Rabid

Highest octane I have ever seen at a pump in the US is 94. I use 93 octane Mobile. I've tried a couple other brands, but Mobile stations are all over the place here and my car seems to run well on it.

If your just looking to add some grip. A after market limited slip and some wider wheels with sticky tyres should give you a similar effect. A 2-way limited slip can add traction under acceleration and braking. Are you looking to gain traction for drag racing, or for the road, or both?

Did you not see the fact that the corvette race team has won 5/6 Le Mans races since 2001? 1 less win than Audi. I guess that would make them second most reliable. OK. This is the last time I'm saying this. I never compared the LS1 motor to the BMW motor. I never said it could win at bathurst. Hell, I don't actually remember saying it could beat anything. All I said, was that as long as people were mentioning some older motors that were pretty good. I thought that the LS1 should be included. I then added the 4G63 as another motor that I thought was pretty damn good. No one has argued with me about that one yet though.

I think sun/moon roofs take about 2 inches away from your head room. As for the heel toe thing. You might try after market pedals as well. Wider pedals should make it easier to get your foot on them.

We just said the same exact thing, but used different words. Who is flaming Bathurst? I simply said that 6 years is greater than 12 hours. Someplace around 52,500 hours better actually. In the prototype class, not the GT class. Thats like running your skyline against a golf cart. C5-R Racing Team 2001 Race Results Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 29 1 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 32 2 C5-R Racing Team 2002 Race Results Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 29 1 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 32 2 C5-R Racing Team 2004 Race Results Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish Jun 15-16 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #63 3 2 24 hrs ACO GTS C5-R #64 2 1 2005 Corvette Racing Wins 24 Hours of Le Mans New Corvette C6.R Scores Historic Fourth 1-2 Finish in French Classic C6.R Racing Team 2006 Race Results Date Venue Duration Series Class Car Start Finish Jun 17-18 24 Hours of Le Mans 24 hrs ACO GT1 C6.R #64 3 1 That look like the middle of the pack to you? Get your facts straight. Bleh, those numbers came out hard to read. It just shows that the vettes finished 1st and 2nd in their class in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 1st in 2006. So it looks like they were running "reliably" and in the front. Not sure where Aston's Ferrari's ad Maserati's placed, but its pretty easy to tell it wasn't in front of the vettes. They won it 5 out of the last 6 times. Sorry they can't be as good as Audi.

I thought when you put both feet on it, it was called 'OHH SHIT!!' braking..

I'm east coast, United States. It was more like 3 or 4am for me, on Sunday night. Large shoes? I still think there should be a toaster in that spot instead. I can't tell you how many times I have been driving, thinking to myself "I could really go for some toast right now.. or a pop tart.. or toaster strudel", only to be disappointed by the fact that I have a clutch pedal instead of a toaster. Dodgey engineering for sure.

OK, I'm a bit on the drunk side, so bear with me. After about 15min of solid debating. No one between my buddies and I can descide on the reasoning behind the fact that the brake pedal in automatic cars, is more than twice the size of the pedal in manual transmission cars. It seems to me they could have easily just added a larger foot rest, or maybe a place to hide a firearm. Instead they just made the pedal really damn big. Hopefully someone can tell me why the pedal is so large. Also, as long as were at it. Im curious to see what peoples ideas are as to something we could put in the spot where the clutch normally is, instead of just making the brake pedal larger. I personally think a toaster, and a place for butter and/or jelly would be an excellent thing to put there.

The LS7 is just a newer version of the LS1. Its essentially the same motor. Similar to how the 4G63 was improved upon for the last 15+ years in the EVO's and Eclipse/Talon/whatever (Bastards got rid of it for the EVO X). They just add another number each time they improve it, instead of keeping its original name. As long as were on the subject. The 4G63 is another amazing older motor.

OK, so someone did mention that the RB's suck in comparison. You guys missed your opportunity to jump on him. Good thing I gave you the LS1 to talk about.

Apparently people only read what they want to see. I never once said the LS1 should be considered for motor of the year. So for the people that want to post that it isn't better than the 2008 BMW motor, read my post before adding your comment. All I did was notice that people were adding comments like so I put in my 2cents about an older motor that I thought was pretty good. No one comments about the RB being inferior to the new BMW motor (even though it is). They instantly jump on the LS1. So if we want to be fair, I expect someone to come up with a post about how shitty the RB series is compared to the new BMW motor. This guy is intelligent. You should listen to him. I did say I "think" they are all V6 engines. I was wrong, it is apparently a straight six. Thank you for pointing that out. This still does not help out the people who were arguing that BMW wasn't the first to make an Inline 6 twin turbo, since NO ONE has mentioned another I6-TT engine. The gearbox is not part of the engine. It is attached to the engine. Ditto. Actually the Z06 motor is 427ci. Nice try though. To use your own argument. ANYONE can add more displacement. I personally don't think thats the best route to take, but I'm pretty sure someone will argue that I said it was. Especially since no one seems to read my entire post, they just see something they don't like and instantly comment. I seem to remember the C5 vette running in GT (Including 24 hour endurance races) for what? 6 years now. Seems like thats a bit longer than 12 hours to me.

It wasn't until you started mentioning putting Hyundai motors into golf carts that I made my comment about HP/weight ratio. So since it was you who brought it up in the first place, perhaps we both need to stay on topic. Also I am pretty sure the 7.0L engine is available in the Silverado SS, The CTS-V, and the Trailblazer SS. Although I'm not 100% sure. I'll look later. The engine being used in the trucks might have different horsepower and torque numbers though because.. well.. they're trucks.

I rounded up =). I did say "closer to" though. I like the Aero-X gauge cluster for your avatar btw.

First of all, I never listed it as a candidate for motor of the year. I simply said that as long as people are pointing out older motors that are good, they shouldn't forget about how good the LS1 is. It would be ignorant on my part to say a 6 year old motor (2001 being the last major upgrade to the LS1) can or should be considered for a best motor of the year competition in 2007. This is also why I specifically said that I think the Mazda Motor Corp. 2.3L DISI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mazdaspeed3) is the best engine to come out this year. Second.. The LS1 is definitely not a limited production motor, as it is available in the Silverado, the Trailblazer, the GTO, the CTS-V, and SSR, just to name a few. Also the vette weights 3200lbs, which is closer to 1500kg, not the 1200 you listed. Technology isn't necessarily the thing that makes a good motor anyways. Audi and VW and BMW all have craploads of cool technogizmo's in their engines, but reliability is relatively poor in comparison to some simpler motors that produce similar power. You could also consider the fact that if they are getting 500+hp from a basically stone age motor, that number will only go up as newer technology is added. And thats why the LS1 is getting 50% better fuel economy than the engine your comparing it to. And they have very close to the same power output. of a car. Anyone who thinks the M5 is a shit box is an idiot. It is possibly one of the best cars ever built. It does everything right. Performs well, handles well, seats 5, is comfortable on long hauls and looks great to boot. The Z06 on the other hand really is a piece of junk. So much money is spent on the chasis and engine and drivetrain that they skimp on things like the interior and whatnot so that they can keep the price down. Even that isn't working so well anymore as the car costs upwards of $65000usd now. Still, compared to the cars it can compete with on the track, its very inexpensive. It's not about horsepower per liter, its about horsepower to weight ratio. If HP/L was the most important thing, everyone would drive a rotary powered vehicle. Since the Mazda 13b-twin turbo gets nearly 200 ponies/L. Or an Integra/Civic/RSX Type R. The weight of the actual motor should be taken into consideration as well. The LS1 in full trim with transmission is actually around 200lbs lighter than the skylines turbo motor and tranny. The Mazda 13b-TT is 70lbs lighter than the LS1 without transmissions attached. Not sure how they compare with the tranny's bolted on, but the 13b is also 250hp less than the LS1. Personally I would be more than happy with a 70lb gain to pick up 250hp, which is most likely why its a fairly common swap here in the US. The LS1 also takes very kindly to modifications, superchargers and turbo's are common among after market performance companies. Also, for NA drag cars (and yes, I know drag racing sucks), the LS1 is one of the top choices for engines and I'm sure the build teams put LS1's in their cars because they suck. I can't believe I'm defending a GM product. It has to be one of my least favorite car manufactures this side of Chrysler.

I agree completely with this one. But I heard that with some new battery technology that Toyota has, the Prius is capable of 125mpg.

I hope your kidding. Heres what the current LS motor is doing in the new vette. Horsepower @ RPM 505@6300 and Torque @ RPM 470@4800 (foot-lbs) from a 7.0-liter V-8. 0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds. EPA city/hwy mpg 16/26. All that in a 3200lb American sh*t box of a car. You have no argument saying that its not a good engine. It's also very reliable.

Its prolly cause your car is so yellow that the bee's think they found the biggest flower in the world . Disregard this if thats not your car in your signature.

This is true on stock models but as the power goes up, the gas mileage doesn't go down much. In comparison to a piston motored car anyways. I owned a 1987 RX-7 Turbo II with a few small modifications. I got 190,000miles on the odometer before the engine seals blew due to the radiator dying. One of my buddies owned a NA version of the same car and hit well over 250,000miles before the car rusted apart (lots of snow here, and they salt the roads). The normal problem with reliability is that the seals which hold the housings together go bad, which causes coolant to get into the engine. Coolant, being mostly water doesn't compress or combust, which kinda ruins your engines day. Rotary engines self lubricate when they run (they actually burn nearly 1 quart of oil every 3000miles), but most people just have the cars as weekend rides and they almost always sit in the winter. Sitting for extended periods of time causes the seals dry up and thats where the reliability issues come in. You rarely hear to many problems coming from daily driven RX cars. I don't know what the fastest rotor is, but the reason they are so good is that they basically only have 2 moving parts (the rotors themselves). Because of this, there is a lot less to break. They are also way more efficient because they do intake, compression, combustion and exhaust all in the same chamber. Also rotary engines are VERY lightweight and they take very well to modification (big honkin turbos and whatnot). No doubt in my mind that the Wankel motor would be superior to its piston competitors if people had spent the same amount of time developing it over the last 100+ years as they did the internal combustion piston motors. Heres some more information for anyone who actually cares. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm

Ohh, I'm sorry. The 4-500hp ZO6 Vette is really a piece of junk then. All that power and 20mpg. Very inefficient indeed.

I think your looking at the wrong words. They didn't say it was the first twin turbo six. They said it was the first I-6TT. I think all the other cars you mentioned are V-6TT's. Also, as far as my opinion, I would say the Mazda Motor Corp. 2.3L DISI turbocharged DOHC I-4 (Mazdaspeed3) is the best engine to come out this year. I'm a pretty big Mazda fan in general though, so I guess you can take that into consideration before arguing with me . And as long as were mentioning older motors, why has no one considered the Chevy LS1 as one of the best motors out there?

I wrecked the first car I owned in a similar situation. Swerved for a friggen cat. I'll never make that mistake again. Glad no one got hurt though. Real bummer on the insurance though. It's illegal in the US to drive without insurance (at least in the state I live in). Even then, unless you have full coverage, they wouldn't cover you here unless you actually hit the animal. I ended up having to give my car away (long story). At least you can salvage all your important bits. Best of luck finding a replacement.

I think this is what your talking about. It's called an Air Bypass Valve. It ensures that only oxygen and not a oxygen/hydrogen mixture (sometimes called water) gets into you cars engine. Here is an example of one that AEM makes. http://www.autoanything.com/air-intakes/aem-valve.aspx

A lot of cold air intakes that pull the air from under the car have a valve that prevents them from sucking in water. That way when you drive over a puddle you don't blow your engine, since water doesn't compress.. or combust for that matter. Ill try and find a picture. Might be called a back-up valve or something along those lines.