I have a 2nd car that's less boring....

And the real world difference in monthly payments between an EX/V6 Accord (which can readily be purchased near invoice) and an '04 TL is significantly more than "$100 less a month."

 

You've gone from half-wit to complete utter moron, take that to the mod you no brained idiot who can't let things go and still after a week posts crap about crap that has nothing to do with anything but your own crap, man you're full of crap....
:tflamer:

 

 

To use your childish comparisons, the Cammer built 35 years ago would lay the smack down on all three. Now, this is called goading, you might recognize it, you've been doing it on every forum you've been banned from...

 

Yep, cold hard facts kinda shut you right up.:yack:

Now perhaps you can get to a place where your ego doesn't force you to break out the scanner for articles so old they no longer hold weight because the whole planet has moved on but you still refer to crap written eons ago.

 

The 427 "cammer,' as used in the Cobra, produced less SIGNIFICANTLY less power than the LS6 (and apparently less than an LS1)...And it wasn't even CLOSE in terms of fuel economy.

The car weighed less than 2,700 pounds and only trapped @ 109 MPH...

http://www.ffcobra.com/magazine/maga...1981/page7.jpg

 

If you had a TL and an NSX, which would you bring to the drag strip? I may bring the TL, but I think the NSX would be more fun.

 

Thank you for proving my point, now read back and see where I said I was goading you, do you get it now? Maybe even a little? Are you so vain you feel no matter even if a person is baiting you, you jump right in taking it hook line and sinker? Maybe it's just that you can't help yourself and you're addicted to this behavior, if so say so and we'll ignore you.

Quick, I'll bet you that the 5.0 made in 1986 stomps the crap out of the LS1 in stock form, both in HP and MPG.

 

I'd bring this Cobra to show eveyone how LITTLE power the olds engines ACTUALLY made

427 cubes, tube headers with no mufflers, webbers, 400 pounds lighter than a Z06 and it's NO faster.

http://www.ffcobra.com/magazine/maga...1981/page6.jpg

http://www.ffcobra.com/magazine/maga...1981/page7.jpg

 

Very good point, I'd find a way to bring both!

 

I've finally figured it out.

The main reason he's made and taking it out on TL's is because he paid $26,000 for his EX V6 when they're actually going for $24,000 if you look around.

That $2000 must hurt..... LOL.

 

Don't race your stock 1969 Chevelle against his NSX, though...

The NSX wouldn't stand a prayer against that. LOL

 

I paid NOTHING for it...And the $26K price would include NAV...~ $24 without. Those prices are fairly close to invoice (not including the holdback, of course).

I leased this car...the numbers worked in this rare (Honda subsidized) lease...

 

Haw haw haw, you moron, like everything else you missed that it isn't stock haw haw haw. Sheeeesh, my Chevelle runs low 10's in it's current configuration.

 

Really...low tens? WOW! Bet it corners like it's on rails! LOL

Other than the block, how many stock parts are left in the engine?

Plus, you said that STOCK 1969 396s produced "335 RWHP."

They didn't.

IF they did they'd actually give his NSX a damn good run.

 

I may bring the TL, as I have already run the NSX at Union Grove.

 

By the way 1le, factory rating for the LS6 was 450HP, the 427 'cammer" was 615HP. Again, factory ratings, if you can handle them.














Some more goading for the addicted one...

 

Yep, you're just too smart for us dumb folk who built the car for the strip, yup we jus to stupid, why didn't we build it for circles when it's built to go straight, man what were we thinking? An NSX might come out of the blue and challenge us to a round robin at the nearest circle track, yeah boy you sure are da smart one!

WHat does this have to do with absolutely anything at all?

I never once said they made 335 rwhp you mental, you just can't read.

Round and round the moron troll from hell goes, three months from now he'll be using the same argument, hey, guess what Yellow Checker Cabs don't get compared to NSX's either, until now, I'll bet a stock 1964 Checker cab could blow the doors off that tub Geo you have... wait, there has to be a magazine from 1964 laying around you can scan, find it quick!

 

Not a real cheap SOB like me who keeps cars 10 to 15 years. I just sold my 1987 Formula to buy the TL. I look forward to about 15 years of good service.

 

Formula 350,

Congrats and good luck in your new TL!

 

The STREET version of the 427 was NOT rated @ "615 HP."

And you DID claim that stock L78s produced 335 rwhp.

 

Sure ya' did. You also claimed they ran "mid 13s."

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...&pagenumber=12

 

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...&highlight=335

 

Norse...why do you continue to entertain this idiot? He will never admit he's wrong no matter how many time you prove it.

 

Anyone who can READ can view two posts above and plainly see who's WRONG.

And it sure as hell isn't me.

335 horsepower "to the rear wheels" (~380 flywheel HP) in a '69 Chevelle would equate to a trap speed of ~ 110 MPH and he claims that the (stock) "375 HP" 396 could do that. :lol2:

Meanwhile, both the COPO "425 HP" 427 '69 Chevelle and the '70 "450 HP" LS6 Chevelle STRUGGLED to trap @ 105 MPH. Yet, either of those two cars would bury the 396 he's talking about.

 

Personally I couldn't give a rip about who is wrong or who is right. All I know for sure is that [b]harddrivin1le[/q] is an attention starved moron trying to feed his depraved ego.

I think he makes a good case for an "ignore poster" feature for this message board software.

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\....

 

Ok, we'll just discount you as too stupid to understand, the Cammer was never released for "street" production. The version built by Ford, ahhh forget it....

No I did not and you damn well know it, when i explained what I wrote you went off to left field on a whole other subject, now you're back onto this one after it was clearly explained to you.

 

I dunno, I'm bored and I thought he would have gotten it by now. I explained it pretty clearly and yet he still doesn't get it. Heck, my wifes cat isn't this stupid.

 

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...&highlight=335

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Norse396
...I had a '69 SS Chevelle with an unaltered 396 which stock put out nearly 330hp to the rear wheels...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Norse396
There is a difference between the 325hp 396 and the aluminum headed 375hp 396.

A 375hp 396 put close to 335hp to the rear wheels.

 

Good, let's talk about racing engines.

The better formula 1 engines now produce in excess of 900 horsepower from normally aspirated 3.0 liter V10s that weigh less than 250 pounds.

That Ford "cammer" is a boat anchor by comparison.

 

Actually we're both right, but you ignored what I said the very first time I quoted 335HP. I've waited for you to pick up on it, I've pointed it out and you still haven't gotten it.



Broken record that somehow plays over and over and over..

Now try this slowly because you mix them up, how was Chevy rating cars back then, heck you even posted the same article on it. I know you know it, In 1969 Chevy rated HP how? When i quoted RWHP it was in what years terms? Are you slightly getting it now? Maybe just a little? If I had a scanner hooked up I'd post the news release stating what chevy claimed in 1969, but I don't either way am i'm saying this for the last time, 1969 isn't the same as 1972, so get them straight.

Now, as an olive branch, lets drop this silly crap and bring this to post 1972 and sicuss what this forum was intended for ok?

Nothing I say will change your mind, nothing you say is going to change mine, it doesn't matter who is right anymore because this has gotten past stupid, for both of us, so shall we drop it?

 

REAR WHEEL HP IS WHAT'S MADE AT THE REAR WHEELS!

A 1969 396 Chevelle COULD NOT PRIODUCE "335 HP" on a chassis dyno!

 

You're kidding right? What does the Cammer have to do with Formula 1? How can you compare an engine built in 2004 with one from 1967?!?!? Forget it, let's just drop this. Can we get back to Acura now?

 

That's nice, point missed for what looks to be the 20th time.... goodbye.

I apologize to everyone for my involvment with this, it ends here. I promise, 1le is now on ignore.

 

So much for olive branches. *sigh*

 

What does the cammer (racing engine) have to do with STREET CAR ENGINES?

P.S.

Look at the date on this article. That GTO was rated @ 335 HP (SAE GROSS) and produced 180 REAR WHEEL HP. SAE NET ratings didn't even EXIST at the time! Rear wheel HP is rear wheel HP, regardless of how the ENGINE was rated (gross or net)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The GTO would have made THE SAME rear wheel HP whether the engine was rated @ 335 SAE GROSS or @ its SAE NET equivalent (~ 240 HP SAE NET)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That's because you are FLAT OUT WRONG and won't admit it!

REAR WHEEL HP is what a vehicle puts out AT THE WHEELS - on a CHASSIS DYNO - regardless of how or under what system (SAE GROSS or SAE NET) the engine was rated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should ACTUALLY READ this, since you clearly have NO CONCEPT of this subject:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm

 

Yup, hence he is on ignore, he's actually mostly right save for one small thing but I've given up and can't see his posts now so whatever he is saying, it's to the bandwidth.

Have you decided which car you're bringing?

 

If anyone was waffling on that, it wasn't me. Any excuse to go drive the TL is good enough for me, the farther the better.

 

I am right PERIOD. And if you weren't a coward you'd face your error HEAD ON and admit it rather than running for the "IGNORE" icon.

Stock L78s ("375 HP SAE GROSS" 396s) produced ~ 275 SAE NET HP (also measured @ the flywheel) and ~ 230HP @ the REAR WHEELS - ON A CHASSIS DYNO - where there is NO differentiation between SAE GROSS and SAE NET ratings!!!!

Bone stock and as installed in a 1969 Chevelle SS, that engine could produce low 14s @ 100 MPH (if WELL Driven).

BFD

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm