Go Back   XmodSource.com > Miscellaneous > Real Cars: Full scale
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Gallery iTrader Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-28-2008, 12:20 AM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default The random car-talk thread.

Since we all have the habit of going utterly OT, this is the place I'm dumping those posts..

If you have an OT reply to make to someone in another thread, quote their post, and start talkin' here...

This is for mature disscussion only. Ignorant BS and flaming will be deleted, and you will be dealt with accordingly.

EX: "AZN CARZ SUXORZ THE MADDNESS" or "AMURIKAN CARZ R 4 REDNEKS"

Is simply not allowed.
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere

Last edited by texan_idiot25; 05-28-2008 at 12:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-28-2008, 12:25 AM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

1st post, answering MEME

Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405 View Post
And what why would you want a 4.8L v8, mines 5.0 and its not enough. Wish GM still had the 5.3 V8...
The 327, in it's day, was a nice free-revving V8, and lighter then the 350 at the time, good for weight balance in a car meant to handle (Vette, Z/28). Was mainly kept around to run in the Trans-Am series with the Camaro, if I recall right there was a displacement limit and the 327 was the answer to that limit.. The 5.3 is still in the trucks as a base engine. Good power, torque, and economy. Most fuel efficient non-hybrid V8 in any current truck...
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-28-2008, 06:11 AM
fordman239's Avatar
fordman239 fordman239 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hell
Posts: 574
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via Yahoo to fordman239
Default

if i had to choose between chevy motors (or gm in general) i would have to say that the most dependable is the 350, but the 327 was good, in its day. the 572 is a FANTASTIC motor, and they sound beautiful. ford powerstroke diesels are great for trucks, but i think cummins has the lead in after market trucks. ive seen fords with cummins swaps, also gm trucks 2. its kind of a fad in after market high performance street trucks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-28-2008, 09:17 PM
meme405 meme405 is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: (0)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texan_idiot25 View Post
1st post, answering MEME


The 327, in it's day, was a nice free-revving V8, and lighter then the 350 at the time, good for weight balance in a car meant to handle (Vette, Z/28). Was mainly kept around to run in the Trans-Am series with the Camaro, if I recall right there was a displacement limit and the 327 was the answer to that limit.. The 5.3 is still in the trucks as a base engine. Good power, torque, and economy. Most fuel efficient non-hybrid V8 in any current truck...
Cool i forced texan to do work...and actaully me and SS ironed this out:

First off i meant in 1500's as i would probably never buy anything bigger for now...

And actually my reasearch opened me to many new doors, i would get the 6.0L SLT, if i were to buy a new truck, That Vortec MAX is sick...

@ Fordman:

anybody who swaps out a working duramax diesel is an idiot, Not that its better or anything than a cummins, but matched with the allie, its just not worth the money or hassle to replace.

Last edited by meme405; 05-28-2008 at 09:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-28-2008, 09:18 PM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

the 1500s have the 5.3, it's the base engine in just about all configurations...
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-28-2008, 09:48 PM
xmodkidd33's Avatar
xmodkidd33 xmodkidd33 is offline
washed-up, retired, cool.
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA.
Posts: 1,264
Trader Rating: (1)
Default

Just posted on my MySpace blog:

Electric cars!! The clean vehicle for the future! WRONG.

The big deal now is "Who will make the first feasible electric car?" Companies, don't waste your time. It may sound like a good idea, but trust me, it's not. Unless we can get solar panels to collect huge amounts (about 20x more than they do now.), the electric car's future is not that good.

Answer this: What makes the electricity to make these cars run? Power plants, burning coal and fossil fuels. Although we're eliminating the problem at the final stage, the car, the power plants just have to work that much harder to get more electricity out. It's only going to make the problem worse.

Companies, stop wasting resources (economical and natural) and focus on biodiesel and hydrogen-powered cars. The biodiesel cars are basically free, with small modifications to current engines. It's the best way to go for the future. Hydrogen isn't a bad idea, although it will still take money and time to actually make the hydrogen gas. GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Dodge, Honda, and whatever other car companies out there, cut the crap. Get down to business.


Or you could always get a bike...
__________________
Woah.

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:03 PM
meme405 meme405 is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: (0)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texan_idiot25 View Post
the 1500s have the 5.3, it's the base engine in just about all configurations...
yeah i know...my truck has the 5.3 in it...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:05 PM
bestdragon2001's Avatar
bestdragon2001 bestdragon2001 is offline
Awesome member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 346
Trader Rating: (3)
Default

Xmodkidd: I cant remember where I read it but some jeep that will be made in a few years is supposed to get over 100 mpg because it is powered by an electric motor that runs on a lithium battery that is charged by a small desiel motor. It is electric and charged by another motor not solar power, so idk if that would be any better though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:06 PM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

Then... why did you say you with they had the 5.3, and had it in the 1500s when it's still here and is optioned in the 1500s?

-confusion-
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:18 PM
meme405 meme405 is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: (0)
Default

Oh i thought that they had downgraded to the maximum 5.0L in the 1500's because of fuel economy and such...

LOL sorry tex...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:20 PM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

The 1500s can get up to the 6.0 I do believe. The 6.2 is Cadi and GMC only if I recall right
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-28-2008, 11:52 PM
ling427ttvette's Avatar
ling427ttvette ling427ttvette is offline
Elite member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 724
Trader Rating: (13)
Default

Wait, what is this 6.2 that you speak of?

GM is cheap, they use the same motor in everything. 6.0 in Caddies, GMC's and Chevy trucks.

Atleast, this is based off of my day to day experience with all of these vehicles because of where I work, if there is a 6.2 I have never seen it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-29-2008, 12:12 AM
2wdpancar 2wdpancar is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,013
Trader Rating: (8)
Default

Delete this post if needed(might start flame war) but I would just like to share my opinion on this post, in WhiteMKIV's paint thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2jzna-t View Post
mustangs are ***... sorry lol there every where not a rare car at all supra ftw!
I really dislike this guy's attitude, techincally they aren't ***/homosexual, not trying to be a nerd or anything, but I could say the same thing about supra's, but I don't.
Why?
Because I have a sense of knowledge posting that a certain type of car is *** is wrong.(not only incorrect, but may offend actual homosexual-oriented people).
Rare car...the Stangs go waaaaaay back buddy...don't know what you've been smoking lately.
If you can't tell, this post ****ed me the heck off, as Mustangs are my favorite car.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-29-2008, 12:23 AM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ling427ttvette View Post
Wait, what is this 6.2 that you speak of?

GM is cheap, they use the same motor in everything. 6.0 in Caddies, GMC's and Chevy trucks.

Atleast, this is based off of my day to day experience with all of these vehicles because of where I work, if there is a 6.2 I have never seen it.
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/...lade&year=2008

Propels the nearly 6000 lbs Escalade to 60 in the 7 second area. I think the Sierra Denali is the only pickup with it.

I'll tell you what, the Current Escalade is no Corvette, but for a 3 ton SUV, it's got the moves... Fun part is, when you drive them too hard (thus setting off all the stability programs) OnStar will call you and make sure you haven't gotten into a wreck.
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere

Last edited by texan_idiot25; 05-29-2008 at 12:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-29-2008, 12:50 AM
meme405 meme405 is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: (0)
Default

Yes teh denali sierra is teh only truck at least of GMC's that has the engine in it...If im not mistaken there are plans to somehow incorporate it into a chevy truck. For those that are brand oriented people they can stick with their chevy's, and not have to move to GMC even though its the same truck...

I know i like GMC more than chevy...just because ive always liked the GMC bodystyle more...

Texan what do you think of Qsteer? hell 12' radius on a 17' long truck, that beats out your high end full size mercs...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-29-2008, 12:53 AM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

I dunno if Chevy will ever get the 6.2, most are happy with the 6.0. But, the trickle down effect has been in place since the start of the GMT900s, but I don't remember reading anything that says it has the 6.2.

Quadrasteer was badass, and I wish GM kept it. Plus, the bed the GMC had for was sweet, just slightly widened for the extra axle width.
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-29-2008, 01:35 AM
meme405 meme405 is offline
Xmod Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,004
Trader Rating: (0)
Default

I know the reason i asked was because i finally drove one...that was an experience, it had the entire qsteer package which had other options as well.

Ill stick with saying this it was one hell of a difference bettween when it was on and off. Deffinetly worth the 6500$, hell it'd be worth 10 000$.

Thinking of trying to find an old 2006 (cause thats the last year it was offered right?) to replace my broken down POS hunk of scrap metal...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-29-2008, 01:57 AM
texan_idiot25's Avatar
texan_idiot25 texan_idiot25 is offline
Yes, 1945 Cadillac Tank
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,366
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via AIM to texan_idiot25
Default

Go for it if you can find one. I haven't seen one on the road in awhile. Sadly, like the Envoy XUV (or whatever) it was a great idea well executed that sadly didn't take off.
__________________
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale
skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I'm gonna drive
around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon.

I may be king of the idiots, but my kingdom is vast and my subjects are everywhere
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-29-2008, 06:03 AM
fordman239's Avatar
fordman239 fordman239 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hell
Posts: 574
Trader Rating: (5)
Send a message via Yahoo to fordman239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meme405 View Post

@ Fordman:

anybody who swaps out a working duramax diesel is an idiot, Not that its better or anything than a cummins, but matched with the allie, its just not worth the money or hassle to replace.

people do it for high performance street trucks. the cummins i guess is more dependable for drag racing and truck pulling, but ill take a 7.3 turbo over any duramax or cummins any day.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-29-2008, 07:24 AM
xmodkidd33's Avatar
xmodkidd33 xmodkidd33 is offline
washed-up, retired, cool.
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA.
Posts: 1,264
Trader Rating: (1)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bestdragon2001 View Post
Xmodkidd: I cant remember where I read it but some jeep that will be made in a few years is supposed to get over 100 mpg because it is powered by an electric motor that runs on a lithium battery that is charged by a small desiel motor. It is electric and charged by another motor not solar power, so idk if that would be any better though.
That is still run on diesel, it's where the power comes from. A biodesiel conversion wouldn't be a bad idea for Jeep.
__________________
Woah.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.