fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21896
|
posted March 03, 2003 06:56 PM
Dodge SX 2.0 Commercial Bullshit
Gimmie a break... they say :
"the thrill of one hundred thirty two horsepower beneath your feet"
???
who the fuck do they think they're fooling??????????????????????
are they on crack or something?????
   
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 03, 2003 07:26 PM
naw. as evidenced by the commercial, it's a real shitty ad agency, hence all the employees are poor & drive Geo Metro's with their incredible 50hp. so to them, the SX is akin to a ferarri!
and they cant afford to buy crack.
or maybe they do, and thats why they'r so poor they have to drive the metro's
|
harryzx-12
Needs a job
Posts: 3643
|
posted March 03, 2003 08:16 PM
Is dodge making a lawnmower now? 132hp would mow grass quite well! 
____________
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways- Body thoroughly used up, totally worn out...Screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride !!!"
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted March 03, 2003 08:37 PM
Thats about 80 hp more then our enviornmental folks want us to have.
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
sagot
Zone Head
Posts: 779
|
posted March 04, 2003 12:11 AM
You watch way to much t.v. dude!
____________
Blank
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 07, 2003 07:43 PM
My father recently retired from Chrysler and I'm here to tell you as one frustrated Mopar fan that Chrysler's been letting down folks for a long time. Back in the late 60's and early 70's it was tough to beat a Plymouth. In every street class there was a car that was kicking major butt!! From the "little" 340 4-barrell up to the 426 Hemi 6-pack there were engines for every class and all of them did their owners proud.
In 1987 Ford had the Mustang 5.0L GT, Chevy had both the I-ROC Z-28 (5.7L) and the Monte Carlo SS, Buick had the Grand National (and GNX) and Pontiac had the almighty Firebird Trans-AM GTA (5.7L). It seemed like every company had a car that was taking care of business except Dodge (which was still playing around with a turbocharged 4-cylinder they created in '84).
In the fall of '87 I asked my father if Chrylser planned on introducing a V8 powered street car to compete with the likes of the Mustang GT and the I-ROC Camaro Z-28. These were his exact words: "Richard, Chrysler is looking into the future. No body wants a hot rod anymore, they want family cars. Chrylser has shifted its focus to women and families." I was devastated.
Even when Chrysler won the I-ROC championship from Chevrolet in 1991, it didn't translate into a V8 for the street. It translated into a fourth generation turbocharged 4-cylinder. The little turbos were quick in the quartermile but after that they were TOAST when running against a V8. I know, I owned a 5-speed Dodge Daytona Turbo Z in 1987. In race, after race, after race I would jump out early (while the bigger cars were spinning their tires) but get swallowed whole down the stretch. And forget about it if the race started while we were already running at highway speeds. The V8s would just keep pouring on the power while the little turbo struggled just to maintain a respectable showing.
When Chrysler finally did introduce faster cars for the street they came in the form of a $30,000 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin Turbo and a $65,000 Dodge Viper; two cars that were way out of John Q. Public's spending range.
Chrysler is nothing more than an advertising firm that doesn't deliver. It's been that way since the late 70's.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why many automobile drivers don't understand motorcyclists. Drivers want their ears tickled. They want to hear things like crank horsepower and torque (but they don't care about how much reaches the pavement). They love reading 0-60 and quartermile tests (but will rarely ever see if their cars can achieve those numbers). It's enough for them to watch a commercial about their cars performing well (with a professional driver on a closed course). The entire industry is driven commercially from a Marketer's standpoint and drivers buy it wholesale.
Bikers want the real deal. We want rear wheel horsepower (so we know what's getting to the street). We take our bikes to the strip and to the dyno and run them so we know whether the company's claim is legit or not. We go out and run our bikes hard and fast to feel the bike's power and stability rather than watch a commercial on it (with a professional on a closed course). Can you remember the last time you watched a bike commercial that listed everything about a particular model (like a car commercial does)?
The automobile industry is driven by marketing and commercialism. The motorcycle industry is driven by performance and proof. That's why bikes get lighter, faster, better and more different every year while cars look more and more like one another and perform only to the standard of the model's particular class.
I'll now step down from my soap box. Sorry.
RW
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted March 07, 2003 08:08 PM
The car industry is very interesting indeed. I red a book a few years ago when the current body style Vette was released. The book is called all Corvettes are Red. A really good book. It dealt with the history and evolution of the vette and especially the new Vette. And interestingly in the book they explain about how GM set a team up to design the new Vette and then in the middle of the process they decided that the program should be stopped and the Vette was essentially go to die out. The groupd that were involved in designing it took the prject litterallly underground in GM's facility and kept on going. When they finally finihed and rolled out the prototype the GM EXECs said let's make it!
Sure glad those guys wern't the soccer moms working at Chrysler!
____________
To those who do not count their life in years, but in how life
has touched them in the past and how much it can hold in the
future; -- Youth is forever.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 07, 2003 08:54 PM
Great write up Fast - I used to like that little Shelby Omni GLH Turbo thingie in the 80's - remeber that? Little pocket rocket was FUN, not like the v8's to be sure, but fun. Wonder what happened to those little suckers??
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 07, 2003 09:08 PM
Yeah Dealthpulse, I remember those things. The best thing that happened to Chrylser in the '80s was Carroll Shelby. Sadly, Chrysler didn't hand over one of the 318 cc engines to him that they were putting in the New Yorkers at that time. He would have been able to work wonders with that.
You can still find those GLHs around every now and then. I saw a Shelby Charger not too long ago. It was impressive to see it still running.
RW
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 17, 2003 07:11 PM
Not to drag out a thread (especially about cars) but look what GMC did with the Impala SS. From 1994 to 1996 they built a car based on the Chevy Caprice Classic that had a strong 350 c.i.d. V8. The thing was as huge as a boat but could get from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and manage a 15 second quarter mile on its way to a 150 mph top speed. This was the perfect car for Dad. It could carry the whole family and all the groceries but if the urge was there it was a road ready rocket ship.
Chevy stopped building that car and had the audacity to place the Impala name on a weak V6 that looks like everything else on the road. It has that blend-in, non-descript, plain-Jane, plastic-cheap look that all Chevys have. Boy, was I disappointed in GMC when they made that move.
RW
|
Chicken Hawk
Parking Attendant
Posts: 5
|
posted March 18, 2003 04:07 AM
quote:
Great write up Fast - I used to like that little Shelby Omni GLH Turbo thingie in the 80's - remeber that? Little pocket rocket was FUN, not like the v8's to be sure, but fun. Wonder what happened to those little suckers??
I just sold an 86GLH-T(urbo)( non-shelby). One of my buddies has an 86GLH-S(helby)that runs 12's. Scares the shit outta Vettes and the likes. A clean low mileage all original 86 GLH-Shelby will bring you about 10g's and they are becoming collectible.
|
TurboBlew
Moderator
BUSY DOING THE SCHIAVO
Posts: 4590
|
posted March 18, 2003 05:36 AM
Only problem with the "big" V8s is that the market is not growing like it is for the little 4 banger Hondas, Neons, etc.
I always like the 4cylinder turbos that Dodge had. Sure the non intercooled, suck through, turbos ran out of steam after 100mph, but thats when its time to put a bigger turbo and intercooler on it.
Those cars were advanced way more than my buddies IROCs and T/As of the late 80s. It just took alittle more technical finesse to get the HP out of a 4cylinder.
____________
Official Charter Member of the RIDERS OF KAWASAKI MEMBERSHIP REVOCATION CLUB
Also a BadAss Internet Forum Moderator 4 Hire!! Come at me brah!
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:46 PM
I can see where you're coming from on the market growth TurboBlew. The smaller Japanese techno racers definitely have the edge right now. I drove a 1987 Turbo Z and while it was more advanced than the bigger, more conventional muscle cars, I felt no better about it while I was staring at tail lights as the V8s were pulling away.
I think that the V8s have priced themselves out of the market. Now a Ford Mustang GT is so expensive who can really drive and insure it? Same thing with the Z28 and the Firebird. I think if these cars were more reasonably priced we would see a strong market for them still thriving.
RW
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 18, 2003 07:57 PM
The other thing I've noticed is that some of the new 4-bangers have a HELL of a lot of HP, even compared to the V8's of today - check out the new Subaru Impreza WRX STi. That little thing kinda makes me think "omni GLH-S" of today... its got 300HP/300 torque I think, and its AWD for around 30K loaded. Man, if I had some loose change, I think I'd actually consider one, not casue I think cages are fast, but this one looks so damn FUN. Are the American car companies workin on things like this? I'm so out of the performance car loop, I don' teven know  .
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 21, 2003 06:32 PM
That's a good point Death and it pisses me off that once again America has decided to rest on its butt while the Japanese companies pick the ball up and run.
A 440 Magnum, 6-pack engine makes almost as much horsepower as it has cubic inches. A 426 Hemi makes even more. Why is it that America just doesn't confront the issue of these high compression, turbo-charged racers with good ole' fashioned cubic inches? With today's technology it would be an open and shut deal.
Imagine having a fuel injected, 440 cubic inch, double overhead cam, 32 valve, aluminum block and head V8 with ram air mated to a high strength, 6-speed transmission linked to a posi rearend with a final drive ratio of something like 3.70. It would be mayhem. No head start that any of the Japanese techno racers could establish would be enough. Once the big V8 grabbed (somewhere in 3rd gear) it would blow passed the little turbo like it was standing still. An engine like that would produce well over 400 horses an would be capable of speeds approaching what our bikes do.
Someone may say "I would just add nitrous to my Honda." Well guess what, the big V8 would come with all of the hardware in the trunk so the owner could bottle-up whenever he felt like it. Now we're talking what, 550 hp, 600? And the V8 would again dominate. Owners of Japanese techno-racers would have to START with $10,000 in upgrades just to compete. Since most of these guys are young "Fast and the Furious" wannabees, those kinds of upgrades would be a little out of their adolescent reach.
But this is America; Land of the Minivan. My dreams are merely the ramblings of a Detroit kid who can't let go of the past.
Fast
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted March 21, 2003 07:13 PM
I think it would be "simpler" than that - lets just take the darn Mustang 5.0 and the Camaro and actually BUILD the engines to produce REAL HP. I mean its kinda a disgrace that those suckers make in the 200 HP range. They should be putting out 375 at LEAST.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted March 22, 2003 04:47 PM
funny though that your zx12s make nearly the same HP numbers as my 4.3 litre truck does. afew mods and the 1.2 litre engine n that 12 makes the 190 that my s10 makes.
some i will say that of course, the bike engine will wear out faster etc etc
well, most of hte cars i have owned, started to get a little thin in the top end about 100k miles.
my bikemakes 85-90 hp depending on which exhaust i have on it. (600cc of course) anyway that is 1/7th the displacement of the truck, yet half thepower. granted the torque number is 1/5 that of the truck engine, but still. with that sort of power output, you would easily expect the bike engine to be toast at 40k miles or so, ready for rebuild. but with nearly that on mine, it is still PLENTY strong, and internals at 34k (new shift forks needed) were still brand new looking.
what gives? technology and design. the engine i just built, came in pieces from ebay. i planned on replacing the main bearings. but on a whim i measured the clearances
they were all within .002mm of each other, with who knows how many miles. they looked more worn than the ones in my street bike, yet the tolernce was that close.
i have rebuilt a few car engines, and getting them within .01inches was doing VERY well. to get them ALL to be within .01 of each other...
the cylinder linings on our bikes are also incredible. i took mine to a machine shop to get ball-honed to enhance the (still visible) crosshatching.
they had nothing there hard enough to even touch the surface.
pitston rings could scratch the cylinder block in the car engines i've rebuilt. heck a misplaced screwdriver....
pistons, again the tolerances are so close, it isn't even funny, weight wise or sizing.
therein lies the difference between many car engines (especially american built) and foreign bike engines.
im trying to imagine what kind of power i could get from my truck engine,with lined cylinders, lightweight forged pistons, weights all microbalanced, all bearings within the same tolerance as the bike (granted a bit larger clearance for proper oiling, but within same tolerances between bearings) and the other items that make the bike so much better built.
with like-weighted machines, displacement rules, as long as it is properly tuned and maintained.
i just wish i had the same horsepower-displacement ratio for my truck ;P
  
|
FastBikes4Life
Novice Class
Posts: 82
|
posted March 23, 2003 05:40 PM
I agree with you again Death. How in the world do you introduce a Lincoln Mark VIII with a 280 horse 4.6L V8 and when the exact same engine goes into a Mustang GT it only produces 215 bhp? How in the world could you make a 350 c.i.d. engine (5.7L) produce near 400 horses in the sixties but you can't (or won't) put those kind of ponies in the same engine today? With today's technology 500 horses should be easy with a 5.7L V8.
I better NEVER be put in charge of a car company. Every car I made would have a race-ready version. You know what? I bet I wouldn't be able to make them fast enough for the American driver.
When Dodge introduced the Viper R/T (at $50,000) so many orders flooded into the company that almost overnight there was a two year waiting list. My parents had just moved to Huntsville, AL. and the Dodge dealership there somehow got their hands on one. A guy who worked with my Dad at the plant took out a loan for $50,000 and went up to the dealership with the cash. He was literally laughed-at by the owner of the dealership who told him "You might have a deal if that were $150,000". Believe me, people were paying that much for some real American power!
My point? Americans love power. We love speed. We love acceleration. Why is it that the Japanese understand us so much better than we understand ourselves?
Fast
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC