Neon smokes a 'stang gt

[CigarJohnny]

Originally posted by Landshark



everyone knows we're all lesbians.

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

[CigarJohnny]

Originally posted by Shadow248
everyone knows we're all lesbians.

That just made me think. To tell you the truth, I see more lesbian women driving 3rd gen (80's) camaros than mullet wearers. Is that better or worse?

LOL...since the Camaro is considered to be one of the most sterotypical "manly"/"macho" cars, it does make sense when you think about it. The "stereotypical" lesbian (gotta be careful how I word this) dresses in man's clothes (baggy jeans and flannel) and has a short, man's haircut (often a mullet).

[SHISVX]

Originally posted by Landshark
my SVX is fastAr now.......

BARF!!!!!!

alright that is it, who do i talk to about adding another smiley???


Kelli

[CigarJohnny]

Originally posted by Shadow248
The Camaro is a live axle dinosaur that has been tune to just about it's limit.

Ever hear the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? A live axle setup is just about as sports car as you can get. It's light, cheap, rock-solid (the rear in the camaro can handle 500hp from the factory), and also conducts power more efficiently than any other setup there is. The 390hp Cobra has an independent rear and gets smoked by the 345hp live axle Trans Am. Nuff said. The last part of that statement makes me wonder if you know anything about any V8 engine. The factory Camaro SS has a 325hp LS-1 that is well capable of turning over 600hp without any mods to the lower end of the engine. This engine has won more awards than honda's entire line. Bet you didn't know that. Yeah tuned to it's limit.

By definition a sports car is a nimble car with a low center of gravity and is designed with greater focus on agility more so than on straight line acceleration. A solid axle is an outdated design for such use. It is heavy and does not allow for the tires to react individually of each other when encountering bumps, especially in corners. Encountering a bump will effect, most often negatively, the wheel on the opposite end of the axle. An independent suspension will not do this and will enable a sportscar to negotiate a rough corner at a higher speed than an equivalent car with a solid axle.

Every virtue you claimed makes the solid axle design anything but "as sports car as you can get". The virtues you commend for it make it an excellent choice for drag racing alone. If you were talking merely about 1/4 mile racing I would agree with you 100% as you are posilutely and absotively correct. They do not however help you in your arguement that a Camaro is a true sportscar.

Sportscars are not about how much HP a vehicle makes. It is about agility and balance. Something a large-front engined, front transmissioned vehicle can generally not claim. That is why the older Mustang SVO with it's lighter turbocharged engine will outhandle a Mustang Cobra at the race track and on the street. The smaller, lighter engine allows the car to have a more equally balanced front/rear weight ratio. The Corvette is a great handling car because the transmission is mounted in the rear of the vehicle, allowing it to counter balance the large V8 in the front.

The last part of that statement makes me wonder if you know anything about any V8 engine.

Before you begin to question what others know based upon the topic of hand, make sure you understand the topic at hand yourself. Everything you have been using as proof of a Camaro being a great sportscar really only proves it is a great muscle car. I think we all would say that the Camaro is a good muscle car.

[petesvx2]

Originally posted by CigarJohnny
LOL...since the Camaro is considered to be one of the most sterotypical "manly"/"macho" cars, it does make sense when you think about it. The "stereotypical" lesbian (gotta be careful how I word this) dresses in man's clothes (baggy jeans and flannel) and has a short, man's haircut (often a mullet).

Shall we call them...."Shmen"?

[Landshark]

Originally posted by CigarJohnny
The Corvette is a great handling car because the transmission is mounted in the rear of the vehicle, allowing it to counter balance the large V8 in the front.

the current generation Vette does have a V8 in front, and transmission in the rear - like the 928 had........in 1977. GM sure is quick to embrace good ideas. i'm surprised that GM actually uses disc brakes instead of drums.

[CigarJohnny]

The Corvette has had 4-wheel disk brakes since the 1965 model year. I could be wrong but I think it has also had the transmission seperate from the engine and mounted in the rear ever since the 1984 model year. That is one of the reasons (aside form the departure from the traditional Corvette styling) that made it such a heralded and radical change for Chevrolet. It was the year that their stallion became a real sports car and a legitimate challenger to all existing sports cars.

[Landshark]

Originally posted by CigarJohnny
The Corvette has had 4-wheel disk brakes since the 1965 model year. I could be wrong but I think it has also had the transmission seperate from the engine and mounted in the rear ever since the 1984 model year. That is one of the reasons (aside form the departure from the traditional Corvette styling) that made it such a heralded and radical change for Chevrolet. It was the year that their stallion became a real sports car and a legitimate challenger to all existing sports cars.

i thought the C5 was the first Vette with rear tranny, but i don't pay that much attention to them.

[Royal Tiger]

The C5 was the first split drive train in a Vette. The C4 used a conventional layout.

[Shadow248]

By definition a sports car is a nimble car with a low center of gravity and is designed with greater focus on agility more so than on straight line acceleration.

That's a matter of opinion. True sports cars need to be good at both. The Camaro is good in handling, great in power. Relative to some more balanced cars, it's not AS good, but it beats the hell out of family cars, minivans, trucks and standard compacts, thus there's no reason to not call it a sports car. To some people it's not the greatest sports car there is, but it's definetly a sports car.

Sportscars are not about how much HP a vehicle makes. It is about agility and balance. Something a large-front engined, front transmissioned vehicle can generally not claim.

Again, a "true sports car" needs both handling and power. Ferrari 575M. Nuff said. Exact same configuration as the Camaro. Just higher grade schtuff. No one would argue that being a sports car. Let's not argue the definition of a sports car here, that will get us nowhere.

Before you begin to question what others know based upon the topic of hand, make sure you understand the topic at hand yourself. Everything you have been using as proof of a Camaro being a great sportscar really only proves it is a great muscle car. I think we all would say that the Camaro is a good muscle car.

I have been building engines since i started high school, i've worked on and driven real race cars on the track (during sanctioned events), i've sold and serviced the vehicles we are speaking about (Camaro, T/A), i could completely dissasemble and reassemble the engine and suspension of one of these vehicles. I would be willing to bet money that there is no one on this board who knows these cars like i do. Telling me that i don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to the F-bodies, or any GM v-8 motor for that matter, is just plain ridiculous.

My policy is you are innocent until proven guilty. If you have chosen to enter this argument, i assume that you have read what has been said thus far, and knowing that the participants of said argument obviously know a little something about the topic at hand, feel confident that you have something to add, then i assume that you know what you are talking about. That is, until you say something that makes no sense whatsoever. That is why i said what i said, because i couldn't fathom why, if you have been paying attention and do know your stuff, you could have possibly felt that was a logical thing to say. That's it.

A MUSCLECAR IS A SPORTS CAR. It's a TYPE of sports car. I thought everyone knew that.

I'm going to assume that was just an oversight cause you seem like a pretty reasonable and knowledgeable guy. So no hard feelings.

[Landshark]

Originally posted by Shadow248
I have been building engines since i started high school, i've worked on and driven real race cars on the track (during sanctioned events), i've sold and serviced the vehicles we are speaking about (Camaro, T/A), i could completely dissasemble and reassemble the engine and suspension of one of these vehicles. I would be willing to bet money that there is no one on this board who knows these cars like i do. Telling me that i don't know what i'm talking about when it comes to the F-bodies, or any GM v-8 motor for that matter, is just plain ridiculous.

<golf clap> i'm guessing that you have so much of your life invested in these cars that you can't see them for what they are.

[CigarJohnny]

I'm going to assume that was just an oversight cause you seem like a pretty reasonable and knowledgeable guy. So no hard feelings.

No hard feelings at all on my part and I hope the same for you. I never questioned your knowledge of F-body cars or V8s in general. In fact, if I still had my 69 Cutlas convertable and was looking for help in rebuilding/upgrading the motor, I would not hesitate to ask for your advice and/or assistance. I am sure that in your area of focus you are more than competent. That was never questioned.

but it beats the hell out of family cars, minivans, trucks and standard compacts, thus there's no reason to not call it a sports car. To some people it's not the greatest sports car there is, but it's definetly a sports car.

To me that sounds like you are saying that anything that is able to out perform family cars, minivans, trucks and standard compacts can be classified as a sports car. IMO that is rediculous but then that is just my opinion.
A revious statement I made:

I think we all would say that the Camaro is a good muscle car.

Upon reading it I can see that it might have sounded odd. I would correct it by stating that I do think that the Camaro is a great muscle car. Did not mean to offend you by saying it was merely a "good" one (it did sound that way didn't it?).

Again, a "true sports car" needs both handling and power. Ferrari 575M. Nuff said. Exact same configuration as the Camaro. Just higher grade schtuff.

Did you really want to compare an F-body to the 575M??? The 575 has a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. While both cars are front engined, seat 2 or more people, run on gas and have 4 wheels, they are very dissimilar. The 575 has a REAR-MOUNTED transaxle (like the 'ette) and an independent rear suspension. They are hardly the "exact same configuration". If you wish to compare them as similar then I will go straight back to my original statement in this thread. The Camaro is a dinosaur based on it's components. A highly tweaked and competent dinosaur (based on the sum of it's components) but a dinosaur in comparison to modern technology. 575M...please.

As far as a "true" sports car being required to have lots of horse power, you are mistaken. The primary attribute needed for that classification is agility and handling. More HP combined with it simply makes it more desirable to most people. Some of the most cherished and loved "true" sportscars had very little power but handled like they were on rails and gave a sensory input unmatched. The Austin Healey Sprite, the MG's, the MR2 and yes, even the girlie Miata. All of them quintscential sports cars. All low on horsepower.

[Chicane]

My first car was a 68 Charger. It was a musclecar. I would have NEVER called it a sports car.

- Rob

[Shadow248]

<golf clap> i'm guessing that you have so much of your life invested in these cars that you can't see them for what they are.

Sorry, god, can you forgive me?

Since when did you become the authority on what a car "is"?

To me that sounds like you are saying that anything that is able to out perform family cars, minivans, trucks and standard compacts can be classified as a sports car. IMO that is rediculous but then that is just my opinion.

Well i'm glad we can at least find the core of our differences. Here is one. I am speaking of the techical definition of a sports car. The most basic premise behind a sports car is that it is elevated in style and peformance (both power and handling) above what is generally considered "average". The camaro certainly fits that description. I agree then that if you define a sports car only by it's handling and not by power also, then you would not consider a camaro a sports car. IMO that is ridiculous, but as you say, just my opinion. Classically, American sports cars were loved for their power, and European sports cars for their finesse. I'm not going to sit here and argue the evolution of the term, because to me it still is and always will be the same. Honestly this is the first place i have ever heard anyone define it differently.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we all would say that the Camaro is a good muscle car.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon reading it I can see that it might have sounded odd. I would correct it by stating that I do think that the Camaro is a great muscle car. Did not mean to offend you by saying it was merely a "good" one (it did sound that way didn't it?).

I'm not one to split hairs. Good, great, whatever. To many people it is THE muscle car. I'm not going to jump on you for not giving the Camaro what i may feel is it's deserved recognition.

Did you really want to compare an F-body to the 575M??? The 575 has a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. While both cars are front engined, seat 2 or more people, run on gas and have 4 wheels, they are very dissimilar. The 575 has a REAR-MOUNTED transaxle (like the 'ette) and an independent rear suspension. They are hardly the "exact same configuration". If you wish to compare them as similar then I will go straight back to my original statement in this thread. The Camaro is a dinosaur based on it's components. A highly tweaked and competent dinosaur (based on the sum of it's components) but a dinosaur in comparison to modern technology. 575M...please.

Something that perplexed me since this whole weight distribution argument started. You (and many others, it seems) have an entirely distorted view of this car, apparently. The 5th generation Camaro uses the LS-1 V8, which is an aluminum block with aluminum heads. Also the live axle rear end which you pick on happens to be much heavier than the independent setups that all these cars you praise use. So it occurred to me that the car's weight distribution can't be too far off center. As much as i detest spending more than 5 minutes on this argument at a time, i decided to do a quick search to get some hard evidence. I picked the first link i found with the info i needed...

http://www.engine-power.com/chevy/camaro_z28.html

Tada! 55/45 weight distribution. Now you can't honestly sit here and argue with me over 5 measly percent of weight missing from a rear end.

As far as a "true" sports car being required to have lots of horse power, you are mistaken. The primary attribute needed for that classification is agility and handling. More HP combined with it simply makes it more desirable to most people. Some of the most cherished and loved "true" sportscars had very little power but handled like they were on rails and gave a sensory input unmatched. The Austin Healey Sprite, the MG's, the MR2 and yes, even the girlie Miata. All of them quintscential sports cars. All low on horsepower.

Again, all opinion. On my planet, there is alot more comparison on paper than in real life, considering most people only ever talk about these cars and can't really afford to own them. On paper, handling means crap, power is what matters. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but that's the way it is. Plus you must remember you are dogging a car who's handling is better than 90% of the cars on the road anyway. We are discussing the top 10% of cars in terms of performance to begin with. So you still can't say the camaro has bad handling. In driving school, i drove an Integra Type R, and on several occasions, an NSX (Acura sponsored class). I found niether to be as impressive as the WS-6 Trans Am. Not to say the NSX wasn't an awesome car. It would have outhandled the WS6 any day, but just didn't have the brute force to yank it out of corners like the T/A does. See what i mean? In a straight line race, the NSX and WS6 would finish dead even, and in a circuit race, the NSX would be much more sure footed, but the T/A would be able to take it on every turn because of it's torque. While you are "handling" that last turn so well, the "dinosaur" is halfway down the front straight already, and therein lies your problem. I certainly don't mean to say that this would happen with every car you mentioned, but it's a good illustration of my point. Power and handling go hand in hand and are both important in a true sports car.

[Ron Mummert]

With all due respect to the myriads of opinions already expounded, my understanding of the CLASSIC defination of Sports Car had been that an SC was (is?) a two seat, open roadster that emphasized handling & control over passenger comfort & raw power, although power is certainly acceptable. Early Corvettes seemed to fit this formula, until a few curvy roads appeared, to make them a laughing stock to early Porches, Jags, Triumphs & the like. While we may like to consider the muscle car era as America's sports car display, I would say they're more aptly described as "Sporty"cars, or "personal" cars. Sure, as time rolled on, the definations have blurred. The SVX is a "sports car" only in the sense that it looks like one, and if it appeals to that market, so be it.

Ron (Stutz Bearcat lover).