David S. Wallens wrote: Honestly, Jerry, we figured we were damned either way. If we used an automatic, people would have bitched that we didn't hold out for a stick. And if we used a stick, people would have bitched that we didn't use an autobox.
You guys should have used an DSG with paddle shifters. 
The answer is clearly 4th gen Maxima. 
Leaps and bounds ahead of the Camry IMHO, but also very easily owned by your grandma.
Oh, and yes, I did beat the Cobalt SS (not that that is particularly impressive, but I was happy). 
Good work, Seth!
Okay, pulling this one back from the dead due to receiving the new GRM issue. It seems Per came to the exact came conclusion at the end of his article as I had stated in my original post - never race a Camry. Just say No thanks, Grandma.
Maxima?
No, clearly you guys should've bought an Accord.
In reply to ebonyandivory:
That 12.2 second Granada wouldn't be the hardest car to build..
Should have done a build on a barn find 80's Formula Ford or 2000. Yes I am still bagging about the lack of open wheel content....
Looking forward to reading this when I get my new issue!
I still don't see what the big deal is...The C6 Corvettes have essentially the same problem, and nobody rags on people who try to make those into race cars. 
You mean a C6 Corvette would blow its engine after the first pull to 6000 rpm?
You mean it's Toyota's fault that the previous owner totally neglected the engine?
When can we read about your efforts to develop a dry sump for the V6 camry motors :)
I'm still convinced they got a run of bad luck.
Yeah, some of them grenade. But there's quite a few of them running around making lots of power.
Yes, i'm aware that it's not really the same as autocross, but still.... "Tony The Tiger" knows motors, has built all kinds of stuff, and he wouldn't be messing with the MZ if it was that bad.
I'm sure a Camry could be turned into an autocrosser but, as we found, the average one just isn't up for the task. Did we get some bad engines? Maybe. We've been doing this for 30 years and have autocrossed some real pieces of crap. Can't remember the first time we blew two engines like that so quickly. On the other hand, that yellow Miata did just fine after sitting for half a dozen years.
Maybe it's the Camry engine, maybe it's the people who own the cars, either way we felt that we were heading down the wrong road. Does that mean we'll never do another autocross sedan project? Of course not. The goal with this one was to see what happens when you autocross Grandma's Camry. Next time, I'm sure a different goal will produce a different result.
I'd still rather read about projects like this than, "OMG, we bolted parts from sponsors X,Y, and Z onto our brand new car, and now its faster."
I also understand that I'm probably in the minority of the readership there, so I understand when they run things that aren't exactly to my interests.
I honestly believe you can make a fun machine out of any car under 3,000lbs, with a decent-ish engine and a stick shift.
Keep this kind of thing up, please. I'd personally love to see this experiment repeated with an Accord or Pontiac Grand Am.
I new a guy who used the Camry V6 for turbo race boats. He left the internals pretty stock. I dunno. The premise of the article was good. I just have to think that a properly baffled pan might be all that you needed. The result was not satisfying.
kreb wrote: I new a guy who used the Camry V6 for turbo race boats. He left the internals pretty stock. I dunno. The premise of the article was good. I just have to think that a properly baffled pan might be all that you needed. The result was not satisfying.
This guy was still making HUGE power before he went nuts. Even this iteration, i wouldn't call crazy.
http://youtu.be/XNWbZ53_CZo
So this Camry topic has always sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I have to admit that MOST of it is not the magazine's fault, because the major issue was engines blowing up (which they either should not have, or not as quickly). When the car ran, it gave promising initial results. I'm just a little aggravated that the whole camry project thing seems to carry a strong possibility of giving new enthusiasts the wrong impression because it posts negative results that are highly unlikely in a way that makes them seem more likely, to an intended audience that doesn't have enough of their own mechanical/practical knowledge to take two blown engines and $5k dumped into a broken camry at anything other than face value.
I look at that and i think "Well, that is comically E36 M3ty, but at best a fluke and at worst, reflecting an issue that requires further research before attempting a track day. OH AND i could get the same results much cheaper." But a person who is just starting out and ISNT a pro wrench or a highly practiced cheapass might look at it and go "Oh gee, i guess family car motors arent designed to be driven hard and they will all blow up, and the value return of dumping $5k into a 15 year old family car seem really E36 M3ty, so i had better just buy a sports car." I have no problem with people deciding to just buy a sports car. But if they do it based on being presented with negative info that they dont have the experience to parse out as circumstantial and loaded with caveats, that is kind of tragic.
How many of these 'vulnerable/impressionable' enthusiasts are really reading GRM? I dont know. But it does seem to be the intended audience for this article, and all it does is dump cold water down their backs.
The frustrating part of it stemmed from seeing how fast Per managed to flog it around the Challenge autox course on absolutely E36 M3ty tires in 100% stock form.
If i recall, it was only about 2 seconds off their Fiesta Spec B racer. 
And then it ended up like this.
In reply to David S. Wallens:
Get a gen 1/2 SHO.......for being a taurus, you can make them autox pretty well. 
Racer1ab wrote: I'd still rather read about projects like this than, "OMG, we bolted parts from sponsors X,Y, and Z onto our brand new car, and now its faster." I also understand that I'm probably in the minority of the readership there, so I understand when they run things that aren't exactly to my interests.
Wel, it seems like you're in the same minority I am. I appreciate seeing that you guys tried even if it didn't work out.
David S. Wallens wrote: I'm sure a Camry could be turned into an autocrosser but, as we found, the average one just isn't up for the task. Did we get some bad engines? Maybe. We've been doing this for 30 years and have autocrossed some real pieces of crap. Can't remember the first time we blew two engines like that so quickly. On the other hand, that yellow Miata did just fine after sitting for half a dozen years. Maybe it's the Camry engine, maybe it's the people who own the cars, either way we felt that we were heading down the wrong road. Does that mean we'll never do another autocross sedan project? Of course not. The goal with this one was to see what happens when you autocross Grandma's Camry. Next time, I'm sure a different goal will produce a different result.
I enjoyed the story... Some beaters are just not suited for that sort of abuse. And the Camry next to it would do fine.. Roll of the dice.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: I honestly believe you can make a fun machine out of any car under 3,000lbs, with a decent-ish engine and a stick shift. Keep this kind of thing up, please. I'd personally love to see this experiment repeated with an Accord or Pontiac Grand Am.
06-10 Sonata. They used double wishbone suspensions still and can stuff some massive tires under the body work. (255's without rubbing IIRC).
You'll need to log in to post.
