[s-cars] more on omnis, ....Sciroocos, but wait, theres more

[Rit Bellis]

As someone who has owned a 1964 MKI Tiger since 1977, I would have to agree. 
My URS4 Is faster (in the sense of overall top speed, rather than 
acceleration), quieter, and much better in the twisties, but the Tiger goes 
like hell in a straight line and makes you feel like you are piloting a 
hawker hurricane in the Battle of Britain.  At least the urs4 will not melt 
your sneaker to the gas peddle, as the Tiger will do on a hot day.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <QSHIPQ at aol.com>
To: <larrycleung at gmail.com>; <t44tqtro at gmail.com>
Cc: <s-car-list at audifans.com>; <yellowcuda at gmail.com>; <mplatt911 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [s-cars] more on omnis, ....Sciroocos, but wait, theres more


> A/C cars in england was one of the original tuners and had their hands in
> the original cobra.  My favorite tuner car was the sunbeam alpine "tiger" 
> with
> the 289 in it...  Shelby has done a lot of work in the 60's and again  in 
> the
> 80's and 90's. RE GLH's Mike:   Arrow Racing did a lot of  the development
> work on the GLH series, and actually had many of the GLHS parts  in the 
> Mopar
> Performance Catalog.  Their stage 1 hit the ground at  180hp, 5 beyond the 
> rating
> of the GLHS, with no intercooler.  The bosch  motronic performance 
> computer
> in the GLHturbo was able to handle a lot more  modifications than the 
> Shelby
> GLHS computers.  Their full monty non  intercooled setup hit 225hp, with 
> no IC.
> BTDT.  The Mopar  performance spring set was the same rate and height as 
> the
> S's, tho monroe  sport struts were used.  The front uprights are unique in
> the S in that the  factory camber setting was changed to be a bit more 
> negative,
> then put back on  the assembly line.  All of which meant that a guy 
> wanting
> to run CSP could  stack the deck quite heavily with a lot of factory 
> looking
> parts (I 'heard' you  could delete the 'P' prefix with rustoleum gloss
> black...:) and the computer was  a complete swap too.
>
> Shelby had some neat developments on the GLH series:  One of the first  5
> valve heads, DOHC turbo and AWD.  However, what I consider most 
> impressive is
> that for all the touting the 92 S car had regarding the motronic 
> 'overboost'
> mode back in 1985, with hot wire MAF.  Dodge also was the first 
> production car
> to use the water jacketed turbocharger (beating audi by a few  months in
> 1985my).  In 1989 Dodge actually used the IHI (Mitsubishi) VNT in  all 
> turbo 2.2
> cars.  Always wanted to try one on the I5.
>
> BTW Mike, I helped supply a guy with some parts for a GLH turbo that I
> believe is still running.  2.5L DOHC with some monster FMIC.  Low 11 
> second
> quarters.  Coming back to Audi Content, I really think that a lot of  the 
> I5
> development could actually learn something from those boys at  Chrysler. 
> As a kid
> fresh out of college hanging around the dynos at Arrow  Racing in MI, 
> those
> engineers wearing the Pentastar badges were much further  ahead in 2.2L 
> turbo
> development than audi was at the time.
>
> My .02
>
> SJ
>
>
> In a message dated 3/16/2007 6:26:35 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> larrycleung at gmail.com writes:
> The GT40 wasn't really a tuner car, it was a  factory prototype. The Mk 
> 1's
> (289 cid) didn't hit the road (ehh, track)  until 1964, limited run, the 
> Mk
> II's (427 cid) are the ones that got all of  the glory at LeMans and 
> Sebring
> starting in 1965. MkIV's (427, new aero) last  ran in privateer hands in
> 1969. GT40's were first assembled in England, then  moved to Holman and
> Moody/Shelby later in the production, starting with the  Mk II. They were
> never considered Shelby's as they had various producers,  Lola, H&M, etc.
>
> LL - NY
>
> On 3/16/07, Taka Mizutani  <t44tqtro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You forgot the GT40- Shelby  had a hand in that car, too, although I'm
>> pretty sure GT40s were  assembled in
>> England, not California, right?
>>
>>  Furthermore, the current Shelby GT is also produced by Shelby in
>>  California, while the GT-H is not. I don't know
>> where the GT-500 is  made.
>>
>> Sorry, the only Shelby cars I'm interested in have Ford  power, not 
>> Mopar.
>> :-)
>>
>> Taka
>>
>>
>> On  3/15/07, LL - NY <larrycleung at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >  Wasn't the "original" tuner car (with factory backing) the "original"
>>  > 1964
>> > Shelby Cobra? If not,
>> > I'd go with the 1965  Shelby GT350.
>> >
>> > Just a thought...
>> >
>>  > LL - NY
>> >
>> > Wow, we've morphed into the //Shelby  list, too!
>> >
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** AOL now offers free email to 
> everyone.
> Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list
>