92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Kept for archival purposes only
User avatar
KillerofRice
Registered User
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Red Lion, Pennsylvania
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby KillerofRice » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:15 pm

Honestly look at the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of the Firebird and a Beretta. The 3500 lbs for a v6 Firebird is wrong try 3323 for a manual and 3369 for an auto. To break 3500 in a 99 Firebird you have to get a T/A convertible. 0-60 times. Check this link to look at the times. You need a quad 4 to run with a 3800 f-body. Also don't forget about RWD and torque. So I stand by my point that it was purely driver in this race and not the cars. By the stats the camaro is a better no questions. I'm sorry but you won't change my mind only keep lying to yourselves.


90 GTZ - Mostly stock
84 Z28- Sold :(  Was a better beater than beretta.

payback
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Central NY
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby payback » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:31 pm

ok lets keep things simple here yeah a 3800 will beat a 2.8 but stock vs stock a 2.8-3.1 will put up a fight if not beat the older 3.8,a strong 3100 l bod will walk on just about any v6 f bod to 85-90 rwd actually has a disadvantage to fwd on the street not to mention a lower torque to weight ratio so you can keep lying to yourself as well but just because it says cumero or fireturd doesnt mean its the greatest thing on earth, i used to love some camaros and ws6birds but its people like you that think a name makes a car fast ill never own one.


'96Z26:Eibach springs, KYB struts, GM Strut brace, K&N cone

User avatar
KillerofRice
Registered User
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Red Lion, Pennsylvania
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby KillerofRice » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:09 pm

Actually you should be careful what you say, because the camaro 3.8 has better torque to weight ratio. Yes a retta v6 will beat the 3.4 camaro. Do the math before saying things. Prove me wrong with facts and not a hypothesis. And explain how rwd has a disadvantage b/c i wanna read this. And I'm glad you won't ever own a f-body. PROVE ME WRONG AND I WILL ADMIT IT.





90 GTZ - Mostly stock
84 Z28- Sold :(  Was a better beater than beretta.

User avatar
KillerofRice
Registered User
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Red Lion, Pennsylvania
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby KillerofRice » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:28 am

F-body weight ratios: Torque (0.0677 ft. lbs. per pound for a manual and 0.0668 for an auto) and Horsepower (0.0602 hp per pound for man. and 0.0594 for an auto). Now I'll use the 94 Z26 3100 for weight since its the lightest 3100 beretta made, which is 2983 lbs. Beretta weight ratios: Torque is 0.0620 and Horsepower is 0.0536. I used the '99 Firebird weights which are heavier than a '96 Camaro 3.8. All my specifications came from autos.msn.com. So the simple fact of weight is ruled out. The numbers don't lie, the f-body actually has the advantage in the weight respect. Now with fwd having an advantage I must ask how? From a stop when the car is launched the weight is transferred from the front to the back. So wouldn't that mean the rwd would have more force pushing down over the tires providing better traction. Where the fwd loses force over the tires since the weight is being shifted towards the back. And about the personal attack on me thinking a name plate makes it fast your wrong. Wouldn't I think all Mustangs would be fast too or Corvettes. If someone wants to personally attack me keep it private. I would rather see the board left clean. I almost forgot about drivetrain loss. Fwd typically has more drivetrain loss than rwd, b/c of how a fwd tranny is designed. I didn't mean to turn this whole topic into a fight and make other people furious. I can't stand when someone tries to disprove me and doesn't provide any backup or even worse false backup. Again I highly encourage everyone who reads this to do the math themselves. If I'm wrong show me with proof. Also as a previous f-body owner any f-body has a lot more potential than any l-body. I love my GTZ and won't let her go until she's about to die but I surely miss my '84 Z28.





90 GTZ - Mostly stock
84 Z28- Sold :(  Was a better beater than beretta.

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:47 pm

Boys you two need to chill. fwd and rwd both have there advantages and disadvantages. With the correct suspension set up yes you can transfer more weight load to the rear tires but the same with keeping the weight above the front wheels. Just because a car runs certain times on a site, doesn't mean those times are accurate. A good driver can pull several tenths off a magazines times. Power to weight is a big factor if you were racing on a dyno but you have to factor in track/street condition, weather, temperature, how clean to strip is, the adrenaline, shift points, shift speed, throttle control and I'm sure there are some I missed. Point here is the numbers posted in a magazine are nice base references but to get all stupid over them is pointless. There are to many factors in racing to just say (ex.) any mustang could beat any camaro. Duh





Nick Sommerfeld

User avatar
KillerofRice
Registered User
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Red Lion, Pennsylvania
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby KillerofRice » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:11 am

Power to weight has a lot to do with off a dyno. On a dyno you're not pushing any weight. Usually on dyno runs the car starts in 3rd gear to allow the engine to run up the rpms longer than if it were in 1st or 2nd. And magazine articles don't give a good reference to a car's capabilites? Magazine drivers aren't professionals, I guess they're are some idiots pulled out of an ally and told to drive a car and told to drive this car so they can get the times for it. They also don't do multiple runs with it on different days. If power to weight didn't matter I guess it's silly to rip out most of your interior, spare tire, and jack to reduce weight. If weight didn't matter why does every race car built try to reduce weight? Why does the new Corvette uses carbon fiber and magnesium alloys to reduce weight? The racing that you do does matter mainly on the driver and not the car or weather conditions. I raced a WRX and lost from a standing start because the WRX has awd. So he'll get me on the launch every time. We did a 20 mph roll and I dusted him by at least 2 car lengths. So the awd drive was helpful from a standing start because it provided traction but on the roll was useless weight that slowed him down. Yes the numbers aren't everything I know that. If the person in the driver seat can't drive their car most likely they are going to lose. Unless it's Lambo versus a Yugo, you'd have to blow the Lambo not to win. I'm also gonna comment on one of your other posts, the civic you raced and beat you probably just heard the VTEC kicking in. Now if you don't understand exactly what a VTEC is I've provided this nice link that will explain how it works. I didn't quite understand what the big ordeal was with VTEC was for awhile because I really didn't care. Now back to the magazine times of cars. Usually the magazine is provided from the car manufacturer with data they claim will get the best times. So the drivers read it, use it, and than see if they feel they can get better times with different launch rpms, different shift points, and all those things you listed. Then what the best time they got gets listed for the magazine. One factor I just thought of you missed was tires. Those can make or break any race. My only beef with payback was he didn't provide anything to back up what he stated. And what advantage does fwd have I still have yet to figure that out. The only thing I can think of is maybe during sharp, quick corners the fwd has the advantage since the weight is kept over the front tires, but than you most factor is torque steer, inside wheel spin, and understeer since the majority of the weight is over the front tires. Weight distribution has to deal with racing too. If it didn't why do car manufacturers when making a car try to get as close to 50/50 weight distribution as possible? Now if you still wanna argue the magazine and factory times go to dragtimes.com. Those times are from the owners of the vehicles. It lists everything done to the cars track conditions. You look at the time and decipher what you think. The point I guess I wanna make here is everyone has a different opinion and apparently payback and I just don't agree. I'm not trying to make him look bad or you bad and place myself above you guys. I got mad because some wrong information was posted. In my first post I shouldn't have said the 3.8 should walk all over, because it made me look like I was saying f-bodies are far superior to l-bodies and no one not even a quad stands a chance against a 3.8. Yes I don't necessarily believe the numbers either. If doesn't matter what the specifications are if the car can't put the power to the wheels and the driver can't drive it correctly the numbers are gonna fudged. So flame me for incorrect spelling, misused words, typos, my arrogant opinions, and anything else. I'm done fighting from a keyboard and Nick if you're ever in my area, which I doubt you ever will be, we'll find some back roads and race our rettas. And payback I'm sorry, for what it matters to you, for peeving off.


90 GTZ - Mostly stock
84 Z28- Sold :(  Was a better beater than beretta.

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:58 am

I did not mean that power to weight does not matter. Being from the racing world, I know how much weight distribution can affect the handling and forward bit of the car. What I am trying to say is power to weight with comparing two vehicles is not the deciding factor. The other dude was stating that a car with a lower rate would beat one with higher, which in theory that is true but in the racing world, the fastest car does not always win.


Nick Sommerfeld

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:04 am

FWD gives the advantage of direct motor weight over the front wheels. RWD cars are set up to have the weight load transferred to the rear tires for grip. As far as preference, I like RWD because you can drive more with the back end. I did forget tires, good catch. I will take you on any time. Let me know the next time your in Nebraska. :)


Nick Sommerfeld

User avatar
3100SFI
Registered User
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:25 pm
Location: Ohio

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby 3100SFI » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:06 am

I guess I'll chime in here. I'd just like to clerify, or add, some info here. This is for any newb who happens upon this, so none of this is directed at anyone or intended to make anyone look like an idiot.

QUOTE
And magazine articles don't give a good reference to a car's capabilites?

While this is a general reference, it is better to look at dyno charts, gearing, weight, ect., to better suit IT'S strong points to YOUR style of driving and the environment it will mostly be exposed to.

QUOTE
If weight didn't matter why does every race car built try to reduce weight?

So that they can add ballasts where ever they please to make it handle better, and make minimum weight requirement. :p

QUOTE
I'm also gonna comment on one of your other posts, the civic you raced and beat you probably just heard the VTEC kicking in. Now if you don't understand exactly what a VTEC is I've provided this nice link that will explain how it works. I didn't quite understand what the big ordeal was with VTEC was for awhile because I really didn't care.

I concurr here. You just heard the VTEC kick in.
It was just marketed better than other, better functioning, vvt systems. :;):

QUOTE
The only thing I can think of is maybe during sharp, quick corners the fwd has the advantage since the weight is kept over the front tires

That's an advantage? ??? lol

QUOTE
The other dude was stating that a car with a lower rate would beat one with higher, which in theory that is true

That's not theory, it's a falacy. A better power/weight ratio HELPS.

QUOTE
FWD gives the advantage of direct motor weight over the front wheels.

I'm still struggling over how this could be an advantage. <--Is there a question there? :;):


Kyle
2003 VW New Beetle

User avatar
KillerofRice
Registered User
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Red Lion, Pennsylvania
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby KillerofRice » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:37 am

I'll start off with thanks for chiming in, I was waiting for someone else too. I agree if you want to find out the cars true capability dyno charts and all you listed are the best. I'm only saying car magazines are only for reference and that's why I said to go to a site like dragtimes.com. I know why they reduce weight I was being sarcastic with that question. Apparently I'm wrong with my thought on the cornering of weight over the front tires. I've been told by a few people that fwd has better quick cornering than what rwd tend to have. I was wrong on that. I also want to remind readers I'm talking strictly stock from the factory cars. Yes people can pull off better times than magazine drivers, no argument there. But if one car can reduce it's listed 1/4 time by .3 of a second couldn't someone else in another vehicle do the same? Just throwing it out there. I don't know if a 3100 will pull on 3.8 f-body up to 85-90. Just saying it though doesn't mean it. Give personal experience or some information to back up your statement. Everything listed by 3100SFI I agree with.


90 GTZ - Mostly stock
84 Z28- Sold :(  Was a better beater than beretta.

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:53 pm

I've heard this V-tech is so great but I proved that it is just a bunch of hype like you said. We all agree on the magazine times. I've seen times for the new Z06 at 11.8 to 12.3!


Nick Sommerfeld

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:57 pm

(3100sfi) Have you ever raced out at Beaver Run? I used to drive a 125 shifter and have driven there once. My little brother just started basically this year and has raced in one of the classes there.


Nick Sommerfeld

User avatar
3100SFI
Registered User
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:25 pm
Location: Ohio

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby 3100SFI » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:08 am

Not yet. A 125 shifter is on my agenda. I have family in Ellwood City too. For now it's the Senior Animal class at Thompson.


Kyle
2003 VW New Beetle

User avatar
NickSommerfeld
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Lincoln
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby NickSommerfeld » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:12 am

The shifter class from what I have heard is dying out. From I hear the touch and goes are doing the best as far as driver count. I am thinking on getting into one this summer so I can drive something besides the Beretta until college is over.


Nick Sommerfeld

payback
Registered User
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:22 am
Location: Central NY
Contact:

92' Beretta vs. 99' Firebird

Postby payback » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:09 pm

well all is well im not mad or anything i just get deffensive when pple down on this car trying to make it look like a wannabe with a few facts here and there in favor of well...the favored car.
as far as fwd vs rwd uhhhh...how is it a question that weight being directly over the drive tires is advantages?how?this is funny and i would have to say ull convince me of that when u convince enzo ferrari of that.yes in high horse 1/4 mile track racing a rwd car does have an advantage now lets have a show of hands of how many people on this board who like to autox or time attack a rwd car or a fwd car lets take these two cars in question.
the only way to HONESTLY tell which of these cars would be faster 1/4 mile would be to take two showroom stock cars put them on the same track at the same time with the same two drivers and a set amount of passes in order to get the lowest times.
as far as vtech or vvt they are incredibly quick street cars for mild to mid tuning. but in high horse and 1/4 mile racing vtech is virtually usless as the motor makes peak power in the upper rpm(2nd camshaft) range.


'96Z26:Eibach springs, KYB struts, GM Strut brace, K&N cone


Return to “Street Racing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest