Ricer VS Muscle

Sorry, partner (and welcome to A2K, BTW), but you lose. Officially, both World's Fastest (195.11 MPH) and World's Quickest (7.701 ET) Street-Legal Quarter-Mile records currently belong to the 2-Liter 4 Cylinder single turbo Tony Schumacher/Shepherd Racing '91 Eagle Talon - which bears valid Ohio plates and occasionally, if only just-for-giggles, actually is driven on the street.

Sold by Chrysler under the Eagle marque, the Talon, along with its Plymouth Laser counterpart, both were re-badges of the Japanese designed and engineered Mitsubishi Eclipse, US-produced by now-defunct Mitsubishi-Chrysler partnership Diamond Star Motors.

While Diamond Star Motors no longer exists, and the identical-sibling Chrysler-branded versions - Eagle Talon/Plymouth Laser - no longer are manufactured (in fact, neither the Eagle nor Plymouth brands remain), under the Mitsubishi marque the Eclipse remains in production as of 2007.

Well he's talking stock vs. stock.

2006 Corvette Z06, 0-60 3.5 seconds(ridiculous). Non Z06 in mid-high 4's.

Mitsubishi EVO, 0-60 4.4 seconds.

Considering the EVO costs half as much, that's not bad bang for the buck. But I'd take the V8 over a souped up Lancer too.

OK - pure showroom stock for pure showroom stock; fair enough - the 'Vette, while a comparative bang-for-the-buck bargain, is on the short list for sure, the world's fastest and quickest production car currently is the Bugatti Veyron 16/4 - though the Bug is in the US $1.5 Million price range, its over a second faster 0-60 than the 'vette.





Perhaps even more impressive is that the Veyron will do 0-100MPH-0 in under 9.9 seconds and will corner at above 2.5 Gs.

Mind-boggling Video (be sure to notice its huge spoiler automatically deploy and retract according to road speed)

I wish I could afford the insurance on that car.

yeh, but could you pull a tree stump with these cutesy little vehicles? I think not.

Good point - I'm a firm advocate of using the right tool for the job at hand -

For some jobs you need cat power more than horse power.

That Cat is a forrestry-rigged D-8 (vintage somewhere around late 70s-early 80s, if I recall correctly), powered by a 310 HP 6Cyl, Roots-type supercharged Caterpillar Diesel - in working trim as pictured with its blade, cage, brush screens, winch, engine shroud, spark-arrester exhaust, extra-wide "low ground pressure" tracks, and rear-mounted log grappler, it prolly weighs pretty damned close to 100,000 pounds. Top end is somewhere around 9, mebbe on a good day, 10 MPH, from a standing start it'll get there in just under a minute, and when its working hard, it'll go through around 350 gallons of fuel (roughly 2 tanks) over a 10 hour shift. Though paid for many years ago, the puppy's cost of operation, considering fuel, lubricants, coolant, hydraulic fluid, maintenance, insurance/permits/other administrative fees and charges, and operator, averages just under $75.00/hr.


Assuming you don't break anything you can't refit or reweld right there on the worksite, of course; hauling it anywhere ain't cheap at all either, even if you already own the necessary truck, trailer, and overweight/oversize permits

Ricer VS muscle
I'm talkin about a stock Corvett, Viper, shelby mustang, can out run any little stck ricer.

Well, you do sorta have a point - its long been the case that American Horsepower just about owns straight-line accelleration. However, you might find this interesting:

AutoFacts: 250 Fastest Production Cars Sold in North America, 1962-Present[/b][/i][/u] (as reported by the mainstream automotive press)

Gotta scroll way, way, way down to find a "Ricer" - but of the top 10, 3 are imports and 4 are legendary late '60s American Muscle Car classics; other than those, only the '07 Saleen S7, the '06 Vette Z06, and the '02 Mosler MT900 make the short list. The first Dodge Viper just makes the Top 20, right below the #19 '64 Ford Fairlane 427 Thunderbolt. Shelby's highest is #24, with the '97 Cobra 427SC.

Plus dollar for dollar the ricers got it...to match the performance of the Subaru STI or Mitsu EVO, you gotta spend a lot more for a Vette...

Of course, I still can't picture how anyone could spend $30K+ for a f'n MITSUBISHI. They're garbage.

i'm gonna hav to say that american muscle takes it. by 1970 General Motors had a couple powerplants on wheels, one being the buick gsx and two being the chevelle (king of muscle). i know that the gsx was putting out 425 hp and about 510 ft lbs of torque. the chevelle was rockin 450 horses but only 500 ft lbs. the only thing that restricted these cars were the weight. but that still didn't stop them from low 12's just by adding street-slicks

I can't believe I'm responding to something as juvenile as the old import vs. domestic debate.

Folks, PLEASE. There is nothing more amateur than debating continental vehicular prowess. The bottom line is this... engines are air pumps. The fact that one has a "chevy" emblem on it does not make it any more or less capable of its job than a car with a "mitsubishi" emblem on it. To say that one car is the winner and one is the loser is ridiculous.

So many times the ricers talk about how they can get 300 hp from 1.5L engines, while american cars get 300 hp from 5.7L engines. That's true, but consider that the 5.7L engine makes nearly 400 lb-ft of torque while the import makes 170 lb-ft. If you are one of the brainwashed, stupid americans who buy a car based on HP, then you need to be shot with a potato gun.

Stop the stupid debates. Engines are air pumps. They determine their VE from cam timing, port volume and flow, induction, exhaust, and most importantly - emissions. You can debate it all you want, but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what brand is on the car, the engine makes power based on known physical facts. I get so tired of hearing about how Hondas make more power than Nissans, and Fords make better power than Chevys. the bottom line is that engines are engines... period. The brand's reputation has nothing to do with how it performs.

Now, if you want to get technical, lets look at some facts.

In 1970, the American auto industry went from gross HP rating to SAE net. The 400 hp engine in 1969 was now a 320 hp engine in 1970. People blamed it on the emissions requirements of the day, but they were wrong. Let's compare apples to apples:

In 1970, Chevy had a 5.7L engine that produced 325HP based on the SAE net scale. In that same year, Honda had a 1.3L engine that made 64 hp.

Chevy engine = 57 hp/L with a monster-load of torque
Honda engine = 49.2 hp/L with pathetic torque

In 2005, Ford had a 4.6L engine that made 375 hp, and Honda had a 2.3L that made 160 hp.

Ford engine, 81.5 hp/L with a butt-load of torque
Honda engine, 69.5 hp/L with a commensurately small amount of torque.

The bottom line is this: HP and TQ are mathematically linked. There is no escaping the facts. You can have a 300 hp 4-banger in a ricer, or a 300 hp V8 in an american pickup. The bottom line is that they are all suited for their intended purpose. The pickup uses a large displacement so that it can achieve its HP while making low-rpm TQ. The import compact makes its HP at 7000 rpm because it doesn't need loads of low-rpm torque to compensate for its light weight.

I look forward to the day when we are all educated enough to realize that HP and TQ are just numbers, and they are useful only if we apply them to the situation at hand. To say that muscle cars rule, or rice rockets are "bitchin" is completely naive.

Let's grow up, shall we?

For your info Curtis. This thread was joined by Timberland, who died right in the middle of it. HEs been gone these last 2 years and for you to find and post on this thread has brought a smile to my face because, even after Kevin has been gone from us, hes still able to get someones knickers in a twist(ie, yours).

If there were a place hed have gone to and could watch our comings and goings, Hed probably say "Gotcha Curt" or "dont take it too seriously, its only life", somethin like that.

The Doohoo boy has always jumped in on any automotive and bike thread so hes been a lighthearted participant also. You, however, seem to be kinda angry, itll be ok dude I think they already understood your obvious points.

We fondly remember ye Timber.

The insurance companies got rid of the American muscle-car for real reasons. Those things came with engines made for 140 mph (for about half an hour before they blew up) and the rest of the car safe to about 60. I never felt safe driving ANY American made car over 60 mph prior to about 1985. I felt perfectly safe driving an Alfa Romeo or Jaguar or Porsche at 70 - 80 long prior to that because those cars were made to do it, i.e. they had the handling, steering, braking, suspension and everything else to make somebody feel safe doing it.



Funny thing, Americans are driving faster now than they ever did in the glory days of the muscle car because they can sense that the cars being made today are safe at the faster speeds.

Dangit... I hate getting suckered in by old posts that get revived

Oh well, twisted knickers or not, thanks for the debate timber.

you can take that american-bashing bull-jive to someone who is weak minded enough to believe it. the debate is about ricers and muscle cars for one. if you dind't feel safe operating an american muscle car over 60 mph then i have news for you... they aren't intended for the faint of heart. i'm not bashing anyone or their personal prefrences but don't think for a second that you're gonna pull one over on those of us who toyed with these cars since we could get our feet to touch the pedals. my brothers and i have pushed these muscle cars past 120 plenty of times and best part about it is that they never blew up. we rebuilt them when the miles rolled around to it and we rebuilt them correctly. as far as your jaguars go, i raced a teacher (after i was graduated) that i had in highschool , who had a 74 jaguar against my brothers 74 corvette. the vette took the jag by at least 1 1/2 car lengths. granted the jaguar did have taller gears and had a higher top speed if we took them to the salt flats but i'm tellin you that at no point did that vette blow up after going over 60. And i don't know who told you that the insurance companies have any control over the production of muscle cars. the only reason that muscle cars faded out was because the auto manufacterers were put in a pinch when insurance companies jacked up insurance rates due to inexperienced drivers causing accidents and everyone who owned a muscle car payed the price. muscle cars can be brought back and can crank out more horses than ever (pending you have the money), but the muscle cars manufacturers would get screwed over because they would be producing cars that would have heart stopping insurance rates. people who drive american muscle love american muscle because we experienced american muscle.

For one your comparing a vet to a evo lol come on of course the vet will take it its funny how euro cars dont get involved here like audi bmw porsche vs a vet or something but ricer cars are quick and light for being for there price range a lil si b16 or acura gsr b18 are pretty quick i seen some just will simple upgrades taking out mustangs like nothing