Oh so close!

Started by SVT666, December 23, 2011, 03:39:41 PM

Colonel Cadillac

Quote from: 2o6 on December 24, 2011, 11:11:44 PM
Torque steer is irrelevant.

That's not the right way to look at it.


Torque steer is obviously relevant to this specific conversation (I brought it up and it was being discussed), and in the context of FWD cars. Torque steer also has become much less of an issue over the past 10 years.

CALL_911

Quote from: MrH on December 25, 2011, 11:42:54 PM
I feel like every one of your posts should be ended with "for a Volvo".


I'd usually agree, but those T5s are quite torquey. The C30 T5 I drove was quick as hell.


2004 S2000
2016 340xi

Vinsanity


SVT666

Quote from: Vinsanity on December 26, 2011, 01:51:56 AM
Camaro?
He didn't say he wanted a fatty that he couldn't see out of.

Gotta-Qik-C7

 :pee:
Quote from: SVT666 on December 26, 2011, 08:58:31 AM
He didn't say he wanted a fatty that he couldn't see out of.
2014 C7 Vert, 2002 Silverado, 2005 Road Glide

GoCougs

Quote from: Gotta-Qik-C6 on December 26, 2011, 09:46:44 AM
:pee:

I think seeing HotRodPilot posting in this very thread that if but for a few minor changes he'd have bought a Camaro really stung SVT666...

GoCougs

The Camaro SS with a bit lower gearing and the LS7.

SVT666

Quote from: GoCougs on December 26, 2011, 11:10:32 AM
I think seeing HotRodPilot posting in this very thread that if but for a few minor changes he'd have bought a Camaro really stung SVT666...
Where did he say that?

CJ

Quote from: HotRodPilot on December 23, 2011, 04:42:15 PM
A 2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS

If they'd used the V6 front end, gave it the V6 ride height, and the V6 gauges, along with a better steering rack, I'd have bought one instead.


Here.

SVT666

Somehow I missed that.  Well, all that says is that the Camaro wasn't as well executed as the Mustang which is why he bought the Mustang.

CJ

Quote from: SVT666 on December 26, 2011, 12:12:02 PM
Somehow I missed that.  Well, all that says is that the Camaro wasn't as well executed as the Mustang which is why he bought the Mustang.


You could say that about any car in this thread.


With that said, and having driven several 2005-2009 Mustang GTs, the Mustang is just better executed.  The Camaro may be faster in certain respects, but if I'm not having fun and enjoying the experience, then that's not the car for me.  The Mustang really feels like a lighter, more agile car in the bends and it's much more pleasing to drive.  I'd buy a 5.0 convertible every day of the week if I could afford it.

hotrodalex

I'm actually not sure if I'd like to see an IRS in the Mustang.  Ford seems to have done a very good job with the current set up, so I'm not sure IRS would improve the car enough to overcome the weight gain.

Colonel Cadillac

Quote from: hotrodalex on December 26, 2011, 12:27:16 PM
I'm actually not sure if I'd like to see an IRS in the Mustang.  Ford seems to have done a very good job with the current set up, so I'm not sure IRS would improve the car enough to overcome the weight gain.

I agree.

68_427

Quote from: GoCougs on December 26, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
The Camaro SS with a bit lower gearing and the LS7.

A ZL1 basically?
Quotewhere were you when automotive dream died
i was sat at home drinking brake fluid when wife ring
'racecar is die'
no


SVT666

Quote from: CJ on December 26, 2011, 12:18:21 PM

You could say that about any car in this thread.
That's the point of the thread.  Cars that are missing one or two things that have kept you from buying it.  For me, it's the CTS that is missing a base V8 of around 400-425 hp.

GoCougs

Quote from: hotrodalex on December 26, 2011, 12:27:16 PM
I'm actually not sure if I'd like to see an IRS in the Mustang.  Ford seems to have done a very good job with the current set up, so I'm not sure IRS would improve the car enough to overcome the weight gain.

Of course it would improve - there's a reason why no other automaker puts such an archaic suspension in a car nowadays, performance-based or otherwise.


SVT666


68_427

Quote from: GoCougs on December 26, 2011, 12:57:58 PM
No, a Camaro SS.

The LS7 is expensive compared to the LS-A, so you'd have a Camaro with 80hp less than the ZL1, none of the aero, suspension, and brakes upgrades, but almost all of the cost.
Quotewhere were you when automotive dream died
i was sat at home drinking brake fluid when wife ring
'racecar is die'
no


GoCougs

Quote from: SVT666 on December 26, 2011, 01:09:18 PM
What you described is the ZL1.

No, I described an SS with a bit more power.

GoCougs

Quote from: 68_427 on December 26, 2011, 01:26:53 PM
The LS7 is expensive compared to the LS-A, so you'd have a Camaro with 80hp less than the ZL1, none of the aero, suspension, and brakes upgrades, but almost all of the cost.

No, the LSA is more expensive than the LS7. A bit of Googling shows the LS7 at ~$14k and the LSA at ~$17k. Also, the LSA would need additional plumbing and bits to make it work.

Yes, IOW, a Camaro SS with ~80 more hp.

sportyaccordy

Civic Si

Needs turbo + SH-AWD.

2o6

Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 26, 2011, 06:26:12 PM
Civic Si

Needs turbo + SH-AWD.

Sounds like an excellent Acura....could really make the RSX/TSX special.

Raza

2008 Subaru Impreza WRX.  If it didn't suck ass, I would have bought one.  All the right ingredients, horrific execution. 

Mk5 Volkswagen Golf R32.  No stick?  No thanks.  Otherwise, it would have been perfect. 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If you can read this, you're too close


2006 BMW Z4 3.0i
http://accelerationtherapy.squarespace.com/   @accelerationdoc
Quote from: the Teuton on October 05, 2009, 03:53:18 PMIt's impossible to argue with Raza. He wins. Period. End of discussion.

Colonel Cadillac

Quote from: Raza  on December 26, 2011, 08:44:17 PM
Mk5 Volkswagen Golf R32.  No stick?  No thanks.  Otherwise, it would have been perfect. 

I was pretty annoyed about that.

Xer0

Quote from: sportyaccordy on December 26, 2011, 06:26:12 PM
Civic Si

Needs turbo + SH-AWD.

Why?  You would add 300+ lbs to the car in the process.  All Honda really needs to do is get another 30-40hp out of the 2.4l that it has in there right now, maybe give it a few Type-R bits here and there, and the Si will be fine.   

When the Suzuki/VW merger thing was announced a couple of years ago I was crossing my fingers for a 2.0 turbo Kizashi.  You can get either a 210 hp or 265 hp version.  That would be awesome.   

sportyaccordy

Quote from: Xer0 on December 27, 2011, 11:54:27 AM
Why?  You would add 300+ lbs to the car in the process.  All Honda really needs to do is get another 30-40hp out of the 2.4l that it has in there right now, maybe give it a few Type-R bits here and there, and the Si will be fine.  

When the Suzuki/VW merger thing was announced a couple of years ago I was crossing my fingers for a 2.0 turbo Kizashi.  You can get either a 210 hp or 265 hp version.  That would be awesome.  
I agree that they should have just uncorked the K20Z and left it, but it would be an interesting experiment to see how far the Civic chassis could go. The Type-R sedan is already as fast around (short) tracks as the 1st NSX + S2000. A Civic in the performance realm of cars like the Mustang GT and EVO would be something like a poor man's GT-R. I mean it would absolutely dominate. Put that together with a dash that doesn't look like a Star Trek console, they'd get back into their stride and steal a little of the FT-86' thunder. It's not even like they'd have to do much development... it's all there already. And the Mugen Civic Si already showed people will pay ANYTHING for a limited edition Civic.

NomisR


sportyaccordy

Quote from: NomisR on December 27, 2011, 01:23:26 PM
335d in wagon form..
That's a good one. Hell a 335 wagon period, gas or diesel...

Colonel Cadillac

and available with a manual!