Automotive Myths, Lore, and other incorrectness

Osterkraut wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

neon4891 wrote: My favorite story, told to me by my street racer co-worker. night vision drug mule, Even on Snopes!

Back in the mid 80's, there was an article in a Mustang mag about a '67 Shelby GT 500 that was set up for Cannonball type racing. 60 gallon fuel tank, liquid filled sprayers (oil) at the rear, 5 speed, hopped up 428, gauges, stealth material, radar detectors etc.. The owner was on a shake down with night vision goggles. Cool car, and for the time...futuristic bad assery.

Oh come on, RAM coatings were pure skunkworks in the mid 80s, not something you'd find on a car.

Tried to find it...best that I could do :

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/407094-67-shelby-article-return-firefox.html

JFX001 wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

neon4891 wrote: My favorite story, told to me by my street racer co-worker. night vision drug mule, Even on Snopes!

Back in the mid 80's, there was an article in a Mustang mag about a '67 Shelby GT 500 that was set up for Cannonball type racing. 60 gallon fuel tank, liquid filled sprayers (oil) at the rear, 5 speed, hopped up 428, gauges, stealth material, radar detectors etc.. The owner was on a shake down with night vision goggles. Cool car, and for the time...futuristic bad assery.

Oh come on, RAM coatings were pure skunkworks in the mid 80s, not something you'd find on a car.

Tried to find it...best that I could do : http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/407094-67-shelby-article-return-firefox.html

I'm calling total bullE36 M3 on that being actual RAM, and not some tin foil painted flat black, especially under the hood and trunk? See also that "radar jammer" is on the list.

I like that fuel capacity, though.

JFX001 wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

neon4891 wrote: My favorite story, told to me by my street racer co-worker. night vision drug mule, Even on Snopes!

Back in the mid 80's, there was an article in a Mustang mag about a '67 Shelby GT 500 that was set up for Cannonball type racing. 60 gallon fuel tank, liquid filled sprayers (oil) at the rear, 5 speed, hopped up 428, gauges, stealth material, radar detectors etc.. The owner was on a shake down with night vision goggles. Cool car, and for the time...futuristic bad assery.

Oh come on, RAM coatings were pure skunkworks in the mid 80s, not something you'd find on a car.

Tried to find it...best that I could do : http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/407094-67-shelby-article-return-firefox.html

Wow. 425hp and gets 19mpg (at 160mph?).

In reply to Osterkraut:

I went from memory, so I inserted "stealth". Misnomer on my part.Also, I was wrong about the tank, 62 gallons vs. my stated 60...the range is iffy as well.

The car was, for '85, incredible. I probably have the article in the archives.

JFX001 wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: I went from memory, so I inserted "stealth". Misnomer on my part.Also, I was wrong about the tank, 62 gallons vs. my stated 60...the range is iffy as well. The car was, for '85, incredible. I probably have the article in the archives.

The link you...linked implied stealth. I'm not blaming you, I think the owner or author of the article is either deluded or lying, probably a little of both.

"Box Horsepower"

We've brought up "chips" a couple of times, but I've seen some incredible claims on boxes:

100hp gains from spark plugs, 30+hp from filters, etc etc etc.

So much so, that when I saw my first 240z with triple webers, cam, bore, exhaust, and head work I almost cried when it registered only 220hp on the dyno. By my "box" calculations at the time, it should have been somewhere near eleventy-billion horsepower (I think I was actually expecting something like 500.... seriously.....)

oh to be young again.

RealMiniDriver wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

neon4891 wrote: My favorite story, told to me by my street racer co-worker. night vision drug mule, Even on Snopes!

Back in the mid 80's, there was an article in a Mustang mag about a '67 Shelby GT 500 that was set up for Cannonball type racing. 60 gallon fuel tank, liquid filled sprayers (oil) at the rear, 5 speed, hopped up 428, gauges, stealth material, radar detectors etc.. The owner was on a shake down with night vision goggles. Cool car, and for the time...futuristic bad assery.

Oh come on, RAM coatings were pure skunkworks in the mid 80s, not something you'd find on a car.

Tried to find it...best that I could do : http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/vintage-mustang-forum/407094-67-shelby-article-return-firefox.html

Wow. 425hp and gets 19mpg (at 160mph?).

I remember that article, the guy who was in the picture (the alleged owner) was wearing big dark glasses, a black jacket etc so he couldn't be identified. There was a part of the story about him outrunning the cops and a rear wheel bearing was overheating, he could see this on some sort of display so he pulled off and went home.

Did I tell you about my 190 na horsepower ZX2 ? And it still had the stock spark plugs and cams. so another 50 is available.

Every turbo honda ever posted on craigslist ever:

"EASILY capable of 300hp, just needs 'tune'"

poopshovel wrote: Every turbo honda ever posted on craigslist ever: "EASILY capable of 300hp, just needs 'tune'"

Everybody says they need this guy, but I just don't see how he's going to get 300hp....

B430 wrote: In reply to Cotton: Not going to argue that their aren't fast diesels out there, but just like 8 second street cars they are pretty rare and have a lot of work and money in them by people with a pretty uncommon skill level.

Well when you're talking about out running Porsches and vettes the guy in the truck may not have the largest investment. The guy that blew me away was in a gas engined truck. He had a small block with a charger and nitrous, but I imagine still less than I had in my car.

The diesels make power pretty cheap..... especially the old 12v cummins. Don't get me started on the guy that ran quicker 1/8 mile times at the strip than I did on my yzf600. It was a standard cab 4x4 dodge and he drove it to the track. I think it was his daily driver.

In general I just can't agree with this one...sure the stock diesels are pretty slow, but it doesn't take a lot to get those big trucks moving fast.

I will agree that there are a lot of guys with diesels that claim ridiculous numbers, but that can be said about pretty much any group of "insert vehicle here" owners.

"my brother has a 1983 Corvette"

Every 283 and 327 is a Corvette engine.

The first Chevrolet V8 was sold in 1956

The first domestic V8 was sold in 1932

Flatheads overheat all the time.

The GTO was the first muscle car (I'm a Pontiac guy and I know this is wrong)

NOVA

Trans_Maro wrote: NOVA

That reminds me.

GM changed the name of the Lacrosse in Canada because it's slang for masturbate in french.

Conquest351 wrote: How do you have the spot light on that car, that's illegal! (no, not in Texas)

So is marrying your first cousin ("It's Legal in Texas.")

I thought that was Alabama.

A lightweight crank pulley won't make your car faster AT ALL because it doesn't gain hp on a dyno, aaaaaaand it's only 3 lbs less, it takes like 100 lbs to make up for 10 hps broooo

corytate wrote: A lightweight crank pulley won't make your car faster AT ALL because it doesn't gain hp on a dyno, aaaaaaand it's only 3 lbs less, it takes like 100 lbs to make up for 10 hps broooo

Is it Saturday night at the local fart cannon meet or something?

Trans_Maro wrote: "my brother has a 1983 Corvette"

I drive a 1998 Miata and a 1996 Wrangler.

A guy who races a Saturn in IT (I think) did tests comparing the stock damper, a lightweight/underdrive pulley, and the underdrive pulley with no belt on it, and all three were within the margin of error.

If your water pump isn't cavitating at high RPM (oh look, it's another source of the "water too fast" myth) then you don't need an underdrive, if you are cavitating then you need to slow down the pump. Other than that, BFD.

Trans_Maro wrote: "my brother has a 1983 Corvette"

I have heard that from a few people as well. Hard not to bust out laughing. But they did exist, just none were sold to the public and only one remains: http://www.web-cars.com/corvette/1983.php

should have clarified: lightweight, no underdrive.
We were elbows deep in a dodge cup engine and kid was arguing this with me.
after stating AS A FACT that a neon could not do a 10.6 sec 1/4 mile on stock bottom end on pump gas, after I told him about my friend Nigel's car, which is now a 10.4s car, still with stock bottom end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPSYkVYU-tE

That's not a neon it's a srt-4, different model

In reply to 81cpcamaro:

I love bringing up the 1983 model year every time some Corvette fanboy regurgitates the "longest running GM nameplate" rubbish.

B430 wrote: That's not a neon it's a srt-4, different model

I hate this. People come into the parts store and say they need X part for an SRT4.

"A neon?"

"No, SRT4"

"Mmkay, 2004 dodge neon...."

I love it.

It was sold as the dodge srt4 not the dodge neon srt4. So technically a neon can't run 10s on a stock bottom end because that technically is not a neon. I agree with you that in reality it is a neon, but it still isn't a neon