Or a time manufacture minor than 250hrs.
[quote=“strop”]I have just the perfect challenge for this, a carryover from Manche’s Pro Touring concept. And when I say challenge, I mean challenge, since the previous car was a height-of-the-madness 1000Nm muscle car on way too much steroids.
Time to ruin this car![/quote]
Might even revive it and all I’m going to scrap a few things such as damage and stuff
Competition is now open!
[quote=“ArnRno”]If we’re taking emissions into account then I say all but mandate a cat in the exhaust system - make the emissions threshold low enough that a cat-less car is possible, but it’ll be a tough road to go, like the CVCC Honda used was clean enough that cats weren’t really necessary.
[/quote]
About the CVCC, exists this true story between Soichiro Honda and Chrysler:
Is in Spanish: diariomotor.com/2015/09/21/h … al-motors/
Or the Honda website: world.honda.com/history/challeng … age06.html
So are coupes legal or not?
So will there be a different bracket for sedans or should I be building a not-Pinto to do well?
[quote=“Microwave”]
18 Valve powaaaah![/quote]
Pushrods on a W9?
Or a DOHC on an inline 4.5?
lol no, it’s a 6cyl 3 valves per cylinder SOHC. I played with the same configuration and turned my 1000Nm Juggernaut into a 4 seater sedan that gets 20mpg sobs
[quote=“ArnRno”]
[quote=“Microwave”]
18 Valve powaaaah![/quote]
Pushrods on a W9?
Or a DOHC on an inline 4.5?[/quote]
Well, it’s either a 3-valve SOHC 6-cyl OR…
It’s a poorly assembled 4 with a few extra valves rattling around in the oil pan? 
My guess is three-valve straight six, which is an… interesting choice.
Yes, it is indeed an “interesting choice”. But then again, so was Ford’s decision to put the Pinto’s fuel tank in a place where it catches fire in the event of a crash. Welcome to 70s America baby.
[quote=“VicVictory”]
It’s a poorly assembled 4 with a few extra valves rattling around in the oil pan? [/quote]
It’s an innovative bit of new technology called “valve detachment technology”, guaranteed to give extra fuel economy (and a broken bottom end).
Aw, Microwave, I’ve been here all along - 70s shitbox American cars are my bag, baby.
FWIW, that Pinto/Fuel Tank issue was nowhere near as big as the urban legend that followed it.
Long story short, the way I understand it is that the car was pretty much on par with anything else back then as far as safety. The fuel tank was in such a place, that if rear ended at a high enough speed the fuel-filler could break and damage the rest of the tank -* if *that happened when the left-hand turn-signal was on, whose wires ran past the fuel tank in a certain way, the fuel tank could leak, the wires could break, the broken wires could spark, and the car *could *catch on fire.
Cars catch on fire everyday all over the world - Same thing with those two or three Teslas that caught on fire, everyone blew it way out of proportion, no one talked about the other Teslas that didn’t catch on fire, no one talked about the Chevrolets and Fords and Toyotas that caught on fire that day - media has a huge influence on this stuff.
Ford’s BIG mistake was realizing there was a problem, doing the math, and realizing that it would be cheaper to let it’s customers burn to death and just pay out the settlements than to fix every single car that might catch on fire. Even though that is a horrible truth, it is definitely a truth, but once the public got wind of it, that was the end of the show.
At the end of it all, according to wikipedia 27 people died from Pintos catching on fire. While I will agree that that is 27 people too many, it’s not even a drop in the bucket for automotive deaths. According to that same wiki page, NHTSA reported the same number of people dying in Pintos from “transmission problem,” which honestly, piques the hell out of my interest.
/rant.
Ah, well, the more you know.
[quote=“ArnRno”]
/rant.[/quote]
[OT]
Yup. Nailed it. (Except maybe the turnsignal part. Collisions make sparks and that could ignigte fuel spilling from the broken filler neck.) If Ford hadn’t managed to leak the memos calculating expected damages, then the Pinto would probably have a fond memory. My dad tells me they would sell every one at the dealer as fast as they were made back then. The problem was that the plaintiff attorneys and juries were so outraged that they started adding zeros onto awards in all of the Pinto lawsuits.
Moral of the story? Don’t try to calculate the value of human life in a product liability suit.
[/OT]
More off-topic, but I just had to add…
My friend in high school drove a Pinto (I’m not that old, this was like twelve years ago) and that car was awesome. Plenty of room, looked cool… um… didn’t catch on fire. Thing wasn’t half bad.
We DID used to hit the rear bumper with shopping carts when he wasn’t looking, though.
which was originally???
since i dont have any existing cars in that era.
‘ILL START BUILDING MY OWN CARS. WITH BLACK JACK AND HOOKERS’
wait… i just read that
why is today’s mileage comparatively the same? even if we are making more power out of it.
Because Hondas got heavier. And their engines didn’t exactly evolve much after a while 
My 9th gen Civic gets 50mpg… If you run it mostly on the freeway. Then again it’s also 1330kg dry, the transmission is geared towards helping you completely forget it has ratios (even when you attempt to engage sequential), and the powerband is still all top end, which is great when you want to feel like a touge warrior, but not so much when you’re city commuting.
except for vtec?
[quote=“strop”]Because Hondas got heavier. And their engines didn’t exactly evolve much after a while
My 9th gen Civic gets 50mpg… If you run it mostly on the freeway. Then again it’s also 1330kg dry, the transmission is geared towards helping you completely forget it has ratios (even when you attempt to engage sequential), and the powerband is still all top end, which is great when you want to feel like a touge warrior, but not so much when you’re city commuting.[/quote]
My VTI never under 8000rpm (in highway or road, in city max 6000rpm.
Vtec for everyday.