fastest uve driven?

[bri487 5,000+ posts]

I don't know how any of you can drive that fast. There are too many cars on the road around where I live unless I tried that at 2-3:00 AM. But then there is the risk of a police officer hiding and waiting to come for you. Besides I don't think the highways around my house are flat enough to do anything more than about 85 MPH in my car. After that my car would be all over the place, but I have a saturn which explains why I can't drive those speeds.

i passed a california highway patrol at almost 140 one night. he didnt even try to catch me. i jumped off of the freeway two exits later.

 

[Bavarian3 10+ year member]

Umm.. half, probably more, of the stuff on this thread is absolute CR@P! Anyways, 4 bangers and even 6's for that matter (esp stock!) ARE NOT GONNA GO 150+
92 Cherokee: 100-105mph? First car

89 Corvette: PUSHED it only got 125-130mph

96 Impala SS (the ones with the Lt4 engines): 140mph (138) and that was absolutely the limit, took a while to get there (governor??? assuming so)

01 Honda F4i (600): my baby, did 161mph and that was probably, if not, very close to the limit.

NOW: have my 99 Hoe and enjoy simply cruising, leave the speed to my street bike where ill only hurt myself. As for all the bullshit on this thread, no you didnt do 287 mph, or 160 in a ****in camry or whatever. I do believe the Hyabusa though if i had one Id HAVE to push it to 200

woohoo another domestic e-thug //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/handclap.gif.0c301076f534e244f0460706894f19e0.gif

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

Anyways, 4 bangers and even 6's for that matter (esp stock!) ARE NOT GONNA GO 150+

Wanna bet? My bone stock 4 banger has over 220 hp at the wheels and tops out at over 150, I haven't personally had it that fast but it will do it. Modded versions of my car are running low 10's. The MOPAR race team is getting over 1000 hp out of the block and crank albiet with the rest of the internals completely replaced. They have run low 8's with a lowly four-banger.

 

[ss3079 5,000+ posts]

Umm.. half, probably more, of the stuff on this thread is absolute CR@P! Anyways, 4 bangers and even 6's for that matter (esp stock!) ARE NOT GONNA GO 150+

Wanna bet ?

Now if you said completely unmodded and named specific cars ...

- Steve

 

[Bavarian3 10+ year member]

Wanna bet ?
Now if you said completely unmodded and named specific cars ...

- Steve

even bone stock. Theres plenty of inline 6's that can go that fast. even 4's.

The dude is just another idiot that things an unefficient v8 is the best engine ever made.

 

[dbhittin 5,000+ posts]

skyline can go that fast stock, same with a stock silvia

 

[josh99ta 10+ year member]

even bone stock. Theres plenty of inline 6's that can go that fast. even 4's.
The dude is just another idiot that things an unefficient v8 is the best engine ever made.

It's not a matter of efficiency. Its a matter of making power. It's easier to make 300 HP in a V8 than it is to make it in a I4, simple fact. How many stock V8s come with that kind of HP rating and how many I4s come with that kind of HP rating? Different companies choose different ways to reach their intended power goals. What you're saying it like saying a 15" sub that moves 10mm is less efficient than a 10" sub that moves 30mm. Efficiency has nothing to do with it, it's another matter all together (read up on volumetric efficiency sometime, not some BS cubic inches in relation to HP levels). The engine efficiency arguement is just some misplaced arguement that small engine guys picked out to try to make themselves feel superior to V8 and larger equipped vehicles. Would you rather have a V8 making 300 HP easy all day long, not even breaking a sweat, or an I4 spinning into oblivion to make it? If they are equally reliable, they're going to do the same thing. If the I4 is stressing to make that much power and it compromises the integrity of the engine then the V8 is superior. If the I4 is the more reliable engine and the V8 compromises it's reliability in making that power, then the I4 is obviously the better engine. I suppose DOHC engines are much better than pushrod, OHV motors eh?

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

It's not a matter of efficiency. Its a matter of making power. It's easier to make 300 HP in a V8 than it is to make it in a I4, simple fact. How many stock V8s come with that kind of HP rating and how many I4s come with that kind of HP rating? Different companies choose different ways to reach their intended power goals. What you're saying it like saying a 15" sub that moves 10mm is less efficient than a 10" sub that moves 30mm. Efficiency has nothing to do with it, it's another matter all together (read up on volumetric efficiency sometime, not some BS cubic inches in relation to HP levels). The engine efficiency arguement is just some misplaced arguement that small engine guys picked out to try to make themselves feel superior to V8 and larger equipped vehicles. Would you rather have a V8 making 300 HP easy all day long, not even breaking a sweat, or an I4 spinning into oblivion to make it? If they are equally reliable, they're going to do the same thing. If the I4 is stressing to make that much power and it compromises the integrity of the engine then the V8 is superior. If the I4 is the more reliable engine and the V8 compromises it's reliability in making that power, then the I4 is obviously the better engine. I suppose DOHC engines are much better than pushrod, OHV motors eh?

to simplify what you just wrote:

There's no replacement for displacement. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Another point: Lookit the pikes peak champion cars. Rod Millen's toyota uses a 4 pot, taken from a celica to produce over 1000HP. Suzuki Escudo..well, that's dual engine, so it don't count.

Bottomline, stock cars, yes, V8's have higher potential to be faster than 4 pots or 6's. On the other hand, 4 pot engine equipped cars might have better turn in, due to the much lighter nose (skyline's are already horrific enough with their 6 pot), and I really can't imagine a chunky V8 (I'm not talking about corvettes here) with "crisp" turn in.

Then again, my ultimate dream car is still a 427 cobra, a V8...yummy

 

[josh99ta 10+ year member]

Turn in and weight aren't directly comparable, it has more to do with the suspension setup (sway bars, rigidity, tires, and just overall suspension dynamics from the factory). In general, lighter cars do accel, but there are heavier cars that handle quite well. Remember, there are always exceptions to the rule. Matter of fact, I'd bet that my all aluminum engine isn't too much heavier than that of a larger four banger with an iron block. Not really engine weight as much as it is the suspension stuff I mentioned above as well as where the engine is located in the car (front of front axle, over it, behind it, mid engine, rear engine). Look at a car like a McLaren or Lambo or Ferrari or anything, looking at V12 cars and some of the best handling cars out there, or even a BMW M5 (V8) and cars of the like. Engine size, weight, and vehicle weight aren't all there is to handling.

 

[Bavarian3 10+ year member]

It's not a matter of efficiency. Its a matter of making power. It's easier to make 300 HP in a V8 than it is to make it in a I4, simple fact. How many stock V8s come with that kind of HP rating and how many I4s come with that kind of HP rating? Different companies choose different ways to reach their intended power goals. What you're saying it like saying a 15" sub that moves 10mm is less efficient than a 10" sub that moves 30mm. Efficiency has nothing to do with it, it's another matter all together (read up on volumetric efficiency sometime, not some BS cubic inches in relation to HP levels). The engine efficiency arguement is just some misplaced arguement that small engine guys picked out to try to make themselves feel superior to V8 and larger equipped vehicles. Would you rather have a V8 making 300 HP easy all day long, not even breaking a sweat, or an I4 spinning into oblivion to make it? If they are equally reliable, they're going to do the same thing. If the I4 is stressing to make that much power and it compromises the integrity of the engine then the V8 is superior. If the I4 is the more reliable engine and the V8 compromises it's reliability in making that power, then the I4 is obviously the better engine. I suppose DOHC engines are much better than pushrod, OHV motors eh?

i would MUCH rather have a 4g63, b18c1, 3SGTE, or ej20, or sr20det making large amounts of HP over some large, heavy, gas gobbling v8. All i have to say to u is Turbo. If u think stock 4 bangers cant make power easy. Then ur dumb. And yeah, effficiency is nice. Id get pretty annoyed having some rustang with all that power and having to fill up the gas tank all the time.

So yea im not talking all bad about domestic v8's. i dislike them. but sure theres no arguing its simple to get tons of power out of em. But no their not efficient

 

[Bavarian3 10+ year member]

Turn in and weight aren't directly comparable, it has more to do with the suspension setup (sway bars, rigidity, tires, and just overall suspension dynamics from the factory). In general, lighter cars do accel, but there are heavier cars that handle quite well. Remember, there are always exceptions to the rule. Matter of fact, I'd bet that my all aluminum engine isn't too much heavier than that of a larger four banger with an iron block. Not really engine weight as much as it is the suspension stuff I mentioned above as well as where the engine is located in the car (front of front axle, over it, behind it, mid engine, rear engine). Look at a car like a McLaren or Lambo or Ferrari or anything, looking at V12 cars and some of the best handling cars out there, or even a BMW M5 (V8) and cars of the like. Engine size, weight, and vehicle weight aren't all there is to handling.

That is tru. An Ls1 engine is about lighter than an s52/s54 3.2L i6 m3 engine

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

Aren't most of the V-12s mid/rear engine? Isn't it because mid engine distributes the weight of the large engine better and allows for better handling? Extra weight in the front means that the suspension must work extra hard to initiate and maintain the turn, inertia being the b!tch that she is and all.

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

Turn in and weight aren't directly comparable, it has more to do with the suspension setup (sway bars, rigidity, tires, and just overall suspension dynamics from the factory). In general, lighter cars do accel, but there are heavier cars that handle quite well. Remember, there are always exceptions to the rule. Matter of fact, I'd bet that my all aluminum engine isn't too much heavier than that of a larger four banger with an iron block. Not really engine weight as much as it is the suspension stuff I mentioned above as well as where the engine is located in the car (front of front axle, over it, behind it, mid engine, rear engine). Look at a car like a McLaren or Lambo or Ferrari or anything, looking at V12 cars and some of the best handling cars out there, or even a BMW M5 (V8) and cars of the like. Engine size, weight, and vehicle weight aren't all there is to handling.

Erm, this one i really must disagree. Also, I think I know a thing or two about handling, and what the characteristics of the car would be like if the engine were placed either in an FF, MR, FR or RR setup.

You mentioned the Mclaren... do you know just how much engineering has gone into the car to make it as light as it is? I don't, but I think it's prolly toomuch for the average joe like me to grasp fully.

Many MANY times in Japan as well as Korea, tests have been performed with Jap cars (stock) and European supercars. Yes, the ferrari F50 IS as fast as what people think, maybe even quicker. F40 too. The GT2 is a monster.

Sadly, the 500HP diablo isn't what it's cracked up to be. SUre, slalom figures say they are good handlers, but in reality, they're not that awesome a car to race in. Same goes for murcielago. Fuji speedway, you see it struggling and swapping positions with an NSX.

Ok, just to tell you how important being light is in a race: a motorsport elise wiih a 4 pot and 200BHP has the potential to stay RIGHT behind a Corvette in the nurburgring (except for the straightaway).

Being nose heavy has got EVERYTHING to do with handling. A 180SX, with a stock engine, sure it's not that powerful, but handles very well, drifting effortlessly. THe nose, as you want it to, will understeer then oversteer just enough to get the show on the road.

Now, on the same car, a skyline engine (RB26DETT)was dropped in. Sure, lots more power, but what happens to turn in? Like trying to turn quick on ice. Being nose heavy is also the primary reason why there's so much more wear on the front tires, and this is REAL bad news in a race.

I have not had the opportunity to see american cars go head to head over here (there aren't too many of them around, and the owners are neither professional racers, nor are they willing to allow professionals to race them), but if i had to chance to try an american car with a V8, with an all aluminum block as ou descried, i can give a more detailed comparison about it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[paikiah 5,000+ posts]

All i have to say to u is Turbo. If u think stock 4 bangers cant make power easy. Then ur dumb.

Erm..capone, THIS i disagree..

Josh had a very good point. 4 pots strain like crazy to make those numbers. Turbo's require new pistons, new this, new that, a lot of work, and these things can also mean lots of $$$. a V8 has much more grunt and brute force bone stock. No replacement for displacement. And I like turbochargers.

4 pots, the jap engines you mentioned, are made for racing, to have quick response and just enough torque to utilise the car's chassis. Over modding a car isn't wise.

 

[PopcornPlaya 10+ year member]

127 in my civic before it cut off. On my GSX-R 600, i've been up to 152. you couldn't have put a greased needle in my ***. and yes, it was on a closed road, not on the highway. that was scary as **** though, i felt like my *** was gonna blow off my bike. i was tucked like a sum*****.