|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,292 |
you guys need to take it to the track, its funny to watch you two,like two old men who've been friends since youth...kinda like grumpy old men 
"Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but STUPID lasts forever."-Aristophanes.
--93 pgt,headers,intake,borla=14.9 1/4mile
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 191
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 191 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
It is the as-new delivered condition that you must compare.
It is certainly fine to illustrate that the CSVT made 200 HP with NO TURBO five fuggin years before the SRT-4 even came out! IT is certainly fine to point out that two engines that were relatively the same displacement put out similar power only that it took a turbo for the SRT4 to hit only 12% more power. You do the math. And yes, we know what happens when you turn up the boost, but you were talking stock to stock right?
I just saw one thing in here I think needs clarification. The SRT-4 makes 230hp to the CSVTs 200hp, so yea, thats 15% more power on the same displacement. Not terribly impressive for boost. But, a big factor thats gotta be considered is torque. The SRT-4 makes 250ft/lbs, and at a very early rpm compared to the Duratec's 165ft/lbs somewhere north of 5500rpm. So, the SRT-4s got the torque department by just over 50%. That, is very signifigant. I dunno what SRT-4s run at your local tracks, but I've seen more than a couple turn 12s at all three of the tracks I've frequented, NYIRP, ESTA, and NE Dragway. NE Dragway had 5+ on a Friday night test and tune doing 12s, and that track BLOWS, traction wise. I never had trouble getting 2.2 60 foots until I ran there, where the best I could do was a 2.4. So, they are out there, and they are fast. Stock for stock the SRT-4 murders the CSVT in a straight line.
That being said, I'm with everyone else on the refinment of the rest of the CSVT. The handling is still above par for almost any car in its pricerange even today, and the braking is Phenominal. (You ought to go from a GM with TERRIBLE brakes to something like the SVT, I feel like I can stop in about half the distance as before.) The interior is nicer, its more practical, etc.
Now, the G6GTP is a lot like a modern day CSVT in a lot of ways. Powerful, advanced technology NA v6. Above average handling. Refined, not to bold styling. Nice interior. Now, whoever thinks a relatively stock CSVT can hang with the G6GTP is on crack. My modded Grand Am was good for about a 15.2-15.1, and my new stock CSVT can stay with it from a roll, but can't dream about launching like it. A G6GTP smokes the CSVT from a launch, or a roll, no doubt. Shoot, the new G6GTP should give a v8 powered GPGXP a run for its money. That 3.9 liter is pretty de-tuned as well. The original HP and TQ numbers were closer to 270, but they calmed it down some because it threatend the GP so much. Stupid thing, IMO, but thats marketing for ya.
Gosh, bench racing sure is fun.
Current Ride: 1998 Contour SVT - T-Red, Res. Delete, K&N under the hood, broken side skirt at passenger rear jackpoint.
Its FOR SALE, see the classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 9,196
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 9,196 |
Quote:
So having $50-$60K into a car if you include the purchase price... for a neon....well,you see where I'm going with that. I like the neon but I don't like it that much.
Understatement of the year 
"THEE" Roger R
USMondeo@aol.com
2005 Crossfire Limited coupe'
-FOR SALE @buyout price & I'll...
-throw in my 93' Regal as winter car
*Dragon Run 06'...Oct 12-15th*
Puur-fection Auto Detailing
Complete packages from $140.00
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by acammer:
Powerful, advanced technology NA v6. Above average handling. Refined, not to bold styling.
Pushrods are in NO WAY "advanced technology" slick. It does have VVT on it's Single Underhead Cam but other then that it's simple old school technology.
Also it's power rating is nothing to brag about.
It has a 3.9L engine (57-60% larger then the SVT) and makes only 240HP. (~20% more power) It does have a significant advantage in torque (+75 peak or ~40%) but no @$%#@)! shock there because it displaces 57-60% more cubic inches respectively. Considering the huge displacement advantage and the fact the engine design is well over a decade newer the output sucks in comparisson. Quite badly actually. (heck look at any of the current 3.5L DOHC offerings  )
Then to top that off it gets poor fuel efficiency. (18/26) It takes that large an engine to produce so little power and it gets terrible mileage to boot. What a waste of an engine design team. 
Hell the new Hemi engine is rated the same and it's behind a slushbox. It also makes over a hundred more HP & TQ and is nearly 2 liters larger.
The engine is nothing special at all.
The handling of the G6 is nothing to write home about either. It has the typical GM body roll and vague steering & handling feel. It is better then the General typical builds into a car but it was definitely designed by the typical GM "lesofa" makers.
I will glady admit it is light years better then the steaming POS it replaced though. I do agree with you on that part.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by warmonger:
Wheres that smilie with the middle finger again?????
Be careful what you ask for...
Well, seems like you've been receiving them for quite some time! Care to take a guess as to why? lol
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Originally posted by tour96se:
you guys need to take it to the track, its funny to watch you two,like two old men who've been friends since youth...kinda like grumpy old men
 I'm in practice for when I get old so I can be the coolest and grumpiest!
Demon is already there though...........
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Originally posted by acammer:
Powerful, advanced technology NA v6. Above average handling. Refined, not to bold styling.
Pushrods are in NO WAY "advanced technology" slick. It does have VVT on it's Single Underhead Cam but other then that it's simple old school technology.
Also it's power rating is nothing to brag about.
It has a 3.9L engine (57-60% larger then the SVT) and makes only 240HP. (~20% more power) It does have a significant advantage in torque (+75 peak or ~40%) but no @$%#@)! shock there because it displaces 57-60% more cubic inches respectively. Considering the huge displacement advantage and the fact the engine design is well over a decade newer the output sucks in comparisson. Quite badly actually. (heck look at any of the current 3.5L DOHC offerings )
Then to top that off it gets poor fuel efficiency. (18/26) It takes that large an engine to produce so little power and it gets terrible mileage to boot. What a waste of an engine design team.
Hell the new Hemi engine is rated the same and it's behind a slushbox. It also makes over a hundred more HP & TQ and is nearly 2 liters larger.
The engine is nothing special at all.
The handling of the G6 is nothing to write home about either. It has the typical GM body roll and vague steering & handling feel. It is better then the General typical builds into a car but it was definitely designed by the typical GM "lesofa" makers.
I will glady admit it is light years better then the steaming POS it replaced though. I do agree with you on that part.
Yeah, but this is where I think Ford has dug themselves a hole that they can't get out of. They thought too far ahead for their own good, thinking high-tech small engines were the way to go. For example, the new Mustang GT is 100hp short of the GTO's 400hp, but they're rated at the same fuel economy, but the Mustang owner's only hope is to invest in a nitrous set-up, supercharger, etc...if he plans on spanking a stock GM with a NA'd LS2...a CSVT just might need a good shot of nitrous as the easiest way to handle a Nissan Altima, etc. Or even look at the last year model of the Cobra. Smaller lighter car, supercharged, but it's almost dead even with the stock GTO, but the Cobra isn't nearly as easy to drive, with a lot more to go wrong and a cluttered mess of an engine bay to deal with.
2005 RED GTO w/ M6
- Lingenfelter CAI
- Corsa Sport Cat-Back
- SLP LTs
- C5 Pads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
that's funny that a gm owner is calling a ford engine bay a mess to work on....lol...at least half the motor isn't pushed halfway under the dash...and have you actually looked at an '03-'04 cobra under the hood...the supercharger sits ON TOP of the engine,and doesn't clutter up the engine bay at all....and a stock cobra will beat your gto stock for stock...and $200 in mods and it will kill your gto(put the same $200 in your gto and see what it gets you)nowhere near what it will get the cobra...
funny thing is your talking about the'05 mustang as if its weak or something...you do realize it runs neck and neck with the 350 hp(04)gto,both run mid 13's stock and pretty much a drivers race....and it isn't that far behind your '05 gto....and it wouldn't take forced induction to gain a couple of tenths to run neck and neck with you...
and then you why not compare comparable year altima to the csvt...the new body altima didn't come out until after '01 when the svt was no longer made....so comparing a car that is a couple years newer is ridiculous...but if you compare a '00 altima to a '00 altima therer is no comparision,the tour would probably be on top in any catagory...
and i don't think demon was trying to say that pushrod engines were bad,just that they are nothing new...the ls1 and ls2 are great engines,but i think he was reffering to the gm v6....
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 85 |
Yes, it sits on top of the motor, the smallish 4.6 motor that has the same overall outer deminsions of a 460 cid big block!!...and the stock supercharged Cobra won't beat a '05-'06 GTO. Tie, maybe. The slush-boxed GTO is factory rated at 4.6 (0-60) and 13.0 (1/4 mile). About the exact same numbers. And why $200.00? For a SC pulley that the Cobra needs to begin with? With a tune, after the pulley swap, it'd be closer to maybe $600.00? What about real mods that would apply to both cars? Modding the Cobra might cost twice as much? My brother's '03 GT will spank mine...but he's spent around $13k on his mods.
The '05 GT is a lighter car, but it's still half a second slower in the 1/4. And with my basic mods, it'd take more than these basic mods for the GT to dip deep into the 12's
I know of 1 '05 GT that runs 12.6s with my mods, PLUS he had to add DRs, micro-tune, TB and UDP
...and I'm still going to put heads and a cam in, just because it's such a simple task...I'll keep mine all-motor.
And on the Altima I'm comparing v6 against v6
And I'm just asking myself about Ford's reasoning behind small motors vs big motors. I don't know that high-tech is a better way to go when it comes to muscle cars...and from what I've been hearing, the muscle car is back in Detroit, and you can bet that the new Challenger, Camaro, etc will be throw backs to the BIG v8. Ford will be the one that's probably going to be all by itself with the OHC small displacement approach...to me, that should be left to imports from Mazda, Nissan, Honda, etc...not Detroit muscle.
2005 RED GTO w/ M6
- Lingenfelter CAI
- Corsa Sport Cat-Back
- SLP LTs
- C5 Pads
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
actually you are wrong about the '03 cobra needing a tune and other things...a simple pulley swap is all that is required,nothing else....ok take your gto and an '03 cobra....put a cai,and full exhaust on both...the cobra will be faster,then add in a less than $200 pulley and it is no contest.....use your all motor excuse all you want,but facts are facts and it would be more cost efficient to mod the cobra and it will be faster period...and for your information,there are 05 gt's in the 12's with nothing more than bolt ons and a tune...
and as far as the altima...you are still comparing a motor that wasn't even available in comparable year altima to the csvt...compare a '00 to a '00 and like i said there is no comparison...your trying to compare a car built a few years later,which i would hope to god would beat a csvt...
and as far as your comment that ford has put itself in a hole it can't get out of...please explain yourself....the mustang outsells any competition it may have,so i don't see how that is a bad thing...and they keep the research and development as well as trying new things...the new mustangs 3 valve motor is making as much hp as earlier 4valve motors..a step in the right direction imo...
and your comments on detroit muscle...well you do realize that the shelby gt500 will be out this year right...and that's with 450 or more hp,which will spank your gto,charger srt8,etc.....and then you bring up the camaro which is no longer even built(hopefully gm learned that a great motor in a pos car will only take you so far)...and when it does come back out(if at all)who knows what the mustang or svt mustang will be packing under the hood...so your comments are pure speculation at best...
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
