Rice Vs Lamborghini Diablo

geeto pretty much summed up why the STI and not the evo. The american spec evo is good, but not as good as the STI. IMO, it's easier to do suspension mods to get the STI up to the handling level of the Evo, than to do a lot of engine work to the Evo to get it up to the STI's level. Although, Mitsu is coming out with the Evo MR, which looks just badass. But I am on a budget, which is why the STI is going to work out better. I figure that buying it a year from now when it's already a year old/the new models are out, it'll be a lot cheaper than getting a new Evo MR.

 

My "ricer" :grin:

My Project

Another

Last One

 

Bottom Line

Ok, Ive read all the posts. I gotta just say, Some imports are fast, no doubt, but I can't help but feel like its fake, that is if you're running NOS or a turbocharger. When I think of real power, I think STOCK, sure new cam, carb, pistons. I own a buick 350.4 skylark and am rebuilding a 455. Yes I am bias. but There is no replacement for TORQUE, thats all there is to it. Ride in any ricer, and you'll notice something missing, TORQUE. Say in a race for example, Light to light, 0 to 60, I think you'd notice what the V8 has over the Imports. Sure they look fast(imports) but when you spend that much money on making a car look fast, are you covering up for something???? I duno??? Aint trying to step on any toes, just my opinion, take it or leave it.

 

How is it fake? Power adders used on modern imports were devloped for decades on old american iron in the drag wars that raged throught the 50's till today. Nitrous was used by the nazi's in their aircraft as a power adder at high altitude, as were superchargers and turbos used by both sides. I can understand how you would think that it is not legititimate when compared to stock cars, but remember fast is fast no mater how you get there:

How is a buick 350 with new cam, carb, pistons stock? It isn't. I think what you are looking to say is naturally aspirated - no power adders. You are correct in stating that there is no replacement for torque, because there is no replacement for displacement and torque is a function of displacement.

However there is also no replacement for weight savings which is the the advantage a lot of sport compact cars hold over traditional muscle cars. Think about it like this: you have a 3500lbs powered a-body powered by a 350 ci small block making 350 ft/lbs of torque. that means that every 1 ft/lbs of torque is pushing 10 lbs of tin. Now take a honda powered by a 4 cylinder 1.8 liter making 180 ft/lbs of torque and weighing 1800lbs. again 1ft/lbs of torque is pushing 10lbs of tin. You the feeling you get accelerating is actually a feeling created by inertia, the heavier car being pushed to speed from a stop will generate more resistance and therefore a percieved feeling of more force while the sport compact will not "feel as fast" while accelerating at a same rate since there is less resistance moving it from a stop. Basically you are using more force to cover the same distance.

Now what a old 350 has over a smaller displacement sport compact is a "flatter torque curve". It is not so much that the enigne outside of a car creates more power, but rather where that engine creates it's power that is important. In a traditional v-8 the torque curve starts fairly low in the engine's rpm range and builds to a peak a lot earlier (look at traditional small blocks that make peak torque at 4500-4800 rpm), where as a sport compact has a wider rpm range and therefore has a lot more distance to cover to make peak torque (which it will do a few thousand rpms higher than a v-8).The engines torque range does not really being till a few thousands rpm higher than the v-8. Since most sport compacts will hit the meat of their torque band after they have already begun to roll, as opposed to a tradtional v-8 which hits it's torque band from or close to standing (due to a converter or how fast you can get the clutch out) the "feel" is also lessened. In the end gettign a jump is always preferable to waiting for it to build, but really if one stop light to stop light race only involved first gear (and all other factors like gear ratio and tire traction being equal) it would be a pretty close race between a 3500 lbs 350 ft/lbs muscle car and a 180 ft/lbs 1800 lbs sport compact.

Now as far as cost to look fast, the only reason I see sport compact owners spending more money on exterior accessories is because there are more of them. Anyone who ahs had to do bodywork on a muscle car knows the cost will out exceed any pipe/hood/wing/skirts mods you can do to a clean bodied import. But really what can you do to a muscle car for the street? fiberglass hood? costs the same between makes of cars (most s.c. owners spend the extra money for a carbon fiber hood which right now are only available for a 1969 camaro and at 10x the cost of one for a subaru). If you compare the cost of an endura bumper to the cost of a ricer front bumper you'll see that the 1969 camaro is 20x the cost (if you can find one). Sure a fiberglass one might be cheaper but most of the ricer bumpers meet crash standrds (the quality ones anyway) which a fibreglass 69 camaro bumper does not. In the end speed is speed, it all cost a lot of money and pretty much costs about the same no mater what kind of car you are in. The problem with spending the money to make a car look fast is that you haven't spent the money to make it go fast, which a lot of ricers fall victim to, mostly because of their age and lack of expirence to understand how to make a car fast. Most v-8 guys aren't much better, think about how hard it is picking a cam for a v-8 car and now imagine picking two cams that have to work with each other and the application. There are just as many clueless people who own muscle cars as there are ricers, in this hobby the tradtionalists tend to ignore the kid in the monte carlo with the stock 305, slapper bars, stp stickers, jacked up rear, and big meats on cragers while poking fun at the kid with the honda with the wing, spoilers, jdm stickers, and big rims - its unfair, both cars are posers - so why is one better then the other? the theoritical answer is they aren't but the reality is that most "muscle car guys" will ignore the version of a ricer amoung their own ranks just so they can make them selves feel better about owning antiquated equipment.

Finally, about your stock for stock thing, a new Subaru Wrx STI off the show room floor will run a 13.23 quarter mile, which is faster than a lot of bone stock muscle cars (including such famous ones as the roadrunner, the gs400, the 335 hp GTO, Chevelle SS396 with 325 hp, etc...).Even Honda's Naturally aspirated Civic SI is in the 14 sec range. The thing is the honda or the subaru will get better gas mileage also, be cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, cover twice as many miles reliably, and cheaper to insure as a daily driver for full coverage for an 18 year old. As much as we love them we cannot ignore that our v-8s are old outdated equipment. The new engines are far more efficient at making a lot of hp out of a very small package. The only domestic engines I can think of that comes close to modern technology used by the jap manufacturers are the Buick GN v-6 (using turbo technology, but on an outdated base), the corvette zr-1 enigne which used (twin cams, all aluminum construction, and host of little tricks and computer controlling to make an engine that for time was the extremely powerful and got great gas mileage), and the new mustang dohc 4.6 engines (which are too new to have proven themselves but are already showing a lot of promise). Maybe in the future we'll see a GSX on show room floors once again, but this time with a DOHC v-8 getting 30 mpg and being twice as fast as the original. I doubt it, but it is possible (if the american car companies get their act together).

 

A STOCK WRX STi or Evo can do a 0-60 sprint in just over 4.5 seconds.

 

I don't blame a lot of guys that are anti-rice, anti-imports, etc. and all about American muscle, just shows they have a lot of pride in their country, which is awesome. I love that there is a whole domestic vs import mentality, the challenge can only make things better for both sides of the fence. :beer I enjoy owning both :3gears:

 

Pride for one's country is great, but that only really applies to old cars. Honda Accords are built in America and the latest Camaros were being built in Canada.

I think the main problem are people's beliefs vs. actual car knowledge. Some people just can't grasp what makes a great performance vehicle - power, weight, brakes, suspension, etc.

If it works, it works... doesn't matter where it came from.

I would just as happily drive a Z06 Vette as I would a TT Supra. :Brow:

 

Thanks, Remember, it was an opinion

Geeto, thanks for the lessons on facts. Again, I'm not being a "hater " of imports. I know some are fast, real fast. And yes I'm bias, I own a muscle car. My opinion is that These two catagories of cars should not be compared. Ones Lightweight and fast, the others are heavier, but built for power. I don't see imports as Powerful, Fast yes, but not tuff, powerful? I guess what really gets me about imports is that It seems that Most imports are built or designed to look fast and really pretty. You take an old Stage 1 out from under a pile of wood, dust it off, rust holes and rot, I still sence Power.

Geeto, I was being serious when I said thanks. Im no pro, but I do know I appreciate whatever info I can get.