Well, at least you're completely unapologetic about your ignorance So what you're saying is there's no room on this board for a fellow Evo enthusiast who actually has a clue about the performance of cars other than the Evo?

 

ignorance? because I said my evo will out handle the pewter c5 in my driveway? and actually as it stands between them, the evo has better straight line than the almighty ls1. Don't expect to come on an evo board and talk down about the forums emphasis, ignorance is bliss enoy.

Btw , buy an LS-1 equipped car and then become its fan boy, owning magazines doesn't say much.

 

Ignorance because it seemed like you didn't own a C5 and had never driven one. Your avatar's a bit squished, so it was hard to see the 'Vette - plus, you don't list it in your profile. Are you actually the owner?

Anyway, I apologize for the poor attitude, but it just gets a little frustrating reading some of the comments here (see the earlier one about a 'Vette being a Cavalier with different bodywork!). I hardly see how I was talking down the Evo - I'm simply being realistic. I love my car but I'm more aware of its capabilities relative to other cars than some of the delusional types around here.

The Evo won't take out an LS1 F-bod or C5 in a straight line. An Evo is a solid low 13-second car, as is any LS1-equipped car. However, some F-bodies and some more C5s have dipped into the high 12's (a 12.89 is the record for a bone stock 98 Z). Moreover, the only reason they're so close is due to the Evo's AWD - from a roll, things get ugly. Do the math - 286hp vs. 350hp and a weight difference that doesn't make up for that.

And I had a 98 Z28 M6 for two years before selling it for my 72 Stingray. My dad also owned an 02 CE T/A. I've been a longtime enthusiast of the F-body, so trust me, my knowledge has nothing to do with magazines.

 

Are you actually trying to say that pushrod engines are a "newer" design than ohc? If you actually think, for one second, that pushrod engines "make more power" than ohc, you must be smoking some really good ****. Pushrod engines are low tech, and they belong in low tech cars. OHC ftw, welcome to the 21st century. You can make a car perform well using old, outdated, and inferior technology, (leaf springs and push rods), however this does not mean that the older technology is better than modern technology. Modern technology has arrived here for a reason. Its superior. Get use to it. The C5 & C6 handle well (in the dry, with slicks) however it is NOT because of the suspension design (the c5 and c6 both still have a lateral leaf spring for christ's sake!).

 

Umm in case you haven't been around long enough to know that STOCK evo's (ix) have dipped into the high 12's bone stock also , I'm filling you in . So yeah your post above is irrelevant. And to whoever said that the leaf-clad suspension of the c6z is inferior to that of an rx-7 (and many other cars) is absolutely correct. That's why it placed 9th in Motor Trend's handling competition (pretty bad huh). They also incorporated pretty much EVERY aspect of handling in the test which was pretty well done, not only what it can do on a track. Here are your links........read up .

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...hlight=scanned

http://www.motortrend.com/features/1...onclusion.html

 

Forgive me, OHV isn't newer than OHC, but there's no significant difference between the two. DOHC has been in use since 1912, only a few short years after the first OHV engines. Still, it's nothing short of hilarious to hear people like you call pushrod engines "outdated"

Did I say they make more power? No - you can essentially make as much power as you want in almost any engine design.

You're clearly just another uninformed fanboy, so I won't bother trying to argue with you. I will say that I believe it speaks volumes when you can't actually refute any of my arguments. You said nothing of reliability, weight, simplicity, efficiency, compactness, etc. etc. Suffice it to say that the LS7 makes close to twice as much power as the 4G and yet achieves very similar petrol mileage.

 

so many gto's from a roll on a closed track, so many times the evo is in front

you sound like a magazine fanboy to me



btw I buy premium unleaded gas, petrol is for wankas

 

Read that before, thanks for the links though. I can't say I put much stock into MT these days anyway. Regardless, it's true that the C6Z's handling feel is never lauded as much as, say, the F430's. That's due in no small part to how easy it is to overpower the rear tires with the amount of torque the LS7 makes. Throw some stickies on there and you'd see some much improved results.

Sure, Evo's have pulled high 12's as well. Now please show me how that's any faster than an LS1 car? Again, the Evo's advantage comes from AWD...from a roll - not that I support roll racing anyway - it won't be so close.

 

So let me guess, that C5 is your dad's, isn't it? It's rather pathetic when the only response to my statements you can come up with is that I "sound like a magazine fanboy." I suppose you have to resort to insults when a cohesive argument can't be formed. It's even more pathetic when you dismiss perfectly logical power-to-weight arguments backed up by personal real-life experience and statistics as magazine racing.

 

By using my insults, I'm just that much better than you

Way off topic, im outta here, congrats to the SAUDIs for a nasty evo, can't wait to see more outta there!

 

Uniformed fanboy? Heres what wikipedia has to say about your beloved OHV:

Limitations

Three specific problems remain with pushrod engines:

* Limited engine speeds or rpm - Pushrod engines have more reciprocating mass, suffer more easily from valve "float", and exhibit a tendency for the pushrods themselves to flex or snap at high engine speeds. Therefore a pushrod engine cannot revolve ("rev") at engine speeds as high as an OHC design. Modern pushrod engines generally rev to 6,000 rpm: compare this to modern OHC engines that can easily rev from 7,000 rpm in average engines to near 20,000 rpm in Formula One racing engines. High-rev pushrod engines have also been developed — in 1969, Chevrolet offered a Camaro Z28 with a pushrod V8 that could rev to 8,000 rpm and the Volvo B18 and B20 engines can rev to more than 7,000 rpm. Various pushrod racing engines are capable of reaching from 9,000 in some series to 10,500 rpm in others.
Because overall power is computed by multiplying torque by revolution speed (hp = (rpm x lbf·ft)/5252), an engine capable of revving higher will produce more power from the same amount of torque than one revving lower. A pushrod engine therefore needs to have a larger displacement to match the power output of an OHC engine. A good comparison would be the 3.9 L GM 3900 Engine to the 3.0 L Honda J-series V6. The smaller (in displacement) Honda Engine produces more power, while requiring less torque to do so.

* Difficulty in using crossflow cylinder heads in straight engine configurations - A few straight pushrod engines have been manufactured with crossflow heads, such as the six cylinder Humber Super Snipe. These engines combined much of the performance of the overhead camshaft with the ease of service of the pushrod, but were more expensive to manufacture than either competing design.

* Limited design flexibility - The biggest benefit of an OHC design is the use of multiple intake and exhaust valves and variable valve timing. Most modern pushrod engines have two valves per cylinder, while many OHC engines use three, four or even five valves per cylinder to achieve greater efficiency and power. Recently, however, GM has begun offering a pushrod V6 with VVT, and Cummins' ISB is a 4-valve pushrod straight-6. For the 2006 model year, General Motors introduced the Vortec 6200. This is the first mass-produced pushrod engine to feature variable valve timing. The system adjusts both intake and exhaust timing between two settings. There is even a company called Arao Engineering that has developed and patented a 32-valve aluminum cylinder head for various pushrod engines like the small/big block Chevrolet engines and Ford small/big block engines.

As you can see, in general pushrod engines are at a distinct DISADVANTAGE. More moving parts, more reciprocating mass, less RPM capability, less flow, less power. Pushrods ARE OUTDATED, ITS NOT OPINION, ITS FACT. Let me guess, you also believe that evolution is also just scientific hogwash?

 

If you can show me how it ISN'T faster than any LS1 car . You still haven't come with any facts to back up your statement, just your mouth. Yet, you're asking others to back up their argument. Hey lets try this for a change, PROVE it, and stop asking others to. Regardless what you think of MT, NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS, AND FACTS ARE FACTS. Numbers hurt don't they when they just don't go your way.

 

Once, again, FACTS. Catching on yet?

 

Er, what the hell? When did I say it WAS faster? I said they're close from a dig, with the nod obviously going to the LS1 from a roll. Try reading my posts properly before you attack me. It's common knowledge that LS1s are solid low 13-sec cars that can run high 12s. What facts need I provide that I haven't already? Apparently I can't assume that common sense and logical prevail here - do you truly need me to prove that when two cars that run side-by-side through the 1/4, one AWD and the other RWD, the RWD car will have an advantage from a roll (gearing issues aside, of course)?

Firstly, the last point regarding VVT was refuted in that EXACT ARTICLE. Note that GM has introduced revolutionary ideas like Displacement-on-Demand as well.

Secondly, sure, anyone knows an OHC engine can rev easier. That doesn't make the engine any better. It's a different philosophy - using a complicated, more expensive mechanical design vs. more displacement. Many of your beloved OHC engines need to run up to 7, 8, 9,000 because they don't make any torque whatsoever down low! Explain to me how putting that much extra stress on the engine by being forced to rev it that high is a good thing?

It's all personal preference, and this argument is useless (if slightly enjoyable). I'm not trying to say one is superior to the other, unlike some of you.

But speaking of facts, please do try and refute my arguments regarding the simplicity, efficiency, low cost, and ease/low cost of maintenance and mods on OHV engines. Maybe you should try coming up with your own arguments this time instead of piggy-backing off other posts? Funny how you didn't touch the cold hard FACT that I mentioned earlier - you know, the LS7 developing close to twice as much power than the 4G and getting equal fuel mileage?

 

HERE is where you said the LS1 is faster . And THERE is your mouth rambling again WITHOUT facts. And why would gearing issues be aside here when we're talking about car v. car huh? Isn't weight a big factor of this equation also? Maybe that could be why YOUR logic could be slighly off. Just food for thought . And yes we would LOVE for you to prove why one thing is better than the other (in this case how an LS-1 eqipped car [trans-am, camaro] is better than an Evo). Than you could shut us all up, so far you haven't been able to do any of the above.