Show us your Cars

[Juhazi]

I might have shown before, but Im pretty happy with my present day cars. The differrence is fun.

X3 30e -20 (with modded ECU) and R53 -04 with Malian exhaust.

 

[EJ3]

I might have shown before, but Im pretty happy with my present day cars. The differrence is fun.

X3 30e -20 (with modded ECU) and R53 -04 with Malian exhaust.

View attachment 395046 View attachment 395047
View attachment 395049 View attachment 395048

BIG TORQUE CURVES ARE ALWAYS NICE! (lb-ft) [2nd column]
Much more fun than peak HP (3rd column), if not making much torque.
On the other hand: BOTH is BETTER!
GREAT FUEL ECONOMY IS TOO! (5th column)
bsfc (lb/hph)=Brake Specific Fuel Consumption in Pounds of Fuel/Horse Power Hour
This is a 93 Octane Pontiac based design 505 Cubic Inch (8,28 Litre, aluminum block, aluminum head V8) built for a street legal 1966 Pontiac GTO (with a new specialized chassis and a 5 speed manual transmission)
This is not mine (but it sure was fun to be around for). The attitude was: build torque, let horse power fall where it may.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hmmm, this is about cars. I will note on motorcycles 2 strokes, mostly about peak HP and not much torque could be lots of fun. I don't know of lightweight sports cars built with peaky 2 stroke engines. I believe they could have been fun.

The only 2 stroke car I remember was 1960s Saab with a small two stroke and free wheeling transmission so when you let off the gas the engine didn't drag on the car coasting. I don't know if they were officially imported to the USA, but there was one here.

 

[Chromatischism]

With this car (from 1983-1988, I gave the lesser BMW's, the Porsche 944's, the Camaro's & Firebirds fits. Most of them had to get over 80 MPH to pass me, I could out accelerate most of them to 80

Nice build but an F-Body would still have more HP/lb so I'm not sure how you were beating them?

 

[Chromatischism]

Hmmm, this is about cars. I will note on motorcycles 2 strokes, mostly about peak HP and not much torque could be lots of fun. I don't know of lightweight sports cars built with peaky 2 stroke engines. I believe they could have been fun.

Funny you should mention it!

 

[Juhazi]

I had a 125cc 2-stoke KTM enduro in late70s and later some 2-stroke snowscooters. The R53 power delivery and low weight feel like driving a bike! The SLK 230 I had had a compressor too, but smoother power curve and more weight, it didn't have this fun factor.

Not my car but same exhaust. Red line is at 6500rpm but it screams up to 7500.

My X3 30e G01 is early production with unlocked ECU. Later versions are practically impossible to remap this much.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Funny you should mention it!

Kind of weird. Here these zoomy sounds of a F1 almost. While seeing a Miata run thru a curve while a Camry going the opposite direction is going just about as fast.

 

[Chromatischism]

Kind of weird. Here these zoomy sounds of a F1 almost. While seeing a Miata run thru a curve while a Camry going the opposite direction is going just about as fast.

Heh yeah. Watch his other videos.

 

[napfkuchen]

Funny you should mention it!

They left out motorbike in the title... Thought about this:

Enjoy the silence.

 

[EJ3]

Hmmm, this is about cars. I will note on motorcycles 2 strokes, mostly about peak HP and not much torque could be lots of fun. I don't know of lightweight sports cars built with peaky 2 stroke engines. I believe they could have been fun.

The only 2 stroke car I remember was 1960s Saab with a small two stroke and free wheeling transmission so when you let off the gas the engine didn't drag on the car coasting. I don't know if they were officially imported to the USA, but there was one here.

I had an elderly women neighbor that had one of those Saab's when I was a teenager. I thought that it was pretty neat. She kept it perfect. I've never seen another one.
When you have not much mass to accelerate, 2 stroke is the way IMHO.
2 stroke (I don't know about getting us back to cars from motorcycles but I'll get u back to something that has 4 wheels): Starting again: 2 stroke: why (when I was 13) I had two 15 HP at 13,500 RPM McCulloch 101 2 strokes on a Go Kart.
Similar to this one (this one runs on alcohol & makes even more power):

 

[EJ3]

Nice build but an F-Body would still have more HP/lb so I'm not sure how you were beating them?

At the time the F-Body's & the Corvettes:
crossfire injection was optional on 1982 and 83 Z28's and Trans Am's equipped with automatic transmissions-this setup had a pair of 1-13/16 bore TBIs rated at 275 CFM each mounted atop a Cross Ram intake manifold. Electronic spark control with knock sensor was used and the the CFI 305s had 9.5:1 compression ratio-1 point higher than the standard LG4 305. Main stock drawback with CFI was the restrictive intake manifold runners followed by the stock fuel pump and fuel pressure setting. Modifications to improve manifold flow and a boost in fuel pressure make a dramatic increase in performance and rpm capability with CFI

Their (as new, stock) performance was very poor, at best, with 3520 LBs empty and only 230 HP (the Corvette had 245 HP at the time). The axle ratio of the stick was 3.42 versus the 3.23 or 3.27 of the automatic depending on whether a Borg Warner or Auburn rear axle.
I managed to lighten my car by 100 lbs (to 1680 lbs). My power to weight ratio was 16 LBS per HP. Theirs was 15.30 LBS per HP in a non optioned car (not likely).
And I had way better gearing (and was very good at the traffic light [having had some drag racing experience from the time I was 14 on "rural" drag strips that did not check much] {I had a mustache when I was 14 and had no problem getting into night clubs}).
Due to the WAY better gearing, the very well worked out suspension, from ZERO to 80 (only needing to make the 1-2 & 2-3 shift for stop light to stop light runs). My little Beetle was quite quick.
So, I had a very good chance of beating a 100% stock (and some not so stock) new F-Body's back then.
Again, if they managed to beat me (& naturally sometimes that happened, if someone had set their car up well and was a good driver), HOW LIKELY where they to start bragging about how they had beat some CRAZY guy that drove a hopped up VW Beetle.
A couple of years later: My personal 1979 Trans Am weighed in at 3700 even. (it did not have air conditioning) But I was making 473 HP (power to weight= 7.8 LBS per HP) and I had it exceptionally well geared with a 3.08 final drive & a 4.02 first gear in the Doug Nash 5 speed (5th being 1:1). I could beat most of the F-bodies from 77 & newer but not many of the the ones from 1967-1973. It was a crapshoot for the ones in between those years, as it depended most on who had developed the engine, transmission & weight protocols. Also 16-21.7 MPG was much better than the original (due to ignorant modifications that it had when I bought it used) 12 MPG no matter how you were driving.

 

[Andreas007]

In terms of cars there is only one question I'll ask: Will my harp fit in?

 

[EJ3]

In terms of cars there is only one question I'll ask: Will my harp fit in?

I don't have it any more but it might have fit in my 1968 Cadillac Metro Meteor Hearse/Ambulance.

 

[Sal1950]

In terms of cars there is only one question I'll ask: Will my harp fit in?

Does it fold?

 

[Timcognito]

In terms of cars there is only one question I'll ask: Will my harp fit in?

70 Ford LTD wagon

 

[EJ3]

Does it fold?

Have you seen the Harp stings on this? (Yes, those are Harp strings that are more or less vertically mounted on the left side of this guitar).

In use here:

 

[Chromatischism]

Funny you should mention it!

This car needs to be tuned but before the turbo install he was doing 160 whp with a curb weight of ~1500 lbs.

 

[Count Dacula]

I got to track my CLK 500 at Pocono. It's a really rough surface, so the stock suspension wasn't bad.

 

[Sal1950]

I got to track my CLK 500 at Pocono. It's a really rough surface, so the stock suspension wasn't bad.

What did the dogs think?

 

[Count Dacula]

What did the dogs think?

lol, they are used to it.