This was extremely impressive in 1971
>>29024310That's not bad today either, you've just had your brain rotted by influencers with 2000hp street cars
>>290243107,5 is kinda slow for me, sub 5,0 is where it gets interesting
tire tech wasnt there to handle all the power correctly
>>29024310Probably 5 seconds to 60 with modern tires and shocks
>>29024310Yeah they were on bias ply tires that were fucking dogshit
>used to drive a nasty lil' 55 Chevy until this thing blew my doors off
>>29024310Some road tests had these down into the 5 second range with a 1/4 mile in the 13s, it's likely entirely down to the absolute shit tier tires that would've been equivalent to 195-225s in modern sizes. Those are sizes you see on anemic economy cars in modern times, not RWD cars with large, torquey V8s.
>>29024365movie?
>>29024365>>29024368Nevermind, Vanishing Point, right?
>>29024310That's American engineering for you. The Japs could probably get the same numbers from half the displacement.
>>29024365Tires are a factor, but so many act like it’s the only factor.I’m pretty sure you and I were both in a huge argument about this like a year or so ago.They also measured torque at the flywheel and did trickery to make higher numbers because there wasn’t oversight.How about gearing? Trap speed should tell me all I need to know as you can spin off the line and get a worse ET, but a similar trap speed as if you had hooked immediately..
>>29024385They did prove their engineering was better (or at least, not lazy) in 1973. The CEO of GM at the time insulted Honda's engines calling them "little toys" and that their CVCC combustion chamber technology had no potential on a GM engine. Incensed by this, Soichiro Honda himself had a 1973 Impala with a 350 air freighted to Japan for his team to develop a set of CVCC heads and intake for it, then flew it back to Michigan to be smog tested. It made the same power, slightly better fuel economy, and passed the sniffer test with flying colors without even needing a catalytic converter like GM's fuel delivery system did.
>>29024310I BOUGHT HER IN BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAA GLASS OF BEER, A SHOT OF RYE
>>29024393GM was correct, the early Honda design had an insane amount of plastic pipes and reduced power. Honda had to do what GM did anyway once emissions got more strict.>>29024310You could either have good 0-60 or better high end because of the 3 speed transmissions, its kind of a BS measure to just use 0-60 without considering the rest. You can have a big block Cadillac that only goes 0-60 in 8.5 but still feels more powerful than cars with a better 0-60, for instance they can have much better mid range.Yeah 71 normal sedan with medium v8's could be in the 12 second range to 60, I think your forgetting how long ago this was, many people still had had black and white tv's and a computer the size of a fridge had 4kb or ram. for someone in the 70's it would be like comparing a car from the 20's.>>29024318Some cars literally had 2 speeds. 7.5 was even good in the 90's for a big car. But you can make a fairly weak car do 5 with the right gear ratios but it only feels fast wen letting it rev out.
"0 to 60 in 7.5"My station wagon does that with nowhere near the power. Even 14 second quarter mile times are nothing to brag about anymore. Times sure have changed.
>>29024368Nearly certain it was Two Lane Blacktop and the car is a '70 Pontiac GTO
>>29024320>tire tech wasnt there to handle all the power correctlycam am cars were doing zero-60 under 2 seconds in 1971 and had 1000 hp
>>29024445The grip here isn't because the rubber is up to spec, there's just so much of it.
>>29024450wider tires don't give more grip, the area of the contact patch of the tire remains the same which means you get the same friction coefficient as a thinner tire. the rubber was good enough at that point to throw it on 1000hp racecars, but racecar tires were way better than commuter car tires for obvious reasons.
>>29024310How fucking heavy is this car to go that slow with that much power?
>>29024445>and had 1000 hpyeah for like three laps before blowing up in quali
>>29024310This isn't some high-tech sports car... tell you the truth it it doesn't even handle that great. But that's not the idea, is it. What are we talking about here. Pussy, right!Let's face it Harry, the 'vette, gets them wet.
>>29024646Its a torque thing.Ive taken my F100 and put an identical F100 on a tow dolly behind it and at one point I forgot it was back there.Then engine spools at the same rate regardless of what its doing.Compare that to some high strung, high HP engine that sees a performamce difference with the number of passengers.
>>29024642>wider tires don't give more gripSend the memo to all the race teams out there bro.
>>29024642>wider tires don't give more gripexplain to me how this worksi understand engines, i understand suspension, tires are still a mystery to me.
>>29024708the trick is he's wrong
>>29024445for how many miles, mate?
>>29024642>wider tires don't give more grip, the area of the contact patch of the tire remains the same which means you get the same friction coefficient as a thinner tire.https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/comments/10qvo5o/if_friction_is_not_related_to_area_why_are_wider/
>>29024642>>29025339>wider tires don't give more gripCorrect.Semantically they give you more total grip, not per grip. You are limited by downforce, gravity, and surface conditions. Race tires are not wide for grip, instead they deform from acceleration and braking, and wider means more load.
>>29024385>japs could get 390 HP with half the displacementcan you post a single production car that did?
>>29024310Character was also a pathological liar
