Muscle or Import?

**scared2mosh** · 08-23-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

The title is fine, but I think it needs a little clarification. A sports car can be a muscle car-if you say a muscle car is a relatively cheap car with a huge engine. A Corvette falls into that category, but it's also a sports car. IMO, a car can be both.

In that case there ar cars that could be all three.

Quote:

Just looking at the title, I'd assume the thread was about domestic muscle vs. import "tuner" cars in drag racing. To which I'd say muscle, hands down. There is absolutely no replacement for displacement.

I generally hate Tuners, but there are exceptions. Still in anything other than a drag race they would probably beat the muscle car.

mulletman · 08-23-2009, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Leroy

Application is everything. I'd like to see a boosted 4 cylinder compete with a top fuel car in the quarter.....

On the same hand, any regular car would beat a top fuel out on any other track.

Yes. I'm not sure I'd even call a top fueler a car anymore. Same goes for F1.... I mean, they're kind of like cars. But not really.

**thesteve** · 08-23-2009, 11:21 PM

wiki weighs in:

"Muscle car is a term used to refer to a variety of high performance automobiles.[1][2] At its most widely accepted the term refers to American 2-door rear wheel drive mid-size cars of the late 1960s and early 1970s equipped with large, powerful V8s and sold at an affordable price for street use and drag racing, formally and informally.[3][4][5][6]

As such, they are distinct from two-seat sports cars and expensive 2+2 GTs intended for high-speed touring and road racing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

What5647 · 08-24-2009, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

.... Except for forced induction, lack of weight, correctly set-up suspension, tires, driver skill, etc....

The issue with that argument is if you put those mods on an engine with more displacement, it'll come out on top again. And again, and again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Leroy

Application is everything. I'd like to see a boosted 4 cylinder compete with a top fuel car in the quarter.....

Seeing as this guy claims to be the fastest 4-banger in the world, I'd say they have a long way to go. IMO they'll never compete, unless they have the same displacement as the V8's they're competeing with.

LaserRacer · 08-24-2009, 09:03 AM

I have found that for the most part, owning cars (and being enthusiastic about owning them) in one of the two aforementioned categorys generally precludes ownership in the other. I was at an M-car meet yesterday... and there wasn't a single person there who I would mistake for a corvette owner. Its one thing to appreciate other kinds of cars, however when YOUR cash is on the table, you can determine what you REALLY like pretty quickly.

Obviously there is a point where you are wealthy enough that these rules no longer apply, however that number is truely obscene and very few people will ever achieve that.

LaserRacer · 08-24-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

The issue with that argument is if you put those mods on an engine with more displacement, it'll come out on top again. And again, and again.

I think this is a drastic oversimplification... There is a point where simply increasing displacement is no longer an option...If you were given a block of XxYxZ demensions and made out of a specific material, there would be a point where you would be undermining the structural strength of the engine...which would make it too weak to go FI. Instead of squeezing every cc possible out of the engine, you could make the same chunk of metal significantly smaller in displacement but able to hold massive amounts of pressure. This engine would be the more powerful of the two.

What5647 · 08-24-2009, 09:43 AM

True. That's why GM put a 2.0 L engine in my car rather than the 2.4 L, it was more suited for FI. Same thing with the LS9 in the new ZR1.

But barring block strength/whatever, more displacement still wins out. If you have a 3 L block capable of holding 15 PSI of boost, and a 3.1 L block also capable of 15 PSI, the 3.1 will win at the end of the day. (The cylinder heads, valves, timing, etc. is all comparable for this demonstration.)

LaserRacer · 08-24-2009, 09:51 AM

True...3.1L at 15PSI is more air than 3.0L at 15PSI... More air equals more fuel at proper F/A ratio. More fuel means more power.

mattslope · 08-24-2009, 12:46 PM

More fuel can mean more power, if utilized correctly. An automatic C5 Vette gets worse fuel economy (uses more fuel) on the highway than a 6 speed C5 Vette.

LaserRacer · 08-24-2009, 12:59 PM

My understanding was more fuel (at the proper fuel air ratio) always yields more horsepower at the crank (assuming everything in the engine is functioning properly)...Is there a variable I am missing?

**redbaron** · 08-24-2009, 01:42 PM

It really depends, with better fuel, I'll make more power on a leaner mix.

For instance, on pump gas I want to be between 10.8:1 and 11.2:1 AFR. On a leaded fuel like VP's C16, I'd probably want to see something from 12.5:1 or even 12.8:1, and that's considering the application of an extra 10+psi of boost and more timing.

Ben: the cars have less power in WRC now, but they are substantially faster in every other way. Not to mention that unlimited cars like pikes peak are ridiculously fast. Sadly they've paved so much of the mountain that the speeds are now so high that the race may be discontinued for safety purposes.

All racing regulates down power & whatnot to make things safer, and it just drives engineering to get around it. Formula 1 is a fantastic example.

mulletman · 08-24-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

The issue with that argument is if you put those mods on an engine with more displacement, it'll come out on top again. And again, and again.

Yeah.... all other factors being equal, more displacement will usually mean a more powerful car. However. The demonstration is retarded and useless, because all of the other factors are NEVER equal. It's like saying that if all other variables remain the same, a fat person will weigh more than a skinny person. Well, duh. In reality, there are many 'replacements' for displacement. Displacement will usually help your car accelerate in one direction. Weight reduction, tires, suspension, chassis setup, track conditions, brakes, and driver skill will help your car accelerate in 4 directions....

Quote:

Originally Posted by What5647

But barring block strength/whatever, more displacement still wins out. If you have a 3 L block capable of holding 15 PSI of boost, and a 3.1 L block also capable of 15 PSI, the 3.1 will win at the end of the day. (The cylinder heads, valves, timing, etc. is all comparable for this demonstration.)

Again. Any statement starting with "barring this relevant factor....." isn't really all that helpful. There are times when more displacement will get you nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaserRacer

My understanding was more fuel (at the proper fuel air ratio) always yields more horsepower at the crank (assuming everything in the engine is functioning properly)...Is there a variable I am missing?

Spark efficiency? Two mags instead of one?

gtrdave · 08-24-2009, 03:39 PM

I prefer muscle cars overall, but I wouldn't knock any decent performance car regardless of where it originates from.
The Charger SRT8, MazdaSpeed 3 or Nissan GTR would each be fun cars to toss around on a track.

MyChainsAreGone · 08-24-2009, 04:52 PM

Airplanes contain too much badassery, sorry Ben.

Wait older mustang like this

arent muscle cars? Oh guess I don't know what it is this.

Also some one was talking about fuel cars... as in Hybrids? If so I HATE THE UGLY CAR BY THE NAME OF PRIUS WITH A PASSION. Prius's are everywhere and I HATE them.

**thesteve** · 08-24-2009, 04:54 PM

The Mustang was considered a pony car, not big enough to be a muscle car.