Slashdot Mirror


A Camaro That Leaves A Wake

Artana Niveus Corvum writes "I came across this entirely at random, but it seems like someone with too much time on his hands has taken an old idea and improved on it... and come up with something truly unique and cool: a car based on a 2002 Camaro body with a Subaru WRX Turbo engine (300 horsepower) capable of going over 125MPH that doubles as a boat capable of going over 40MPH."

391 comments

  1. Already dead link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site must have been running on someone's personal home server because slashdot crashed their server.

    1. Re:Already dead link... by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

      Or is he linked from the 419 flash mob pages? (slashdot yro item today)

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
  2. Too much time on his hands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy had an idea and started a business. He's done more than people here who bitch about companies outsourcing IT jobs to India.

  3. Slashdotted already by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Funny

    2 below-threshold comments and it's down ... come on people, you're like the hand of a vengeful god of websites!

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:Slashdotted already by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:Slashdotted already by nacturation · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While clearly not as cool as a Camaro, Popular Science has a bunch of other amphibious vehicles. The Terra Wind it mentions is here. Slashdot away!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Slashdotted already by Negatyfus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know about you, but for me it's up!

    4. Re:Slashdotted already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pictures of the WaterCar and a few others here.

    5. Re:Slashdotted already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like they'll have to have a "Wake" for that site. It's dead Jim.

    6. Re:Slashdotted already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DONE

    7. Re:Slashdotted already by billywiggins · · Score: 1

      Sad to see the Terra Wind makers can make a Luxury RV float, but cant do a better job with their website.

    8. Re:Slashdotted already by LqqkOut · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here's a copy of the site content, in case you were all wondering:

      This Account Has Been Suspended
      Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
      --

      -- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

  4. Well by ebob9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will sure resolve all those commuter issues in Venice.

  5. 40MPH? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

    40MPH? What's that in knots?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:40MPH? by DaLiNKz · · Score: 4, Informative

      well this says 34.74 knots

      --
      I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    2. Re:40MPH? by MrDelSarto · · Score: 5, Informative

      units knows all

      ianw@mingus:~$ units
      2084 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units

      You have: 40mph
      You want: knot
      * 34.75905
      / 0.028769486


      So about 35 knots

    3. Re:40MPH? by platipusrc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google disagrees (only a little). Who do we trust?!

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    4. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=40+mph+in+knots

    5. Re:40MPH? by yetiman · · Score: 1, Informative

      1 knot = 1.1km/h

    6. Re:40MPH? by stlthVector · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can use google and type in this:
      40mph in knots

      it will give you this:
      40 mph = 34.7590497 knots

    7. Re:40MPH? by DaLiNKz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just when I thought google had everything.. it has more :o

      --
      I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    8. Re:40MPH? by kauschovar · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 knot = 1.1km/h

      no, 1 knot = 1.15 mph = 1.852 km/h

    9. Re:40MPH? by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sweet tip. I just did 'urpmi units' and sure enough there was a mandrake rpm for it. I'll have to remember this little gem for the future.

    10. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're gonna do it, do it with style.

    11. Re:40MPH? by sitcoman · · Score: 3, Informative
      Or easier still, use Google Calculator: 40 mph in knots

      Not to be a googlewhore, but who knew that Back to the Future had any real math in it before they saw this?

      --

      -=20
      me doesn't live for do [DEPRECATED]

    12. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you ever take physics? Power equals force times velocity. 1.21GW x 88MPH = time travel, baby.

    13. Re:40MPH? by tangent3 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Cool.. it's in Gentoo portage tree too
      # emerge -s units
      Searching...
      [ Results for search key : units ]
      [ Applications found : 3 ]

      * app-sci/udunits
      Latest version available: 1.12.0
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of downloaded files: 355 kB
      Homepage: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/packages/udunits/
      &nb sp; Description: The UCAR/Unidata Units library
      License: UCAR-Unidata

      * app-sci/units
      Latest version available: 1.80
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of downloaded files: 201 kB
      Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/units/units.html
      &nbs p; Description: program for units conversion and units calculation
      License: GPL-2

      * dev-tex/SIunits
      Latest version available: 1.25
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of downloaded files: 401 kB
      Homepage: ftp://ftp.dante.de/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entr ies/siunits.html
      Description: LaTeX package used to set SI units correct.
      License: LPPL-1.2
    14. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power equals force times velocity. 1.21GW x 88MPH = time travel Except that 1.21GW isn't a measure of force, dufus

    15. Re:40MPH? by localhost00 · · Score: 1

      Ok, a nautical mile is defined to be 6000 feet. A statute mile is defined to be 5280 feet. A knot is defined to be a nautical mile per hour. Now the remaining mathematical conversion follows.

      --

      Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    16. Re:40MPH? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And so it should be - units has been around since the Big Unix days - a quick search of "units man" gives references back to '92 at least (from SunOs 5.9)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    17. Re:40MPH? by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok, a nautical mile is defined to be 6000 feet.

      No, it was defined as a minute of arc of latitude. It's been standardised to 1,852 metres or 6,076.1 feet.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    18. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? I want to know how many rods per hogshead it gets!

    19. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Giga)Watt is already an unit of power, you moron, you're doing power times velocity, which, incidentally, doesn't give you anything relevant.

    20. Re:40MPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My OS X Panther box has it as well, though I'm not sure if it was installed as part of the base or developer's kit.

    21. Re:40MPH? by transient · · Score: 1

      It's also a minute of arc on any great circle route.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    22. Re:40MPH? by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Actually I tried it out, found one that didn't work for me..

      I wanted to convert kJ to kcal/mols (chemistry), it could handle kcal but not moles. Gives a compatibility error, which is incorrect since a mole is not a unit but a quantity, and thus it is an energy unit.

    23. Re:40MPH? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Not all great circles are the same length due to the slightly non spherical nature of the Earth - hence the standardisation to a specific number of metres.

      In fact, not all minutes of arc of latitude are all the same length for the same reason.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  6. But what is the price? by thing2b · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Engine 2.5 Subaru Turbo
    Transmission Rancho 4-Speed Manual
    Jet Berkeley 12 JE
    Length 207"
    Width 75"
    Height 49"
    Weight 2775 Lbs.
    Wheelbase 100"
    Road Speed 125 MPH
    Water Speed 45 MPH
    Fuel Capacity 22 Gallons

    BUT WHAT IS THE PRICE?

    --
    Webmaster of Infoweb
    1. Re:But what is the price? by Phsyco · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does anyone know of a mass produced land/water capable vehicle past or present? I wonder if there would be a market large enough to justify an assembly line for these things.

      Unless of course the make amphibious SUVs, the exhaust contributes to global warming, which raises the water level, which makes them useful.

      Where do I get one?

    2. Re:But what is the price? by saiha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just to let you know, he actually is building more of them to sell, no price was listed that I could see. Although maybe its probably if you have to ask, its too much.

    3. Re:But what is the price? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      OK, maybe someone who has seen the actual site can tell me if the original car was a Camaro or a Z28, seeing as the 2002 Z28 puts out 305HP on its own, and gets well past 125mph at its top speed (I believe the computer limits it to 147mph without mods, and I know I've been to 122 in my 2002 SS with plenty of room to spare). Maybe the modifications that allow it to float interfere with higher speeds?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:But what is the price? by saiha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Previously on slashdot, for only 150,000 pounds

    5. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A properly tuned WRX 2.5 litre turbo can put out about 320 horsepower. Since that is coming out of 4 small cylinders, rather than 8 large ones, the weight of the engine is miniscule compared to that of a Z28. Yes there is turbo lag, but the weight difference and significantly flatter power curve of the 2.5 makes it a better choice for more advanced applications.

    6. Re:But what is the price? by filledwithloathing · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      He didn't actually start with a Camero, just a Camero funny car type shell for looks. Then he stuck the WRX engine in the custom frame he built. He didn't swap out the Camero engine for the WRX engine.

      --
      Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum
    7. Re:But what is the price? by Afrosheen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm guessing they chose the Subaru engine for packaging. The Subaru STi engine they're using is a turbocharged 2.5 liter flat four (opposing cylinders) boxer engine. The layout and size of the engine is ideal for a watercar. The Camaro v8 is a monstrosity compared to this engine, and it is quite tall in comparison.

      Liter for liter, the Subaru engine is better for this application.

    8. Re:But what is the price? by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      DUCW (pronounced "duck") from WWII. They were mass-produced, and there are still a few laying around. I would like to get one and restore it sometime.

    9. Re:But what is the price? by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1
      I mean DUKW. It's as hard to spell as it is to pronounce. link

      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    10. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SF bay area seem like a good market for it.

    11. Re:But what is the price? by irokitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a company in Britain that was modifying Ford cars to make them aquatic, but they were nothing like this speedboat, and the company has folded. Sniff.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    12. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they want it to last for more than 10,000 miles? Just guessing.

    13. Re:But what is the price? by zrail · · Score: 1

      In the Wisconsin Dells (northwest of Milwaukee), there are several DUKW's in use for water tours. linky

    14. Re:But what is the price? by icestormstudios · · Score: 1

      I believe there was a popular british model called the Amphicar. Pretty cool looking, but you had to use the tires like rudders to steer.

      --
      The problem with computers is that they do what you TELL them to do, not what you WANT them to do.
    15. Re:But what is the price? by nocomment · · Score: 1

      You mean like this?

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    16. Re:But what is the price? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I've seen one driving around Tampa Florida. It's run by Duck Tours . It's kind of wierd looking up, and seeing a bright yellow amphibious thing driving down the road.

      For something as old as it is, I've only seen it broken down once. It's normal route went by my office in Tampa (when I worked there), and to their credit, there were always cute girls on it when it drove by. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:But what is the price? by chriso11 · · Score: 3, Funny

      A properly tuned LT1 can put out 500+ HP.

      I have never heard of a turbo 4 cylinder having a "flatter power curve" than a modern V8. The V8 has a lot more HP at lower RPMS than the turbo 4 (hence more torque).

      The only advantage of the STi engine is weight. On an aquatic vehicle, the extra torque of a V8 would not be of much help if it were 30ft below the surface, and diving fast.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    18. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a very large list of production amphibious vehicles
      http://mitglied.lycos.de/amphicar/englis ch/carlist 4.html

    19. Re:But what is the price? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Informative

      The car's engine has been moved to the rear, effectively making it a mid engine. Using a Subaru engine, which is relatively short, allows them to fit it in the trunk, and use the transaxle that comes bolted to it (just wield together the spidergears providing the power to the rear wheels to make it provide power to what would have been the front wheels in the Subaru and are now the rear wheels in the Camaro). By putting the engine in the rear, it allows for proper weight ratios of a powerboat and allows it to hydroplane properly. It also makes for a nice, neat package, and in all honesty, you don't need more than 300 hp for a powerboat, good torque curve or not.

      Also the pictures of it show an air intake in the trunk. It makes more sense to delete the engine from the front, as you need a place to put the front wheels (which are shown as retracted in the boat-pics) while it's in the water. Just relocate the gas tank to the front. Problem solved.

      P.S. I have the mopar chip installed in my car (1994 1/2 beat to hell Dodge Neon) and have been to 135 and still have room to spare (drivetrain tops out at 152mph) :)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    20. Re:But what is the price? by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know of a mass produced land/water capable vehicle past or present?

      Porsche made one; I believe it was the Porsche 166.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    21. Re:But what is the price? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Think about it - you normally WOULDN'T see it if it is broken down somewhere.

    22. Re:But what is the price? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      Oh look, I have a duck link too! Ain't I special.

    23. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and street lights only go out when I'm driving underneath them too! :)

    24. Re:But what is the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what is the price of the chick in the red bikini?!

    25. Re:But what is the price? by compwizrd · · Score: 1

      Hell, I've been to 118 with my '97 Neon. People that modify the speedometer can hit the 140's.(it's normally governed to 118)

      145 with my '96 T/A, and I was running out of straightaway long before I could hit redline.

      Top end on a stock recent Firebird/Camaro is around 159. Drag limited.

      However, there was one tire option when buying that would get you governed from the factory to somewhere around 118. Rather dumb move to cheap out on the tires. :)

    26. Re:But what is the price? by kill-hup · · Score: 1

      BUT WHAT IS THE PRICE?

      From the Jan '04 issue of Popular Mechanics:

      "March is taking orders for the WaterCar on his Web site, www.watercar.com. The price is about $150,000. March's future plans call for a lower-priced SUV version in the $80,000 to $100,000 range."

      --
      Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
    27. Re:But what is the price? by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was German.

    28. Re:But what is the price? by DoctorDeath · · Score: 1

      Only the military "Ducks" which saw good use in the Wisconsin Dells area or of course the VW bug. Now that was a mass produced land and water vehicle.

      --
      Sig temporarily out of service.
    29. Re:But what is the price? by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

      If it was a 2002 Camaro then it was an LS1 not an LT1.

      --

      "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    30. Re:But what is the price? by katarac · · Score: 1
      The military acronym, DUKW stands for:
      D - The Decade of the 1940's
      U - Utility
      K - All Wheel Drive
      W - Twin Real Axles
      Jeez military, do you have to have an acronym? If you want to call it a Duck, just call it a Duck.
    31. Re:But what is the price? by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      Actually, looks like they're shut down in Tampa now. "Insurance issues," probably a result of so many of 'em sinking (in at least two cases, with fatalities).

      I notice this outfit is trying to distance itself from the DUKW problems... although it kind of amuses me that they advertise that their LARCs have "much heavier construction"... er, isn't that exactly the PROBLEM?

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    32. Re:But what is the price? by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Porsche made one; I believe it was the Porsche 166.

      This vehicle was known as the Schwimmwagen. While it was designed by Ferdinand Porsche, these vehicles were produced by VW. It was built in 1944, about 10 years before Porsche was founded as a car producing company. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a Porsche.

      --

      -Turkey

    33. Re:But what is the price? by F34nor · · Score: 1
    34. Re:But what is the price? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Found the story on why they were shut down. Basically the insurance company wanted them to have a driver with two years experience and a class c commercial drivers license. The Coast Guard was requiring that they had a certified sea captain and deck hand on board. So every tour would require 3 extra people, and their salary would probably exceed the profit of the tour.

      The fatalities were with another DUKW tour, in Arkansas.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    35. Re:But what is the price? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of a turbo 4 cylinder having a "flatter power curve" than a modern V8.

      Then you obviously don't pay much attention to car engines. The Audi/Vw 1.8 turbo has a flatter torque curve than any naturally aspirated engine. With a turbo, you can tune it to essentially boost more at low RPM and less at higher RPM without having to reduce the compression much (low pressure turbos). The effect is that the engine power peak isn't significantly higher than the naturally aspirated version, but the low end is raised for a much flatter power curve.

      The only advantage of the STi engine is weight. On an aquatic vehicle, the extra torque of a V8 would not be of much help if it were 30ft below the surface, and diving fast.

      Oh, never mind. You don't know much, but you think you know alot, so you are probably uneducatable. Torque is not important, only power. Yes, I know you can calculate power from torque, but why would you start with a measurement that requires significant conversion (and can effectively be changed by gearing) to be useful for calculations when you can start with the one that is directly related?

      Or, to put it in a simple form:
      The STi engine has as much peak power, more off-peak power, weighs less, uses the same amount of fuel at peak and less off-peak, is a smaller package, and allows for a lower center of gravity in the vehicle because of package shape.

    36. Re:But what is the price? by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      Inneresting. The CG increased the safety requirements on DUKWs after the Arkansas incident (there was at least one more, but not with as spectacular a bodycount... Ottawa?) but stopped short of requiring the NTSB-recommended changes (which amounted to "make them unsinkable even when they fill with water," apparently). Guess what it came down to was "Yeah, if you REALLY want to operate the things, you can... just don't take anybody down with you when you go, okay?"

      I've seen them down in Mo/Ark (Table Rock area, IIRC) and I have to say, I just can't imagine getting on one of those beasties. They just scream "This thing should *not* float." In fact, a lot of people were rather confused about what they did, and assumed they just drove around on the bottom of the lake or something ("But how do they seal it up when it goes underwater?" "Uhhhh...")

      Of course, I think they had (back when I saw them, anyway, which was before the Hot Springs incident) the big canopies that were part of the problem down there, which contributes to their unseaworthy appearance (and, apparently, their unseaworthiness... well, unlakeworthiness).

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    37. Re:But what is the price? by netsharc · · Score: 1

      wow, remove the _mini and you get a bigger, nicer picture.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    38. Re:But what is the price? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Professor Porsche knew back in 1910 when he built his first boxer engine, that it would be ideal for race car use, due to it's low profile. Lower profile means better aerodynamics, and lower center of gravity for better handling.

      The principle was proven in the prototype VW beetle, the Porsche 356, and nearly every Porsche produced since then (excluding, of course, the 928/944, which were not really Porsches, they were Audis. The 914 was more of a Porsche than those front-engine monstrosities.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    39. Re:But what is the price? by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the comment on my general education. There are certainly those who would agree (esp. my foreign language teachers), however, I guess I'm just not as harsh on myself.

      I don't want to go looking for an extended debate, but it seems to me that if you ease off on the boost at higher RPMs, then you really are loosing peak power. I think that whole premise of the article was "an aquatic sports car". In that case, reducing the maximum available power is almost a sin :)

      I also think that if one truly wanted to, you could program the controller on a naturally aspirated V8 to reproduce the same flat torque effect.

      I won't disagree with better fuel economy and smaller package. But, the peak power is much narrower, and unless you have a Contiuously Variable Transmission, a narrow peak power is not as functional for day-to-day usefulness.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    40. Re:But what is the price? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't want to go looking for an extended debate, but it seems to me that if you ease off on the boost at higher RPMs, then you really are loosing peak power.

      Yes. And how often in a boat do you touch the throttle? Generally, like flying, you set it where you want it and leave it be. You don't accelerate and decelerate nearly as often as in an auto, so turbo lag is not performance affecting for the normal user.

      I also think that if one truly wanted to, you could program the controller on a naturally aspirated V8 to reproduce the same flat torque effect.

      Not without reducing peak power (which you already stated was bad). The reason that people think V8s have good power bands is because most of the old V8s were so poorly tuned. The modern V8 is just as peaky as a 4-cyl. The *only* thing that can improve power at low RPMs (without affecting power at higher RPMs) is to burn more fuel at lower RPMs compared to higher RPMs. If you just dump more fuel in, you will run rich and make smoke, but not power. You need the O2 in there too. The only long-term way (no NO2) to provide O2 is to pump more air in. You *must* super/turbocharge to get the additional power at low RPMs (excepting the small gains from variable cams and variable intake, which do help, but not nearly as much as forced induction).

  7. Almost /.'ed... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Now if only their server had power to match that...

  8. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hmm... f must stand for "fifth" now... Or maybe you meant to say "ffp," for "fourth first post?"

  9. I hate /. sometimes by ResQuad · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Intresting article I am sure. But before more than a few comments are posted, its already toasted. The editors need to have some sort of mirror... google, anything.

    1. Re:I hate /. sometimes by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      just three words.

      READ THE FAQ

      that will answer your question on why there is no mirrors...

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  10. And a website by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

    at a dead stop cause it was slashdotted!

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  11. WRX or STi? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Slight nitpick, but is it using the engine from a WRX or an STi? They're essentially the same car, but the WRX puts out around 230 horsepower whereas the STi puts out either 276 or 300, depending on where in the world you are.

    This is a really interesting project either way, neat hack.

    1. Re:WRX or STi? by JET+666 · · Score: 1

      2.5 is the STI

      --
      De sig boss de sig
    2. Re:WRX or STi? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the same engine, only modified.

      The STi adds a larger turbo, a strengthened block, and different pistons which reduce the friction.

      But it's the same engine design.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:WRX or STi? by wankledot · · Score: 1
      Well, the internals of those engines are essentially the same (unless the STi has a larger turbo, I'm not up on the scooby scene that much.), and the HP difference is made up in tuning, so depending on how they set up the motor, it could make anywhere from 220 to 350HP+, ripping up a regular WRX would be a lot more cost effective, especially if they found a wrecked one.

      Putting that engine in a Camaro is like dropping a 'vette engine in a Pinto: totally stupid. But maybe the camaro was easier to waterproof.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    4. Re:WRX or STi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US the STi is a 2.5L motor. Most of the rest is correct though.

    5. Re:WRX or STi? by wankledot · · Score: 1

      They're both 2.5l

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    6. Re:WRX or STi? by tommyboyprime · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the time that a friend of mine (back in the late 60's) took a Chevy small block and put it into an old VW Beetle. It couldn't go around corners very well, but could out drag anything else I knew of. Only problem was: the aerodynamics of the VW caused it to take off at around 130 mph. At a curve the thing still wanted to go straight and tried to mate with a telephone pole. Believ it or not, my friend didn't even get a scratch.

      --
      This parrot has ceased to be!
    7. Re:WRX or STi? by DJOrient · · Score: 0

      in the US, the WRX is sold with a 2.0l while the STI is sold with a 2.5l. While essentially the same block, the huge increase in displacement gives the 75+ HP bump as compared to the 2.0l.

    8. Re:WRX or STi? by interiot · · Score: 3, Informative
    9. Re:WRX or STi? by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Odd, you're right. I guess that makes the STi more worth it after all.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    10. Re:WRX or STi? by Julius+X · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're only half right. Only the US-spec STis use the 2.5L - the rest of the world, they get the 2.0L - and make roughly the same horsepower. They went to the 2.5 in the US because they couldn't get their 2.0 to make emissions standards with that kind of output.

      --

      -Julius X
      remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
    11. Re:WRX or STi? by Intocabile · · Score: 1

      Except 2.0L is more rally bread if that's what you are into. 2.0L is the WRC's limit on displacement.

    12. Re:WRX or STi? by DirkGently · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of possibilites:

      One is that this is the 2.5L STi engine. The other is that it is an EJ25 NA engine that was modded aftermarket to add a turbo. I would have to assume the latter, as this project looks to have been underway for a year or two, and the 2.5L STi engine was just released this year. 300BHP (not at the wheel) is pretty easy to attain from the EJ25, even with the stock compression ratio.

      Gee, I wonder if he keeps the intercooler in contact with the water?

      My only concern with the "125MPH" thing is that objects shaped like boats tend to push skyward as speed goes up. Ever seen video of those jetboats flipping a gazillion times and disintigrating?

      --

      I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

    13. Re:WRX or STi? by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      Its gotta be the EJ255 or EJ257 (Forester XT and STi engine respectively) because the EJ251 (N/A) could not hold 300HP without a fair amount of engine work.

      Semi-closing (or full-closing) of the deck, new forged internals. I'd bet time and extra parts versus money makes the STi shortblock a much better buy.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    14. Re:WRX or STi? by JET+666 · · Score: 1

      if you want to get into the rest of the world, i'm going to have to start throwing terms like 22B around. ;)

      --
      De sig boss de sig
    15. Re:WRX or STi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this guy up. He is totally correct.

    16. Re:WRX or STi? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it depends on where you are in the world. Most of the world *does* use the EJ20 for both, but in the US, the STi uses the higher displacement EJ25, generating a little bit more horsepower and a good bit more torque. Hence why I asked. :)

    17. Re:WRX or STi? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      the WRX puts out around 230 horsepower whereas the STi puts out either 276 or 300, depending on where in the world you are.

      Actually, AIUI, it makes the same hp everywhere, but in Japan it's only reported as 276hp for legal reasons.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    18. Re:WRX or STi? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      It's possible, especially given the 276 number, but it's actually a gentlemen's agreement between the Japanese car manufacturer's that has been pretty more or less ignored for the better part of the last decade. The twin turbo Supra MkIV, for example, was factory rated at 276hp because of this, but it's pretty well known that the car was actually putting out closer to 325hp from the factory.

      Either way, I still make the distinction because even if the horsepower numbers are close in reality, the EJ25 puts out a good bit more torque in a smoother curve than the EJ20. The international STi is running somewhere around 17 PSI of boost, whereas the US STi is running only around 14.5 PSI to generate the same horsepower.

      For the rally purist, the international STi is closer to the real deal, but the US version of the STi is definitely putting more raw power to the ground. :)

  12. Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by drayzel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, who would of thought THIS would ever be ON TOPIC?!?! Maybe he wasn't kidding?

    "Uh, how you gonna get down to the shore?
    Funny you should ask, I've got a car now.
    Oh wow, how'd you get a car?
    Oh, my parents drove it up here from the Bahamas.
    You're kidding!
    I must be, the Bahamas are islands, okay, the important thing now, is
    that you ask me what kind of car I have.
    Uh, what kinda car do ya got?
    I've got a
    BITCHIN CAMARO!....."

    (go find the MP3... legaly of course)

    ~Z

    1. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      OMG!!! I havn't heard that song in almost 12 years! That was about the funniest thing I've read in a while.

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    2. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by syphax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh man, I haven't even thought of that song in a long time.

      The lyrics are here

      'Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
      I ran over my neighbors
      Bitchin' Camaro, Bitchin' Camaro!
      Now I'm in all the papers

      My folks bought me a bitchin' Camaro
      With no insurance to match
      So if I happen to run you down
      Please don't leave a scratch'

      Somehow that seemed more clever when I was 16...

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    3. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by djroute66 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course these lyrics are out of date since we now have "Bitchin' Water Camaro's" that can drive from the Bahamas....

    4. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by jred · · Score: 1

      One of my all-time fave bands.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    5. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by boomgopher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, you forgot the prelude to this, it's the funniest part:

      - Hey Jack, what's happenin'?
      - I don't know.
      - Well uh, rumor around town says you mighht be thinkin' 'bout goin' down to the shore.
      - Uh, yeah, I think I'm gonna go down to the shore.
      - Whadda ya gonna do down there?
      - Uh, I don't know, play some video games, buy some Def Leppard t-shirts.
      - Don't forget your Motley Crue t-shirt; you know all proceeds go to get their lead singer out of jail.
      - Uh huh.
      - Can't wait to go down. Hey uh, were ya goonna check out the sand bar while you're down there?
      - Uh, what's the Sand Bar?
      - Ah, it's a place that lets sixteen year-old kids drink.
      - Ah, cool.
      - Ya hey, guess who's gonna be there?
      - Uh, who?
      - My favourite cover band, Crystal Ship.
      - Wow.
      - Yeah, they do a Doors show, you'd be really impressed, in fact, it goes a little like this:

      Love me two times baby
      Love me twice today
      Love me two times girl
      Cause I got AIDS
      Love me two times baby,
      once for tomorrow,
      once cause I got AIDS

      - Uh...
      - Pretty good Jim Morrison impersonation there. I hope those guys have a
      good sense of humour and don't take us into court.
      - Uh, what's the court?
      - Never mind that, the important thing heree...
      - You mean the People's Court.
      - The... Now, that's another story. The important thing here is that we get to the part where you ask me how I'm gonna get down to the shore. ...

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    6. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      OK, the price is one thing, but the real question is: since it's a water car, does that mean I can do without the dope rims?

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by jackbird · · Score: 1

      That's "Crystal Shit"...

    8. Re:Oblig. Deadmilkmen quote... BITCHIN CAMARO!! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      first thing that came to my mind when I saw this post - funny how minds think alike :)

  13. Thats all fine and dandy but... by nadolph · · Score: 0

    ... does it run linux?

    --
    With the moo and the cow and the fish. Minesweeper Record: 7 sec
  14. Re:slow as a turtle by JET+666 · · Score: 1

    no they switched to "olds".

    --
    De sig boss de sig
  15. Google Cache by datastalker · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Google Cache by momerath2003 · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Google cache of Google in case it gets slashdotted.

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    2. Re:Google Cache by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no cache of google's cache of google, so if it gets slashdotted yer outta luck.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  16. Bitchin Camaro by zazas_mmmm · · Score: 4, Funny
    Just because it's a speed boat doesn't make it any less of a Camaro.

    It's like a case mod made to look like a can of Hamm's.

    --
    I'm a friend of a friend of the working class.
    1. Re:Bitchin Camaro by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yeah...having a Subaru engine makes it less of a Camaro. Having owned a '96 Trans Am, which is the exact same car as a Camaro Z28 except for body and interior, I can't see a reason to put a WRX engine into one, unless it's required for the amphibious thing (which I don't doubt - is the WRX engine air-cooled, for instance?) The factory engine in a Z28 gives you 310 horsepower.

    2. Re:Bitchin Camaro by WhiteBandit · · Score: 1

      Yes, but have you ever driven a Subaru? Holy shit.

      Granted, it may not be as fast as a stock Z28, but those things still have balls. (Our Forerester, the sporty version of course, does 0 - 60 in 5.3 seconds.)

    3. Re:Bitchin Camaro by austad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can't see any reason to waste a perfectly good WRX engine like that either. :)

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    4. Re:Bitchin Camaro by turbosk · · Score: 1

      that'd be the XT foreresester? AMEN, brother, that is, hands down, the fastest grocery-getter in the world. you pull up at a red light in your station wagon and outrun a porsche, big smiles! 1997 Porsche Boxster 0-60mph in 6.0 seconds; 1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 0-60mph in 5.7 seconds. the subie would be all over those slowpokes :)

    5. Re:Bitchin Camaro by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      WRXs are water-cooled, but they are a 2.5 liter flat four. I don't know if they're iron or aluminum block, but I'm betting the V8s in camaros are generally iron and the V6s are gutless and uninteresting. I know some camaros have come with aluminum V8s but that's a pretty big motor (350 small block) compared with a nice little flat 4 subaru.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Bitchin Camaro by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the price is weight. My 01 Z28 had a curb weight of 3700 lbs, dry. For a two door sports car, that's a hell of a lot. There are SUV's that weigh less than that. Since most of that weight was probably in the engine, that'll put the center of gravity forward and give you more mass that has to float. The the Porsche flat 6 in the WRX probably weighs 350+ lbs less than the LS1. (I heard that Porsche has begun water-cooling their flat 6 engines in the later model years (at least in the Boxter), I don't know if the WRX also suffers from that change)

      I believe the same year Corevette which uses the same LS1 engine block & transmission has a curb weight of 2800 lbs, so I wouldn't be suprised if there were other things you could do to "lighten the load" as well.

      --
      - Sig
    7. Re:Bitchin Camaro by ari_j · · Score: 1

      The WRX uses a Porsche flat-six? Never mind my previous post, then! I love horizontally opposed engines (especially air-cooled; I ride BMW motorcycles, and I loved my '85 911 Targa dearly).

  17. E-8 by TechnologyX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like we sunk his battleship.. err, server

    --
    Slashdot sucks
    1. Re:E-8 by linzeal · · Score: 1

      If you combined the armored rv with the amphibious you might have something like a mini battleship. If you need help check out these folks.

    2. Re:E-8 by Uerige · · Score: 1

      Battleserver?

  18. Article Text by Splezunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dave March - Builder of the WaterCar
    WaterCar, Inc. is the brainchild of Dave March and his two sons. For over thirty years March has been an avid high performance car and boat enthusiast. His passion and desire has been for building and piloting fast planes, boats and cars. To facilitate his obsession for cars and boats he also developed a knack for repairing wrecked cars and boats. For the past twenty years March started and developed his collision repair business into one of the largest, most state of the art facilities in the world. He then took many of the systems and repair techniques that he developed and co-founded the Caliber Collision Center Franchise which currently has annual revenue of over 155 million.

    In 1998 March accepted an offer to sell his business and semi-retired. After putting the finishing touches on his large custom home he built on the golf course in Newport Coast above his 6,000 square foot basement garage/design center equipped with every conceivable tool and piece of equipment imaginable found himself with a lot of spare time and pent up creative juices. This is dangerous combination for Dave March. He was looking for a challenge when his youngest son began looking at amphibious cars. Together they found a 1964 Amphicar and restored it. After all the work, they were disappointed by its performance. It was fun to drive into the water, but once in the water, it was slow and not as much fun as expected.

    March threw himself into researching every amphibious vehicle in the world and discovered that amphibious vehicles are much more popular in Europe. And, to his astonishment, he realized that of all the vehicles ever built, no one had successfully built a true high performance amphibious vehicle.

    That's when it hit him- why not combine his love of high performance cars and boats into a single, high performance amphibious car? "Everything he needed was right here in Southern California". The best hydraulics are available from the low-rider crowd and the rear-engine drive technology from the high performance sand-rail market. Every drive train combination you could imagine is available for inspection at Glamis. The brakes, suspension and speed accessories come from the hot rod aftermarket industry which is booming in Southern California. The most important part, hull and jet configuration, from the performance- boat industry along with unlimited input from great boat people that are very willing to help. He started thinking he could build a high performance amphibious car from off the shelf parts.

    March wanted to build a four-seater, yet still keep the car sporty looking. The 2002 Camaro was the ideal starting point. He purchased a Camaro fiberglass funny-car shell body, added hundreds of labor hours and he had a great looking Camaro car/boat plug. He built the molds from the plug and proceeded to build the first parts.

    March built a lightweight stainless frame to mount the suspension and motor to and fit it to the body. The challenge was to make the wheels retractable. He attended a couple of low-rider shows to figure how to make the wheels retractable and settled on using parts from Homies Hydraulics. The motor and jet combo was another significant challenge, particularly getting it all to fit in the trunk area. March wanted the WaterCar to look as much like a stock Camaro as possible.

    The first time on the water, the vehicle performed beautifully, with only one significant problem: "It wouldn't plane out!" He made multiple trial trips back and forth to the lake, adding more boost for additional power and tinkering on the jet setup. After some additional work on the bottom, he was finally getting on plane easily and reaching 45 mph. Success at last!

    The newest version of March's handiwork drives just like a car on the road and actually handles very well with the Corvette suspension. "It has plenty of power from the Subaru 2.5 Turbo WRX motor. When you go in the water, you simply drive in, put the transmission in neutral, engage the jet, fl

    1. Re:Article Text by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      He purchased a Camaro fiberglass funny-car shell body,...

      Ah, so it's not really a camero. Well, not anymore than Dale Jr.'s Chevy is a real chevy. It's formed and made to look vaguely like one on the outside. I was wondering why go through all the trouble to re-route everything in the car, but he probably didn't have to.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  19. Camaro with a WRX Engine by NitsujTPU · · Score: 0, Troll

    Considering that the LS1 engine that came stock on the Z-28 and SS modes pumps 305-320 (and thats underrated, the same engine powers Corvettes, and Chevy understated the output so it wouldn't cut into Corvette sales). Popping a turboed WRX engine in there is hardly an "upgrade."

    1. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by wankledot · · Score: 1

      Except that the WRX is a flat-4 which makes it much more shallow, that could help in getting it out of the way of the water, or more room to fold up the wheels. Not to mention being lighter than the LS motors.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, the 2000's are calling. V8's are lame. The 2.5 litre WRX engine puts out over 320 hosepower. And it weighs about half that of a similarily powered V8. Drop 400 pounds from your fatass Z28 and that is the kind of performance "upgrade" we would be talking about here.

    3. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      there is no replacement for displacement, douche!

    4. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by woobieman29 · · Score: 1

      True, though the best "upgrade" of all would have been to leave the engine in the Scooby body, and build the drivetrain around Subaru's AWD system. The Scooby's suspension and drivetrain are worlds better than anything ever made by GM, including the Corvette. Just thinking about that beautiful engine in an ugly, antiquated piece of GM crap brings a tear to my eye.... Gonna have to go drive my 99 Scooby now just to make myself feel better.

      --
      \/\/oobie
    5. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by DJOrient · · Score: 0

      i would have to guess that the craft was built on the camaro chassi srather than the WRX for a number of reasons - 1st being that the Camaro chasis being larger and having a less sophisticated suspension system, would make for a better boat candidate. Secondly, Camaros are by far cheaper than WRX chassis are. 3rd - since this is a compromise build being BOAT first, and CAR second, it would be an impratical build to have a boat with AWD.

    6. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Genin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and i smoke STi WRXs all the time in my 305 (L03) powered 1990 Chevy Caprice.

      --
      I am forced to conclude you are the master of the obvious. May others take heed of your wisdom.
    7. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 1

      Considering that the LS1 engine that came stock on the Z-28 and SS modes pumps 305-320 (and thats underrated, the same engine powers Corvettes, and Chevy understated the output so it wouldn't cut into Corvette sales). Popping a turboed WRX engine in there is hardly an "upgrade."

      Considering that he started with a Camaro funny car shell and nothing even CLOSELY resembling a complete Camaro, popping a turboed WRX engine (which is actually redundant because both the WRX and STi versions of the motor are turbocharged from the factory) is an incredible upgrade.

      --
      "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    8. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it hurts being stomped in the twisties by a car with a live rear axle, doesn't it rice boy?

    9. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn yo, preach it.

      *puts on eminem cd and polishes chrmoe hub cap covers *

    10. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Except that the WRX is a flat-4 which makes it much more shallow, that could help in getting it out of the way of the water, or more room to fold up the wheels. Not to mention being lighter than the LS motors.

      Can you provide a link on that? (not the flat 4, the wieght) My understanding is that the LS1 is a VERY light engine for its displacement , and the comparison should really be between an LS1 and a subaru flat 4 WITH turbo and intercooler.

      You might be right, or you might be wrong, but I bet it's a lot closer than you thought.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    11. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're just trolling... but dude, seriously. A Subaru WRX would totally demolish ANY V8/RWD musclecar you put up with it in a mountain road.

    12. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by astro-g · · Score: 1

      Except boatloads of boost.

    13. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha.. you're so full of it..

      Too funny.

      I guess it's easy to go off about that kind of thing when there's no way in hell you'll ever be required to prove it.

    14. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      Even if the weights are similar (I don't have any documentation to check), I bet size is a more important factor. And thats where the Subaru engine wins.

      The Subaru H4 engine is literally half the height of any v engine, plus is gotta have close to half the depth. The engines are wider, but not so much as to become more impractical then a v8.

      I remember seeing a really cool diagram showing the size differences between the flat 4, inline 4 and v6. I'm trying to google it, but with no results.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    15. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      I know you're just trolling... but dude, seriously. A Subaru WRX would totally demolish ANY V8/RWD musclecar you put up with it in a mountain road.

      Please realize that I'm a huge Subaru fan when I say this...

      Um, no. A good V8/RWD musclecar driver has a good chance of beating a good AWD driver on twisties. The only time AWD has the advantage is off of paved roads or when the RWD driver doesn't know his car.

      Now, if we took noob RWD driver versus a noob AWD driver, then the AWD driver would most certainly win, as the RWD driver would oversteer himself off the road.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    16. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by turbosk · · Score: 1

      As they say, the Camaro SS is for going fast, the STi is for driving fast :)

      pax,
      fred

    17. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by dukeisgod · · Score: 1

      You're right, in alot of ways it isn't. But he used a funny car body, so he didn't really have a camaro motor to start with, plus we wanted to go rear motor since it's a custom frame thingy that turns into a boat. Thats where the box-4 motor comes in. But if he does have a spare LT1/LS1 around, I'll take it off his hands for him.

    18. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by psyconaut · · Score: 1

      Even if he'd had the GM block to throw in there, there are many, many compelling reasons to go with the WRX engine...most notably it's weight, reliability, and ability to be very well tuned.

      Also, for those posting about Subaru engine power: 227 for the stock WRX, 300 for the WRX STi powerplant.

      -psy

    19. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by Genin · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the internet primer class about sarcasm.

      --
      I am forced to conclude you are the master of the obvious. May others take heed of your wisdom.
    20. Re:Camaro with a WRX Engine by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Who races on mountain roads? WRX = Rally Car... Camaro = Drag Racer/Formula 1/Nice flat strips. Camaros live on drag strips. Nice and flat.

  20. Hmmm........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "seems like someone with too much time on his hands"

    I agree.... wait, was that about the boat/car builder or the submitter?

    Indeed a slow day.

  21. Terra Wind by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yeah, but is it as cool as the Terra Wind?

  22. Eh, whatever... by TWX · · Score: 1

    125 really isn't all that fast, and I hope they didn't change out the engine just to achieve more power. If they made it an all wheel drive vehicle with proper balance between the wheels (and less excessive weight on the front from the removal of the GM 350ci V8), then that's good. The boat thing is just becoming passé. While it requires some engineering, a low center of gravity with proper sealing and flotation will allow anything to become a boat.

    My '78 Chrysler Cordoba could do 125...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Eh, whatever... by wankledot · · Score: 1
      They are using a 4sp Manual tranny, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the bottleneck. 300HP is more than enough to push a car past 125, even a big fat pig of a camaro.

      Adding AWD to that car would be pointless and expensive.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Eh, whatever... by davidmcn · · Score: 1

      No kidding. If your pumping near 300HP out of an engine, the car has got to way 4 tons for you to only be able to get to 125MPH. I mean hell, a 170HP Ford Focus SVT will get you to 130(electronically limited). So even at double the weight, which I doubt this car is, it should still be able to easily reach 130+ with a 300hp engine.

      --
      Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
    3. Re:Eh, whatever... by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Adding AWD to that car would be pointless and expensive."

      Expensive, yes, but I wouldn't call it pointless. A friend of mine had a Mitsubishi 3000GT (might have been a Dodge Stealth actually, but the AWD versions are identical except for the headlights and spoiler placement) and it was all wheel drive. He would take turns at speeds that were just nuts, accelerating through them. Some of the freeway ramps marked with a serious 30MPH recommended speed he'd fly around at 80, and have grip to spare. It was an incredible ride.

      The trouble is, it was mechanically a nightmare, and was in the shop enough that apparently mechanical failure is how Mitsubishi decided to let owners know that it was time for an oil change.

      Having finally been able to read the site on the water car, it appears to be a custom body that is modelled after the Camaro, not a real one. It's rear engine, like any good boat, and fibreglass. 125 is okay, but nothing to write home about, considering the probable lack of weight.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Eh, whatever... by DJOrient · · Score: 0

      you're not looking at the big pisture - its not just power - weight ratio that determines top speed of a car - its also gearing. The same gearing that allows for a top speed of 40 MPH on water is most likely limiting street driving to 125 MPH. Call me crazy - but I wouldn't want to be in any boat/car that do either of those speeds anyways.

    5. Re:Eh, whatever... by woobieman29 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The 3000 GT certainly handles wonderfully, but your friend's experience with reliability is pretty common. Seems they were a bit more complex than they needed to be.

      The Scooby has a pretty large reliability advantage over the 3000 GT in that it uses a much less complex AWD system that is based around viscous couplers. the whole system adds only ~150 pounds to the weight of the vehicle, and is very well built. I have over 130,000 on mine, most of which occured above 80 mph, and so far all I've done to the car (other than routine maintenance) is replace 1 wheel bearing. Not a bad record.

      --
      \/\/oobie
    6. Re:Eh, whatever... by basics · · Score: 1

      The reliability concern comes about because it is a bit more mitsubishi than it needs to be :P

    7. Re:Eh, whatever... by wankledot · · Score: 1
      Apples and Oranges. There are plenty of RWD cars that will outhandle a 3000GT all day, and even a few FWD ones.

      AWD is not a silver bullet when it comes to handling, there are many many things that make a bigger difference.

      Yeah, it sounds like it's really a Camaro in name only, especially if it's rear-engined.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    8. Re:Eh, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the part where you prove you know what you're talking about and back up your claim with actual slalom timesheets or at least a good technical discussion to enlighten the unwashed Slashdot masses.

    9. Re:Eh, whatever... by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      I think he meant pointless for this topic at hand. The boat/car thingie is already rear-engined (or maybe its mid) so you'd be adding a lot of unneded weight in the front/mid section of the boat for a feature that probably wouldn't be used on such a novelty car.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    10. Re:Eh, whatever... by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      A friend of mine had a Mitsubishi 3000GT (might have been a Dodge Stealth actually, but the AWD versions are identical except for the headlights and spoiler placement) and it was all wheel drive. He would take turns at speeds that were just nuts, accelerating through them. Some of the freeway ramps marked with a serious 30MPH recommended speed he'd fly around at 80, and have grip to spare. It was an incredible ride.

      Those cars can't handle very well -- those things are freaking heavy, like 3700 Lbs. In order for a car to handle well, it has to be light. Think about it: the more a car weighs, the harder it is to turn, because all of that mass wants to keep going in a straight line. On a heavier car, you've gotta get all of that mass going in a different direction, which takes more energy for a heavier car. In a race car, weight is everything -- this applies directly to street cars (when it comes to performance: handling, braking, and acceleration).

      Also, in most cases AWD is less agile on dry pavement than RWD. Sure, you can get on the gas earlier, and it's easier for an inexperienced driver to control, but that's about it.

      --

      -Turkey

  23. Bond Boat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a car based on a 2002 Camaro body with a Subaru WRX Turbo engine (300 horsepower) capable of going over 125MPH that doubles as a boat capable of going over 40MPH."

    My name's Bond. James Bond.

  24. Half the price by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pictures of Watercar and Aquada. http://www.jetski.com/article.cfm?id=433

    Nice to see that the watercar is 150K while the other Aquada is 235K.

    Now lets see something a slashdot reader can afford. :)

    1. Re:Half the price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=1191&item=3191242177&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

    2. Re:Half the price by isorox · · Score: 1

      Now lets see something a slashdot reader can afford. :)

      What? A Couple of Onion Bargis and a Vindaloo?

    3. Re:Half the price by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I bet you could slap some hobie cat pontoons and a 25 horse outboard on a VW beetle for less than ten grand, and have it be structurally sound. Those things are damn near watertight anyway... Well, when they're new anyway, before the floor rusts out and you get to pretend to be Fred Flintstone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Re:I dont care about the car by Curtman · · Score: 1

    Popup crap? Firefox to the rescue.

  26. All they need... by NeuroManson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is a scanning red light on the front, and they'd have Knight Boat!

    As long as there's always a canal, that is.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:All they need... by AnotherFreakboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's always a canal... or an inlet... or a stream, river, bay...

      --
      Why not get the real ultimate power?
  27. unique? no. by LuxFX · · Score: 3, Informative

    and come up with something truly unique and cool: a car ... that doubles as a boat

    Maybe cool, but not unique! There was a story about a sportcar/speedboat that came up a while back. True, it can only go 100mph on land and 30mph in the water, but I'd say it's close enough to say it's not unique.

    Oh yeah, and this site called Slash- something or other posted about the the same vehicle.

    (note: not that I'm upset with the content of this news item, I think it's even cooler to have modded a car to do this than to create one from scratch -- I just have a problem with hype like saying something is new and unique when it's not)

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  28. Fastest aquatic vehicle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe, but those pictures sure were slow to load.

  29. Engine swap, or augmentation? by Feren · · Score: 0

    Without reading the article (as the site is down) I'm having a hard time understanding if he swapped the Camaro's stock motor out with the one from the Subaru, or if he's using it as some sort of augmentation.

    If the car was an SS or a Z28 I definately do not understand why he would do an engine swap -- it's difficult to believe that the Subaru's engine brings much to the table that the LS1 couldn't. The LS1 engine puts out around 325hp stock in the 01-02 model years, is a V8 and has an all-aluminum construction. It's also a torque monster in the upper RPM bands. What's not to love about that?

    Now if the car were just a plain-jane Camaro or an RS running the 5800 V6 engine it makes perfect sense to swap the engine out, although I can't imagine what a PITA it must have been to make a Subaru engine run in a Camaro. The rewiring couldn't have been pretty.

    1. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by wankledot · · Score: 1

      A flat-4 scooby engine could probably sit higher in the engine compartment, making the water issue less of a problem. It's also very light, and would leave more room for the wheels being pulled up while it's in the water.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 1

      One word:

      Displacement

      I'd imagine they needed space for Waterproofing, or foam, or maybe just needed to cut the weight down.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      You should read a few posts up, there's a karma whore reposting the article.

      At any rate the Subaru engine was chosen for power and size. It was the best solution for a midengined car boat. You have a 2.5 liter turbocharged flat 4 which gives you a smaller engine, a lower center of gravity, and some good ol' Japanese reliability. Also consider the weight savings over a V8.

      BTW if you're comparing per liter output, the v8 sucks in this case.

    4. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... is a V8... What's not to love about that?"

      I think you just answered your own question. Unless V8's are lighter weight and take up less space than 2.5L 4 cylinders.

    5. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      They actually didn't start with any camaro, but with a camaro-ish funny car shell.

      There are many advantages of the Subaru engine here. Half the size and weight with only slightly less horsepower is perhaps the best reason.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    6. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. The posts regarding weight difference between the two engines may be a little off: the 5.7L LS1 that would have come in the Camaro has an aluminum block, heads, etc and whose block (according to one source) weighs 110lbs..

      While the 2.5L subaru may be physically smaller (I don't see it being "half" the size, though) I can't imagine it weighing only half as much as the V8.. Does anyone know how much it actually does weigh instead of assuming it's "half as much"? - I couldn't find anything about them prior to this post either but at least I'm admitting it :P

    7. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW wtf I just read an article about a dune buggy with a 2.5L subaru engine (Probably similar if not the STi engine) and they say it's a GOOD thing that it only weighs in at _310_ lbs !

      All I have to say is WOW. A FULL LS1 likely doesn't weigh that much but at the very least is similar in weight. The block itself is MORE than half as light as the 4cyl.

      A ~330 flyhp V8 weighing less than a ~300 flyhp (?) 2.5L turbo subaru. Mmmm Displacement + Aluminum. :)

    8. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 1
      WOW wtf I just read an article about a dune buggy with a 2.5L subaru engine (Probably similar if not the STi engine) and they say it's a GOOD thing that it only weighs in at _310_ lbs !

      All I have to say is WOW. A FULL LS1 likely doesn't weigh that much but at the very least is similar in weight. The block itself is MORE than half as light as the 4cyl.

      A ~330 flyhp V8 weighing less than a ~300 flyhp (?) 2.5L turbo subaru. Mmmm Displacement + Aluminum. :)
      Ahem, but I call bullshit.

      First, a Camaro does not have an LS1 engine, it has an LT1 engine. The LS1 is a Corvette engine.

      Second, a fully built aluminum LS1 weighs almost 500 pounds. That's not surprising, since it's a 5.6 liter engine.

      Third, as the LT1 block is cast iron, not aluminum, there's no way in hell it's lighter.

      Last, if you want to talk insane engines, all conversations must start, and end, with the S2000 VTEC engine. Naturally Aspirated, 2 liters, 250 horsepower. Compare that to the Base WRX's 2 liter, intercooled, turbocharged engine, which puts out a very respectable 246 horsepower.
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    9. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, bullshit? If that's bullshit the article I got it from is bullshit, too... I found it from google.

      Further, all 98+ F-Bodies have LS1s. Yes, they are from Corvettes but GM put them into 98+ F-Bodies as well (A little less power - ~300 vs 350+)

      The new GTO also has an LS1...with 350hp.

      If a fully-built LS1 is 500lbs..fine but that just seems a bit much with the block being only ~110lbs.. *shrug* Do you have a source to prove the 500lbs # and also one to disprove my 310lbs # for Subaru?

    10. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 1

      LS1 Engine Specs.

      Block Cast aluminum, 107.1 lbs (48.6 kg).
      Total Dressed Engine Weight Auto. - 457.6 lbs. (208 kg); Manual - 497.2 lbs (226 kg).

      Happy?

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    11. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the weight change according to the transmission? It's just under 500lbs WITH a T-56 tranny? How much is a Subaru 2.5L WITH the AWD tranny?

    12. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by thunderbird46 · · Score: 1

      The flywheel used on manual transmission engines is heavier than the flexplate used on automatics. A flywheel and a flexplate look a lot alike in basic shape except a flexplate tends to be much thinner since automatic cars have the torque converter to act as rotating mass.

    13. Re:Engine swap, or augmentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. That makes sense as it's only like a ~40lb difference between the two...

      How much is the 2.5L STi setup, though?

  30. A /. first! by st0rmshadow · · Score: 2, Funny

    A post about a car that isn't turned into a robot, Star Wars ship, or anime something or other!

  31. I like the idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...geez, did it really *have* to be a Camaro?

    I mean come on, that's like spending tens of thousands on a high end stereo and on room acoustics, then playing the Beastie Boys.

    1. Re:I like the idea, but... by joycircuit · · Score: 1

      I couldn't have said it better myself. The Beasties, much like Camaro's, are outdated overbloated piles of domestic crap.

    2. Re:I like the idea, but... by thebatlab · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow. You were right. You couldn't say it better yourself.

    3. Re:I like the idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could have been worse, it could have been a Suburu body.

    4. Re:I like the idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Subaru, not Suburu. And I'd take a Subaru *anything* over a Camaro septic tank on wheels. Even one of those dinky little Subaru Leone models (man those were ugly cars)

    5. Re:I like the idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but then you'd get exactly *1* use in the water and the thing would rust completely through.

  32. Do you need to wear a mullet? by xs650 · · Score: 1

    It has a Camaro body, but has several other major non-Camaro systems.

    Are you still required to wear the typical Camaro drivers mullet, or can you avoid it because it isn't pure Camaro?

    1. Re:Do you need to wear a mullet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm pretty sure that since it's rice powered, you have to wear clothes 2 sizes too large and speak like you are retarded.

  33. Bitchn Camaro by Hungus · · Score: 1

    Now we know how Rod got his ride, his parents really did drive to the Bahamas

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  34. Too much time on their hands? by anon*127.0.0.1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As opposed to those people who build Lego models of the Deathstar, or memorize Pi to 15,000 digits.

    Say what you want about the guy, I bet he has no problem picking up chicks.

    --
    I am NOT a man!
    I am a free number!
    1. Re:Too much time on their hands? by Ether3k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Or - in todays world - Guys too.

      NO, I am NOT gay.

      --
      END
    2. Re:Too much time on their hands? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      >>Say what you want about the guy, I bet he has no >>problem picking up chicks.

      or mermaids...

  35. carboats are stupid by GoClick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Car Boat crosses are neither original or good. They fail as cars and as boats.

    They generally have VERY poor on water performance especially considering for the price of building one of these monstrosities you could have a sports car and a sport boat. Considering the engine on that thing, the boat performance aspect of it is awful it's not even close to being fast for a water craft and it's not even the worlds fastest car boat cross either, not even close, try 80mph but I digress he gave it a good shot.

    Car boat crosses then to be very unsafe on land at higher speeds because the hull shape forces air down and builds a bow wave of air making the front end unstable causing at least poor searing response and at worst roll overs and swerving.

    This is just a waste of a good car and some boat parts and a whole lot of time. Considering no one's time is free even the cheapest moron with a car could buy a crappy boat working at McDonald's in less time and then he'll have a boat and a car and people won't laugh at him on and off water.

    Just FYI my Sea-Doo does over 40mph on water and seats 3 instead of two.

    1. Re:carboats are stupid by eagl · · Score: 1

      You seem to be somewhat less intelligent than the carboat... Camaros have 4 seats, not 2, and this carboat, which is a custom design and not a converted camaro, also has 4 seats.

      If you won't even look at the website before posting your trash talk, try some STFU instead.

    2. Re:carboats are stupid by adler187 · · Score: 1

      But with the car boat, you get a sports car and a boat all in one. If you just bought a regular boat and a sports car, you would also need a truck or at least a car capable of towing the boat. With the car boat, you never need to get the boat ready and you never have to worry about parking your car/truck and trailer (or worry about vandalism, theft, etc...). It's more of a convenience than anything. Plus it turns heads more than a normal boat or sports car would.

      Is it the better than the sum of it's parts? No. But for anyone who has the time, money, and knowledge, it would be pretty cool to build.

    3. Re:carboats are stupid by realdpk · · Score: 1

      A car sub could be pretty sweet. Or more appropriately, a RV-sub combo. Killer vacation vehicle!

    4. Re:carboats are stupid by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it looks cool on or off the water!! Perception trumps reality in this case.

    5. Re:carboats are stupid by j-turkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You seem to be somewhat less intelligent than the carboat... Camaros have 4 seats, not 2, and this carboat, which is a custom design and not a converted camaro, also has 4 seats...If you won't even look at the website before posting your trash talk, try some STFU instead.

      He doesn't need to read the site to understand that a carboat is a technically lame idea. It is unable to perform as well as either a car or a boat. What's wrong with that assessment? If I put together a website about a cluster of 10 Commodore 64's running Apache -- you could say (without even reading the website) that the Pentium II 400 in your basement will run circles around that POS. Get over yourself buddy -- and maybe before posting your trash talk, try some common courtesy instead.

      --

      -Turkey

    6. Re:carboats are stupid by eagl · · Score: 1

      He didn't even read the website, didn't even LOOK at the carboat in question, and posted up some lame incorrect points about why he thinks carboats are stupid in general, nevermind the actual facts or any features of the carboat under discussion.

      Semantic content of his post - zero. It's as far off topic as the "what really killed ***" posts because it had nothing to do whatsoever with the original subject other than an unsubstantiated "blah blah sucks blah blah".

      carboats suck because his seadoo carries 3 people? What the heck does that have to do with a carboat that looks like a camaro? A blanket statement to the effect of "all carboats handle poorly" without bothering to see that this carboat in particular has a weight and dimensions rather well suited for the corvette suspension it utilizes? Again, what the heck does that have to do with the carboat in the article? NOTHING.

      Open your eyes and try using a little logic before rigorously defending a blatantly off topic and rather ignorant post against someone posting a little truth. Who appointed you slashcop? Take a look in the mirror and maybe try getting over your own inflated ego.

    7. Re:carboats are stupid by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Open your eyes and try using a little logic before rigorously defending a blatantly off topic and rather ignorant post against someone posting a little truth. Who appointed you slashcop?

      But the thing is -- he's right! You consistently fail to understand this. Maybe I should ask you the same question -- who appointed you slashcop? You were the one jumping all over this guy -- acting like a slashcop. Who do you think you are, anyway? His post was, in fact, on topic. He was off on a minor detail -- the number of seats in the car. In fact, your senseless whining is more off-topic than anything else.

      carboats suck because his seadoo carries 3 people? What the heck does that have to do with a carboat that looks like a camaro? A blanket statement to the effect of "all carboats handle poorly" without bothering to see that this carboat in particular has a weight and dimensions rather well suited for the corvette suspension it utilizes? Again, what the heck does that have to do with the carboat in the article? NOTHING.
      Carboats do tend to handle poorly. As someone who appreciates and races cars, I understand a little about what it takes to make a car handle. As a watercraft enthusiast, he knows a little about what it takes to make a boat work. We're collectively saying that the two just don't go together. I can say that a handgun/toothbrush is a bad idea without reading any article about a specific application. It's a comment on the concept. The concept has everything to do with the article -- if you could get past your Slashdot nazi ideals, you might figure this out. The guy got one detail wrong -- why are you taking it so personally?
      Take a look in the mirror and maybe try getting over your own inflated ego

      I'm pretty comfrotable with who I am -- and I don't think I have an inflated ego. Are you always this defensive? Do you always get this angry? Are you an angry person? Maybe you shuld consider showing your fellow human beings a little more courtesy. They deserve it. Take a look back at the thread history. You were the first in this thread to write up an angry post. You were the fist to pull this slashcop bullshit. All I did was call bullshit on you. You have it coming -- because you're just talking shit -- and quite rudely, I might add. Furthermore, you're coming off like a genuine asshole. Grow up.

      --

      -Turkey

    8. Re:carboats are stupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Your sea-doo ain't quite as comfortable and doesn't travel on land at all, except when being towed on a trailer.

      Car Boat crosses aren't original (prior art: the conestoga wagon) but they can be "good" if your definition of "good" includes amphibious.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:carboats are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so negative about something that someone does as a hobby? Cut the guy some slack, as though it's not completely obvious to the creator that someone could spend $250K on separate alternatives.

      If you don't like it, you don't have to buy one. You can stick to your Sea Doo and ten speed.

  36. 125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Rev.+DeFiLEZ · · Score: 0, Redundant

    DONT get me wrong this is impressive, but it the things other then speed. The land speed could have been safely left out.

    125MPH is not impressive, I have done that on my 500cc "beginner" bike (that blackout last summer where the police were direct traffic at lights instead of handing out speeding tickets). And I did 110MPH in my stock ford focus (before I chickened out)

    I am aware that it is a dual purpose vehicle but an underpan should improve the land speed of a car.

    1. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by PoderOmega · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love it when people do 1xx MPH in their stock focus/caviliar/civic... come on people just cause the stock engine can do it doesn't mean the stock TIRES can. That's right people, nobody ever thinks of the TIRES. Would someone please think OF THE TIRES!!?

    2. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You think it's funny.. but having complete tire failure at high speed is not amusing.

      Real warning people; high speeds in dinky cars is fun in short bursts. But do not try sustained high speeds unless you have speed rated tires. The heat and vibration of high speed will quickly destroy your common $50 tires. You will get no warning, only a little vibration right before your car rolls over (and over, and over, and over, and...).

    3. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing lonlier than a slashdot poster on a monday morning...

    4. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Phekko · · Score: 1

      Erm... I don't know about other cars but at least when buying an Alfa Romeo you get tires rated somewhere to the 2xx KPH speeds. Now, the argument for stock tires must be that since it's illegal to drive faster than 120 KPH anywhere in this country you probably won't be needing tires rated over that. Logical, huh?

      This situation may - or, indeed, may not - be different in Germany, where you are allowed to drive as fast as you like on them big roads (Highways? Motorways? something like that anyway)

      Someone mentioned insurances. Must be hell on the insurance company. Then again, they'd probably just rip the price of both car and boat insurance as it's likely anyone who has the $$$ to buy one of these won't complain.

      Now if they only made a flying car and I won the lottery...

      --

      Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
    5. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that means the average Alfa Romeo will give its owner 200km of breakdown free driving.

    6. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Noltar · · Score: 1

      And people look at me weird when I tell them that I refuse to put tires on my car that aren't at least V rated... even though they generally run me $125+ a pop depending on what I get. That started after one blow out (thankfully as I was already slowing down to a stop).

    7. Re:125 .... we need to set a theshhold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My stock Civic came with tires rate for high speed. The manual does say to increase the presure for speeds over 100MPH. Not all stock cars come with crappy tires.

  37. Seen these for years by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    I've seen these every once in a while on the discovery or learning channel. Cars that are also boats. Okay, so this one might be a little faster and cooler looking, but the bottom line is they don't sell because there's no market.

    But cool nonetheless.

  38. This was in... by Valkyre · · Score: 5, Informative

    Popular mechanics a few months back. Old news.

    --
    What the heck is a 'sig'?
  39. Re:I dont care about the car by lvdrproject · · Score: 1
    I found the Java applet far more annoying.

    I hate Java, what the Hell. :(

  40. Re:I dont care about the car by macshune · · Score: 1

    This dude totally put the wrong body on his car. Although I can't find out why he chose a Camaro because his site is down, he missed out on even more high-fives and conversation snippets like these:

    "OH MY GOD! A FLOATING DELOREAN!"

    "I haven't seen a floating delorean since 2004."

    "The way I see it, if you're gonna build flotation into a car, why not do it with some style?"

  41. Mirror , just in case by pigscanfly.ca · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just in case the server crashes and burns (like they usually do),I have put up a mirror.
    The mirror of http://www.watercar.com/meetbuilder.html is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_215/www.watercar.co m/meetbuilder.html
    The mirror of http://www.watercar.com/ is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_215/www.watercar.co m/
    The mirror of http://www.watercar.com/photo.html is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_215/www.watercar.co m/photo.html

    1. Re:Mirror , just in case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      use a decent browser you fuckwit and cut the parent some slack. jeeez, I can't believe people still get popups today. I bet they still drive a Ford Model T and clothe in english tweed, do you?

  42. Google images by GoClick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do we not yet realize that all slashdotters do is look at pictures and google doesn't tend to cache those?

    1. Re:Google images by JAgostoni · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Where's pigscanfly's missor (pimpin' his hosting business) when we need him? BTW, don't look at my sig ...

    2. Re:Google images by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      Nice to know that kollage edukashun paid off in the spelling department... DOH

  43. Subaru engine used in kit planes by ayeco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    W/o seeing the article, I can understand why they are using the subaru engine. They have been used in kit planes for years.

  44. Boat speeds are measured in knots, not mph by IronBlade · · Score: 4, Informative

    As such Google tells me that 45 mph = 39.1039309 knots.
    Pretty decent speed, that....

    --
    Important info:
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
    http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
    http://www.peakoil.net
    1. Re:Boat speeds are measured in knots, not mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean knots per hour.

    2. Re:Boat speeds are measured in knots, not mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A knot is a unit of speed equal to one nautical mile per hour. It is 1852 metres per hour precisely (approx 1.15 mph or 0.5144 m/s).

    3. Re:Boat speeds are measured in knots, not mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that would be acceleration, not speed.

    4. Re:Boat speeds are measured in knots, not mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      large boats are measured in knots, small runabouts, pwc's and ski boats are all measured in mph

  45. Morons didn't even check out the website by eagl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Buncha morons posting trashtalk here... Lets see how many idiotic comments don't make any sense.

    1. Camaro has 4 seats, not 2, and this boatcar also has 4 seats.
    2. The subaru engine has plenty of power to push a car like this to over 125 mph. The basic camaro RS has less power than that subaru engine and can take a camaro RS to around 135 mph.
    3. It uses a jetdrive, not a prop
    4. It isn't a converted camaro, rather it's a custom design that looks like a camaro and actually uses many suspension parts from a corvette.
    5. If you read the material, you see that the smooth underbody for water use is achieved through moving panels. In land mode, the panels are retracted. This likely disrupts airflow under the body and reduces lift.
    6. Unless you're an aerodynamic engineer, STFU about what the boat hull shape will do to the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The original pre-1998 camaro was shaped like a wing and would flip over at speeds over around 180. This thing is sculpted in a rather different fashion and speculation on it's aerodynamic behavior without knowing the cross sectional shape or doing wind tunnel testing is just that - uninformed speculation.

    Pitiful negative morons bagging on the article without even looking at the website... How about a big cupful of STFU.

    1. Re:Morons didn't even check out the website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think i speak for everyone here when i say that you sir need to post more often. :P

    2. Re:Morons didn't even check out the website by JeremyALogan · · Score: 0, Redundant
      ok, well said but one quarrel...
      5. If you read the material, you see that the smooth underbody for water use is achieved through moving panels. In land mode, the panels are retracted. This likely disrupts airflow under the body and reduces lift.
      the reason sports cars have spoilers, under-body kits, and the like IS to reduce lift... what you ment to say was something like: "This likely disrupts airflow under the body and produces lift." if it reduced lift then all the rice-burners would be putting v-shaped hulls up underneith their cars (thus forcing them off the road while calling it natural selection would then be useless)
    3. Re:Morons didn't even check out the website by El_Smack · · Score: 1

      Pitiful negative morons bagging on the article without even looking at the website... How about a big cupful of STFU.

      I think I just found my new sig. It's applicable to ~40% of the posts around here. :)

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    4. Re:Morons didn't even check out the website by Wayfare · · Score: 1

      His point was that if it still has the boat underbody it will create lift. Take this boat underbody away by sliding panels away or however they do it, you reduce lift.

    5. Re:Morons didn't even check out the website by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But a stock camaro already generates lift at high speeds - the third gen, as previously stated, was much worse - and having some or all of this boat panel shit under there will probably make it worse unless it's flexible and he flattens it rather than sliding it out of the way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by imidazole2 · · Score: 2

    And 125mph is nothing. I take it up to 155mph (Where the speedo cuts off) at least once a week. I'd hate to have my 5.7l V8 gutted for a 4-banger. Thats blasphemy..

    --

    -Imidazole2
    1. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the STi engine puts out around the same horsepower and torque. It probably can't go as fast for a number of reasons.
      Aerodynamics
      Weight
      Gear/final drive ratios

    2. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by xyankee · · Score: 1

      And when that 2004 WRX STi with the four-banger beats you off the line, then what do you say? Let's throw some rally tires on your car and see how far it gets you. Let me guess, tho, you're a NASCAR fan... *yawn*

    3. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the tires.

    4. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For what a comparable Suburu costs, my TA is both cheaper and will dust them no problem when running just at stock and with the super charger and high flow air, it is just a pathetic waste of time for them to even try. No replacement for displacement.

    5. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I own a 2002 Camaro SS...
      I take it up to 155mph (Where the speedo cuts off) at least once a week. I'd hate to have my 5.7l V8 gutted for a 4-banger. Thats blasphemy..

      Don't worry -- if you really do go over 150 mph at least once a week, there's probably a good chance that you and/or your car and/or some innocent bystander is going to get gutted.

    6. Re:I own a 2002 Camaro SS... by Tremo · · Score: 1

      Sheet mon, I have an 88 IROC Camaro with the 305 and it will hit 140. If that rice engine has 300 HP it's gotta move the car faster than 125 unless the gearing is too low.

  47. I did that once by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was driving home from work one day during a flash flood. The bridge that I needed to take was closed because some jackass in a semi truck recked in the storm. I had to drive through a lower elevation and the water was so deep that it got sucked into my air cleaner. In fact it was only an inch or two below my window. My car stalled because of the water in the air filter.

    Pushing a Camaro out of 2.5 feet deep flowing water REALLY sucks.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:I did that once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you do it? Those cars are *heavy*.

  48. another video game inspired story... by BobWeiner · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else immediately think "SpyHunter" while reading the subject header and storyblurb? A few machine gun head-lights and surface-to-air missles, and this guy will be in the same league as the guys using GPS for their real-life Pac-Man game.

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
  49. Re:I dont care about the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "BEEEEEP!"

    Whats that?

    Oh yeah, my karma whore alarm. You set it off. Posting a comment high up in the discussion that has nothing to do with the parent is rule 3 in karma whoredom, right after rules 1 (posting 'its funny, laugh' after a joke) and rule 2 (posting 'can someone explain X' when X is explained in the article).

  50. Packaging and weight... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 0, Insightful
    Seriously. The Subaru 2.5 liter STi engine has the most horsepower for its size/weight ratio in its size class. You are talking about 120 HP per liter, in a 4 cylinder engine, which it freaking MONSTROUS! There are many V8's out there that do not put out that much horsepower!

    Only wonder why they wouldn't remove the standard twinscroll turbo and setup a twin turbo setup and gain another 70-150 HP. Its not like there isn't the room in the Camaro engine bay to fit that type of setup. It is one of the only reasons why the Impreza STi doesn't have a TT, because it takes up so much space that other parts would need to be completely redesigned (i.e. no room for the top mount intercooler, so it would need to be front mounted, the water enjection cooling on the intercooler would need to be removed, as well as the windshield wiper pump/resevoir, etc., which on a street/road car, you will need the windshield wiper fluid). I also believe that they have an issue with the 6 spd transmission which runs the STi being able to handle that much extra HP/torque (especially considering people are blowing the transmission with the stock 300HP setup if they drive it hard), let alone the tranny being able to handle the extra 150HP a good twin turbo setup would give you.

    I am surprised they wouldn't do alcohol injection or NOS injection to thin the fuel mix and gain 30-50HP. Alcohol would be the easiest and cheapest. The stock engine has already been hardened for alcohol, all that would be needed is the resivoir, pump, hoses and you are good to go.

    It is an interesting idea...

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Packaging and weight... by nester · · Score: 1

      go look at what the latest one liter sportbikes are putting out. the zx-10r is 158bhp, iirc. that's NA, btw, no turbo needed! then there's the 1.3l busas. i've forgotten what their hp is.

    2. Re:Packaging and weight... by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      Honda S2000 engine. 120hp per litre N/A. Subaru makes damn nice cars, but they can't match Honda's hp/litre. 240hp out of a 2L engine. Anyone can respect that.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    3. Re:Packaging and weight... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the torque to horsepower ratio sucks on sportbikes, and the rpms are way too high. You have to rev the shit out of them to get anything worthwhile. Granted, they are impressive little engines, but not for cars or carboats. The Subaru engine has plenty of torque (which is necessary for a 4wd car anyway).

    4. Re:Packaging and weight... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention naturally aspirated 4 cylinder engine in the s2000.

      Honda's design philosophy has been, since day one, 'rev up for power'. This all hearkens back to when Mr. Honda himself first attended an F1 race as a child. We all know how small F1 engines are, how high they rev, and how little torque they have. Then again, an open wheel racer weighing a little over 1500lbs with driver and engine doesn't require alot of torque. Look at all of Honda's 4 cylinder engine designs, they all follow the original philosophy.

    5. Re:Packaging and weight... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      N/A is shorthand for Naturally Aspirated.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:Packaging and weight... by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      Alcohol (or even water injection) may have been useful, but I can see why they didn't use n2o.

      n2o can really only be used in short bursts and is really only useful in drag racing. I'll bet that they don't plan on drag racing this beast, so basically the n2o setup will only weigh more and take up extra space for a fairly unneeded HP gain.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
    7. Re:Packaging and weight... by Gnascher · · Score: 1
      Its not like there isn't the room in the Camaro engine bay to fit that type of setup.

      Didja happen to notice that this is a rear-engine configuration? They aren't using the Camaro engine bay for anything but suitcases. :) Heh ... ever try to put anything in the trunk of a camaro? Good job getting the engine in there.

      --
      It's not my fault! It was this way when I got here.
    8. Re:Packaging and weight... by nester · · Score: 1
      Yeah but the torque to horsepower ratio sucks on sportbikes and the rpms are way too high

      so? they're geared for it. i bet 3-6krpm, a busa will pull harder than 90% of the cars out there. and after that, hold on for your life! and try a liter twin, if you want power down low. keep in mind few cars can keep up with even a 600. to make a car keep up with a one liter i4 sportbike, you'll have to spend at least 10 times more on the car (i'm not exagerating).

      you don't feel torque, btw. when most people say "torque" (like on those stupid vw commerials) they really mean low end power. in low gears, the t

    9. Re:Packaging and weight... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      Ummm...dude, that is because the power to weight ratio is so off. Sure, if we put the engine in an open frame, open cockpit, no roof, doors, 1 seat, 4 tires, no floor, no radio, no AC, no heat, no vents, no windows, direct header exhaust, no interior, etc. (like a motocycle) the car would be smoking fast and would easily keep up with the sports bike. Hell, people gutted an old Honda Civic and made 9's on it on the 1/4 mile. Considering the STi makes stock 11's if you drop 1500 pounds, you would see huge improvements.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    10. Re:Packaging and weight... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      At what, 9000 RPM?

    11. Re:Packaging and weight... by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Informative
      Only wonder why they wouldn't remove the standard twinscroll turbo and setup a twin turbo setup and gain another 70-150 HP.

      Most twin turbos are able to add less power than a large single turbo. Most twin turbos are in place to reduce turbo lag (smaller impeller means less mass and a lower spool-up time). This is especially true for sequential turbos, but also tends to apply (although not always) to a "per bank" twin turbo system (such as on other boxer cars, like the Porsche 911 twin turbos). For example, many Supra Turbo tuners will rip out the twin turbo system, and drop in a large single turbo, rebuild their motors, and will end up with 700-1000 HP at the crank. I've also heard of Porsche 993TT owners doing the same thing. That extra 70-150 HP figure is just wrong -- that same figure can be accomplished by other means. Clearly, you're a STi affectionado -- I'm sure that you know more about this car than I do. However, unless there's something special about this motor that breaks all the rules of the conventional internal combustion engine, I seriously disagree with your assessment.

      There is no reason why a twin turbo system will provide more power to this car. If you want more power, change the fuel mapping, drop in some new injectors and increase the boost pressure. I'm guessing that a primary reason to drop that American iron was to lighten up the front end. Turbos tend to add weight. Think of how much weight an additional turbo and associated plumbing will add. Soon, you'll get to a point of diminishing returns (in engine weight) where your STi motor weighs close to the Camaro motor. Given equal weight, I'd take the American iron -- it's torquier and doesn't lag like a turbo...and are generally far, far cheaper.

      I am surprised they wouldn't do alcohol injection or NOS injection to thin the fuel mix and gain 30-50HP. Alcohol would be the easiest and cheapest.

      *Sigh* Is he drag racing this thing? Why would he ever want to do that? These are both things that are only really useful in (lame) street races and in drag races. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's what he built this car for.

      --

      -Turkey

    12. Re:Packaging and weight... by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing that a primary reason to drop that American iron was to lighten up the front end

      Er...make that the rear end.

      --

      -Turkey

    13. Re:Packaging and weight... by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      A twin turbo setup is always not as efficient as a single big turbo.

      Usually people use twin turbos to decrease turbo lag by using one small and one bigger turbo. The smaller turbo spools up quickly to get things moving, then the larger turbo kicks in.

      But in terms of pure power, twin turbo does not make as much sense as a single bigger one. More parts, more maintenance, more complexity, more prone to failure.

    14. Re:Packaging and weight... by operagost · · Score: 1

      A philosophy which produces a car with extremely poor performance in real-world driving conditions.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Packaging and weight... by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment that the s2000 is lackluster when placed side by side with other cars in its price range. However, the chassis and driving dynamics are hard to fault.

  51. My 1999 Camaro can do 100 MPH... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    ...before it hits the chip that cuts the engine. The engine is working, sure, but without the chip I'm sure it could do a lot faster than that. (The engine is at only about 20,000 RPM... I forget what it red lines at, and I'm in a different country at the moment.) I'm sure it could beat 125 MPH without any trouble.

    It's only a 3.8L. The V8 can spank it.

    1. Re:My 1999 Camaro can do 100 MPH... by digital+bath · · Score: 1
      The engine is at only about 20,000 RPM...
      And you still have an engine??
      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    2. Re:My 1999 Camaro can do 100 MPH... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Oops. Take away a zero. Heh. :)

    3. Re:My 1999 Camaro can do 100 MPH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same engine (3800 series II, 3.8L V6), that "chips" out at ~110MPH (the link says 107... better things to pay attention to @ that speed).

      http://www.autobuyguide.com/auto_reviews/1998/19 98 _Oldsmobile_Intrigue.html

      The Autobahn version reaches 128 with the same engine, but a reprogrammed PCM, which you might be able to find here:

      http://www.3800performance.com/

      -Rob

  52. I saw this thing by cheesy9999 · · Score: 1

    I saw this at the Los Angeles boat show a few months ago, it's pretty neat. I talked to the guy, and the only problem is it's extremely hard to get legalized in most states (especially California). It also costs something like $125,000.

    --
    -tom
  53. Re:Photoshop? by sr180 · · Score: 1
    Is it just me or does the picture of that thing on water just look very Photoshopped to me? (or do I call it 'Gimped' around here?

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
  54. Forget the Car...Who's the Girl? by airider · · Score: 3, Funny

    She looks like she's had a good mod job done as well, and fits in with the car nicely!

  55. Mirror by markclong · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've got almost a complete mirror here:
    http://slushdot.org/mirror/watercar/.

    I'm still working on the videos and full images.

  56. girl by xsyberpunk · · Score: 0

    the girl in the pictures is pretty hot. i'll take two.

  57. Fastest Amphibious vehicle my ass. In Soviet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...Russia, they have built stuff like this And that wasn't the fastest one either. To make the long story short, if you want to be fast and amphibious, WIG all the way!

  58. hmm.... by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does auto insurance cover accidents on the water?

  59. Time for a bodyguard or two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The airlines will have their goons on this guy any minute now.

  60. Google Knows it all! by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just search for "40 mph in knots"

    Google calculator really rocks :)

  61. Re:I dont care about the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I thought the first rule was to say "I'll probably get modded down for this but..."

  62. Knight Rider 2000 by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

    Nope - it would actually be KIFT - the Knight Industries Four Thousand - the revamped edition of KITT featured in the ultra short-lived series Knight Rider 2000.

    Although, KITT did have the ability to drive on water in one episode of the original series.

    1. Re:Knight Rider 2000 by Drathus · · Score: 1

      Actually...

      <uber-geek-mode>

      At that point in Knight Rider 2000 it was KITT. Remember, Michael had put KITT's systems into the body of the KIFT, but it was still KITT.

      Cuz KIFT had Maddock's voice.

      </uber-geek-mode>

    2. Re:Knight Rider 2000 by Wayfare · · Score: 1

      Also it wasn't a series, but a movie.

    3. Re:Knight Rider 2000 by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

      WRONG! Knight Rider 2000 was the pilot for a new series that never developed.

  63. Answers the question, "What Would Jesus Drive?" by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    (ripped from somewhere else)

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  64. A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has the same engine as a vette 5.7L Aluminum V8 320Hp, the WRX wins in the curves but the stock WRX does not go 0 to 60 in less than 5s and with a supercharger the camaro SS will do 0 to 60 in less than 4 sec. Say what you will about a camaro but don't knock its ability to accelerate.

    1. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by sudog · · Score: 1

      ... cause we all know the world's one, big straight, clean road! Especially in winter.. oh yea baby!

      So you're comparing a suped-up Camaro SS with a stock WRX?! Stock 2001 Camaro SS does 0-60 in 5.5. Stock NON-STi WRX does it in 5.4. Stock STi does it in 4.3. And if you're somewhere other than long, flat roads where you don't have to steer, bring on the knuckle-draggers any day--suped up or not.

      Ha ha.. don't make me laugh.

      If you really want to talk about suping up, let's talk about a replacement turbocharger for the WRX.. and then let's compare engine reliability and performance of these two, much more "evenly" matched 0-60, beastly machines, mmkay?

    2. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by IrRegEx · · Score: 0

      Get your facts right. The STI is ~4.8 0-60 not 4.3. It just so happens that the 2002 Camaro SS with the 345hp option goes 4.6 0-60 and 13.0 1/4 mile. ( I have one). Older Z28 cars were closer to 5.5 0-60. You'll find that the STI and SS are comparable in performance except top end because the STI stops ~130mph where the SS stops at 160mph. The SS is also geared way to high. I shift into second at 52mph. The SS also had two suspension upgrades (stock), the top upgrade provides a lateral 1g in the skidpad. So the handling is comparable as well. Rice boys need to understand that they don't have the market cornered on handling.

      let's talk about a replacement turbocharger for the WRX.. and then let's compare engine reliability and performance of these two

      I don't compare modified cars, especially when one has a turbo/blower and one doesn't. You have to compare apples to apples. You'll also be very surprised at how reliable the Chevy small block is. There is a reason it's still around. Oh yeah, the EPA says 19mpg/28mpg for my SS with a 5.7 liter V8.

      Just for some insight, a stock bore LS1 engine can easily make 500Bhp with a new cam and some ported heads for less than $3000. Unlike older small blocks, this engine is very tame at 500 horses and VERY streetable.
      --
      #|
    3. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camaro Z28 did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Camaro SS did it in... well, 5.3 second since there is like 10 HP difference.

      Point being that the SS will still be neck and neck with an STi off the line. The SS will completely slaughter the STi in the quarter mile, since the LS1 V8's power band keeps going up to ~ 140mph, while the STi's turbo will become dead weight around (guesstimate here) 80 or so. (Remember that the Z28/SS engine and transmission is the same as was in the C5 Corvette.)

      Of course, introduce a turn? STi wins. Introduce non-ideal, non-track surface conditions? STi wins.

      I used to drive a Z28, and can confirm that they are really only good for going in straight lines. But DAMN they do those lines pretty well.

    4. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Remember that F-Bodies (Camaro, Firebird) used to race into auto-cross (?) or road-rallys and actually win them (think IROC and Trans-Am).. I'm not sure if they raced any imports or whether AWD was allowed/used on anything else back then but...It's not accurate to say Camaros & Firebirds are ONLY good for "Straight-line" racing because they arent AWD - That's just ridiculous.

    5. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      You'll find that the STI and SS are comparable in performance except top end because the STI stops ~130mph where the SS stops at 160mph.

      You must be talking about the WRX - the STi goes up to about 145-150. Some of the 2004s are rumoured to have a speed limiter at about 145, but not all.

      The SS also had two suspension upgrades (stock), the top upgrade provides a lateral 1g in the skidpad.

      I think my car (MR2) does about that standard. With its suspension upgrade and some tuning, it can hit about 1.4.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by IrRegEx · · Score: 0

      You must be talking about the WRX - the STi goes up to about 145-150. Some of the 2004s are rumoured to have a speed limiter at about 145, but not all

      Then they are comparable on that measure as well.

      I think my car (MR2) does about that standard. With its suspension upgrade and some tuning, it can hit about 1.4.

      First thing, the mr2 is really small, nimble and light, handling is almost a given in that car. Second, that last time I drive one of those cars ( second gen ) I was pissing blood for a week. Rough ride!!! Third, we weren't comparing anything to that car.

      We talk about numbers a lot and compare small differences sometimes as if they make any real world difference. ie the difference between 4.6 and 4.8 0-60 is really hard to tell without a stopwatch. Now factor in the varying driver skills and those numbers can even out quickly. With a few aftermarket upgrades, my car can see 1.5-1.7g's. But then again if we start talking about aftermarket upgrades, we can make any car really fast, handle like it's on rails, and the most forgotten upgrade--stop on a dime!!!

      --
      #|
    7. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by IrRegEx · · Score: 0

      Camaro Z28 did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. Camaro SS did it in... well, 5.3 second since there is like 10 HP difference.

      Not in 2002. Stock Z28=310hp, SS had three options -- 320, 335, and 345hp. 2002 Z28's were under 5s because Chevy put in 3.42 gears in that year. Previous years had less gear. The other problem is that Camaro's and Covettes had identical performance numbers ( like you said, they have the same powertrain ) so Chevy would "rate" the Camaro with lower HP numbers and performance data.

      ...The SS will completely slaughter the STi in the quarter mile...

      Not true, they are almost identical from a standstill. Both run low 13's. Those oddball specs we don't pay much attention to like 30-70 reveal the difference between a turbo 4 and a V8

      The WRX STi WR1 will beat the SS -- 0-60 ~4.25 and 1/4 mile 12.80. Of course we'll probably never see this race since those cars aren't sold in the same country ( I think ).

      --
      #|
    8. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by sudog · · Score: 1

      The poster I replied to was talking about stuffing a supercharger into his Cam SS to pull it down into the 3's, and then comparing this with a stock WRX. That's what you call apples to apples?

      If you think those kind of options are stock, let's talk more about the STi.

      Still, there is no comparison. That's precisely what my point was. There is no comparison to make. The SS shouldn't even bother on a winter track, and the WRX shouldn't even bother on the drag strip. Seems simple enough to me.

      I'd still be happy to race you on a mountain, winter, and/or gravel course in my stock WRX. *shrug* It'd be no contest, and I think we both know that.

      I've personally seen STi timesheets w/ 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. Course, that's tearing out the rear seats, everything in the trunk, the passenger seat, etc.. still, that's quite a difference for only a hundred pounds or so. Without that he pulls in 4.6 - 4.7--still a good deal better than the 4.88 quoted literature.

      Anyway the stock 2001 Camaro SS does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. That's stock. So you have a 4.6 0-60, a top speed of 160mph and you only get a 13.0 1/4 mile? Yikes. Long gears, dude.

      Anyway, if you want to talk suspension upgrades to get your 1G skid, I'll pull out APS or Vishnu and wave bye-bye to you with my taillights.

      (BTW: I have a chevy smallblock at home, so.. calm down.)

    9. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by sudog · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. no.. stock WRX does 5.4, so *that* would be neck and neck with a stock SS right off the line. The stock STi would be blasting it. :)

    10. Re:A WRX does not beat a Camaro SS by IrRegEx · · Score: 0

      Whose excited. I was in agreement with you about trying to compare a modified camaro to a stock wrx. That's not fair. The suspension upgrades I mentioned are/were available from the factory, so I do consider them stock. There were two levels above the comfort zone. You can go way over the top with aftermarket, but I wasn't talking about that. Personally, I rate the wrx as thee sport compact car. It's the poster child for a small engine ( turbo ) in a smaller car, awd and all. No one can deny the performance. I stand by my assessment that those two cars are very comparable, except the SS gets a little bit better fuel mileage 19/28mpg, which is due to those really long gears!!! At WOT the 1-2 shift is at 50mph. That's why the first aftermarket upgrade is lower gears. BTW the 2001 and 2002 SS models have very different performance data. My car (2002) is completely untouched from the factory...for now.

      --
      #|
  65. Re:slow as a turtle by karmatic · · Score: 1

    While it would be nice if the eds checked the Last-Modified header, I still found this story to be interesting (well, the mirror anyway). I personally had not seen this before, and enjoyed the "article". Not everyone has been to every site you have.

  66. Is he cuban? by njcoder · · Score: 2, Funny
    He doesn't look cuban. Last time I heard about something like this I read it in the New Yorker about some Cuban refugees that turned a truck into a boat.

    Granted, he did a little more than strap some 55 gallon drums on the side as pontoons. But time is a luxury when you're fleeing from the clutches of a ruthless dictator.

    1. Re:Is he cuban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So *thats* how those guys escaped from Guantanemo...

  67. No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought that a Camaro drove like a boat

  68. Why a Camaro???? by karmatic · · Score: 1

    I had a Camaro in the 70s, and compared to today's cars it was a total piece of garbage. It had dangerous handling, it broke down constantly, it was shoddily constructed, and chunks were falling off of it when it was only 8 years old.

    Maybe a few cars from back then claimed more horsepower than what you can get today. (I kind of doubt it with cars like the Dodge Viper on the market). Keep in mind that horsepower numbers were inflated back then, and the drivetrains and suspensions were not capable of utilizing the horsepower that they had.

    If you read any car magazine, there are plenty of aftermarket shops that do modify today's cars, and they manage to keep them legal as well.

  69. STi engine also has larger displacement by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    STi engine has 2.5 liters of displacement vs the 2.0 liters of the WRX.

    1. Re:STi engine also has larger displacement by NeuroKoan · · Score: 1

      Only in the US. The rest of the world has a closed deck 2.0l engine that puts out the same amount of power.

      --

      "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
  70. Come on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't be the only one who thought:

    A Camaro That Leaves a Wake...OF DESTRUCTION As It Speeds Through Groups of Pedestrians!!!

  71. Re:slow as a turtle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, and if it doesn't run linux or have an iPod built in it has no place here!

    Please keep the novelty car-mod stories on topic :-)

  72. Cool, but nothing new by wouterke · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 1960-era(!) Belgian children TV-show "Kapitein Zeppos" ("Captain Zeppos") featured an amphibious car. The Belgian government-sponsored TV station "VRT" has made a description of the series (in Dutch), which includes a picture of the car.
    Obviously, it didn't go as fast as the camaro, and, according to the site, "turning it was a bad idea, while at the least movement of the water, the car would heavily move from left to right".

  73. What if by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

    What if it starts raining really hard and you hit a puddle, does the car become confused and turn into a boat, making your new destination that tree over there?

    --

    -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
  74. The babe in the photographs by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 2, Funny

    While I am willing to accept that this guy does indeed own this car, I can almost guarantee you that the girl riding with him in the pictures is a rental.

  75. When it can fly, call me by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Until then, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang still has it beat.

    Since the likelihood of my being able to afford a Camero anytime soon is about the same as the chance that Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was a true story, I figure the above is a reasonable comparison.

  76. I don't see the what the big deal is... by A+Boy+and+His+Blob · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure if I drove my car at 125MPH into the water it, at some point, would be going 40MPH in the water.

  77. Re:I dont care about the car by macshune · · Score: 1

    Heh, that's pretty funny.

    But I'm not being a karma-whore. Look at the subject:
    I dont care about the car


    The grandparent didn't care about the car and so i was responding to him. To be entirely ethical I probably shouldn't have replied to the grandparent, but I was in a hurry.

    Also, is there a place where I can consult these canonical rules of karma-whoredom you speak of? Feel free to reply with a link.

    Thanks.

  78. Now with better non breaking transmission? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I once played with the idea of having a WRX, but everytime i was on a track somewhere, 50% of the WRX had broken transmission or turbo. I know someone installed rally gears, but I wouldn't be able to stand the whining. So I wondered if they have been made more robust?

    1. Re:Now with better non breaking transmission? by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I test drive a lot of cars just for the hell of it. Dealers let you get away with anything if you pull up in a nice enough car..

      Anyhoo .. My first drive of an STi (WRX on meth) led to a tow truck after the turbo self-destructed while under heavy acceleration. Oil starvation was the post mortem analysis (duh). Metal shavings (!!) clogged one of the oil passages was the claim. Ouch. That being said, however, it was a fun car to drive if you can deal with the lag. And expensive metallic sounds.

      And don't even get me started on my long walk when the S2000 I was test driving several years ago broke a strut mount while doing some (admittedly!) serious cornering. The salemen said I could autocross it. Yeah.

    2. Re:Now with better non breaking transmission? by melatonin · · Score: 1

      50% of the WRX had broken transmission or turbo

      My advice is to never buy a turbo-charged car. I had one (a '90 Supra Turbo), they're glorious when they work and the engines don't give up (well over 100 km/h and they just keep going), but they WILL blow up. Turbos have a finite lifespan. A turbo forces an engine to do something that it doesn't want to do naturally; you're much better off buying a car that has that much power naturally-aspirated. The problem is, when turbos go, they have a tendency to take some of the engine with them.

      You may save money bhp/$ in the short term, but the cost will catch up to you

      (I'm a bit bitter, but I love my new car).

      --
      Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
    3. Re:Now with better non breaking transmission? by beatleadam · · Score: 1

      ...you're much better off buying a car that has that much power naturally-aspirated...

      In that case, how about this?

      Google Search of "supercharge subaru wrx"

      --
      I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  79. No you fag by ambertch · · Score: 2, Informative

    You obviously know nothing about Subaru's and IHI turbos. Subaru tried a twin turbo setup on the JDM Legacy STi and it did not work well, but that's besides the point. There are probably mainly throttle response and logistical reasons why the USDM STi uses the VF39. The STi doesn't have water injection. No production car has water injection. Some have water spray on their IC's. no one is blowing the 6-speeds on the STi. In fact, I haven't heard of anyone EVER sheering the gears off of ANY STi 6-speed whether imported from the JDM V7 or factory or otherwise. Jeff Sponaugle is running currently 500hp with a FP Green turbo and the 6-speed with no problem and he just became the first pump gas street trim WRX to run 11's a few days ago. What the hell with alcohol injection? how has the stock engine been "hardened" for alcohol injection. Explain to me with some engineering formulas why you believe so.

    1. Re:No you fag by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      no one is blowing the 6-speeds on the STi.

      Actually, some people have managed to do just that. Of course, they did it by abusing the hell of their tranny, so it's nothing to worry about.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  80. Past by arivanov · · Score: 1

    Rover (or one of the companies that are now Rover) did an amphibious vehicle in the late 60-es. Featured here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345 236203/104-7631974-3723944?v=glance

    There was something I personally find more interesting, rewarding and easier to implement. The russians used to make a fairly decent amphibious trailer/mobile home. Forgot the name, but it was quite cool. 12 knots, capable of running in most general freshwater conditions (30 cm max wave) + the general comfort you get from a camping trailer.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  81. Let's go... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

    I bet it hurts being stomped in the twisties by a car with a live rear axle, doesn't it rice boy?

    Care to put your money where your mouth is?

    Didn't think so. Didn't even have the guts to not hide behind AC.

    --
    Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    1. Re:Let's go... by woobieman29 · · Score: 1
      A few comments on your post ...

      1) I fully understand the characteristics of the live rear axle, including the handling pros and cons. Although a live rear axle is hard to beat on a racetrack, these are not the conditions that I drive in everyday. AWD + independent suspension works better in the real world.

      2) You mentioned that "I bet it hurts being stomped in the twisties by a car with a live rear axle, doesn't it rice boy?" - sorry, but you'll have to describe to me how that feels as I have no experience with it firsthand.

      3) You accused me of hiding behind AC. Strange, but it sure doesn't look that way from here.

      4) Finally, it was pretty juvenile to jump right into the insults with the "Riceboy" comment. Try and maintain a bit more dignity next time.

      --
      \/\/oobie
    2. Re:Let's go... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      Umm, that's all well and good... And I think that you will find that we are on much the same side of the discussion overall.

      I wasn't replying to your post. The post I did reply to (and quote from in italics) is here.

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    3. Re:Let's go... by woobieman29 · · Score: 1
      B4RSK,

      I'm really sorry, and I feel pretty darn foolish right about now..

      I use as my only excuse the fact that I am sick as a dog right now, posting from bed via my Zaurus, and somehow it looked to my fever-blurred eyes that your post was attached to mine.

      Very sorry for the misunderstanding.

      --
      \/\/oobie
    4. Re:Let's go... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      No problem. :)

      Hope you feel better soon.

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
  82. Forget a car+boat, I want a car+plane by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Or better yet, a car+helicoptor.

    Unfortunatly, the moment you try to deviate from the "standard" designs of airplanes or helicoptors even slightly, the FAA and other aviation authorities dont wanna touch it :(

    Even if you needed a pilots licence to use one, I think a "flying car" would be very popular with rich people (the kind who currently use executive helicoptors combined with chauffer pilots).

  83. Heh heh... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    Ever watch Monster Garage? One time they took one of those Volkswagon bugs and made it into a car that could float in a swamp. There was a big propeller inside and all kinds of other crazy stuff. I think it would be bitchin to build something like that in a cooler car.

  84. PLEASE! by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    ITs a fscking sales pitch! that entrepeneur is laughing all the way to the bank.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
  85. My ***1993*** Camaro used to do 109 MPH... by gglaze · · Score: 1

    ...before the chip cuts the engine.

    And that was an V6 - I'm sure the V8 could do a lot better than that. So yeah, when I read 125, it was a bit of an anti-climax for me too...

    1. Re:My ***1993*** Camaro used to do 109 MPH... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Hrm. It might have been 109/110 MPH, now that I think of it. It isn't a limit I test a lot. :) It was around 185 km/H, I know that much for certain.

      But yeah, it's just the chip. There's surely better and cheaper ways to get to 125 than putting in a different engine. I went looking for a replacement chip at one point (not because I hit the limit more than once, but just because I knew it was there and it annoyed me) but couldn't find any for a V6. Apparently they're easy to find for a V8, though.

  86. Weight? by unixbob · · Score: 1

    not that I knows anything about these things, but I'd imagine the engine from the Subaru is significantly lighter than the original camaro engine. Probably kinda important when your building a boat

    --
    The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
  87. This is actually really old by Animekiksazz · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing this on TV quite a few months ago and showing a co-worker it and she was simply amazed at it. Frankly so was I, I thought it was a much better car than that otherone available for sale. Anyway, to summarize, it really it quite old.

  88. Not quite ready...? by bobmatnyc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Odd that none of the videos on the site show transitions. The shot of the car driving into the water fades into a full speed shot, and the video of the car driving out never shows it with panels down...

    --
    -- this sig beneath your current threshold
  89. Forced Induction... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

    there is no replacement for displacement, douche!

    Forced induction baby!

    These aren't your grandfather's turbo-charged cars. Or even your father's.

    --
    Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
    1. Re:Forced Induction... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Right, but that LS1 is naturally aspirated. You could turbo/supercharge it too. Camaro enthusiasts routinely go well over 400 HP with forced induction.

    2. Re:Forced Induction... by B4RSK · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course.

      On the most basic level there is no difference between what Subaru is doing and what a Camero enthusiast is doing: Using forced induction to get more power without increasing displacement. The comment I made in my previous post stands.

      Generally speaking though the WRX/Legacy will better suit the resulting engine because the entire car was designed around such an engine.

      (For similar reasons, putting a small-block Chevy engine into a Subaru Legacy/WRX is not going to lead to very good results.)

      (The US Legacy doesn't get an available turbo'd motor until later this year. It has had one in Japan for about 10 years now, maybe more.)

      --
      Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
  90. Aquada, wheels fold up james bond style! by rapiddescent · · Score: 2, Informative
    yes, the Aquaaa is a UK based commercial company that makes a sports car boat thing that sort of looks like a Mazda MX-5/Eunos Roadster. Richard Branson has one so it must be good! The wheels tuck away into the body like the white lotus espirit turbo in (was it Live and Let Die?) the James Bond movie.

    rd

  91. Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why most people think 125MPH is a ridiculous speed? Not long after I bought my 90 Accord 2 years ago I took it for a spin and got it up to 129MPH. I was scared absolutely shitless but it got there after a good minute or two I think. I mean the highest spedometer speed is like 140 so why shouldn't anyone expect it not being able to get up to a couple of miles of that? I think people should instead quote how quickly it can get to that top speed.

    Reflecting back on the experiences that day I have never ever driven that fast again nor will I ever again. Now I follow the speed limit to the digit. Can you imagine the carnage of a wreck at that speed? Holy molly.

  92. Never mind the boat.... by nuckfuts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Check out the floatation devices on the owner's girlfriend :p

  93. Rings a bell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ermmmmm. Who do remind me of? ... Oh, i know- you must be the missing brother of Branden Robinson?

    (those who have seen his old page will know what I'm talking about)

    --Coder

  94. Detail from the site... by mr_mozz · · Score: 3, Informative

    WaterCar Specifications

    The WaterCar is a fiberglass amphibious vehicle styled after the 2002 Convertible Camaro body style. It is powered by a Turbo charged 2.5 Liter 300 HP Subaru engine. The transmission is a Rancho Type I-4 speed manual transmission. The four wheel independent suspension and brakes are late model C-4 Corvette with stainless steel rotors.

    The WaterCar can reach speeds in excess of 125 MPH on land and the drivability with the Corvette suspension is outstanding. Once the WaterCars is driven into the water all four wheels are hydraulically retracted with the flip of a switch. The bottom covers that enclose the wheel well are also hydraulically extended to create a smooth high speed bottom which allows the WaterCar to easily hit speeds of 40 MPH on the water. The Marine Drive is a Berkeley 12JE Jet Drive with a place diverter to control the ride depending on water conditions. The WaterCar has four usable seats and the doors are fully functional. The aircraft style lock assembly assures the doors are completely water tight for water operation. The WaterCar has a removable center mount ski pole which makes it ideal for wake boarding or skiing.

    This sporty four-seater makes it possible to drive to the lake, experience an exhilarating boat ride and drive back home again without ever leaving your car!

  95. salt + metal = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rust test in progress.

    not to mention, this amphibious creations lacks any degree of V in its hull to handle choppy conditions. anything over 2-3 ft chop will make it sink.
    freshwater only. otherwise, this turd is bound for the rust heap.
    i'll take my eliminator daytona 21' Mercury Hi-Perf 2.5 Outboard over this anyday. 109 MPH with fogged NOS. Motorcycles solve traffic problems, not expensive, low production turds like these. good invention otherwise. creative engineering. i have an appreciation for that.

    I'm sure it will resolve traffic problems world wide.

    -
    AC

  96. you can tell it's fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, real tits just don't look like that.

  97. nice shoes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.watercar.com/images/25large.jpg

    Now i know why the car floats.

  98. Amphicars by silverbax · · Score: 1

    These cars have been around for awhile, back in the 60's they were called 'Amphicars'.

  99. How about building a hovercar from a classic Lotus by speculatrix · · Score: 2
    http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/M/monst ergarage/index.html

    The recent program converted a classic rare (the heresy!) Lotus into a hovercraft!

    Channel4 TV recently started a series, loosely like "ScrapHeap Challenge" (equivalent to the USA's "Junkyard Wars"), where a team of people have to convert one vehicle into another. Unlike the junkyard/scrapheap, they have money to spend!

    I'd love to enter one of these TV programmes, but it seems to me that the key members of the team need to have metal-working skills, welding being the main one! I could do the electrics, but my software skills would probably be wasted :-(

  100. Something wrong here... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    So there's a Trans-Camaro out there that isn't sitting on cinder blocks? And the body panels aren't a mix of primer red and primer gray?

  101. Bitchin' Camaro by ol2o · · Score: 3, Funny

    That is truely a Bitchin' Camaro.

  102. That'd be "rear-engine" by Politas · · Score: 1

    The engine is behind the rear wheels, not in front of them. That makes it a rear-engine, like the old VW beetle and Porsche 911s.

    --

    Politas

  103. Easiest way to find the price by RamboCalrissian · · Score: 1

    Once again, just plug all those factors into google, and let it take care of it!

  104. Aluminum block V8 by RogL · · Score: 1

    And on the weight issue...

    The Camaro/Firebird V8 has been an aluminum-block since '98 (possibly '97, but definitely since '98). The LS1 was introduced in the Corvette, then the F-bodies picked it up. My wife's car is a '00; I've driven raucous high-horsepower cars, but this one is very smooth in normal driving. You'd never know it has 305-HP, and even more torque. Later years, and the SS versions, pumped out even more power stock.

    If you had the room for the install, the torquey V8 could use a lower cruising RPM, hopefully a longer life than the turbo-4.

    1. Re:Aluminum block V8 by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      Actually, the LS1 in the f-bodys (4th gen Camaros/Firebirds) was underrated by GM to keep it well behind the Corvette on paper. Add about 30hp to the flywheel rating GM uses.

      -Lucas
      LT1 F-body Owner

    2. Re:Aluminum block V8 by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      Isn't the 305hp rating at the wheels? I was under the impression that the auto industry has been using hp at the wheels for over 30 years as the standard, rather than the flywheel horsepower used during the muscle car era.

      What hp do they claim at the flywheel?

    3. Re:Aluminum block V8 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if we were given rwhp but in actuality automakers still give horsepower ratings in bhp. With that said, some of the more powerful cars have ratings which are lower than their actual output for some reason. This is however more true in other countries than in this one, especially japan in which the limit is 276ps or 267hp something like that. (hell, those two things might be the same amount of power.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Aluminum block V8 by Nintendork · · Score: 1
      A google search produced this article.

      -Lucas

  105. YES! by Hagakure · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hopefully the Dead Milkmen will get workin' on

    FISHIN' CAMARO!

    this comment dedicated to Dave Blood, RIP

    --


    If this is Heaven I'm bailin out! I cant tolerate this ol tin-tub, so fulla trash and rats...
  106. Re:Amphicars (cool site) by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    Cool Amphicar site here A jeweler on Lake Minnetonka in Wayzata, Minnesota owns one of the Amphicars and drives it in parades and on the water during summer weekends.

    I like the Gibbs Aquada too. As posted above, more expensive. But you have to like those retracting wheels.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  107. grandparent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just got PWN3D!!

  108. They ruined that car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by putting a crappy import engine in an American car.

  109. Google Pic Whoring by dukeisgod · · Score: 1

    Here's a picture from a google image search. It's a convertible, cool! http://www.amphibiousvehicle.net/amphi/W/watercars pecial/watercar-a.jpeg

  110. Re:Photoshop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? Gimp? Locked in a box, fucked up the ass and peed on?

  111. This is why /. rocks by darthcamaro · · Score: 1

    Wild crazy story - and then there was a poster early on who mirrored the site - which by the way still won't load... I'm not about to change my Camaro into a freakin water car..but if anyone has any links to how I can add a do-it-yourself hyperdrive, I'd very interested.

  112. big wheel openings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitting a chop or waves with those big wheel openings would be unpleasant (skid, flip... periscope up!)

  113. Re:How about building a hovercar from a classic Lo by Drathus · · Score: 1

    Not a new show. Just a new show to your side of the pond. =P

    Monster Garage has been on the Discovery Channel for a few years here in the States.

    And I have no idea who this "Cookie" guy is, but he's no Jesse James.

    And if you think Monster Garage is amusing... Monster House is ... disturbing. =P

  114. Re:I dont care about the car by j-turkey · · Score: 1
    "OH MY GOD! A FLOATING DELOREAN!"

    Dude, all Deloreans were floaters. :)

    --

    -Turkey

  115. A couple points... by tgd · · Score: 1

    Aluminum block V8's are fairly light, as light as a small 4 or 6 cyl turbo iron block motor... something us classic 911 owners know very well. A common (frowned upon) swap is a small aluminum block V8 into a 911, and the engine weight is basically the same as compared to a very small displacement six.

    Secondly, although I can't read the slashdotted site, I'd hazard a guess the engine swap was to be able to use a Subie transmission more than anything else... so you can drive the car with the front wheels and use the driveshaft going to the rear differential to drive it in the water.

    Could be totally off-base, but thats how I'd do it, and would be why I'd consider that sort of a transplant in that case.

    People have started putting those Subaru engines in 911's, too... they fit very nicely and have lots of very reliable power.

  116. Oh yea..its only been DONE BEFORE! by irokin · · Score: 1


    and this slashdot article isnt really even that interesting...something like this would be better

  117. They did this on Monster Garage a while back by MinusBlindfold · · Score: 1

    Yes... they took a 1998 VW beetle... dropped an engine in the back for a 'blower'.The thing didn't go very fast, and by the end of their test the thing was sinking hardcore.... at least they made it back to shore.

  118. Top speed 125mph? by HTMLSpinnr · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing this is limited due to the 4 speed Tranny more than body/weight/horsepower.

    --
    $ man woman *
    -bash: /usr/bin/man: Argument list too long
  119. Didn't see the web site by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    But I saw it on the news here in Detroit, The pictures don't do it justice to the action footage. If you've got about 150K to blow, why not?

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  120. OT: your sig quote by mwood · · Score: 1

    Are you sure it isn't this one:

    Of all of the words of tongue or pen,
    the saddest are these: "it might have been."

  121. Yeah that'd be sweet by GoClick · · Score: 1

    Yeah I'd take a RV-Sub, I'd use it as my underwater lair

  122. Ever sit in the back seat of a camaro? by GoClick · · Score: 1

    I know several people with GM F body cars those back seats are a joke and you know it, no grown adult can sit with 4" of rear leg room, don't go running to the spec sheets because they move the seats for mesuring and if you're getting the full 10" in the back it's because the front seat is all the way forward.

  123. spellming? by GoClick · · Score: 1

    Me no spellming. My culleg want banckrupt 1/2 wey thro tha two-nd symestire -- Actually it really did, which is a kick in the ass cause the student body wanted to sue.

  124. Google plus common sense database? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
    Wasn't there a rules engine project some time ago that was trying to codify common sense? It was a few years ago, and I remember they had a few million common-sense statements encoded, but I don't remember many details of the project (like it's name, for starters).

    Wouldn't Google and this sort of rather extraordinary database be a great combination? The parent to this post is pretty incredible, when you get down to it.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  125. Its not a camaro by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It LOOKS like one, but from the images, it was created in fiberglass.. so its not really a chevy thats been converted...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----