| Author | Message | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3069 Registered: 2-2001 |
If the 360 is a stretch, check out some 355s. It's my favorite Ferrari, and I will challenge anyone to find a better made Ferrari. The boys from Maranello really hit it right with the 355. The trans setup is combined knowledge from the 30 years that came before it (transverse from the 308 on) and the engine is essentially the same engine used on the 360, just .1L smaller and a little less tech stuff running it. It's a touch slower than a 360, but to me looks infinitely better and has a more racey feel to it. Definitely worth checking into IMO. You see all my ranting about engines, etc and standing up for the good ole USA, but after all that stuff you couldn't pay me to trade the Ferrari for a Corvette, I would love to park one next to it, but never trade it for one. Plus, if you were insane like me, you'd throw a set of cams and springs in the 355 (bottom end is at the edge of tech, flat billet crank, ti rods, 10.8:1 Mahles), sacrifice a little idle quality, and have a beast that revs to 9k. Might have to do injectors and ECU also, but companies like DigiTec can take care of that. Just throwing in my $.02 if I were in your shoes... You can see what Ferrari I'd like if I ever am done with the 308. | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2002 |
OK Guys, I happen to find a 360 in Tulsa, OK where I live. Found it on e-bay for sale of all places. Called the guy and ask if he would let me check it out. Next day he calls back and happens to be driving by my house when he calls. Brings the 360 by and wow what a nice car. Ready for this? I went to high school with this guy. Small world. It had a lot of options on it. Ask if he would take me for a ride and off we went. Traffic sucked and it was a short ride. Probably good because he drove like a mad man. He had the car looking at the curb (sideways) at one time. I'm not a good passenager. My thoughts on the car. 1. Still can not get over the looks. 2. Sounds great. Tubi 3. Smaller car then what I'm used to. ZR-1 4. Fun factor is a 10+ 5. Car runs strong. Think the ZR-1 could out run it. Not by much, but could stay ahead. 6. Love the fact that she goes to 8500 RPM's 7. Runs strong enough to play - A concern of mine. 8. The ride is stiff. Not a car to take on long trips. 9. To expensive to maintain. 10. The 360 is a toy and that is it. I don't think I could give up my ZR-1 for the 360. I would love to own a 360 one day, but I don't think I would make payments on it. With that being said it will be some time before I own one. Later, Joe | ||
| Joseph (Mojo)
Junior Member Username: Mojo Post Number: 157 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mitch yes im saying that, because the Z06 will run 100,000 miles plus, and cost for maint. only oil and filter, very inexspensive compared to Ferrari. Yes im not rich but could still compete with a corvette. | ||
| Peter S�derlund /328 GTB -88 (Corsa)
Member Username: Corsa Post Number: 279 Registered: 4-2001 |
The replacement for displacement is called revs. With revs you can get higher gearing which gives higher torque at driven wheels (check my previus post) thats what it's all about (almost...). When a formula is based on displacement you need revs. What do you thing a pushrod engine can achieve in a 3.2-litre class - nothing. Stock 3.2-litre engines BMW M3 -99 = 320 hp Ferrari 328 -86 = 270 hp Porsche Boxter S -00 = 252 hp Alfa Romeo GTA -03 = 250 hp Porsche 911 -88 = 214 hp Ciao Peter | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 258 Registered: 4-2002 |
So, effectively, what you are saying is that given a choice between a 5.7 litre 400 HP engine with pushrods and a 5.7 litre 500 HP engine with DOHC, that you would pick the 400 HP engine! | ||
| Joseph (Mojo)
Junior Member Username: Mojo Post Number: 154 Registered: 9-2002 |
I agree with BretM, pushrods are great and " theres no replacement for cubic displacement" Why do you need high rpm's? corvette do not rev high, they do well at the track, and still get great gas mileage. Does'nt sound outdated to me. | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Junior Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 110 Registered: 6-2002 |
Specific output, and displacement, are both important. For real fun, combine both! PS: I should have ammended that. "4v will make more PEAK power than 2v always." At lower booring RPMs, a 2v motor will sometimes introduce more swirl than a non-variable-timeing 4v motor. But who cares? Best! -Ben. | ||
| Guibo (Guibo)
New member Username: Guibo Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2002 |
didn't Chrysler also have some pushrod-involved success in international endurance competition recently (prior to factory withdrawal of support)? I can think of... FIA GT: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002 FFSA GT (French GT series): 2001 12 Hours of Sebring: 2000 24 Hours of Le Mans: 1998, 1999, 2000 24 Hours of Daytona: 2000 (outright winner) 24 Hours of Nurburgring: 1999, 2001, 2002 24 Hours of Spa: 2001, 2002 One Lap of America: 2000, 2001, 2002 Open Track Challenge: 2002 Speedvision World Challenge GT: 1999 | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Junior Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 197 Registered: 5-2002 |
A lot of good points. Here's a couple things that seem to have been over looked. Specific output is really mostly a function of engine stroke, not number of valves. The reason is that an engine is a fixed displacement pump, the faster you spin it the more air it can pump. Maximum piston speed sets the max rpm for an engine, assuming the engineer understand that all the components should match. The stroke determines piston speed at any rpm, so smaller stroke, higher specific output. Specific output is interesting, but not very important. Hp per pound means a lot more for performance. HP per volume of engine, not displacement, but physical size also- it has to fit in the car. The one that is most important to mass production car makes is HP per dollar, 2v = less cost because it is much cheaper to make an engine bigger than it is to add parts or use better parts and spin it faster. Many counties tax cars based on displacement, so then it becomes cheaper to build a small high output engine and avoid the tax (think 208). As long as you can fill the cylinder, the number of valves has no effect on HP. In a 4v engine more valve area is available, and more flow area is exposed at any given valve lift. So in the 4v engine, less total valve lift and less duration is required to fill the cylinders at any given rpm. Less lift means longer valve guide life, less duration means better idle and easier time with emissions. In an engine that turns slow, there is plenty of time to fill the cylinders, so 2v is a good choice. At higher rpm, it makes sense to move to 4v. The other answer is to move away from naturally aspirated. A supercharged 2v is smaller, light, and cheaper to build than the same HP 4v. It just depends on who you think is going to buy the car and what features are important to them. Different problems have different answers. | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Junior Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 105 Registered: 6-2002 |
a 4-v motor will always produce more power than the same motor with 2 valves. And it'll be more fun. Show me any 6 litre N/A production stock pushrod motor making 600hp. I can name two DOHC motors that do... Best! Ben. | ||
| Tenney (Tenney)
Member Username: Tenney Post Number: 287 Registered: 2-2001 |
Sounds (literally?) like a real nice car, Bill. I remember mine snacking on bias plys like Doritos (a somewhat costly yet highly entertaining way to hone car control skills). Radial's didn't last much longer, btw. Lately, I've a Sonny Leonard 605 ci aluminum Donovan (EFI) set to go into a '57 Bel Air. Pump gas pistons and semi-tame hydraulic roller so motor's not too stressed. Hoping the displacement will make up for light duty bump stick and low octane fuel. Oh, and lack of single or dohc. Jim, didn't Chrysler also have some pushrod-involved success in international endurance competition recently (prior to factory withdrawal of support)? Agree, lots of cool cars out there (regardless of valvetrain). Oh, haven't run a 360 down the 1/4, yet. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 203 Registered: 10-2002 |
In addition to Corvette beating Ferrari at LeMans last June, 2 years ago a Corvette finished 1st Overall at Daytona beating Audi,Porsche,Ferrari,etc. Ford's beaten Ferrari,Ferrari's beaten Ford and many,many others. There are a lot of great cars. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3027 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fuel economy was brought up so I'll just throw one more bone in cause I feel I've said my piece. The LS6 not only out performs the 3.6L in every weigh possible, but it gets literally twice the gas mileage. Man, those American engineers must have no clue what they're doing... I think DOHCs are so popular now because everyone looks as them as the latest and greatest even though it's not really the case. People look at the pushrod as archaic, etc. which it clearly isn't. Also, during that whole 70s gas shortage and 80s emission thing, the relatively big, pushrods were hurting compared to the smaller DOHCs and it caused many manufacturers to jump ship. GM stuck with it, made it over the technological hurdle, and may have made the better long run choice. btw, John Lingenfelter just officially recorded an 8 second STREET Corvette which idles nearly as smooth as a stock one. It's a turbocharged 427. There's no replacement for displacement, the Hondas can try all day and they simply will not match the performance and driveability he is getting as long as they run 1.8L engines, etc. Also btw, NHRA certified (Chevy, Hemi, etc) pushrods (max of 500ci) have been running mid 4s for awhile now. I'd like to see the day a Honda DOHC puts out 6500hp and sends a car down 1/4 mile in 4.5 seconds. | ||
| William Badurski (Billb)
Junior Member Username: Billb Post Number: 118 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tenney, Right about the mufflers. Dyno tests at the time showed 120 HP loss through Corvette large diameter pipes and mufflers. I run open headers at the autocross. Really wakes her up, as well as everyone else within a mile or so. | ||
| Tenney (Tenney)
Member Username: Tenney Post Number: 286 Registered: 2-2001 |
Had a crate LS-7 (w/cast iron OC heads) in a '67 'Vette, too. Factory ZL-1 cam (didn't like mufflers much) had no problem seeing 7k in a hurry. Strong bottom end and big pushrods, as Bill referenced, was a bullet-proof combo for me. Miss that car a bit. | ||
| William Badurski (Billb)
Junior Member Username: Billb Post Number: 112 Registered: 6-2001 |
Not too much to add, as many good responses to this thread have covered it all. I believe the pushrod issue with domestics is basically one of cost of tooling vs return on investment. The OHC design is great for high revs, and nowadays variable cam timing. That said, I've an LS-7 aluminum head big block in a '67 Vette that runs to 6800 RPM all the time. During my tenure as an engineer at GM, I was advised to use 6800 for short bursts like drags, and 6400 for continuous use such as road racing. This has worked on my engine for 13 years now, so with the 7/16" pushrods, even a big mother will rev pretty well. Perhaps when fuel economy and emission issues dictate more technology such as the aforementioned variable cam timing, the pushrod design will go away. Until then, street driven cars running at low rpm with pushrods will continue to be a mainstay. | ||
| Guibo (Guibo)
New member Username: Guibo Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2002 |
Not too many street legal 9-second Civics around here. If you're talking about drag-only track cars, I think the pushrod V8's have been in the 7's and 8's for some time now, haven't they? "If push rod engines are so good, then why do non-American auto companies avoid them like the plague?" This is actually only a recent trend. Many European car companies have turned to American pushrod V8 power for locomotion. De Tomaso is one. Bristol and TVR (in the '60s) are others, and I could probably name 5-10 more European manufacturers that have used American pushrod V8's. Even to this day, the sports car cottage industry in the UK still turn to pushrod Chevys. The Steath B6 (0-60: 3.88, 0-100: 6.85) is a prime example. Italy's quirky limited production Fornasari SUV/sportscar thing is another. Of the largely type-approved cars, Bentley seems keen to hang onto its pushrod 6.75-liter V8. I will agree, for smaller higher revving engines, pushrods are probably not the way to go. But one has to remember that pushrods are an invention that came after OHC. One has to wonder how far pushrods might have come technologically if the same effort that went into developing OHC engines went into pushrod engines as well. As such, pushrods are probably going to be relegated to the history books within the a decade or so. The demise of the Camaro seems to point to this, as does the Mustang's adoption of OHC. Of course, people have probably been saying pushrods will go the way of the dodo bird for some time now... | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 251 Registered: 4-2002 |
Below is a lit of car companies that have desinged a new automotive or SUV (not truck) V8 engine since 1980. Notice that only two have been pushrod engines! Ford 4.6 L Modular SOHC DOHC GM LS1 LS6 OHV DC Hemi OHV Toyota SOHC Lexus DOHC Nissan SOHC Infinity DOHC Merc SOHC Jaguar DOHC ? Aston DOHC Porsche DOHC (928) BMW DOHC Audi DOHC Ferrari DOHC Maserati DOHC Lamborghini DOHC If push rod engines are so good, then why do non-American auto companies avoid them like the plague? Proported Reason: There is one area where the pushrod engine reigns supreme--cruising down the hyway at low power levels. At 60 MPH an average sports car needs only 5 HP to continue at its present speed. At 5 HP the pushrod engine has lower levels of friction than other designs. One Cam turning 16 valves with a very even turning torque. Compare this to a DOHC engine where there are 4 cams with very irratic turning loads. My guess is that the power used to turn the cams in the F355 engine at 60 MPH in 6th gear (2900 RPM) is greater than the power absorbed and delivered by the LS1 engine at 60 MPH in 6th gear (1700 RPMs). Nothing in the long diatribe below indicates that it is the pushrods that give these engine their power--I proport that it is the displacement that gives them their power, and pushrods were a cheap means to an end. SO if you aim is to deliver a car with good HP and TQ and desing it to cruise along american roads at american speeds, then pushrods are an acceptable means to an end. If, on the other hand you want to challenge DOHC engines to a drag race, I suggest you go out and try to run down a 9 second Honda civic 4-banger. At least here there is similar amounts of go fast parts compared to american V8s. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 195 Registered: 10-2002 |
No last june the Corvettes beat Ferrari and everyone in their class. The 1967 Ford MK-IV is the only car that says "Made in America" on it's chassis plate that has finished 1st. overall at the twenty four hours of LeMans. Duesenberg (with a pushrod engine) won The French Grand Prix held at LeMans. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 250 Registered: 4-2002 |
The S2000 does not have a motorcycle engine in it. If you look at the shape of the combustion chamber you will see it has automotive valve angles, automotive bore stroke ratios, automotive valve actuation, automotive fuel injection,... It may borrow a lot of the science from motorcycle engines, but this one is designed, developed, and engineered as an automotive engine. If you look on the S200 forums and boards, you will see that Honda may have overstressed or underbuilt this engine. There are lots of cylinder bore scuffing issues,... Now back to the plot: Was this race 35 years ago, (and the subsequent 2) the last time an americam built engine won at LeMans? The last time a pushrod engine won at LeMans? | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 417 Registered: 4-2002 |
Guibo, The S2000 has a higher specific power rating because it has a motorcycle engine in it. While I'm being a little facetious, it is easier to make a small engine with high specific output. The engine has no torque unless you really rev it up. And then it is very noisy with not the most pleasant sounds. There is difficulty in making a small engine put out both low end torque and high end power without force feeding. | ||
| Guibo (Guibo)
New member Username: Guibo Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2002 |
Anyone know why an S2000's specific output is more than the 360's? By the same token, why does its own CBR929RR brethren absolutely bury the S2000? Doesn't the fact that the S2000 produces 20 more hp/l than a McLaren F1 point to superior efficiency? Does this therefore point to superior engineering? Hint: the Viper (and any 8.0-liter car with a MSRP target of $80K) is going to be handicapped in a hp/l war. Regarding the Modena beating a Viper from a 110 mph roll, I don't think so. Motor Trend's last comparo between the Viper ACR (actually slower than previous GTS's) and 360 Modena showed the following: Viper 0-60: 4.16 0-100: 9.56 1/4 mile: 12.19 @ 119.15 0-1 mile: 30.49 @ 164.55 360M 0-60: 3.92 (one of the quickest recorded anywhere) 0-100: 9.74 (quicker than R&T, C&D, Sport Auto, and on a par with Quattroroute) 1/4 mile: 12.25 @ 113.53 0-1 mile: 32.56 @ 152.47 For reference, the old 385-hp Z06 in the same test did: 0-60: 4.34 0-100: 10.20 1/4 mile: 12.59 @ 112.38 0-1 mile: 31.32 @ 160.73 Keep in mind the '02 Z06 is even quicker still, knocking 3-4 seconds off the old car's 0-150 mph time, coming within 2 seconds of the Viper. Regarding those R&T numbers, that was the old Viper (no ABS). And R&T have shown they can't stop in a non-ABS Viper if their life depended on it. From 60 mph, these magazines have acheived these numbers with a non-ABS Viper: Popular Mechanics: 124' Motor Trend: 121' With a non-ABS ACR, edmunds.com stopped from 60 mph in 155 feet. They later tested one with ABS and shaved off 40 feet (!). Well within earshot of the Modena. The Z06 in that Motor Trend comparo beat them both (111 ft vs the 360M's 117 vs. the Viper ACR's 121). I believe McMillen-Argus (sp?) Publishing test driver Evan Smith pulled an 11.77 time from a bone stock RT/10 at the aforementioned Englishtown dragstrip. None of this points to the Viper being the "better" car, of course. Apples and oranges, as has been said. Whew. I feel a papercut coming on. | ||
| Peter S�derlund /328 GTB -88 (Corsa)
Member Username: Corsa Post Number: 278 Registered: 4-2001 |
This discussion is very interesting. I have picked up a lot. However, I believe that a comparison between concepts with the same volume could be even more informative. Lets say between 4-5 litres (245-305 Cin) or maybe 5.75 litre vs. 350 Cin. Many formulas specify a maximum volume and if the rest is more or less free (except fuel, non-turbo, non-beryllium etc) you will have much to decide about. Another thing is that available torque at driven wheels is of main interest. High reving engines can use a higher gearing which in a proportional way increase the torque at the driven wheels. A formula one car has about 260 lb*ft, not much but after gearing to handle 19000 rpm the torque at driven wheels is enormous. An important key-parameter is also weight (of engine) / torque (at driven wheels) when deciding concept. As mentioned earlier, CG and inertia comes in here of course. So what to do? Ciao Peter | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 186 Registered: 10-2002 |
This Contest WAS held. 35 years ago, four PM on Saterday June 10th... Ferrari 200CI, 12 cylinders,24 spark plugs, 4 cams, 36 valves, Mechanical fuel injection, 450 HP at 8200 RPM's. 1850 lbs. Top speed 199. Ford 426CI (Labled 427 but really 426), 8 cylinders, 8 plugs, one cam, 16 valves, 2 Holley Carbs, 535HP at 6800 RPM's 2250LBS. Top speed 223. They ran for 24 hours. The winning Ford MK-IV adveraged 135MPH for twenty four hours including pit stops. When the checker flag waved on Sunday June 11th. the nearest Ferrari P4 was 130 miles behind the winning Ford MK-IV. For several years the Ferrari Factory dropped out of sports car racing and left it to priviteers like David Piper (thats another story) to carry on. | ||
| Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Member Username: Jussumfastgi Post Number: 313 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mitch, the Ferrari would run out of gas sooner or break before the Z06. However, the Ferrari has a much faster top speed than the Z so the Fcar should be quitea bit ahead when that happens. ;) | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 390 Registered: 3-2002 |
BretM, you hit the nail on the head. Plus, like you said, it's good for auto fans to have choices like this... I know when I'm done w/ school I'll start looking for a Fcar right away... it's my dream after all... but I'll probably go crazy with all of the future supercars that will no doubt be there. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3012 Registered: 2-2001 |
I think it was a good debate, it could go on forever but we hit all the main points between the two. Mitch hit some good points Hubert and I didn't get into. James points out what I'm getting at with torque, and the only reasonable way to package those displacement engines is with a pushrod (DOHC's get too big IMO). For smaller engines though DOHC's rule the show. Now that I'm not rambling about the two anymore, I think you'd have a hell of a time saying one is better than the other in a definitive stance. Would you want a high winder in a Vette, of course not, would you want a 7.0L pusher in a 360, of course not. Both are great engines when done right, both give a car a lot of character. It would be boring if we didn't have choices like this in the automotive world. Mitch I'd have to say the ZO6 would out do the 360 WOT for 100 miles. Off the top of my head, with a .56 6th gear and like a 3.73 rear end, the Vette's gonna run about 175mph at 4300rpm. Not straining it at all (engine, cooling, etc) whereas the 360s gonna be screaming at 8000+rpms to do the same 175mph (8000rpm to the 360 is like the Vette having to do 6000rpm, chances are the Vette would fail to if it had to run under this strain). It's gonna overheat if not grenade. As far as the 360 being better made, reliability is subject to who you ask, what is for sure is that the finishing of the 360 is at a different level of course in both exterior and interior, for 3 times the price though... | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 246 Registered: 4-2002 |
Here is another test: Go out past Fredricsburg and get on I10 heading west. Its is (essentially) straight for 100 miles. Floor the throttle on both a bone stock Z06 and an bone stock F360. Keep the throttle floored until: A) it runs out of gas, or B) breaks something. Question: which car will get farther--A) Z06, B) F360? My money is on the Ferrari | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 386 Registered: 3-2002 |
Although many say the ZO6 is faster on the track I don't think that's all true. First off, the ZO6's stock brakes will not take very many laps, while the 360's race inspired discs, and the M3's for that matter, will out last the Vettes... They both weigh the same (about 3100lb.) with the Spider being a bit heavier, however the 360's motor is placed behind the driver for a more ideal weight distribution for racing, this is probably another reason people find it 'lighter' than the Z06... And I HAVE seen tests where the 360 out runs the ZO6... two Road and Track articles show that... the Sibling Rivalary with the 385bhp Z, and the Get a Grip article with the 405bhp Z... I think the Modena out performed it in both tests... Not that I want to shift the discussion into a match between Zora's dream and Enzo's brainchild... Just wanted to share some things I remembered...  | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3382 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thank God after 80+ posts not one 1/4 Mile time for then 360. Thank God nobody gave me the time for the Charlotte Speedway Oval either! brooom, left turn.......brooooooom.....left turn.........broooooom......left turn....... | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 243 Registered: 4-2002 |
BretM forgot one other thing. As the TQ of an engine gets bigger, the size (and therefore weight) of the transmission components also gets bigger. So the 360 with 290+/- lb-ft of TQ can use smaller lighter gears than a 400 lb-ft engine. Thus saving weight and allowing that weight to be lower in teh car than the bigger engine. HP does not require bigger gears its the TQ. With different cams for the intake and exhaust the engine management system can alter the intake timing independently of the exhaust timing, thereby widening the power band (VTEC,...). This cannot be done in a single cam pushrod engine. Technology comparison in the extreme: Modern TF drag engines 8.0 litres (500 CI) supercharged to 50+ PSI running 90% nitromethane put out about 6000 HP--lifetime 8 seconds. 10 year old 1.5 litre F1 turbo engines running 53 PSI boost running 83% tolulene and fuel preheater would produce 1200 HP for over 6 minutes (qualifying) and over 800 HP for 200 miles (most of the time). So the normalized power output is 6000/8.0 = 775 : 1200/1.5 = 800 : call it a draw except the life of the F1 engines are vastly better. You argue that extreme RPMs are not necessary or productive for street use, yet you argue for bore and stroking of LSx engines to achieve higher power levels. Its got to one of the other since HP = TQ * RPM * constant: either raise the TQ or raise the RPMs. since pushrod engines CAN'T raise the RPMs (much) they are forced to go the B&S route. DOHC engines have both options available--b&S and raise the RPMs. {Note I am not arguing against big displacements, just arguing that DOHC has more tuning potential than single cam pushrod engines--even if that option is rarely used after production.} | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 184 Registered: 10-2002 |
IMHO on the street it's the torque you remember, standing on it in the right gear,putting in a slight amount of opposite lock and drifting through the turn. As the MK-IV is right hand drive, passing on a two lane road is tricky. There's nothing like dropping down a gear, putting your right foot to the floor and letting 1500 cfm's flo through two Holleys,into that 427 and push 550 FT/LBS of torque through that T44. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 355 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>And as far as weight, obviously cams weigh very little compared to a crankshaft for instance, but there are 4 of them at the worst possible spots on the engine, and it adds up. If you read into the coveted Formula 1, you will find that engine block angles range between approximately 70-115 degrees. Obviously at a Boxer you being dealing with oil problems under G's, ruling it out, BUT the only recent they all aren't running 115 degrees (like Renault) is because the engine is a stressed member and the greater the degree the more flexible it is. If it were not stressed they all would be running wider to lower the Cg problem. (Ferrari ran a 90 degree this year, compromising between Cg and chassis strength). The point being that they all acknowledge the problem I'm talking about.<< Bret, Actually, Renault is running a 111 degree bank angle engine, and had reliablity/structural issues w/ the wide bank v10, not b/c the engine was being overly stressed on account of the bank angle, but b/c the gearbox design didn't account for the angles required to fit the engine, hence the gearbox mount points were the weak links, not the engine itself; point being the engine proved problematic b/c it was retrofit into a narrow bank chassis/gearbox car. Not everyone is using the wide vee engine (although they would like to) b/c the engine proves problematic w/ respect to air intake design and the acoustics w/in the engine/airbox; a wide vee engine neccesitates a wide aribox, this creates low frequencies in the air box which adversly affects perfomance; e.g. turbulant airflow. Mechanically, the wide angle layout showed problems under belt drive/vibrations, once the move to gear drives was made the motor handled high rev situations better. With respect to the cofg; off the line, a lower cofg really doesn't yield much advantage, over the course of a race yes. A wider vee engine allows for more option in tunning the roll bars, camber, etc. The decision to use a wide angle engine is purely a chassis derived decision; to make the chassis more balanced. Regarding tire wear and wide angle engines, side load on a tire, when non-linear, benefits from a wide angle vee, but this is dependant on tire charactaristics as well; sidewall design and so on. Quantitativly, the wide angle vee yields 5 cm in lower height. Ferrari in '02 had a radical gearbox design that while running a 90 degree engine, still provided a very low sitting engine, for '03 they will be going to 88 degrees and will improve upon their aero package by makeing the rear of teh car even more slender. | ||
| Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Member Username: Jussumfastgi Post Number: 306 Registered: 4-2002 |
All the data I have, including racing, shows Z06's *2003's* to be faster than non-challange 360's on any track with equal drivers (and equal seat time in each car) I think race win / loss records show this. granted there are less 360's running than Z's. who cares however? The Z is a little faster *1 10th or 2* in the 1/4th and maybe 1/2 a second on most tracks at most. But it is not nearly as FUN to drive. Why do we buy nice cars? I submit it is to have fun and enjoy ourserlves. I think the FUN factor is the only one that we should be looking at. Z06 - 0 - 60 smiles in 1,000 minutes 360 - 0 - 60 smiles in 60 minutes. The 360 is a much better car. | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 272 Registered: 3-2001 |
Hey Joe..(where you goin' with that gun in your hand....oops, sorry, Hendrix flashback), you say - "The funny thing is, after 80+ post not one 1/4 mile time." I say - The interesting thing is, after 80+ post not one 1/4 mile time. I think that gives you a pretty good idea of where the enthusiastic Ferrari owner is coming from. I'm not saying - good, bad, or whatever - it just gives you a good insight into the mindset of passionate owners of Ferraris. Draw whatever conclusions you may, based on whatever perspective you are coming from. You have however, started a great thread. Just my jaded opinion. | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hey guys, The funny thing is, after 80+ post not one 1/4 mile time. Later | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3003 Registered: 2-2001 |
We're talking naturally aspirated here Ernesto. They're are blown and turboed pushrods getting the same amount of power on the street. The difference is there is no such thing as a 6000hp skyline engine, whereas there is such a big block. Every point of highpower, race specific DOHC engines that you guys have pointed out has yet to produce more than 25% the power they get out of pushrods. Of course the life of the pushrod engines making this type of power is shortened, but nevertheless they make it. Here's a good article read about the basics of the three engine designs. http://www.allpar.com/eek/cams.html And as far as weight, obviously cams weigh very little compared to a crankshaft for instance, but there are 4 of them at the worst possible spots on the engine, and it adds up. If you read into the coveted Formula 1, you will find that engine block angles range between approximately 70-115 degrees. Obviously at a Boxer you being dealing with oil problems under G's, ruling it out, BUT the only recent they all aren't running 115 degrees (like Renault) is because the engine is a stressed member and the greater the degree the more flexible it is. If it were not stressed they all would be running wider to lower the Cg problem. (Ferrari ran a 90 degree this year, compromising between Cg and chassis strength). The point being that they all acknowledge the problem I'm talking about. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 926 Registered: 2-2001 |
"Once again, there are definite reasons why DOHC engines aren't used to make monster HP like pushrods are. " What do you consider "monster" horsepower in a street application? Because there are 1,200 hp STREET Skylines and 900hp street Supras running around... And the skylines are very high revving... Ernesto | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 354 Registered: 1-2002 |
Bret- >>As far as DOHC's not being inherently top heavy, this is true, BUT we're talking a 90 degree V8, we're comparing apples to apples. Of course you can build a flat 12 which will not be top heavy, but that has nothing to do with the two engines beging debated here. Namely the LS6 compared to the 3.6L Modena's engine. In this case the DOHC is indeed inherently top heavy, the 65 degree V12 in the 550, 575, F50, Enzo, is even more so. So once again the point is valid. To try and suggest that a steel cam sticking way out on the end of an engine, as opposed to an aluminum rocker arm, is not a bad weight distribution is insane. BUT this is the best way to achieve high revving, there are tradeoffs for everything and this is just a trade off in order to achieve that.<< Show me calculations where two set of cams offset the CofG on a 90 degree V8; you are arguing a point that is without validation, the bulk of the mass of a DOHC or any motor IS NOT in its valvetrain, period. A cam, at most, weighs a few pounds; this is not about singularily addressing a single elemnts weight, it IS, however, about the distribution of the entire mass, e.g. the whole engine assembly, gearbox included. You're right that the v12's are more 'top-heavy' than the 90 v8's, but they are so b/c the more acute bank angle makes the engine taller, and more forward; the idea is to concentrate all the weight b/w the axles and as far inside/near the firewall as possible, cams, I'm afraid, are not on the priorities list, show me other wise, empirically and quantitativly, and I might believe you. >>On the topic of high revving, yes DOHC cams can rev insanely high, but you're missing the point. It is useless in a street engine for the car to rev to 13000rpm, and it is much more stressful, and it requires infinitely more precise tolerances and conditions. How many engines are out there that can rev to 13k in 0 degree weather and then in 100 degree weather, now how many Corvettes can be run in either of these.<< I'm not going to argue that revving to 13k does not propose it's own inherant difficulties; rod stretch, lubrication issues, etc. However, street engines are now running to and past 9k (honda s2000 for example, the 360 goes to 8k, the NSX 8k, etc.); in high revving engines side loading is the most important concept to remember, as this is where the majority of the friction build up comes from; so, if you can reduce side loading and you can build a reliable engine. A major component to the degree of side loading you have is the rod ratio (Center line to center line length of the rod / Stroke; 1.74 or greater is most desirable for racing), the higher the better, as poor engine geometry results in a lot of strain on the engine. Friction; e.g. heat is a major foe, in recent years composite cylinder wall materials, e.g. FRM (fiber reinforced materials aumina oxide and carbon fiber; weighs less and stays lubricated b/c the matrix 'hold' some of the oil as it's inherantly porous); and cylinder wall/piston skirt coatings; e.g. NIKASIL and it's varients (posche 996TT and GT2), has come a long way in cooling and reducing friction due to side loading/cylinder friction losses. Furthermore, look through your engine building books, you'll notice that many time destroking an engine will yeild a more reliable engine? Why? B/C it improves the rod ratio and geometry (read: less side load), and it reduces the reciprocating masses therin. Reciprocating masses; the pistons; crank; rods; and wrist pins, must all the light, as well as counterweighting of the crank is essential; the only detriment to high rpm is vibrations/occilations under load, these cause sheer stress' on the components and fatigue; this is why if you want a RELIABLE engine you use small pistons, a light/counterbalanced crank, Also, arguing, again, that DOHC motors need more exact toleances harks back to my comments about DESMO valvetrain; advances in technology allow us the entertain more exacting tolerances b/c machining has improved; F1 engine DO NOT run gaskets, of any kind! Regarding weather conditions: it's all a matter of lubrication at start up and the oil you use; my engine, an s2000, or anyother engine could rev to 9k at 0 and at 100 ( I have routinely pushed my motor to 8200+ rpm in 100+ degree weather); this is again where proper forethough in addressing friction comes into play, and using the appropriate weight oil, how this relates to engine design; as in, DOHC I don't know what you're trying to say; whats your point?? >>The next giant point of revving the sh_t out of something is that it doesn't increase the size of the powerband at all, it just moves it to higher rpms. Both the LS6 and the 3.6L have about 4000-4500 usable rpms, the LS6 just starts them at 2000rpm instead of 4000rpm.<< Hp is a function of torque: Power (hp)= (Torque (lb/ft) x RPM /5252 There are two ways of increasing the amount of torque generated by an engine - either increase the capacity (or, more correctly, capacity times volumetric efficiency), or increase the length of the lever arm (or stroke).For increased power, you can increase either (or both) the torque, or the revs at which that torque is generated. Increasing stroke will increase torque, so theoretically it would be good to have very long stroke engines. The problem is, if the stroke is too long, the volumetric efficiency decreases, particularly with increasing revs (which is why long stroke engines don't like a big rev, apart from the rotating friction and harmonics). Now this decrease in revvability more than compensates for the torque increase, which is why very high power output engines tend to have very short strokes(once again, engine strength issues ignored). >>Once again, there are definite reasons why DOHC engines aren't used to make monster HP like pushrods are<< I wonder how the BMW engineers feel about this? Remember the turbo era in F1? 1500+ hp out of 4 cylinder motors under 2 liters??? | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2999 Registered: 2-2001 |
There are five irrefutable facts in this debate: 1. A 360 Modena would be faster no matter how you cut with a dry sumped LS6. You're talking essentially no vehicular dynamic loss or gain (center of gravity gain offset by weight gain, etc there are tradeoffs for each). You are gaining 10hp and 130 lb ft of torque. 2. The stock engine that comes out of Ferrari is just about as far as an engine of that displacement can be made to go, any modifications will return you with minimal gains. 3. The stock LS6 which is a better engine choice to start off with power wise is drastically detuned so as to run for well over 100k miles. It can be modified in endless ways, bored and stroked to a 427 (7.0L),etc. and if setup with Ferrari service intervals, it would easily be pushing the 650-700hp range. So it would be essentially the same vehicular dynamic affecting engine, just producing approximately 300 more hp and 400-450 lb ft more torque. So even if you say the LS6 weighs more, how much more can it weigh? Enough that 300hp couldn't make up for it? 4. The pushrod is a much more difficult engine to finely tune and requires more work and testing, but once the running is setup the nature of it makes it much less prone to oil leaks and lends itself much more to maintenance. I'd like to see you pull the head off a Ferrari...just the head, not the plenum, not the runners, etc. just one single head leaving the rest of the engine entirely intact. Something you can do with a pushrod easily, but will not accomplish with a DOHC (belts or chains have to be taken into account, head studs, etc). 5.THE MOST IMPORTANT. I for one and I think you agree with me on this, believe that Ferrari should never swap to a pushrod (obviously they have no intentions of doing so). They make beautiful DOHC engines and it would be a tremendous loss to the automotive world to lose the Ferrari sound. I think a finely tuned pushrod is awesome to hear, but there is just something about that high pitch wail of the Fcars. I guess the summary is that technology pushing as far as it has has made the pushrod capable of nearly any desired STREET application. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2998 Registered: 2-2001 |
Another point on weight. The largest difference in materials being used between the LS6 and the 3.6L are the titanium rods. Obviously this is a useful addition to the 3.6L, BUT it is essentially making the center of gravity higher in the engine. The cams are still steel and now there is less mass in the bottom end then there is with steel rods like in the ZO6. Percentage wise this makes it less advantageous from the center of gravity, but is obviously worth it as a total package, it just hurts that particular argument against the LS6. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2997 Registered: 2-2001 |
As far as DOHC's not being inherently top heavy, this is true, BUT we're talking a 90 degree V8, we're comparing apples to apples. Of course you can build a flat 12 which will not be top heavy, but that has nothing to do with the two engines beging debated here. Namely the LS6 compared to the 3.6L Modena's engine. In this case the DOHC is indeed inherently top heavy, the 65 degree V12 in the 550, 575, F50, Enzo, is even more so. So once again the point is valid. To try and suggest that a steel cam sticking way out on the end of an engine, as opposed to an aluminum rocker arm, is not a bad weight distribution is insane. BUT this is the best way to achieve high revving, there are tradeoffs for everything and this is just a trade off in order to achieve that. On the topic of high revving, yes DOHC cams can rev insanely high, but you're missing the point. It is useless in a street engine for the car to rev to 13000rpm, and it is much more stressful, and it requires infinitely more precise tolerances and conditions. How many engines are out there that can rev to 13k in 0 degree weather and then in 100 degree weather, now how many Corvettes can be run in either of these... The next giant point of revving the sh_t out of something is that it doesn't increase the size of the powerband at all, it just moves it to higher rpms. Both the LS6 and the 3.6L have about 4000-4500 usable rpms, the LS6 just starts them at 2000rpm instead of 4000rpm. Once again, there are definite reasons why DOHC engines aren't used to make monster HP like pushrods are. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 353 Registered: 1-2002 |
Matt- No worries! Drugged, asleep, handcuffed and blindfolded you could drive circles around me alert, awake, and instructed; thank you for the compliment. -hubert | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 271 Registered: 3-2001 |
Hubert, my last post went out just as yours did...don't want to look like I'm nitpicking you pal. You have forgotten more than I will ever know about the nuts and bolts of mechanical issues of motor building! | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 270 Registered: 3-2001 |
The BMW qualifying motor turns 19,800 rpm. Their race engines have had reliability problems this past season. Those do not turn 19,800 rpm. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 351 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>Ernesto nailed the powershifting. And yes, for $150K you got make an emissions friendly (and much less fuel consuming) car that would wreck a 360 in every measurable way from a performance standpoint. You of course could not touch the 360s resale value or beauty though for that type of money. Nor could you touch the the sound of a 360. And I for one would take a 360 over any of these cars any day. I look at it that Ferraris are a result of the european small displacement bracket racing whereas pushrods pretty much reflect the American unlimited (until recently) racing. << Lets move away from discussing cars that could eat, smoke, destroy, demolish, etc. a ferrari of whatever vintage and retain the focus on the 'engineering' issues; namely big displacement pushrod v. small displacement DOHC camshaft/valvespring/retainer or bucket over shim type valvetrain. >>I have to stand up for American pushrods because most people here argue them in ridiculous ways like they would survive a trip to the bottom of the Pacific (not an actual example of something said, but it mirrors the absurd comments made)etc... There are some definite advantages to them, just as there are those for DOHC. The big problem with DOHC is the cams themselves, you have 4 instead of 1, and they are all put at the very top of the engine, not good for center of gravity and obviously aluminum weighs less than steel so you get the idea. The only way to solve it would be some absurd idea like some special coated titanium, etc but then you could say why not just put that same cam in the pushrod. The big key is that pushrods have reached the tech level to rev to say 8000 rpms with little problem, and for a street engine you really don't want to rev higher than this so the-sky's-the-limit-DOHC's have lost their advantage. Plus, pushrods are infinitely (literal meaning) more tunable than a DOHC which is limited primarily to cam clearance (lift, duration, and spring rates are not unique to either). There's so much money in pushrods though that you can't beat the big guys like Edelbrock, etc with their bolt in kits, and that is no fun compared to really getting into the DOHC, especially with oversquare ones like the Ferraris, and really creating something unique (and hopefully powerful). Watch Drag Racing on ESPN sometime, with top fuel Dragsters running mid 4s you can't watch it and not be impressed. They're just unGodly, like a gunshot going off. Also, a DOHC is inherently a pain the ass to work on compared to a pushrod. You could never get that type of HP out of a DOHC (they estimate they make about 6000hp) because it would simply take too long to work on it, you'd need spare engines instead of spare heads, etc.<< Okay, 1) DOHC setups are not inherantly topheavy, the CofG in regard to the engine placement is mainly determined by the cylinder bank angle and the gearbox housing design, and how low this 'structure' can sit; the advent to using a dry sump system follows suit as it alleviates the need for an oil pan; therefore, allowing even lower engine placement. In formula cars, however, too wide a bank angle can create aerodynamic difficulties as the rear of the car can become to wide and 'messy'. 2) To make more power in an N/A application you can either a. increase displacement, or b. rev higher; per, F1 engines the produce ~900hp, 3.0liter, but rev to ~19K. However, high reving small displacement engines usually have charactaristics that do not lend themselves for low end power; this can be bypassed by variable length intake manifolds, plenum design, c/r, etc. 3) how is a DOHC so much more of a pain to work on? valve adjustment? cam profiles? etc.? also the argument that 'tuning' a DOHC motor is harder, sure; however, a DOHC (4/5 valve per cylinder) motor allows for a great dynamic adjustment b/c you can include lift, timing, duration, and employ the individual movement of ALL the valves to calculate optimium flow and optimum compression, and swirl; this lead to piston design (pent roof, etc.), but this already getting long. Also, valvetrain on a DOHC can handle greater stress' and can go with longer survice intervals; bucket over shim type valvetrains a la toyota JG1Z engines and nearly all the lexus variants do not require valve adjustments. What is the pushrod interval? >>That said, would I change Ferrari's approach?, not in a million years. I love high revving, I just think it's cool as hell and really shows the work put into such a precise tolerances, etc. It's not the most efficient way to build an engine for the street though, but efficiency isn't everything. I hope the replacement for the 360 stays under 4.0L to be honest, a 3.8L would be nice. The superlight, spinny little engines give mid engined Ferrari's their character. My comment of cubic inches was more directed to the Enzo's 1.3L jump. If you haven't caught on, the last posts had a little bit of Devil's Advocate in them, albeit the info provided is correct. There's two sides to everything, I figured it would be worthwhile to represent the other as no one else here is really interested in it, or at least that speaks up with rational thoughts. They've gotten to the point where each deems equal respect in my book (you definitely couldn't say that when my 308 was made).<< You can respect designs and idealogies of engineering all you want, but you should also admit when/if comparing two various platforms, which is the more efficent, productive, and pervasive school of design; arguing that a archaic ( by the limited manufactures that employ it, both in racing and road going design) is better than a modern and better engineered system, is arguing a moot point. It would be as if I told everyone to revert to DESMO valve acuation b/c I feel it's better, it isn't. DESMO was concieved b/c the metallury, in it's day, was too incompetent to deliver valvesprings that could sustain high rev's, the metal would break down and you'd get valve float, piston valve contact, and a screwed head. Metallurgy has come a long way, and valvesprings and retainers (most of which are Ti now) can handle 10K rpm, easily, on street engines. Also, the argument of taking say a 3liter engine and boring it out to 3.6 liters or more also needs rethinking; have you taken into account the strain and loss of rigidity on the block, how will it react to side loads w/ so much matrialremoved, what about cooling? improved water jackets/oil jets? will you need to pin the block/sleeve it? I doubt it would last. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3371 Registered: 5-2001 |
Airplanes have seats.... sorry just thought of that  | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3368 Registered: 5-2001 |
The F-1 engines turn 18,000 times per minute! just thought I throw this in here. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 241 Registered: 4-2002 |
I am well aware that (unrestricted) NASCAR engines can turn 9000+ RPMs. However, these are designed to run 600 to 700 miles (not a typo) before a complete rebuild. However, these engines do not use the stock blocks, or at best get the blocks before any machining has been performed. Just to set the record straignt, a modern NASCAR engine will produce just about 850 HP from 5.72 litres at 9000. This is just about the same power as a F1 engine gets from 3.00 litres at 18000 with the same service life! Which (by the way) is just about the power of a 2.14 litre CART engine on methanol at 13500 with turbocharging. Funny how all engien packages deliver the same basic HP?!?!?!? I am also well aware that with enough dollars, one can get the top end of a push rod engine spinning over 7000 RPMs. However, with a similar amount of dollars, you can get the top end a DOHC engine spinning 13000--witness the high end motorcycle engines turning 15000 in bone stock conditions. RPMs above 7000 with useful service lifes begin with special steel 4340 forged cranks, (reletively) short strokes, forged steel/titanium rods, and forged pistons--none of which are found in production pushrod engines. All of which are found in the bottom end of Ferrari engines. Then, I'm not saying that pushrods are bad; I'm indicating that GM has designed the pushrod in the LS1/LS6 such that it is sacrificial in the event of an overrev. Those who have put in stronger pushrods and achieved a simmilar overrev will find broken pistons and bent valves. In this reguards, the sacrificial pushrod is a maintainance benefit! Finally, I don't think you argument is "for" pushrods, but "for" big displacements. It is perfectly reasonable to develop OHC engines with BIG displacements, long inlet tracks that make big TQ at low-ish RPMs. The real reason Ferrari sticks with small displacement engines that produce prodigious amounts of power is that Ferrari CAN--GM cannot! This does not mean tha GM cannot make big engines that produce big power. These Ferrari engines are essentially early 1980's F1 engines, developed to survive 100,000 miles with (Ferraris' definition of) reasonable maintainance. Finally, The weight of the F355 engine is less than the weight of the LS1 block+crankshaft. It is a shame that the Corvette and the F355 end up weighing within spitting distance of each other with the F355 having a 200 Lb advantage in the engine compartment. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2992 Registered: 2-2001 |
Chevy stuck with the pushrod simply because it was less expensive for them to further develop it than to retool and redesign for DOHC engines. They unknowingly at the time made a choice which later technology would prove to be a very good one. It is true that the 355 heads (360s too) are low, but obviously you would run a dry sump if you were to do the insane and swap for an LS1, and it would maintain it's advantage in that regard. As far as them bending pushrods, kind of a ridiculous argument as I have witnessed several small blocks running to 7500. Obviously you can make it so that it will fail at 6300rpm, but that said you can also obviously make it so that it wont. James brings up his big block running to 7000, what do you think a modern small block is capable of? NASCAR engines run to 9000, so there is obviously room to work. The big point is that if you setup an LS1 (or LS6) aggressive enough that it would require Ferrari's service intervals, it would be making like 700hp (the engines you guys are picking on are made to run 100K+ miles before doing anything, how long can a Ferrari engine go running to 8500rpm?). You could easily bore and stroke it to a small block aluminum 427, get this type of power, and to be honest probably still have less of a service interval than the Ferraris. If you guys don't believe me pick up any Corvette magazine, the same company that prints Forza just started printing a Vette mag which is damn good. So, I believe for a street size car (3000+ lbs) the pushrod is better. It's not really that I like the design all that much more, it is much more based on cubic inches. A street car needs the mid range torque and is not as affected by a little extra weight. I think DOHC's are better in super lightweight applications, like a Formula car, where every pound of engine matters. I think the 6.0L V12 of the Enzo is the best engine Ferrari ever produced for a street car. Would I personally want the most usable, "best" engine, not necessarily. That's why I have a 308 which is powered by a bunch of angry squirrels, and why the 355 is my favorite Ferrari. Their engines give them a character, which is rarely connotated with "best" or "most usable", but makes me happy nevertheless. | ||
| L. Wayne Ausbrooks (Lwausbrooks)
Member Username: Lwausbrooks Post Number: 516 Registered: 8-2002 |
Ok. Still leaves the "modern" part though. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2002 |
Both of these cars are street registered and are driven on the street. I put 20,000 miles on the MK-IV on the street. Once when coming back from upstate in november it started to snow. I think I can safely say I'm the only one to have driven a MK-IV in the snow. The Lola is very comfortable, with an extra water radiator in the rear it doesn't overheat even with the AC on in traffic. | ||
| L. Wayne Ausbrooks (Lwausbrooks)
Member Username: Lwausbrooks Post Number: 511 Registered: 8-2002 |
In Mitch's defense, he did use the words "modern" and "streetable," neither of which describes either the Lola or the GT40. | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 268 Registered: 3-2001 |
I would be very interested in what Bill Badurski, Technical Chairman of the FCA, as well as a fellow FerrariChat member has to say on the technical issues being discussed here. I will email him, and see if he would like to join the conversation. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Junior Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 177 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mitch The 427 in my MK-IV revs to 7000 without damage as does the 365SB in my Lola. Best | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 238 Registered: 4-2002 |
I am going to disagree with bretM on pushrods. The modern streetable pushrod engines are not capable of 7000 RPMs let alone 8000. If you go to the corvette forum you will find minor overrevs bend the pushrods (LS1 engines 6300 RPM redline; high 6x00 PRMs overrevs bend the pushrods). Happens all the time, and faster than the engine management systems can depower the engine. In order to push the top end to 7000 you have to replace every component from after the tappet and before the valves. In oder to get to 8000 RPMs you cant make 100,000 mile emissions requirements--the stress on the valve guides are too great. I need to disagree with center of gravity issues also. The height of heads on the F355 engine are lower than the combustion chamber in the LS1 engine. The dry sump system, losers the engine some 4 to 5 inches. Obviating much of the weight of the overhead cams as center of gravity concerns. This leaves the upper 30% of the engine for clean airflow. An LS1 engien can never have the kind of airflow necessary to make power in the 8000 rpm band because the inlet tracks are so contorted. In order to straighten them out to make high RPM power, the intles system would have to be raised about 6 inches, which would make the front hood of the engine bay look silly. Which brings us back to the real reason chevy build the LS1 as it did--that is the pushrod system is compact enough that they could fit in under the hood of a high powered sports car--not that the pushrod system has any inherent power advantage (although it has manufacturing build cost advantages). I have (personally) survived a 9,650 overrev in my F355 without any mechanical failure. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3354 Registered: 5-2001 |
1/4 Mile is so important!!! That is a City block, right? One stop light to the next. Ah, the fast and the fertile! As for the Z06 being better on the track, I doubt that. Drove one in Moroso in October and although the car has better handling and better performance than expected still heavy and unstable at the edge. Suspension is not par for good track times. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3353 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hey you want the ultimate ride? I can hook you up with: The M&M Nascar of Ken Schrader The Home Depot Tony Steward Car and some other nice NASCAR toys. $50K buys you the body with original sponsor decals and another $14K buys a 700+HP engine for the sucker. I am sure you can buy the engine and mount it into a Z06 as well and blast by a F40 on the 1/4 Mile. | ||
| allan fiedler (Allanlambo)
Junior Member Username: Allanlambo Post Number: 111 Registered: 6-2002 |
First off, in terms of stock for stock, i dont think a Zr-1 could beat a 360. Surely there are a substantial amount of performance mods available for the Zr-1 that will give it an advantage, but so, what, it will never have the feel of the Ferrari. I had 2 Corvettes, an 89 Greenwood L98, that had every single bolt on mod made, and it turned 13.98@ 99mph. It was an automatic and the biggest pig imaginable, my friends bone stock rx-7 blew me away. So i traded it for a 91 Zr-1, it was definately faster, but still nothing special, the rx-7 with exhaust and air filters could beat me. The Zr-1 was good for low 13's @ 108-109, and many, long and frequent stays at the dealer. These 2 Corvettes are the main reason i will never buy an american car. Anyways, if you want more speed from the modena, mod it, theres exhausts, air filters, guy here in az runs a 75 shot of nos in his, etc. | ||
| Joseph (Mojo)
Junior Member Username: Mojo Post Number: 143 Registered: 9-2002 |
Joe Buy a 1963 corvette split window put $20,000 into it then you have "classic, fast, greatlooks even for todays standards, great resale, WHOOO WHAAA | ||
| Morrie Richfield (Carnut)
New member Username: Carnut Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2002 |
I love a good debate. I had the chance a few years ago to watch how a an auto mag does their testing. I was one of sports car challenge tests. I have to tell you to get the times they recorded, they drove those cars in ways I doubt many owners would ever consider. It took several runs with different driver to get the best times. I'm by no mean a pro, but I handle a clutch pretty well, as I was told that day. I learned that day that power can not overcome skill. I had a CLK55 for a while and belw off many 6 speed M3's offf the line, had a guy ask me what I did to the car since a the car rags sais the M3 was faster 0-60. He is right, but only under the right conditions, shifting perfect with the power curve, and not lighting up the tires. I have a very modified 996tt, it will pin you back in the seat when you punch it, but it does not and never will have the feedback that I felt driving the 360. Yes the 512 might be cheaper, and very close in 0-60 but it is not nimble, and it certainly will not carve up a twisting backroad like a 360. I hope you get the chance to own a 360, my wait is getting shorter every day, but if you want 0-60, or 1/4 mile times, there are faster and cheaper cars. If you want pure enjoyment and connection to the road, there is nothing like it. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 925 Registered: 2-2001 |
My 360 does not outrun my Supra, by a long shot! Am I disappointed? Hell no.. I just sold the Supra! No car you buy will be the "best of the best" at everything. A Viper and Vette have horrible fit and finish and materials. The shifts in a vette are a mile long. Every car has downsides. You have to figure out what you want. Ernesto | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2002 |
Bret, Thank you for you post. I do believe that I would LOVE the 360 and God willing I will have the chance to find out. Guys, as far as car vs. car if you buy a "sports car" be it a vette, ferrari, viper, or whatever is needs/will to be judged to all other "sports cars" reguardless of engine size/price. If I spend 150K on a sports car it needs/should be the best of the best. The 360 is not the best of the best from what I read. Please don't forget that I skip a heart beat anytime I see a 360. Best of both worlds would be to have the ZR-1 and the 360. I'm not rich and I would have to make payments on the 360 if I were to get one and from the sound of things I probably should wait until I could pay cash for that kind of car. I think I would be disapointed if I were making payments on a 150K car that could not out run my ZR-1. Good conversations. Joe | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2983 Registered: 2-2001 |
Joe to answer your question, I personally think you would love a 360. I was brought up around Corvettes, my dad had a 58 when he was younger and then got a 63 (small block, 375-400hp, cheater slicks, etc) which he kept for like twenty years (sold when I was young). So the Corvette was THE sports car to me. That said, I love the 308 which isn't half as cool as a 360. The 360 is cool enough that even I wouldn't think of modifying it. It's just that fun of a car. Actually I think the 355 is a little more racey, but not as quick, and obviously not the latest and greatest. All this said, you wont get spanked on many corners (although if you go looking you will) and where you think you'll get spanked you can just pretend you are too good to race on the street and laugh off the $30K dollar camaro that was about to beat you from the stoplight. OR you can race with them and brake real late at the next stop light and chances are they'll either plow into someone or into the middle of the intersection, not realizing that there is a big difference in braking, all the while you'll be braking in plenty of time. Ferraris are great. I'm surprised the ZR-1 was received like all other Vettes here. You would think with a Lotus designed DOHC the people here would be all over it. I think it's really cool. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2981 Registered: 2-2001 |
Ernesto nailed the powershifting. And yes, for $150K you got make an emissions friendly (and much less fuel consuming) car that would wreck a 360 in every measurable way from a performance standpoint. You of course could not touch the 360s resale value or beauty though for that type of money. Nor could you touch the the sound of a 360. And I for one would take a 360 over any of these cars any day. I look at it that Ferraris are a result of the european small displacement bracket racing whereas pushrods pretty much reflect the American unlimited (until recently) racing. I have to stand up for American pushrods because most people here argue them in ridiculous ways like they would survive a trip to the bottom of the Pacific (not an actual example of something said, but it mirrors the absurd comments made)etc... There are some definite advantages to them, just as there are those for DOHC. The big problem with DOHC is the cams themselves, you have 4 instead of 1, and they are all put at the very top of the engine, not good for center of gravity and obviously aluminum weighs less than steel so you get the idea. The only way to solve it would be some absurd idea like some special coated titanium, etc but then you could say why not just put that same cam in the pushrod. The big key is that pushrods have reached the tech level to rev to say 8000 rpms with little problem, and for a street engine you really don't want to rev higher than this so the-sky's-the-limit-DOHC's have lost their advantage. Plus, pushrods are infinitely (literal meaning) more tunable than a DOHC which is limited primarily to cam clearance (lift, duration, and spring rates are not unique to either). There's so much money in pushrods though that you can't beat the big guys like Edelbrock, etc with their bolt in kits, and that is no fun compared to really getting into the DOHC, especially with oversquare ones like the Ferraris, and really creating something unique (and hopefully powerful). Watch Drag Racing on ESPN sometime, with top fuel Dragsters running mid 4s you can't watch it and not be impressed. They're just unGodly, like a gunshot going off. Also, a DOHC is inherently a pain the ass to work on compared to a pushrod. You could never get that type of HP out of a DOHC (they estimate they make about 6000hp) because it would simply take too long to work on it, you'd need spare engines instead of spare heads, etc. That said, would I change Ferrari's approach?, not in a million years. I love high revving, I just think it's cool as hell and really shows the work put into such a precise tolerances, etc. It's not the most efficient way to build an engine for the street though, but efficiency isn't everything. I hope the replacement for the 360 stays under 4.0L to be honest, a 3.8L would be nice. The superlight, spinny little engines give mid engined Ferrari's their character. My comment of cubic inches was more directed to the Enzo's 1.3L jump. If you haven't caught on, the last posts had a little bit of Devil's Advocate in them, albeit the info provided is correct. There's two sides to everything, I figured it would be worthwhile to represent the other as no one else here is really interested in it, or at least that speaks up with rational thoughts. They've gotten to the point where each deems equal respect in my book (you definitely couldn't say that when my 308 was made). | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Junior Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 100 Registered: 6-2002 |
Enzo: 6.0litre V-12 making *660bhp*. Eat that muscle-car! You gotta *combine* these philosophies of big displacement, and insane specific output. Then the real fun starts. Best! Ben. | ||
| Joseph (Mojo)
Junior Member Username: Mojo Post Number: 142 Registered: 9-2002 |
For $150,000 anyone could build a car faster than a 360, would it meet 2003 emissions NO, would it look as cool as a 360 NO, would it have as good of a resale value as a 360 NO. FERRARI BECAUSE SPEED IS NOT EVERYTHING!!! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 924 Registered: 2-2001 |
The F1 system backs off on the throttle during shifts, regardless if you still keep the pedal to the floor. It has an electronic throttle, not a cable linkage. Ernesto | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 350 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jake- That's what I always concieved 'powershifting' to be; gas down while shifting gears. So, Bret, how does the F1 tranny impede that? | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
New member Username: Rampante Post Number: 25 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bret--Refresh my memory. "Back in the day", we used to think of "powershifting" as NOT letting up on the gas pedal while the shifting gears. Am I correct ? | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 923 Registered: 2-2001 |
What is really funny is that to increase horsepower on the Viper 8.0L engine, Dodge had to INCREASE displacement. You would think they could get a little more power from the 8 liters... By the way, Bret, Ferrari has been slowly increasing displacement on its engines for as long as I can remember - it is not a new phenomenon. At least on the Dino series, from 3.0 to 3.2 to 3.4 to 3.5 to 3.6. Slow but steady, but also increasing hp/liter as well, which is VERY important (to me at least). My mom could get 250 hp from a 3.6L engine... getting 400+ is not so easy. I think Ferrari needs to put a nice little high-revving 4.0L V10 in the 360 series, with 450hp at least. Leave the pushrods to the donkey cars (or pony cars, or whatever they are called). Ernesto | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2978 Registered: 2-2001 |
I always throw in these disclaimers now so we don't have WWIII as some threads become, this is all in good fun, a healthy debate, at least that's how I look at it. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2977 Registered: 2-2001 |
Regarding powershifting, why don't you look it up before commenting on it, you can't do it with the F1 system and you wouldn't be able to shift quick enough with the gated shifter to do it without playing ultimo destructo with the engine in a Ferrari. Even if you timed it just right to avoid revving through the roof, you would destroy the pansy ass shift setups of the Ferraris. They are definitely not made to deal with that type of violent stress put on them. There are reasons why a Corvette relatively speaking shifts like a dump truck. Regarding getting 355 type power out of a 308 block it isn't magic like you seem to think. You're talking a half liter increase in displacement which is next to nothing, besides which the 308 has a more oversquare bore which makes it more naturally inclined to higher revving which is obviously more hp. Lastly I don't have to worry about emissions like the factory has to, nor do I have to setup an engine that can run at 15k feet above and 200 feet below sea level. The only trick will be preventing valve float which will admitedly take a good deal of work, but once it is back together I'll have a couple years to plan before I pull it apart to do the project. Now lastly the small block chevy. How many of you have honestly picked up a decent engine building book in the last year lets say... An aluminum LS1 for instance doesn't weigh much more than a Ferrari engine and has a slightly lower center of gravity than the Ferrari engine can accomplish running DOHC. So, on a track you will theoretically be better off with an aluminum pushrod as the small increase in weight will be easily offset by the gigantic power increase and the lower center of gravity. Besides which they've had SBC's running up to 7500rpm in street applications since the 60s. My 308 runs up about 500rpm higher in stock form and is basically half the size. You guys had a strong point for the aluminum DOHCs until they started making the switch to aluminum pushrod engines, to be honest the benefits are starting to lean towards the pushrods and in the future they will move even further away (GM makes more small blocks in a day than Ferrari makes in like ten years, who has more money and R&D behind them). You guys are ready to crucify me for talking out about Ferrari, half of which because you aren't staying on top of modern engine designs and the other half of which because you own Ferraris and love them. Once again, I'm not saying Ferrari should make a swap to an aluminum pushrod, I'm simply stating that there are an increasing number of benefits to them and more in the future to come, it would be totally ignorant to ignore this. Besides which, Ferrari is finally going the more cubic inches route which I am in essence preaching (obviously they stick to DOHC because that is what they know how to do), are they wrong too? I'm pro Ferrari everything, I love all the cars, I love working on them, they're simply awesome. BUT I wont be narrow minded in the Ferrari-is-God mentality that some people stick to. There's a reason Ford beat Ferrari at their own game... and come to think of it, they did it with cast iron pushrod engines running against the aluminum Ferraris. | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 267 Registered: 3-2001 |
Mitchell...I know that driver ability needs to be equal in order for track times to be properly compared, but (I do not think I am the second coming of Schumi) I have never been beaten at the Glen by a ZO6. And I have raced against many of them. The 360 IS built for the track (the street version could use different springs if you were to use it specifically for the track). I have a hard time understanding where you come from with that statement. . Racer....I'm no great math wizard, but the Viper motor is 2.3 times the size of the 360. Doing the simple math, a 360 would put out 922 hp and 634 lb/ft torque "if" you would extrapolate the 360 motor size to the Viper. The 575 would put out 740 hp and 675 lb/ft torque. And that is the new Viper motor....can you imagine how the numbers would have played out if we used the specs from last years Viper motor???? That is how it compares apples to apples....not apples to oranges. Personally, I do think it is pathetic the the Viper only puts out that kind of hp and torque. BretM...with all due respect...if you were to tweak a 308 motor to be as powerful as a 355 or 360, honestly, how long do you think it would be before it blew up? My bottom line....I have spanked several 360 Challenge Cars, as well as several 360 street cars on the track. The street cars are just that, street cars....good, but the suspension is a bit too soft. The 360 Challenge Car is a great track car...although I would VERY much prefer for it to have a rear wing put on it! . Just my jaded opinion. | ||
| Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Member Username: Jussumfastgi Post Number: 304 Registered: 4-2002 |
Ok, so the 360 is build for the track and the Z06 is built for a 1/4th mile run? (is faster in the 1/4th after all) However the z06 is also faster around the track (most tracks). Humm... I must say the Ferrari is not built for the track or the 1/4th mile, but to be fun. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 348 Registered: 1-2002 |
Racer, You're missing the point. Yes, the Viper is 8.3 liters and the 575 is 5.7 liters a delta of 2.6 liters; that's huge regardless of the 575 being a v12 v. the vipers v10! However, the 575 still manages to make equal horespower,comparble torque,and is more efficent. Frankly, the viper motor is pathetic, speaking in terms of efficency, in it's newest itteration it produces 60! hp/liter! the 575, w/ 2.6L missing makes 508 hp and 464 ft/lbs of torque, and is more efficent than the vipers 8.3L motor making 89hp/liter. I'm not knocking the viper, but those are the numbers. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 347 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>I find nearly all magazine stats to be taken with a very large grain of salt, one comparable in size to the entire quarry. They get such ridiculously inconsistent numbers at times that I for one have to wonder. Like HP, torque, and gearing have some how magically become different because cars are newer. When they say a BMW 330i is almost as fast as an e36 M3, I've been in both numerous times and the M3 will hand the 330 its ass, but if you only got info from car mags you wouldn't think that. Things along these lines.<< I don't agree, if you want a healthy dose of automotive journalism should be, pick up either the UK publication CAR (also branched into EVO), or domesticlly you could check out Grassroots Motorsports and Car and Driver, both are 'on the level' and neither, in my recolection, have evey insinuated that a 330 and E46M3 are in any way tied w/ regard to performance. That's a retarded statement to make in print. >>I find the "it wasn't built for that" a weak argument when talking about performance. New Ferraris are definitely geared for 0-60 or 1/4 mile acceleration, they just have that gated shifter which makes them slower, to eliminate that you have to go with the F1 which rules out any chance you had of posting good numbers because powershifting is out of the question. So it is correct, Ferraris are not built for certain types of racing, but they are still slow regardless when talking of accelerating. Even the "monster" Ferraris like the F40LM, the coveted Enzo, etc are ass slow compared to any real performance American car (obviously not production) in accleration. You simply are not going to touch the American abilities to accelerate. This is why I for one will be the first to tell you that the 308 is slow. It is plain and simple, and I still love it. Alright, I can make it a little faster, as fast as a 355 or I dream of as a 360 would be great, but it will still be slow then too. I also tend to think that a 360 with a small block chevy would wreck the Ferrari powered 360, but that of course would be no fun and would take away its Italian flair (hard to read, but I am not in anyway pro pushrods in Ferraris, etc even though they would be faster). Just my $.02<< The 'it wasn't built for it' sentiment is and is not valid. If you build a car that is light, has good traction, a good motor, and a well geared transmission, then 1/4 mile time and 0-60 times will follow; as a by product of proper, all around, forethought. There is a great thrill in stomping the gas, in a straight line, and feeling the car leap forward, more exhilerating, IMO, is doing the same on corner exit and feeling the car squat, bite, and blast out; thats fun. Also, arguing that you cant 'powershift' w/ an F1 tranny isn't valid; rev to redline and shift, it's faster than 99% of the drivers out there, and will not mis shift. How is it detrimental simply b/c you, physically, aren't keeping the clutch depressed b/w shifts? Your last point regaring a '360 w/ a small block' is pretty..interesting. We should keep in mind that larger displacement engines 1. weigh more, 2. have greater reciprocating masses, and 3. are physically larger; all of which would, detrimentally effect the 360; e.g. higher center of gravity, probably couldn't fit the majority of the mass b/w the axles, more overhang in the rear, larger pistons = lazier throttle response, etc. if you're arguing for a big(er) bore 360, fine, but as Matt mentioned, comparing a 3.6 liter v8 to a 5 liter or bigger, is not a fair comparison, nor would a 5.0 liter 360 be the same machine. IMO, cars should be functional, not have a sole function, e.g. going in a straight line, taking the kids to school, etc. cars should have dynamic performance charactaristics, and while going 0-60 is great, and a bench mark performance figure, it's historically overhyped, as are hp numbers. | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 374 Registered: 3-2002 |
Matt: The new SRT-10 Viper is 8.3L. And I think your missing the point about it's 500bhp... It also makes 505lb.-ft. of torque... the 575M doesn't make as much even with 2 more cylinders to work with. Saying the Viper's motor is pathetic because it doesn't get 100bhp/liter is like saying the 360 Modena's motor is a piece of junk for not even having 300lb.-ft. of twist to go with it's 400 horses. It's just absurd IMHO... But your right, the 360 will not get spanked by just any car with a small block... | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 266 Registered: 3-2001 |
Brett, I'm not sure which normally aspirated, stock small block Chevy would hand a 360 its ass. Also, another thing to consider is that we are talking about a 3.6 litre motor here. Most all small block american motors are around 5.0 litres. This is a difference of the 360 being appx. 225 cubic inches against the appx. 312 cubic inches in a small block american car. Another way to look at it is the 360 is 72% the size of a small block american motor. This IS apples to oranges, NOT apples to apples. Another way to think about it, is how pathetic is the Viper which has (I'm not exactly sure) 8 litres? It just puts out 500 hp. That is up from just 450 hp in last years model. Just another thing to look at. Apples to apples, it is very hard to beat what Ferrari has done with the car it has built. Just my jaded opinion. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 2972 Registered: 2-2001 |
I find nearly all magazine stats to be taken with a very large grain of salt, one comparable in size to the entire quarry. They get such ridiculously inconsistent numbers at times that I for one have to wonder. Like HP, torque, and gearing have some how magically become different because cars are newer. When they say a BMW 330i is almost as fast as an e36 M3, I've been in both numerous times and the M3 will hand the 330 its ass, but if you only got info from car mags you wouldn't think that. Things along these lines. I find the "it wasn't built for that" a weak argument when talking about performance. New Ferraris are definitely geared for 0-60 or 1/4 mile acceleration, they just have that gated shifter which makes them slower, to eliminate that you have to go with the F1 which rules out any chance you had of posting good numbers because powershifting is out of the question. So it is correct, Ferraris are not built for certain types of racing, but they are still slow regardless when talking of accelerating. Even the "monster" Ferraris like the F40LM, the coveted Enzo, etc are ass slow compared to any real performance American car (obviously not production) in accleration. You simply are not going to touch the American abilities to accelerate. This is why I for one will be the first to tell you that the 308 is slow. It is plain and simple, and I still love it. Alright, I can make it a little faster, as fast as a 355 or I dream of as a 360 would be great, but it will still be slow then too. I also tend to think that a 360 with a small block chevy would wreck the Ferrari powered 360, but that of course would be no fun and would take away its Italian flair (hard to read, but I am not in anyway pro pushrods in Ferraris, etc even though they would be faster). Just my $.02 | ||
| Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Member Username: Jussumfastgi Post Number: 303 Registered: 4-2002 |
What is the 1/4th mph on the 512 vs the 360? Interesting line of tought. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 618 Registered: 12-2001 |
Ross, i suppose the argument would be that the newer, smaller, lighter car is more nimble and chuckable, although i think it depends alot more on the driver than anything else. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 590 Registered: 3-2002 |
this thread highlights something else that i think about some times.....the 360 has a 0-60 of around 4.5 seconds (depending on who tests it), and a quarter mile time around 12.5 (again depending). the new price is somewhere around $200k (depending on where you are). my 512tr has a 0-60 of 4.7, and a quarter mile at 12.7, but cost me significantly less.... so where is the performance advantage that pushes people to pay multiples more for the 360? i guess my 'cheap bastard' side is showing again, and i am of course biased towards my current favorite ride, but still don't get it - i certainly wouldn't be spending that kind of money for dubious performance advantage and questionable styling advances.....all imho of course...... | ||
| Ben Cannon (Artherd)
Junior Member Username: Artherd Post Number: 98 Registered: 6-2002 |
I for one really rather enjoy taking exotics to the drag strip once and a while, just for the sheer hell of it. Everyone knows the car's out of it's element (a true road course, or a true... road and it frankly looks a little silly going in a straight line. Amuseing though, and fun when you get the occational surprise (360s are good for mid-to-low twelves!) Here's another car who's primary goal is turning power into downforce and traction and going around corners real quick. It *also happens to run 9.4 at 140!* http://www.rapidcars.com/Mercedes_Benz_CLK-GTR_18.jpg Kinda cool in an off-colour way, isn't it? If you're concerned about getting 'beat' on the street, get yourself an F40 and modify the bejesus out of it into an 700hp monster. Because, in the 360, you will eventually loose (to a moded supra, or a turbo C5 or such. Who cares though?) | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 617 Registered: 12-2001 |
I may be one of the few ferrari owners to have actually put my car on a drag strip. When R&T did the review of the barchetta, we took it, among other places, to the Englishtown Drag Strip in South Jersey, so Pat Hong could get some stats for the magazine. I have also driven ferraris on a few tracks (lamely, in my estimation, but that's a whole nother issue), and have put, let's call it 40,000 miles on different ferraris in the past several years. The barchetta, which has oodles of power,torque and finesse, made a shitty dragster; couldn't get enough grip to launch (at the time it was shod with Michelin Pilot tires), the gear ratio is such that you have to change three times (and as those of you who know the 550 will attest), you get into 2d only to hit the lid if you don't get right into third. Now, i don't claim to be a hot rodder, and Pat Hong (who has probably driven more cars than any of us in the past couple of years) was pretty modest about his own skill, but neither of us could make the 550 do what it does best on a drag strip. We also respected the clutch, cause, at least in my experience, they don't like being dumped. I've have enormous respect for the guys that can put something together that can launch and fly as quick as some of the dragsters do. But, at the same time, it is rare when i need to do standing starts. The prowess of the 550 seems to be its "dynamic range," eg., its ability to go from 75-80 to 130plus in a few short beats, to brake convincingly, and allow you to hang on curves as if your life depended on it. (And, still, if ferrari were designing the car for pure performance, rather than GT comfort, it would be way lighter, have less body roll, etc.) So, in terms of dollars/performance, ferrari is not going to win by this measure.But, that's just one criteria, and certainly not the one by which most judge this car. | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2002 |
Guys, Mitchell i agree with you that R&T numbers don't mean anything. That is why I wanted real numbers from owners. As fas as is the 360 the wrong car for me, well that is still up in the air. I guess when the time gets nearer I will have to line up a test drive and see for myself if the 360 "experience has no equal" or just have the "thrill of driving a Ferrari". Both are what I would consider ENJOYING a car. Thanks a lot guys. Joe | ||
| Mitchell L. Davidson (Jussumfastgi)
Member Username: Jussumfastgi Post Number: 299 Registered: 4-2002 |
Wow, the R&T numbers are so wrong, they gave me a headach when i read them. lol! | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 364 Registered: 3-2002 |
Joe... I think you would probably like a 550 Maranello. Go try one out. It has more in common w/ the Vette than the 360. It's motor is huge and it's placed up front. | ||
| Jeffrey Caspar (Jcaspar1)
New member Username: Jcaspar1 Post Number: 48 Registered: 5-2002 |
No, No, Please no more magizine statistics!!! You guys are going to get a paper cut with all this magazine racing! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 921 Registered: 2-2001 |
Rob, I have beat Z06s, Vipers, worked camaros, and others in my 360. And each time they were shocked because they were expecting to spank the 360. But if your MAIN goal is to be able to hang with these guys, most of whom have exhaust, chips, filters, and God knows what other mods, the 360 is NOT the ideal car to have. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the 360 - I just sold my 800rwhp Supra, which would beat anything on the road - and would not trade it for anything other than another Ferrari. The experience has no equal. Ernesto | ||
| Scotty (Pzerowaster)
New member Username: Pzerowaster Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2002 |
Rob, you most certainly did. You're not only a great F-car fan, but a great American. Scotty | ||
| Scotty (Pzerowaster)
New member Username: Pzerowaster Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2002 |
You are right Ernesto. In a drag race, you can get beat. But in my minds eye, in a 360, just have just about any car on the road beat before the freakin' light changes. Hardly anything on the road can beat the visceral thrill of driving a Ferrari. You can't expain it, you just have to live it to understand. A Z06 vette will smoke my 348. I drove a Z06 vette. Very nice, and very fast car. I've owned corvettes. Would I trade my 12 year old 348, which is about equal of value (or probably less), for a Z06? Not a chance! | ||
| Matt Lemus (Mlemus)
Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 728 Registered: 8-2002 |
"God will be killing some kittens." No Rob, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! PITA will be mad! | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 2855 Registered: 12-2000 |
Stock vs stock the 360 won't get spanked by any of these cars. They're all so close it comes down to driver skill. On the street these other cars are more likely to be modified, so watch out though. All my previous Z06 posts were to awaken some Ferrari people in a dream world that just because we paid 3 times as much, it doesn't mean our Ferraris perform that much better. Stock vs. stock I would go head to head with any of these cars in a 360 on the drag, but especially on the track. The Viper doesn't have much of an acceleration advantage, equal at the 60 mph and it only pulls away a little at the 1/4, although the 360 would be coming back strong in the 110 mph+ range. However, look at those awful Viper braking numbers. The 360 would handle this particular Viper easily on a track. The 911 turbo would be about the only car on this list that with equally skilled drivers might edge out the 360, everything else the 360 has a slight paper advantage. So if anyone posts anything back about driver skill, modifications, or price to argue one of these cars is superior to the 360, then God will be killing some kittens.  I made my point loud and clear. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 2854 Registered: 12-2000 |
Here's the latest R&T numbers ranked by 1/4 times... Murcielago 5/02 $273k, 580hp, 3.6 0-60, 12.0 1/4, 122ft 60-0, 0.90g Porsche 911t 11/00 $118k, 415hp, 4.0 0-60, 12.4 1/4, 119ft 60-0, 0.96g Viper GTS 7/98 $72k, 450hp, 4.3 0-60, 12.5 1/4, 155ft 60-0, 0.98g Ferrari 360 8/99 $170k, 395hp, 4.3 0-60, 12.8 1/4, 110ft 60-0, 0.97g Esprit V8 9/97 $80k, 350hp, 4.4 0-60, 13.0 1/4, 125ft 60-0, 0.90g Z06 3/02 $50k, 405hp, 4.7 0-60, 13.1 1/4, 118ft 60-0, 0.97g Mustang Cobra 8/02 $35k, 390hp, 4.9 0-60, 13.3 1/4, 123ft 60-0, 0.90g BMW M3 2/01 $45k, 343hp, 4.7 0-60, 13.3 1/4, 112ft 60-0, 0.91g Maserati Coupe 11/02 $87k, 390hp, 5.0 0-60, 13.4 1/4, 118ft 60-0, 0.87g Acura NSX 3/02 $90k, 290hp, 5.0 0-60, 13.4 1/4, 117ft 60-0, 0.91g Porsche Carrera 3/02 $78k, 320hp, 4.9 0-60, 13.4 1/4, 117ft 60-0, 0.91g | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 920 Registered: 2-2001 |
Don't buy the 360. If you are so worried about being beat on the street or track by cheaper cars in the 1/4 mile, then don't buy it. You WILL get spanked by vettes, vipers, mustangs with little mods. You are looking at the wrong car. Ernesto | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2002 |
OK this is what I was looking for. The car I want is the 360. I want the car to ENJOY driving it. BUT, for that kind of money it needs to be everything. I'm not a big drag guy eventhough I've been down it a few times. I'm not a big course guy eventhough I would like to be. Again (1st post) the best time I've had in the ZR-1 was at a few autocrosses. I will run on the street if someone wants to play and I would hate to have a 360 and have my butt handed to me by lets say the new Cobra or something like that. I'm not a big win or lose kinda guy, but the car needs to hold it's own. I'm not saying it won't but I'm not sure it will either. That is why I would like some real world times. As far as a ferrari being a course car I really don't think I'm going to spend 150K and road race the car very much. I will however take it the the drag strip and see what it will do and I will take it to an autocross and ENJOY the car for what it was built for from time to time. But driving it on the street I need to ENJOY it as well. And if that means playing with a ZR-1 the car needs to hold it's own. win or lose. More thoughts?? Thanks, Joe | ||
| Scotty (Pzerowaster)
New member Username: Pzerowaster Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2002 |
Martin: LOL!! Joe: check out the back pages of Car & Driver, or Road & Track, and they always have a page with figures including 1/4 times of all the cars that they have tested in the past year or so. And for what it's worth, my 2 cents: if you have 150 large to spend on a car, I don't think you can do much better than a 360 Modena. It'll be my next Ferrari. But wait, I still dig that F512M. Jeez. Decisions. Oh man, have you been to Ferrari of Long Island's site? Did you see the Yellow 360 with the red interior with yellow stitching everywhere? That would look good in my garage. Here, I'll save you the search time... check this honey out. Good luck! Scotty   | ||
| David Jones (Dave)
Member Username: Dave Post Number: 435 Registered: 4-2001 |
FWIW, I have seen used drag cars on the internet for a good price... Just my opinion, but it would seem to me that the easiest way to get bitchen 1/4 mile times would be to get a used drag car that would give you good solid 8 or 9 second fun on the weekends for 1/10 of the 360's price | ||
| Brian W Dimetres (Acnberlin)
Junior Member Username: Acnberlin Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2002 |
Amen, Jeff. | ||
| Jeff Green (Carguy)
New member Username: Carguy Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2002 |
This may incite a riot, but I believe that Joe was simply curious about how a Ferrari might do in the quarter. Before we "preach" to him that these cars are not drag cars, PLEASE READ HIS ORIGINAL POST! He already knows that Ferrari's are road course cars. I'd be curious to see how any Ferrari does in the 1/4, but that's all it is - just a question. It's not going to be criteria for deciding on which Ferrari to buy. I for one enjoy seeing cars "out of their element" once in a while, it keeps things interesting. I guess the F40 owner felt the same way when I saw him run the 1/4. He obviously knows it's not a drag car, and most everyone else at the track knew it too. But when it ran in the 11's believe me EVERYONE was impressed ! I'm sure my TR would be hard pressed to run mid to low 13's where my ZR-1 was easy mid-12's. But I still sold the Vette to get my dream car. So if anyone out there has some 1/4 mile info. to post, that's great. Just read through the posts before getting up on the soap box. | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3338 Registered: 5-2001 |
Who has a time for the Oval at Charlston International. Can the 360 outperform the Home Depot bomber of Tony? | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 265 Registered: 3-2001 |
Joe....here is a little help. You are correct: $150,000 is a lot of money! Expensive maintanance: either way you go, authorized dealer or indi mechanic, it is expensive relative to most other cars. On the other hand, it is incorrect for you to have the assumption that all you can get is poor service. With the proper research, you will be able to find a shop in your area that will provide you with service you will be very happy with. Mind you, paying for it may not make many happy, but the quality of service will. . Where you are wrong, is that part about not so great performance. . The main issue here is what type of performance do you seek? . Seeing how you are focused solely on 1/4 mile times/mph....this car is not one you should buy. . It is not set up for this type of use, and would certainly be most inappropriate for you to buy. . It will however, offer you more performance you would be able to handle, on a ROAD COURSE! . This is WHAT THE CAR WAS DESIGNED TO DO! . For some reason, you either don't WANT TO UNDERSTAND this, or prefer NOT TO UNDERSTAND this. . THE FIRST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK, WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION ON WHICH TYPE OF CAR YOU SHOULD BUY, IS --- YOURSELF! . What do you want to do with the car? . When you find that answer, you then have a better idea of what type of cars will be available in the pool which you can choose from. | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2002 |
Thanks for the responses guys, Jeff 116 MPH in the ZR-1 is pretty good. I have turned best of 12.20/118 MPH. F40 sounds like it's a bad mother all around. That is the kind of stuff I like to hear, a ferrari at the drag strip. Guys I guess I'm just trying to get as much info. on the 360 as possible because I want one so so bad, but everything I read on this site makes me not want to get one. If that car wasn't the best looking car ever (to me) it wouldn't even be a consideration. $150K is a lot of money for poor service, expenseve maintanance, and not so great performance. Any help out there??? Later | ||
| Jeff Green (Carguy)
New member Username: Carguy Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2002 |
I really didn't look at the tires closely, but I remember there was tread on the rears for sure. Front tires appeared "normal" and not drag skinnies. | ||
| Jeffrey Caspar (Jcaspar1)
New member Username: Jcaspar1 Post Number: 45 Registered: 5-2002 |
Nice time on the F-40. If he was doing bunouts, he wasn't running street tires. Did you see if he was running drag radials or slicks? I cannot even imagine a F-40 with slicks and skinnies! | ||
| Matt Karson (Squidracing)
Member Username: Squidracing Post Number: 263 Registered: 3-2001 |
Joe, you mentioned, a Ferrari is not a 1/4 mile car. As such, it is not geared to perform the 1/4 mile in other worldly times. The fact that you are not getting any times/mph is not suprising. As a track enthusiast, I can tell you my best lap times for several tracks, but no 1/4 mile times/mph. I guess the main reason for this is that the Ferrari is engineered for road racing. | ||
| Jeff Green (Carguy)
New member Username: Carguy Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2002 |
Joe, although not a 360 Modeena (just stirring the pot) I did see an F40 do a couple of quarter mile runs at Route 66 in Joliet, Illinois. I had my ZR-1, with gears, headers, exhaust, chip, no cats. I was running new Pirelli tires and my best time was 12.54 at 116mph. I felt this was quite respectable for a 375 hp motor with simple bolt ons that I drove 180 miles to the track. Well, I about deficated a brick when I saw an F40 pull up to the line. From where I was I thought it may have been a good reproduction, till he did a nasty burn-out. The sound was awesome! The noise of his burn out brought everyone running from all over to see what the heck it was. When he dropped the hammer he feathered the clutch quite a bit, and shifting "easy" his time was 11.81 at 121mph !! I'm sure the car could go quicker than that, but at the expense of drive train parts. That car almost brought tears to my eyes seeing and hearing it opened up like that. | ||
| Jeffrey Caspar (Jcaspar1)
New member Username: Jcaspar1 Post Number: 43 Registered: 5-2002 |
I would be very surprised to see one run low 12's in real life. High 12's to 13's with your average inexperienced drag racer. | ||
| Brian W Dimetres (Acnberlin)
Junior Member Username: Acnberlin Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2002 |
I think real world 1/4 mile times would be great. So what, so a Ferrari isn't a drag-car. It would still be interesting to see if they really are as quick as everyone thinks. And can you imagine the looks you would get when you showed up for a 1/4 mile bracket race in a Ferrari?! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 917 Registered: 2-2001 |
Maybe if you asked for lap times instead of 1/4 mile dragstrip times, several here could help you out... Ernesto | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2002 |
What, no one has real 1/4 times? Later | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2002 |
Racer, The z06 is a very fast car in stock form, but it's still a z06. I have had a few vetts and I'm sold big time on the ZR-1. You don't see to many of them on the road (448 in 94') and the history on the car is another thing that sets the ZR-1 form the z06 and many other vetts. Now as far as taking it to the track I can tell you that the BEST time I've had in the car is on an autocross. I've had the chance to run a few and just had the best time ever. However, I have had it at the 1/4 track a few times to see how she does there. Very pleased with the car all around. I still would like to see some real times/MPH posted. Thanks, Joe | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 233 Registered: 4-2002 |
The difference between a Ferrari and a ZR1 is when the tail comes out at 100 MPH in a turn with your foot flat on the floor; in the Ferrari, you are still thinking about what line you want to use entering the next corner; in the ZR1 you are concentrating on not leaving the road. By the way, why do people like to race for only 15 seconds or so every 20 minutes. Whats wrong with racing for 20 miutes every 40 minutes or so? | ||
| neal (95spiderneal)
Junior Member Username: 95spiderneal Post Number: 53 Registered: 3-2002 |
see my post on the tazzo device | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 361 Registered: 3-2002 |
Well, your right, it's not a drag racer... The 1/4 mile time is in the low-mid 12's. Also, when 360 owners take it "to the track to see what it can do in the real world" they don't take it to a drag strip... ZR1 eh? Will you be getting a ZO6, or are you gonna get a C6? Cheers. | ||
| Joe Hart (Zr1)
New member Username: Zr1 Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hi, This is my first post and it may not be a good one because I know that a ferrari is not a 1/4 mile car. But, has anyone taken there 360 to the track to see what it can do in the real world? Would like MPH/time and anything that has been done to car. Thanks in advance, Later | ||
| Anonymous |
poker casino poker 680 |