The average motorcycle can't lug around a Blower on top it's engine like Top Fuel.Or can an Indy Car.The Evo demonstrates what a little 2.o litre engine { the volumn of a European gallon and half milk container} can accomplish with aspiration and flash tweeking. Explain for all us,how Harley's Smallest* V-twin or the German race engine { Porsche ""Revolution" V-rod} a 69 c.i. or 1130 cc originally was far and away Harley's fastest engine.It was NOT a pushrod design. It was ... : DOHC * besides the sportster { 883 cc }
Turbos or Whipple superchargers are much more efficiant than the Roots on a Fueler...Fuelers run 14-71 Roots blowers because the NHRA requires it, not because they prefer to. Yeah, the EVO's sewing machine motor is pretty good. But I wonder what happens when you put a turbo on more than half an engine? Actually, I don't...Hot Rod did it. They decided they wanted to see just how much power an LS motor would handle before it blew up. They grabbed a 5.3 litre Chevy LS motor from a wrecked van (with over 100,000 miles and rust spots in the cylinders) and hooked it to a dyno with a couple of turbochargers and a big intercooler. The engine was internally stock except for copper head gaskets and wider ring gaps (stock rings), used stock internal parts, stock cam, stock heads, stock ignition system, stock oiling system...they used a car intake manifold & throttle body because the truck piece makes less power, they used stainless steel headers for the turbos, and oversized injectors to make sure they could keep up with the demand. It made about 350HP normally aspirated, then they started turning up the boost. 600HP, 700HP, 800HP...soon, they topped 1000HP with it. They kept turning the boost up, making a hair over 1200HP with 24psi (about 1.63bar) of boost. They went for 25psi, but found a limitation: the STOCK ignition system couldn't handle the cylinder pressures. About now, someone realized something: this engine has flat-top pistons. 5.3's don't, they have valve clearance notches in the pistons. Some checking confirmned it: this wasn't a 5.3 litre engine. No, they had made 1200HP from a mostly stock 4.8 litre engine! Yes, thet's 250HP/litre, from a 100,000+ mile junkyard engine. They made over thirty dyno pulls, more than half over 1000HP, and the engine never missed a beat. Pushrods work JUST FINE!
Just a lot of junkyard talk.My stock EVO sounds really nice.I admit most those rice burners can end up sounding like crap.Like very annoying. I had a Z-28.My brother had SS 396 Chevelle.I drove on occassion in college an original '69 Z-28 w/special rear end.That Z could wind out to 90 m.p.h. in first gear on it's hurst shifter.Because of the special rear end.My brother's SS 396 was good for about 60 in first. Yes the era of 60's muscle cars held sway for years.Of course they were ALL about the engine.Then came ALL WHEEL DRIVE. In my mind that changed everything.Yes,the Porsche was still King.But it could be be challenged.I still would Buy a Nissan GT-R Skyline if the opportunity permitted.Not because Nissan is a great car maker.THE worst Pickup truck I ever sat in was a el cheapo Nissan pickup truck. Just go and see what the Little EVO did in the match-up of super cars in MOTOR TREND's June 2003 edition. " That's an outrageous little car ! I was apprenhensive on the high banks due to the short wheelbase.For $30,ooo you can't go wong. I'm blown away. " Besting the Ford SVT Cobra in more category among a field including Mosler MT900 Photon,Dodge Viper SRT 10,Lamborghini Murcielago, Corvette Z06 {my brother has one},Ferrari 575M Maranello,and the Mercedes-Benz CL55 AMG. It won the " put-up or shut-up " award. I've been smiling ever since.Considering I bought one in 2005.
I am sorry, I should have said Mitsubishi made the first reliable, affordable mass produced mulit-valved engines, starting with their 4-cyl 12-valve systems (calling them "swirl valves"). Triumph came close but their engines had a problem with end play and wearing out their thrust washers. The 3-series BMW's are gems of the automotive industry. The 5 and 7 series have lackluster to bad maintenance records according to the Consumer Reports Guide to car buying. The last BMW I thought was great was the 2002, but I've only owned 84 cars so my opinion is suspect. I am a big fan of Porsche.
I know the Sportys are Quad Cams, I know the TC's are Twin Cams (Hence the TC) and The older Models are single cams. Heres my question. Why cant the average motorcycle have a turbo? VRod Turbo VRod is a good motor I rode a 02 1130cc VRod however you also have to remember after a while the VRod went bigger then 1130cc (theres usually a reason) Bagger Turbo Sporty of course Dyna
of course custom applications can be made turbo flathead shovelhead I think you get the point. Just because the technologys old dosnt mean it cant be built properly. Think of the Ironhead Good motor, But once you start making Pansters, Shovesters, knucksters and bringing them out to 107ci+ it dosnt matter if it was build 40+ years ago, It was built to last and withstand more power. Dont forget Evo is a real reliable motor (consider it the 350 sb chevy) tons of hop up, Twinkys (Twin Cams) are good motors. And Quad Cams (Sportsters) are the hotrod of the HD line up. The revolution motor is a good motor BUT it was more just to quiet everyone complaining that HD dosnt make a bike for them. so now they make a few VRod, Night Rod, Muscle (At the moment) Muscle replaced "Street Rod" and they all have Forward controls (I prefer mid for the style of riding your "suppose" to do with it, But most of them sit in garage's because not many people will actually ride the bike.
I am truly starting to wonder if you are on medication. That rambling, directionless babble you posted has NOTHING to do with my post that you, theoretcially, responded to. When an EVO's sewing-machine 4-banger can make 1000HP with a stock long-block and with daily-driver reliabilty, let me know. The LS engines can.
The EVO doesn't need anywhere near 1,000 h.p.Just like it only required stock 271 h.p. @ 6500 rpm vs. the 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra making 390 h.p. @ 6000 rpm. The EVO beating the SVT Cobra 0-60 in 4.5 vs 4.8 However losing in the standing quarter mile 13.08 to 13.01. In braking the Cobra was dead last of all those cars I mentioned. Also very weak in the 600 ft. slalom and Figure eight. Basically the Mustang Cobra good for only acceleration. And yes it has a DOHC Since I own a car to do more than just OFF the Line muscle,I'd have to say besides the CTS-V or Corvette American muscle cars are a bunch of sappy hype.However as i just pointed out the EVO when launched properly will rip the doors off any Mustang.
The values you are bringing to this discussion are, IMO, correct. The only relevant performance indicator of any vehicle is point to point time (assuming demanding braking and cornering along the route), and how easy that is to achieve. But what makes a vehicle desirable to most people is a combination of high performance, ease of operation, acceptable fuel economy, predictable and surefooted handling, reliability, a well controlled ride, absence of noise, vibration and harshness, quality of construction, good fit and finish, and aesthetic appeal (although the last is a matter of association, and thus, very subjective). I suspect the EVO scores highly in most of those categories, I know my ancient BMW does.
agreed the z28 camaro was always in the shop, a horrible daily driver the transmission gave out under 100k miles the engine at 100k because of the push rods, not to mention the miscellaneous repairs shocks , rotors, frequent changing etc... alot of those turbo charged foreign sports car are very reliable for a daily driving vehicle, get better gas mileage than a v-8 , and get people to work on time consistantly
Try stepping into 2011. The new Mustang (as opposed to the 2003 Cobra, a 25-year-old design when new) runs a 13.85 1/4 mile...wait, that is the base 305 V6 Mustang. The GT is a 13-flat car, the Boss 302 will manage high 12's. The GT and Boss are superb handlers, matching the vaunted BMW M3. Are you on medication?
Mustangs are OLD still.My 2005 stock EVO has a 13.o1 et. I eat new mustangs almost monthly.I'm gettin' Tired. It's Sooooooooo Haaaaaard ! To try and convince cracker boys that the days of old american muscle cars are long over.Now ... the Ford GT or the Real GT not that thing that is on every street corner nowadays is a real car. The mustang is not now or will soon ever be a car to take seriously in any capacity besides looks and a little grunt off the line.There's a guy { Military officer } who the last year enjoys showing off his Hot new mustang.It's the race version.The Boss.I've whipped his noddle twice so far.The car just hasn't the ability to cope with an ALL Wheel drive speed demon like an EVO.
You are so behind the times! A mustang will shred your wanna be econo box in nearly EVERY category; 2011 BMW M3 Coupe vs. 2011 Ford Mustang GT Comparison ... www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...mustang...bmw.../viewall.html Both hit 60 mph in 4.4 seconds, but the Mustang is faster to the quarter mile by a ... We rent the 1.8-mile Streets of Willow Springs road course and employ the ...... Pure BS. Rev A
I've beat an M3 as well.My RS is the fastest of all the EVO. The Evo has a low of 4.3 sec 0-60 mpr.But also has a high of 5.1 for newer models.Yes,the new Boss 302 may be quicker in the 1/4 but no way on the track.Mustangs are traditionally NOT Track cars. They are Off the Line muscle cars.The M3 is probably the best track car for the buck.All this Mustang hype is built around the muscle car crowd. Muscle car are crap on a back road.Actual crap.I had a z-28. The newer Mustangs are getting better but still have a long way to go in balance,handling,weight distribution,razor sharp handling. Top Gear is mY proof of how fantastic an Evo is.Plus many a YouTube. Of course my best proof is sitting in my garage.
I climbed Mt. Everest in an Evo, it's the most interesting car in the World. Stay thirsty my friends.
EVO is a Rally Car Race Circuit champion.What the heck has a Mustang ever won.The hearts and minds of American crackers. It's a cracker boy car.Kids that aren't smart enough to attend college. A blue collar hero's car.
I accept that you are conceding. Resorting to personal attacks indicates admitting that you have lost the debate.
The New Mustang is a perfectly fine car.Very fast and now has it's handling problems solved.However that is a far cry from the razor sharp steering and remarkably efficient handling that Makes an Evo. I was transformed,even transfixed the very first time I got a ride in an EVO.The Evo isn't a beauty queen.In fact,the interior is quite unremarkable,save the racing seats and steering wheel and maybe foot pedals.The sound is acquired like enjoying caviar.But not,Never the ride.It's flat out awesome.A bit harsh due to being strung for fast driving where the faster one drives the more easy-going the feel. Have you ever been for a ride in an Evo.?
The EVO is a stripped down pocket rocket, you have to go up to an $80,000 porcshe to beat it. All cars have their target buyers and there is a trade off for pricing. An EVO costs as much as a Mustang fully loaded, has less room, options and comfort. The Mustang will out sell the EVO 20 to 1, people like it's styling better and its ride. This is not an endictment of the EVO, it is the BEST at what is does, but it is a niche car for a limited market, the Mustang aims at a larger market. Should you want to spend the money, Mustang is coming out with a 200mph off the showroom floor model next year.
You are right within degree.The Evo is exactly like the M3. Meaning extremely limited production.Mustangs are everywhere and easy as a Krispy Kreme donut to locate and buy.
I have driven several...cramped, noisy penalty boxes that ride like cement trucks and guzzle fuel. They are actually painful on rough roads.
Not cramped.Unless you can't appreciate a fine race seat like Recaro that bolster you in tight and secure.The ride is firm to very firm.You don't want a car that rides like a Pimpmobile or a 70's Buick 225.The MR versions have a more cushy ride due to smoother shocks {Bilsteins}The Evo comfortably fits 4 adult males.Not bad for a Sports Sedan that easily out handles many a true sports car like a Honda S2000.But a Mustang isn't a sports car either. I didn't feel the need to go here,but the Euro EVO or {FQ400} has 0-60 mph time of 3.0 second and a 1/4 mile of 10.9 sec. Top speed of 175.
The seats were fine. It was more the fact I was jammed into the door & my hat brushed the headliner. It rode like an oxcart, it guzzled the fuel (the owner reported he had never topped 26MPG), it was loud almost to the point of pain on the highway. My wife's car, 1000lbs heavier and with more than twice the displacement (4.5 litre) and twice the power, matches the mileage this EVO averaged. (Like me, he logs fuel mileage...throwing out track days, he averaged about 21.)
