And we thought a 300HP TLS/CLS would be "IT". Think again!
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by SiGGy
get this in your HEAD when thinking of sports cars
POWER TO WEIGHT
POWER TO WEIGHT
5.7= heavy, not as good powerband because NO VANOS!
4.9=lighter, more efficient, better powerband, VANOS!
get this in your HEAD when thinking of sports cars
POWER TO WEIGHT
POWER TO WEIGHT
5.7= heavy, not as good powerband because NO VANOS!
4.9=lighter, more efficient, better powerband, VANOS!
Have you looked at the powerband (especially the torque) on an
LS6 ??? And that's a "archaic" motor.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by cnatra
Have you looked at the powerband (especially the torque) on an
LS6 ??? And that's a "archaic" motor.
Have you looked at the powerband (especially the torque) on an
LS6 ??? And that's a "archaic" motor.
its great! but just not as good as the M5's engine.
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
Originally posted by Chief F1 Fan
When's the General gonna realize pushrod technology is outdated, circa 1980's? And when are they going to realize that no matter what they do to any of their cars, save the Vette, it will still be FUGLY!!! Christ, GM has engineers that used to work for AMC in the 70's it seems.
When's the General gonna realize pushrod technology is outdated, circa 1980's? And when are they going to realize that no matter what they do to any of their cars, save the Vette, it will still be FUGLY!!! Christ, GM has engineers that used to work for AMC in the 70's it seems.
Have you taken a look under the hood of a Cadillac in the last
10yrs ??
The 4565cc DOHC 32v 300hp 295 lb-ft NorthStar V-8 was introduced in 1992.
The 4605cc DOHC 32v 290-320hp 290-310 lb-ft V-8 used in the Mark VIII/Cobra was introduced in 1993.
I used to fall victim to the mentality that if it didn't have DOHC's & 4 or 5 valves per cylinder turbos & variable valve timing it was a POS. I was an F1/Euro snob. If it was American it was crap.
Now that I'm older & wiser I realize that isn't always the case.
The LS6 is a world class motor. It's is Simpler than many other V-8's yet generates world class power. Just imagine if it did breath through 32 more valves & had a dual stage intake plenum.
Ever here if the K.I.S.S. theory ???
GM's truck V-8's humble Fords SOHC cam designs in HP Torque & fuel efficiency! More sophisticated isn't always better.
What GM needs is a couple of good chassis & better quality control with their parts suppliers and at the plants.
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SiGGy
pushing more power out of a 5.7 is easy... Keeping it steet legal is a whole other story man. Naturally aspirated! Damb those emmisions. {/QUOTE]
383ci stroked LT1's LS1's & LS6's aren't hard to build & are
very reliable. They are expensive though.
www.lingenfelter.com/packages/packages.htm
www.motorsporttech.com
if that damb 5.7L wasn't so heavy they wouldn't have had to mount the fricken transmission on the rear axle of the corvette to make it 50/50 weight balance.
The aluminum blocked LS6 isn't that heavy.
Porsche utilized a rear transmission on the 928 when it was introduced in 1979 & the later in all the 4 cylinder series
924/944/968 that proved to be a very succesfull design.
pushing more power out of a 5.7 is easy... Keeping it steet legal is a whole other story man. Naturally aspirated! Damb those emmisions. {/QUOTE]
383ci stroked LT1's LS1's & LS6's aren't hard to build & are
very reliable. They are expensive though.
www.lingenfelter.com/packages/packages.htm
www.motorsporttech.com
if that damb 5.7L wasn't so heavy they wouldn't have had to mount the fricken transmission on the rear axle of the corvette to make it 50/50 weight balance.
Porsche utilized a rear transmission on the 928 when it was introduced in 1979 & the later in all the 4 cylinder series
924/944/968 that proved to be a very succesfull design.
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by SiGGy
ya actually...
its great! but just not as good as the M5's engine.
ya actually...
its great! but just not as good as the M5's engine.
4.4L 290hp@5400rpm 324lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.0
4.4L 325hp@6100rpm 330lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.5
4.6L 340hp@5700rpm 350lb-ft@3700rpm CR 10.5
4.9L 394hp@6600rpm 368lb-ft@3800rpm CR 11.0
The numbers on the 4.6is X5 seem most impressive to me
Vette
LS6 400hp@6000rpm 400lb-ft@4800rpm CR 10.5
LS1 350hp@5600rpm 375lb-ft@4400rpm CR 10.1
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
MBs 5.4L V-8 355hp@5500rpm 391lb-ft@3150rpm CR 10.5
I like that AMG motor!! (and only 24 valves!
)
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
But my point was that if you compare HP on a modern 5.7L GM engine to the HP of the same sized engine in the late 60's, you'll see that they are remarkable similar.
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
Originally posted by cusdaddy
Actually, the HP figures from the 60's-70's used a different HP measurement system (I forgot the name) but we now use SAE NET (I may be wrong with the names but you know what I am getting at) which is more stringent, so a 400+ hp car in the 60's would now dyno around 290+ or so now. The 405 hp LS6 is probably stronger than ANY small block ever made in the 60-70's, and with all of the emissions changes
Actually, the HP figures from the 60's-70's used a different HP measurement system (I forgot the name) but we now use SAE NET (I may be wrong with the names but you know what I am getting at) which is more stringent, so a 400+ hp car in the 60's would now dyno around 290+ or so now. The 405 hp LS6 is probably stronger than ANY small block ever made in the 60-70's, and with all of the emissions changes
You are correct. That was like SAE GROSS, HP at the crank
on a stand, no accesseries bolted on or anyhting.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by cnatra
Bimmers
4.4L 290hp@5400rpm 324lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.0
4.4L 325hp@6100rpm 330lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.5
4.6L 340hp@5700rpm 350lb-ft@3700rpm CR 10.5
4.9L 394hp@6600rpm 368lb-ft@3800rpm CR 11.0
The numbers on the 4.6is X5 seem most impressive to me
Vette
LS6 400hp@6000rpm 400lb-ft@4800rpm CR 10.5
LS1 350hp@5600rpm 375lb-ft@4400rpm CR 10.1
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
MBs 5.4L V-8 355hp@5500rpm 391lb-ft@3150rpm CR 10.5
I like that AMG motor!!
Bimmers
4.4L 290hp@5400rpm 324lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.0
4.4L 325hp@6100rpm 330lb-ft@3600rpm CR 10.5
4.6L 340hp@5700rpm 350lb-ft@3700rpm CR 10.5
4.9L 394hp@6600rpm 368lb-ft@3800rpm CR 11.0
The numbers on the 4.6is X5 seem most impressive to me
Vette
LS6 400hp@6000rpm 400lb-ft@4800rpm CR 10.5
LS1 350hp@5600rpm 375lb-ft@4400rpm CR 10.1
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
MBs 5.4L V-8 355hp@5500rpm 391lb-ft@3150rpm CR 10.5
I like that AMG motor!!
totally, but keep in mind *only* one of those BMW engines goes into a Sports car. the M5 (the 7 series is sporty, but not sports)
And I guess the 5 series is a fair comparison. But the M5 is the top of the series.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Originally posted by cnatra
The aluminum blocked LS6 isn't that heavy.
Porsche utilized a rear transmission on the 928 when it was introduced in 1979 & the later in all the 4 cylinder series
924/944/968 that proved to be a very succesfull design.
The aluminum blocked LS6 isn't that heavy.
Porsche utilized a rear transmission on the 928 when it was introduced in 1979 & the later in all the 4 cylinder series
924/944/968 that proved to be a very succesfull design.
oh ya I agree! but thats a lot of engine work! And the same applys to the M5 engine.
But once again you are adding more cubic inches. not efficiency.
But good point.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by cnatra
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
But I'd like to see that results
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
This thread is hillarious....Gave me a good laugh!
GM competing with BMW. The CTS is a decent car, but its not BMW. Whoever said that the CTS is as good in the handling department, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR MAGAZINE and ACTUALLY DRIVE THE CARS. If you actually know how to drive and pickup on the cars performance, you will realize who the winner is.
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing!
GM competing with BMW. The CTS is a decent car, but its not BMW. Whoever said that the CTS is as good in the handling department, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR MAGAZINE and ACTUALLY DRIVE THE CARS. If you actually know how to drive and pickup on the cars performance, you will realize who the winner is.
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing!
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
GM competing with BMW. The CTS is a decent car, but its not BMW. Whoever said that the CTS is as good in the handling department, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR MAGAZINE and ACTUALLY DRIVE THE CARS. If you actually know how to drive and pickup on the cars performance, you will realize who the winner is.
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
here
In all fairness (and a somewhat good memory I have) I dug this up.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...ee.xml?&page=1
this should give a good perspective. And pretty much sums up what everyone has said on both sides of the argument(s).
heh (accept the european engine discussion)
Time will tell.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...ee.xml?&page=1
this should give a good perspective. And pretty much sums up what everyone has said on both sides of the argument(s).
heh (accept the european engine discussion)
Time will tell.
Burn some dust here
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,709
Likes: 13
From: Atlanta
Damn, been off this for 10 hours and BAM, 100 more posts over something that is so ridiculous its scary. Well, I am two-sided on this one. GM CAN COMPETE WITH BMW PEOPLE. (It will just take lots of time, effort, and $$$) Also, look at the price guys, M5=70g ZO6=50g. That is a big difference. GM cut a corner, so what? Look at our Acuras (theyre foreign, but guess what? THEY RATTLE, THEY HAVE TRANS PROBLEMS, THEY HAVE PLASTIC INTERIOR. WELL ILL BE DAMNED) On the side of BMW, the M5 is strictly unbelievable. I agree, it would be hard to find a better car than that for 70g. I have driven all 3 competitors in this line (M5, E55, and XJR) and by far the BMW is the best handler. Hands down. The E55's power is just as good and it would be interesting to see both in a stick. All around, the JAG by far is the best in my opinion. Most luxury, extremely powerful, a gods torque, and able to lay down the biggest burn-out on gods green earth.
In conclusion, the M5 is a great car. But GM can make this happen, although I dont agree with the CTS choosing if they go this route. Good luck to em and Ill be very interested.
BTW, whos gonna watch the draft?
In conclusion,
the M5 is a great car. But GM can make this happen, although I dont agree with the CTS choosing if they go this route. Good luck to em and Ill be very interested.BTW, whos gonna watch the draft?
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by SiGGy
6.2 BUT ITS A V12 MAN!!!!!
AHHH DUH!!!
6.2 BUT ITS A V12 MAN!!!!!
AHHH DUH!!!
Originally posted by SiGGy
heres a perfect example. the lotus elise.
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1736/
heres a perfect example. the lotus elise.
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1736/
Originally posted by SiGGy
And how about the new 911 S4 <$100k
http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/porsche9114s.html
And how about the new 911 S4 <$100k
http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/porsche9114s.html
The 911 4S and not S4, is not an exotic and it does not cost more than $100K.
Originally posted by SiGGy
ohh and how about the Tucan TVR
http://www.fast-autos.net/tvr/tvrtuscan.html
ohh and how about the Tucan TVR
http://www.fast-autos.net/tvr/tvrtuscan.html
Originally posted by SiGGy
Should I bother posting the MAZDA rx7? and or the rx8 comming out...
Should I bother posting the MAZDA rx7? and or the rx8 comming out...
Originally posted by SiGGy
Should I continue?
Should I continue?
Originally posted by SiGGy
I can start with a ton of Ferrari(s) which are ALL naturally asipirated & small displacement.
I can start with a ton of Ferrari(s) which are ALL naturally asipirated & small displacement.
Originally posted by SiGGy
Most (all IMO) Lamborghinis are small displacement! 6.2 V12 is a small V12!
Most (all IMO) Lamborghinis are small displacement! 6.2 V12 is a small V12!
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by Tom2
I can argue that--- Since when does HP mean everything? If you have 300 HP and I have 250 HP in a different car, depending on the cars weight, gear ratio (tranny and differential) and other factors, the 250 HP car could easily outperform the 300 HP car.
So who would be better off then?
I can argue that--- Since when does HP mean everything? If you have 300 HP and I have 250 HP in a different car, depending on the cars weight, gear ratio (tranny and differential) and other factors, the 250 HP car could easily outperform the 300 HP car.
So who would be better off then?
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by cnatra
Have you taken a look under the hood of a Cadillac in the last
10yrs ??
The 4565cc DOHC 32v 300hp 295 lb-ft NorthStar V-8 was introduced in 1992.
The 4605cc DOHC 32v 290-320hp 290-310 lb-ft V-8 used in the Mark VIII/Cobra was introduced in 1993.
I used to fall victim to the mentality that if it didn't have DOHC's & 4 or 5 valves per cylinder turbos & variable valve timing it was a POS. I was an F1/Euro snob. If it was American it was crap.
Now that I'm older & wiser I realize that isn't always the case.
The LS6 is a world class motor. It's is Simpler than many other V-8's yet generates world class power. Just imagine if it did breath through 32 more valves & had a dual stage intake plenum.
Ever here if the K.I.S.S. theory ???
GM's truck V-8's humble Fords SOHC cam designs in HP Torque & fuel efficiency! More sophisticated isn't always better.
What GM needs is a couple of good chassis & better quality control with their parts suppliers and at the plants.
Have you taken a look under the hood of a Cadillac in the last
10yrs ??
The 4565cc DOHC 32v 300hp 295 lb-ft NorthStar V-8 was introduced in 1992.
The 4605cc DOHC 32v 290-320hp 290-310 lb-ft V-8 used in the Mark VIII/Cobra was introduced in 1993.
I used to fall victim to the mentality that if it didn't have DOHC's & 4 or 5 valves per cylinder turbos & variable valve timing it was a POS. I was an F1/Euro snob. If it was American it was crap.
Now that I'm older & wiser I realize that isn't always the case.
The LS6 is a world class motor. It's is Simpler than many other V-8's yet generates world class power. Just imagine if it did breath through 32 more valves & had a dual stage intake plenum.
Ever here if the K.I.S.S. theory ???
GM's truck V-8's humble Fords SOHC cam designs in HP Torque & fuel efficiency! More sophisticated isn't always better.
What GM needs is a couple of good chassis & better quality control with their parts suppliers and at the plants.
Nice post. I agree with you and to add to that, I was like you too. I thought Honda was the engine God cos they made a lot of HP from small engines, blah, blah. Till I saw the value of HP at low rpm and how it affects driving. Or else...high torque.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by cnatra
Vette
LS6 400hp@6000rpm 400lb-ft@4800rpm CR 10.5
LS1 350hp@5600rpm 375lb-ft@4400rpm CR 10.1
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
Vette
LS6 400hp@6000rpm 400lb-ft@4800rpm CR 10.5
LS1 350hp@5600rpm 375lb-ft@4400rpm CR 10.1
I'll find a dyno chart, that LS6 has more torque from 2000rpm to redline than the M5
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by cusdaddy
Actually, the HP figures from the 60's-70's used a different HP measurement system (I forgot the name) but we now use SAE NET (I may be wrong with the names but you know what I am getting at) which is more stringent, so a 400+ hp car in the 60's would now dyno around 290+ or so now. The 405 hp LS6 is probably stronger than ANY small block ever made in the 60-70's, and with all of the emissions changes
Actually, the HP figures from the 60's-70's used a different HP measurement system (I forgot the name) but we now use SAE NET (I may be wrong with the names but you know what I am getting at) which is more stringent, so a 400+ hp car in the 60's would now dyno around 290+ or so now. The 405 hp LS6 is probably stronger than ANY small block ever made in the 60-70's, and with all of the emissions changes
Yep. It is called SAE GROSS and it is 30%+ less power than the NET measurement.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by SiGGy
I was using the VANOS system showing how the engine can produce LOTS of toruqe throughout the POWERBAND. not just more torque in general. It was a technology thing. I didn't compare raw numbers.
But I'd like to see that results
I was using the VANOS system showing how the engine can produce LOTS of toruqe throughout the POWERBAND. not just more torque in general. It was a technology thing. I didn't compare raw numbers.
But I'd like to see that results
Plus Variocam, iVtec and others.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by Maximized
This thread is hillarious....Gave me a good laugh!
GM competing with BMW. The CTS is a decent car, but its not BMW. Whoever said that the CTS is as good in the handling department, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR MAGAZINE and ACTUALLY DRIVE THE CARS. If you actually know how to drive and pickup on the cars performance, you will realize who the winner is.
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing!
This thread is hillarious....Gave me a good laugh!
GM competing with BMW. The CTS is a decent car, but its not BMW. Whoever said that the CTS is as good in the handling department, PLEASE PUT DOWN YOUR MAGAZINE and ACTUALLY DRIVE THE CARS. If you actually know how to drive and pickup on the cars performance, you will realize who the winner is.
Slapping a LS6 in a CTS doesnt make it a M5 killer. It makes it a fast car, with no refinement.
Quit the arguing!
Figures.
Budd, your time will come when BMW will be eveything except the ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE. Sit back and watch the show.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Originally posted by gavriil
...
[/B]
...
[/B]
Whatever.
the lotus is an exotic, hand made, low production #'s, and yes, almost all ferraris have small displacement engines. granted it is less than $100k
I also stated this on the Porsche 911 (thanks for pointing out the obvious back to me) YOUR REALLY GOOD AT THAT.. moron
No comments on the tuscan?
done with me?!?
please.
You have weak returning arguments.
Embarrising myself? Whats embarrising about this? Your the cheeze nut thinking you know everything. I posted a URL in your favor. yet you choose to still be ignorant. It even blatenly states the output the BMW engine is better not in raw number but technology. Is that why you didn't comment on it? and change to a new argument like you have done throughout this dicussion.
Or is your A.D.D. acting up again?
your just one of those people who won't admit when your wrong.
And change the argument to win.
ohh ya, here's a few ferraris to pick from. largest being 5.1L with 500hp. And plenty of 400+ HP less than 4.0L engines.
granted some are not naturally aspirated...
plenty of 3.0L to 4.0L 300+hp engines in this list....
THIS IS MY LAST POST IN THIS TREAD
I AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT NOW YOU NEED TO DISAGREE WITH THESE CARS!
Model Doors Volume (cc) bhp/kW
[+] 1 1947 Ferrari 125 S 1 1497 118.0/88
[+] 2 1948 Ferrari 166 Inter 2 1995 110.0/82
[+] 3 1948 Ferrari 166 MM 2 1995 140.0/104.4
[+] 4 1950 Ferrari 195 Inter 2 2341 130.0/96.9
[+] 5 1950 Ferrari 195 Sport 2 2341 145.0/108.1
[+] 6 1950 Ferrari 340 America Spider 2 4102 220.0/164.1
[+] 7 1951 Ferrari 212 2 2562 140.0/104.4
[+] 8 1952 Ferrari 212 Export 2 2562 150.0/111.9
[+] 9 1952 Ferrari 212 Inter 2 2562 170.0/126.8
[+] 10 1952 Ferrari 225 S 2 2715 210.0/156.6
[+] 11 1952 Ferrari 225 Sport Spider 2 2715 210.0/156.6
[+] 12 1952 Ferrari 250 MM 2 2953 240.0/179
[+] 13 1952 Ferrari 340 Mexico 2 4102 280.0/208.8
[+] 14 1952 Ferrari 340 MM 2 4102 300.0/223.7
[+] 15 1952 Ferrari 342 America 2 4102 200.0/149.1
[+] 16 1953 Ferrari 166 Abarth 2 1995 140.0/104.4
[+] 17 1953 Ferrari 250 Europa 2 2963 200.0/149.1
[+] 18 1953 Ferrari 250 Export 2 2963 220.0/164.1
[+] 19 1953 Ferrari 375 America 2 4523 300.0/223.7
[+] 20 1954 Ferrari 500 Mondial SI 2 1985 160.0/119.3
[+] 21 1955 Ferrari 410 Super America 2 4963 340.0/253.5
[+] 22 1955 Ferrari 500 Mondial SII 2 1985 170.0/126.8
[+] 23 1956 Ferrari 500 Testa Rossa 2 1985 190.0/141.7
[+] 24 1957 Ferrari 250 GT Series I Cabriolet 2 2953 240.0/179
[+] 25 1957 Ferrari 410 Super America 2 4963 400.0/298.3
[+] 26 1958 Ferrari 250 GT Coupe Speciale 2 2953 260.0/193.9
[+] 27 1958 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa 2 2953 300.0/223.7
[+] 28 1958 Ferrari Dino 206 2 1984 225.0/167.8
[+] 29 1959 Ferrari 250 GT 2 2953 240.0/179
[+] 30 1959 Ferrari 250 GT SWB 2 2953 280.0/208.8
[+] 31 1959 Ferrari 250 GT SWB 2 2953 280.0/208.8
[+] 32 1960 Ferrari 400 Super America Prototype 2 3967 320.0/238.6
[+] 33 1961 Ferrari 250 GTE 2+2 2 2953 235.0/175.2
[+] 34 1961 Ferrari 400 Super America 2 3967 340.0/253.5
[+] 35 1961 Ferrari 400 Super America 2 3967 400.0/298.3
[+] 36 1962 Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta Lusso 2 2953 250.0/186.4
[+] 37 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO 2 2953 300.0/223.7
[+] 38 1963 Ferrari 250 GT Berlinetta 2 2953 250.0/186.4
[+] 39 1963 Ferrari 250 LM 2 3286 320.0/238.6
[+] 40 1963 Ferrari 275 GTB 2 3286 280.0/208.8
[+] 41 1963 Ferrari 275 GTB/4 2 3286 300.0/223.7
[+] 42 1964 Ferrari 330 GT 2+2 2 3967 300.0/223.7
[+] 43 1964 Ferrari 500 Superfast 2 4963 400.0/298.3
[+] 44 1964 Ferrari GTO 2 2953 300.0/223.7
[+] 45 1965 Ferrari 275 GTS 2 3286 280.0/208.8
[+] 46 1966 Ferrari 330 GTC 2 3967 300.0/223.7
[+] 47 1966 Ferrari 330 GTS 2 3967 300.0/223.7
[+] 48 1966 Ferrari 365 California 2 4390 320.0/238.6
[+] 49 1967 Ferrari 275 GTS/4 2 3286 330.0/246.1
[+] 50 1968 Ferrari 365 GT 2+2 2 4390 320.0/238.6
[+] 51 1968 Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona 2 4390 352.0/262.5
[+] 52 1968 Ferrari Dino 206 GT 2 1987 180.0/134.2
[+] 53 1969 Ferrari 365 GTC 2 4390 320.0/238.6
[+] 54 1969 Ferrari Dino 246 GT 2 2419 195.0/145.4
[+] 55 1971 Ferrari Modulo 2 4994 550.0/410.1
[+] 56 1972 Ferrari 365 GTC4 2 4390 320.0/238.6
[+] 57 1973 Ferrari 308 GT/4 2 2927 255.0/190.2
[+] 58 1973 Ferrari 365 BB 2 4390 380.0/283.4
[+] 59 1975 Ferrari 208 GT/4 2 1991 170.0/126.8
[+] 60 1975 Ferrari 308 GTB 2 2927 255.0/190.2
[+] 61 1976 Ferrari 400 GTS 2 4823 340.0/253.5
[+] 62 1976 Ferrari 400 GTS Automatic 2 4823 340.0/253.5
[+] 63 1976 Ferrari 512 BB 2 4942 360.0/268.5
[+] 64 1979 Ferrari 400i 2 4823 315.0/234.9
[+] 65 1979 Ferrari 400i Automatic 2 4823 315.0/234.9
[+] 66 1979 Ferrari 400i (US) 2 4823 310.0/231.2
[+] 67 1980 Ferrari Mondial 8 2 2927 214.0/159.6
[+] 68 1980 Ferrari Mondial 8 Coupe (US) 2 2927 205.0/152.9
[+] 69 1980 Ferrari Pinin 4 4942 360.0/268.5
[+] 70 1981 Ferrari 308 GTBi 2 2927 214.0/159.6
[+] 71 1981 Ferrari 308 GTBi (US) 2 2927 205.0/152.9
[+] 72 1981 Ferrari 512 BBi 2 4942 340.0/253.5
[+] 73 1982 Ferrari 208 GTB Turbo 2 1991 220.0/164.1
[+] 74 1982 Ferrari 208 GTS Turbo 2 1991 220.0/164.1
[+] 75 1982 Ferrari 308 GTB QV 2 2927 240.0/179
[+] 76 1982 Ferrari 308 GTB QV (US) 2 2927 230.0/171.5
[+] 77 1982 Ferrari 308 GTS QV 2 2927 240.0/179
[+] 78 1982 Ferrari Mondial QV 2 2927 240.0/179
[+] 79 1984 Ferrari 288 GTO 2 2855 400.0/298.3
[+] 80 1984 Ferrari Testarossa 2 4942 385.0/287.1
[+] 81 1986 Ferrari 208 Turbo 2 1991 254.0/189.4
[+] 82 1986 Ferrari 328 GTB 2 3186 270.0/201.3
[+] 83 1986 Ferrari 328 GTS 2 3186 270.0/201.3
[+] 84 1986 Ferrari 412i 2 4942 340.0/253.5
[+] 85 1986 Ferrari 412i Automatic 2 4942 340.0/253.5
[+] 86 1986 Ferrari Mondial 3.2 2 3186 270.0/201.3
[+] 87 1986 Ferrari Mondial 3.2 Cabriolet 2 3186 270.0/201.3
[+] 88 1987 Ferrari F40 2 2936 472.0/352
[+] 89 1988 Ferrari 408 2 300.0/223.7
[+] 90 1989 Ferrari 348tb 2 3405 300.0/223.7
[+] 91 1990 Ferrari Mondial t 2 3405 300.0/223.7
[+] 92 1990 Ferrari Mondial t Cabriolet 2 3405 300.0/223.7
[+] 93 1992 Ferrari 456 GT 2 5474 436.0/325.1
[+] 94 1992 Ferrari 512TR 2 4942 425.0/316.9
[+] 95 1993 Ferrari 348 GTB 2 3405 320.0/238.6
[+] 96 1994 Ferrari F355 2 3496 375.0/279.6
[+] 97 1994 Ferrari F512 M 2 4942 440.0/328.1
[+] 98 1995 Ferrari F50 2 4698 513.0/382.5
[+] 99 1996 Ferrari F50 GT1 2 4698 750.0/559.3
[+] 100 1996 Ferrari F550 Maranello 2 5474 485.0/361.7
[+] 101 1998 Ferrari 456M GT 2 5474 442.0/329.6
[+] 102 1999 Ferrari 360 Modena 2 3586 400.0/298.3
[+] 103 2000 Ferrari 550 Barchetta 2 5474 485.0/361.7
[+] 104 2002 Ferrari 575M Maranello 2 5748 508.0/378.8
[+] 105 Ferrari 208 GT/4 2 1991 160.0/119.3
[+] 106 Ferrari 208 GTB 2 1991 155.0/115.6
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by SiGGy
[B]
Whatever.
I also stated this on the Porsche 911 (thanks for pointing out the obvious back to me) YOUR REALLY GOOD AT THAT.. moron
You have weak returning arguments.
Embarrising myself? Whats embarrising about this? Your the cheeze nut thinking you know everything.
I posted a URL in your favor. yet you choose to still be ignorant.
Or is your A.D.D. acting up again?
[B]
Whatever.
I also stated this on the Porsche 911 (thanks for pointing out the obvious back to me) YOUR REALLY GOOD AT THAT.. moron
You have weak returning arguments.
Embarrising myself? Whats embarrising about this? Your the cheeze nut thinking you know everything.
I posted a URL in your favor. yet you choose to still be ignorant.
Or is your A.D.D. acting up again?
I did not say anything about your 100s of rolling eyes icons but calling names is pretty cheap. Too bad.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 9,263
Likes: 2
From: Lenexa, KS
Originally posted by gavriil
You know, maybe you did not like my arguments, let's say they were weak (yet a 6.2 liter engine is not large if it is a V12). I did say you are embarassing yourself, but I never at any point called you a moron, cheeze nut, ignorant, or suffering from ADD.
I did not say about your 100s of rolling eyes icons but calling names is pretty cheap. Too bad.
You know, maybe you did not like my arguments, let's say they were weak (yet a 6.2 liter engine is not large if it is a V12). I did say you are embarassing yourself, but I never at any point called you a moron, cheeze nut, ignorant, or suffering from ADD.
I did not say about your 100s of rolling eyes icons but calling names is pretty cheap. Too bad.
I was frustrated with you changing subjects.
MY bad.
Burn some dust here
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,709
Likes: 13
From: Atlanta
I just saw a commercial for a gentle warts creme. Cant remember the name, but if any of yall have the "bumps," it can be fixed. Just watch the TV for a lil bit and maybe you can see the ad. GOOD LUCK TO YA 
(Just thought Id change the subject up a little bit )
(Just thought Id change the subject up a little bit
)
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by SiGGy
Agreed, I appologize.
I was frustrated with you changing subjects.
MY bad.
Agreed, I appologize.
I was frustrated with you changing subjects.
MY bad.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by SiGGy
Agreed, I appologize.
I was frustrated with you changing subjects.
MY bad.
Agreed, I appologize.
I was frustrated with you changing subjects.
MY bad.
I once believed that if an engine did not have the latest tech, it is not worth praise. Now I dont think that anymore and I look at the bottom line. Which is power as long as it is refined and emissions are in check (which is not an issue cos the engine would not have been sold otherwise). Weight is not a bid deal either.
But, that does not mean the the S62 is not a bad engine or that BMW engineers have gone all that way to incorporate that tech into that engine for no reason. I respect BMW for everything they have done for the automotive world.
I was just saying to Tom2 the other day to give me more info about his 2002 M3 SMG II because I am thinking of jumping into one this summer. So I put my money where my money is (if I do get into one). I am not anti-BMW. But I am PRO-CONSUMER. Meaning I like it when other companies get into the game because it ups the ante and the result is us gaining from all that competition. No one doubts that although the M3 and M5 are great cars, they are super expensive.
So, bottom line, like I said, we have a "beliefs" disagreement which means that we both can be right.
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Domestic Crap
Originally posted by SiGGy
totally, but keep in mind *only* one of those BMW engines goes into a Sports car. the M5 (the 7 series is sporty, but not sports)
And I guess the 5 series is a fair comparison. But the M5 is the top of the series.
totally, but keep in mind *only* one of those BMW engines goes into a Sports car. the M5 (the 7 series is sporty, but not sports)
And I guess the 5 series is a fair comparison. But the M5 is the top of the series.
the new M3.
Actually a Z8 is a true lotto winning car!
That's one thing that's changed over the last 20yrs.
The fact that the performance of a sports car is no longer relegated to 2 seat specials that are hard to live with
has blurred the line.
The other real issue here is that most people can't lay out
$70-100k on cars. Most of the premium european cars end up
in that price range. $50k is a minimum.
So for $70-100k the M series or AMG cars or R model Jags
should kick everyone elses ass. The fact that some more
"mundane" autos can hang on some levels with the premium stuff at 2/3 to half the cost is cool (& still been within the reach of a much larger percentage of the market.)
Pro
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 683
Likes: 1
From: TX
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gavriil
Duh yourself. So what if it is a V12? We are talking total displacement.
[?QUOTE]
Yes the number of cylinders is really less critical than the
total displacement & then probably number of valves &
the maximum rpms.
Remember, it's all about volumetric efficiency.
Duh yourself. So what if it is a V12? We are talking total displacement.
[?QUOTE]
Yes the number of cylinders is really less critical than the
total displacement & then probably number of valves &
the maximum rpms.
Remember, it's all about volumetric efficiency.
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
In regards to the C&D Article comparing the Holden GTS to the M5, it basically almost defeats the M5. It needed a better interior, (fixed by the new CTS), a little more power (fixed by the LS6), and a better tranny (fixed by the Vette 6 speed).
So basically, I think GM may have a HUGE hit on their hands. At least a definite step in the right direction
So basically, I think GM may have a HUGE hit on their hands. At least a definite step in the right direction
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by gavriil
Here we go. Just look at the cars he owns.
Figures.
Budd, your time will come when BMW will be eveything except the ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE. Sit back and watch the show.
Here we go. Just look at the cars he owns.
Figures.
Budd, your time will come when BMW will be eveything except the ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE. Sit back and watch the show.
I have also driven numerous C5s and rode in a 02 Z06. The Vette is quite possibly the best car in GMs arsenal.
As for GM overtaking BMW, you are crazy. Lexus has come close to matching the germans with the IS, GS, and LS. It is still not there yet though. How long has Lexus been trying?? Damn near 10 years.
I dont see GM coming close to BMW in the next few years, in ten years it might be a reality.
You seen to forget to take into account the profit margins of BMW. Take a look and see what kind of capital they can use for future product development.
BTW.....BMW needs to fire Chris Bangle ASAP
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
You seen to forget to take into account the profit margins of BMW. Take a look and see what kind of capital they can use for future product development.
I won't get into boring financials, but looking solely on profit is an innaccurate gauge to determine available capital to invest on NPI. I am too tired to look up each company's detailed financial information, but basically looking solely on profit is not a complete way to judge each companies ability to fund new projects/products. I know BMW has opened up a few new plants, so much of their profit may be tied into paying off their LT Debt, etc...
GM is a much bigger business, it's profitable and they have the will to compete. It may take a long time, but I think it can happen.
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by cusdaddy
Actually, as a %, BMW is SLIGHTLY more profitable than GM, but last year, BMW had a profit of 948M while GM had over 4.4B in profit. That's approx. 5x the profit.
I won't get into boring financials, but looking solely on profit is an innaccurate gauge to determine available capital to invest on NPI. I am too tired to look up each company's detailed financial information, but basically looking solely on profit is not a complete way to judge each companies ability to fund new projects/products. I know BMW has opened up a few new plants, so much of their profit may be tied into paying off their LT Debt, etc...
GM is a much bigger business, it's profitable and they have the will to compete. It may take a long time, but I think it can happen.
Actually, as a %, BMW is SLIGHTLY more profitable than GM, but last year, BMW had a profit of 948M while GM had over 4.4B in profit. That's approx. 5x the profit.
I won't get into boring financials, but looking solely on profit is an innaccurate gauge to determine available capital to invest on NPI. I am too tired to look up each company's detailed financial information, but basically looking solely on profit is not a complete way to judge each companies ability to fund new projects/products. I know BMW has opened up a few new plants, so much of their profit may be tied into paying off their LT Debt, etc...
GM is a much bigger business, it's profitable and they have the will to compete. It may take a long time, but I think it can happen.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Washington DC
Originally posted by SiGGy
Ummm did he head that the new M5 is suppose to have a 500hp V10? before they went and made that stupid statement. LOL, what a moron to make that statement. Cadillac's are nice. But not like a BMW. I'll be impressed if chevy even comes close. I sure hope its RWD at least
I somehow picture a automatic FWD cadillac, and not 50/50 balanced, with cheezy brakes. But who knows.
and uhhh
“You would be hard pressed to convince me the (BMW) M5 is a better performer than the M3,”
there ummmm, two different cars MANG!!! someone bitch slap this guy talking for GM!
Ummm did he head that the new M5 is suppose to have a 500hp V10? before they went and made that stupid statement. LOL, what a moron to make that statement. Cadillac's are nice. But not like a BMW. I'll be impressed if chevy even comes close. I sure hope its RWD at least
I somehow picture a automatic FWD cadillac, and not 50/50 balanced, with cheezy brakes. But who knows.
and uhhh
“You would be hard pressed to convince me the (BMW) M5 is a better performer than the M3,”
there ummmm, two different cars MANG!!! someone bitch slap this guy talking for GM!
Dude, it's an American car, it will always suck... The viper was a freak of nature and will never be repeated again in US car history... Sad but true...
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by Maximized
Chief I have had extensive experience with Cadillacs. 95 DeVille, 97 STS, and 01 STS. They are no competition to any of the Luxury Jap or German cars.
I have also driven numerous C5s and rode in a 02 Z06. The Vette is quite possibly the best car in GMs arsenal.
As for GM overtaking BMW, you are crazy. Lexus has come close to matching the germans with the IS, GS, and LS. It is still not there yet though. How long has Lexus been trying?? Damn near 10 years.
I dont see GM coming close to BMW in the next few years, in ten years it might be a reality.
You seen to forget to take into account the profit margins of BMW. Take a look and see what kind of capital they can use for future product development.
BTW.....BMW needs to fire Chris Bangle ASAP
Chief I have had extensive experience with Cadillacs. 95 DeVille, 97 STS, and 01 STS. They are no competition to any of the Luxury Jap or German cars.
I have also driven numerous C5s and rode in a 02 Z06. The Vette is quite possibly the best car in GMs arsenal.
As for GM overtaking BMW, you are crazy. Lexus has come close to matching the germans with the IS, GS, and LS. It is still not there yet though. How long has Lexus been trying?? Damn near 10 years.
I dont see GM coming close to BMW in the next few years, in ten years it might be a reality.
You seen to forget to take into account the profit margins of BMW. Take a look and see what kind of capital they can use for future product development.
BTW.....BMW needs to fire Chris Bangle ASAP
About the profit margins, I have not looked at the numbers but I am sure you are probably right. But still. That does not mean that GM has more resources (employees, assets, financial health in general) than BMW.
Suzuka Master
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
From: Chicago Suburbs
Originally posted by gavriil
Like I said. I dont doubt that GM has nothing to show against BMW except the CTS now. THe CTS is not beating the 5 series but it has come...oh, so close with the first try. You say 10, I say in 3-4 we will have a game that will be very close, or par. Watch.
About the profit margins, I have not looked at the numbers but I am sure you are probably right. But still. That does not mean that GM has more resources (employees, assets, financial health in general) than BMW.
Like I said. I dont doubt that GM has nothing to show against BMW except the CTS now. THe CTS is not beating the 5 series but it has come...oh, so close with the first try. You say 10, I say in 3-4 we will have a game that will be very close, or par. Watch.
About the profit margins, I have not looked at the numbers but I am sure you are probably right. But still. That does not mean that GM has more resources (employees, assets, financial health in general) than BMW.
What im trying to point out is that Cadillac is one of the many divisions of GM. I bet that BMW has more money to spend, because it is supporting one brand (Mini too).
The thing that GM has going for it is it can "share" parts from these many divisions to keep priced lower than its competitors.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by Maximized
I personally think that the CTS is more of a competitor to the C-class , IS300, and 3 series. I would like to see Cadillac become more of a performance driven company. I just dont see them fully attaining the level that BMW is at. Drive a C5 and drive a E46 M3 and come back and do a comparison. The M3 might be a little slower, but you will be amazed at how much more refinement and detail is put in the car. I guess thats where the extra 5k goes.
What im trying to point out is that Cadillac is one of the many divisions of GM. I bet that BMW has more money to spend, because it is supporting one brand (Mini too).
The thing that GM has going for it is it can "share" parts from these many divisions to keep priced lower than its competitors.
I personally think that the CTS is more of a competitor to the C-class , IS300, and 3 series. I would like to see Cadillac become more of a performance driven company. I just dont see them fully attaining the level that BMW is at. Drive a C5 and drive a E46 M3 and come back and do a comparison. The M3 might be a little slower, but you will be amazed at how much more refinement and detail is put in the car. I guess thats where the extra 5k goes.
What im trying to point out is that Cadillac is one of the many divisions of GM. I bet that BMW has more money to spend, because it is supporting one brand (Mini too).
The thing that GM has going for it is it can "share" parts from these many divisions to keep priced lower than its competitors.
The CTS is larger than a 5 series inside and out but priced like and IS 300 or a 3 series. So it's your call. Caddilac see the car as a 5 series fighter though.
BMW has more money to spend where? FOr each of their lines? Maybe. I dont know the exact numbers but in the end GM has more resources. And you hit the nail to the head when you said that they will use "common platforming" to shave cost and price it lower than the competition. And they are. How much of a 5 series do you get with $35K? Cos you get a well equipped CTS with the 3.2 liter.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
Jul 16, 2017 07:33 AM
