Dual exhausts? everywhere, but not on the right cars

[SpitfireMK461]

In my opinion, more cars should feature one exhaust pipe for ever cylinder, and exit the exhaust at the nose of the car. Like this.

I think that would be one mean looking feature for Vipers and Corvettes, so on so forth.

 

[thevictor390]

Mod this a bit:

 

[Labcoatguy]

From what I've heard, fuel isn't the first thing you'll run out of at 80 mph on the highway

topic... topic... my car has dual exhausts. Totally relevant.

Note to self, never tell a rotary owner that your car burns oil, he'll never let you hear the end of it. :lol:

And yes, back on topic, this is the stock exhaust system of a 91-95 MR2:

Purely for styling purposes, but it does look good.

 

[Bad Bowtie]

Aside from the Mustang, name a sporty car, let alone a true sports car, that uses a live rear axle.

Why have true sports car manufacturers like Porsche or Ferrari not used a solid rear axle in the last 50 years? (Ferraris actually had solid rear axles into the 1960s).

Why did the Corvette ditch the solid rear axle in 1963?

Why did the Mustang's competition (Camaro and Challenger) ditch the solid rear axles?

Further, the next Mustang is going to have IRS, putting the live axle to bed at long last. The solid axle pony car only existed because it was CHEAP. Defending it in anything other than a truck application is like defending drum brakes.

Relax, I was just pointing that they are not useless or obsolete. If the Mustang isn't a true sportscar, I guess the M3 isn't a true sports car since it barely nudged out a GT. Imagine how ugly a BOSS will make it look. I always find it funny how that video disturbs people. :lol: Really, it was just a trolling post to get a desired reaction, which I got in your inevitable answer, but I would be inclined to agree with you. Just like playing devil's advocate.

That last line is wrong though, it does have it's place: drag racing.

 

[jsausley]

Barely nudged out a GT in what? 0-60? The Mustang GT is a pig anywhere with corners. Even the Roush is slower than an M3, and it has a much more sophisticated suspension.

 

[argatoga]

Is this attitude really necessary? Really? Things like this are starting to get incredibly frustrating. How many fucking reasoned paragraphs (rather than e-one liners) do i need to write before dismissive bullshit like this stops. Jesus christ.

Trolling you say? Exactly what part of "I have a theory that car companies have no interest in building durable cars, heres why and heres why and heres an example" is trolling to you? Are some of you just lazy? Do you guys have reading comprehension problems? Maybe internet forums just aren't right for you, what you want is some sort of committee of "Yes-Men" that will agree with you. I think you'll find internet forums are often for the discussion of opinions, sometimes ones *GASP* that you dont share! There is nothing stopping us from disagreeing without resorting to petty insults, THAT is what i would call trolling.

Edit: Wow feels good to get that off my chest, Thread derail over from me (although remember this arose from a discussion of fake duals being a result of packaging difficulties in a unibody's underside), i dont have the willpower even try anymore.

Most of your posts have created flame wars. Think about it.

 

[LeVeL]

Most of your posts have created flame wars. Think about it.

You don't understand MAN. You just don't understand!

 

[Bad Bowtie]

Barely nudged out a GT in what? 0-60? The Mustang GT is a pig anywhere with corners. Even the Roush is slower than an M3, and it has a much more sophisticated suspension.

Did you watch the video I posted? The GT lost to the M3 by less than a tenth of a second. That is barely nudging out, and that is at the M3's game.

In the second video, the BOSS beat the M3 around Laguna Seca by 2 seconds. :lol:

How about that solid axle? I guess since the Mustang "is a pig anywhere with corners" the M3 is as well, right? Try to answer without being a hypocrite.

 

[prizrak]

Is this attitude really necessary? Really? Things like this are starting to get incredibly frustrating. How many fucking reasoned paragraphs (rather than e-one liners) do i need to write before dismissive bullshit like this stops. Jesus christ.

Trolling you say? Exactly what part of "I have a theory that car companies have no interest in building durable cars, heres why and heres why and heres an example" is trolling to you? Are some of you just lazy? Do you guys have reading comprehension problems? Maybe internet forums just aren't right for you, what you want is some sort of committee of "Yes-Men" that will agree with you. I think you'll find internet forums are often for the discussion of opinions, sometimes ones *GASP* that you dont share! There is nothing stopping us from disagreeing without resorting to petty insults, THAT is what i would call trolling.

Edit: Wow feels good to get that off my chest, Thread derail over from me (although remember this arose from a discussion of fake duals being a result of packaging difficulties in a unibody's underside), i dont have the willpower even try anymore.

Alright lets give you the benefit of the doubt and answer honestly...
Advantages of Body-on-frame design:
1)Ease or repair
2)Longevity (very arguable but since its easier to repair lets give it that as an advantage)
3)Body damage not critical for the rest of the car
4)Arguably ease of packaging
Disadvantages:
1)Weight
2)Torsional rigidity (as a direct result)
2.1)Handling
2.2)Acceleration
2.3)Deceleration
2.4)Comfort
2.5)Driving dynamics in general
3)Manufacturing
Unibody advantages:
1)Ease (and cost) of manufacturing
2)Torsional rigidity (pretty much same list as above)
3)Weight
4)Safety (easier to set up crumple zones and so forth w/o having to worry about body getting knocked off the frame)
Disadvantages
1)Ease of repair
2)Longevity? (Plenty of unibody vehicles last 10+ years rarely would have a need above that)
3)Harder to put dual exhausts through.....

There are no good reasons for a body-on-frame design for consumer vehicles, if you want to keep your car for 50 years you will take care of it, that's just normal.

 

[jsausley]

Did you watch the video I posted? The GT lost to the M3 by less than a tenth of a second. That is barely nudging out, and that is at the M3's game.

Did you? All I heard was him talking about how much more composed the M3 was than the Mustang ("Try that in the Mustang and you'll go off" - Ouch! I don't want that result in my "sports car."). The only positive he seemed to find in the Mustang was the torque of the larger engine.

Also, the result that Motor Trend found seems odd to me since:

31 3:05.4 BMW M3 COUPE LL2 2/10
41 3:07.4 FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500 LL2 2/10
44 3:08.6 FORD MUSTANG GT 5.0 LL2 2/11

...the BMW is more than 3 seconds faster around VIR, and actually even faster than the GT500 as well.

I will admit the 5.0 is a significant improvement over the older design. Check out its time:

61 3:13.3 FORD MUSTANG GT LL1 2/10

Which is actually slower than a 335, which I would NOT consider a sports car:

51 3:10.5 BMW 335i COUPE LL2 8/07

Anyway, about the BOSS, doesn't it have the same improved suspension that the Roush does? I'm not sure.

 

[Bad Bowtie]

Did you? All I heard was him talking about how much more composed the M3 was than the Mustang ("Try that in the Mustang and you'll go off" - Ouch! I don't want that result in my "sports car."). The only positive he seemed to find in the Mustang was the torque of the larger engine.

Also, the result that Motor Trend found seems odd to me since:

31 3:05.4 BMW M3 COUPE LL2 2/10
41 3:07.4 FORD MUSTANG SHELBY GT500 LL2 2/10
44 3:08.6 FORD MUSTANG GT 5.0 LL2 2/11

...the BMW is more than 3 seconds faster around VIR, and actually even faster than the GT500 as well.

I will admit the 5.0 is a significant improvement over the older design. Check out its time:

61 3:13.3 FORD MUSTANG GT LL1 2/10

Which is actually slower than a 335, which I would NOT consider a sports car:

51 3:10.5 BMW 335i COUPE LL2 8/07

Anyway, about the BOSS, doesn't it have the same improved suspension that the Roush does? I'm not sure.

Composed or not, different approaches arrived at nearly the same conclusion.

Just curious, who did MT's test driving? Was it one or more of their staff members or a pro-driver?

Not sure about the BOSS. Which Roush are you referring to?

 

[argatoga]

$30k Mustang GT vs $55k BMW M3. Three seconds at that race track isn't worth $25k to me. And why isn't a Mustang a sports car, it will run circles around a C4.

 

[jsausley]

$30k Mustang GT vs $55k BMW M3. Three seconds at that race track isn't worth $25k to me. And why isn't a Mustang a sports car, it will run circles around a C4.

I never actually said the Mustang wasn't a sports car, I just said it was a pig, and I still stick by that statement. From watching the video that was posted the Mustang is far sloppier and less composed, which are two things that a sports car should be. The Mustang has always been a muscle car, just like the GTO that I own, but I think the newest version of the Mustang, as well as the newest version of the GTO, both are agile enough to be considered a sports car in their own right, even if the older models of both were not.

By C4 I assume you're talking about the Corvette that I own? Technology has progressed a lot in nearly 18 years, so a car with roughly the same amount of power built today should be a LOT faster, I would hope. I don't think magazines and media really did true performance tests back then, only top speed and acceleration, so I can't really find any figures. But the ZR1 is a sports car in the purest definition of the word, even more than most cars built today, and if you're truly a car enthusiast you'd know that.

 

[argatoga]

What is the definition of a sports car?

 

[LeVeL]

Are you guys seriously arguing about M3 vs Mustang?

 

[argatoga]

Are you guys seriously arguing about M3 vs Mustang?

The thread is about Dual exhausts, of course we will be arguing the difference between a Mustang and an M3s track time.

 

[LeVeL]

argatoga, what's better - an E30 or a Miata?

 

[prizrak]

F that the real comparison is Toyota Corolla vs Honda Civic

 

[GRtak]

By C4 I assume you're talking about the Corvette that I own? Technology has progressed a lot in nearly 18 years, so a car with roughly the same amount of power built today should be a LOT faster, I would hope. I don't think magazines and media really did true performance tests back then, only top speed and acceleration, so I can't really find any figures. But the ZR1 is a sports car in the purest definition of the word, even more than most cars built today, and if you're truly a car enthusiast you'd know that.

Can we see pics of your ZR1? Want you in the pic too.

 

[Bad Bowtie]

I never actually said the Mustang wasn't a sports car, I just said it was a pig, and I still stick by that statement.

So by that logic, the M3 is a pig as well, since it is very close in performance in every facet of the word. Like I said before, 2 different paths leading to the same conclusion.

The Mustang has always been a muscle car

WRONG. :lol: It's always been a pony car.