What is talxy?
Re: 12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway)
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Ford > Re: 12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway) 20 February 2005 20:55:46

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Re: 12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway)

Guest 18 February 2005 21:46:57
 Grover C. McCoury III wrote:
NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:> > I smell a litigator or CDA. Anyone else?
I smell flame-bait...

Grover,

99% of my reply to 180Out (who, BTW, was recently renamed Dust Devil I)
was taken directly from flak he received about another topic he posted
in the big-block newsgroup. I've just been giggling about it, and had
to jab DDI again about it, because I found the wording SO close to the
same flak I took in this newsgroup when I used to post about musclecar
1/4 mile times.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Add comment
Guest 19 February 2005 00:29:45 permanent link ]
 Wound Up wrote:
NoOp Patrick wrote:
Too many details have been overlooked and obmitted>> for someone who wants us to believe that he knows what>> he is actually talking about.
Haven't I read this before? Oh yeah, I wrote this before. =)

I hate when people plagerize and use it as their own. Show your sources
you pathetic wannabe.

180 Out

Add comment
Wound Up 19 February 2005 00:43:41 permanent link ]
 one80out@hotmail.com­ wrote:> Wound Up wrote:>
NoOp Patrick wrote:>
Too many details have been overlooked and obmitted>>>for someone who wants us to believe that he knows what>>>he is actually talking about.>>
Haven't I read this before? ?Oh yeah, I wrote this before. ?=)>
I hate when people plagerize and use it as their own. Show your sources> you pathetic wannabe.>
180 Out

Talking about irony... intentional in this case, but I will point it out
anyway. You just plagiarized Bill flaming you!

...ON 2/11/05 at PRECISELY 5:36am in the BB GROUP =)...



--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Add comment
Guest 19 February 2005 01:56:32 permanent link ]
 Wound Up wrote:
Talking about irony... intentional in this case,> but I will point it out anyway. You just> plagiarized Bill flaming you!

No, really? I didn't see the turnip truck you fell out of on your way
into town, but now I'm sure you landed on your head and got flattened
by the next three in line. Your cluelessness is actually kinda scary,
you know that?

<Backing slowly out of the room>
Out the 180th
Thunder Snake the [4]28th
Troll Level the 3rd, or the .5th, depending on who you ask
White Tornado the 2nd
Dust Devil the 1st

Add comment
Guest 19 February 2005 04:26:50 permanent link ]
 Cobra Jet wrote:
I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you
got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose
your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah,
oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out

Add comment
CobraJet 19 February 2005 04:29:51 permanent link ]
 In article <1108768930.531445.­262440@c13g2000cwb.g­ooglegroups.com>,
<one80out@hotmail.c­om> wrote:
NoOp wrote:>
180 wrote:>
'64 427/425 Mercury Marauder vs. '72 455 Buick GSX> >> 13.37 @ 106.21 vs. 13.80 @ 103.16> >> 13.43 @ 106.96 vs. 13.48 @ 103.55> >> 13.28 @ 107.50 vs. 13.49 @ 104.16> >> (Check those traps. ÂThis Merc weighed 4,367 lbs! For> >> that matter, the Buick weighed 4,208.)>
The GSX's numbers are believeable. Â Now the Merc...? Â> > Do me a favor, DDI, do the math on 4,300 and a 107> > mph trap. ÂWhat HP number rings up?>
According to the standard guesstimators, rwhp = weight * (speed /> 234)^3, and fwhp = rwhp/0.80. So 4330 lbs at 107 mph = 413 rwhp, 516> fwhp. That's what I'm talkin' about. Launching 4300 lbs to 107 mph in> 13 seconds -- you betta get outta the way. I don't even like to think> about the 4-wheel drums with the "jelly jar" master cylinder.

The drums used on those cars are huge and, if power assisted, will
put many discs to shame. I have this setup on my '63 wagon with
metallic shoes. No need for disc.
'70 455 Olds 442 vs. '69 Mach 1 428 CJ> >> 12.69 @ 109.63 vs. 12.92 @ 108.12> >> 12.71 @ 109.60 vs. 12.91 @ 108.39> >> (This time it was a 3,915 lb. Olds vs. a 3,686 lb. CJ.)>
Same thing with these two. ÂWhat HP numbers ring up?>
442: 405/506; CJ: 362/452. I know what your thinking, but a 506 hp> 1970 Olds 455 and a 452 hp 428 CJ sound right to me, for blueprinted> and breathed on but nominally stock examples of these two engines.>
But that 516 hp '64 427, I don't know about that one. Way before my> time anyway.

The text, counselor, mentioned a dyno best of 471 at 5600 rpm,
However, anybody familiar with 427-8V's know their real peak is closer
to 7000 rpm. It has to be pulling up high to turn 108 with 4.57 gears.
The Low Riser heads are what the Cobra Jets were derived from, and the
intake and exhaust flow better that the later 428's. Oh yeah, let's not
forget the solid lifter cam.
180 Out>

--
CobraJet
Thunder Snake #1
Add comment
Guest 19 February 2005 04:48:01 permanent link ]
 Cobra Jet wrote:
I figure you'll be singing soprano about now.

That was a good post, reminds me of why I stick around here, until you
got to that line. Pretty rote. And in fact up here you get to choose
your singing voice. Naturally I chose Robert Plant. Ooooh yeah,
oooo-oooh yeah (Cadillac drivin' music, isn't it?).

180 Out

Add comment
Guest 20 February 2005 08:04:52 permanent link ]
 Jafo wrote:> Considering that:> "At the 1964 Nationals, Don Garlits, in his Dodge powered "Wynns> Jammer" took the Top Fuel Eliminator win and set low e.t. of the
event> in a final run effort of 7.67 @198.22 m.p.h.! Althought the car looks
amazingly short by today's standards, Garlits' car was
state-of-the-art> for 1964."
Put into perspective they were fast for the time.

Jafo,

Yes they were. But time/technology marches on. Now if a nitro-powered
dragster ran those numbers everyone would think it broke something
going down the line.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Add comment
Guest 20 February 2005 08:12:27 permanent link ]
 Wound Up wrote:
Patrick, I'm still not entirely sure why you copied and pasted my
rant> as your own...

Actually, it was Bill S' touched up and your rant together. I used
them only because the replys 180 was getting were SO similiar to the
ones I used to get. (I was teasing 180 with it.) And it looks like the
ones I'll soon be getting from CJ, again.

Confused? Stick around a while and it'll all become clearer...

Patrick
'93 Cobra

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Ford > Re: 12 Second Musclecars (well two 12 Second Musclecars, anyway) 20 February 2005 20:55:46

see also:
Hard start
pass tests:
see also:
BMW325 TDS INJECTOR PUMP
106 dashboard bulbs
2006 Beetle atf dip stick

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .