Becoming More And More Interested In New Scion Tc

Where did you get 8 mpg? I do not really know of a car that only gets 8 mpg. I know a guy that has a 1965 Plymouth Barracuda that gets 16 (318 engine). And I also know a guy with a 440 Dodge Charger that gets about 12.

 

really...

hmm Pont GTO 5.7L (350) Ls1 Gen 3 Eng 24/34mpg
Scion tC 2.4L I4 23/30 MPG

hmmm the v8 has BETTER gas milage :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

 

Depends how you drive it. Depend on the exhaust setup. Depends on air/fuel ratio. Depends on idle RPMs. Depends on LOTS of things.

 

Really.

That's hardly an "old v8" now is it?
And do you really expect to drive like an old lady? in that car? hahaha.

And...
The 2.4L supercharged, will smoke that GTO in a 1/4 mile, maybe more.
And yes, it'll still get better mileage. The 4cyl ALWAYS will.

 

you did not say "old v8" you said

you can not compare a OLD v8 to a NEW 4cyl, lets compare apples to apples here

as far as 1/4mi times, I will belive it when i see it, Considering the GTO only wieght about 750lbs more but has 2.5X the power...

it might bet it in 0-60 by less than a 1sec and I say MIGHT, but that is about it

Plus it will still be a Ugly Ricer

tC Ugly Rice Burner
GTO Sexy American Legacy

The choice is Clear

 

if you cant tell the GTO and Grand Prix apart you need some heavy Duty glasses.....


you just love your Rice Burners

 

Mike,

i did in fact say:
"I love the old 8s don't get me wrong, but they are hardly practical for dailys."


LS1 is a vette engine, engineered to be lightweight. Thats where you get the advantage. But... that's a hefty chunk of change difference from a Turbo or Supercharged 4cyl 2.4L compared to a LS1. And you'll benefit only in top end, without modifications, which will cost heavily in economy.

I drove a Camaro RS with a V8, as well as a Chevy El Camino with an 8cyl.
Both of them were sluggish and gas pigs.
Mostly all i ever owned were V8s, preferrably Chevy but i had Olds and Caddys too.

Once i got ahold of a 2.2L Mitsu turbo, i decided i'd never own another 8, and sold my Cutlass and Cadillac soon after. I still have'nt changed my mind. And i don't "Dig" rice, either.

I'd much rather have a '68 Camaro, or 69 Mustang, or a 70s GTO...
but i could'nt afford to drive them 100 miles a day.


PS, you can keep your new GTOs, Montes, Impalas.... this new shit is pathetic, hardly "muscular" by any definition.
*Except for the new Mustangs. B)

 

LS1 is a Platform not just to "vette" the Vettes had the LT1 a few years ago, but so did the Pickups

what year was the Camaro and EL,

if you say "mid 80's to early Ninies" I will slap you if you compare that to the Late model 4cly

you have to remember late 70's was the Gas Crisis, which forced EPA regs on the 8's which dropped horsepower overnight

what in the late 60's was 300_++ hp was now just making 180hp

it too them until the late 90's to develop 8's to the point that they make the 300++ hp AND pass EPA regs

the only thing the 4;s have is the ablity to Rev High... Rpm for RPM the 8 will be consideriablly better....

 

GM's generation II engine, the LT1, was introduced in '92 in the corvette and was rated at 300hp. In 93 the new 4th gen F-body arrived with the LT1 rated at 275hp.

The LS1, GM's generation III all aluminum engine made it's debut in the '97 Corvette, rated at 345hp. The LS1 has a deep skirted all aluminum block with 6 bolt mains. This block is 53 lbs. lighter than the LT1's block. The aluminum heads have equally spaced tall, narrow ports which allows the injector spray to be aimed directly at the back of the intake valve. The composite intake has a low mounted plenum with the 15" long runners curving smoothly over the top of it. The LS1 uses a crank fire distributorless ignition system with one coil per cylinder. Corvette uses an electronic throttle while the V8 F-body uses a conventional throttle cable setup. The Corvette uses a rear mounted transaxle which is connected to the engine by a torque tube, instead of using a conventional transmission.


But these are NOT "old V8s"...
an old V8 would be the 1966 427 Cobra 12.20et@118mph w/ 425hp

91 and 87 respectively. ElCo was last off the line. They quit production in '87, but i heard of a revival a few years ago? Don't know if it happened, nor do i care really. I believe both engines were 4.3L, but i cannot swear to it now.

Why? We're comparing apples and oranges to begin with, so whats the difference at this point?

Besides, my 2.2L turbo Mitsubishi motor (in a Chrysler) was an '87 and had something like 80K on it when i bought it for, uhm... $300.
Sold my Cadillac and my Cutlass right after that, and swore off V8s.


Anyways...
Let's take the 2002 Camaro. "Performance models"

Engine specs:
Z28: LS1 5.7 V8 310 bhp @ 5200 rpm, 335 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm.
SS: LS1 5.7 V8 320 bhp @ 5200 rpm, 345 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm.

Performance:
Z28: 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 14.0 seconds @ 101.3 mph.
SS: 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds @ 105.6 mph.


Even a 1987 Honda Civic Si comes pretty damn close, stock and NON-turbo

Engine spec: 1.5 liter I4 91 bhp @ 5500 rpm, 93 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm.

Performance: 0-60 in 8.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 16.2 seconds.

I think it's easy to see where you'd make up the difference, with a turbo or supercharged motor.

Quite true.
Actually not late but mid-seventies i believe, things started going bad. Proof is the Mustang II. Although, i had a 4cyl '77 Mustang II... loved it!

More proof, such as the end of the GTO in '74.

The last "fast car" of the 70's was the 1973 Trans Am w/455
13.54et@104.29mph @ 310hp

And while current cars can Out-Spec the 73 T/A, actual performance? I really, honestly, don't know. I'd put my money on the T/A vs. the 2002 Camaro though.

Of course, imports of this era (aside from the VW Beetle) were all pieces of shit.

Herein lies the whole issue i have with your argument.

What fun is a small block V8 with all these electronics and emissions components shoved up it's own ass?

I love a motor you can strip down and rebuild in a day or two.

New V8s really are a joke. New cars as a whole! I'd rather buy a Cobra kit and build a REAL car, with a crate 427, than buy a new Wannabe GTO. I'd save ALOT of money, and have something FUN. (and exempt)

Again, horsepower and torque, a V8 has it all over a 4cyl.
I Never claimed otherwise.

All i'm saying is that...
a Stock *turbo* 4cyl acceleration on city streets is alot nicer than a Stock non-turbo V8. Of course it's two different things entirely. The economy of a Four, combined with the acceleration of a turbo/supercharger (amongst other mods) just makes it more practical, and more fun. Plus, you'll have the weight advantage. All that torque and horsepower don't mean shit when you add on the extra tonnage.


But anyways, in these days of gas prices, and V8s not being what they used to be, in my opinion the V8 engine just isn't very practical in a car. A truck is the opposite. Different needs, different purpose. Small cars with alot of pep is what i enjoy. It seems people agree, since RWD is all but gone, and so is the V8 *almost*.

I wish American cars were still made here, and made with a fraction of the quality that they used to have. As it is, everythings an "import" anyways, i just go for the better quality/price.

 

your all over the Place

First you say you like engines that you can rebuild in a day with out all the electronics

Well News flash ALL CARS have the more or less the same about of EPA and electronics, v8 or not

and comparing a old v8 to a newer 4 is like comparing an PC to a New MAC

Well Look the '04 Mac is Faster than that 1980 PC

as far as Gas prices. 3-5mile more per gallon is nothing to right home about..

20mpg @ 1,000 miles per mo @ $1.9 per gallon $95/mo

25mpg @ 1,000 miles per mo @ 1.9 per gallon $76/mo


$20 more WOW, what a Differance

and you dont annoy everyone in a 5mi radius with the Rice Burner Exhust

 

no, not at all.

Yeah, and who the hell would strip down a 4cyl?
IMO, a V8 is a cool toy. It's a weekend driver. It's a hot rod.
A 4cyl is a daily fun driver, never something to build on. Slight mods sure, but beyond that why bother.

Stop making up shit. I was comparing an '87 2.2L to an '87 4.3L
DAMN, thats the SAME YEAR!

By your estimation, thats $240 per year. Thats a free car payment buddy.

Also, let's compare sticker price savings...
nah, why bother. This is already beyond silliness.

You go buy your GTO, and i'll buy TWO Scion Xbs for that same money.

No, you piss em off with your Harley.

 

I dont think I am a Domestic Guys

I only Hate the Japanesse Engineered Peices of Shit Rice Burners

Infact my all time Wish Car is a 02 Benz SL600 :gunsmilie: with 420 lbs.-ft. torgue and a V12 Engine :jawdrop: and sexy as hell....... but the $150,000 price tag always gets me :lmfao:

I just hate the Small Ricer Burners....

 

I don't know if I missed this or not, because you all have typed a hell of a lot... But... You can not say that a 16.2, and a 13.7 (not true even, the true number was 13.2) are comparable. If you have ever built a car for speed you would know that 2.5 seconds is a hell of a lot. I also remember reading an auto mag talking about building a Honda Civic Si, dropping 40 grand into the engine and running 13's (non-turbo, non-nitrous). I do not have a problem with imports, I just did not agree with that statement. All I have a problem with is someone that has a Honda Civic, the only modification they have done is exhaust and window tint, trying to act hardcore when they pull up to a mustang gt.

I don't think that the lines of a small rice burner has any blurring.... I do not think that is an import slam, mearly a slam at people that run around with their exhaust only weed-eaters....

 

my final Thoughts



:gunsmilie: