is this true?
Supreme Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 1
From: Newark, DE
Car: 2006 Corvette
Engine: LS2
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42s
I think they are both off. I know someone with a catchfire vette that got it to run a 14.4 bone stock
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
Car: '89 Firebird Trans Am WS6
Engine: 305 TBI (L03)
Transmission: 700r4
I think you guys need to give a little more credit to the 2.2 turbo dodges.
Now im a die hard fbody person..(and yes, that TA is infront of the camaro isnt it?
) but these lil cars werent and still arnt all that slow. My mom has a 87 plymouth turismo, 5 speed. its NA non turbo, and it doesnt keep up with my car..but im sure it could mess with some of the import garbage going around.
My friend had 2 shelby daytonas, and from what he tells me they were preety quick, with garret turbos and all. Plus i dunno about you guys but if i go to the track you can watch these domestic turbos spank the hondas around all day long.
Plus some were real quick, like the ones modified by forward motion. If you dont know what that is here http://www.forwardmotioninc.com/
Not saying these cars are hardcore all out race cars, but give them credit where its due. For there time they were quick, and still are, for what it is.
Now im a die hard fbody person..(and yes, that TA is infront of the camaro isnt it?
) but these lil cars werent and still arnt all that slow. My mom has a 87 plymouth turismo, 5 speed. its NA non turbo, and it doesnt keep up with my car..but im sure it could mess with some of the import garbage going around.My friend had 2 shelby daytonas, and from what he tells me they were preety quick, with garret turbos and all. Plus i dunno about you guys but if i go to the track you can watch these domestic turbos spank the hondas around all day long.
Plus some were real quick, like the ones modified by forward motion. If you dont know what that is here http://www.forwardmotioninc.com/
Not saying these cars are hardcore all out race cars, but give them credit where its due. For there time they were quick, and still are, for what it is.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
From: South NJ
Car: 1988 Mustang GT
Engine: 302
Transmission: T5
Originally posted by BuckeyeROC
Yeah, those cars were wicked
"the biggest news in '85 was under hood: the carburettor engine was no longer offered; in its place was Chrysler's multi-point EFI turbo power plant. The compression ratio was lowered to 8.1:1 and max boost was set at 9psi. Power now jumped to 146 hp at 5200 rpm, while torque swelled to 168 lb-ft at 3600 rpm. In the transmission department, the final-drive ratio was returned to 3.56:1. This increased power allowed for 0-60 runs in 7.8 seconds with a quarter mile ET of 15.9 at 85 mph; top speed was up to 124 mph."
That was the turbo version, and notice how the torque SWELLED to 168 lb-ft! I also saw on another site that the non-turbo 2.2's ran 0-60 in 10.1 secs.
I'm just glad the test drivers are wearing helmets in those 16 sec cars. Safety first.
Yeah, those cars were wicked
"the biggest news in '85 was under hood: the carburettor engine was no longer offered; in its place was Chrysler's multi-point EFI turbo power plant. The compression ratio was lowered to 8.1:1 and max boost was set at 9psi. Power now jumped to 146 hp at 5200 rpm, while torque swelled to 168 lb-ft at 3600 rpm. In the transmission department, the final-drive ratio was returned to 3.56:1. This increased power allowed for 0-60 runs in 7.8 seconds with a quarter mile ET of 15.9 at 85 mph; top speed was up to 124 mph."
That was the turbo version, and notice how the torque SWELLED to 168 lb-ft!
I also saw on another site that the non-turbo 2.2's ran 0-60 in 10.1 secs.I'm just glad the test drivers are wearing helmets in those 16 sec cars. Safety first.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post