own front end alignments with an oak block, string, tape measure and carpenters level, and set up the camber to up to +3, toe to zero.

DUDE - adding 3 degrees of POSITIVE camber would make the front of your car look like the ass-end of a VW Bug...it'd look like this - maybe exaggerated a bit:

http://www.ef-honda.com/ben/camber.gif

Generally, negative camber (to a point) helps a car when cornering forces get high.

[BBA]

Lessee if your claim about turbo gas engines not having low-end torque holds water:

--pictures removed because it's irritating when people include pictures in quotes--

As you can see, PLENTY of power down low. Turbos make power based on how they are tuned.


bah...here you go with your proof. That would be great if we all drove on dynomometers. :poke:

[glockmail]

QUOTE=dmp;84395]......

[1] As you can see, PLENTY of power down low. Turbos make power based on how they are tuned.

[2]'out-handling' is dependent on the observer too.
…None of that on an 85 Tbird would make it what I consider a 'good' handling car. Those changes should make it 'adequate' at best.

[3]DUDE - adding 3 degrees of POSITIVE camber would make the front of your car look like the ass-end of a VW Bug...it'd look like this - maybe exaggerated a bit:

Generally, negative camber (to a point) helps a car when cornering forces get high.[/QUOTE]

1. Tune away, but there's no substitute for displacement for low end torque, plus there's no need to wait- just push the pedal and go.

2. Tell that to the guy in the Acura who spun out while he observed my ass end accelerating away from him on the two lane on ramp.

3. You are correct. Negative camber was what I use to dial in. 1 degree for everyday driving, 3 for track events.

[darin]

1. Tune away, but there's no substitute for displacement for low end torque, plus there's no need to wait- just push the pedal and go.


Sure there is. It's called a Supercharger. But as I've illustrated, a well-designed turbo system can offer up MOUNTAINS of torque down low. :)


2. Tell that to the guy in the Acura who spun out while he observed my ass end accelerating away from him on the two lane on ramp.


How could I? I don't know him. And even if I did, I'd have no idea how good of a driver he is. Driving against a 'worse' driver doesn't make somebody a 'good' driver ;) :D

Honestly, even a Stock New mustang would be able to 'out-handle' that TBird you had, on probably ANY course. Get into a Stock Miata, or RX8, or Lotus, or C5+ Corvette? Wet-Dream-inducing. :)


3. You are correct. Negative camber was what I use to dial in. 1 degree for everyday driving, 3 for track events.

Well - THREE degrees negative camber is a LOT - you probably wore through the insides of your tires VERY quickly. What size tires?

I run -1 front and -1.5 rear, and about 1/16th (IIRC) toe out, front and rear, on 245/40/18s. So far, they're holding up well - after about 6K miles, I'm about 1/3rd done with fairly even wear - but I'm hard on tires. .

:D

[Pale Rider]

What are you guys measuring camber with?

[darin]

What are you guys measuring camber with?

The laser alignment thingy at the alignment shop :)

[manu1959]

At the prison I worked at, we had two, gigantic, V-16 Detroit diesels with quad turbos blowing into duel supercharges. Even with a massive exhaust system, it was deafening in the generator room when they were running. They'd generate enough electricity to not only power the prison, but half the town of Boscobel as well. The most awesome engines I've ever seen. No, I've never seen the diesel in a locomotive or a ship.

hello......details!

[manu1959]

The laser alignment thingy at the alignment shop :)

no shit....post the turbo lag Porsche clip.....for the heretics to become believers

[glockmail]

[
[1] Sure there is. It's called a Supercharger. But as I've illustrated, a well-designed turbo system can offer up MOUNTAINS of torque down low. :)

[2]How could I? I don't know him. And even if I did, I'd have no idea how good of a driver he is. Driving against a 'worse' driver doesn't make somebody a 'good' driver ;) :D

[3]Honestly, even a Stock New mustang would be able to 'out-handle' that TBird you had, on probably ANY course. Get into a Stock Miata, or RX8, or Lotus, or C5+ Corvette? Wet-Dream-inducing. :)

[4]Well - THREE degrees negative camber is a LOT - you probably wore through the insides of your tires VERY quickly. What size tires?

[5]I run -1 front and -1.5 rear, and about 1/16th (IIRC) toe out, front and rear, on 245/40/18s. So far, they're holding up well - after about 6K miles, I'm about 1/3rd done with fairly even wear - but I'm hard on tires. .

:D

1. Good point, but one that brings up another: a supercharger is not a turbocharger. Since it’s mechanically connected to the crankshaft, its “on” all the time, hence no lag. That’s the same reason why a diesel turbo works well, as diesels have a large exhaust flow at idle speeds.
2. I was being facetious of course, but he thought he was hot. And there were many others who learned that they were not, I assure you.
3. Back in those days the Mustang and the Tbird shared the same chassis; the bird was just a few inches longer. So the stock Mustang would not out-handle a tweaked TBird. With regards to the contemporary Mazdas (owned by Ford, BTW), I would hope that something was learned in 22 years by the engineers, as they were at best mediocre back in 1985. And the exotics? You flatter me with the comparison, but I assure you it is undeserved.
4. 3 degrees was huge, which is why used that set up very sparingly. As I recall I ran 55 or 60 series (can’t remember) 235 width. I remember running air pressure around 42 psi or so. They were 15” rims, as 16’s were just becoming available and the set up was much more expensive. As with wear? If you have the proper set up for the driving being done, which in this case was a closed course, the wear should be even, which it was.
5. As I never tweaked an IRS I couldn’t tell you if the 1.5 is high or not. I suppose it has a lot to do with F to R weight displacement. I remember working with some VW Golf drivers back then. They’d routinely take turns on with the inside rear tire off the ground since they had such poor weight distribution. So I suppose the more balance the car, the closer F&R should be equal. Also a more tourquey engine would warrant less rear camber, as the acceleration through a turn would tend to shift weight rearward.

[darin]

[

1. Good point, but one that brings up another: a supercharger is not a turbocharger. Since it’s mechanically connected to the crankshaft, its “on” all the time, hence no lag. That’s the same reason why a diesel turbo works well, as diesels have a large exhaust flow at idle speeds.


Actually - the technical name for a supercharger, way back when, is a "super turbocharger". Centrifugal superchargers make max boost, generally, at max engine RPM. Therefore, a Properly sized Turbo can Seriously out-perform it because it can go from 0 to Max psi within a few hundred RPM. Thus, one is making, say, 10psi from 3000rpm to 8000, vs a Centrifugal SC where one makes 'parts' of 10 throughout the powerband, to end at 10. That's one example of where a SC might 'feel' laggy. Or another may be if it's not properly sized for the engine - some engines may lose MASSIVE amounts of torque simply spinning a blower. Diesels are turbos, typically, for 'more' than just the exhaust flow reason. Frankly, there is a myriad of reasons why one would choose a Turbo over a supercharger.

Also - a number of companies run their SC's with check valves, or clutched pulleys to allow it to 'free spin' when not under heavy throttle. :)


3. Back in those days the Mustang and the Tbird shared the same chassis; the bird was just a few inches longer. So the stock Mustang would not out-handle a tweaked TBird.

"New" Mustangs. With the advancement in even old-skewl technology, a 'new' OEM mustang would likely out-handle even Upgraded mustangs of yore.


With regards to the contemporary Mazdas (owned by Ford, BTW), I would hope that something was learned in 22 years by the engineers, as they were at best mediocre back in 1985. And the exotics? You flatter me with the comparison, but I assure you it is undeserved.

Not really 'owned' by Ford - Ford does have controlling interest, though. If you'd wanna go back 22 years - find a 1985 RX7...Good times. :)

I'm saying if you thought that TBird handled well, a newer car (Even a new Mustang, but specifically a new sports car) might blow your mind - turbo or not :)



5. So I suppose the more balance the car, the closer F&R should be equal. Also a more tourquey engine would warrant less rear camber, as the acceleration through a turn would tend to shift weight rearward.

...which is why you'd want MORE contact patch there (setting camber closer to 0 degrees.) My even low-torque RX8 shifts weight VERY nicely, thanks to it's 50/50 balance and low polar movement of inertia.

[darin]

no shit....post the turbo lag Porsche clip.....for the heretics to become believers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gu2YGuhEiw


Faster than a LOT of Modern 600cc SportBikes...and some 1000cc bikes! :D

[glockmail]

What are you guys measuring camber with? I used a hardwood block cut smooth along its long sides on a table saw, and the length trimmed to the inside diameter of the aluminum wheel. Make sure the car is set on a flat floor, or at least both tires at the exact same elevation. Use various thicknesses of plywood under one wheel if necessary. Hold the block against the rim vertically and use a carpenters level to get a plumb line. Measure the gap dimension between the block and the plumb line with a vernier or dial caliper. The tangent of the gap/ block length is the camber angle.

You can measure toe as well but its not nearly as easy. First make sure the steering wheel is dead center. Then have a buddy hold your special wood block to the front wheel horizontally. Tie a 20’ length of fish line to the front of the block, squat next to the rear tire and pull the line tight and parallel to the floor. Slowly move the string towards the rear wheel, until the line makes contact with the rear of the block. Then measure the distance between the inside of the line and the rear wheel rim. You then have to do a little math, taking into account the relative tracks (widths) of the F&R, the length between the center of the front wheel and the point on the rear that you measured from, etc., then use trigonometry as with camber.

[manu1959]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gu2YGuhEiw


Faster than a LOT of Modern 600cc SportBikes...and some 1000cc bikes! :D

i hate turbo lag

[glockmail]

....

[1]"New" Mustangs. With the advancement in even old-skewl technology, a 'new' OEM mustang would likely out-handle even Upgraded mustangs of yore.

[2]Not really 'owned' by Ford - Ford does have controlling interest, though. If you'd wanna go back 22 years - find a 1985 RX7...Good times. :)

I'm saying if you thought that TBird handled well, a newer car (Even a new Mustang, but specifically a new sports car) might blow your mind - turbo or not :)

[3]...which is why you'd want MORE contact patch there (setting camber closer to 0 degrees.) My even low-torque RX8 shifts weight VERY nicely, thanks to it's 50/50 balance and low polar movement of inertia.

1. I haven’t driven the new mustang, but I have been told that they finally upgraded from the old FOX chassis with this newest retro style.
2. Do you know how Ford obtained controlling interest in Mazda? The story that I’ve been told- never checked to see if it true- dates back to before my hot rod days.
3. Interesting. Is the RX8 a rotary engine? It must be far back into the firewall to get the car at 50-50 and with low polar.

[glockmail]

i hate turbo lag Nearly caused him to stall off the line. I always think its funny to see a guy with more money than expertise.:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Nearly caused him to stall off the line. I always think its funny to see a guy with more money than expertise.:laugh2:

watch it again...the "stall" was pulling up to the line.....wouldn't have done a 10 stalling

[Sitarro]

I'm sure these guys with the expensive cars thought they could buy skill............hahahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zmc4RfHYQ8&mode=related&search=

[nevadamedic]

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r13/reedred/Lighthouse%20Prerun%20042107/P1010385.jpg (http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=484380&postcount=200)

Why shouldn't she? It's a neat little car.


But...She can't drive.



http://www.sticko.net/i/a/3372

http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=520780&postcount=14

Awesome car until it got wrecked.

[Jon]

1. I used to be a car guy, back in the 70s and 80’s!!


This says it all. Things have changed drastically in the last 20-30 years. :poke:


The reality you experienced in the 70s has no bearing on modern turbocharger technology. A simple look at the dyno graphs that D posted shows that most well designed and tuned turbocharged engines produce more low end torque than a comparable normally aspirated or supercharged engine.

[glockmail]

watch it again...the "stall" was pulling up to the line.....wouldn't have done a 10 stalling
I watched it twice the first time. To me it looked like he reved it up to get boost, and when he engaged the cltch the engine was not producing enough tourque, and he almost stalled out. Now that was a static situation. Try shooting out of a turn with the same car, and add the variable of traffic.

I'd rather drive a car with a more predictable power band.

[glockmail]

This says it all. Things have changed drastically in the last 20-30 years. :poke:


The reality you experienced in the 70s has no bearing on modern turbocharger technology. A simple look at the dyno graphs that D posted shows that most well designed and tuned turbocharged engines produce more low end torque than a comparable normally aspirated or supercharged engine.

If you lok at the history of engine development you'd realize that much more happened in the fist 20 years of the 20th century than the last 20. And there's only so much that can be done to reduce turbo lag in a gas engine. Of couse, lag would not be noticeable looking at curves.

I don't understand why manufacturer's insist on turbos, when a supercharger has so many more obvious advantages. Is it the cost?

[darin]

I watched it twice the first time. To me it looked like he reved it up to get boost, and when he engaged the cltch the engine was not producing enough tourque, and he almost stalled out. Now that was a static situation. Try shooting out of a turn with the same car, and add the variable of traffic.

I'd rather drive a car with a more predictable power band.

Not producing enough torque? Wha? that car likely makes 600+ HP. I GUARANTEE that car's engine produces more torque than anything short of a Diesel truck or boat engine. If ANYTHING he bogged it on launch a little bit - but BECAUSE Of the massive amounts of torque he was able to peel-off a TEN SECOND 1/4 mile run. TEN seconds.



If you lok at the history of engine development you'd realize that much more happened in the fist 20 years of the 20th century than the last 20. And there's only so much that can be done to reduce turbo lag in a gas engine. Of couse, lag would not be noticeable looking at curves.

I don't understand why manufacturer's insist on turbos, when a supercharger has so many more obvious advantages. Is it the cost?

If lag existed, you'd notice it in the dyno curves. Every time. There isn't 'only so much' one can do to avoid lag - there are MANY things one can do with a turbo system to completely ELIMINATE any perceived lag. READ those dyno plots - they're a good start. What about supercharger boost lag? Do you realize an improperly-applied SC system to a car suffers lag? What are these obvious advantages to a SC system? I'm thinking you are confusing Lag with boost threshold, fwiw.

[Jon]

If you lok at the history of engine development you'd realize that much more happened in the fist 20 years of the 20th century than the last 20. And there's only so much that can be done to reduce turbo lag in a gas engine. Of couse, lag would not be noticeable looking at curves.

I don't understand why manufacturer's insist on turbos, when a supercharger has so many more obvious advantages. Is it the cost?

You might be right about engine development. However, I'm speaking about turbocharger development. ;)

Those dyno runs are done under load, in 4th gear, from low-ish RPM. Any lag would show, if it existed.

[Jon]

I watched it twice the first time. To me it looked like he reved it up to get boost, and when he engaged the cltch the engine was not producing enough tourque, and he almost stalled out. Now that was a static situation. Try shooting out of a turn with the same car, and add the variable of traffic.

I'd rather drive a car with a more predictable power band.


A turbocharger won't produce boost unless it's under load. Therefore, if that Porsche is a manual, he wasn't revving to produce boost. If it is an auto, he wasn't engaging a clutch. ;)

If you're driving your car correctly, you stay above the boost threshold while doing just about anything other than putting around a parking lot.

If I understand you correctly, you like the feel of a large, naturally aspirated engine. That's why you like superchargers. A supercharged engine builds power progressively, like a larger naturally aspirated engine.

What you prefer has absolutely nothing to do with low end torque.

FWIW, you can allow a turbocharger to build maximum boost as early as possible and get heaps of low end torque - OR - you can add a TPS based boost control system and make the boost come on progressively, just like a supercharged or large naturally aspirated engine.

[darin]

If you're driving your car correctly, you stay above the boost threshold while doing just about anything other than putting around a parking lot.



One very nice thing about a TC system - One could choose to stay out of boost all day - even driving up to freeway speeds, if they wanted. :)

:D In PGT, I could get up to about 65-70mph with light throttle before boost would build. That helped the car get actually BETTER fuel economy than prior to the TC installation, if desired. My Before Boost best mpg was about 25mpg. After? I got 28mpg on a road trip...by driving nice.

Not fun...but nice.

[Jon]

One very nice thing about a TC system - One could choose to stay out of boost all day - even driving up to freeway speeds, if they wanted. :)

:D In PGT, I could get up to about 65-70mph with light throttle before boost would build. That helped the car get actually BETTER fuel economy than prior to the TC installation, if desired. My Before Boost best mpg was about 25mpg. After? I got 28mpg on a road trip...by driving nice.

Not fun...but nice.


Right, but if you're a self-professed 'car guy', then you don't drive around with a brick under the go pedal. ;)

[glockmail]

Not producing enough torque? Wha? that car likely makes 600+ HP. I GUARANTEE that car's engine produces more torque than anything short of a Diesel truck or boat engine. If ANYTHING he bogged it on launch a little bit - but BECAUSE Of the massive amounts of torque he was able to peel-off a TEN SECOND 1/4 mile run. TEN seconds.




If lag existed, you'd notice it in the dyno curves. Every time. There isn't 'only so much' one can do to avoid lag - there are MANY things one can do with a turbo system to completely ELIMINATE any perceived lag. READ those dyno plots - they're a good start. What about supercharger boost lag? Do you realize an improperly-applied SC system to a car suffers lag? What are these obvious advantages to a SC system? I'm thinking you are confusing Lag with boost threshold, fwiw.

Goobs or tourque or not, there's lag there, and the video proves it.The fact that a super car like the porche still has lag proves my point that it can't be eliminated.

Sure you could induce lag in a SC system if you improperly applied it- what does that prove?

Lag would not show up in dyno charts. Its a driveability issue.

[darin]

Goobs or tourque or not, there's lag there, and the video proves it.The fact that a super car like the porche still has lag proves my point that it can't be eliminated.

Sure you could induce lag in a SC system if you improperly applied it- what does that prove?

Lag would not show up in dyno charts. Its a driveability issue.

There was NO LAG in that video. We can't continue this discussion if you refuse to admit lag would show up in a dyno-plot. Do I have to search around and FIND a laggy-turbo system's dyno plot to prove it? Dyno plots show HOW THE ENGINE produces power. It shows the power-curve. An engine won't produce power differently on a dyno than on the street. Until you come to that understanding there isn't much more we can discuss, I'm afraid.

You got my point about the SC system - and the point is the SAME for TC systems; Improperly designed FI systems can produce a laggy-power delivery. But you're STILL corn-fusing boost lag w/ boost threshold.

[glockmail]

A turbocharger won't produce boost unless it's under load. Therefore, if that Porsche is a manual, he wasn't revving to produce boost. If it is an auto, he wasn't engaging a clutch. ;)

If you're driving your car correctly, you stay above the boost threshold while doing just about anything other than putting around a parking lot.

If I understand you correctly, you like the feel of a large, naturally aspirated engine. That's why you like superchargers. A supercharged engine builds power progressively, like a larger naturally aspirated engine.

What you prefer has absolutely nothing to do with low end torque.

FWIW, you can allow a turbocharger to build maximum boost as early as possible and get heaps of low end torque - OR - you can add a TPS based boost control system and make the boost come on progressively, just like a supercharged or large naturally aspirated engine.

Mr. Porsche appeared to be a manual. In order to load the turbo he would have to have front brakes applied, applying clutch pressure, and hitting the gas. I guess that's the way turbo dragsters do it, anyway. But that's not too practical for launching yourself out of a turn in traffic, as I stated earlier.

Perhaps with some computer tech a manufacturer could reduce or elimate lag, and if that's the case Mr. Porsche needs to do his homework.

[darin]

Here ya go, buddy - here's a turbo honda with 'Lag'

http://www.importreview.com/dyno/turbo/gsr8psi.gif

(shrug)

Improperly designed system OR a system where the owner was simply after the most power he could get.

I'm still curious of the 'obvious advantages of a SC over Turbo' as you claimed earlier, if you'll indulge me :)

[glockmail]

There was NO LAG in that video. We can't continue this discussion if you refuse to admit lag would show up in a dyno-plot. Do I have to search around and FIND a laggy-turbo system's dyno plot to prove it? Dyno plots show HOW THE ENGINE produces power. It shows the power-curve. An engine won't produce power differently on a dyno than on the street. Until you come to that understanding there isn't much more we can discuss, I'm afraid.

You got my point about the SC system - and the point is the SAME for TC systems; Improperly designed FI systems can produce a laggy-power delivery. But you're STILL corn-fusing boost lag w/ boost threshold.

The last time I worked on a dyno was about a year ago at a Harley shop. The load is imposed by a truck brake. The vehicle turns the dyno at a certain RPM, and the brake is applied with feedback to the vehicle trottle until max load at the rpm is found, then a new RPM is selected and the process repeats throughout the RPM range. I don't see how that process could detect lag, but perhaps you could enligten me. ;)

[glockmail]

Here ya go, buddy - here's a turbo honda with 'Lag'

....

(shrug)

Improperly designed system OR a system where the owner was simply after the most power he could get.

I'm still curious of the 'obvious advantages of a SC over Turbo' as you claimed earlier, if you'll indulge me :)

What that shows is a transition in the tourque curve at around 5500 RPM. If its a turbo engine the boost doesn't start until then. You could have the engine spinning at 7500 with no load, like Porsche did on the line, and the turbo would still not be making power.

The advantage of a SC were stated earlier.

[darin]

More NO-LAG Turbo sytems...watch this vid - you can hear the TC Spool up nearly IMMEDIATELY as he gets on the throttle:

http://videos.streetfire.net/category/Dyno+Pulls/0/baf786fc-a257-47f1-a048-995b00143205.htm

[darin]

What that shows is a transition in the tourque curve at around 5500 RPM. If its a turbo engine the boost doesn't start until then. You could have the engine spinning at 7500 with no load, like Porsche did on the line, and the turbo would still not be making power.

The advantage of a SC were stated earlier.


No - it shows a BIG turbo which cant build boost until the car produces enough exhaust volume/velocity. The Porsche built no boost on the line.

Where? Where are your 'obvious advantages' to a SC system? SC's aren't an option for people who want maximum power :)

[glockmail]

More NO-LAG Turbo sytems...watch this vid - you can hear the TC Spool up nearly IMMEDIATELY as he gets on the throttle:

http://videos.streetfire.net/category/Dyno+Pulls/0/baf786fc-a257-47f1-a048-995b00143205.htm

Can't see throttle position on the video.

[darin]

Can't see throttle position on the video.

And you can't see the back seats either.

[glockmail]

No - it shows a BIG turbo which cant build boost until the car produces enough exhaust volume/velocity. The Porsche built no boost on the line.

Where? Where are your 'obvious advantages' to a SC system? SC's aren't an option for people who want maximum power :)


1. Aren't those the same conclusions that I indicated?
2. Post 94.
3. Max power, yes. Driveability, no.

[darin]

1. Aren't those the same conclusions that I indicated?
2. Post 94.
3. Max power, yes. Driveability, no.

1. b-b-b-but I thought Lag couldn't be shown on a dyno??
2. THIS is your 'obvious advantages of a SC over a TC'??


Since it’s mechanically connected to the crankshaft, its “on” all the time, hence no lag

But you've admitted an improperly-designed SC system CAN result in Lag, but make no allowances that a PROPERLY designed Turbo system cannot eliminate lag? And I've also shown how SC systems are not 'on' all the time, too.

3. Define drivability? I've put up more than a couple dyno plots showing fairly smooth power delivery. I've DRIVEN turbo systems where the transition from vac to boost is seemless. It's a fallacy to imply 'all' turbo systems suffer drivability issues because the turbo cars you may have driven had them.

[glockmail]

1. b-b-b-but I thought Lag couldn't be shown on a dyno??
2. THIS is your 'obvious advantages of a SC over a TC'??



But you've admitted an improperly-designed SC system CAN result in Lag, but make no allowances that a PROPERLY designed Turbo system cannot eliminate lag? And I've also shown how SC systems are not 'on' all the time, too.

3. Define drivability? I've put up more than a couple dyno plots showing fairly smooth power delivery. I've DRIVEN turbo systems where the transition from vac to boost is seemless. It's a fallacy to imply 'all' turbo systems suffer drivability issues because the turbo cars you may have driven had them.

1. It can’t. Are you now admitting same?
2. I admit that an improperly applied system can produce negative results. Whouda thunk? Perhaps a turbo can eliminate lag, but I haven’t seen it.
3. Drivability is the immediate and linear increase or decrease in power with a corresponding change in throttle position.

[darin]

1. It can’t. Are you now admitting same?
2. I admit that an improperly applied system can produce negative results. Whouda thunk? Perhaps a turbo can eliminate lag, but I haven’t seen it.
3. Drivability is the immediate and linear increase in power with a corresponding change in throttle position.

1. But the dyno SHOWS the 'lag'. The turbo begins spinning as soon as exhaust passes through it...it 'lags' until enough exhaust causes it to spin fast enough to produce usable boost.

2. But I've shown you dyno evidence of "no" or "so-small-as-to-be-no-Lag."

Here's just ONE example of a modern turbo system:


BMW’s first U.S.-market gasoline turbo, a 3.0-liter blown six-cylinder, has two small IHI turbochargers that each pressurize three cylinders with a maximum of about nine psi of boost. Direct fuel injection, a first for a BMW gasoline turbo engine, helps to cool the intake charge and allows a high 10.5:1 compression ratio. The block is made from aluminum, not magnesium and aluminum as used in BMW’s naturally aspirated straight-sixes. Horsepower is 300 at 5600 rpm, and the peak torque of 300 pound-feet arrives at just 1400 rpm and hangs on until 5000 revs. We’ve driven the 335i, and if there’s any turbo lag, it’s infinitesimal.

One more


...considering the boost pressures (15.6 psi at its peak), the revs come surprisingly lump-free. Mega-boost cars often have mega-abrupt transitions from boost off to boost on. (The Mazdaspeed 6 has a) steady, deliberate surge rather than a sudden whoosh

3. You need to get out of the house and drive a modern designed turbo system. You'll be surprised.

[glockmail]

1. But the dyno SHOWS the 'lag'. The turbo begins spinning as soon as exhaust passes through it...it 'lags' until enough exhaust causes it to spin fast enough to produce usable boost.

2. But I've shown you dyno evidence of "no" or "so-small-as-to-be-no-Lag."

Here's just ONE example of a modern turbo system:



One more



3. You need to get out of the house and drive a modern designed turbo system. You'll be surprised.

The dyno can't show the lag as explained earlier; dynamic throttle position is not reported. The report about "infinitesimal" lag is a better indication. I am aware the BMW held off using turbos for a long time because of the lag issue. Apparently they did a nice job and should consult for Porshe.

My days of driving sports cars will need to wait until my kids are through college.

[darin]

The dyno can't show the lag as explained earlier; dynamic throttle position is not reported. The report about "infinitesimal" lag is a better indication. I am aware the BMW held off using turbos for a long time because of the lag issue. Apparently they did a nice job and should consult for Porshe.

Of course it can show lag; I've shown you how. Are you saying you want to know how the turbo performs under every possible throttle position, by gear?

Sometimes I think you're just making up stuff for the sake of being difficult.

Porsche's turbo systems have even 'less.' Read up on cars today, Glock, and things such as DFI engines and Variable Vane turbos.

[glockmail]

Of course it can show lag; I've shown you how. Are you saying you want to know how the turbo performs under every possible throttle position, by gear?

Sometimes I think you're just making up stuff for the sake of being difficult.

Porsche's turbo systems have even 'less.' Read up on cars today, Glock, and things such as DFI engines and Variable Vane turbos.

I'm not being difficult; I'm simply being scientific. You insist that a chart shows something that it doesn't.

[darin]

I'm not being difficult; I'm simply being scientific. You insist that a chart shows something that it doesn't.

You don't understand boost threshold vs. turbo lag.

The guy starts out in 4th or 5th gear...floors it...and waits for the exhaust to generate enough velocity and heat to get the turbo making boost. This happens VERY quickly - which shows the turbo does NOT take a lot to spool up. It's 'not laggy'. The dyno clearly shows that.

[glockmail]

You don't understand boost threshold vs. turbo lag.

The guy starts out in 4th or 5th gear...floors it...and waits for the exhaust to generate enough velocity and heat to get the turbo making boost. This happens VERY quickly - which shows the turbo does NOT take a lot to spool up. It's 'not laggy'. The dyno clearly shows that.

How can a chart without a time axis show lag (which is a function of time)?

[darin]

How can a chart without a time axis show lag (which is a function of time)?

RPMS. Look at how quickly the car builds power as rpms increase. That shows lag, or lack thereof.

[glockmail]

RPMS. Look at how quickly the car builds power as rpms increase. That shows lag, or lack thereof.
No the chart shows RPM vs. Torque. It does not show how that torque builds with time from an input at the gas pedal.

I think you're just trying to be difficult.

[Jon]

No the chart shows RPM vs. Torque. It does not show how that torque builds with time from an input at the gas pedal.

I think you're just trying to be difficult.


I think you've clearly shown that you don't know WTF you're talking about. ;)

The dyno you describe isn't typical of the type that are used on automobiles. A DynoJet, for instance, applies a load as the vehicle comes up to speed. Usually this is done in 4th gear (1:1). It's a continuous measurement.

Go drive a few modern turbocharged vehicles and then get back to us. If you'd like a list of said vehicles, feel free to ask.

[darin]

No the chart shows RPM vs. Torque. It does not show how that torque builds with time from an input at the gas pedal.

I think you're just trying to be difficult.

www.google.com Wikipedia.org works too. Bring your level of knowledge to 'within the past 20 years'; that'd be a great starting point.

The chart shows Horsepower and Torque. Torque is measured and horsepower calculated from torque. One can see the WAY the engine makes power by looking at the chart. It's VERY simply stuff now Glock; but if you refuse to learn there's no point in going on beating myself up trying to teach you.

[glockmail]

I think you've clearly shown that you don't know WTF you're talking about. ;)

The dyno you describe isn't typical of the type that are used on automobiles. A DynoJet, for instance, applies a load as the vehicle comes up to speed. Usually this is done in 4th gear (1:1). It's a continuous measurement.

Go drive a few modern turbocharged vehicles and then get back to us. If you'd like a list of said vehicles, feel free to ask.


www.google.com Wikipedia.org works too. Bring your level of knowledge to 'within the past 20 years'; that'd be a great starting point.

The chart shows Horsepower and Torque. Torque is measured and horsepower calculated from torque. One can see the WAY the engine makes power by looking at the chart. It's VERY simply stuff now Glock; but if you refuse to learn there's no point in going on beating myself up trying to teach you.

Post 130/ 132 still waits for an answer. :coffee: