American cars

[JspecB16]

This is not a comment, its actually a question.

Is there any American made car (stock), that is a 4 or 6 cylinder w/o forced induction that can run under 15 seconds in the 1/4 mile??

please tell me if there is, i need to know to settle an office argument, we all know german and japanese have cars that run under 15seconds (stock) with out forced induction in both 4 cyl and 6cyl.

[QuasarCav]

A Quad 4 powered cutlass calais could do it.

Taurus SHO could probably do it with the 3.2 DOHC and a 5spd.

[Tik-Tok]

More than you'd think, fiero's I think can,,, correct me if I'm wrong

[JspecB16]

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

This site can verify the times if anyone is not sure. but it doesn't have all cars, thats why i'm asking instead of just looking there.

[JspecB16]

1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Int. HO Quad 4 7.5 16.0

(7.5 = 0-60 and 16.0 1/4)

[JspecB16]

this is the fastest fierro i could find :
1988 Pontiac Fiero Formula 8.0 16.0

[JspecB16]

1989 Ford Taurus SHO 6.6 15.2

this is the fastest SHO, that is really close!!! I'm impressed.

Not quite in the 14s yet though, remember under 15 is the magic number.

[QuasarCav]

1989 Ford Taurus SHO 6.6 15.2


Good enough, that site is not really that reliable.

[JspecB16]

ya, but is that actually the V6 SHO??? or the V8? cause I see some SHO's in the high 16 and low 17 marks in there.

P.S. Do you know of a more reliable 1/4 mile site we could use for this?

[TheLegend8]

Doubt it

[JspecB16]

I guess you didn't read the post then eh? I said without forced induction. which means no turbos or superchargers

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by JspecB16
I guess you didn't read the post then eh? I said without forced induction. which means no turbos or superchargers

I don't know what happened??? Someone asked if we had ever heard of a cobalt ss sc and by the time i replied the above, the post was gone like it was never there...... weird.

[Tik-Tok]

Wow, maybe less than I thought...

No to the fiero's, but yes to these 2.

2004 Chrysler Crossfire (6 speed) 14.7
1999 Plymouth Prowler 14.4

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Wow, maybe less than I thought...

No to the fiero's, but yes to these 2.

2004 Chrysler Crossfire (6 speed) 14.7
1999 Plymouth Prowler 14.4

Well, i guess that settles it.
Are those the only 2? Anybody else find one?

I would be really blown away if someone found an american 4 banger that could do it.

[JspecB16]

2004 Pontiac Grand Prix 6.5 14.9

heres another one, as long as this isn't the GTP

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by JspecB16
2004 Pontiac Grand Prix 6.5 14.9

heres another one, as long as this isn't the GTP


It is, NA Grand prix's are 16 second cars.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Wow, maybe less than I thought...

No to the fiero's, but yes to these 2.

2004 Chrysler Crossfire (6 speed) 14.7
1999 Plymouth Prowler 14.4

:rofl: Chrysler Crossfire is essentially a Mercedes SLK... Plymouth Prowler is pretty cool though, didn't know they were that quick, everyone used to bad mouth those cars. :thumbsup:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Hakkola


:rofl: Chrysler Crossfire is essentially a Mercedes SLK... Plymouth Prowler is pretty cool though, didn't know they were that quick, everyone used to bad mouth those cars. :thumbsup:

lol, so we're down to 1 then. Oh well, I'm happy being a V8 lover.

[QuasarCav]

Name a Japanese V8 that can do the same!

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by QuasarCav
Name a Japanese V8 that can do the same!

This thread is called "japanese V8's" is it?

[JspecB16]

2002 Nissan Maxima SE 6.0 14.7
2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1 14.8 (C&D Sept '05)
2003 Nissan 350z 5.4 14.1
2004 Mazda RX-8 5.8 14.49 (6 speed)
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe 5.5 14.2
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2 (MT Mar '04)
2004 Honda Accord EX Coupe V-6 6 Speed 5.9 14.5
2002 BMW M3 4.7 13.4
2003 BMW Z4 3.0i 5.4 14.2
2001 BMW 330i 6.1 14.8
1998 BMW 328is 6.2 14.7
2004 Acura TL 6.3 14.8
1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4
1997 Acura Integra Type R 6.5 14.7
2004 Volkswagon Golf R32 6.4 14.5

Here are some Japanese and German cars that can do it.
For anyone that thought they were hard to come by.

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by JspecB16


This thread is called "japanese V8's" is it?


Nope it isn't, It's called "American Cars"

[Tik-Tok]

Can't wait for them to start mass producing V8's (hopefully they accomplish that with the upcoming supra. It will unfortunately be the final nail in the big 3's coffin.


edit to add: in cars I mean, not trucks/minivans

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Can't wait for them to start mass producing V8's (hopefully they accomplish that with the upcoming supra. It will unfortunately be the final nail in the big 3's coffin.


edit to add: in cars I mean, not trucks/minivans

well said:werd:

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by QuasarCav



Nope it isn't, It's called "American Cars"

I know, I started it.

[JspecB16]

to the top!

[VetteRacin]

ummm....any newer corvette/camaro should definatly do the job

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by VetteRacin
ummm....any newer corvette/camaro should definatly do the job

Wow, didn't know the new vette/camaro's were 4 or 6 cylinder, normally aspirated cars. Learn something new everyday.

[iceburns288]

If the Escort Cosworth counts, by all means!:thumbsup: Any other Cossie Ford also applies there :).

The Focus RS runs a 14.8.

[lbrowne]

I've read of and seen the slip for a 98+ f-body with a 3.8 v6doing a mid 14, stock (5 speed, $0 in mods). But thats an isolated case where someone really knows how to drive that car :)

Most times they're a low or flat 15, this is all at pretty much sea level of course and not beautiful Calgary ;)

[Toms-SC]

Focus SVT
Contour SVT
Cougar V6 (99+)

Edit: Do'h you send under 15

[TurboZombie]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
More than you'd think, fiero's I think can,,, correct me if I'm wrong

Fieros are a slow POS!

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Focus SVT
Contour SVT
Cougar V6 (99+)

Edit: Do'h you send under 15

I don't think the focus svt would even come close to getting under 15seconds, considering this 223hp (188lb-ft) focus does it in 15.2 (according to car & driver)

[QuasarCav]

Originally posted by JspecB16


I don't think the focus svt would even come close to getting under 15seconds, considering this 223hp (188lb-ft) focus does it in 15.2 (according to car & driver)


1/4 Mile is more than just power.

Gearing, traction and all that.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by JspecB16


I don't think the focus svt would even come close to getting under 15seconds, considering this 223hp (188lb-ft) focus does it in 15.2 (according to car & driver)

woops, forgot to put the link:

http://www.caranddriver.com/supercarchallenge/10165/superfour-challenge-page3.html

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by QuasarCav



1/4 Mile is more than just power.

Gearing, traction and all that.

So, your saying an SVT focus which has 53 less hp, and 43 less lb-ft of tq would be faster becuase of gearing, traction and "all that"? right, i'm sure.

2003 Ford Focus SVT 7.7 15.9

[JspecB16]

as for the contour....

1999 Ford Contour SVT 6.8 15.2 (C&D April 99)

Thats actually not bad, i've always liked those cars and i'm fairly impressed at that 1/4 time.

[Mr_ET]

Originally posted by iceburns288
If the Escort Cosworth counts, by all means!:thumbsup: Any other Cossie Ford also applies there :).

The Focus RS runs a 14.8.

both are turbo we need an NA car as per the thread starter

how about the new solstice with the ecotec can that run 14's i've read some articles and the 170hp doesn't sound like it can do that not NA at least

[JspecB16]

2001 Mercury Cougar V-6 7.8 16.1

Ya, thats close.

[muse017]

Cadillac CTS base model can run [email protected] mph according to R&T.
What about Focus SVT?

[QuasarCav]

"all That" Makes all that difference.


This thread sucks

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by QuasarCav
"all That" Makes all that difference.


This thread sucks

Why? Its sucks because you have no argument? If it sucks so bad why do you keep posting. this isn't a competition, its a discussion amongst car enthusiasts.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by muse017
Cadillac CTS base model can run [email protected] mph according to R&T.
What about Focus SVT?

If you look a couple of posts above your original post you will see this

2003 Ford Focus SVT 7.7 15.9

The contour SVT is better
1999 Ford Contour SVT 6.8 15.2 (C&D April 99)

And the Cadi
Well, that pretty damn close. I think that 1 should count as all it would take is a good run by a good driver to get that extra tenth.
(I'm only saying this becuase I LOVE cadi's, but then again, who doesn't?)

[94SSEi]

Pontiac G6 GTP w/ the 6 spd.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by muse017
Cadillac CTS base model can run [email protected] mph according to R&T.
What about Focus SVT?


CTS is a V8

Focus SVT is forced induction isn't it?

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by 94SSEi
Pontiac G6 GTP w/ the 6 spd.

And that would be a.......supercharged car!!!
read the thread.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by 94SSEi
Pontiac G6 GTP w/ the 6 spd.


GTP = 15.39

[JspecB16]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tik-Tok
[B]


CTS is a V8

I think the base model is a 3.8l V6 and it runs 15.0. the V8 CTS runs like a 13.4

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by JspecB16


And that would be a.......supercharged car!!!
read the thread.

I know, I'm pointing out that it doesn't count because it's forced induction, the original question was NON V8, NON-Forced Induction.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok



Focus SVT is forced induction isn't it?

I am not sure. I hope not actually, it only has 170hp and if that is forced induction they should be ashamed of themselves. I have a 1.6l that puts out the same hp

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by JspecB16
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tik-Tok
[B]


CTS is a V8

I think the base model is a 3.8l V6 and it runs 15.0. the V8 CTS runs like a 13.4

3570 lb car with 255HP, and 252 TQ... Yeah, I could see that, if it's gear right.

[94SSEi]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


I know, I'm pointing out that it doesn't count because it's forced induction, the original question was NON V8, NON-Forced Induction.


Originally posted by JspecB16


And that would be a.......supercharged car!!!
read the thread.

No, you lose. G6 GTP uses an N/A 3.9L V6, puts out 240hp and 240 lb/ft of tq @ 1600 RPM, mated to a 6 speed manual.

"Despite its relatively old-fashioned valve operation—GM calls it "cam in block," feeling perhaps that "pushrod" sounds dated—the Pontiac's 60-degree V-6 has variable valve timing and generates generous torque (240 pound-feet) with an exceptionally flat curve. This produced runs to 60 mph of 6.2 seconds and a quarter-mile of 14.9 seconds at 95 mph, third best in both categories and all the more remarkable for its tall gearing and a bewilderingly hefty curb weight—3569 pounds"

And that's the sedan version, coupe is about 200lbs lighter, so prolly around 14.7.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by 94SSEi




No, you lose. G6 GTP uses an N/A 3.9L V6, puts out 240hp and 240 lb/ft of tq @ 1600 RPM, mated to a 6 speed manual.

"Despite its relatively old-fashioned valve operation—GM calls it "cam in block," feeling perhaps that "pushrod" sounds dated—the Pontiac's 60-degree V-6 has variable valve timing and generates generous torque (240 pound-feet) with an exceptionally flat curve. This produced runs to 60 mph of 6.2 seconds and a quarter-mile of 14.9 seconds at 95 mph, third best in both categories and all the more remarkable for its tall gearing and a bewilderingly hefty curb weight—3569 pounds"

And that's the sedan version, coupe is about 200lbs lighter, so prolly around 14.7.

cool

[fendercontender]

hopefully it makes it down the track to prove its time, reliability of pontiac is outstanding :rolleyes:

[94SSEi]

216000kms on my Bonneville and only 1 parts failure apart from normal wear and tear, the harmonic balancer.

Doesn't seem too bad to me.

[dino_martini]

CTS Accord ing to Motortrend will run a 14.92 @ 92.72 mph (3.6l V6)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0308_2004_cadillac_cts/index.html

[modded46]

Ok first of all if you're going by that list you're on glue because I don't know about the other cars on that list but this is just retarded.. how can a 1994 Mustang GT only be .1 second slower than a 2004 Mustang GT....


And at the same time have a slower 0-60 time?? The 04 GT had like 60 extra horsepower.. Not to mention I personally ran 14.36 at Race City with only a K&N filter..

1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.1 14.9 (C&D Dec '93)

2004 Ford Mustang GT 6.3 14.8


So by that logic, unless the mustangs are the only ones that are wrong, that list is BS.

[VetteRacin]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Wow, didn't know the new vette/camaro's were 4 or 6 cylinder, normally aspirated cars. Learn something new everyday.

oops, over looked that part

[Nissanaddict]

Originally posted by fendercontender
hopefully it makes it down the track to prove its time, reliability of pontiac is outstanding :rolleyes:

Not that bad. Anything with a 60 or 90 degree V6 that's fuel injected should be a reliable bugger.

[eblend]

Originally posted by fendercontender
hopefully it makes it down the track to prove its time, reliability of pontiac is outstanding :rolleyes:

dude stop living in a stone age, world changes, automobiles change and improve

I drove my grand am for last 5 years without a single problem. I have a friend who works at an Acura dealership, and those jap cars are not all trouble free like everyone makes em out to be.

Sorry for going off topic, I don't like fanboys obviously

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by eblend


dude stop living in a stone age, world changes, automobiles change and improve

I drove my grand am for last 5 years without a single problem. I have a friend who works at an Acura dealership, and those jap cars are not all trouble free like everyone makes em out to be.

Sorry for going off topic, I don't like fanboys obviously

We are all very impressed that your grand am went five WHOLE years without a problem. I drove , I mean bagged my first car an 88 accord from the age of 16 to 20 and that was after both my mom and sister drove it for years. does that make my 88 accord as sweet as a pontiac? I hope so!!!:rolleyes:

[Toms-SC]

This thread done yet?

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
This thread done yet?

Do you really need someone to answer that, or are you just being a smart ass?

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by JspecB16


We are all very impressed that your grand am went five WHOLE years without a problem. I drove , I mean bagged my first car an 88 accord from the age of 16 to 20 and that was after both my mom and sister drove it for years. does that make my 88 accord as sweet as a pontiac? I hope so!!!:rolleyes:

To add to what I said ^ it isn't the car or the manufacturer that determines the cars reliability, It is the owner. It all depends on how the owner cares for the car: Oil changes, check-ups, tune-ups etc. Lets not turn this into an opion thread of american vs. japan ok, lets keep it to facts (1/4 mile times!)

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by JspecB16


Do you really need someone to answer that, or are you just being a smart ass?

Yup :thumbsup:

[benyl]

Originally posted by modded46
Ok first of all if you're going by that list you're on glue because I don't know about the other cars on that list but this is just retarded.. how can a 1994 Mustang GT only be .1 second slower than a 2004 Mustang GT....


And at the same time have a slower 0-60 time?? The 04 GT had like 60 extra horsepower.. Not to mention I personally ran 14.36 at Race City with only a K&N filter..

1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.1 14.9 (C&D Dec '93)

2004 Ford Mustang GT 6.3 14.8


So by that logic, unless the mustangs are the only ones that are wrong, that list is BS.

Maybe cause the 2004 is 300 lbs heavier?

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by modded46

Not to mention I personally ran 14.36 at Race City with only a K&N filter..



So you are claiming that an 04 stang with a swapped filter will run high 13's at sea level? :bullshit:

[benyl]

Originally posted by JspecB16


So you are claiming that an 04 stang with a swapped filter will run high 13's at sea level? :bullshit:

He probably ran on a day where the density altitude was closer to sea level than Calgary usually is.

Calgary has very large fluctuations.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by benyl


He probably ran on a day where the density altitude was closer to sea level than Calgary usually is.

Calgary has very large fluctuations.

Fair enough. That may be true, however I still don't think an 04 stang is that quick.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by benyl


Maybe cause the 2004 is 300 lbs heavier?

not to mention has been known to have traction problems vs the final yrs of the 5.0

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by QuasarCav
Name a Japanese V8 that can do the same!

The Lexus GS 400/430 (3800 lbs, 0-60 in 5.7) should do it in the 14's. I bet the LS430 could probably even get in the 14's (4100 lbs, 0-60 in 6.7).

Hell, the Nissan armada can hit 100km/h in only 7 seconds wich is impressive for a massive SUV, with a 1/4 mile of only 15.5 (i know it isnt under 15, but still impressive). The Titan is similar but slightly slower.


Mark

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by 94SSEi


No, you lose. G6 GTP uses an N/A 3.9L V6, puts out 240hp and 240 lb/ft of tq @ 1600 RPM, mated to a 6 speed manual.

Wow I honestly did not know that, those are some pretty pathetic numbers for a 3.9L V6, and the hp/L is terrible. Almost as pathetic as the Supercharged 3.8L in the grand prix making a pavement thrashing 260HP lol. But your right it does do it in less than 15 seconds, your absolutely right.

Mark

[dave101]

Originally posted by JspecB16
2001 Mercury Cougar V-6 7.8 16.1

Ya, thats close.

:D

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by muse017
Cadillac CTS base model can run [email protected] mph according to R&T.
What about Focus SVT?

Focus SVT was looked at eariler, and cannot run less than 15 sec. I believe 0-60 is 7.7 and 1/4 miles is 15.9.

Mark

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Wow I honestly did not know that, those are some pretty pathetic numbers for a 3.9L V6, and the hp/L is terrible. Almost as pathetic as the Supercharged 3.8L in the grand prix making a pavement thrashing 260HP lol. But your right it does do it in less than 15 seconds, your absolutely right.

Mark

What about the torque?

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by JspecB16
2002 Nissan Maxima SE 6.0 14.7
2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1 14.8 (C&D Sept '05)
2003 Nissan 350z 5.4 14.1
2004 Mazda RX-8 5.8 14.49 (6 speed)
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe 5.5 14.2
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2 (MT Mar '04)
2004 Honda Accord EX Coupe V-6 6 Speed 5.9 14.5
2002 BMW M3 4.7 13.4
2003 BMW Z4 3.0i 5.4 14.2
2001 BMW 330i 6.1 14.8
1998 BMW 328is 6.2 14.7
2004 Acura TL 6.3 14.8
1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4
1997 Acura Integra Type R 6.5 14.7
2004 Volkswagon Golf R32 6.4 14.5

Here are some Japanese and German cars that can do it.
For anyone that thought they were hard to come by.

Just a quick reminder of how many imports can do it...:thumbsup: :burnout:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


What about the torque?

Most everyone else has the same, if not more torque using smaller engines. Eg. acura TL (238lb/ft - close enough for a 3.2L) Infinity G35 (3.5L, 260 lb ft - same motor in 350Z, maxima, etc.) Honda accord (only a 3L, and still 232lb/ft), Mitsubishi eclipse (Non-supercharged 3.8L, 263 lb/ft, toyota camry (3.5L, 268 hp, 245 lb/ft), BMW M3 (3.2L, 333HP, 262 lb/ft), Honda Pilot (3.5L, 240 lb/ft), Crysler 300c/pacifica, etc (3.5l, 250 lb/ft), Porsche boxter (3.2L H6 276 hp, 236 lb/ft), I could find a bunch more with a few more min. of looking. Also, these motors are all 6cyl and certainly not push rod motors and are reasonably high tech as well. And for the ones that have like 238 instead of 240 torque, the fact they can do that no problem with almost 1 full liter less displacement is impressive in itself. As soon as you throw turbos and superchargers into the mix I'm guessing you will find that the same ratios apply as well with the exception of few cars IMO - i'd have to look though.

Mark

[benyl]

The problem with your bench racing is that you don't take into account how much area there is beneath the torque curve, nor do you take into account where the peak torque happens.

The G6 has a very flat toque curve where 90% is available between 1800 and 5800 rpm. Peak torque is at 2800 rpm. The same cannot be said about any of the engines you mentioned.

More specifically, the peak torque of the 3.2 in the TL comes at 5000 rpm.

The G6 puts out exceptional power given it has only 2 valves per cylinder.

[A|pine]

Ford RS200 :drool:


but forced induction :burnout:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by benyl
The problem with your bench racing is that you don't take into account how much area there is beneath the torque curve, nor do you take into account where the peak torque happens.

The G6 has a very flat toque curve where 90% is available between 1800 and 5800 rpm. Peak torque is at 2800 rpm. The same cannot be said about any of the engines you mentioned.

More specifically, the peak torque of the 3.2 in the TL comes at 5000 rpm.

The G6 puts out exceptional power given it has only 2 valves per cylinder.

I was not "bench racing" I was asked to produce examples of engines that matched or surpassed the 3.9L in the G6, specifically in the torque area, with less displacement. I did exactly that and was asked to do nothing else. Had he specified other things such as RPM ranges, etc. my answer would not be the same.

Everything you said is completely true, but you must admit its a pretty ancient engine in the G6 - I know GM knows how to do better. In fact one of the reasons I own the car I do is because from 1800 to ~4000rpm it makes max torque or about 380+ lb/ft, and then drops slightly but steadily from there as the HP increases to take over - all from a little 2.7L, but it is turbo'd. Torque is one of my favourite attributes and very important when I'm looking for a car because of how much easier it makes it to go fast at any time. Your right the G6 has a nice torque curve, but I was asked for numbers only from what I understood, and that's what I produced.

A list of the cars with the best torque curves could be a whole new thread. Maybe not even a bad idea to start one, it would be interesting.

Mark

[JCX]

Originally posted by JspecB16


Just a quick reminder of how many imports can do it...:thumbsup: :burnout:

Can you please put the prices there as well?

Honestly... this thread has AIDS.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by JspecB16

1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4


Guy sucks balls at driving. Mine did it in 14.2, and the other one there that night did it in 13.8.

@ 2200 feet elevation as well.

[JCX]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Guy sucks balls at driving. Mine did it in 14.2, and the other one there that night did it in 13.8.

@ 2200 feet elevation as well.

The same can be said for ANY magazine times though...

[CryoCarnage]

Originally posted by fendercontender
hopefully it makes it down the track to prove its time, reliability of pontiac is outstanding :rolleyes:
i bagged the shit out of my 6000LE and it doidnt brea for shit. pontiacs are reliable. oh and the godf R32 is F/I

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by JCX


The same can be said for ANY magazine times though...

Well, ususally mag times are faster. They employ professionals who do it for a living.

[Darkane]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


Well, ususally mag times are faster. They employ professionals who do it for a living.

Yeah. Different cars. If they had the same car for a while the time would improve too. But anyway Ive heard of the Quad 4H.O. 185hp doing 14's in a beretta I believe. Also lets slightly change the discussion to american cars with 16valves or less :) Iroc-Z with 245HP does 0-60in 5.8 and QM in 14.4. Lets see an import with 245HP or less AND automatic do that.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Darkane


Yeah. Different cars. If they had the same car for a while the time would improve too. But anyway Ive heard of the Quad 4H.O. 185hp doing 14's in a beretta I believe. Also lets slightly change the discussion to american cars with 16valves or less :) Iroc-Z with 245HP does 0-60in 5.8 and QM in 14.4. Lets see an import with 245HP or less AND automatic do that.

Let's see the Iroc go around a corner. Let's see how the Iroc is built. Your right in a straight line that's impressive, in every other objective category it suffers in my opinion. I'm also too lazy to look right now but I bet I could find an import that will do that, or someone else will. I will later. I think maybe even the new honda accord can do that or almost do that but I haven't checked.

Mark

[Moe Man]

almost all the domestics that we mentioned were not top of the line.

ford crysler and GM just got smart and put V8s in most of the cars.

oh and since we are talking about good engines and shit. name a engine that is better then the famous NorthStar :thumbsup:

[trikypenguin]

viper? corvette?

[*prettyboy*]

hah this made me think of some damn ford escort i saw drifting in england. who the eff drifts escorts. i personally thing thats sad.

[iceburns288]

What's wrong with Escorts? They ROCK! :D

[ninspeed]

Originally posted by Moe Man
almost all the domestics that we mentioned were not top of the line.

ford crysler and GM just got smart and put V8s in most of the cars.

oh and since we are talking about good engines and shit. name a engine that is better then the famous NorthStar :thumbsup:
Bingo...

now go back to your list, and take out any top model car, or compare a top line american...

[Moe Man]

you wanna compare top of the line american with top of the line import?


this is where the fun starts :rofl:

[*prettyboy*]

Originally posted by iceburns288
What's wrong with Escorts? They ROCK! :D

:barf:

[Nissanaddict]

The ones made for the Europe market aren't too bad (you know, the XR4Ti's)


and since we are talking about good engines and shit. name a engine that is better then the famous NorthStar

:rofl:

About the Iroc's cornering abilities, it isn't tooo shabby. High .8s on the skidpads I believe.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Nissanaddict
The ones made for the Europe market aren't too bad (you know, the XR4Ti's)



:rofl:

About the Iroc's cornering abilities, it isn't tooo shabby. High .8s on the skidpads I believe.

High .8's are pretty bad in my opinion. Probably not bad for Iroc standards though.

Mark

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Moe Man
almost all the domestics that we mentioned were not top of the line.

ford crysler and GM just got smart and put V8s in most of the cars.

oh and since we are talking about good engines and shit. name a engine that is better then the famous NorthStar :thumbsup:

Haha where to begin. Yeah its one of the best american engines but nowhere near the best.

[xrayvsn]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

In fact one of the reasons I own the car I do is because from 1800 to ~4000rpm it makes max torque or about 380+ lb/ft, and then drops slightly but steadily from there as the HP increases to take over

Mark

You do know that hp is directly related to torque and engine speed, right? HP doesn't "take over" at higher engine speeds. Just a little FYI.

Cheers.

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by trikypenguin
viper? corvette?

I love it when people don't even bother to read the original thread.....:rolleyes:

[JspecB16]

Originally posted by CryoCarnage

i bagged the shit out of my 6000LE and it doidnt brea for shit. pontiacs are reliable. oh and the godf R32 is F/I


Show us where in this review it says the R32 is F/I. I actually see where it says it is slower than the evo and sti but doesn't have the lag of a turbo, and i know it isn't super-charged. sooo... what are you talking about?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0406_2004_volkswagen_r32/

Notice it is motertrend as well, which means it is accurate.