The Corner House of Whores and Monkeys. Enter for Fun & Shenanigans! We're weird here. In the most awesome way possible.

ATTN alex, c6 whaddaya think?

Thread Tools
 
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:00 PM
  #51  
ZGiRL's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,335
Likes: 0
From: Delran, NJ
Default

Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:00 PM
  #52  
wicky's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,828
Likes: 74
From: stuffed in a box
Default

exactly. they don't need all that valvetrain to do what they are doing, so why bother ? I think what GM is doing with this "dated" technology is great. Nothing wrong with the concept of OHV, they are refining it to a level that is on par with what honda is doing. High power, fuel efficient (for a large motor) and clean burning.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:00 PM
  #53  
C-Bass's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 10,342
Likes: 0
Default

Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:01 PM
  #54  
wicky's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,828
Likes: 74
From: stuffed in a box
Default

I mean look at the power they are making. The stock C6 is supposed to be close to 400 hp out of a 350, while meeting emissions and fuel goals. Ford hasn't done this yet, they are still tacking on superchargers
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:06 PM
  #55  
alexf20c's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,840
Likes: 0
From: Come see me after class.
Default

zoe (assuming he missed the corner )


wickster, imagine if gm did go dohc on their 350 - 8000rpm and 500 reliable all-motor hp from a small block

but i guess it's kinda like why honda stays all-motor low displacement - no need to go any further...
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:09 PM
  #56  
wicky's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,828
Likes: 74
From: stuffed in a box
Default

exactly.

Imagine if Honda pulled their collective heads and put a v10 in their supercar, instead of a v6 as great as that motor is, its not really supercar material in my book.
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:17 PM
  #57  
alexf20c's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,840
Likes: 0
From: Come see me after class.
Default



but my justification for a v6 in the nsx is that supercar means supercar not superengine. you need the overall package - performance, styling, quality, sex appeal, etc.

in that case, the nsx is most definitely a supercar.



with your logic, the s2000 is not a sports car because it only has a four-cylinder, and we all know true sports cars don't have four-bangers, right?


Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:21 PM
  #58  
wicky's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,828
Likes: 74
From: stuffed in a box
Default

well, actually not true. history is replete with very capable sports cars that were 4 cylinders. old fiats, healey's anything british, some italian. You are using the "american musclehead" definition of sports cars.

to me supercar should be the whole package, including the motor. Maybe I'm getting confused with "exotic" ?
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:24 PM
  #59  
wicky's Avatar
Thread Starter
20 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 42,828
Likes: 74
From: stuffed in a box
Default

but I guess I get hung up on how "exotic" the NSX really is. I mean, look at that chassis and aluminum body. Engineering and performance wise, it really is quite exotic. The motor is...... well...... Honda sensible, not honda exotic. I'm talking oval piston v8 here, lets go!!!
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2004 | 05:25 PM
  #60  
robb's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 30,135
Likes: 5,455
From: Bondville
Default

I'm too drunk to contribute to this thread but I still find it interesting.
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:13 AM.