vid; 69 Camaro vs Supra

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
It looked like the bum driving the supra really blew the start. Even if the camaro is faster off the line, I would love to see those same two cars have a rolling start at 70 mph, which would be the sweet spot for the TT supra. That race was the sweet spot for the camaro, both beautiful cars designed for two very different purposes. Nobody seemed to notice huge tires on the back of the camaro and street tires on the supra did they? BTW, stock for stock, there would be no competion between the 2, the Supra would own.

I disagree with this line of reasoning.

First of all, the Supra owner obviously agreed to the race, so it's not like he was there against his will. Drag races don't start at 70mph, and they did not race from a 70 mph roll, so that's irrelevant.

As for being stock, nobody wants to race stock cars. The Supra owner knew that the Camaro wasn't stock, so he wasn't fooled into racing a car that he thought was stock.

I always go by the old saying "run what you brung." There's no consolation prize for the guy with the best excuse.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Looks like the camaro had much more done under the hood than the supra. I wonder what the results would be like if the supra owner spent as much time/money on his car.

Mod for mod, dollar for dollar, the Camaro would spank the Supra as far as you want to go. Assuming you didn't go past Pro Street class, the Camaro would end up at 8 seconds and the Supra at 9.

It's only stock for stock where the Supra would win, and that's mostly because the Supra is 30 years newer technology at a much higher price tag (even adjusted for inflation -- if still sold brand new, a Camaro 350SS would be ~$25k today while the Supra would be ~45k).

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
The guy in the Supra probably got spooked when he heard the Camaro's exhaust note under full throttle. I'm not kidding.

If you've ever been next to a highly modified drag car with fairly unrestricted exhaust under full throttle, you know what I'm talking about. It produces deafening acoustic waves that go through your chest wall, even when you're inside another car. It can rattle your cage a bit unless you're accustomed to it.

You have a point there, I've had it happen to me. I raced a loud Mustang 5.0 at the dragstrip and it deprived me of a lot of feedback that I'd normally get from the car. Usually I listen to the engine instead of looking at the tach, and I can hear/feel if my car is hooking up or not. The Mustang was so loud that I couldn't tell how high my engine was revving and I couldn't hear/feel if my car was hooking up or not.

 

[Vic]

Gots to watch your own tree...

 

[CraigRT]

I love the Camaro
but too bad it wasn't a Mopar e-body..

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Looks like the camaro had much more done under the hood than the supra. I wonder what the results would be like if the supra owner spent as much time/money on his car.

Mod for mod, dollar for dollar, the Camaro would spank the Supra as far as you want to go. Assuming you didn't go past Pro Street class, the Camaro would end up at 8 seconds and the Supra at 9.

It's only stock for stock where the Supra would win, and that's mostly because the Supra is 30 years newer technology at a much higher price tag (even adjusted for inflation -- a Camaro 350SS would sell for ~$25k today while the Supra would be ~45k).

I disagree with that. The Supra is turbocharged so big power gains are possible without even adding/changing any parts. On a turbo car like the Supra you can increase the boost to give a huge bump in power, and the Supra has 550 cc injectors stock so you can increase the boost quite a bit without worrying about detonation. And on a Supra, you don't need a boost controller (with stock turbos) because the turbos will max out before the injectors will. Simply pull the wastegate hose and you'll have about 450 hp.

 

[Ornery]

Good lord, the Supra is overclocked outta the box and cost double what an easily buildable Chevy did!

You never make any sense...

Pretending not to understand doesn't change facts. FWD unibodies are weenie, weak, buzzboxes, that are cheap to build, but time consuming to repair. God forbid you hit a pothole or two, not that our roads are really that bad. :roll:


You engineer the machine to fit the needs of the job.

If I can buy a car built as sturdy as a truck, for the same price as a wimpy econobox, I'll do it!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Looks like the camaro had much more done under the hood than the supra. I wonder what the results would be like if the supra owner spent as much time/money on his car.

Mod for mod, dollar for dollar, the Camaro would spank the Supra as far as you want to go. Assuming you didn't go past Pro Street class, the Camaro would end up at 8 seconds and the Supra at 9.

It's only stock for stock where the Supra would win, and that's mostly because the Supra is 30 years newer technology at a much higher price tag (even adjusted for inflation -- a Camaro 350SS would sell for ~$25k today while the Supra would be ~45k).

I disagree with that. The Supra is turbocharged so big power gains are possible without even adding/changing any parts. On a turbo car like the Supra you can increase the boost to give a huge bump in power, and the Supra has 550 cc injectors stock so you can increase the boost quite a bit without worrying about detonation. And on a Supra, you don't need a boost controller because the turbos will max out before the injectors will. Simply pull the wastegate hose and you'll have about 450 hp.

Old Chevy parts are cheaper, the Camaro has more displacement, and you can always put a blower on a very well-built 350 4-bolt and push it up past 1000 hp.
Sure, I'll agree that there's a curve involved. If all you did was put new exhaust on both cars, the Supra would still win. I'll agree to that. But once a relatively small amount has been spent, say about $3-4k, the Camaro is gonna begin to pull ahead and not look back.

 

[imported_Reck]

A supra is moddable all the way up to 1200+ horsepower so I SERIOUSLY doubt that. Haha and throw them both on a road course and the supra will spank the daylights out of the camaro.

 

[Ornery]

If it costs twice as much from the get go, it's ALWAYS going to be WAY BEHIND in the bang for the buck issue.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Reck
A supra is moddable all the way up to 1200+ horsepower so I SERIOUSLY doubt that. Haha and throw them both on a road course and the supra will spank the daylights out of the camaro.

:roll:

You know nothing of what you speak.

First, a Chevy small block will go WAY beyond 1200 hp. I was talking about being reasonable. People have been wrenching seriously on those things for 40+ years. It's all been done so the only limit to what you can do is your wallet.

Second, Camaros were originally built by Chevy to run the road course SCCA Trans-Am circuit, where it won the championship in both '68 and '69 (it won half the races in '69). Once again, the only limit to how well a Camaro can handle is the owners wallet.

edit: and on the other hand, the Supra is considered a rather poor handler by Japanese sports car standards.

 

Originally posted by: Ornery
Good lord, the Supra is overclocked outta the box and cost double what an easily buildable Chevy did!

You never make any sense...

Pretending not to understand doesn't change facts. FWD unibodies are weenie, weak, buzzboxes, that are cheap to build, but time consuming to repair. God forbid you hit a pothole or two, not that our roads are really that bad. :roll:


You engineer the machine to fit the needs of the job.

If I can buy a car built as sturdy as a truck, for the same price as a wimpy econobox, I'll do it!

A car as sturdy as a truck for the same price as a wimpy econobox? Do you understand the statement I made? Apparantly you don't, or you wouldn't have made such a mindless (yet very typical ornery) retort.

You engineer the machine to meet the needs of the job. Please, read that a few times and attempt to comprehend. If you need to, go pick up your 1971 websters unabridged dictionary and the 1982 set of encyclopedia britannia you bough from a door to door salesman, to understand.

Sure, and that supra will run to 250K miles, while thoes chevys will struggle to make 100K. On top of that the supra and many other foreign sports cars are RWD. So what exactly is your point? That RWD is a superior platform for performance? Well thank you very much capn obvious. Is that all you have to add, as usual?

You use the word "facts" very liberally. When in reality it's just your opinion. I know that you understand the difference and just act like a weenie on the forums. What are the facts then?
I know one fact, you're a hopeless old timer who is constantly in denial and pissed off because he can't understand even the most base level engineering or mechanics of todays machinery. The only thing I hope is that your children don't follow in your dinosaur like footsteps.

I personally own a subaru, which you would immediatly classify as a weak weenie buzzbox that can't handle a pothole and couldn't go offroad if you needed it to. Unfortunatly that is very far from the truth, though you will be ignorant to that truth by choice.

 

[91TTZ]

The Supra handles pretty well. Better than it looks.

 

[Vic]

I wouldn't argue that a Supra will last to 250k miles. It's not a Camry yaknow.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Do you understand the statement I made? Apparantly you don't, or you wouldn't have made such a mindless (yet very typical ornery) retort.

You engineer the machine to meet the needs of the job. Please, read that a few times and attempt to comprehend. If you need to, go pick up your 1971 websters unabridged dictionary and the 1982 set of encyclopedia britannia you bough from a door to door salesman, to understand.

Weren't you flaming me last night for making similar types of statements to that other poster?

 

[Ornery]

He doesn't want to admit that V8, full framed, RWD vehicles are more sturdy than the highly engineered econoboxes we're now plagued with. They're "good enough", and that's all that matters!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ornery
He doesn't want to admit that V8, full framed, RWD vehicles are more sturdy than the highly engineered econoboxes we're now plagued with. They're "good enough", and that's all that matters!

God, I'm arguing both sides now.

"Good enough" is all that matters, Ornery. But to really address your argument, I think you should know that engine configuration and drive wheel placement have absolutely nothing to do with "sturdiness", and full framed has no advantages over unibody in a passenger vehicle (in fact, a 67 Camaro is a unibody).

 

[icejunkie]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Reck
i'd still take the supra anyday.

 

[Ornery]

It's half unibody, and suffered from it, too.

The "engineering" in econoboxes, is there to suit manufacturers' bottom line, and CAFE standards, not the consumer. As a consumer, you're stuck with a 70K timing belt replacement, pain in the ass access to the engine, thanks to the tranny being crammed in with it, expensive electric radiator cooling fans, instead of a cheap belt driven fan, expensive McPherson struts instead of coil over shocks, expensive CV joints instead of cheap U-joints, and mounting the damn thing on a huge hydraulic jig to realign it after a minor accident... etc. etc. Uh, those are facts!

 

Weren't you flaming me last night for making similar types of statements to that other poster?

I have a history with ornery. You have nothing, with anybody.

He doesn't want to admit that V8, full framed, RWD vehicles are more sturdy than the highly engineered econoboxes we're now plagued with. They're "good enough", and that's all that matters!

No, again, if you understood my statement you would know that I already agree on that point, and I have agreed on that point all along. Of course v8 full framed rwd vehicles are more sturdy than smaller uniframed 4 cylinders. If you would shut your trap and listen for a minute then your posts wouldn't be filled with constant miscues.

I'll quote myself again, because your reading comprehension has dropped to a new low.
"You engineer the machine to fit the needs of the job."

Do you know what that means? Can you see beyond "get the largest, heaviest, strongest machine you can buy", ideal for a minute? Sorry single working women, you don't need a full size drive to drive into downtown metropolis for work. No you don't need a full size pickup truck to go grocery shopping. No you don't need a full size pickup truck to run errands around plastic packaged suburbia.

 

[Ornery]

I don't want even an economy vehicle built around that lame ass "engineering! I want the wheels driven from the rear, and a full frame no matter how small it is. I was no fan of the Nova and Camaro/Firebird hybrid chassis either!

 

[bret]

supra didnt stall...just got its a$$ whopped by a monster with some sticky tires. and i have other race vids with that camero.. its like 800hp

but id still take a supra over almost anything

 

[flot]

I got absurdly owned by some POS old rustbucket camaro on the highway once in my 400HP 300ZX - the guy pulled up next to me and I didn't even think twice about it, he stomped on the gas and was just gone, lol. There was no way I would have kept up... I was just like "....damn."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ornery
It's half unibody, and suffered from it, too.

The "engineering" in econoboxes, is there to suit maufacturer's bottom line, and CAFE standards, not the consumer. As a consumer, you're stuck with a 70K timing belt replacement, pain in the ass access to the engine, thanks to the tranny being crammed in with it, expensive McPherson struts instead of coil over shocks, expensive CV joints instead of cheap U-joints, and mounting the damn thing on a huge jig to align it after a minor accident... etc. etc. Uh, those are facts!

Why do you keep arguing for an inferior car that would be more expensive to build?

To address your "facts" one by one:
- How did the Camaro suffer from being unibody? For its time, it handled very well with excellent power and weight. Like I already said, you don't see a lot of full framed race cars...
- Most timing belts require replacement at 100k miles, at a cost of about $400 bucks. In return for such low cost long interval maintenance, you get a quieter engine with a lighter, less power-robbing valvetrain for a less expensive manufacturing cost.
- For regular passenger use, FWD is superior because it provides better traction and takes up less space, at lower cost and weight, and gives low-traction handling that is more intuitive for the inexperienced driver (and thus safer).
- McPherson struts are not expensive, especially because they eliminate the need for an upper control arm, and have less camber change per range of motion, providing for better handling (and thus are safer).
- And finally, U-joints are Model T era crap compared to CV joints. I feel there's no need for me to even elaborate on that.

 

The "engineering" in econoboxes, is there to suit maufacturer's bottom line, and CAFE standards, not the consumer. As a consumer, you're stuck with a 70K timing belt replacement, pain in the ass access to the engine, thanks to the tranny being crammed in with it, expensive electric radiator cooling fans, instead of a cheap belt driven fan, expensive McPherson struts instead of coil over shocks, expensive CV joints instead of cheap U-joints, and mounting the damn thing on a huge hydrolic jig to realign it after a minor accident... etc. etc. Uh, those are facts!

You make the same blind assertions in every car thread. In every thread you get shot down. Then another thread pops up, and you spew the same worthless garbage.

What the consumers want, drive what the manufacturers produce. If the consumers still wanted the crap you say they should want, then the market would be flooded with that product, everyone would be using it, GM and the big4 would still reign supreme and you would not be bitching about it. Guess what, it's not working that way is it? You keep mixing up your "facts" with your opinion.

There are plenty of full size vehicles around today, and they are in the form of SUVs. Funny, most of them still use the same technology you mention in your posts. Then they take it a step further with this magical thing called NEW TECHNOLOGY. Ya know, the new stuff that comes out when we figure out something better?

If we all lived in ornery world, we wouldn't have the internet, digital anything, planes would all be using propellers, children would study the bible in school, car would all be inefficient hunks of moving metal, all golf clubs would be wooden, and america would run the world.

I don't want even an economy vehicle built around that lame ass "engineering! I want the wheels driven from the rear, and a full frame no matter how small it is.

This is the summation of your existance in -all- car threads. You want what you want, no matter how stupid it is. So nothing you say is fact, its all opinion.