Guibo

Members.
  • Content count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Guibo

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. That's what I'm saying. It's an impossibility. Even the TechArt 911 Turbo GT which blitzed the Nurburgring at 7:43 could do no better than 1.3g at the Klosteral 1 curve (no doubt banked and considerably larger in diameter than a skidpad). Its speed through there was 180 kmh, roughly 111 mph. No way could a street car attain that kind of speed on a flat, 200-ft diameter skidpad.
  2. Yeah, I know. But 1.33g? Doesn't that strike anyone as kind of excessive? Keep the following figures in mind: Ferrari F40: 1.01g 911 GT2: 1.02g Hennessey 800TT: 1.05g (semi-slick street legal tires) 911 GT1 race car: 1.07g (full slick, full race tires) 1.33g on a skidpad would put this Corvette in the league of the following cars (both tested by Popular Mechanics around a 200-ft diameter skidpad): CART racer: 1.42g (1550 lbs) IRL racer: 1.38g (1620 lbs) And the Mercedes Benz F400 Carving concept car (with active camber control): 1.28g
  3. '84 944 & '79 Z28

    Not sure about "factory skidpad ratings", but R&T tested a 944 to .86g in January of '86. A Camaro IROC-Z L98 tested 10/86 pulled .85g. The Chevy was also a bit quicker through the slalom (63.3 mph vs 62.5 mph). Go figure. Don't have figures for the older Camaro, sorry.
  4. Why BMW isn't that amazing...

    A lot of you guys are spot-on in regards to your remarks. A point of clarification needs to be brought up though: Mercedes Benz has been successful in various forms of auto racing largely due to the efforts of Ilmor, an engineering and engine-building firm in the UK. They are responsible for the design and construction of the Indy car and Formula One engine programs, from start to finish. BMW's Formula One engine is designed and built, well, by BMW and none other. Nor was BMW's M division ever a separate entity (unlike AMG, which was slowly purchased throughout the years by Diamler Benz until it became a subsidiary in 1999). If I recall correctly, BMW's M3 (the E36) did lose in the final points to the Audi S4 in a Car and Driver comparo a couple of years back. But it was close. And the 7 Series hasn't been faring all that well recently. The release of the IS300 with manual tranny looks promising. Much of BMW's success can point back to the 2002 line (Tii, Turbo, etc) of the '70s as was previously mentioned. To understand where they stand in relation to their competitors, just take a look at what the competitors had to offer back then. What was Mercedes making? Toyota? Honda? Nissan was close, with the 510 but they let that one slip away. Sure, the E-class Mercedes with mild suspension mods can compare favorably with the 5 Series. But the point is, the 5 Series has it right the first time around (stock), with a good combination of comfort and control.
  5. Nice BMW dragster

    OK, then here's one that may be more to your liking: At the old Nurburgring Here's another drag car: http://www.turbotec.com/karala/astra/2002.htm http://www.sci.fi/~hestec2/akuvia.htm
  6. Nice BMW dragster

    I think the quickest 4-cylinder imports must be in the 8's by now: the Civics and Mitsubishi Talons. Fastest non-streetlegal car I've seen is that HKS drag 240SX in R&T's Kings of the Quarter Mile article. About 7.65 seconds, as I recall. The funny thing about that 2002 drag car is that it's so upright and rather boxy looking. Got to find the pic of one popping a little wheelie.
  7. Quite right, it stands for Touring International Injected. Some differences: Larger front strut housings & hubs Larger rear drums Boxed trailing arms (for minor increased rigidity; some say they just contribute to them rusting out sooner) Different fuel pump (don't think it's a cam-driven mechanical unit but an electric one) Standard dash clock There's no turbo. The Ti (ultra-rare with perhaps less than 10 in the US) had much of these mechanical upgrades over the standard 2002, but no injection. It used dual Solex carbs instead. $3000 sounds like too good of a deal, expect to pay more like $5-6K (for starters) for a relatively rust-free one. $3000 will get a pretty decent non-Tii though. This Tii's for sale (not mine, unfortunately): http://www.probmw.com/customercars/bobk.html
  8. http://www.phnet.fi/public/tero.laukkanen/...nglish/main.htm
  9. It's a '72. Not as good as my old one, the '70 which had slightly higher compression. Currently bone stock, save for a 5-speed from a 280ZX. I've had this thing for 5 years and it's only been in the shop once (for repair to vandalism damage and replacement of a halfshaft u-joint; those things are grossly under-engineered on these cars, even though the post '71 cars were supposed to have a different suspension geometry to alleviate the problem). I hope you upgraded the cooling system on the one you helped to restore. These Z's tend to run very hot without some modifications. Too bad BMW isn't doing the same thing with their 2002's for 2002. (Offering restored ones like Nissan did with the Z.)
  10. Yeah, I love 'em. I'm on my second one right now. Missed out on the factory restored ones a few years ago, but they do pop up now and then on ebay. Very good handling cars with almost bullet-proof mechanicals.
  11. Who here digs Detomaso?

    Yes, Panteras are awesome! http://panteracars.com/higgs.html http://www.panteracars.com/gallery1.html
  12. 1. M3 2. RX-7 3. M Coupe/factory restored Datsun 240Z/SVT Cobra 4. not the Boxster S 5. Haven't been here too much lately 6. No. Overpopular? Yes. 7. American torque
  13. Well, to be fair to the Porsche, it did put up a very good fight. It was beaten in the dry-track portion of the test rather soundly. In the individual wet-track competition (lane change, skidpad, increasing & decreasing slalom), it bested the Corvette by a pretty fair amount. But when those individual factors were combined into one, singular wet autocross portion of the track, the Porsche could not beat the Corvette, both were equal in the hands of the professional driver: 20.0 seconds for both the C5 & 996 Carrera 4 with their active handling systems turned on, 20.2 for both with them turned off. Oddly enough, the amateur driver went faster in the Corvette than in the Porsche with the systems either on or off: 23.6/24.5 seconds for the Corvette, 24.5/24.7 seconds for the 996 Carrera 4. In other words, the amateur was as quick in the C5 with the system off as he was in the Carrera 4 with the system on. Brings to mind the Motor Trend issue from '97 where the Corvette pulled .85g on a wet skidpad, vs .83g for the AWD Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4. The M3, though, is rather more advanced than the Mitsu, with its trick speed-sensing, infinitely variable LSD.
  14. Wow, that 0-60 time of 4.6 for the M3 is pretty astounding. That’s a good half-second quicker than the factory’s claim of 5.2 seconds. And for it to be within one second of the Z06’s lap time says a lot about how far the M3 has come. (Which track was that, by the way?) 10 years ago, if you were to entertain the notion that the 4-cylinder E30 M3 could hang with ZR-1 (or indeed a regular C4), you’d be laughed at. The Z06 there was no slouch, either, knocking a tenth of a second off of its 0-60 time form MT's High Speed Shootout from last year. FWIW, I’ve been in the back of both an E46 and a Supra and can attest that the E46 is significantly roomier than the Supra, which has back seats on a par with (if not smaller than) the 996 Carrera, a car that I think would be a more natural competitor for the M3 in terms of performance and market segment than the Z06. But in most cases, I’d think the Z06 should show its heels even further to the E46 than it did in that MT test. Lap times seem to indicate this at Nurburgring, where the best time for an E46 M3 is 8:22. While this is faster than the best time for a C5 Corvette (8:40) and even an NSX (8:34), it’s quite a bit short of the 8:10 set by a 410-hp Viper. The Z06, I’d imagine, can at least hang with this Viper, considering it does quite well against a full 450-hp US-spec Viper GTS (though losing to it narrowly in 3 out of 4 tests that I know of) and beat the 450-hp RT/10’s lap times in Motor Trend’s comparo of the two cars with the Mustang Cobra R from last year. Supposedly, the Z06 posts nearly identical lap times at Hockenheim with the 360 Modena (about 1:15.9), so R&T isn't far off in its Sibling Rivalries results. The E46 does Hockenheim in 1:17.6. Personally, I’d think either car would be more than adequate for daily driving, though if it did come down to a personal choice, I can understand how one would choose the M3 for its back seat utility. C&D compared the E36 M3 against the non-turbo Supra, Lexus SC300, and Nissan 300ZX some years back and the M3 won, no doubt because it could do many of the things that the other cars did , but with a back seat quite a bit larger than the others (the Lexus tied for rear seat space). It later compared the M3 to the Supra Turbo, C5 Corvette, and Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 and still the M3 came out on top, even though it was outmuscled on the track. There’s a driving dynamic inherent in the M3 (and indeed many BMW’s) that’s lacking in other cars short of a Porsche or Ferrari. Remember that it won C&D’s Best Handling car over $30K a few years ago (against the 996, F355, C5, Viper, NSX, etc.) and R&T devoted an entire article on why it steered so well. There’s that hard-to-quantify aspect of it that puts it over the top. Drive an E30 M3 and you’ll get a taste of what I’m talking about. The E36 and E46 M3’s are a bit diluted in comparison but retain much of that car’s character. But I digress, so I won't get into issues of aesthetics, etc. To those of you who think the C5 is a handful in the rain, you’d be surprised. C&D did a wet-track comparo of it and the AWD 996 Carrera C4 with PSM, and it wasn’t the Porsche that posted better lap times. Driven with common sense, it’ll probably fare no worse than any other sportscar in the wet.