Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 98666   By: DiRF   Comment: "I absolutely adore that movie, and, yes, Modoc's B..."
Car: 98666   By: Skid   Comment: "Geez, this is giving me major flashbacks to seeing..."
Car: 98664   By: Skid   Comment: "I can only imagine how old that is, or why it's ev..."
Car: 98667   By: Skid   Comment: "Sadly, this is the natural habitat of old German c..."
Car: 85938   By: Skid   Comment: "It looks like a generic car from a cartoon, or a c..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=34100
Submitted by: VonChad
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.


   Comments

Showing page: 1 of 2
[
1 2 ]

#1
7-20-2004 @ 09:14:57 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
Wow. Nice.

#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.

#4
7-20-2004 @ 09:49:27 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
Yeah, everyone knows that dumbestics aren't moddable...they can't add more power through turbocharging or NAWWWWSSSS or anything that imports can use!!111 [/ricer] :P

#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.

#15
7-21-2004 @ 12:25:08 AM
Posted By : Skid Reply | Edit | Del
#14, Actually overhead cams predate pushrods.

#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

#17
7-30-2004 @ 02:39:23 AM
Posted By : Paganknights Reply | Edit | Del
#13, And what exactly are the advantages of pushrods?

#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

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Friday, March 29, 2024 07:05:33 AM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Ricecop. All rights reserved.