[Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake

[Ron Childs]

Aston-Martin?
 
-RC


Paul Nimz <niks@dlogue.net> wrote:
Yes buy a Ford then they can spend the profits buying Volvo, Land Rover,
Jaguar, Mazda.... Did I leave any one out????

Paul Nimz
'97 TR
'93 EG mtx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald Mallinson" 
To: "John Weidenbenner" 
Cc: "Ron Porter" ; 
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake


> John,
>
> You know what I mean, An Acura built in Ohio sends the
> profits to Japan. A Caddy built in North America keeps more
> of the money here. If I can do that and still satisfy my
> needs, I will.
>
> Buying American still does mean something, but it can't be
> done absolutely, just as you can't say "buying American"
> absolutely is obsolete. Yes I have a Japanese motor in my
> SHO's. I have owned foreign cars and motorcycles.
>
> As I said, I would rather buy from a typical "American"
> manufacturer than the other options. Ford, GM, Even Daimler
> Chrysler. Yes Ford owns other companies, some of them own
> part of Ford, etc etc, it is a global economy etc etc.
>
> I think we should be applauding Caddy for doing a great job
> of re-inventing itself within just a few years. If the
> press would get off their butts and DRIVE a Deville for a
> while, they would realize that it is a great car with
> supreme luxury and American style. Superb handling, more
> power than most of the competition, great MPG (better than
> the V8 SHO! and more HP) and very good quality. Also
> selling well, and not just to the over 80 crowd. CAn't wait
> for the next generation of that one. The new Seville (just
> STS in new-speak at Cadillac) is getting early rave reviews.
>
> Buying American may not mean exactly the same as it used to,
> but it still means something, and can't hurt to use it for a
> goal.
>
> Don Mallinson
>
> John Weidenbenner wrote:
> > Buy American is an obsolete term. Evevn my Acura built in Marysville OH
has
> > a tranny made in Japan.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Donald Mallinson" 
> > To: "Ron Porter" 
> > Cc: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:08 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Shotimes] Interesting...porting the intake
> >
> >
> >
> >>Ron,
> >>
> >>I figured you would chime back! :)
> >>
> >>I think I got your comments figured right. Again, not that
> >>I totally disagree with you, just that I think your
> >>perspective is still a little bit off. Even today a 220 hp
> >>car is still more high performance than bread and butter
> >>family sedan. The typical "bread and butter" car is still
> >>well under 200 hp, and few have the handling to match a 15
> >>year old SHO even today. A typical current higher
> >>performance car is still not over 220 hp with very few
> >>exceptions. The bland, but high HP Nissan universal motor
> >>being the major exception. Everything else is in a higher
> >>price range than the SHO ever was, even with inflation, for
> >>the most part.
> >>
> >>I think BMW may be the most overrated car in history. It is
> >>nice, and maybe even the top of the heap, but it ain't THAT
> >>much better than the SHO for the money. I HAVE given the
> >>BMW cars a chance, and may even desire to own one some day,
> >>but direct comparison of my 7 year old 96 to a new 530i was
> >>enough to let me cool my needs for a new car for a while.
> >>Yep, the 530 was nicer, but not THAT much nicer. Should
> >>have been way superior for $45,000. And still just 225 hp?
> >> WAY down compared to the Japanese competition. Why
> >>doesn't everyone blast the Beemer for that lack of power?
> >>Smooth will only get them so many bonus points in my book.
> >>Why can't BMW get more HP out of that ancient motor?
> >>
> >>Now to fully incur your wrath, I will tell you that I am
> >>seriously considering the Caddy CTS as my next new car. I
> >>still would rather buy American and my test of a 220 hp auto
> >>CTS when they first came out was impressive. Quality, yep,
> >>power, yep, style? That is very personal, but today, that
> >>CTS style is VERY much copied by the supposed "better"
> >>brands, and the CTS is starting to look like it will age
> >>well. Yes I would like to have the V version with 400 hp,
> >>but not sure about availablilty. The new motor in the base
> >>Auto car, solves most of the lack of HP situation and that
> >>motor will get the manual next year...something to think about.
> >>
> >>Don Mallinson
> >>
> >>Ron Porter wrote:
> >>
> >>>I figured you would chime in!!!
> >>>
> >>>You read more into what I have stated for years. And Mark has shown my
> >>>14-year-old comments to be true. The 3.0 SHO motor in a 3,000 # car is
> >>
> > an
> >
> >>>exceptional runner. It's a matter of perspective. My perspective is
from
> >>>owning cars that were much quicker than the SHO, others have different
> >>>experiences (my "FSS" comes to mind!)
> >>>
> >>>Other point is that the SHO was the "performance car" back in those
> >>
> > days.
> >
> >>>Today, these cars are the bread-and-butter family sedans with 225-275
> >>
> > HP, as
> >
> >>>opposed to having maybe 150-175 back in that day.
> >>>
> >>>>From the perspective of American cars, and even cars like the 535i BMW
> >>
> > in
> >
> >>>the late '80s, the SHO "is" low on torque. Again, a matter of
> >>
> > perspective.
> >
> >>>There is also much more to a car than just the engine, and this is
where
> >>
> > the
> >
> >>>BMWs and others have excelled.
> >>>
> >>>Ron Porter
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Shotimes mailing list
> >>Shotimes@autox.team.net
> >>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> _______________________________________________
> Shotimes mailing list
> Shotimes@autox.team.net
> http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
_______________________________________________
Shotimes mailing list
Shotimes@autox.team.net
http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes