Been a While, Pics of the Car (56K Die In A Fire)

Come here to discuss the performance side of our vehicles.
User avatar
Speakerboy
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: Brandon FL

Postby Speakerboy » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:47 pm

Big Mack wrote:I disagree. The reason the GTO never sold wasn't solely marketing. It's that it's a Cobalt with the same standard GM "quality" and a bigger engine. Unless you had a serious desire for really crappy gas mileage in a small car, you looked elsewhere.


The point was never gas mileage. It always had to do with harkening back to the good ole' days with small cars and big engines. That was the point. I googled for GTO commercials and there wasn't one. There were some Holden spots, but those obviously weren't shown here.


I have long been a fan of MB, but for features/dollars, I have found better options. That and one of my friends was an exclusive MB buyer, and he had such terrible experience with service and reliability in the last 2 he bought, he hung up the keys and bought a motorcycle and a Honda. This wasn't a one-shot deal, though, he had owned 5 MB's previously. He said he would never buy another since he wasn't getting the service he used to get, and yes, he tried 3 different dealers.

Big Mack



I have my eye set on a 1969 190SL, so warranty and service really isn't going to be an issue. Would I like to the 300SL gullwing? Sure, but the price tag of $350K on up certainly does not appeal to me. A nice $30k to $50K drop top MB would be just fine with me.

But back on topic to Josh's car (finally), I like the wheels very much, but I know absolutely nothing about the camera you used. :cwm12:
If I were a gangster, my name would be "Jimmy the Gimp".
User avatar
Shooter61
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:43 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Postby Shooter61 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:04 pm

Nigel wrote:I have been able to spend some time with pretty much the entire nikon line up, the D50, D70, D80, D100, D200, as well as the D2X, and used many of the different Nikkor lenses with them. They do make a very nice camera, although I personally do like the D50 and D70 models. I found them to be relatively easy to use, and nicely geared towards someone who doesn't have a lot of time in photography but is still interested and wants to get some nice pictures.

Nigel



Man oh man picked up the new Canon S3 this weekend (thank you boss:) ) and got to take it to the Dierks Bentley concert, was probably about 200-250 feet away and got some awsome shots with its 12X zoom and image stabalization. It has manual white balance (which I didn't get to use cause I looked like enough of a dork with that thing hanging around my neck:cwm18: I didn't need to take a white sheet of paper to white balance with ) which I just love to use to get true colors. Some of the pics were a bit blurred cause of quick movements and my unstead hands. But all in all a kick *** camera I can't wait to take it diving in February down in the Caymans.

Ryan
Show before go, can't lose your license for being too loud

CDA-9851
KCA-420-i
30 GB iPod Video
Kicker SX700.4
CDT EF 6.1 comp *Rear*
CDT HD 5.25 Braxial *Front*
Rockford Fosgate P400.2
2 Massive Audio PW10's
User avatar
Derek
Posts: 20753
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: in marshall's bunghole
Contact:

Postby Derek » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:06 pm

vfootballphs wrote:Nice pics sir. The backgrounds are pretty busy in most of them and with that I would have liked to have seen a shallower dof, but they are still nice. I reallllly like 12, 19, and 20 :)


I guess the d80 doesn't feel too small to you? It felt TINY in my hands.


josh is used to tiny things in his hands.
Here in death's dominion
Where even shadows die
I am the one almighty
You will cry my name
And when you seek forgiveness
You will see there is no god
And for all eternity
You will cry my name
User avatar
vfootballphs
New Member
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: Post, TX
Contact:

Postby vfootballphs » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:00 pm

Things of yours?
User avatar
John
Posts: 8992
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:00 pm
Contact:

Postby John » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:44 am

Derek and Josh's own...
User avatar
John
Posts: 8992
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:00 pm
Contact:

Postby John » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:15 pm

Josh, you want to save some money...Sell the damn tiger already!

Image
User avatar
k-mart
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: VA
Contact:

Postby k-mart » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:13 pm

Big Mack wrote:Yes, but it's at significant expense. Check out some of the HP numbers from MB or BMW or Lexus with smaller engines, and you'll see better numbers with more fuel economy.

Big Mack


Mack, I'm not so sure you want to get into an arguement over fuel economy with LSX owners.

I'm trying to decide which BMW, MB, and Lexus to compare with my technologically archaic 2000 C5 'Vette. I guess I'll stay within the sports car category, which helps most of the import causes, btw.

Let me give you a baseline for my personal experience. 19-22mpg city and 30-34mpg highway.

Take, for example, the BMW Z4 M Coupe. It has less horsepower, a much less torque, and weighs nearly the same as my C5. Yet, it gets only a rated 16mpg city and 26mpg highway. Not quite up to snuff and we'll not get into the performance vs. price category.

Now, lets consider the $95k MB SL550. It makes nearly as much power as a C6 and should give my C5 a run for its money in straight line performance. Oh, wait, my car should beat it to 60mph by at least 1/2 of a second. It gets better. Only rated at 14city and 22highway. You're right. Those OHC's are such a technological revolution! Ohh.....wait, I just saw the SLK55 AMG. Surely this one can give the LSX a run for its money. Nope.....16city and 22highway......damn those crafty germans......

Now we come to Lexus. This is the brand that most closely approaches the LSX in fuel economy at 21city and 28highway for the IS350. Congrats to them on that achievement a full decade after the C5 debuted, but that overdrive gear is a thing of beauty. 1600rpm at 70mph on the higway is great.

I realize that I've picked and chosen the cars here, but if you can give some better examples of performance per mpg, I'd love to see them. I also understand that my C5 isn't a GTO. The goat isn't far behind in the fuel economy or performance area, however.

Obviously, its not about peak HP numbers. Especially when fuel economy is thrown into the equation.

You won't find a lighter, more compact, more fuel efficient, and more powerful motor than the old-fashioned push-rod Chevy V8.
zilch
User avatar
k-mart
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: VA
Contact:

Postby k-mart » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:14 pm

Oh, and I really dig the car, Josh. I'm still tired of those old fogeys complaining that this one doesn't look enough like a GTO. I'm positive most of them couldn't tell a '65 Tempest from a '65 GTO without the badges.
zilch
User avatar
X-OvrDistortion
New Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Blacker then the blackest black times infinity
Contact:

Postby X-OvrDistortion » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:48 pm

I saw a SRT Neon smoke a G6 (whatever it is called) last night on the freeway. pwn3d by teh NEYAWN!!!
User avatar
Big Mack
Posts: 4622
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 1999 12:00 pm
Location: Phoen-town, USA

Postby Big Mack » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:30 pm

k-mart wrote:Mack, I'm not so sure you want to get into an arguement over fuel economy with LSX owners.


First off, it's not an "argument", it's a discussion :p

k-mart wrote:I'm trying to decide which BMW, MB, and Lexus to compare with my technologically archaic 2000 C5 'Vette. I guess I'll stay within the sports car category, which helps most of the import causes, btw.

Let me give you a baseline for my personal experience. 19-22mpg city and 30-34mpg highway.


I'd be excited to see those numbers reproduced on a wide scale. I would venture to say that your performance is exceptional, given the rating of 17-18 city and 25-27 (coupe and convertible). But then, you're not basing any of your comparisons on their performance, right? You're basing them strictly on their ratings. Not entirely fair, but let's move on.

k-mart wrote:Take, for example, the BMW Z4 M Coupe. It has less horsepower, a much less torque, and weighs nearly the same as my C5. Yet, it gets only a rated 16mpg city and 26mpg highway. Not quite up to snuff and we'll not get into the performance vs. price category.


Where did you find these erroneous numbers? I show (from Edmunds) that it's rated at 20/30. That's higher than your Vette, BTW. True enough, the weight is very close, but the engine difference is tremendous. I tried to keep my comparisons close to size, but let's move on again.

k-mart wrote:Now, lets consider the $95k MB SL550. It makes nearly as much power as a C6 and should give my C5 a run for its money in straight line performance. Oh, wait, my car should beat it to 60mph by at least 1/2 of a second. It gets better. Only rated at 14city and 22highway. You're right. Those OHC's are such a technological revolution! Ohh.....wait, I just saw the SLK55 AMG. Surely this one can give the LSX a run for its money. Nope.....16city and 22highway......damn those crafty germans......


The SL550 is not really a fair comparison, as it's not really in the sports car class. It's a roadster, but I digress. It's also over 1000 pounds MORE than your Vette. Fair? Hardly. Why not compare the CLK that is a little lighter (but not much) and is a coupe that is more designed for sport. Don't think that's fair? Let's look at the numbers, maybe you'll agree my comparison is a bit closer than yours -- Vette (CLK) length: 179.7 (183.2), wheelbase 104.5 (106.9), weight 3246 (3719). The SLK is 178.5, 100.8, and 4065.3 lbs. I think you'll agree that the CLK is closer to the Vette. If you wanted to step up to the SLK55, that one's even worse, at a hefty 4318.9 lbs. Ah, but comparing the CLK makes it a better discussion. Here's why - the CLK gas mileage, with the same 5.5L engine as the SLK gets 16 and 23, respectively. Oh, but it's 500 lbs more than the Vette. Kinda makes 17 and 27 from your Vette not look very remarkable. If we were to take the increases we saw from dropping 600 lbs (SLK down to CLK), 2MPG city and 1MPG, and tack them on, we would be at 18 and 24. Yes, not the same as the Vette, but the CLK also would have more power by over 10% (382 vs 345), more torque by over 10% (391 vs 350), and still have a smaller engine (5.5L vs 5.7L) than your Vette. One last little tidbit...the torque from the 5.5L comes a full 1600 RPM below where your Vette makes it's highest number. And 2000 RPM below where the brand new Z06 makes it's number, which is also lower (it has 385). Hmmm...did you say crafty??

k-mart wrote:Now we come to Lexus. This is the brand that most closely approaches the LSX in fuel economy at 21city and 28highway for the IS350. Congrats to them on that achievement a full decade after the C5 debuted, but that overdrive gear is a thing of beauty. 1600rpm at 70mph on the higway is great.

I realize that I've picked and chosen the cars here, but if you can give some better examples of performance per mpg, I'd love to see them. I also understand that my C5 isn't a GTO. The goat isn't far behind in the fuel economy or performance area, however.


Hmm...the Lexus seems to be close, except it's 300 lbs more and 2 full liters less engine. Ah, but it makes 306HP from that 3.5L engine while still getting better gas mileage ratings than your lighter Vette. But, why not examine the new LS460? At 4332.1 lbs, it's the heaviest dog in the pack, but yet it gets better ratings than your Vette for gas mileage in the city (19), and the same on the highway (27). Oh, but it's only 4.6L, and it makes more power than your Vette. Yes, not a sports car in any sense of the word, but shouldn't the TREMENDOUS weight advantage of 1100 lbs translate to vastly better fuel economy for you? Or would you prefer to look at the new Z06 that lost another 111 lbs from yours and is rated at only 1MPG more on the highway? 5 more HP and 18 more lb/ft of torque, but it's a full 1.1L more than the Lexus. Hmmm...crafty indeed. What do you think might happen when that engine makes it into the GS and SC's? Bet it gets pretty damn interesting when the 500lb lighter SC gets 400 HP (that's the projection when the 4.6L moves to those bodies) and 400lb/ft of torque. Talk about a far more fair comparison, the SC weighs more, but is 1.4 inches shorter (WB) and 1.2 inches shorter (length) than the Vette.

k-mart wrote:Obviously, its not about peak HP numbers. Especially when fuel economy is thrown into the equation.


I wasn't speaking solely on peak HP, I was speaking on the fact that newer engine technologies are bringing things up in the fuel economy and HP range, while bringing size down. Heavier and safer (not comparing it to the Vette per se, just in general), and yet they get more miles and more power. Not a bad trade off.

k-mart wrote:You won't find a lighter, more compact, more fuel efficient, and more powerful motor than the old-fashioned push-rod Chevy V8.


I would whole-heartedly disagree, and I proved it. Your 5.7L engine makes less power than the new 4.6L Lexus engine, and with worse rated fuel economy. I have to go off rated because the Lexus might, like you've observed with your Vette, have better performance. True enough, the 5.7L is an older engine, but the 6.0L Chevy V8 in the Cobalt is newer, and gets horrendous gas mileage while making roughly the same power. I'd gladly trade 20HP for 10 (or more) MPG on the freeway. Oh, but take a look at something before I go...the Lexus weighs 600 lbs more than the Cobalt, but still gets that. Damn those crafty Japanese...

Big Mack

Return to “Automotive Performance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest