Not worth it.

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by PorscheG96:
<strong>The V8 still got completely tooled by the GT2 in straight-line acceleration. That didn't happen to the 3 liter 951 I rode in at Laguna a couple months ago...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">That can always be fixed. See my post above. Halltech can do great things.

 

Ecpunk, I wish you all the best of luck. If buying a ferrari can motivate you to get to the top 2 percent of the population at any age to make over 100k a year, then go for it. It is that drive to prove others wrong that drives some people to make lots of money. However, I wouldn't count on family money a whole lot. Most of my family are multi-millionaires. If I need to borrow money, they will help me. If I want to get a free ferrari, I think not. Maybe when my brother makes partner in the surgical firm and make half a mil a year he will feel benevalent and buy me a new ferrari under his corporation and write it off. But at his 300k a year salary now at 37 years old, he couldn't afford to buy that thing and run it at the track. Here is an interesting fact I learned while I was in engineering school.

"In the 1950s researchers predicted that by the end of the century 1,800 nuclear power plants would supply 21% of the world's commercial energy (25% in the U. S.) and most of the world's electricity. By 1996, after over 40 years of development, enormous government subsidiaries, and an investment of $2 trillio, 430 commercial nuclear reactors in 32 countries were producing only 6% of the world's commercial energy and 17% of its electricity. Little or no further growth in nuclear power is projected, and its capacity is expected to decline between 2000 and 2020 as existing plants wear out and are retired(decommissioned).

.....In the United States, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978, and all 120 plants ordered since 1973 have been canceled. In 1996, the 109 licensed commercial nuclear power plants in the U. S. generated about 22% of the country's electricity. This percentage is expected to decline over the next two decades as many of the current reactors reach the ends of their useful lives.

...After approximately 15-40 years of operation, a nuclear reactor becomes dangerously contaminated with radioactive materials, and many of its parts are worn out. Then the plant must be decommissioned or retired by (1) dismantling it and storing its large volume of highly radioactive materials in high-level nuclear waste storage facilities (which still don't exist), (2) putting up physical barriers and setting by full time security for 30-100 years before the plant is then dismantled, or (3) enclosing the entire plant in a tomb that must last for several thousand years."

This is straight out of the textbook and if I had to invest money in company stock, I would look elsewhere than one that makes nuclear reactor accessories.

If I spent as much money into a 3.0L 951 that can keep up with that ferrari into a v8 car, I am confident that it will have no problems blowing by that ferrari in the straights anywhere.

 

Originally posted by ECPunk
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"Sorry if people in my family strive for greatness..."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Taken from Webster's Online Dictionary:
Strive: To devote serious energy - Synonyms: labor, toil, travail.

Originally posted by ecpunk:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">...I do have a job waiting on me too. Also, i do have other things waiting on me.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Yeah - it Sounds like you're really striving there...

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by ecpunk:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I am more than sure that i can afford one of those cars in a few years and I do plan to drive it how it was made to be driven.</strong>

You are really cracking me up here man, c'mon..
really... HAHAHA <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by ecpunk:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I've even hit the 200 mph mark</strong>

Yeah, we have all gone 324Kph.......

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by ecpunk:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I do have a job waiting on me too. Also, i do have other things waiting on me. Certain people in my family make large thermometers... the kind that go in nuclear reactors. Good enough for you?</strong>

Oh my lord, here we go again......this one time, at band camp.....and I caught this fish...

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Kierf - ¿§?:
<strong>That can always be fixed. See my post above. Halltech can do great things. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">

 

I hit the 600 mph mark.....in a Boeing 747.

 

Good christ this thread broken new ground in the 0-Stupid ET category...i hope that the folks at Road & Track take note of the performance and give it a highlighted line item in the next Road Test Summary Issue.

Any chance at all that we can avoid the "my Daddy is Bigger than your Daddy and he'll hit you" crap and get back to the tech of the conversion?

The reality is this...a V-8 conversion will perform better than the NA car with the stock motor, and will probably cost less to maintain.

The racial purity debate Herr Himmler(s) strikes me as a bit silly, since, lacking an enthusiast like Predator, this would be yet one more 944 NA mouldering away in a junkyard being stripped of its front end parts for use in a Spec Racer Rabbit.

Soooooo...Predator...v-8s are cool...can you post some pics?

oh...and by the way...aspiring unemployed Ferrari owners should be off collecting aluminum cans to recycle...at .05/can you'll only 3.6MM of them to put the capitalized cost together.

Over the 7 year term of the aformentioned loan that should rate out to only 9900 cans per week for the duration of the contract.

Seems doable.

 

"oh...and by the way...aspiring unemployed Ferrari owners should be off collecting aluminum cans to recycle...at .05/can you'll only 3.6MM of them to put the capitalized cost together.

Over the 7 year term of the aformentioned loan that should rate out to only 9900 cans per week for the duration of the contract."

Kinda mean, eh? <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[crying]" title="" src="graemlins/crying.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Legoland951:

Kinda mean, eh? <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[crying]" title="" src="graemlins/crying.gif" /> [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I guess...If nancy's feelings are hurt, he can swing by after recess and I'll braid his hair.

Come on...he is asking for it.

 

Paul, don't be so hard on John (ecpunk).

He's out working for diddly on principle, when he could be making a ton on the private sector. Don't step on someone's dreams of attaining a goal (Ferrari, whatever). Although, I highly doubt he cares what anyone here thinks, we're on the same side. Granted, he got on the guys for wanting to do the LT1 swap, but the guy lives in GERMANY! Of course he's going to be a purist...at least right now!

I say everyone chill. To each his own.

-Matt

 

I say everyone chill. To each his own.

-Matt

Amen to that.

 

It is interesting to note that some people will tear apart another person's ideas, and then bristle when someone in turn challenges them!!!

Punk..the best to you...Enjoy that silver spoon....Not everyone is that fortunate.

 

I just have to post one more thing...

Jon deserves whatever he gets (in a good way) because while we'll all here complaining about things on Rennlist he's serving our country overseas. I say the make reenlistment a dang Ferrari! There, that makes it easy.

WHO CARES if someone is born into money? Not saying Jon was or wasn't, but what's it to you? One shouldn't play class warfare games with friends, and we're all friends on this board (with one exception, AMAF, but he does make us laugh).

Also, for all you know Jon may be pulling your chain.

-Matt

 

944LT1: Splendid to hear that you'd never want to live here. Conversely, the only time I'd ever end up where you are is if I had to be buried there. re: Calif., there already too many people living here from out of state, so the less the better ('Welcome to California, now get out' was a cartoon from when the Olympics were in LA). Anyhow point has been made (or bandwidth wasted)- on to the gist of more important discussion, seems as though this thread has gone to **** and gotten personal.

On the topic of lt1. etc., 'Merican engines sitting in a p-car aren't for everyone, we all know that. If I weren't interested in some aspect of this thread, I would not bother touching it (been there, done that). Although technically these ideas seem quite interesting, in reality I do not give a rat's *** if some dude in a corvette-powered 944 dusts me in his psuedo-german 'drag racer'. So that being said, let's get back to real discussion about conversions, rather than personal opinion.

so i call up a bunch of smog places here in SF and they basically tell me a few things: In order to get a car certified that does not have its oringinal engine, I found that I would need to: a. have all original emissions equipment installed and, b. contact what is called a "Referee Center" (testing center run by the state) and have a full testing and check-up done. The guy said that they do a full checkup and then enter the car's VIN into the computer system (database) and if the car passes, given a certificate of completion (like the image that I posted earlier) and the ability to be registered. It would still fall into the category of being tested every two years or when the car changes ownership.

In our beautiful and wonderful state, our laws for testing have just gotten stricter. There will be testing done on a dyno ('load' testing) as well as tests done at idle, set to go into effect this year and next year. Furthermore, there have been laws passed for the installation of remote sensors (<a href="http://www.geocities.com/smogrfg/remotesensing/whatdoesitmean.html" target="_blank">'What does Remote Sensing mean to me?'</a>) to be placed on freeways-on/off-ramps, cloverleafs, and city streets to check passing cars for pollutants ("'Pullover Images' of each vehicle(license plate and emissions measurements) may be transmitted to a CHP laptop computer. The CHP officer may then pull you over for immediate roadside inspection. This is in the specification.") such as CO%,CO2%, HC(ppm Hexane), and NOx/CO2 ratio. The technologies being used are infrared in conjunction with computers that are directly connected to the DMV. Gettin hi-tech 'round these parts.

I don't know how this relates to a 1977 924, but I do know that cars from 1966 and 1973 are not under the same criteria and do not have to be similarily inspected (in such detail). Cars prior to '66 need nothing (cool!).

I gathered the data from this <a href="http://www.geocities.com/smogrfg/" target="_blank">site</a>. (Specific to California only)