Agent ONE Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 The rear end looks nice, but that front end looks as horrible as ever. 366788[/snapback] Exactly my thoughts... The rear is awesome.
David Hingtgen Posted February 4, 2006 Posted February 4, 2006 Uncle's Vette is not a Z06, but is a convertible.
areaseven Posted February 4, 2006 Author Posted February 4, 2006 Uncle's Vette is not a Z06, but is a convertible. 366804[/snapback] Still pretty good.
emajnthis Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Convertible's are the slowest and heaviest ones; the Z4 is also getting the two magnesium drenched 3.0 liters from the 325 and 330i's for the 2006 model year. The 3.2 M motor is overrated especially with it's variable valve timing problems and maintenance requirements, i'd say that the HO 3.0liter is a better choice as far as motors go. In terms of performance the coupe is the smartest way to go, but i still think the car is pretty ugly. Went to the Mazda dealership today and test drove a new Miata. Definitely is the best Miata of the three generations and magazine pictures don't do it justice. The car has a very masculine presence and very sharp modern appeal, definitely go check one out if you get the chance.
areaseven Posted February 5, 2006 Author Posted February 5, 2006 I like most of Bangle's designs, but I have always thought that the Z4 is bar none the ugliest car in all of history. 366787[/snapback] Sorry, but nothing - and absolutely nothing - tops the Pontiac Aztek in terms of ugliness. As far as BMWs go, the ugliest is the current-generation 7-series.
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) 400HP in a 3200lb car was still significantly better than I've experienced before. Sigh---my driveway, but not my car. Edited February 5, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Phyrox Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 I might have mentioned this before, but my best friend has one of the 50th anneversiary 'vettes...and all I can say is you ain't missing much. Sure, it is fast and handles great (at least compared to what I am used to), but it seems soulless. I know this sounds crazy, but I have as much "fun" crusin' mountain roads in my mother's Acura as I do in the 'vette. It is fast, but it doesn't feel brutal. What is the fun of speed if you have to look at the speedo to know you're really moving? I am by no means saying that they aren't good cars, or that they aren't good sportscars. Just that they don't seem to me to be worthy objects of automotive lust. Maybe it's just me.
myk Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 (edited) Ooh, I'm a big fan of 4th Gen F-bodies, the '97 Camaro in particular--that's the best year for the Camaro IMHO. 366689[/snapback] You'd like mine then, as it is a bright red convertible complete with the bird beak of a front end that wrongfully disappeared the following year in '98. I was not able to find a 6-speed, apparently those were typically special ordered and was even more rare of a find on convertibles. Plans for this car if money ever started to grow on trees would include an LT-4 conversion, taller rear-end gears and the best structural reinforcing that money can buy, as this car's body flexes like a twizzler... Edited February 5, 2006 by myk
emajnthis Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 it's because the leaf suspension is sluggish on the corners, and the hp/torque band is setup to help fuel efficiency (though in a sports car i can't imagine why that'd be a priority). There are a lot of little things that could have been done to the Vette to make it the best it's ever been (like dump the leaf setup) but then the same could be said for the Stang (solid rear) and the 911 (rear engine). I guess when you get down to it, those flaws are what make them what they are, and if you want it different you have to go to a specialist (rousch, RUF, Lingenfelter).
Seven Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 I like most of Bangle's designs, but I have always thought that the Z4 is bar none the ugliest car in all of history. 366787[/snapback] Sorry, but nothing - and absolutely nothing - tops the Pontiac Aztek in terms of ugliness. As far as BMWs go, the ugliest is the current-generation 7-series. 366818[/snapback] Ok so maybe not THE ugliest, but still pretty ugly. Remember the Toyota Echo? Blech!
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Echo gets my vote for fugliest car ever. I still remember the first time I saw one, it was that ugly to me.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Echo gets my vote for fugliest car ever. I still remember the first time I saw one, it was that ugly to me. 366921[/snapback] How about the original Fiat Multipla?
trueblueeyes Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 Echo gets my vote for fugliest car ever. I still remember the first time I saw one, it was that ugly to me. 366921[/snapback] The Echo is bad, but to me nothing compares to the vomit-inducing ugliness of the Mustang II. Gee, thanks Mr. Iacocca.
yellowlightman Posted February 5, 2006 Posted February 5, 2006 The Echo is bad, but to me nothing compares to the vomit-inducing ugliness of the Mustang II. Gee, thanks Mr. Iacocca. 367063[/snapback] A friend of mine has a great story about how when he was first getting into cars his grandfather told him about a "sports car" he had been saving in a storage unit. To my friends surprise (or disapointment) the car turned out to be a Mustang II Ghia in a lovely shade of brown.
trueblueeyes Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 The Echo is bad, but to me nothing compares to the vomit-inducing ugliness of the Mustang II. Gee, thanks Mr. Iacocca.  367063[/snapback] A friend of mine has a great story about how when he was first getting into cars his grandfather told him about a "sports car" he had been saving in a storage unit. To my friends surprise (or disapointment) the car turned out to be a Mustang II Ghia in a lovely shade of brown. 367071[/snapback] Poor guy. I'm sure he wasn't expecting a (barely) souped-up Pinto. That is like getting a kick in the crotch for a gift.
trueblueeyes Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen: Make Your Own Ground Effects. I have to admit the guy is definetly skilled though. I'd never be able to make something like that. Not that I would want to, but still...
yellowlightman Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen: Make Your Own Ground Effects. I have to admit the guy is definetly skilled though. I'd never be able to make something like that. Not that I would want to, but still... 367186[/snapback] I'm really more impressed that some guy had the balls to put Supra tail lights on an old Cavalier. But then again, there is a TRD body kit for the Cavalier...
areaseven Posted February 6, 2006 Author Posted February 6, 2006 Beyond all the hard work he displayed, what was the point? It's still a Cavalier.
yellowlightman Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Beyond all the hard work he displayed, what was the point? It's still a Cavalier. 367197[/snapback] Show cars don't have a point.
trueblueeyes Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Beyond all the hard work he displayed, what was the point? It's still a Cavalier. 367197[/snapback] Show cars don't have a point. 367198[/snapback] I saw a '93 Mustang coupe at a car show in Commerce, GA last year that had the entire engine and undercarriage chromed and polished. The car was rolled out of and back into the trailer...I'm sure the owner would have suffered some type of fit it he actually had to crank it and wipe off the dust the tailpipes stirred up. He even had holders built into his trailer where he stored the mirrors that showed off the undercarriage. What point is there to owning a vehicle like that?! Cars are meant to be driven.
yellowlightman Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I saw a '93 Mustang coupe at a car show in Commerce, GA last year that had the entire engine and undercarriage chromed and polished. The car was rolled out of and back into the trailer...I'm sure the owner would have suffered some type of fit it he actually had to crank it and wipe off the dust the tailpipes stirred up. He even had holders built into his trailer where he stored the mirrors that showed off the undercarriage. What point is there to owning a vehicle like that?! Cars are meant to be driven. 367204[/snapback] Chrome everything + neon lights + 5 DVD players = art.
myk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 I saw a '93 Mustang coupe at a car show in Commerce, GA last year that had the entire engine and undercarriage chromed and polished. The car was rolled out of and back into the trailer...I'm sure the owner would have suffered some type of fit it he actually had to crank it and wipe off the dust the tailpipes stirred up. He even had holders built into his trailer where he stored the mirrors that showed off the undercarriage. What point is there to owning a vehicle like that?! Cars are meant to be driven. 367204[/snapback] That's a real shame as the '93 LX is, in my opinion, one of the better looking 'Stangs to date...
reddsun1 Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) This is one of the funniest things I have ever seen: Make Your Own Ground Effects. I have to admit the guy is definetly skilled though. I'd never be able to make something like that. Not that I would want to, but still... 367186[/snapback] I'm really more impressed that some guy had the balls to put Supra tail lights on an old Cavalier. But then again, there is a TRD body kit for the Cavalier... 367190[/snapback] LOL, this guy gets a big A+ for creativity! True, it's a lame-oh Cavalier. True, it's a pretty frivolous project--but the fact that this guy made his own ground effects, and using cardboard as the base to build off of?! The end product looked pretty much as good as any aftermarket kit that you'd buy for one of those cars [that being said, take it with a grain of salt--it's a part for a Cavalier, compared to parts for a Cavalier] Edited February 6, 2006 by reddsun1
emajnthis Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 if he wanted to, he could always make a casts of it and make a profit. Then his critics will go from "why?" to "ah crap, i wish i did that"
ComicKaze Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) My favorite Camaro Edited February 6, 2006 by ComicKaze
pfunk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Ooh, I'm a big fan of 4th Gen F-bodies, the '97 Camaro in particular--that's the best year for the Camaro IMHO. 366689[/snapback] You'd like mine then, as it is a bright red convertible complete with the bird beak of a front end that wrongfully disappeared the following year in '98. I was not able to find a 6-speed, apparently those were typically special ordered and was even more rare of a find on convertibles. Plans for this car if money ever started to grow on trees would include an LT-4 conversion, taller rear-end gears and the best structural reinforcing that money can buy, as this car's body flexes like a twizzler... 366870[/snapback] had an LT4 in my vette, you will love it, forget the hotcam though, its a fraction of a fraction above stock and most dynoruns dont know the difference, youll want to change the shift points on your trans too, LT4 powerband goes to 6400 rpms
myk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Hmm...I thought that the LT4 was the same as the LT1, but only with the hotter cam, better heads (or better headwork) and other induction upgrades? What makes the LT4 the better performer then, if not for the cam? Comic, that's one of my favorite Camaros as well, I've got two of those-lol...
kanata67 Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 my camaro is in a btter home. Looking for trucks with thye wife and she believes every place that has flags and ballons is a car-dealership. Worse than garage sale shopping with her and mapquest directions . She did have me pull into a nice dealership with three xirge's out front. She didn't seem to understand that such a place wouldn't carry used cheap pick ups. Oh well... got to look at some loti . She wouldn't let me sell the house to buy one though
pfunk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Hmm...I thought that the LT4 was the same as the LT1, but only with the hotter cam, better heads (or better headwork) and other induction upgrades? What makes the LT4 the better performer then, if not for the cam? Comic, that's one of my favorite Camaros as well, I've got two of those-lol... 367340[/snapback] completlly diferent heads, the ports are higher in the head to allow for flow directlly down the shaft of the valve, it has the only GM production engine to use roller fulcrum rockers and a whole buncha machine work, heres a link with the details, the factory ratings were very underated, ive seen basically stock LT4's run high 12's in the quarter on street tires, none came with autos though http://www.grandsportregistry.com/lt1vslt4.htm
myk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) Does that mean my L460-E equipped Z28 is out of luck? Sounds like it would be easier to buy a complete crate motor than try to rebuild my LT1... Edited February 6, 2006 by myk
emajnthis Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 The other thing you might find is it's a lot cheaper to just buy an all new motor than to rebuild a toasted (or near toasted) one.
pfunk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 Does that mean my L460-E equipped Z28 is out of luck? Sounds like it would be easier to buy a complete crate motor than try to rebuild my LT1... 367369[/snapback] not really, thiers a few programmers out thier that would move the shift points for ya, youll need to reprogramanyway cause the injectors are larger along with fuel consumption of the larger cam. The only thing the kit doesnt come with is the undercut crank and dual mass balencer. you can put a fluidamper on it and get better results. The problem is if you get a crate motor that isnt an LT series, you will have to get all the injection/intake parts along with things like the water pump (cam drivin on the LT motors)
myk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 The other thing you might find is it's a lot cheaper to just buy an all new motor than to rebuild a toasted (or near toasted) one. 367371[/snapback] Right. The car's fine right now, I just feel that in the future if I ever wanted the LT4 it would be easier to buy a complete one than to try and upgrade my current block. All of this trouble for a forgotten 4th gen F-body, lol...
pfunk Posted February 6, 2006 Posted February 6, 2006 The other thing you might find is it's a lot cheaper to just buy an all new motor than to rebuild a toasted (or near toasted) one. 367371[/snapback] Right. The car's fine right now, I just feel that in the future if I ever wanted the LT4 it would be easier to buy a complete one than to try and upgrade my current block. All of this trouble for a forgotten 4th gen F-body, lol... 367386[/snapback] it will be cheaper to rebuild yours, but if you havnt rebuilt a SBC before, id get the crate or at least a short block and buy the LT4 upgrade seperate
Recommended Posts