Alfa Romeo Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
That was amazing. I love Cobras. That must have been a 427 with 400+ BHP. The Viper was a GTS which has 450 BHP so is no slouch. The Cobra must be 3-400 kg lighter too. Have you seen a Weineck Cobra? 1200 BHP and 0-200 km/h (124 mp/h) in 4.9 seconds! I understand you can stick a huge powerful motor in any body, but it just works so well in a Cobra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
TEJ said:
That was amazing. I love Cobras. That must have been a 427 with 400+ BHP. The Viper was a GTS which has 450 BHP so is no slouch. The Cobra must be 3-400 kg lighter too. Have you seen a Weineck Cobra? 1200 BHP and 0-200 km/h (124 mp/h) in 4.9 seconds! I understand you can stick a huge powerful motor in any body, but it just works so well in a Cobra.
I remember reading about that...guess it must have been on Pistonheads! Scary motor - I can't see how it gets enough transaction to do the 4.9 time as 0-60 must be insane! Also I wouldn't like to over-throttle it coming out of a corner :eek: ...Bet it sounds fantastic...wonder what fuel economy is like :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Yes that's right, traction must be a problem. It must be like a dragster where the initial launch is just neck breaking. It would be like watching a film of a car where someone has just un-paused it! It is a 12.9 litre V8 with 2 four barrell carbs on top. That means 1 carb for 1 cylinder which would mean an MPG figure of about 0-1! it might manage 3 or so if my grandad had a go in it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
TEJ said:
No definitely not. Nice Porker, what sort of consumpsion do you get out of that?
I think I'm on 23.6mpg for the last 2,000 miles which is a mix of town, country and motorway (all at "reasonable" speed). Always impressed with Porsche fuel economy considering what they are
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
TEJ said:
Yes that does sound reasonable indeed. What engine size are those caymans and what sort of power do they produce?
S is 3.4 and 295 bhp. Chassis could take a lot more - handling is better than a 911, but alas the accountants do not permit Porsche engineers to reach the Cayman's potential else it would encroach on 997 sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
virage1 said:
S is 3.4 and 295 bhp. Chassis could take a lot more - handling is better than a 911, but alas the accountants do not permit Porsche engineers to reach the Cayman's potential else it would encroach on 997 sales.
300 BHP and 20+ MPG is amazing. What a wonderfull thing modern technology is. My wife's '03 reg Celica VVTi (140) manages 50 MPG! and that's with me driving it. Did you ever think it would be possible for a 1.8 petrol engine to do that? We certainly did not dream of such economy 10 years ago and who knows what will happen in the next 10 years. The diesel thing is more than likely going to take over which will see 500 BHP and 30+ MPG eventually. I had a VW Bora 130 TDI a few years ago as a company car and even though it quotes 130 BHP and over 200lb/ft of torque, it never felt it. I think manufacturers are able to sqeeze a peak figure from a diesel which does not mean a wide power band and just makes the engine look more impressive than it actually is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Its nearly there....Audi are about to launch the Q7 with a 6.0 litre V12 diesel with 500bhp and 1,000Nm of torque...which will go from 0-62 in 5.5 secs with an alleged combined cycle of 23.6mpg :eek: Now that is quality...stick that engine into an R8 (i.e. weights about half) and you would have an insanely quick car which could do 30mpg...alas I don't think it would fit but something like it will happen soon enough :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
virage1 said:
Its nearly there....Audi are about to launch the Q7 with a 6.0 litre V12 diesel with 500bhp and 1,000Nm of torque...which will go from 0-62 in 5.5 secs with an alleged combined cycle of 23.6mpg :eek: Now that is quality...stick that engine into an R8 (i.e. weights about half) and you would have an insanely quick car which could do 30mpg...alas I don't think it would fit but something like it will happen soon enough :cool:
S**t man, is that the same engine as the Diesel car which won Le Mans last year? or did that feature the V10 Diesel out of the Toureg? This is extreme engineering at the moment but as the years go on, your average family saloon will have 400 BHP and the fuel consumption of a Corsa. Seems like such a waste of resources in the past. My Triumph Stag has 160 BHP (and that's with modifications) and does 18 MPG. I suppose we had to waste materials in order to learn. New technology should level things out a little..........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
The Triumph Stag has a rubbish V8 though, which uses all its petrol to make cool noises, overheat and self-destruct. It's listed in a book I was given, called "Lemon! 60 Heroic Failures of Motoring". The Snag is on page 14, and the Alfa Romeo 33 on page 68! :(

According to a conspiracy magazine I've read, the petrol engine was originally intended to run on vapourised petrol. And if the oil boogeymen would allow that to happen, we'd have been enjoying more power, lower emissions and several times better economy and nobody would have to put up with crappy diesel. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Ben_NZ said:
The Triumph Stag has a rubbish V8 though, which uses all its petrol to make cool noises, overheat and self-destruct. It's listed in a book I was given, called "Lemon! 60 Heroic Failures of Motoring". The Snag is on page 14, and the Alfa Romeo 33 on page 68! :(

According to a conspiracy magazine I've read, the petrol engine was originally intended to run on vapourised petrol. And if the oil boogeymen would allow that to happen, we'd have been enjoying more power, lower emissions and several times better economy and nobody would have to put up with crappy diesel. :p
I have met thousands of people who think the Stag is crap just from reading a book. The people who actually drive them think otherwise. You have to remember that in 1970 the average output of a 3 litre engine was around the 130 BHP mark. The fact that Triumph managed 146 in the Stag was an acheivement in itself. The Rover V8 at 3.5 litres only managed 140 BHP before having in the inlet manifold redesigned and then produced 155 BHP in the SD1. The Ford (Essex) 3.0 V6 produces 138 BHP in standard form and the 3.0 Straight six in the MGC produces 145 BHP. By comparison the Stag engine is definitely a competitor and is not rubbish. Fair enough, there were some issues at British Lelyand with under development as they had a strict deadline to launch the car. These 'faults' have been rectified now and of the 4 Stags I have owned, none of them have given me any problems. The current Stag (which you can see in my gallery) gets used more than my 155 V6 and is my reliable daily driver. I commute in it and cover long distance trips with no stress at all and it has no extra electric cooling fans, just the original one on the end on the crankshaft. There are hundreds if not thousands of Stag owners who share my view on this. There are also many books which show the Stag as a lemon but I bet all of these have been written by people who haven't driven the car let alone owned and maintained it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
That's right Nick, although Twin can engines have a high peak figure, they lack torque and need to be revved quite high to get any speed out of them but I suppose that's their character.

The British were not the most advanced engineers during the '60s and '70s it seems. Zee Germans were producing all alloy engines at this time with a Mercedes 2.8 DOHC Straight Six pushing out 185 BHP. But it's a good thing that there is a following like you say on the British Leyland front as that's all there is left of the BMC empire. At least Alfa/Merc/BMW still survive today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
To be honest the 2 litre twincam in my 1972 GT Junior very rarely sees 4000rpm, and I could drive very quickly using just 4 or 5th, but don't as the gearbox is just too satisfing to use. I think the 2 litre was a different animal to the 1300 1600 and 1750 versions, in performance delivery, it seems to run out of puff at 5000, where as the others see 6500 easily
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top