Literally requires a cage to set 9 second quarter mile times

bump

>car goes so fast from factory that it must have a cage for drag racing rules
noice

>drag racers don't require cages til they run 9 second quarter miles
Balls of steel tbf, not even my shitbox rally would let you compete without a cage, and we were using sub 5k stock cars that would be lucky to push 200 to the wheels

>There is NO REASON you couldn't go to a test & tune night at your local strip and put down a 9-second time in a Demon.
You'd get kicked out after the first pass below 11.5. NHRA rules are that when you run quicker than 11.5 or 120mph, you need a cage and a fire jacket. Faster than 14 needs a helmet. When you go through tech, they ask how fast you plan on running and check your car accordingly. If you say 12s and go put down a 10.XX, you'll get kicked out if you lack the necessary safety equipment.

Some tracks (Englishtown is a good example) will require everyone to have a helmet, regardless of how fast you are. Plus there are other safety items, such as a driveshaft loop, that you might need depending on how your car is set up.

>paying for a car
>paying to drive it to a strip
>losing your insurance because you arnt allowed to race your car
>not just speeding on the streets
WHAT are you doing with your life

>>losing your insurance because you arnt allowed to race your car
That's not how it works.

Alphonse you absolute madman!

bump

>Dodge

lel

atleast it can do a lap around nurburg without the batteries exploding tesla shitposter

i can smoke that in my eg hatch

For legal reasons,Needing a cage is better for safety.

>Atleast it can do a lap around the Nurburgring
[citation needed]

Driving illegal, not wanting to pay a little money to go as fast as you can in 1/4 mile.
>Losing insurance
The fuck did you hear that.

im not spoonfeeding you, lazy nigger google it yourself

>no evidence
stay btfo

ok

...

>frame warranty and insurance are the same thing
Does anyone on Veeky Forums actually own a car?

what exactly is wrong with pushrods?

Why did you reply to a shitpost thread?

inherently inferior to ohc.

they weigh more
they rev slowly
they also get shit mpg

They are usually lol2valve only

the idea of thrusting rods for the purpose of providing power to an engine is a very masculine concept which is oppressive to women and women with feminine penises

>they also get shit mpg
2017 GT has this in common.

>they weigh more
>they rev slowly

It's also faster than a z06. what's your point?

>faster than a z06
that's not saying much

no, it isn't because the pushshit powered shitvette broke down before it could finish the lap. LMAO

push rod flex
rocker ratio adjustment
restricted intake port
worn push rod sleeves

Wow a real response from a tripfag on a Vietnamese frog licking board?

Must be opposite day

>what's your point?

That it gets worse fuel economy than its V8 Carbon fiber rivals and its own predecessor.

>mfw people talk about pushrods in their engines.

>can't into Google

it's also faster in every way. and it makes more power than its predecessor.

>benchcucking over MPG

Nocars get out.

>They are usually lol2valve only
>they weigh more
>they rev slowly
>they also get shit mpg
1970's Honda called, they want their meme back. 4 valve, 9500 RPM, lighter than it's Guzzi equivalent, and pretty much on par fuel economy.

...

nice selfie

sweet bro
whats it got?

Honda had an inline 6 bike revving to 20k in the 70s

Go away

There aren't many cars out there if any that get worse fuel economy than their predecessors even whilst making more power unless they are heavier.

The new GT is as politically correct of an engine configuration as can be. and still gets worse fuel economy even than something like a Turbo V8 Ferrari that weighs more. this engine just feels like an ironic shit.

>There aren't many cars out there if any that get worse fuel economy than their predecessors even whilst making more power unless they are heavier
Yes there are you fucking autist. Bugatti chiron, agera r, and tons of other cars.

>and still gets worse fuel economy even than something like a Turbo V8 Ferrari that weighs more.
it's a supercar? who cares. Why does mpg suddenly matter now when it fits your agenda? when ford puts a objectively superior v6 in the Raptor which makes more power and torque while achieving better mpg its irrelevant because v8 fags are butthurt. but now you're bitching about mpg? no. fuck you. can't have your cake and eat it too.

>they weigh more
[Citation needed]
For any given bottom end, they weigh less. Also, better CoG thanks to the fact that there aren't any cams up top, but down low.
>they rev slowly
Engine inertia is determined by bottom end inertia, not valvetrain inertia. If you mean peak RPM, a pushrod valvetrain can easily exceed the engine speeds a street car uses (up to about 10K RPM). Most production V8's don't rev to 10K because they have along stroke: piston speed is their limiting factor, NOT the valvetrain. Just like how a Honda K can't go over 10K without getting piston speed well above what the manufacturer deems warranty-able.
>they also get shit mpg
Actually, variable displacement and direct injection are easier to implement on pushrod engines, so they can still get pretty good MPG. What we aren't yet seeing is independent VVT on pushrods, but that's just a matter of time. US manufacturers haven't really had any reason to develop it mass scale yet (although the Viper uses it for power).

For any given engine that is:
>A V, flat or boxer
>Doesn't need to go above 9-10K RPM
>Isn't displacement limited
Pushrods are fine.

Cummins would like a word with you.

>they weigh less
[citation needed]
>10k rpm
this is a bragging right for pushcucks, lel.
meanwhile a production shelby gt350 revs to 8500 rpm. top kek.
>pretty good mpg
still worse than ohc.
>pushrods are fine
Just not for any performance applications.

>pushrods
>not for any performance applications.

dumb nigger

Name a company that has been successful in f1 using pushrods.

majority of all f1 wins ever have been used with ohc engines.

They already built the RC166 in 1966 though. The only reason that revved as high as it did was because of it's low stroke - at 20K RPM, it had something like a third of the piston speed of a CX500 @10K RPM. It's like comparing Honda's old V12 F1 car to a new Civic: racecar Vs. Shitbox, and with massive differences in engine bottom end.

Thats a pretty gay association to make.

>Bugatti chiron
That weighs more you dumb fuck and its the same 8 liter W16 making more power. the GT (down)sized with a new engine so i would expect better fuel economy. the 1:one uses a different variant of the same engine too.
>who cares.
People who argue against engines and use this as a negative point like you or the person i replied to.
>Why does mpg suddenly matter
Its always mattered. not on a personal level since if you can afford it than it'll be the last thing that bothers you but if it needs to burn more fuel to make the same power its a mark against the engine and people will always bring that up like they would against any engine and on top of the fact that it is ironic as fuck that it gets this bad of fuel economy given its name and the "V8 vs V6" shitposting.
>fits your agenda
I've never been apart of any agenda. i'm not some name/tripfag that will hate on engines for arbitrary shit like cylinder count, valve-train, cylinder arrangement or whatever so go fuck yourself. it would've never mattered to me at all if people weren't using fuel economy as a reason to shit on engines in performance cars. if you've ever done this then consider it a mirror.

>when ford puts a objectively superior v6 in the Raptor which makes more power and torque while achieving better mpg its irrelevant because v8 fags are butthurt. but now you're bitching about mpg?
Doesn't apply to me because i don't hate V6s nor do i like trucks so didn't give a shit.

>ignores the agera r and tons of other cars
lel. pushcuck is mad now.
stay btfo
>admits fuel economy is important
which is why v6s are superior to v8s.
stay btfo

Guzzi aren't pushrod.....also the Guzzi is still being made and where is the cx500?

Rage in the cage hahaha

For $400K it better be.

No

F1 engines are also disposable, sound like vacuum cleaners, and can't even start on their own