|
I'm still hung up on the backwards NACA-esque duct. Not sure WTF the point is.
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
If nothing else, it gives a bit more stiffness to that cover.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
travisray2004 posted:Yeah, I remembering posting in that thread and I think it was a goon's friend that owned that beast. Expeditions...to the pole...are not severe offroading.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Everyone knows you want a Hilux for that anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Expeditions...to the pole...are not severe offroading. You know what I'm referring to. Don't split hairs.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
Depending on the season it could be a sailing expedition!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Expeditions...to the pole...are not severe offroading. Can you elaborate (serious question)? I thought the "terrain" up there were ice formations that suck rear end to traverse, including giant ice chunk fields.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Can you elaborate (serious question)? I thought the "terrain" up there were ice formations that suck rear end to traverse, including giant ice chunk fields. I think he's being sarcastic, but then goons are terrible car poo poo so who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
 Looks like i have another weekend project on the list.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
 Another well done version.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
I always wanted to try VAT 69 after Lewis Nixon's obsession with it in BOB.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
It's a nice blend, and cheap enough to be my favourite binge scotch.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Das Volk posted:I always wanted to try VAT 69 after Lewis Nixon's obsession with it in BOB. Same, I'll settle for evan williams though until I can get my hands on it though.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
A supercharged (switchable from the cockpit) GTV6 that is driven to and from the track almost every weekend of the summer:.jpg?img=small) 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Warning, Jalopnik link but I've never heard this story. Now I want to see these heads.quote:Clearly interested in "one of our GM car engines," Soichiro bought a 1973 Chevy Impala with a big-rear end 5.7L V8 and had it air-freighted to Japan. I think you can see where this is heading. Honda instructed his engineers to design and build a CVCC system for the GM V8, and that's exactly what they did: they replaced the intake manifold, cylinder heads, and carburetor of the engine so that it used Honda's CVCC technology. He then had it flown back to Ann Arbor, where it was tested by the EPA. Whereupon it almost met EPA requirements, with carbs and without a cat.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Warning, Jalopnik link but I've never heard this story. Now I want to see these heads. This might belong in another thread (like the stupid question thread), but since emissions requirements have come up: I'm currently loving around with a 1999 Taurus. Everything under the hood is tightly packed and a pain in the rear end to work with. By comparison, I could drat near crawl into the engine bay of my Studebaker with the engine still inside. So, how much is for emissions and how much is for fuel economy/quietness/compactness/etc.? Could you make a simple straight-6 engine like you used to get and get it to pass emissions requirements? The Taurus has a transmission cooler in the front, but the 52 year old automatic doesn't, you'd think we'd have come further and could have an automatic that didn't need cooling like that... or just use manuals. I know there's always mention of Jeep using the same straight-6 for 30 years or whatever, but it looks pretty busy under the hood of a modern-ish Jeep. How much of that could be stripped out while still meeting legal requirements? Edit: maybe little economy cars with a 4cyl, stick shift, no AC, manual windows, etc. are closer to this but of course they've got that engine mounted transversely and FWD which isn't quite as simple as the old style. Pham Nuwen fucked around with this message at 21:43 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
A lot of the crampedness of modern engine bays isn't so much that there is more poo poo under the hood (although that is true), but that cars and their engine bays are a lot smaller than they used to be. You could put a modern drivetrain into an old 50s-era landbarge and still be able to swim around in the engine bay.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Warning, Jalopnik link but I've never heard this story. Now I want to see these heads. quote:"Well, I have looked at this design, and while it might work on some little toy motorcycle engine…I see no potential for it on one of our GM car engines." ...and here we see the hubris that dominated GM that allowed them to slip so far behind Honda and Toyota over the next two decades.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:This might belong in another thread (like the stupid question thread), but since emissions requirements have come up: Guinness nailed it on the fact that cars (and engine bays) are not as big as they used to be. There's more insulation, more crash structure, more everything in there. Hell, wiring alone adds up. Consider pretty much any pre-emissions engine, they used a carb (no electricity), a basic distributor (one wire to power the coil, maybe a tach wire, plus plug wires), and a mechanical fuel pump. Now you've got coil-per-cylinder so you need at least two wires per coil, sequential fuel injection so you need two wires per injector (plus fuel rails), some way of measuring air so at the very least you have a MAP and IAT sensor (or a MAF and IAT), an engine coolant sensor, crank and camshaft sensors so you can time everything, knock sensors so you know when to back off on the ignition timing, variable valve timing so that you can hit your emissions and power and fuel economy targets... That last line is really the kicker. You could probably build a simpler engine that would hit emissions targets, but it might suck down more fuel than needed and it would almost certainly make less power. They're three targets that all oppose each other in some way, but all of that poo poo that gets strapped onto a modern engine means that we don't need to sacrifice emissions to have a lean-burning engine that also makes a shitload of power compared to what it would have made 40 years ago. In exchange for this wall of text, please also have the ultimate doing-more-with-less, the Caterham 160. Because 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:...and here we see the hubris that dominated GM that allowed them to slip so far behind Honda and Toyota over the next two decades. The good old NIH syndrome
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
I am honestly not sure whether to put this in this thread or the terrible thread. Start by reading this. http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/what-is-it-like-to-daily-drive-a-dodge-viper-1468362841 Then read this. http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/tomahawk.html What kind of loving maniac puts a 500hp V10 in a goddamn motorcycle, but then has to put 4 wheels on it to handle the weight, so now it won't really handle worth a poo poo either? I don't know if this is the best idea, or the worst idea. Answer: the same 12 year old who wanted to design that awesome car? Yeah, he designed an awesome motorcycle to go with it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
kastein posted:I am honestly not sure whether to put this in this thread or the terrible thread. Have you not heard of the Tomahawk before? It's not so much a Viper-powered motorcycle as it is a Viper engine on wheels. There should be a tag on the handlebars reading "Twist handle for death."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
I hadn't. I suspect if you goosed the throttle too hard from a stop you'd end up standing there wondering why the hell your knees hurt and where your motorcycle went. That death machine is... the platonic ideal of the Viper, in motorcycle form. e: I only rag on them both because I wish I could get that motor for cheap enough to make the minitruck edition of the Viper. 
kastein fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
I always joked that there is probably enough grip and torque to do a standing backflip.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
I think whoever said that it is basically a powered display stand for the viper motor has the right idea.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Saw this gorgeous lady on the Magnolia bluffs today.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XehkMQpeyA
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:In exchange for this wall of text, please also have the ultimate doing-more-with-less, the Caterham 160. Because  The only environment where the paintjob doesn't seem garish:   A cat inspecting the Cat  . Next to my brother's classic Mini. Feeling a little inferior next to a Diamante Roadster from -79. One of the 13 ever made.  As long as there's no ice on the roads, it's my daily driver. The lowered floors and the higher roll bar make the interior a little more roomy with the top on.  It's got a 1.8l Zetec with around 170bhp, although now it's probably a little less than that since last fall I installed less steep cams. It's a hilarious looking car and it's equally hilarious to drive! 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Saw a lovely thing while on the Isle of Wight  What's that badge on the hood?  Terrible interior shot  Bonus RS6 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
j.peeba posted:Oh look, a great excuse to post my Caterham! I hope you don't mind... My Westfield has the same engine in stock form, do you have any good resources for tuning? A little more power would always be nice.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Raluek posted:I think whoever said that it is basically a powered display stand for the viper motor has the right idea. I saw it at the NYIAS back in the day, same show as the Enzo IIRC. The Tomahawk had a bigger crowd.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:My Westfield has the same engine in stock form, do you have any good resources for tuning? A little more power would always be nice.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
j.peeba posted:Caterham!  Awesome AI poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
Captured this exotic beauty in its natural environment.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Summer's here, and the toys are coming out of storage. Mustang Mach 1. Pardon the link. Posting from app... http://i.imgur.com/3mDvsz9.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
I've actually seen the Tomahawk in person, and it's crazy. I used to work in advertising here in Detroit as a car photographer. Back when I was an apprentice, we did a gig at one of the Chrysler prototyping shops up in Auburn Hills, and as I was wandering around I found a room full of old Chrysler prototypes and show cars. There in the corner was the Tomahawk, all dusty and lonely, so I threw a leg over it and made VROOM-VROOM noises until I had to get back on set.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
JazzmasterCurious posted:Summer's here, and the toys are coming out of storage. Mustang Mach 1. Sadly not a real Mach 1, they didn't come in convertible. Sportsroof (aka Fastback) only.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
also no spoiler
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:11 |
|
|
You could get the Mach 1 without a spoiler. Just watch 'Diamonds Are Forever'.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 17:37
|
|