Is 350rwhp considered a lot for a car that weighs 3450lbs?
>>15341542
Yes. My first car was 3450 lbs on the nose and had 210 HP. Was plenty fast
Yes. My car has 90 hp. Don't let the modern day horsepower dickwaving contest fool you, 350 hp are a metric shit ton.
>>15341542
It's not a lot for that weight, it's plenty though. 10lb/hp is where "fast" starts
Yes
That's like a 4.5 second 0-60 or 12.5 quarter mile
>>15341542
source?
>>15341593
you sure?
that seems low.
>>15341542
What the fuck am I looking at?
>>15341862
its vignette for a radio head song
>>15341866
which one
That's roughly what my bolt on ls1 was around. Plenty fast, but can get stomped out by faster cars. It's like being the smartest kid in special ed. You'll stomp most shit out, but you'll realize your place soon. Not that that's bad or anything, just an analogy.
>>15341542
You'll kill everything on the road except late model Corvettes, m5s and other high end European cars.
The occasional modded or boosted v8 will fuck you up as well.
>>15341924
Karma Police
>>15341597
>12.5 quarter mile
No can do pal, a stock LS1 C5 runs low 12's with less weight and equal power. C5Z's get you into the low 12's
Still plenty quick for a street car
>>15343259
Oh wait ignore this I didn't see the >rwhp
Yea that'll get mid to low 12's all day
>>15342728
>fast examples aren't as fast as faster examples
This is my nomination for redundant statement of the year.
>>15341542
That would be mediocre compared to most new sports cars but still relatively fast.
Well, this thread seems vaguely related.
I'm about to come into a small sum of money, which will finally allow me to quit work for a few years to devote my time to building myself a car of my own design. I've been planning it for several years and now I actually have a chance to do something about it.
Basically, it'll be a RWD track car (closed cockpit), based on a chromoly steel tube frame, with a carbon/aluminium body, designed to be as lightweight and balanced as possible, with some fairly clever aero additions.
The weight of the chassis, body and running gear comes to a total of ~300kg (660lbs), and I've narrowed the engine down to a lightweight race-spec V8, with the appropriate drivetrain. However, I can't decide which setup to go with out of the following:
>3.0 N/A V8 - 500hp, 260ft/lbs
or
>2.8 Twin-turbo V8 - 800hp, 400ft/lbs (1 bar)
>2.8 Twin-turbo V8 - 1000hp, 500ft/lbs (2 bar)
Assuming reliability isn't a concern, which would /o/ rather own/drive? I'd love to pick the twin-turbo setup for pure ridiculousness, but I'm pretty sure it'd be completely unmanageable. Bearing in mind that the total weight of the car, fully wet would be around 450kg (990lbs).
Any thoughts?
>>15343352
Oh, should have said, it'll be mid-engine, too.
>>15343352
Those engines would be too highly stressed for the car to be able to do much.
Personally, I'f just get a Factory Five 818 kit car and swap in a different engine. GM LS V8, GM Ecotec turbo, Ford Ecoboost I4, etc.
>>15343404
Oh, I'm aware it'd have a stupidly low life inbetween engine services/overhauls. However, weight is of the utmost priority, and I've yet to find any lighter options than the V8 I've been looking at that have such a decent power output. It weighs just over 90kg in N/A form.
I'm aiming for better than 1:1 power/weight, and a wet weight of less than 500kg.
>>15343352
>any thoughts?
I'll take things that'll never happen.
>>15343423
Fair enough, I don't really expect anyone to believe me until I actually start building. However, I've been planning this for a while and have every intention to pull it off. I mean, I have every last detail of the frame mapped out, just no money to put it together until now.
