Now THIS is a V8

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Pantsman
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:51 am

Post by Pantsman »

yeah maybe c4s and up, but the c3s looked class.
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.
Wow. Just...wow. :dork:
R00k
Posts: 15188
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:00 am

Post by R00k »

Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.
I think you need to round out your knowledge a little before trying to make broad, sweeping statements.

Image

Image
werldhed
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:00 am

Post by werldhed »

Pantsman wrote:this is the part where i chime in and say audi's are ugly too.
Fool! Get thee from my sight!

Personal opinion, of course...nonetheless, I can't help but give you a :dork: for that one.
:p
werldhed
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:00 am

Post by werldhed »

Bdw3 wrote:
Doombrain wrote:I think most people would take the audi over the yank car anyday.

lol, fact.
I'm no huge fan of American branded autos... but...

That girly Audi or a Vett.....

Fuck no.... give me the Vett!

Already have a people hauler that will last ages longer than an Audi anyway. (Toyota > * quality)
Hell even if we didn't I'll still rather have a Vett.
If it's a toyota, then yeah, it probably will last longer... but Audis consistenly have some of the best build quaility on the market. They definietly last the part. Expensive as hell to repair, but probably about the same as a vette...
AmIdYfReAk
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am

Post by AmIdYfReAk »

currently the top 3 for quality for the automotive relm is as follows:

Toyota
Honda
Volkswagon

in that order btw, and this is North america as a whole. ( not only canada )

remember, Audi fits under vw :)
User avatar
shaft
Posts: 12473
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am

Post by shaft »

AmIdYfReAk
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am

Post by AmIdYfReAk »

lol, look at the poor 300C/Magi..

chrysler :olo:
Grandpa Stu
Posts: 2362
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Grandpa Stu »

where does subaru rank on that list?
Maiden
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Maiden »

hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.
AmIdYfReAk
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am

Post by AmIdYfReAk »

Grandpa Stu wrote:where does subaru rank on that list?
truthfully, quite low. subaru's for the longest time dident have much to there name when it came to durability, in northamerica atleast,

but from about the mid 90's when they compleatly revamped there engine line up, up to and including the Flat 4 Produced by Prorche/VW they have gotten ALOT beter.

let me see if i can find the chart that i was looking at before.
AmIdYfReAk
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am

Post by AmIdYfReAk »

yea, i cant find it, its posted by JD power..

Overall, in the top 10, sub's are about 12'th overall.
hax103
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:04 pm

Post by hax103 »

LOL. The Audi is worse than the Jag and certainly much worse than average.
-
old nik (q3w): hack103
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

Maiden wrote:hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.
DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency, but far from being a decent overall performance yardstick. You start talking kg/hp or lbs/hp, well that's a different story.
AmIdYfReAk
Posts: 6926
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am

Post by AmIdYfReAk »

power to weight FTW!
hate
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 8:00 am

Post by hate »

R00k wrote:
Turbine wrote:Corvette's are truly ugly car's.
They lack any style and certainly, class.

They look as if thou they where made for people with short dicks; to compensate for their lack of.

American and European car markets differ greatly when it comes to te actual look of the car, the European designers carry more class in their cars, because that is what Europeans want. Where did Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come from?

A corvette is good looking only in a American society and values sort of way.
I think you need to round out your knowledge a little before trying to make broad, sweeping statements.

Image

Image
fuck yeah...

detroit's 'dreamcruise' is the shit

if you wanna see badass muscle
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

AmIdYfReAk wrote:power to weight FTW!
Yeah, same thing, spaz. Ever heard of a reciprocal?
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Post by tnf »

Ya toxic us dumbfuck americans.
Maiden
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Maiden »

Nightshade wrote: DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency
is it even that?
I would think that mpg would be the stat there, but maybe I am missing your point. or maybe even cruising rpm???? funny,if it is mpg the Z06 even gets better milage than the RS4

shame how the super high tech "real" V8 gets its ass handed to it in almost every way by the worn out backassward pushrod V in the vette.
stupid americans :olo:
werldhed
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:00 am

Post by werldhed »

Nightshade wrote:
Maiden wrote:hp/l means absolutly shit.
the only place hp/l matters is if you live in a country that taxes large displacment cars more or if you are racing in a class were displacement is limited.
horsepower sells cars, torque wins races.
DING DING DING! WINNAR! What ToxicDud is far too thick to realize is that hp/l is a nice measure of an engine's efficiency, but far from being a decent overall performance yardstick. You start talking kg/hp or lbs/hp, well that's a different story.
But if you're able to get more horsepower from a smaller engine, won't that help reduce weight? I mean, if the vette used 5 liters to get 500 hp, wouldn't that increase the hp/kg?
Maybe not... I don't know much about engines. :shrug:

Also, I'm not sure I completely believe those fuel economy numbers... I find it hard to believe an Audi can be that bad. I mean, these are the people that can get 40+ mpg in the from a 4.2 L diesel V8 in the A8. Even my TT can easily hit 35 mpg on the highway. If those RS4 figures are correct, that's a huge disappointment...
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

No, it just means that the engine itself can be smaller. The RS4 is a perfect example, in that it's almost 700lbs heavier than the Z06, so the 'Vette has a better power-to-weight ratio. This is a direct measure of the car's performance.
werldhed
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 7:00 am

Post by werldhed »

So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.

If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?
Guest

Post by Guest »

Nightshade wrote:No, it just means that the engine itself can be smaller. The RS4 is a perfect example, in that it's almost 700lbs heavier than the Z06, so the 'Vette has a better power-to-weight ratio. This is a direct measure of the car's performance.
No shit that its heavier. Its a 4 door all-wheel-drive luxury sedan. A C6 Z06 is just a huge engine and a chassis, not much comfort going on there.
Maiden
Posts: 832
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Maiden »

werldhed wrote:If those RS4 figures are correct, that's a huge disappointment...
not really.
remember the rs4 will go 0-60 about 3 seconds faster than your TT and will blow the doors off 85% of the cars on the road.
it IS a damn fine machine.
Guest

Post by Guest »

werldhed wrote:So a smaller (e.g... 5.0 L) engine won't effectively weigh less than a larger one (e.g... 7.0 L)?
Huh. Didn't know that.

If that's the case, why not just make all engines massively large?
Because everyone except for the americans try to move the technology forwards. More HP/L means more efficient engines.
Post Reply