What discontinued sports car would you choose?

[michbich]

Not excatly a sports car but my vote goes to a Buick Grand National.

Anything can be made into a sports car (or rocket!), even a Grand national.

<a href="http://s413.photobucket.com/albums/pp220/plourde_15/?action=view&current=IMG_0216.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i413.photobucket.com/albums/pp220/plourde_15/IMG_0216.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Lohman446]

Going through corners the rotary would be better though because you have more control over your engine because of the higher revs, if you're on a windy track a high revving engine is the way to go.

Oh, and your inbox is full.

Disagree. The fault of the rotary engine, and the fault of turbos, is the lack of power band coming out of corners. In order to have it you basically have to have the engine at full rev or close to it. A high rev engine can be dealt with, and used well, but there is something to be said for a more traditional power band as well. THere is very little forgiveness in high rev engines.

[skife]

Going through corners the rotary would be better though because you have more control over your engine because of the higher revs, if you're on a windy track a high revving engine is the way to go.

Oh, and your inbox is full.

i'm on a windy track i want as much power as possible.
I'd say turbo small block, using big turbos that spool at about 4500 and a cam that sets the power band between idle-5500, cam's run out of power just as soon as the turbo's spool up.

[snoopay700]

i'm on a windy track i want as much power as possible.
I'd say turbo small block, using big turbos that spool at about 4500 and a cam that sets the power band between idle-5500, cam's run out of power just as soon as the turbo's spool up.

But that's the thing is that with a higher revving engine you have a much broader range of power and thus more control over the power that's seeing your tires, and thus you can use the throttle to steer your car much more effectively. This can be done with a lower revving engine, it's just harder to do, although there are certain cars where you need to keep it in the power band to actually steer the car with the accelerator, those are really under powered cars though.

[GRimm]

snoopay has a point, higher revs give you much more control over your car. Perfect example is an indy car, they are actualy destroked in order to rev higher. Balance is also a key when it comes to racing, sure if you are drag racing its all about power and traction but when it comes to the corners a more balanced/controlable car has the advantage. So if you plan to actualy race on a track with an rx7 dont swap in an ls1 unless you like a challenge.

[Pneumagger]

I just bought a '93 Talon TSi AWD with a 16G turbo.
35k original miles. Mint condition. Been in storage.
Picking her up tonight.

DSM FTW.
Cheap Speed.

[snoopay700]

I just bought a '93 Talon TSi AWD with a 16G turbo.
35k original miles. Mint condition. Been in storage.
Picking her up tonight.

DSM FTW.
Cheap Speed.

Those cars can be pretty damn quick. Wouldn't be my first choice for AWD, but still not a bad car.

[Pneumagger]

Dyno'd at about 395thp... so you know the engine's pushin 400+.
For $6500 in mint condition with under 40k miles it just can't be beat.
The increased maintenance, tires, and oil changes ought to drive cost up a bit... but oh well.

It's going to be my daily driver... so at most I might put an 18g or 20G in it if it needs more power. Buscher has a shop just 40 mins away.
Other than that... I'll just stick a nice stereo in it, tune the cpu to taste, and fahgettaboudit.

The only issue I see is how to fit anything larger than two 10's and an amp in the trunk (if they actually call that matchbox a trunk).

[skife]

But that's the thing is that with a higher revving engine you have a much broader range of power and thus more control over the power that's seeing your tires, and thus you can use the throttle to steer your car much more effectively. This can be done with a lower revving engine, it's just harder to do, although there are certain cars where you need to keep it in the power band to actually steer the car with the accelerator, those are really under powered cars though.

not true, you usually have the same range of 3000-4000 RPM's in your powerband.

Higher revving engines usually don't make any power down below.



F1/Indy car motors are an entirely different beast all together, they have pneumatic valves and no cam's so you have a variable cam profile low and high RPM power.

[DeTrevni]

$20K? Has anyone said the 1987 Buick Grand National yet? I would kill* to get my hands on one of those cars...

The fastest accelerating car in the 1980's, excluding a $100K Porsche. Seriously. One of the only cars built in the 80's that I'd own without blinking.

* Not to all the FBI suits h4xing this thread: this is a hyperbole; an exaggeration for effect.

[snoopay700]

Dyno'd at about 395thp... so you know the engine's pushin 400+.
For $6500 in mint condition with under 40k miles it just can't be beat.
The increased maintenance, tires, and oil changes ought to drive cost up a bit... but oh well.

It's going to be my daily driver... so at most I might put an 18g or 20G in it if it needs more power. Buscher has a shop just 40 mins away.
Other than that... I'll just stick a nice stereo in it, tune the cpu to taste, and fahgettaboudit.

The only issue I see is how to fit anything larger than two 10's and an amp in the trunk (if they actually call that matchbox a trunk).

I've never really been into putting speakers and stuff into my car, but then again when i'm driving alone, unless i'm on the interstate i usually don't listen to music, unless it's an automatic car.

[skife]

$20K? Has anyone said the 1987 Buick Grand National yet? I would kill* to get my hands on one of those cars...

The fastest accelerating car in the 1980's, excluding a $100K Porsche. Seriously. One of the only cars built in the 80's that I'd own without blinking.

* Not to all the FBI suits h4xing this thread: this is a hyperbole; an exaggeration for effect.

and easily into the 11's with 3" exhaust, some sticky tires, and a re-tune.

[michbich]

$20K? Has anyone said the 1987 Buick Grand National yet? I would kill* to get my hands on one of those cars...

The fastest accelerating car in the 1980's, excluding a $100K Porsche. Seriously. One of the only cars built in the 80's that I'd own without blinking.

* Not to all the FBI suits h4xing this thread: this is a hyperbole; an exaggeration for effect.

Yes, look at the pic a couple posts above

[skife]

Yes, look at the pic a couple posts above

7 second door slammer

[DeTrevni]

Sorry, the pic above isn't a Grand National.

Looks like a 60's Camaro.