rao Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 not according to you Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 God forbid you drive your spec b on another planet with a differernt force of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 not according to you Now you're just being silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Search your own posts, boy wonder you will find a lot of silliness and your claims about weight and mass. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmp Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I'll never understand why folk want to discuss hypotheticals. It's as bad as a 'Future Mods' list. Hypothetical performance discussion AND future mods lists are simple attempts for folk to get praise for something they haven't yet done. I was at a burger king parking lot once. I was next to a dude in a WS6. We were chatting it up when I asked if he'd ran at the local drags. "No...but it'll do 12s." "So you have run it?" I asked "No. But the previous owner said he ran 12.9, but that was before the CAI" "But what would you run in the car?" "The car could run 12s easy" "With you driving?" I believe a large portion of folk buy go-fast parts, because it's easier to dump on horsepower than to buy Talent. A STOCK LGT could run sub-5 seconds to 60mph with enough weight removed. (shrug) SOLD | '06 spec.B - VF52/AVO/740cc/Up/Down | 238awhp | 50-80mph 3.1 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 God forbid you drive your spec b on another planet with a differernt force of gravity.The mass of the vehicle would remain constant (though added life support systems would add to mass). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 obviousl, but since we are all on the same planet with the same force of gravity applied to everyone, mass~weight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Search your own posts, boy wonder you will find a lot of silliness and your claims about weight and mass. You are being silly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welby Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Even if it's possible, why would one want to thrash the Holy Hell out of their car just to hit a number? I wish magazines would also post up some average 0-60 times for cars driven in relatively sane manners as well... I'd think a 5-60 mph time would be more telling than a 0-60. With AWD, they can just dump the clutch at 4,000 rpms and pull a great number, but it's not telling the whole story. Having had my LGT for about a month, I'll say the car is quick, but it's not all that fast. My old Buick will demolish it, but I guess it's all relative. Someone else could easily spank my Buick and say it's slow as well, lol. Just enjoy the car and treat it well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You are being silly! You are repeating yourself and every time you continue to be wrong. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 obviousl, but since we are all on the same planet with the same force of gravity applied to everyone, mass~weight No mass = no weight. No weight is not = no mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You are repeating yourself and every time you continue to be wrong.You're not playing at being silly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 No mass = no weight. No weight is not = no mass. Only true in outer space. you are having rouble applying theory to real life situations. weight pertains to situations with gravity. since there will be a situation ever where you will not have constant gravity acting on your car, weight~mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Only true in outer space. you are having rouble applying theory to real life situations. weight pertains to situations with gravity. since there will be a situation ever where you will not have constant gravity acting on your car, weight~mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc032 Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 weight = mass X gravity come on its high school pyhsics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 weight = mass X gravity come on its high school pyhsics Weight is mass X acceleration. On earth, acceleration is the force of gravity. Mass is constant. Gravity(or acceleration if you will) is not. "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
executor485 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Weight is mass X acceleration. On earth, acceleration is the force of gravity. Mass is constant. Gravity(or acceleration if you will) is not. But Spec B > weight x mass / acceleration + 1000? If I pass you on the right, I'm flipping you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurodancer Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Wasn't this whole weight/mass debate already done on a closed thread??? C'mon guys, lets wrap it up -> Mods and Vimy debates are getting old Unsubscribe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autotech Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 according to my AP, i ran 4.85 0-60 (i had a thread about how accurate it really was, and i dont really believe it..but w/e.) i have AP, Cobb STS, Intake tube, Perrin catback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
collegemt Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 The best 0-60 time for the OEM 06 Spec.B is 5.1 seconds. I love posting that stat and then hearing the excuses and rationalizing:lol: BTW, I've never had the "studder" either. PS Spec.Bs don't need the "Spec.B button" which apparently is an aftermarket LGT mod that is as effective as an aftermarket CAI. I can tell you are very proud of Road and tracks 0-60 time of 5.1 for the spec b, but it isn't mcuh better than car and drivers 0-60 of 5.3 they got with the 07 LGT (non spec balogna) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Vimy Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcw82 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 A STOCK LGT could run sub-5 seconds to 60mph with enough weight removed.(shrug) So basically, the cheapest way to go faster is to remove the mass around my waste... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromMass Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 So basically, the cheapest way to go faster is to remove the mass around my waste... Do the 0-60 going down hill with a back wind will take some time off too Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I can tell you are very proud of Road and tracks 0-60 time of 5.1 for the spec b, but it isn't mcuh better than car and drivers 0-60 of 5.3 they got with the 07 LGT (non spec balogna) But it is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrxvt Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But it is better. is there a recent test of any non spec B LGT for comparison? I know that there are alot from 05 that are a tad slower than the R&T test you spoke of... but the more recent LGTs have different ecus and slight other tweaks- and perhaps are a bit stronger than the original GTs. there are dyno's on this forum that indicate that as well- or at least they indicate there is no real difference between any lgt engine, powerwise. Do you really think if you take an LGT spec B and Non-spec B from the same model year there is a power or acceleration difference? Is there any evidence of that- or are all the mag results you are using to say its "better" really not applicable because they are testing different MYs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.