DodgeIntrepid.Net Forums banner

1 - 20 of 104 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
as fast or faster than an Intrepid.

There was one running at my local track this past weekend, I was right behind him in line for most of the night...I was dialed in at a 10.56. He wasn't running anywhere close to what I was...he was running 11.16s at BEST. I want to know why people seem to think they are all that quick...and yes, this is the newer version, non supercharged.

So tell me...why would one suggest that they are as fast or faster than an Intrepid ES (3.2).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,564 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Maverick9110E said:
thats 1/4 mile times spence not your pussy 1/8th mile crap.
It doesn't ****ing matter. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a car will make up 6 tenths in 1/8 mile. Ever looked a time slip, there's 1/8 mile times on there as well..just because a magazine doesn't test show it doesn't mean it aint there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
I guess your best way to find out would be to run one heads up. You spend time at the track it should not be that hard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,564 Posts
no **** spence i raced 1/8 mile too. what you belive and what might actually happen are 2 different things, a **** load of stuff can happen in that last part of the track.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Maverick9110E said:
no **** spence i raced 1/8 mile too. what you belive and what might actually happen are 2 different things, a **** load of stuff can happen in that last part of the track.
ok...lets put it this way...

judging by how slow his time was...it will be quite difficult for anything that is a naturally aspirated street car (short of a honda out of its power band) to make up that much time to pass something that is already 6 tenths ahead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
It can beat you. I've seen SEVERAL Intrepids race Monte Carlos at our local track last year. They were seriously head to head competitors, but I never saw the Intrepid win once. Monte Carlo will own an Intrepid no matter what.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
"No matter what" doesn't fly.

Totally Stock Vs. Totally Stock the Monte should win better than half the time. A lot has to do with tires, driver skill, weight reduction (spare, fuel level, driver weight, stereo equipment etc.) The 3.5 Intrepids should win, the 2.7s would be far behind but the 3.2 is a fair matchup but not as fast in general.

BTW I have seen about 10,000 drag races and cars that were significantly ahead at the 1/8th mile win 99% of the time unless the car breaks. I agree that 1/8 mile sucks but the last 660' feet rarely shows a lead change in heads up racing.

BTW That Monte Carlo was running WAY slow. We had a Grand Prix GT at Byron last weekend running 15.30 in the 1/4 mile. Same car, same engine, same weight as the new Monte SS non SC.

That translates into a 9.95 1/8th mile time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 01redMS

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
DScruggs said:
"No matter what" doesn't fly.

Totally Stock Vs. Totally Stock the Monte should win better than half the time. A lot has to do with tires, driver skill, weight reduction (spare, fuel level, driver weight, stereo equipment etc.) The 3.5 Intrepids should win, the 2.7s would be far behind but the 3.2 is a fair matchup but not as fast in general.

BTW I have seen about 10,000 drag races and cars that were significantly ahead at the 1/8th mile win 99% of the time unless the car breaks. I agree that 1/8 mile sucks but the last 660' feet rarely shows a lead change in heads up racing.

BTW That Monte Carlo was running WAY slow. We had a Grand Prix GT at Byron last weekend running 15.30 in the 1/4 mile. Same car, same engine, same weight as the new Monte SS non SC.

That translates into a 9.95 1/8th mile time.
You basically just restated what I said in summary.... Uh, ok...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,025 Posts
Spnce, I believe ya. Though I think that you and I both had irregular 3.2 Intrepids. They seem to perform a lot better than magazine times. But I also think that could be due to the car actually getting better with age. Many cars do that, accelerate faster at 30,000 miles than at 0 miles.

My experience with Monte Carlo SS (non SC) have been also that they are not that fast. I'm sure your car will beat that Monte Carlo almost everytime, but my feelings are that the average 3.8 non SC Monte Carlo SS will beat the average 3.2 Intrepid almost every time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
See, it doesnt matter... Monte carlo's are UGLY. All the new ones have are the same old nasty body style with 303 horsepower...


-Brandon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,207 Posts
I have raced many non SC Monte's SS with a a 2000 intrepid R/T and a 2002 300M. Never lost. Check out Car and Driver 16.5 and Motor Trend 16.6 for Monty SS's. LH 250 hp the slowest i ever saw was 16.0 flat. Most are 15.6 to 15.9's. Now a 3.2 mid 16's like Don said, up too the driver. But i would lean a little too the SS because of its better tranny, The 2.7 would get smoked no problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Astrogiblet said:
See, it doesnt matter... Monte carlo's are UGLY. -Brandon
Well, that's a little subjective. I guess that when you style a car that extreme (think Plymouth Prowler), it always becomes a love-or-hate thing.

Personally, I absolutely LOVE the Monte. (and I'm far from a redneck)

I just feel that almost nothing states American muscle better than the Monte's styling (new Charger and Mustang being exceptions). Too bad most of them on the ROAD don't have the muscle to back it up. They're either a 3400 or NA 3800 V6 with FWD.

If Chevy can pair up the new small block with RWD (and a G6 6spd), then I'd buy it in a flash.

BTW, stock for stock, I think the 3800 should be more than a match for the 3.2. They might tie in the top end during a 60 - 80 mph pull. Must be Spence's crazy driving skills!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
I seem to remember Angela's 2.7 running 16.6's at the track :eek:

Monte Carlo SS's (pre supercharged models) ARE slow, mid 16 second cars. I've seen a bunch of Grand Prix GT's (pre '03) run as well (same drivetrain).......16.6ish every time. ES 3.2 is a good matchup for them. Anything with a 3.5 should take the non-SC 3.8's every single time, not even close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,359 Posts
Well, I seriously don't know who to believe. GM guys like 1fst4dr swears that a rental GrandPrix runs mid 15's all day, and mopar guys are claiming they're mid 16's cars...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,960 Posts
Saw a bunch run at the track........RapidTransit ran a 15.5 that day in his stock R/T.......and both GT's running that day were running consistant 16.6's, MOST 2.7's were running 17.1's or 17.2's. The 3.2L ES's were running 16.6's as well. The slowest 3.5L there was YBNormyl's car with his 18" special wheels running 16.1's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
And yet the majority of the GT's run high 15's to low 16's, but somehow the ones at your track run the poorest of times, when in the same condition the Intrepids run the best of times. Right.

As stated above, I ran mid 15's in the rental GT. Better than the norm, but not off the wall. Launch is key. A local member was doing the same in his pre-'04 GT, bone stock.

I would say that just because you saw one running slower doesn't mean it's the norm. Monte's tend to be a little slower than their GP counterparts, so should be about even with an ES, in the 1/4 anyways. Seeing one driver run **** times doesn't mean much though, that's like me saying C5 Corvettes run mid 14's because I saw one at the track running that repeatedly. There are also 3.4 and 3.8L MC's, there's a decent difference there.

I saw an SXT running 16.4 all night long back this winter at Speedworld. I guess that means they're all mid-16 second cars.

An easy way to get a good idea is to look at the 1/4 times a majority of drivers run. ClubGP is full of timeslips from n/a 3.8's, works well to get an idea of what an average time really is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Avenger said:
Monte Carlo SS's (pre supercharged models) ARE slow, mid 16 second cars. I've seen a bunch of Grand Prix GT's (pre '03) run as well (same drivetrain).......16.6ish every time. ES 3.2 is a good matchup for them. Anything with a 3.5 should take the non-SC 3.8's every single time, not even close.
And yet your very own 1/4 times do nothing to support this theory. Interesting.
 
1 - 20 of 104 Posts
Top