Nismo Z-Tune Skyline, sooooooo sexy Options

[funnyboy117]

skyline

enjoy

[97sccelica]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's, with out all the technology of today, namely fuel injection, forced induction, and improved tire technology.

whats that thing run on, C16? and $175k for a used car?

honestly, the skyline gtr's are nice cars, but people hold them up higher than they should be

This post has been edited by 97sccelica: Mar 22, 2005 - 2:58 AM

[saleeka]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...

[FallenHero]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.

[spunky393]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).

[FallenHero]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).
[right][snapback]261027[/snapback][/right]

My dad had a 69 SS with the 396. he asid it was quite the trip.

I've not researched it, but it doesn't make much sense for the vette engine to be less powerful than the chevelle... Actually, I thought the vette had higher compression...?

And my uncle used to drag race shelbys back in the day with one of the pettys... I forget which.

Jon=former old school muscle car enthusiast(still is to some degree)

[spunky393]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).
[right][snapback]261027[/snapback][/right]

My dad had a 69 SS with the 396. he asid it was quite the trip.

I've not researched it, but it doesn't make much sense for the vette engine to be less powerful than the chevelle... Actually, I thought the vette had higher compression...?

And my uncle used to drag race shelbys back in the day with one of the pettys... I forget which.

Jon=former old school muscle car enthusiast(still is to some degree)
[right][snapback]261564[/snapback][/right]

Ask your dad how heavy that chevelle was. It'll surprise you, they were much lighter than anybody would even dream about..