|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=34100 |
|
| Comments: 37 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 07-20-2004
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
My dad's newest acquisition, '91 Corvette convertible. |
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
 |
| #2 |
7-20-2004 @ 09:44:48 PM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Man, I bet ricers are shaking like fiends when they see that.
All that empty, naked, virgin canvas just begging for a luscious bouquet of stickers.
Wake up the next morning and you may see a HUGE Rampage Radios sticker in the front. He'll honk the horn trebleling, excuse me, "bumping" saying "I hooked your car up"
|
|
| #3 |
7-20-2004 @ 09:47:05 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2, But it's a low-tech dumbestic, j00.
|
|
| #5 |
7-20-2004 @ 09:58:53 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, I mean, sure, it has as much horsepower as the 1991 Toyota Supra, but if the Supra had 800 hp then it would be more powerful!
Plus, this car made its power out of 5.7 liters. 245 horsepower out of 5.7 liters. That's not efficient because there are all kinds of advantages to making power out of small displacement. Like....errr....yeah!
|
|
| #6 |
7-20-2004 @ 10:24:16 PM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#5, It wasn't built by the Japanese, so it's not high-tech, and can't do high-tech things like go fast
|
|
| #7 |
7-20-2004 @ 10:35:55 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, Yeah, Japanese cars are so high tech. I mean, they have things like overhead cams, turbochargers, EFI, and variable timing. Not to mention that fancy new "internal combustion" thing.
|
|
| #8 |
7-20-2004 @ 11:53:30 PM |
| Posted By : Biohazard |
Reply | Edit | Del |
LOL! Funny thread. And one gorgeous car. If I can fit in one of these, I will buy one after I get out of college. Im jealous.
|
|
| #9 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:02:58 AM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
The potential is huge. Can probably change the TB, header and a s/c. If not, upgrade the injectors, CAI, headers.
Oh and a big F***KED UP WING! A wing so big alpha-male 747s (rock hard) will come crashing down wanting to mate with it!
|
|
| #10 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:05:08 AM |
| Posted By : Biohazard |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, Just so you know, you can say "fucked" here
[Edited by Biohazard on 7-21-2004 @ 12:05:20 AM]
|
|
| #11 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:09:49 AM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Oh, fiddle sticks. Didn't know that. (not sarcasm).
Thanks a shitting bunch! Ahhh, yes. Colorful metephors!
|
|
| #12 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:09:52 AM |
| Posted By : Paganknights |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#5, I got one; power to weight ratio
And no, Japanese cars are not "so high tech" for using OHC. GM is just being archaic for still using the decidedly inferior pushrods.
|
|
| #13 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:18:07 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, Hardly inferior. Both engine designs have their advantages. But especially on large engines, such as V8s, pushrods are much more practical.
|
|
| #14 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:19:10 AM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
True, only in certain instances. It could go either way. A correctly modified Honda w/ 200 HP could be very zippy. But its the modified 110 HP hondas with a whole bunch of "make me look/feel important" stuff that can really weigh the car down. That ratio goes completely out the window at that point. Realistically, push rods are not archaic, it is just an older design.
|
|
| #16 |
7-21-2004 @ 12:27:40 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, Oh, and I just noticed the bit about power to weight ratios. I wasn't aware there was a direct connection between engine displacement and weight, but I guess you learn something new every day. :P
|
|
| #18 |
7-30-2004 @ 01:00:58 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#17, Cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, better packaging, and less weight. OHCs have the bulk of multiple camshafts, as well as long-ass chains or multiple cam gears to run them...due to this, engineers often try to save weight by reducing the thickness of head castings. Nothing like a nice cracked or warped head, but I guess that's what you get for being "technologically superior".
There's also the torque production factor...narrow intake runners and two valves per cylinder both choke off engines at high speeds, but increase air velocity at low rpms, which contributes to low rpm torque. Although narrow runners and two valves per cylinder aren't exclusive to pushrods by design, all current pushrods use them...and if one designed an OHC with them, they'd be destroying one of the only real advantages of an OHC engine: high rpm power (the other being smoothness).
(cont.)
|
|
| #19 |
7-30-2004 @ 01:02:25 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
(cont.) So unless it's a small engine, or something that's built to rev really high (like a Maserati or something), why bother with all that dead weight?
|
|
| #20 |
7-30-2004 @ 07:51:12 PM |
| Posted By : Paganknights |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#19, Having an engine capable of producing higher RPMs not only usually means higher horsepower, but simply having a larger area of the band where you're making useful power means you have a lot more flexiblity, and as you said, smoothness in shifting. You're also losing power (and incidentally, worse fuel economy) by only having two valves per cylinder because the gasoline doesn't burn as fully as in 4 valves per cylinder engines.
As far as engineers saving weight on reducing the thickness of the head castings, that has to do with the car company in question, not the technology itself.
And as long as you brought up torque and horsepower, I might as well just say my feelings on the matter. It doesn't matter which you have more of, it's all about the gearing.
|
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
