time to PO the ricers

[GhostDakota]

See .. coming over from the muscle/fast V8 car & truck scene, I know a thing or two about this.

Ricer to me can be ANY vehicle, foreign or domestic. It's mainly imports, but there are quite a few domestic ricers as well. Basically a ricer is someone who does modifications to their vehicle that do nothing for them, but they think it's faster. Fart pipe, huge wing, body kit, "cool blue" headlights, big rims, lots fo stickers, etc. This is mainly my opinion, but 99% of the friends I have that own anything from 11 sec '00 T/A WS6's, 11 sec '03 Cobra, my 12 sec Dakota, old ass fast Nova's, Chevelles, etc., etc.

Ricers are slow POS' no matter where they came from.

 

[aspera]

Well that list of cars makes me think of dinosaurs. Sure, they still make the Mustang GT with a V8...but it is outnumbered by a billion to one (and I never exaggerate :laugh3: ) by FWD cars.

The guys with the "show" mods and no "go" mods are usually young and broke. All they care about is attracting attention like a peacock. That's why the loud and flashy mod gets done. They desperately want to impress people.

Since they are typically lower on funds than middle aged guys (who are trying to buy the muscle cars that were hot their senior year in high school), they mod cheaper cars with cheaper parts. That means entry level, high volume cars that are several years old. FWD cars.

Now if domestic V8 guys were really worried about it, they would have demanded more V8 RWD cars over the last few decades. I mean look at Dodge. Early 1980s Mirada? Diplomat? Imperial? Way to keep the torch lit. hahaha Remember what monsters the Mercury Cougars turned into. They used to be better looking versions of a Mustang. The worst thing is that Ford Sierras and Falcons, Holden Commodores and the like were kept out of the US market. Ford should have combined the best of the Mustang, Probe, Falcon, and Sierra. GM should've made the Firebird, Camaro, Monaro, GTO, Commodore, Omega, Impala variations off of the same platform.

Even RIGHT NOW, they continue to make beastly heavy V8 RWD cars. The new Mustang is much lighter than a GTO or Charger, but still portly. That just won't do for a well rounded sports car. Drag strip numbers are nice, but they handle like ass when you get them around some autox cones. They weigh almost twice as much as some 'import' cars, have engines 3x larger, but tires aren't much larger at all. Oops. Wanna slalom for pinks? :laugh3:

Bonus points: Name the current RWD Ford car in Europe. Sorry, no orders are being taken on the Ford GT. That means that there are no RWD Ford cars sold in Europe. That's the future for North America when gas prices really get high. It may happen sooner than you expect. (2010-2015)

 

[Cjmartz2k]

Maybe I'm missing the point of that, but are you trying to say FWD is the way of the future and makes a better handling and more rounded car? If so, that's retarded. You say how many RWD sports cars does ford sell in Europe. Not a lot, because ford doesn't sell many sports cars in Europe period. How many European FWD sports cars are there? NONE. It's funny how the "import" crowd latches on the european sports cars like they are part of there flock, when in actaulity, the only thing they have in common is they are not from america. Any real performance car is RWD. PERIOD. I'll grant you being cheap does help draw the youth market, but the fad of ricers and F&F is the main draw. You can build a Fox body 5.0 for cheaper and faster than any import--that's what I did in high school, and that was after the F&F bomb dropped on the car landscape, so it's not cause I'm old or middle aged or anything (23). The reason the FWD cars outnumber american muscle cars is that ricers consider EVERY CAR a performance car when they throw a fart can on it. Lets make one thing perfectly clear. A civic, neon, accord, or the rest of them are NOT PERFORMANCE CARS!!! They are economy cars. You can put a turbo on them or put a neat 8000rpm engine in them and they will be competitive, but that's not the way 99% of neons or civics come (I was refering to the SRT-4 and SI BTW). You also think because the car is small, it handles well. WRONG. A civic handles like sh!t and so does a neon, and an accord, and every other FWD car out there. The may be decent on an autocross track in a small (and I mean SMALL) parking lot, but not on a real track or even around the skip pad/slalom. You are also just associating weight with size. The Mustang (my fav) is lighter than the GTO, but not by much. But ya know what, the new civic and the SRT-4 aren't as much light as you think. Not even 650 lbs lighter, and usaully a lot less than that. 2877lbs for the SI, 3410 for the V8 mustang (I didn't even cheat and use the V6). That's a lot, but not as much as you made it out to be, and I'd bet the civic is one of the lightest out there. BTW, you might wanna look up the handling stats on the civic SI and the mustang and see who would win through the cones. May I have you pink slip now? BTW, all the Ford GT's are sold and you couldn't get one if you wanted to. There is a British show I see on Okinawa all the time though that reviews cars and the host (a brit) was talking about the GT he had on order and couldn't wait to get. There's one at least. All real import performer are RWD---skyline, supra, 300Z, 180Z, etc or all whell drive. The rest are not performance cars. It is however neat to see what you can do with some of those economy cars, and some can be made to be real fast--but the ricer assertion that american RWD cars are pigs and only good at acceleration is nutz, and is usally what you here right after you just beat a ricer in a drag rice. Sorry if I sounded harsh, didn't mean to, I just get "ranty" on this subject. I like civil discusion, even if I can't stay that way sometimes :kissyou:

 

[XJRocket]

x 10

I drive a cobra mustang. It is all aluminum, 4.6 liter, double overhead cam, V8. The factory fuel cut on my car is 7,200 rpm. The car regularly pulls down 25-30 mpg on long trips. It comes factory with PBR (no not pabst blue ribbon) twin piston calipers and 13 inch Brembo rotors. It weighs 3400 lbs and is the same size as a focus. I have autocrossed this car and it is rediculously fun. Not the fastest I admit, but more fun than most. (I embarrased my buddy in his evo) If you take that car a step farther to the cobra R, look out. add IRS and 75 hp. delete a bunch of weight. This car whooped the Z06 BAD in 2001. IT annihilated the viper. It had FUNCTIONAL bodywork not like those nasty hondas. It needed those wings and spoilers at 175 miles per hour.

Americans still build the best performance for the buck. Period. The new Corvette is rediculous. If you want performance on the cheap, buy a 94 mustang GT for $3500 and order stuff out of a magazine. Not to mention that Whiz-bang IRS from the cobra R is bolt in and can be had for about a grand on ebay. A Cobra R brembo brake kit is a 800 dollar upgrade. Remove the sh!t you don't need, and slap a blower or turbo on the stock motor (which has forged pistons), and tear some sh!t up with a 400 hp (at least) 3000lb RWD moster that can pull a G in the slalom and stop from 60 in 130ft and still run a low 12 second timeslip.

Besides, the best thing about american performance is when you stab the gas and you can see the pee drip out of the pant legs of the ricers around.

By the way this is coming from someone who has owned and raced RX7s, mr2s, and supras. I wouldn't trade my stang for all three together.

THEY HAVE NO SOUL!!!!

One more thing.... Ford has a Metric buttload of RWD cars in europe. Here is the list:

Volvos
Aston Martins
Jaguars

I think those count as a few.

 

[Cjmartz2k]

One more thing.... Ford has a Metric buttload of RWD cars in europe. Here is the list:

Volvos
Aston Martins
Jaguars

I think those count as a few.

O yeah, forgot about those. Thanks!!

 

[aspera]

That's why I phrased my question to exclude the premium brand names. Aston Martin is hardly an affordable car. Neither is Jaguar. My point was to show that affordable V8 RWD cars are (long term) a dying breed. Europe shows that even Ford has given up. The Mustang isn't offered over there. Ask yourself why.

Now let me ask the Mustang owner what V8 RWD car he'd buy if there was no Mustang. Second choice? Third?

Maybe I should have just named the car I was thinking about for the slalom, but the Charger and GTO are so similar. The Mustang doesn't really fit the 2x weight and 3x displacement discription. And yeah, the Civics keep growing and growing. Most cars do that, even the Mustang. I saw an original Mustang on the road the other day next to a new Corolla. The Corolla looked bigger! That's just wrong. :laugh3:

Anyway, my point is that gas prices are going up. We are on the trailing edge of the golden age where you can buy cheap cars with big truck engines. When gas prices get high enough people will be forced into smaller and smaller displacement cars. Meanwhile Honda and the like will have been perfecting the high VE 2.0L four cylinder for decades. Same goes for VW. Right now (when gas is cheap) there is a good arguement for hot rodding the last pony car (Mustang). There are even two 'gentleman's hotrod' muscle cars to choose from (GTO and Charger). It would even be a better idea to hotrod a new big block muscle car...but there haven't been any of those for sale for many years. Those dinosaurs are already dead.

"Any real performance car is RWD. PERIOD."
"All real import performer are RWD---skyline, supra, 300Z, 180Z, etc or all whell drive."
AWD cars are their own group, but are just as linked to FWD as RWD cars. The EVO and WRX are very much built off of economy car platforms (Lancer and Impreza). The Skyline GTR is AWD, only the lesser models are RWD. The 350Z is a six cylinder and the Silvia is a 'four banger'. Out of all the Japanese performance cars that you've listed, NONE of them have a V8. Ask why? Toyota and Nissan make several V8 engines. Toyota even makes a V12. I think it has to do with gas prices and trucks. Would there even be a Mustang GT without billions of F150 trucks? When those truck sales plummet, the Mustang will die.

 

[XJRocket]

Now let me ask the Mustang owner what V8 RWD car he'd buy if there was no Mustang. Second choice? Third?

I can tell you I would never buy a camaro, fireturd, or GTO. Not because they don't perform, but because they are just BUTT. The camaro/fireturd looks like a spaceship and the GTO looks just like a gran prix. blech. If I was going to buy a V8 RWD car besides the mustang, I would probably buy a Lexus SC400. I almost bought one once. They are WAY nice. Same chassis as a Supra but nicer with a V8. Beyond that I would love to get my hands on a new challenger. But if I had to stick with existing cars I would have to go with a used BMW M5 or a C 55 AMG, both of which are V8 RWD. If I had to go cheaper I would prolly go with a Lincoln LS V8, or Jag XKR.

My point was to show that affordable V8 RWD cars are (long term) a dying breed

My point is this. Look at this list of current V8 RWD cars.

Aston Martins
BMWs (upcoming M3, last year's M5, Z8, 740i, etc.)
Jaguar ( XJ series, XJR, XKR, etc)
Mercedes-Benz ( SL55, CL55, C55, S500, CLK55, Do I need to list them all?)
Ferrari (456M just one of several)
Audi (ok they are AWD, S4, S6, S8)
Infinity Q45


And then the Yankees.

Mustang, Lincoln LS, GTO, Charger, Magnum, Crossfire (supercharged six), Corvette, Ford GT.

Now are the american's hanging on to old technology or are they bringing supercars to the working man? The powertrains and chassis in all these cars are all less than 3 years old, with the exception of the LS which is 6 years old. I'd say The stang and goat are walking in some pretty good company.

The Mustang isn't offered over there. Ask yourself why.

And as far as I know, The mustang was never offered in europe anyway.

It would even be a better idea to hotrod a new big block muscle car...but there haven't been any of those for sale for many years. Those dinosaurs are already dead.

There is a brand new 427 cu in V8 powered car on the market. It is the Corvette. Ever heard of it? 2006 marks the return of the 7 liter after a 30 year hiatus. The dinosaurs may be dead, but they come back to life every once in a while to eat an overpriced european sports car.

When those truck sales plummet, the Mustang will die.

Not so. When people stop wanting to kick the crap out of expensive exotics at the stoplight and on the track without sacrificing daily driveability and they grow tired of having a stupid grin plastered across their face the whole time they are behind the wheel, that is when the mustang will die. Trucks have nothing to do with it. Ford does it right. When they designed the new mustang, they got their input on design from asking questions at racetracks. they are drivers cars, designed by drivers.

 

[aspera]

Aston Martin=affordable?

Mustang export: 'export brace', 'Monte Carlo bar'

Corvette Z06 is neither affordable, nor a big block. It might be a bargain for the amount of performance, and has a large Gen4 small block...but not the same as the dinosaurs.

Trucks have everything to do with it. Only 1/3 of the new Mustangs are projected by Ford to be V8. If that were the only car to use that engine, would it be as cheap? No. Production cost is spread out and absorbed by the large fleet of trucks and SUV's. Same goes for the Corvette. Trucks enable it to have a large V8. Think about Hyundai for a second. Wouldn't they just love to have a knock-off of the Mustang GT? Why don't they do it? No trucks, that's why.

Oh, and the new Mustang was designed by an Asian guy.
http://goldsea.com/TAAP/S-V/thaitangh.html

Check out Shinoda's work.
http://www.idavette.net/HistFact/shinoda.htm

 

[xuv-this]

I'm pretty sure that the SRT-4 rally driver (Shepherd) and co-driver (Gladysz) are the guys you need to thank. If I have my info straight, Shepherd is the guy who came up with "turbo toys" for the SRT-4 and Gladysz is the guy who gave us the gift of the 6.1L Hemi.

P.S. I like the way that the latest SRT-4 rally cars are prepped. They cut out the rear parcel shelf and trunk hinges. Hardcore. No hood hinges either!?!

Wings: FWD cars look stupid with, but can actually benefit from a rear wing. FWD cars are always nose heavy and ass-light. They can also have highly angled hoods. The rear wing is needed to balance the downforce (yes, on some hatchbacks) that can generate on an already heavy nose. Of course 200 percent of the FWD cars that you see with wings don't need them.

8000RPM: So, if you gear that down to a Jeep-like 4000RPM you DOUBLE the torque at the wheels. 125ft lbs is seen as 250ft lbs. But of course the Jeep redlines higher....and of course the Honda engine actually makes more torque. "The engine in the 2006 RSX Type-S will be rated at 201 hp at 7,800 rpm and 140 lb-ft of torque at 7,000 rpm." These are the new SAE ratings, too. They are more conservative.

aahhhh....i love this thread, lol. gearing a small motor like that down would still give your max torque way too high in the powerband to really do any good, in addition to having something in the neighborhood of a transfer case that would give it insanely low final drive, and totally mess up the trannie ratios. i see what you're getting at, but that platform just isn't as good performance wise. those things have hella trouble hooking up in the hole because they gotta spin fast enough to burn rubber just to get to that torque to make it out of the hole. the higher energy stored in a faster spinning motor will give you better mpg on such a platform, but they have no bottem end. it's a trade off.
i completely understand the purpose of the wing, but for the $$ invested in making a car handle and be halfway safe at those speeds, admit it. that "heavy dinosaur" of a 5.0 looks better and better. the beefy fox(uni)body has the same wheelbase/susp. specs as the older mustangs. soo many chassis bolt ons to give it adjustable racecar suspension. if you want a really quick car new that will benifit from a wing, buy an audi or a vette. if you want to want to build a car like that, build a stang. the civic doesn't really fit in the picture.

 

[Cjmartz2k]

Amen!! If you want to make a civic or other econo-import fast, good, if your in to that. It can be done. Trying to say however that you get better performance in the end or you can make a civic as fast as a mustang dollar for dollar is wrong and that's what I'm tying to say. Just know what leauge your in and be proud of yourself when your turbo civic beats a bolt on mustang, but don't think you can be in the same league with the same bolt ons. Handling and motor.

 

[aspera]

How the heck (heck!) did I end up defending Honda Civics? :laugh3:

Oh well, I'll at least try to give them a decent defense. Yes, they don't have much low RPM torque compared to...just about anything. But in your example of a low-geared offroader, that weak low RPM torque would be nearly doubled as well. The engine would also rev nearly twice as quick...right into high RPMs. For example, you could poke along at 1500RPM or so in the Jeep with quite a bit of punch available when you stab the throttle. The small 4 cylinder would be revving at ~3000RPM at the same vehicle speed with torque doubled at the wheels. Punch the throttle in the Jeep to jump from 1500RPM to 2500RPM. The 4 cylinder would need to jump from 3000RPM to 5000RPM to keep pace. Both engines would be in their powerbands, but the trick only works if; (1) the gearing is much lower for the 4 cylinder, and (2) the 4 cylinder has a high redline.

The difference is that the Honda head can flow. Add a turbo to it for the above example and see what the numbers are.

For the drag racing example, FWD cars need the least amount of torque to break the front wheels free compared to RWD and AWD cars. AWD cars generally need to rev quite high or else they will bog or spin. RPM depends on the engine and tires used, but all things being equal a FWD car will need the lowest RPM for a launch.

Let me bring up a point here. No FWD street car has ever been built the way it should. Only one car has ever been built with a reverse stagger wheel and tire setup, and that was weak. The front tires need to be huge.

 

[Cjmartz2k]

It's not that they NEED less rpm to break'em free and get a good luanch, it's they CAN"T rev any higher because of lack of traction do to weight transfer to the rear. You WANT to launch at the highest rpm/power your traction will allow.

 

[xuv-this]

ditto. the really quick nhra drag rice have wheelie bars to prevent the rear from sinking a lot.
and
1)the powerband would still out run the ratios. 1st gear would be usless.
1)nobody makes gearing that low for a 4 popper
2) the top speed would be what? 60mph?
3) that kinda annuls the mpg advantage of "hot rod rice"

i agree on the "No FWD street car has ever been built the way it should" comment. those unibodies would be hella strong with a good 1.5" cromo cage. would really compliment an adjustable suspension and help traction out of the hole. but nobody makes one off the shelf. but there are several for the 5.0

 

[aspera]

I just read an article on the new Wrangler. The 'venerable' 4.0L I6 gets replaced by a 3.8L minivan V6. "This means you get a higher revving engine that won't match the low-end torque of the inline six, so some sort of gearing compromises will have to be made." ---4Wheel&Off-Road.

So, remember that when you are drooling over the new Wrangler Rubicon parts. They are 'compromises'. :laugh3:

Seriously though, the new Wrangler is 300lbs heavier. I think that speaks volumes. The smaller, more efficient engine can get the job done just fine if the gear ratios are tailored for it.

 

[Cjmartz2k]

I was suprised to see how much TJ's actually weighed. Mine tipped the scales @ 3600 with street tires and not a lot of beefier suspension/bumpers/subs/gear. Yeah, they are going to have to comp. with the gears. If they put the diesel that's in the liberty though................:guitar:

 

[xuv-this]

I just read an article on the new Wrangler. The 'venerable' 4.0L I6 gets replaced by a 3.8L minivan V6. "This means you get a higher revving engine that won't match the low-end torque of the inline six, so some sort of gearing compromises will have to be made." ---4Wheel&Off-Road.

So, remember that when you are drooling over the new Wrangler Rubicon parts. They are 'compromises'. :laugh3:

Seriously though, the new Wrangler is 300lbs heavier. I think that speaks volumes. The smaller, more efficient engine can get the job done just fine if the gear ratios are tailored for it.

i read that last week! they really polished the turdly d35 didn't they? i'm not sure about "more efficient" though. guess that's a matter of opinion. the 4.0 has the low end of a lot larger motor. i still don't think that the new geared motor will be as good. too bad that it couldn't meet emmissions. i've heard that the tooling was worn out, too. i still don't like that new motor, though. oh well, at least it's not a gm v6.:laugh3:

 

[aspera]

i'm not sure about "more efficient" though. guess that's a matter of opinion. the 4.0 has the low end of a lot larger motor.

Yes, it has the low end of a lot larger motor at the expense of top end. In fact, it has the top end of a lot smaller motor (which is what we've been discussing). Biasing the "sweet spot" of the powerband so low has consequences. The engine can't operate efficiently at high rpm. The cam is all wrong. The head is all wrong. The valves are all wrong. The intake manifold is all wrong. They work pretty well at idle, but not near redline. And redline on the 4.0L is damn low. If that was the best way to build an engine, then all the little 4 cylinders would be the same as the Jeep lump but with 2 cylinders whacked off. :wierd:

I don't know much about the 3.8L V6, but I'd guess that it is slightly biased for low end torque...just not as much as the 4.0L. The difference is that it can likely rev and flow. Looks like it is still a pushrod V6 96mm bore x 87mm stroke. 98.4mm x 86.7mm for the 4.0L inline six. That's odd. You'd think that the 4.0L HO engine would have a longer stroke. Oh, here it is. The AMC 258ci version of this engine DOES have the longer stroke and makes peak torque at less than 2000RPM, instead of the lofty 4000RPM of the 4.0L. So, Jeep has basically already proven my point over a decade ago.

 

[xuv-this]

i see what you're saying, but you're missing the point of it being inline. that's where the torque comes in. 99% of big truck deisels are inline 6. because that's the most reliable way to make good torque. the top end is a i'm gonna guestimate about 30% low on the high end for it's size on today's average because it's redline about 60% of what those little 4 bangers go to. it doesn't need to go that fast to make the power. why put more wear and tear on a motor that you don't have to? so 1) reliability 2) torque where you need it-idle up, it just fits the jeep platform better, unless you look at the gay-j as a viable 4 wheeler platform. the v6 is flawed for long term reliability by nature. sure, you can "polish it" but in a v shape, 8 is the only way to go for an evenly harmonicly balanced motor that makes decent torque and lasts near forever. just like the inline 6 design will always be better for a torque to displacement ratio-all 6 cylinders fire straight down square against the mains. not gonna balence very well at 7000+ obviously, but the force on the block gets distributed a lot more evenly.

 

[Cjmartz2k]

I rev my I6 past 7k rpm all the time, and it lasts, and also it has no low end torque.. It's in my Skyline though :laugh3: I don't think I agree that an I vs a V configuration matters very much. I think it's deplacement, head flow, cams, etc. that matter. Just my opinion.

 

[xuv-this]

my my my. this conversation is getting more and more interesting... your motor is another type of inline 6. it's called undersquare. in a oversquare motor the stroke is longer than the bore is wide. in an undersquare motor it is vice versa. those vw, nissan and yota i6 motors are all pretty undersquare. the 4.0 is roughly square, and the ol' 258 and the ford slant 6 is slightly oversquare. the "squareness" of the motor determines a good portion of the torque to displacement ratio. follow so far?
now here's the key to it all: combining the following to create reliability. it is assumed by a lot of people that those japenese motors spool up so well because they're so small. this is not true. it's because they're undersquare. you can get any sbc to do the same. the more oversquare a motor is, the more it will want to vibrate at higher rpm. the neat thing about the inline is that all cylinders push the same way. this is more efficient torque-wise because the crank is not fighting the compressing in the non-firing cylinders in but 1 direction. now, combining the long stroke and (more)torque efficient design, you might see why virtually all "million mile" turbo deisels use that setup.
so what's up with the v6 deisel? the v6 deisel block is a lot heavier duty, due to the much higher compression then a gas v6. but their relaibility still sucks when compared to inline deisels. the v6 gas design is too short too apply sufficient vibration dampening to a good ole' oversquare torque monster. so they are built to at a run higher range. but the limit there is that they can't reliably rev really high because basically 3 on each side is an odd number on a 4 stroke, and when 1 piston fires, the others are at funky 60* angles, and not good' ole 90 or 45* this is kinda hard to explain, but the vibrations don't line up opposite one another and attempt to cancel each other out. ford and aaahhh nissan i think have tried out high rpm v6's before and they were discontinued. the inline 6 will rev pretty high if it is pretty undersquare, because the long line of mains makes it more stable. but it is still limited by vibration. the lowly 4 popper however, will be hard to beat for high revving potential. i hope this makes sense, lol.