Modern Marvels on History Channel Drag Racing

A sport bike? :laugh: I can make a golf cart run 9's cheaper than what you can buy a sport bike stock!! p

 

ATX-- the stock head parts will have to be replaced, like the springs, retainers, valves and locks. the stockers will literally melt under that much boost. not to mention Hondas still have rocker arms, only there are no pushrods involved.

Honda makes an excellent product. Far superior than anything GM, or any other domestic company makes. Thats right I said it. in terms of power output, reliabilty, and durabilty. you can't beat them. not in anyway am I saying every domestic part is junk, or Honda was always the best. but as of know, they make the best cars. Let the hate mail begin. and for the guy who is about to respond saying "my buddy had some han-duh that gave him nothing but trouble"... that doesn't count. Chances are it was not properly mantained and/or it was beat. if one in a thosand cars is a lemon, thats still damn good.

BTW, I am a die-hard Buick man. I'm not into sport compacts, or the whole rice scene. I'm tired of people bashing hondas for their stupid owners..

 

I don't even pretend to enter into the debate on the cost efectiveness of modifying a Honda or Toyota versus a big block Buick.All I can tell you about the quick runners in the Buick vs the Asian camp is based solely on my observations over the years at Moroso Motorsports Park in Florida.Maybe I just happen to see junk there in the months of Feb. and March,but there is a distinct difference in reliability( thus consistency) between the big block stuff and the Rice machines.It was not unusual (matter of fact it was guaranteed) that any quick 10.0 second Ricer was bound to lose half a second with each subsequent run.By the time it made it to the 13 second bracket the motor and/or driveline was toast.The big blocks retained their consistency for the most part.
True,the 16 second Ricers would stay 16 second cars all night if that is anything to brag about. Rod

 

Racing a BBB or even a SBB is a waste of gas when your competitor is a honda or any kind of rice for that matter.

 

Sometime in teh near future, aftermarket companys will develop some parts that will withstand some abuse.

As far as the 16 second club, I was at the track sunday, and there was an absolutly mint 68 Charger R/T. It was bone stock, equipped with a 440- 4 speed. ran a best of 16.2.... hows that for a muscle car.

My point being is most people don't realize how slow some musclecars really are... not far from hondas.

 

16's aren't nothing to bragg upon, but it's a dodge. Somebody on here was saying something about a guy having a 454 chevy in a chevelle(? I think ?) and it ran 16s. All muscle cars arent fast, but all ricers arent either. Most ricers cant go fast without spray cans or super/turbo chargers anyway, so whats the point. Heck, just about all ricers weigh so much less than alot of muscle cars that it's pathetic, so when a ricer car get's beat by a heavy old muscle car without all kinds of junk on it it is something to bragg about. No replacement for displacement, same goes for torque and hp.

 

"Some guy with a 454 in a chevelle" doesn't mean squat. I got some news for ya, most 454s, hell most big block motors from the factory were dogs. Some were mighty and great too. What else did this chevelle have? 2.56s, stock manifolds, and pea shooter exhaust?? 454 doesn't mean anything if its in the wrong chassis. How fast do you think my car woulda been if I swapped in the '76 455 I had. and left the highway gears and crappy exhaust???? I'd be lucky to run 18 seconds.

what ya gotta realize is this fantasy you seem to have that everything Buick is awesome, and any type of "rice burner" is a waste of time, or can never be fast is BOGUS, and plain ignorant. your going to feel mighty dumb when some honda flies past you, and it will happen. These so called rice burners are the muscle cars of today. like or not. They might be 4 cylinders and smaller, but they ain't much slower from the factory, if faster.

I think Buicks are very cool myself, but that doesn't mean I don't like any other GM, mopar or even some FoMoCo. I'll tell ya what, I think some cars from Japan are downright impressive too.

 

I think some people in this thread don't realize that there is a difference between "performance orientated import" cars and "rice".

 

Import cars are the muscle cars of today?? Yeah right, there is no muscle cars of today, muscle cars were yesterday. Maybe sports car, but not muscle car. I know that some imports are fast, and it wouldn't hurt me one bit if any import beat me, as I have a 231 with 105 horsepower, so does that tell you anything. If it has a fart can muffler, stickers, much more hp than torque, etc, its a ricer. High performance imports are lambos and porsches and ferraris and down the line. And when I saw that posted it wasn't a 454 in a chevelle with a pea shootin exhaust system, I like american muscle cars, but I can't see how a charger R/T with a 4 speed in mint condition can go 16's, much more possible with a 454 with pea shootin exhaust. You look at most non performance oriented imports and you can find a V8 that has more base torque and horsepower than what a stock turbo/supercharged car has, and if you're shooting for the stars it's always good to have a high amount of base tqe/hp. Just my 000000000000000000000000000000000.2 cents BTW, the term muscle car isnt used for modern day cars.

Thanks

 

Does anyone have any ratings of what a 68 charger R/T 4 spd will do in the quarter? Im sure it's below 16's...

 

Lets see... I found a site which I'll post the link to at the bottom... but first... these are times that were obtained by the magazines like Hot Rod, Road & Track, etc back when these cars were new.

1968 440 Charger 14.40@98mph
1970 454 Chevelle LS 6 13.25@107mph
1967 400 GS 15.20@95mph
1969 400 GS 15.90@89 mph
1970 455 GS Stage 1 13.38@105mph
1969 Hemi Roadrunner 13.32@107mph
1970 Hemi Barracuda 13.70@101mph
1969 428 Mustang GT-500 13.90@103mph (Eleanor)

The top two were the ones mentioned before, listed a couple GS's, Hemi's and the Mustang GT-500 from "Gone in 60 Seconds" for comparison.

The rest of the chart can be found at this site... http://www.americancars.tripod.com/statistics.html
it has 1962 through 1998 listed.

 

I'm guessing the guy either didn't know how to drive it or was babying it.

 

My apologies, I took this:

...to mean that you were?? Strip ET's and cornering g's are the measurements of performance I use rather than seat-of-the-pants feel.

I tend to agree, and 14k is a lot of money in any project. My point is that spending 14k on the Honda will net less bang-for-the-buck performance than spending 14K in a RWD displacement-based platform. Sounds like we're in agreement?

It's a good opinion, however saying and doing are very differrent things. I'd like to see what you mean by "long way", what performance gains for what cost? Seriously, I'm an all around car guy, the import performance stuff (non-rice) really is interesting to play with. Spend the 14k on paper on a project car and lets see what you can get out of it. That'll go a lot farther and be more interesting than just re-stating something you believe.

(this comment is kinda why I'm responding) See, typically when you call evidence BS you have proof to back up your claim. So what are you calling BS exactly? Was it the factory specs sheet or the dyno and track proven 12 scond Honda projects that needed more than what I listed?

I can see it being spouted BS if I went to biased sources like ChevyPerformance.com or pulled stats from v8Buick but I posted project cars from Import sources. If anything I picked sources that favoured the Honda buildup, and even gave it an unwarranted advantage in weight and ignored torque.

It would DEFINITELY be BS if I just stated my opinion without any evidence or verifiable numbers to back it up. Perhaps you are claiming that the prices were BS? I bet if you called those shops they wouldn't tell you "Oh, yeah it's $1000 cheaper cuz we just want to look expensive". Or were you just calling BS because I disagreed with your point? An argument involves supporting facts, not opinions.

Better than second hand fact, I have first hand evidence. I didn't just pull my opinion out of my butt because I happen to own a few Buicks. I've rebuilt a 6 cyl Supra as well as a 4 cyl AWD Talon and upgraded an Accord in addition to building stock and upgraded 455's and a couple Chevs. Sorry, but in my experience the 455's were cheaper. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno, I can only speak from experience and that was seeing a lot more cash flow into the import projects than my Buick 455 for similar or less performance. General parts were more expensive, as were performance upgrades. The Chev 454 I did was a cheaper engine than the 455 by a good margin too. Anyone that wants to see the spreadsheets can shoot me a note. Would you like to call BS on that as well then?

...but hey, maybe what's BS is that I didn't need all that work? Are you saying that I didn't need all those pieces to get reliably into the 12's with a CRX?

I fail to understand your reasoning here, how is an unrebuilt 90's CRX engine is going to reliably hold increased boost without a valve job and seals? A performance engine with 13 year old heads? If we're talking a car that's "A couple years old", for less than 5k, that's untwisted, it's a screaming deal and blows the project budget pretty fast. If you plan on running 15lbs of boost through an unported head it'll drop off flow numbers at higher RPM and kill the top end. Porting means dissassembly, which means rebuilt head. You seriously going to run nearly double the rated HP with an uported head?

Yes, I've built 9lb systems for much cheaper than $4500. Just about $2800 in fact. It has no hope of turning 12's, certainly no chance of competing with a 455. IMO that money didn't go very far at all. If that car did run a 15 lbs system I expect it would last for about 20-30 track runs at best. A Garrett Turbo, one of the cheaper ones is about $1500.

What about durability? Is it money well spent if you spend it twice? While a turbo can be done cheap, it's false economy when the part fails and you have to buy another cheapo. IC, piping, and upgrades to the injectors added a lot of money to the project. My 455 is good for at least 150k + 1000 track runs, if you want an engine to last then you're looking at higher dollar pieces to make it equivalent.

How is that $4500 kit for a 12s Honda BS?

We're talking Honda engines. Most high performance Honda rebuilders out there seems to think they're useful items... or were you planning on pushing increased boost through the stock manifolds?

Boosting will mean a bigger cam, and a bigger cam means an increase in valvetrain stress no matter the engine design. For the engine to live longer that stress needs to be minimized and a roller system is a good way to do it... in fact a lot of imports run `em. Why do you think these are unnecessary?

What about the other parts? Bigger injectors, axles, chip, larger IC, higher pressure piping are unnecessary? Was that BS? Sure wasn't on that Supra we did.

I included labour cost, and I paid my guy pretty well for a head rebuild. I also factored in the time required to build mine twice into the equation since the shop screwed it up the first time (a couple hundred on extra parts). Doesn't support the claim that 14K goes further in a Honda.

I have a Sportbike, 2 in fact. V-45 Saber with a V-65 engine. 10's for $6800. The cams cost $2200 :eek2: for those things. CBR 600 cost me 9k and needed exhaust work and tires. I'd look fairly silly trying to cart home a load of engine guts on the Saber though.

I can go fast for FREE, gravity and a good sized cliff. Some of us will experience this after the missus find out that we've spent 14K on a speed habit... :beer

...anyhow, not trying to flame anyone here, just shooting down that "BS" call. If you want to talk import performance tecyhniques I'm happy to oblige what little I do know.

 

Well, this one is already built and runs 10's, but you get the picture about the $ figures.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=2491656959&category=5335

 

Forget it dude, I'd have better luck talking to a brick wall.... :rant:

 

All I can say is "To each their own". But, for me, there is simply no contest in looks alone. When I see rice going down the road, it just doesn't stand out. But, you see a classic GM, or any domestic, that is 30+ years old or so, and it grabs your attention. Now if that same domestic can haul ass, I think that gives you the best of both worlds. Remember, it is not just about speed or "Bang for your Buck". I think looks matter a lot, and for me, the ricers just simply don't compare, period. :TU:

 

Classics vs Modern

While I concur on classic Buicks versus Modern Japanese cars, . Just about any classic car, Domestic, European or Japanese piques my interest, the same cannot be said for modern domestics, european or Japapanese cars, that the average guy can afford.

Now if you're talking hi end like Vette's Ferraris etc well thats another story.

Cheers

 

Im done with this thread, as for talking to a brick wall I wish I had all the time back I wasted even getting into this thread. Valuble time wasted on a subject that isn't getting any of us any where. We all have our opinions, likes, dislikes, etc. I like imports, domestics, etc, but I was just trying to get a few facts through but I guess I couldn't clearly say them without mixing things up. So im done with this thread, interesting topic but I have no more to say than what's already been said.

 

.84 gs with a station wagon! sweeet! The G-body is the late 70s Chevrolet Malibu also, isn't it?

 

OOOOOOH yeah. That and chicks dig them p!!! Actually it was the Chevy Malibu and Monte Carlo, Buick Regal and Century, Pontiac Grand Am and Grand Prix, and Oldsmobile Cutlass.

Patrick