can you beat this

ls1 = slow · 03-17-2006, 09:21 PM

question i was challenged by a friend to add up the total price for my car and performance mods then decide if i should be excited if i beat a honda. i always figured that some little import would spend loads of money to go 14 sec. was i in for a suprise, i have an 03 camaro ss with a vortech s/c full exhaust chipped cammed and a whole bunch more. i spent almost 70k with price of car and everything. my personal best e/t is 10.24. his car is an 89 crx with full built cr-vtec hks turbo and a list more. he spent 30,867. we know this because he is anal and keeps receipts for everything. he just ran a 9.86 at a test day in phoniex. can you imagine if he spent the money that i put into my piece of s**t. needless to say im done with the f-body and anything with an ls1. if you are smart you would be done with these wastes of gas. i couldnt buy a stock ss for 30 grand no wonder gm got rid of them

**lsonecamaro01** · 03-17-2006, 09:27 PM

03 camaro ss ? i thought the last yr for the camaro was 2002 ??

**gettin sideways** · 03-17-2006, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by ls1 = slow

question i was challenged by a friend to add up the total price for my car and performance mods then decide if i should be excited if i beat a honda. i always figured that some little import would spend loads of money to go 14 sec. was i in for a suprise, i have an 03 camaro ss with a vortech s/c full exhaust chipped cammed and a whole bunch more. i spent almost 70k with price of car and everything. my personal best e/t is 10.24. his car is an 89 crx with full built cr-vtec hks turbo and a list more. he spent 30,867. we know this because he is anal and keeps receipts for everything. he just ran a 9.86 at a test day in phoniex. can you imagine if he spent the money that i put into my piece of s**t. needless to say im done with the f-body and anything with an ls1. if you are smart you would be done with these wastes of gas. i couldnt buy a stock ss for 30 grand no wonder gm got rid of them

Wow...just wow.

**third_shift|studios** · 03-17-2006, 10:22 PM

you are so full of shit it makes me have to poop.

**gettin sideways** · 03-17-2006, 10:24 PM

I dont even know where to begin explaining where he's wrong, so much

**third_shift|studios** · 03-17-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by lsonecamaro01

03 camaro ss ? i thought the last yr for the camaro was 2002 ??

it was 02, this guy is a troll. his P.O.S. "built" honda got raped the other night by a stock z and he's trying to feel tough by posting his immature [and ill-researched] comments on here.

**lsonecamaro01** · 03-17-2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by dipherentdesign

it was 02, this guy is a troll. his P.O.S. "built" honda got raped the other night by a stock z and he's trying to feel tough by posting his immature [and ill-researched] comments on here.

so this guy is just another know nothing ricer ? and they wonder why they get no respect

**Hot Black Trans-Am** · 03-17-2006, 10:57 PM

70K for a 10.24!!!

I guess he shouldn't have got those gold plated fart cans!

**lsonecamaro01** · 03-17-2006, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Hot Black Trans-Am

70K for a 10.24!!!

I guess he shouldn't have got those gold plated fart cans!

**third_shift|studios** · 03-17-2006, 11:02 PM

lsonecamaro01, sorry this is like your first thread, but it's few and far between trolls coming here and bash our power.

don't let them 'talk" you into there

they'll have you thinkin' every hockey puck with a 4 cylinder is really drivin a race car....

**lsonecamaro01** · 03-17-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by dipherentdesign

lsonecamaro01, sorry this is like your first thread, but it's few and far between trolls coming here and bash our power.

don't let them 'talk" you into there

they'll have you thinkin' every hockey puck with a 4 cylinder is really drivin a race car....

the only thing ricers are good for are excuses

**gettin sideways** · 03-17-2006, 11:56 PM

hondas

Rob 94Hawk 319 · 03-18-2006, 12:12 AM

**Hurley711** · 03-18-2006, 03:08 AM

Tell your boy in his Honda that I wanna race him in my '05 WS6 for cash money baby!!$$$$ I'm running 8's in the 1/4 with just a cutout

**FasstChevys** · 03-18-2006, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by ls1 = slow

question i was challenged by a friend to add up the total price for my car and performance mods then decide if i should be excited if i beat a honda. i always figured that some little import would spend loads of money to go 14 sec. was i in for a suprise, i have an 03 camaro ss with a vortech s/c full exhaust chipped cammed and a whole bunch more. i spent almost 70k with price of car and everything. my personal best e/t is 10.24. his car is an 89 crx with full built cr-vtec hks turbo and a list more. he spent 30,867. we know this because he is anal and keeps receipts for everything. he just ran a 9.86 at a test day in phoniex. can you imagine if he spent the money that i put into my piece of s**t. needless to say im done with the f-body and anything with an ls1. if you are smart you would be done with these wastes of gas. i couldnt buy a stock ss for 30 grand no wonder gm got rid of them

I have some cheap tillable swampland available to sell to you at a very cheap price.

**Wayah-bird** · 03-18-2006, 06:04 AM

Good heavens, I wake up to this?? A 2003 Camaro? What a lame made up post by a juvenile wannabe... Too bad these type 'ricers' get to post,

but it does provide some simple entertainment I guess.

badass67 · 03-18-2006, 06:23 AM

Going on to compare a Camaro vs a Honda.

Well, I am not a big Honda fan, except for the Lawn Mowers, they are great.
I have no desire to own a Honda car.

I have spent way more money then I ever intended to have my 67 look the way it looks, but I am pretty sure it looks better then that Honda. And I know it looks better then any 03 SS!! LOL!

But that is my choice, and I like it.
If I had 30K to waste on a Honda, I would buy another Camaro instead, even if it was slow!

**Motrv8d Steve** · 03-18-2006, 08:28 AM

ha ha hahahahahahahaha!

original question: "Can you beat this?"
no way in hell...

so let me get this straight, you got an "03 SS" and your username is "ls1 = slow"?
let's see a pic of this 03 SS...

The Rookie · 03-18-2006, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by ls1 = slow

question i was challenged by a friend to add up the total price for my car and performance mods then decide if i should be excited if i beat a honda. i always figured that some little import would spend loads of money to go 14 sec. was i in for a suprise, i have an 03 camaro ss with a vortech s/c full exhaust chipped cammed and a whole bunch more. i spent almost 70k with price of car and everything. my personal best e/t is 10.24. his car is an 89 crx with full built cr-vtec hks turbo and a list more. he spent 30,867. we know this because he is anal and keeps receipts for everything. he just ran a 9.86 at a test day in phoniex. can you imagine if he spent the money that i put into my piece of s**t. needless to say im done with the f-body and anything with an ls1. if you are smart you would be done with these wastes of gas. i couldnt buy a stock ss for 30 grand no wonder gm got rid of them

Is this 17 yr old ricer for real????? Poor kid he's all confused. Do you think he came up with 03 SS on his own or was it his ricer buddy sittin next to him as he typed it..

oh and 70K ???? You don't even make that kinda money all together in 10 years.

**98MustGT** · 03-18-2006, 08:52 AM

Why Front Wheel Drive Sucks - Excellent Article Part 1...
http://www.slate.com/id/2081194/

Car/sex metaphors are unavoidable, so let's get right to today's: Front-wheel drive cars are like bad sex. Rear-wheel drive cars are like good sex.

Let me explain!

Sometime in the early 1980s, I asked my friend Paul why he drove a crass Chevy Camaro. He said he liked the "balance" of a rear-wheel drive car. I nodded but secretly sneered at him. Everyone knew that front-wheel drive cars were the efficient, sophisticated wave of the future. Audis were front-wheel drive. Saabs were front-drive. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were about to embark on a massive shift to front-drive, resulting in the current Detroit product lineup, in which even the venerable Caddy DeVille is a front-drive car.
The advantages of front-wheel drive (FWD) seem self evident: By avoiding the need for a driveshaft connecting the engine in front with the rear wheels, front-drive cars save space. The entire drivetrain can be packed into a neat compartment in the front, leaving the rest of the car's volume for passengers and cargo. Plus, front-drive cars have better traction in slippery conditions (in part because the weight of the engine is on top of the wheels that are providing the power).

I should have realized the grim truth decades ago when I borrowed a friend's Audi 100 –- the first front-drive car I'd ever driven -- and took it out on Sunset Boulevard. In one of the curves leaving Beverly Hills, near the pink house that used to be owned by Jayne Mansfield, I mashed the throttle, expecting the satisfying "lock in" effect I got in my old rear-drive Volvo – the nose turning in, the car seeming to stop slipping, tightening its grip on the road even as it went around the corner faster. But that's not what happened. What happened is the front tires went all gooey and the car started to head for the living room of a nearby mansion. Only panicked braking calmed things down.

Naturally, my brain did what the human brain tends to do with a bit of aberrant data: I ignored it. All during the '80s and '90s the car magazines assured me, seemingly continually, that in sophisticated front-drive designs you couldn't even tell which set of tires was providing the power. Weren't front-drive Hondas the hippest cars around? Wasn't even Volvo switching, belatedly, to front drive? I also blamed the victim! I must just be a lousy or unsophisticated driver, I figured.

Then, a bit over a year ago, I conducted an abortive test drive of five convertibles. The idea was to sample cars that had at least a semblance of a rear seat. The entrants were Ford Mustang, Chevy Camaro, VW Cabriolet, Chrysler Sebring, and Toyota Solara. And that was the order of finishing (though the test was interrupted by 9/11 before I could drive a final production version of the Toyota). None of the cars was very good – you give up a lot in chassis stability when you chop off the roof, I discovered. But the old, junky, rear-drive Ford and Chevy pony cars were by far the most enjoyable – they rattled and guzzled, but at least they were a blast to drive around corners. The other three cars, all front-drive, were simply pleasant forms of transportation.

Why are rear-drive cars more fun? Every enthusiast may know the answer, but I didn't. So I called up a helpful GM suspension expert, Vehicle Chief Engineer Ed Zellner. There are, I learned, five basic reasons:

1) "Balance": The car rides on four patches of rubber, each about as big as your hand. An ideal car would distribute its weight evenly, so each tire had to bear the same load, and none would give way earlier than all the others. The ideal weight distribution, then, would be split about 50/50 between front and rear (actually, 48/52 to help with forward pitch during braking). "A rear-drive car can typically approach that," says Zellner. Engineers can move the front wheels forward, so that the engine – which doesn't have to be connected to those wheels -- sits behind the front axle. Meanwhile, the driveshaft and rear differential (necessary to send power to the rear tires) add weight in the rear. Front-drive cars, which must connect the engine and transmission to the front axle, typically have their engines mounted way forward and can't do much better than a 60/40 front/rear weight distribution.

2) Center of Gravity: This is the point the car wants to "rotate around" in a turn. On a rear-drive car, it's "about where the driver sits," says Zellner. In a turn, in other words, the car seems to be rotating around you – you're at the center. It's a natural pleasant effect, suggesting you're in control, the way you're in control when you're walking or running around a corner and your weight is centered inside you. (Analogy No. 2: It's like wearing stereo headphones and having the sound centered between your ears!) A front-drive car, in contrast, with its massive front weight bias, wants to rotate around a point in front of the driver. So in a corner, the driver isn't just rotating around his spine. He's moving sideways, as if he were a tether ball on the end of a rope, or Linus being dragged when Snoopy gets hold of his blanket. Not such a pleasant feeling, or a feeling that gives you a sense of natural control.

3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. Under power, the shafts wind up like springs. The longer shaft -- typically on the right -- winds up a bit more, while the shorter left shaft winds up less and transmits its power to the ground more quickly, which has the effect of pulling the car to the left. (This winding-up phenomenon occurs the moment you step on the pedal. After that, the wind-up relaxes, but "torque steer" can still be produced by the angles of the joints in the drive axles as the whole drivetrain twists on its rubber mounts.)

Veer madness?

Engineers try various strategies to control this veering tendency, but even designing shafts of equal length (as in all Cadillacs) doesn't completely solve the problem because the engine still twists a bit in its mounts and alters the angles of the drive shafts. True, some manufacturers -- Audi, for example -- are said to do a particularly good job of repressing torque steer . But even a top-rank company such as Nissan has problems -- its otherwise appealing new front-drive Maxima is said to be plagued by big-time, uninhibited torque steer. Rear-drive cars, meanwhile, don't really have a torque-steer problem that needs repressing. Their power goes to the rear through one driveshaft to a center differential that can a) have equal-length shafts coming out from it and b) be more firmly mounted.

4) Weight Shift: Suppose you just want to go in a straight line. What's the best way to get traction? Answer: Have as much weight over the driving wheels as possible. Front-drive cars start with an advantage -- but when any car accelerates, the front end tips up, and the rear end squats down. This transfers weight to the rear wheels -- away from the driving wheels in a FWD car but toward the driving wheels in a rear-drive car, where it adds to available traction. In effect, the laws of physics conspire to give RWD cars a bit more grip where they need it when they need it. (This salutary effect is more than canceled out in slippery, wet conditions, where you aren't going to stomp on the accelerator. Then, FWD cars have the edge, in part, because they start out with so much more of their weight over both the driving and the turning wheels. Also, it's simply more stable to pull a heavy wheeled object than to push it -- as any hotel bellhop steering a loaded luggage cart knows. In snow, FWD cars have a third advantage in that they pull the car through the path the front tires create, instead of turning the front tires into mini-snowplows.)

5) "Oversteer" and the Semi-Orgasmic Lock-In Effect: In a rear-drive car, there's a division of labor -- the front tires basically steer the car, and the rear tires push the car down the road. In a FWD car, the front tires do all the work – both steering and applying the power to the road – while the rears are largely along for the ride. That, it turns out, is asking a lot of the front tires. Since the driving wheels tend to lose traction first, the front tires of front-drive cars invariably start slipping in a corner before the lightly loaded rear tires do -- a phenomenon known as "understeer." If you go too fast into a curve -- I mean really too fast -- the car will plow off the road front end first. In rear-drive cars, the rear wheels tend to lose traction first, and the rear of the car threatens to swing around and pass the front end -- "oversteer." If you go too fast into a corner in an oversteering car, the car will tend to spin and fly off the road rear end first.