GT350 vs. Z/28

[Erik427]

When I said there's nothing wrong with that, I meant that there is nothing wrong with railing against the racing series for various competitors rules packages. Continually complaining about the Camaro in it's current race trim is pretty useless...it is what it is...your energy would be better channeled toward the racing series that permits it. Start a thread...start a campaign...go to a race and shout at the officials...whatever.

As to what world you live in....you'd probably be just the type that MTV would be looking at for one of their reality shows...someone who stirs the pot and creates drama for nothing more than his own satisfaction and TV ratings.

How about all other brands just pack up and go home? Then imsa (nascar) can have a all chevy field. If they need somebody to beat? They can bring back pontiac from the dead (race only).

Sponsored

 

[JustACarGuy]

Chevy being allowed to run a 7 liter motor vs a 5 liter motor is a joke. Even worse when you consider BMW. Should have known this would happen after nascar bought imsa. This would be fair "IF" the rules allowed it from the get go.

As Stuntman pointed out...if your upset about that, then how do you feel about other 3.8 and 3.7 liters running around?

You do know the 5.0 is a much larger engine than the GM 7 liter right?

 

[Todd15Fastback]

As to what world you live in....you'd probably be just the type that MTV would be looking at for one of their reality shows...someone who stirs the pot and creates drama for nothing more than his own satisfaction and TV ratings.

I have no clue who ThePill is, never met him nor will I. Your comment is funny. This so called "drama" he creates, it sucks all you folks in, time and time again. And again and again and again.

Kind of funny, huh? He gets banned from other sites for his hate of GM/Camaro, comes here and starts his topics, debates, etc and a handful of folks follow him here to continue. You all are the ones losing sleep over this stuff, not him.

 

[Taneras]

I have no clue who ThePill is, never met him nor will I. Your comment is funny. This so called "drama" he creates, it sucks all you folks in, time and time again. And again and again and again.

Kind of funny, huh? He gets banned from other sites for his hate of GM/Camaro, comes here and starts his topics, debates, etc and a handful of folks follow him here to continue. You all are the ones losing sleep over this stuff, not him.

So a legitimate defense of someone who spreads misinformation is a simply "LOL U MAD BRO?!"?

 

[Todd15Fastback]

So a legitimate defense of someone who spreads misinformation is a simply "LOL U MAD BRO?!"?

Yeah, if you want to take it that way, be my guest. I don't care what type of info he spreads. I lose no sleep over it, never have, never will.

The rest of you act like this is some end all, be all site that if something he shares, it is GOSPEL and the freaking car racing world will end if any of it is wrong, hearsay, etc. I just don't get the mentality of some of you that have bickered with him at Camaro5 and lord knows what other sites where he was banned and followed him over here. The adult in me cannot compute this thought process. Sorry.

You all want to set him straight and I want to question why you all follow him around and want to set him straight. Damn, this is a viscous cycle.

 

[1320']

You do know the 5.0 is a much larger engine than the GM 7 liter right?

:doh::frusty:

You're killing me smalls

 

[Erik427]

As Stuntman pointed out...if your upset about that, then how do you feel about other 3.8 and 3.7 liters running around?

You do know the 5.0 is a much larger engine than the GM 7 liter right?

So just is a 428 cubic inch engine smaller than a 302 cubic inch engine? Do not start with the external size. I feel the same way about the 3.8 and 3.7 just as long as they are N/A. If they are boosted? Than that's a very different story.

 

[1320']

And before anyone says "the LS7 is 427ci" it's actually 427.5 ci, which rounds up to 428 in the auto world

 

[Todd15Fastback]

Comments like this mean that you are following his delusions that everyone who discredits him must be a GM lover from Camaro5. Myself and Sabre are current Mustang owners (which is why we are on this site) who are not waiving a GM banner, but rather are pointing out lies and false information that thePill posts, and correcting him.

Where did I state I agree or follow anything he says? All of my comments in this thread has been about the bickering and only bickering.

Not everyone is a GM hater but there sure as shit are a handful of them that are and have come from C5.

I don't race my car in a competitive series. Never have, never will. So whatever is being discussed has zero bearing on me, my car choices, etc.

 

[Sasuketr]

As Stuntman pointed out...if your upset about that, then how do you feel about other 3.8 and 3.7 liters running around?

You do know the 5.0 is a much larger engine than the GM 7 liter right?

All hail in front of the 911 GT3 with 4.0 lt flat six N/A cranking 500 hp

 

[flaps]

Enough with the tube frame please, it was funny, it's over now. No the GT3 car isn't a tube frame from the driver back (as you said). An OEM front section does not weld well to a tube frame structure.

What it all came down to, you can Google better than me. Where I rely on some logic, experience, education and common sense... Most all of it committed to memory :lol:

He never said tube frame behind the driver. He said there was a carbon tub, not tube. He said this was done in order to fit the transaxle and IRS. Now I have no idea what modifications were actually done in order to fit the transaxle and suspension, but he never said "tube frame." He said "tubbed" many times, which for some reason you took to mean "tube."

 

[thePill]

So, we are done talking PWC now? Since the Camaro there has a shortened wheelbase? Fine, lets move on...

The 3.6, 3.8, 4.0 and 5.0 all produce between 350-400RWHP. Rear Wheel Horsepower determines the class, not size of engine. Did someone just say the 5.0 was larger than the 7.0 when discussing displacement? See now... It's sh!t like that... Why are you commenting?

Anyway, the 7 liter engine initially produced 470RWHP and still carried the GS.R's 3400lbs curb weight. If the car was great it wouldn't need such huge changes. I think everyone sees now that the Camaro needed its wheelbase reduced in GTS, there's the lying wheelbase:track ratio I was lying about. Looks like they are lying in PWC. No matter though, a Boss 302 with Dean driving is probably going to win the title this season.

Can anyone tell me why a Camaro would need such a large advantage in IMSA? Or would need to reduce the wheelbase in SCCA?

Anyone?


Or should we discuss the state of my mother and how I'm doing at rehab?

 

[thePill]

He never said tube frame behind the driver. He said there was a carbon tub, not tube. He said this was done in order to fit the transaxle and IRS. Now I have no idea what modifications were actually done in order to fit the transaxle and suspension, but he never said "tube frame." He said "tubbed" many times, which for some reason you took to mean "tube."

Your first sentence is wrong... So he ment it had a composite body glued to an OEM front section? That is probably dumber than the tube frame statement.

 

[thePill]

Wow, you must have superhuman abilities to see flex from a photo of a Z28 going around a corner, when the tilt could easily be due to the car's caster when turning. I guess manufacturers and race teams no longer need K&C rigs to test deflection if they have you to analyze pictures


I've cornerbalanced cars for years. Which is why I immediately pointed out your hugely erroneous statement that you can change front-rear weight distribution by 2-3% simply by 'adjusting tire pressures'. I urged you to test this, which you never have done, and I now told you the results... on a Mustang. I NEVER said it does not occur atall. I said the weight would change by an "insignificant" amount, and i'm sorry, but 0.014% is insignificant and no where near the 2-3% that you claimed.

Moving the entire seat (and a driver's weight of say 150-175lbs) back 4-5" can get you a decent change; i'm not sure about reclining a seat, which you claimed would lower the entire car's CG by a noticeable amount - which it would not to any significant degree.


I'm not recovering from anything. I stand by what I've said and i've been consistent. You continue to be vague, twist my words around and facts around, lie, and do everything to support your GM-hating propoganda, even at the expense of truth.

I've corrected you about incorrect statements on Fords, GM, Physics, etc... I'm not biased other than pointing out where you're wrong. And hey, we actually have someone on this forum who has worked on GrandAm and PWC teams for years (sabre) and he's agreed with me in correcting your lies and errors. I think his credibility is far greater than yours.

**Why the hell are you so adamant about rallying everyone behind you to have Ford limit and cripple the Mustang to fit an arbitrary set of rules for Club racing, in a class that I doubt a handful of people on here are even racing in, and a class that you likely have never, or ever will race in?

You would be the only person to be upset if Ford announced a carbon-fiber tubbed, 10,000rpm 700hp V8 with carbon brakes, wheels, and Magnaride suspension for $35K because it wouldn't "fit in a clubracing class". While this is a fantasy, I think it's idiotic to want Ford to limit the advancement of a car. If they deliver an awesome motor, suspension, chassis for a great value to the consumer, LET THEM. Quit harping on wanting old, obsolete technology, racing series have and always will adapt. There was a day when 18" wheels were never used in racing, they were too big, heavy and 'blingy'. Now it's the standard. Wake up and get with the times man, you live in a delusional fantasy world.

:lol:

If you can't see the inside front tire lifting in that shot, you are blind. You don't need a computer to ID suspension geometry changes. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I stopped reading after that.

 

[Stuntman]

Your first sentence is wrong... So he ment it had a composite body glued to an OEM front section? That is probably dumber than the tube frame statement.

Composite body glued to an OEM front section? You really are dense and have no clue man... I've already explained it multiple times but your ignorance is preventing you from understanding. You still refuse to answer:

I asked you to explain how to fit a transaxle in an S197 without cutting out the rear seat area, and you refuse to acknowledge this question.

:lol:

If you can't see the inside front tire lifting in that shot, you are blind. You don't need a computer to ID suspension geometry changes. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I stopped reading after that.

The inside front tire lifting has to do with a stiff chassis and a high front roll couple stiffness & soft rear roll couple. To simplify things: Stiff chassis, stiff front bar, soft rear bar = inside front wheel lifting. This is why you commonly see race BMW's, race Mustangs, and NASCARs (on road courses) lift the inside front wheel when powering out of a corner.

Maybe you should start reading some of my posts, instead of skimming over it, misunderstanding, and twisting my words around later to try to paint me as ignorant.

I doubt you even know what a K&C rig is (since it's not just a 'computer') without googling it :headbonk:

Sponsored