Ferrari oil

[Les]

This doesn't have anything to do with Ferrari's but it lists some times for the old muscle cars.

1. 1966 COBRA 427Engine / 425 Horsepower 427 2x4 BarrelAs tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.54 rear Performance / 12.20 @ 118
Drag Test Published / Car and Driver 11/65

2. 1966 CORVETTE 427Engine / 425 Horsepower 427 4 BarrelAs tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.36 rear Performance / 12.80 @ 112
Drag Test Published / Car and Driver 11/65

3. 1969 ROAD RUNNER 440 6BBLEngine / 390 Horsepower 440 3x2 BarrelAs tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.54 rear Performance / 12.91 @ 111.8
Drag Test Published / Super Stock Magazine 6/69

4. 1970 HEMI 'CUDAEngine / 425 Horsepower 426 Hemi 2x4 BarrelAs tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.54 rear Performance / 13.10 @ 107
Drag Test Published / Car Craft Magazine 11/69

5. 1970 SS454 CHEVELLEEngine / 450 Horsepower LS-6 454As tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.55 rear Performance / 13.12 @ 107.01
Drag Test Published / Car Craft Magazine 11/69

6. 1969 ZL-1 CAMAROEngine / 430 Horsepower 427 ZL-1As Tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 4.10 rear Performance / 13.16 @ 110.21
Drag Test Published / Hi-Performance Cars 6/69

7. 1968 CORVETTE 427Engine / 435 Horsepower 427 3x2 BarrelAs Tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 3.70 rear Performance / 13.34 @ 107.5
Drag Test Published / Hi-Performance Cars 5/68

8. 1970 ROAD RUNNER 426 HEMIEngine / 426 Horsepower 426 Hemi 2x4 BarrelAs Tested / TorqueFlite Transmission and 4.10 rear Performance / 13.34 @ 107.5
Drag Test Published / Super Stock Magazine 12/69

9. 1970 BUICK GS STAGE 1Engine / 360 Horsepower 455 Stage 1As Tested / Automatic Transmission and 3.64 rear Performance / 13.38 @ 105
Drag Test Published / Motor Trend 1/70

10. 1969 CHARGER 500Engine / 425 Horsepower 426 Hemi 2x4 BarrelAs Tested / 4 Speed Transmission and 4.10 rear Performance / 13.48 @ 109
Drag Test Published / Hot Rod Magazine 2/69

Les

 

[YZF150]

Hey Les, thanks for that post. Lots of fond memories revived.

That 69 Charger was a nice looking car.

 

[Dan4510]

The critical difference that I think everyone misses in this debate is the fact that one could afford a 60-70's muscle car and then go nuts with it hopping it up. It ends up just a game about money if all that it means is a price tag and you get in and go.

To me, the meaningful part about my fast car is that I built the engine, transmission, rear-end and put it together. I dont think dropping $5-600K will ever give a person that kind of satisfaction. One of the best days of my life was when I had it all together and the 340 started up and loped without even turning the cam over 1 time.

That is what's missing in today's cars....

Dan

 

[Ron-Indy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cary:
So back to your original statement that there is now way that the Mopar car would lose to the Ferrari, I believe you have it backwards. There is not one aspect of the Mopar car that objectively outperforms the Ferrarri, Acceleration, top speed, breaking, slalom speed, lapping speeds,lateral acceleration. [/QB]

---

Cary, We clearly agree, but you miss-quote me. I also said that the was "no way" the Enzo would lose (though I typo'd it as loose) to the Mopar as you state. Even the Viper, which depending on the magazine, can attain stock 11.9 in the 1/4, would lose.

dickwells, understand and also didn't want to misquote you, however the showroom floor statement was what I was commenting on.

 

[metroplex]

More overpriced garbage (the car not the oil).

 

[harrydog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by metroplex:
More overpriced garbage (the car not the oil).

---

The overpriced part might be true but the garbage part? Curious as to why you think it's garbage.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by harrydog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by metroplex:
More overpriced garbage (the car not the oil).

---

The overpriced part might be true but the garbage part? Curious as to why you think it's garbage.

---

I guess it depends on a persons definition of "garbage." If reliability was the only factor I think it would be safe to call any Italian car "garbage." Of course I've owned two Fiats in my life so maybe I'm biased...

Then again, people don't buy those types of cars because they'll be dependable transportation. And they're only overpriced if you can't afford one.

[ August 06, 2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[CJH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan4510:
The critical difference that I think everyone misses in this debate is the fact that one could afford a 60-70's muscle car and then go nuts with it hopping it up. It ends up just a game about money if all that it means is a price tag and you get in and go.

To me, the meaningful part about my fast car is that I built the engine, transmission, rear-end and put it together. I dont think dropping $5-600K will ever give a person that kind of satisfaction. One of the best days of my life was when I had it all together and the 340 started up and loped without even turning the cam over 1 time.

That is what's missing in today's cars....

Dan

---

Dan, I think this is still going on with many of today's cars. While my Honda Civic Si is stock, I have seen many with turbochargers or superchargers (not both on one car!), headers, free-flow exhaust systems, on-board fuel management system, free-flow air intakes, nitrous oxisde, special fuel rails, etc. It is a different art with the new engines, but "hot rodding" cars is still very much alive. Take a look around!

 

[Cary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron-Indy:

Originally posted by Cary:
Cary, We clearly agree, but you miss-quote me. I also said that the was "no way" the Enzo would lose (though I typo'd it as loose) to the Mopar as you state. Even the Viper, which depending on the magazine, can attain stock 11.9 in the 1/4, would lose.

---

Oops, sorry.

I do agree with the other poster here that the Enzo is very expensive and question the price/value. At the same time, if you can afford one, the price value is probably not an issue. I personally feel the current 360 and 550 Ferrari's are much better looking.

Given the budget for an Enzo I would rather plunk my money down on a McLaren F1, which I consider a much prettier car and just about as fast. That said, given a choice of all Ferraris I would buy a 275 GTB or GTC hardtop from the late 60's, front engine, drop dead gorgeous V-12.

Cary

 

[pscholte]

I'll take the '64 250 GTO...in fact I'd take one of each kind: Ferrari and Pontiac...but I want a 67 version of the latter...oh, and since you guys are being nice enough to get these for me, I'd also like a '67 427 Corvette Stingray...

[ August 06, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: pscholte ]

 

[Last_Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:
The amazing thing is that the Ferrari will twist the needle past the 200 mph mark while still wearing a license plate.

I think the Firebird would shake itself to pieces while trying to go 3/4ths that speed for any length of time.

---

Not true Sir!! Lingenfelter has gone very fast on Firebirds and Vettes. While Ferrari's quality (at least fit and finish) is way better than any GM vehicle, there is no need to put the Firebird down like that. I put my Z at 142 MPH in not time at all on I-90....it got there quickly and without breaking a sweat. I'm confident that if I had an opened road to myself, 160MPH would be no problem at all.
Rick

 

[pscholte]

Rick,

The Texas State Patrol will be in touch shortly about a donation.

 

[sub_zero]

Want to **** all over a Hemi - whatever, even the Enzo (less than 100mph only:

Buy a litre class sportbike! Doesn't matter, CBR954RR, GSXR1000R, R1, ZX9R. They'll absolutly RIP the doors off anything Detroit and most of Europe can supply.

No better Bang for the buck IMHO.

 

[harrydog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cary:


Given the budget for an Enzo I would rather plunk my money down on a McLaren F1, which I consider a much prettier car and just about as fast.
Cary [/QB]

---

I agree that the McLaren is an awesome car. But keep in mind that it sold for $300K to $400K more than the Enzo!

 

[yannis]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by harrydog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by metroplex:
More overpriced garbage (the car not the oil).

---

The overpriced part might be true but the garbage part? Curious as to why you think it's garbage.

---

I guess it depends on a persons definition of "garbage." If reliability was the only factor I think it would be safe to call any Italian car "garbage." Of course I've owned two Fiats in my life so maybe I'm biased...

Then again, people don't buy those types of cars because they'll be dependable transportation. And they're only overpriced if you can't afford one.

---

What would you think if i told you that there is an Italian supercar with a Mercedes engine??
The perfect combination ,the latin spirit with the german heart,the dream of the dreams..the design that Ferrari unsuccessfuly tried to copy in the new Enzo...
Pagani Zonda

paganiautomobili.it

 

[Cary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sub_zero:
Want to **** all over a Hemi - whatever, even the Enzo (less than 100mph only:

Buy a litre class sportbike! Doesn't matter, CBR954RR, GSXR1000R, R1, ZX9R. They'll absolutly RIP the doors off anything Detroit and most of Europe can supply.

No better Bang for the buck IMHO.

---

That is the honest to god truth. Last I checked most of the litre sport bikes were pushing 11 second quarters. Only problem is that on twisty roads the car had the advantage of having a larger margin for error and is usually faster. Balls to wall at the track, the bike can more than hold its own.

I'll never forget a good friends dad who drag raced telling me "Don't ever race bikes."

Cary

BTW, from what I understand used McLarens can be had for the low price of $400,000-500,000 US. A great deal if I ever saw one.