Killed a new Camaro yesterday

[BashamWS6]

Question.. Why does it never fail that when youre driving in a sports car and come up on a crotch rocket they always want to race??

[BashamWS6]

I had several 87 to 93 5.0 Mustang LX's and GT's and they were great running and fast cars when I was 19 to 23. The 96 GT 4.6 I had wasn't that great. The S10 Blazer I had was a colplete POS so was the Jimmy version I got right after. Neither one made it past 100k. I had a Buick Riviera for a DD that was ok. Honestly the best truck I ever had was a Ford Ranger 4.0 5spd. Aside from my Trailblazer being bigger and having leather, rear air, and all the toys my 91 Explorer 5spd had 145k when I sold it and never had to replace anything exceplt a couple tie rods, starter, shock, and battery. Some of it was due to it being a 4wd winter beater and I got it cheap with 90k and never too that good care of it but it made it to FL and I had it a few years there. I had a Ram Hemi that was bad azz, much nicer than any of the fords or chevy's I drove in the price range and for a regular cab it had the most room.

I think the Trans Am is nice but has several flaws with GM's usual corner cutting. Cheap leather for the seats and why is the back of my seat plastic? Those stupid daytime running lights that crack the plastick and the sockets all rot away. Finally diconnected that crap wish I did it years ago and I wouldn't need new lenses. Give the new Camaro some time and it's flkaws will show while I believe Ford is actually trying to build a better car finally after all those mediocre 4.6 Gt's.
My Trailblazer I have to say actually has a decent interior.

Most SUVs now are loaded with a bunch of toys and luxeries. My parents test drove a new Tahoe. You talk about nice. A friend of mine also has a 04 Trailblazer (not sure about year) it has 135,000 or so and it rides great for the miles. Another one of my friends has a 2002 Ford explorer needed new shocks after 150 some thousand mile. Rides okay but his transmission has been repair and rebuilt a time or two. He has also went thru 2 sets of brakes. Interior is not bad at all.
That being said. I have heard nothing but complaints from late 90's model Rangers. But they have several hundred thousand miles on them and probably werent taking that great of care of.
A 2005 Dodge Ram has a horrible ride with 35s and 16inch rims. no lift kit but idk how that will effect the ride. The interior IMO is cheap
The 2008 silveradoes are sweet. my friend has an extended cab 4x4. Everything is stock. Great ride with 40 some thousand miles on it. Good interior room, good sounding V8, and He has had no work done on it except getting a dent pulled out where something hit is driverside rear corner panel.
Cars will have their flaws. Perfection is even harder to find on a 8, 9, 10, or 11 year old car.
But you might be right with the camaros. But the same goes for mustangs chargers and challengers.

[RJWZ28]

Question.. Why does it never fail that when youre driving in a sports car and come up on a crotch rocket they always want to race??

That's really off-topic, but anyway, if you had 1400 horsepower wouldn't you try to race every exotic that rolled up? Honestly, a crotch rocket has a power-to-weight and performance-to-dollar ratio that absolutely destroys almost every performance car on earth. Makes sense to me.

[oborony]

i think its about 23k for the v6 and around 33k for the v8.
Anyway i was on my way to a car show with my gf and a friend. Im on the highway and i see a Porsch Turbo in the rear mirror, i let him catch up and he hit the gas beffor me and then i hit it. we starded at around 60 -70mph till about 110 he got me by not even one car i was so . I kepped up with it though. I was not ready and would have smoked him with the happy juce. Anyway the 911 was nasty now i need to think about my next mod im thinking about some new heads. I hear matching them with the cam work better. Is that true? and what heads go well with a streat sweaper cam?

[RJWZ28]

About $23k for the base V6, $31k for the SS. Definitely not $30k for a V6 unless you load it up with options.

Hell, if I still had my LT1, I would love to race a new V6 pony, Chevy (2010+) or Ford (2011+). Might as well, sounds like fun! And from everything I've been hearing, it sounds like a good race between a near-stock LT1 and a modern hi-po V6 pony.

[Smittro]

About $23k for the base V6, $31k for the SS. Definitely not $30k for a V6 unless you load it up with options.

Hell, if I still had my LT1, I would love to race a new V6 pony, Chevy (2010+) or Ford (2011+). Might as well, sounds like fun! And from everything I've been hearing, it sounds like a good race between a near-stock LT1 and a modern hi-po V6 pony.

If the 2010 was'nt so heavy..... A properly tuned 24v 6cyl tuned away from factory emissions would have no trouble with most old factory 350 SBC's in LT clothing.. Right about where a 350 falls on it's face is right about where most 660's start to pull and generally stay in gear while other types of engines are looking for gears because they have no top end.. Gm gave the 660 a bad name with the severly under powered 3.4L they once offered in f-bod. Today 660 enthusiast reutinely tune over lt1 numbers with just "bolt ons".. A hybrid single cam 3.4l/3500 would have little trouble with a factory/mild bolt on 350..

[RJWZ28]

If the 2010 was'nt so heavy..... A properly tuned 24v 6cyl tuned away from factory emissions would have no trouble with most old factory 350 SBC's in LT clothing.. Right about where a 350 falls on it's face is right about where most 660's start to pull and generally stay in gear while other types of engines are looking for gears because they have no top end.. Gm gave the 660 a bad name with the severly under powered 3.4L they once offered in f-bod. Today 660 enthusiast reutinely tune over lt1 numbers with just "bolt ons".. A hybrid single cam 3.4l/3500 would have little trouble with a factory/mild bolt on 350..

I believe it

[RJWZ28]

But N/A OHV V-6s don't really appeal to me in any way

[Smittro]

But N/A OHV V-6s don't really appeal to me in any way

Well the Hemispherical TDC (twin dual cam) 3.4L 60* v6 is in the "X" family of engines with base castings from the original OHV 2.8L 60* v6.. But that's where it ends.. The blocks share some things but the heads are'nt interchangeable.. The maximum GM quoted output was 215hp N/A.. There are TDC's running single turbine's on ALL stock parts into the 400+hp range.. I feel this is the engine GM should have placed into 4th gen f-bodies as their base engine. Instead we got the castraited 3.4 OHV, and the all iron 3800-II.. Early 3800's had to be SC to produce as much power as an N/A TDC which is funny because the 3800 carries about 24 cubes over a TDC.. The prototype TDC's produced 265-285 hp N/A.. Imagine the difference with just some bolt on's.. Oh crap can't do that! That's @ the time +/- LT1 numbers stock (oops) and a TDC redline of 7000+.. Now fast forward to the OP topic, and we find N/A 60* v6 globals cracking out an undoubtedly emissions tuned 300+hp.. Think if this engine should have also been an option in our f-bods.. A few bolt on's and it's see ya later LS1.. From a lighter, better balanced single cam engine with two cylinders missing..

[02sunsetorangeZ]

nice kill op. As for the other kids that are still in school as am i. A kid just got a v6 and maro 2010 and has mentioned racing me i told him its not worth it becuase you have a v6 not a v8 and he told me there was no difference.... I have never talked to him since. The other is a white ss and is telling every one he has a vette engine and its so fast, i have yet to tel him he has an l99 due to his auto. Yet he telling everyone he is the fastest in school.... I laugh at the ignorant and let them be.

[Superluminal]

Well I was bored so I stopped by a Ford dealer my friend works at and test drove a 2011 Stang V6. I have to say I was impressed. Much nicer interior and and ride than the Camaro. It's fast for a V6 and shifts well I have to admit I like it better than the Camaro and Probablty would get one over a Challenger RT. Can't wait to try out a new GT. I may go back to Ford's when they come up used in a year from now. $40k for a Camaro seems out of control. you can get a nice low Mileage LS3 Vette for less than that.

Those things run 13s stock. Not bad for a base model V6.

[Superluminal]

Question.. Why does it never fail that when youre driving in a sports car and come up on a crotch rocket they always want to race??

Because they know they can embarrass you.

[Smittro]

Because they know they can embarrass you.

[big hammer]

Well the Hemispherical TDC (twin dual cam) 3.4L 60* v6 is in the "X" family of engines with base castings from the original OHV 2.8L 60* v6.. But that's where it ends.. The blocks share some things but the heads are'nt interchangeable.. The maximum GM quoted output was 215hp N/A.. There are TDC's running single turbine's on ALL stock parts into the 400+hp range.. I feel this is the engine GM should have placed into 4th gen f-bodies as their base engine. Instead we got the castraited 3.4 OHV, and the all iron 3800-II.. Early 3800's had to be SC to produce as much power as an N/A TDC which is funny because the 3800 carries about 24 cubes over a TDC.. The prototype TDC's produced 265-285 hp N/A.. Imagine the difference with just some bolt on's.. Oh crap can't do that! That's @ the time +/- LT1 numbers stock (oops) and a TDC redline of 7000+.. Now fast forward to the OP topic, and we find N/A 60* v6 globals cracking out an undoubtedly emissions tuned 300+hp.. Think if this engine should have also been an option in our f-bods.. A few bolt on's and it's see ya later LS1.. From a lighter, better balanced single cam engine with two cylinders missing..

if it would put out around 265ish hp at 7000 rpm then it would be considerably down on torque. so the lt1 would still be the better choice.

[Smittro]

if it would put out around 265ish hp at 7000 rpm then it would be considerably down on torque. so the lt1 would still be the better choice.

Yeah probably.. But the curve is/was much as it is on most 660's just a little higher tho with a 350 falling @ 5200rpm+/- and the TDC still pulling 2nd gear (auto) to 7200.. Yes the TDC has a lower torque rateing, about 5 ft.lbs. less than a 3800.. But I do likes me some 350 sbc's too..

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar3kajsYpUg&feature=related[/ame]

[RJWZ28]

Yeah probably.. But the curve is/was much as it is on most 660's just a little higher tho with a 350 falling @ 5200rpm+/- and the TDC still pulling 2nd gear (auto) to 7200.. Yes the TDC has a lower torque rateing, about 5 ft.lbs. less than a 3800.. But I do likes me some 350 sbc's too..

That Fiero moves out! But it better: lightweight mid-engine car with a turbo V-6.

[Smittro]

That Fiero moves out! But it better: lightweight mid-engine car with a turbo V-6.

Yeah it's quick but I have to admit I'm currious if it's really got a "stock" bottom.. But dem TDC's do scream..

TDC, Running rich....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6jv_s1hUJg&feature=related[/ame]

[RJWZ28]

Yeah it's quick but I have to admit I'm currious if it's really got a "stock" bottom.. But dem TDC's do scream..

TDC, Running rich....

Those are some pretty good numbers, especially for a car that cheap

[Smittro]

Those are some pretty good numbers, especially for a car that cheap

Yeah would have been nice to have it in the early v6 4th gens..

[99SNAKESKINNER]

do not know why anyone w0uld buy a v6 for as much as they are then talk f/I . yeah cuz that will run ab0ut 4 gs m0re than a fully loaded ss. i dr0ve 0ne l0ved it but n0t f0r the price and u can 0nly see 0uta the windshield. the ss i l0ve but i w0uld rather wait 3 years n get a used 0ne f0r ar0und 17 or less. l0ok at the price 0f the new m0del stangs . and i have beat the new ss with my ms3 99 ss. used z06 g0od way t0 g0