Jeep VS others
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:TBwod.313614$%k.78643@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2puod.134028$HA.107715@attbi_s01...
> > griffin proclaimed:
> >
> > > On the road, I'd like to see you race a stock BMW M3 or M5. Those M5's
> are
> > > like lightning.
> >
> > More like dry lightning. Smokable by a Grand Cherokee without even
> > working up a sweat. Plus you can always tow 'em home with the Grand
> > after they crap out.
>
> I'd honestly still have to put my money on the M5 ...even the 1/8 mile.
I've
> seen the M-series first hand and have rarely seen any stock vehicle take
> them except for musclecars. They shift incredibly quickly and stick to the
> ground very well. See if you can arrange a race with an M5 and lemme know
> how it goes. I'm really curious!
>
Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
"griffin" <gryffy@DELTHISshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:TBwod.313614$%k.78643@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2puod.134028$HA.107715@attbi_s01...
> > griffin proclaimed:
> >
> > > On the road, I'd like to see you race a stock BMW M3 or M5. Those M5's
> are
> > > like lightning.
> >
> > More like dry lightning. Smokable by a Grand Cherokee without even
> > working up a sweat. Plus you can always tow 'em home with the Grand
> > after they crap out.
>
> I'd honestly still have to put my money on the M5 ...even the 1/8 mile.
I've
> seen the M-series first hand and have rarely seen any stock vehicle take
> them except for musclecars. They shift incredibly quickly and stick to the
> ground very well. See if you can arrange a race with an M5 and lemme know
> how it goes. I'm really curious!
>
Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Remember, the Jeep was built to drive off road, If you want quick,
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Remember, the Jeep was built to drive off road, If you want quick,
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Remember, the Jeep was built to drive off road, If you want quick,
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
and it doesn't have to leave the road then they would be redesigned for
speed, and look like this six second cars:
http://----------.com/mirror/dragJeeps.htm
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
KokomoKid wrote:
>
> Unless you're racing on ice, it wouldn't even be a contest. The M5 would be
> LONG gone, even in a 1/8 mile race.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Dave Milne wrote:
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Dave Milne wrote:
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Dave Milne wrote:
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
> Can't see it remotely.
>
> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>
> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
> and 335 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
can apply it to the asphalt)
>It does 0-60 in 7.3 seconds.
> That's 41 bhp / litre.
Who cares- HP/liter makes good ad copy, but doesn't mean ---- in the
real world. Otherwise, the Viper wouldn't kick a Ferrari's ***.
> The M5 puts out 507 hp from its V10 engine,
irrelevant- see above.
> and 383 lb/ft torque.
At what RPM? (hint: a hell of a lot higher than the 5.9 hits its torque
peak). Stupid high-revving squirrel motors....
> De-retricted, it will reputedly do almost 205 mph
Who cares? The race was over at 1/8 mile and well under 70 mph. Of
course the Jeep can pull the M5 off the tree that the idiot driving it
200 mph wrapped it around, too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Steve proclaimed:
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Can't see it remotely.
>>
>> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>>
>> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
>
> Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
>
>> and 335 lb/ft torque.
>
>
> At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
> can apply it to the asphalt)
The hemi puts out that same 335 hp at about 2300-2400 rpm...and that
is just the standard hemi.
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Can't see it remotely.
>>
>> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>>
>> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
>
> Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
>
>> and 335 lb/ft torque.
>
>
> At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
> can apply it to the asphalt)
The hemi puts out that same 335 hp at about 2300-2400 rpm...and that
is just the standard hemi.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep VS others
Steve proclaimed:
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Can't see it remotely.
>>
>> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>>
>> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
>
> Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
>
>> and 335 lb/ft torque.
>
>
> At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
> can apply it to the asphalt)
The hemi puts out that same 335 hp at about 2300-2400 rpm...and that
is just the standard hemi.
> Dave Milne wrote:
>
>> Can't see it remotely.
>>
>> Both cars weigh almost exactly 4000lb.
>>
>> The GC has puts out 245hp from its 5.9 litre V8,
>
> Horsepower is irrelevant in a short acceleration contest
>
>> and 335 lb/ft torque.
>
>
> At what RPM? (hint: LOW, where it counts, and where the 4-wheel drive
> can apply it to the asphalt)
The hemi puts out that same 335 hp at about 2300-2400 rpm...and that
is just the standard hemi.