quote Originally posted by dobey: Which numbers? I didn't get anything backwards. The LZ9 dyno chart is CRANK readings, and the L67 chart is WHEEL readings, which is why the LZ9 looks like it's slightly higher.

Oops, your right. Settle down, all of you its just a bunch of back and forth now. Like I said before, if its not about facts its about opinions. I would not consider an internet forum 1/4 mile list to be 100% factual and accurate. I would however consider dyno graphs to be accurate especially if two used the same dyno to run on.

So far all I see are opinions, loosely based on some facts and some opinions. I have my own feelings about which motor is better/easier to mod and race, but I choose not to be a casualty of this flame war.

-Joe

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: Here is the post I keep talking about. The statement was pulley, cam and tune.

Yeah.... And?

Old roommate's graph:
http://www.realfierotech.co...topic.php?f=7&t=6264

Like Justin said, dyno numbers are worthless unless both cars are put on the same dyno on the same day. Those numbers were ~10% off, but even at a 20% reduction, that car would leave the 3900's behind, it had some balls. The same engine and cam is now making 600+ hp. Now, I'm going, because I don't have time to sit here and go back and forth like you and dobey are.

[This message has been edited by L67 (edited 09-21-2011).]

Thank you for your input Joe. I do see that this is now a flame war / pissing match. I make the motion to close this thread.

There has been some good input about the srt-4 n' stuff, and I thank you for that. If you do care to continue, we can move it into the trash.

Matt

So using your own logic. Dyno's and quarter mile times are worthless. Do you realize statements like that work both ways and not just for the 3800? Most people would agree that track times are more accurate than dyno's, I suspect you are just saying otherwise to perpetuate your arguement. I'm going to keep using the highlighted track times as factual and comparable information. You guys do what you want.

Me? Yes quarter mile times are worthless for comparing two cars when the times are posted on an Internet forum where the two tracks may be thousands of miles apart with vast differences in track prep, weather, conditions, driver skill, etc. Same with dyne numbers although really only dyno brand and climate/weather conditions have a real impact on the numbers.

Not sure why you are still sticking to the 1/4 mile list when it only represents a tiny percent of similar builds and it really doesn't help your case much with the much faster cars on there.

-Joe

I never even made a case against faster cars. What is with you guys? Go back and check, the comment was made that with a cam, pulley, and tune the 3900 wouldn't stand a chance. I believe this to be an inacurate statement due to the fact that I beat and came within a couple tenths of cars that meet that requirement. I guess it's cool if you guys don't believe in quarter mile times or dyno numbers. For me, the quarter mile list is all I have to compare the performance of my car to other fieros.

the list, The List, THE LIST!

------------------
Turbo 3800 E85 5spd spec5
11.53@126.7

Alright, I got it. If it's a 350 swap it better have proof. If it's a 3900 swap, proof doesn't count. If it's a 3800sc, it's the fastest by default. You guys win.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: Alright, I got it. If it's a 350 swap it better have proof. If it's a 3900 swap, proof doesn't count. If it's a 3800sc, it's the fastest by default. You guys win.

I knew you would come around!

------------------
Turbo 3800 E85 5spd spec5
11.53@126.7

are you guys really arguing a boosted engine vs a NA engine? if you truly want to compare, put the same amount of boost and mods on the 3900 and see what the numbers are... the 3800sc is basicly just a 3800 moded from the factory, id count the SC as a mod...

Because dyno's and quarter mile times aren't accurate ways of measuring a cars performance so the 3900 will never stand a chance.

quote Originally posted by joshua riedl: Because dyno's and quarter mile times aren't accurate ways of measuring a cars performance so the 3900 will never stand a chance.

apparently its only accurate when it benefits them from reading alot of the post here...

id love to see a 3800 and a 3900 boost for boost, cam for cam, port for port go against each other, just too see how different/undifferent they really are.

I'm sure these people who are "1/4 miles times aren't accurate comparisons" will totally jump in on FieroX when he finally does run a 9.xx and say it doesn't count cuz it's not accurate.

quote Originally posted by cooguyfish: I'm sure these people who are "1/4 miles times aren't accurate comparisons" will totally jump in on FieroX when he finally does run a 9.xx and say it doesn't count cuz it's not accurate.

There's a difference between saying "hey, I went XX.YY in the 1/4" and "hey, I went XX.YY in the 1/4, and so did these two other guys who have engine X with mods Y, while I have engine Z, so clearly ALL engines X with mods Y are comparable to engine Z."

And the examples in question all have the right set of mechanical mods to be running in the high 12s, not mid 13s. So either something was wrong with the drivers, the tunes, or the mods. Saying you can keep up with X because you went across the 1/4 in relatively the same amount of seconds as only 2 examples of X, is silly.

quote Originally posted by dobey: There's a difference between saying "hey, I went XX.YY in the 1/4" and "hey, I went XX.YY in the 1/4, and so did these two other guys who have engine X with mods Y, while I have engine Z, so clearly ALL engines X with mods Y are comparable to engine Z." And the examples in question all have the right set of mechanical mods to be running in the high 12s, not mid 13s. So either something was wrong with the drivers, the tunes, or the mods. Saying you can keep up with X because you went across the 1/4 in relatively the same amount of seconds as only 2 examples of X, is silly.

So maybe a better way to explain what was meant would be;

"car X has X mods, with drive A, car Y has X mods as well, with driver B." since driver B ran .6th's faster in the 1/4, Driver A was having a bad day/tune/launch/etc and therefore it's less accurate information.

Is that a more accurate way of saying what was meant?

that last comment reminded me of trig class, now my head hurts