Mazdaspeed3 and BMW 335i on Calaveras road

Serendipity

mole' wrote: »

JEEP SRT-8 2011 with the new 6.4L for sure.......

Hopefully that will be around soon, I haven't seen any yet.

Looks to be an awesome Jeep.

AB - any chances of getting back in a Jeep?

Serendipity

audiobliss wrote: »

It definitely won't have the ZR-1's LS9. The most logical speculation at this point is the CTS-V's LSA, which in Cadillac guise puts out 556hp. The hopeful are saying it will be tuned for about 575 or so in the Z-28.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not that interested in it. And I feel like I should be since I love Chevy and Camaro's. But the new Camaro is just too much of a pig. Weighs too much and doesn't handle nearly as well as the Mustang. Which is lighter, tighter, and just as fast. I feel like a traitor saying this, but I'd rather have a new Mustang than a new Camaro. And with the Z-28, I guess that would mean a GT500 instead.

Aww, well the CTS-V's LSA is quite potent too, and if it's indeed tuned for 575 horses in the Camaro it should be a good performer. Yes, the Mustang is a great performer and I like both of them equally. A GT500 would be a good choice, too

audiobliss

Serendipity wrote: »

AB - any chances of getting back in a Jeep?

I would LOVE to get MY Cherokee back. That probably won't happen. But I can definitely foresee getting another Cherokee one day. Jeep's not currently making anything I'm interested in, though. Hard to say. Right now I'd rather get a ~2003 4-door Sierra with the Duramax. So who knows.

mole'

Serendipity wrote: »

How about the new Camaro rumored to have the 638hp Corvette ZR-1 engine?

Basically a Cadillac CTS-V in Camaro form?

thats the Z-28 SC

i made a thread about it last week

Serendipity

audiobliss wrote: »

I would LOVE to get MY Cherokee back. That probably won't happen. But I can definitely foresee getting another Cherokee one day. Jeep's not currently making anything I'm interested in, though. Hard to say. Right now I'd rather get a ~2003 4-door Sierra with the Duramax. So who knows.

Not interested in the current GC SRT-8?

audiobliss

mole' wrote: »

thats the Z-28 SC

i made a thread about it last week

Yeah, I've been keeping up with that thread. Have read every post. Makes me wanna pull my hair out, how they all just assume the Z-28 is going to be the best thing ever, even though it's still going to be heavier and not much more powerful than the GT500, which has highly acclaimed handling capabilities. I like Chevy and know they *can* make the Z-28 be awesome. They just have a LOT of work to do to the SS to turn it into something that can take on the GT500.

Serendipity wrote: »

Not interested in the current GC SRT-8?

Nope, sure aren't. If I'm going with an SUV/truck type vehicle, I'd much rather have a Duramax. I've had a craving for a diesel now for the last few years. Though I have to admit the Trailblazer SS looks really nice.

Serendipity

A Trailblazer SS can keep up with a lot of cars and surprise many others.

First hand experience.

Too bad they don't make them anymore.

Serendipity

audiobliss wrote: »

If I'm going with an SUV/truck type vehicle, I'd much rather have a Duramax. I've had a craving for a diesel now for the last few years. Though I have to admit the Trailblazer SS looks really nice.

With lift kit and monster truck tires I suppose? Would be awesome.

audiobliss

Serendipity wrote: »

With lift kit and monster truck tires I suppose? Would be awesome.

No, actually. Sure, aftermarket wheels and aggressive tires would be nice. But the modifications I have in mind are more of twin turbo, upgrade kit for the Allison tranny, etc. It'd take a lot of money and so a good bit of time to do it, but I'd be aiming to get it into the 11's in the 1/4. Which is entirely doable, and completely amazing considering the thing weighs like 6300+ pounds.

I LOVE this look. Very simple, not outlandish at all (in fact probably stock except the tires?), but still looks aggressive and has a mean stance. It's my dream truck, and right now really my dream vehicle. I'd LOVE to have it for my next ride.


Then I'll take it to the track like this guy.

billbillw

mole' wrote: »

and a stock SRT4 will whomp on a stock MS3

Whomp? And where do you come up with that from?

Boy, you really just spew stuff without much to back you up.

In stock form, the SRT-4 made 215-230HP (depending on the year),
the MS3 was rated at 263HP.
The SRT-4 made 245-250ft/lbs of torque,
the MS3 is rated at 280ft/lbs.

Yes, the SRT-4 was maybe 200lbs lighter, but that's nowhere near enough weight loss to "whomp" the MS3.

In fact, if you look at published numbers, the cars were close to a dead heat depending on the year, test location, etc.

Hard to find direct comparisions tests since the original SRT-4 was discontinued in 2005 and the MS3 wasn't released until 2007.

But, just taking raw test numbers (using Car and Driver for comparison)
Picking the best published by C&D, in April 2004, which was the higher 230HP version the SRT-4 ran 0-60 in 5.3., 0-100 in 13.4, 1/4 in 13.9 @103
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/04q2/dodge_srt-4-short_take_road_test

In January 2009, the MS3 ran 0-60 in 5.5., 0-100 in 13.2, 1/4 in 14.0@103
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/bdc7735e51761f8b1cd0730048f4def0.pdf

Now, take these numbers with a grain of salt, because they are most likely different locations, different conditions, different drivers, etc.

But, it is enough data to say that the SRT-4 will not whomp a MS3.

mole'

audiobliss wrote: »

Yeah, I've been keeping up with that thread. Have read every post. Makes me wanna pull my hair out, how they all just assume the Z-28 is going to be the best thing ever, even though it's still going to be heavier and not much more powerful than the GT500, which has highly acclaimed handling capabilities. I like Chevy and know they *can* make the Z-28 be awesome. They just have a LOT of work to do to the SS to turn it into something that can take on the GT500.

.

i myself would take a SRT-8 or a new z-28 over the gt500. im just not a ford guy and the car is So-So to me.

mole'

Serendipity wrote: »

A Trailblazer SS can keep up with a lot of cars and surprise many others.

First hand experience.

Too bad they don't make them anymore.

oh yes it can. i used to own a TB before i got the BMW x3

i miss it

mole'

billbillw wrote: »

whomp? And where do you come up with that from?

Boy, you really just spew stuff without much to back you up.

In stock form, the srt-4 made 215-230hp (depending on the year),
the ms3 was rated at 263hp.
The srt-4 made 245-250ft/lbs of torque,
the ms3 is rated at 280ft/lbs.

Yes, the srt-4 was maybe 200lbs lighter, but that's nowhere near enough weight loss to "whomp" the ms3.

In fact, if you look at published numbers, the cars were close to a dead heat depending on the year, test location, etc.

Hard to find direct comparisions tests since the original srt-4 was discontinued in 2005 and the ms3 wasn't released until 2007.

But, just taking raw test numbers (using car and driver for comparison)
picking the best published by c&d, in april 2004, which was the higher 230hp version the srt-4 ran 0-60 in 5.3., 0-100 in 13.4, 1/4 in 13.9 @103
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/04q2/dodge_srt-4-short_take_road_test

in january 2009, the ms3 ran 0-60 in 5.5., 0-100 in 13.2, 1/4 in 14.0@103
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/bdc7735e51761f8b1cd0730048f4def0.pdf

now, take these numbers with a grain of salt, because they are most likely different locations, different conditions, different drivers, etc.

But, it is enough data to say that the srt-4 will not whomp a ms3.

because i have done it plenty of times!!!!!!!!!!!!

That how i know it will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

billbillw

mole' wrote: »

because i have done it plenty of times!!!!!!!!!!!!

That how i know it will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then it must be true :rolleyes:

Ever think that the other drivers might not really be racing you? Or, they have their heads up their arse?

Besides, I though yours was "mildly modded"? Cant' really compare then, can you?

mole'

billbillw wrote: »

Then it must be true :rolleyes:

Ever think that the other drivers might not really be racing you? Or, they have their heads up their arse?

Besides, I though yours was "mildly modded"? Cant' really compare then, can you?

go get a stock mazdaSPEED3 and ill bring out a stock SRT4 and walk the floor with ya.



have a nice day

concealer404

audiobliss wrote: »

I'd love to tag along in my Mazda3 and watch you guys duke it out in the MX6 and SRT4! or better yet ride along!

No apologies necessary, Serendipity. Just friendly discussion here.

Find a track that allows ride-alongs. My street-racing days were short-lived and over.

acmf74

never driven one but i really like the WRX sti on paper and it's looks

mole'

concealer404 wrote: »

Find a track that allows ride-alongs. My street-racing days were short-lived and over.

i have NEVER street raced

mole'

acmf74 wrote: »

never driven one but i really like the WRX sti on paper and it's looks

the older ones are BLAH. can be had for cheap now days. the new STi is just sick. out of the box it is a really nice well built car.

audiobliss

mole' wrote: »

the older ones are BLAH. can be had for cheap now days. the new STi is just sick. out of the box it is a really nice well built car.

Wow. I'm beginning to wonder if you're just an automated 'net bot, randomly spouting out these absurd statements.

Here you can read Car and Driver's article testing the 2003 WRX STi in a shoot out with the Evo.
And here you can read Car and Driver's first drive review of the 2011 WRX STi.

2003 WRX STi: 0-60 in 4.6, 1/4 in 13.2 @ 103. 300hp@6krpm and 300lb-ft@4krpm.
2011 WRX STi: 0-60 in 5.0, 1/4 in 13.5. 305hp@6krpm and 290lb-ft@4krpm.

And from a purely subjective stand point, the STi's from the 2003 era were by far the best looking. The traingular nose on the later ones made them ugly as all get out. Now granted the new ones look pretty decent, but they're hatches. Not a bad thing, really, but the four door sedan is definitely cooler.

So on what exactly are you basing this idea that the new STi is "sick" whereas the older (better looking and faster) STi's are just "blah"? Please, tell me.

mole'

audiobliss wrote: »

Wow. I'm beginning to wonder if you're just an automated 'net bot, randomly spouting out these absurd statements.

Here you can read Car and Driver's article testing the 2003 WRX STi in a shoot out with the Evo.
And here you can read Car and Driver's first drive review of the 2011 WRX STi.

2003 WRX STi: 0-60 in 4.6, 1/4 in 13.2 @ 103. 300hp@6krpm and 300lb-ft@4krpm.
2011 WRX STi: 0-60 in 5.0, 1/4 in 13.5. 305hp@6krpm and 290lb-ft@4krpm.

And from a purely subjective stand point, the STi's from the 2003 era were by far the best looking. The traingular nose on the later ones made them ugly as all get out. Now granted the new ones look pretty decent, but they're hatches. Not a bad thing, really, but the four door sedan is definitely cooler.

So on what exactly are you basing this idea that the new STi is "sick" whereas the older (better looking and faster) STi's are just "blah"? Please, tell me.

oh man

reason for my comments are

on the older STi when adding a performance part, you needed to get a retune/flash for every part you added. which adds up and was a PITA for most STi owners. the new STi is not like this. it is mod/tuner friendly. i did not like the look of the older ones. i was a fan of the EVOs in that time frame.
and the suspension on the new STi is really nice.

i base all my opinions on real world facts of driving and knowing someone that had one or myself owning one.

kingcars66

mole' wrote: »

i base all my opinions on real world facts of driving and knowing someone that had one or myself owning one.

And that's also why the GT500 is so-so just because it's a Ford? :rolleyes:

mole'

kingcars66 wrote: »

And that's also why the GT500 is so-so just because it's a Ford? :rolleyes:

its a beast of a car.

but i still would take a SRT-8 over it

but yes, im not a ford guy.

you got me on that one.

audiobliss

mole' wrote: »

oh man

reason for my comments are

on the older STi when adding a performance part, you needed to get a retune/flash for every part you added. which adds up and was a PITA for most STi owners. the new STi is not like this. it is mod/tuner friendly. i did not like the look of the older ones. i was a fan of the EVOs in that time frame.
and the suspension on the new STi is really nice.

i base all my opinions on real world facts of driving and knowing someone that had one or myself owning one.

Ok, so you have experience and knowledge somehow backing up your statement. I guess I'll consider your original post as valid, even though 1) I don't see how "sick" and "blah" even come close to describing what it is you're talking about, and 2) it'd be nice to give some indication that you have ANY knowledge or experience or even hearsay regarding what it is you're posting. Instead of just letting these ridiculous-sounding statements stand out there on their own.

concealer404

That said, it's not like it's real hard to tune the old STis anyways.... Nor is it expensive.

Not to mention that most turbo MAP-based cars are like this to some extent in the first place. It's the "flapper" cars that are more lenient.

kingcars66

mole' wrote: »

its a beast of a car.

but i still would take a SRT-8 over it

but yes, im not a ford guy.

you got me on that one.

I give you props for being man enough to admit it

But yes, like what audiobliss said, elaborating your points with facts would help validate what you're saying.

mole'

audiobliss wrote: »

Ok, so you have experience and knowledge somehow backing up your statement. I guess I'll consider your original post as valid, even though 1) I don't see how "sick" and "blah" even come close to describing what it is you're talking about, and 2) it'd be nice to give some indication that you have ANY knowledge or experience or even hearsay regarding what it is you're posting. Instead of just letting these ridiculous-sounding statements stand out there on their own.

ok

i like the new STi. i think the body is nicer looking to me than the older STi models. to me the overall car is much better than the older models and more user friendly (from what i have read and heard from my friends with one)
i test drove an older (2004) STi when i was looking for another toy. i ending up picking up a 2004 SRT-4 for the fact that is just had more balls to it, way cheaper (2004 SRT-4 21k out the door) 2004 STi was like 32k. at the time i could only find the COBB tuner kit for the STi and it was $$. i then got a Mopar Stage 3r kit from dodge that put the SRT-4 over 3xx FWHP to the ground. im still happy i choose the SRT-4.

i have been working on turbo/supercharged cars for some time now, i was also a Diesel mech for awhile.

SORRY if i come off as a know-it-all about cars.

mole'

concealer404 wrote: »

That said, it's not like it's real hard to tune the old STis anyways.... Nor is it expensive.

Not to mention that most turbo MAP-based cars are like this to some extent in the first place. It's the "flapper" cars that are more lenient.

i have never tuned a STi, but just remember when they were out for a few years that they were a PITA for adding mods.

and i think the older STi is on a MAF and not a MAP sensor. not 100% sure tho

mole'

kingcars66 wrote: »

I give you props for being man enough to admit it

But yes, like what audiobliss said, elaborating your points with facts would help validate what you're saying.

if im wrong about something, i will man up to it. but im am very hard headed.

:cool:

ledhed

I'm very curious where you guys would drive a car with 550+ HP (Z06 TT or that Camaro, AB). I love cars but cars like that are pointless besides a 1/4, IMO. I love the current Z06 but the stock C5 Z06 has enough balls to put you in enough trouble and the handling and braking chops to eat up practically anything else out there. I don't even know where you would get traction or use first gear.

I think it is sad when people take such perfectly molded cars (Corvette in particular) and ruin the balance.