[d4nth3m4n]

forgot i took these -













nice parking job huh? gotta love brooklyn.

[Cadaver]

Because more stickers makes the car go faster...

[Cubeoid]

I think Ca$h would like this thread. :smile:

[tooki]

The chartreuse color makes the brakes work better, duh!



tooki

[SuvsareRetarded]

that is definitely a mexi-ride.

[hickey]

I love the spray paint on the front bumper, it really sets it apart from the other crappy riced out Mitsu's out there.

And the hoodpins without any actual pins in them rock!

[Rolling Bones]

Someone lost their atomizer in the gutter by the front wheel.

Some poor guy is probably choking in the alley.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Saw this civic at the gas station. 2 exhaust. Inline 4 cylinder. WHY!?!?! Dumbass. Then the guy was like "OH MY GOD! I REARRY DUNNO WHY IT SOUNDS RIKE ASS!" so he checked:



Diagnosis: Retard.


Ooooo ford ZX2! Sounds like a more exciting name for ford escort! With a bunch of white **** all over it! Boy he sure must look urban in hick town!


No comment.


Um... what?


Quality ride. If you're in Mexico.


Kristin's 89 accord after I threw new rotors and pads and caliper paint on it. hehehehe. You never see it though, because of the wheels, but it's nice to know that high performance red color is there somewhere.

[Bad Poetry]

Rob the Hypocrite
Loves to Make Fun of Posers
Then Posts His Own Rice

[Dark Helmet]

Gross, but I have seen worse. At least it wasn't that ugly Joker purple.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Bad Poetry the self explained
Thinks that rust preventative paint is rice
Even though it is not visible

[E's Lil Theorem]

Check this beauty out:

[TurboMac]

What I don't understand is why you would take a perfectly good Corvette and do this to it?

[dark3lf]

Originally Posted by tooki

The chartreuse color makes the brakes work better, duh!

I don't think the word chartreuse is allowed to be spoken in Crooklyn

[wdlove]

Nice pictures.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

What I don't understand is why you would take a perfectly good Corvette and do this to it?

I actually like that! Think Different!

[hickey]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

What I don't understand is why you would take a perfectly good Corvette and do this to it?

I think that a company did that a few years to try and commemorate the 50 year anniversary of the vette, or something like that. Still looks like crap though.

[TurboMac]

This is what a true custom should look like

[stevesnj]

http://www.laughatrice.com/

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

This is what a true custom should look like

Um.... window tint and some rims makes something instantly custom? Sorry, I think that's boring as ****. Any asshole with money could do that in less than 24 hours. Buy new car. Put on new rims. Drop off at tint shop. Woop dee ****ing doo.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

What I don't understand is why you would take a perfectly good Corvette and do this to it?

I think one of the reasons that looks so awful is htey left the Z06 rims on it. They were going for a retro thing paying tribute to the 53 vette, which they did a decent job at, then they left soem angular wheels on it. That basically looks just as stupid as a 53 vette with those rims.

I wonder if htey installed a 2 speed AUTOMATIC like the first vette?

[TurboMac]

There is a lot more to it than that I am afraid. The bumpers were all shaved and shaped, the motor was blow out of proportion, and the interior was totally redesigned. Yes it looks like they threw some tint and rims on, But that is what I like. Something majorly custom that doesn't really look like it is custom at all. Not to mention it is a Sexy Beast!

Chip Foose does a lot of this type of custom work as well. There is something to be said at keeping the spirit of the original car in question.

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Um.... window tint and some rims makes something instantly custom? Sorry, I think that's boring as ****. Any asshole with money could do that in less than 24 hours. Buy new car. Put on new rims. Drop off at tint shop. Woop dee ****ing doo.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

There is a lot more to it than that I am afraid. The bumpers were all shaved and shaped, the motor was blow out of proportion, and the interior was totally redesigned. Yes it looks like they threw some tint and rims on, But that is what I like. Something majorly custom that doesn't really look like it is custom at all. Not to mention it is a Sexy Beast!

Chip Foose does a lot of this type of custom work as well. There is something to be said at keeping the spirit of the original car in question.

To me, that's not custom. It's called 'tuned'. Engine mods to make something faster and a few interior tweaks with some leather with a stock appearing car doesn't really fit in well with teh whole custom car scene. I agree with you though, subtle is better, but that thing looks stock. I'm looking at pics and I still don't see how the bumper has changed at all.

BTW: How is the motor blown out of proportion? Do you mean it's 'blown', which is referring to a blower, which is referring to a supercharger? What exactly is out of proportion?

[himself]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

That's gangsta!

[TurboMac]

Well since I wasn't exactly talking directly to you. I figured I would make a general statement. It isn't really blown, its supercharged. I know you know what that means, but I am not sure others do or care. But yes I should be more specific. Here is something more along your lines:



Happy! j/k

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

Well since I wasn't exactly talking directly to you. I figured I would make a general statement. It isn't really blown, its supercharged. I know you know what that means, but I am not sure others do or care. But yes I should be more specific. Here is something more along your lines:



Happy! j/k

....

You are not understanding car lingo. Superchargers are called 'blowers'. Blower is 'slang' for supercharger. If someone says an engine is 'blown', and they say it in a good way, they mean that it is supercharged.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

Well since I wasn't exactly talking directly to you. I figured I would make a general statement. It isn't really blown, its supercharged. I know you know what that means, but I am not sure others do or care. But yes I should be more specific. Here is something more along your lines:



Happy! j/k

....

You are not understanding car lingo. Superchargers are called 'blowers'. Blower is 'slang' for supercharger. If someone says an engine is 'blown', and they say it in a good way, they mean that it is supercharged.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

....

You are not understanding car lingo. Superchargers are called 'blowers'. Blower is 'slang' for supercharger. If someone says an engine is 'blown', and they say it in a good way, they mean that it is supercharged.

Rob is almost correct here. A "blower" is actually a technical term for a specific type of positive-displacement pump. A "Roots Blower" is one such pump with two lobed counter-rotating rotors, and the design is popular for superchargers on engines. There are other types of superchargers, like screw-type and centrifugal. Turbochargers are technically a sub-class of superchargers but it's common to refer to them separately. If someone says their engine has a "blower," it means it has a supercharger, and usually means it could be of any design exept a turbocharger, where the term "turbo" would be used instead.

And yes, "blown" means "supercharged." If someone wants to describe a catostrophic engine failure, they say something like, "I blew my engine last weekend."

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Rob is almost correct here. If someone says their engine has a "blower," it means it has a supercharger, and usually means it could be of any design exept a turbocharger, where the term "turbo" would be used instead.

Superchargers are called 'blowers'. Blower is 'slang' for supercharger. If someone says an engine is 'blown', and they say it in a good way, they mean that it is supercharged.

Isn't that what I just said? How am I 'almost' correct?

[wallinbl]

Can someone please explain the use of the term rice in relation to cars that look ridiculous?

[TurboMac]

Actually the way I see it is, a blower and a supercharger are the same but different. A blower referrs to the Large air induction on top of a supercherger. If the supercharger is fed through the normal air intake isn't it different? Just asking.

Also the term Rice is = Riceburner = non-domestic car. Kind of a deragatory term, and I derailed it by adding pics of american custom cars. But people would call a mustang with type R tags on it to be a ricer though. Its up to your interpritation.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Can someone please explain the use of the term rice in relation to cars that look ridiculous?

http://www.riceboypage.com/what_is_riceboy/

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

Actually the way I see it is, a blower and a supercharger are the same but different. A blower referrs to the Large air induction on top of a supercherger. If the supercharger is fed through the normal air intake isn't it different? Just asking.

Um. No. If you're talking about this: (the big shiny part)



That is not called a blower. That's just an air scoop. As for a normal air intake, I have no idea what you're talking about but it's obvious you don't know a whole lot about cars. That's fine, just don't use the lingo, it just makes things more confusing for everybody else.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by TurboMac

Kind of a deragatory term

It's not "kind of". It pretty much is.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

It's not "kind of". It pretty much is.

From the link I provided:

"The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory. Some people might say that regardless of what this disclaimer says, it makes Asians look bad. Well, I hate to break it to these people but asians are not the only people on this planet who eat rice. Everyone eats rice. White people eat rice. Black people eat rice. Native Americans? They eat rice. Europeans eat rice!! And, if you open your eyes, you might notice that a whole lot of the rice-boys out there aren't even asian! The "rice" really refers to their cars. It's not about their race, it's about their attitude!"

[TurboMac]

Don't be a prick Rob. I know a lot about cars, I have grown up working and drag racing cars. I have never owned a car with a super charger. I was under the impression that the blower was the air scoop on the supercharger. No big deal and certanly not enough to tell me I don't know a whole lot about cars. I just don't know a lot about superchargers. Don't be so general. I actually know a lot about turbo's/intercoolers though as I have been around Grandnationals since the 80's and still am.

[ghporter]

I always thought that turbochargers were a lesser breed than superchargers, as turbos are run from exhaust gas, while superchargers are powered by crankshaft (or an immediate derivitave thereof) rotation. Difference? Superchargers ALWAYS do something, while turbos have to spool up before they can do anything.

I think back to the early 80s and putting telephones in Mercedes Turbo Diesel sedans...those things sucked at acceleration! I nearly got creamed by a truck my Civic (the one I had THEN) could have gotten past ten times while trying to pull out of a side street while road testing one of those pricey pieces of stuff.

Here in San Antonio, I have a lot of opportunity to see "customized" Japanese cars. I have to wonder two things. First, what did those poor, unsuspecting cars do to deserve being molested so badly? And second, why is it that you so seldom see a completed conversion? I don't think I've seen more than 1% of these cars finished-they're almost all works in progress.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I always thought that turbochargers were a lesser breed than superchargers, as turbos are run from exhaust gas, while superchargers are powered by crankshaft (or an immediate derivitave thereof) rotation. Difference? Superchargers ALWAYS do something, while turbos have to spool up before they can do anything.

The problem is parasitic loss. GENERALLY, superchargers use a belt to compress the air. This means instant boost, but at higher RPMS, it makes less and less power, because it is actually requiring more and more power to operate. Turbos, on the other hand, use the exhaust gases to basically 'pump' more air into the engine. More air in= more exhaust= more air in= more exhaust. They're basically getting tons of extra power 'free', without any parasitic loss.

I think back to the early 80s and putting telephones in Mercedes Turbo Diesel sedans...those things sucked at acceleration! I nearly got creamed by a truck my Civic (the one I had THEN) could have gotten past ten times while trying to pull out of a side street while road testing one of those pricey pieces of stuff.

Go test drive a WRX. 80s turbo technology is completely dated. What you just said is akin to someone saying "Apple computers suck! I used one back in 1988 and it was awful, had a big floppy drive, it was very slow, and the graphics were pretty bad. That must mean that all macs suck!"

Here in San Antonio, I have a lot of opportunity to see "customized" Japanese cars. I have to wonder two things. First, what did those poor, unsuspecting cars do to deserve being molested so badly? And second, why is it that you so seldom see a completed conversion? I don't think I've seen more than 1% of these cars finished-they're almost all works in progress.

1. The cars were purchased by idiots who's ideals are programmed by superstreet magazines and MTV making htem think being fast and furious is cool and classy.
2. Because at some point, most of them realize it's a stupid idea and grow up. It takes a LOT of money to complete a car project, paint alone (if it's a GOOD paint job) can cost well over 3 thousand dollars, think more like 5ish for a nice job. Then throw in $1500 for wheels, at least a few grand for engine parts, etc etc etc etc. Very expensive.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Superchargers are called 'blowers'. Blower is 'slang' for supercharger. If someone says an engine is 'blown', and they say it in a good way, they mean that it is supercharged.

Isn't that what I just said? How am I 'almost' correct?

I was referring to the fact that there is a technical definition for "blower." It is also used colloquially to (erroneously) refer to any type of mechanically-driven supercharger. You weren't wrong, I was just pointing out something something extra.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

The problem is parasitic loss. GENERALLY, superchargers use a belt to compress the air. This means instant boost, but at higher RPMS, it makes less and less power, because it is actually requiring more and more power to operate. Turbos, on the other hand, use the exhaust gases to basically 'pump' more air into the engine. More air in= more exhaust= more air in= more exhaust. They're basically getting tons of extra power 'free', without any parasitic loss.

This, I am sure, is not quite right. Turbos generate boost on the intake side and backpressure on the exhaust side. An ideal turbo would actually make more boost than backpressure, and the boost pressure pushing on the pistons during the intake stroke would actually contribute to the overall power of the engine (and this effect is in addition to the raised combustion pressure that the boost causes). However, most real turbo applications have more backpressure than boost, so the engine must lose some power by having to push exhaust out at a higher pressure. The raised combustion pressure, of course, more than cancels out this effect (or otherwise you could take the turbo off and gain power), but to say that turbos have no parasitic loss is misleading. But even a marginal turbo will have less parasitic loss than a mechanical supercharger, which takes 100% of its driving power directly off the crankshaft.

The advantage of a positive-displacement supercharger geared to the crankshaft is that both engine flow and supercharger flow increase with RPM at the same rate (since they are geared together). Ideally, a positive-displacement supercharger would have a perfectly flat torque curve and boost curve, even at low RPM. A turbocharger needs a certain amount of gas flowing through it before it can "kick off" and have the positive feedback mechanism that Rob described. Thus, turbos are known for not being able to make boost at low RPM. There is also a dynamic effect dealing with the inertia of the rotating assembly of the turbo, but in my experience this type of lag is secondary to the RPM-based "lag" I described.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

"The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory. Some people might say that regardless of what this disclaimer says, it makes Asians look bad. Well, I hate to break it to these people but asians are not the only people on this planet who eat rice. Everyone eats rice. White people eat rice. Black people eat rice. Native Americans? They eat rice. Europeans eat rice!! And, if you open your eyes, you might notice that a whole lot of the rice-boys out there aren't even asian! The "rice" really refers to their cars. It's not about their race, it's about their attitude!"

Everyone eats fried chicken and watermelon as well. Your argument is pathetic. It's still a derogatory term.

[ghporter]

Backpressure and "combustion pressure" aside, the whole point of both turbo- and superchargers is to compress the intake air so that there is a whole lot of air on each intake stroke. And SuvsareRetarded, I think the WRX gets a lot of help in the pep department from both NOT being a diesel and using a computer-controlled injection system.

And as I pointed out, you have to get a turbo going up to a certain RPM (its own RPMs, not the engine's) before it produces noticable boost, which is true of superchargers too, BUT superchargers spin BECAUSE of the crankshaft, so they spin faster, earlier, producing more boost at lower engine RPMs. The down side of a supercharger is that at some point (sometimes a theoretical point) the supercharger's turbine blades are goint to get pretty close to supersonic, and that causes turbulence, cavitation, and uneven air distribution.

[hickey]

I had no idea that blades inside a supercharger could reach near supersonic speeds, thats incredible

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Everyone eats fried chicken and watermelon as well.

Incorrect, sorry. I don't eat fried chicken.

Egg fried rice, on the other hand...

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Backpressure and "combustion pressure" aside, the whole point of both turbo- and superchargers is to compress the intake air so that there is a whole lot of air on each intake stroke.

This is true. It's all about increasing the mass airflow through the engine. But remember, more air crammed into the same space (the cylinders) means it's at a higher pressure. Pressure is what pushes on the piston and does work. All these factors are mathematically related, it's just a question of how you want to think about it.

And SuvsareRetarded, I think the WRX gets a lot of help in the pep department from both NOT being a diesel and using a computer-controlled injection system.

I test-drove a SAAB 9-2X (not a WRX but close) and I was not impressed with the low-end torque of the engine. I had very little muscle below about 4000-4500 RPM. I didn't get to really wind it out but I'm sure it had great power up top. But around town, it lacked grunt.

And as I pointed out, you have to get a turbo going up to a certain RPM (its own RPMs, not the engine's) before it produces noticable boost, which is true of superchargers too, BUT superchargers spin BECAUSE of the crankshaft, so they spin faster, earlier, producing more boost at lower engine RPMs.

It's not just about speed, though. The airflow through a positive-displacement supercharger is linearly proportional its speed. The airflow through a centrifugal compressor (like a centrifugal supercharger or the compressor side of a turbo) is proportional to speed raised to some power (like 3). It's this nonlinear relationship that makes the boost "come on" at a certain critical RPM but not below it.

Here's an example to support my point: take a centrifugal supercharger geared to the crankshaft. Just because the compressor rotor is being spun by the engine doesn't mean it's making good boost. The boost vs. RPM (and torque vs. RPM) plot of an engine with a centrifugal supercharger will look like an exponential curve, not a flat line. That's why I don't like centrifugal superchargers - they have all the drawbacks of a turbo with none of the benefits of a (positive-displacement) supercharger.

On a side note, centrifugally supercharged engines are also very difficult to drive fast. Give it a little too much throttle and the engine climbs a few hundred RPM, which pulls it more into the torque band, which pulls the RPM up even more, which means even more torque... it's unstable. Falling torque curves are much easier to drive.

The down side of a supercharger is that at some point (sometimes a theoretical point) the supercharger's turbine blades are goint to get pretty close to supersonic, and that causes turbulence, cavitation, and uneven air distribution.

This is true, but I would avoid using the term "turbine blades" in reference to supercharger. It doesn't have blades, it has "rotors" which have "lobes." Blades are found on dynamic, not positive-displacement, devices like turbochargers, centrifugal superchargers, and jet engines. Also, "turbine" generally refers to where the the pressure drops and power is being extracted, not where the pressure rises and power is being put in ("compressor" would be the appropriate term here).

Superchargers are not the only devices that are limited by the speed of sound. A naturally aspirated engine will "choke" its intake valves, which is generally the limit on power. Turbos can also choke their turbine housings, leading to huge power losses. Since turbos are dynamic devices, the blade tip speeds normally exceed the speed of sound by a good margin. The turbo on the last engine I worked on spun up to 230,000 RPM!!

[JoshuaZ]

All these cars need little rancing stripes and flames. Lots of flame stickers. Yeah, thats cool stuff.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

The raised combustion pressure, of course, more than cancels out this effect (or otherwise you could take the turbo off and gain power), but to say that turbos have no parasitic loss is misleading.

But they have no 'net' loss. It's a win-win situation.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

Everyone eats fried chicken and watermelon as well. Your argument is pathetic. It's still a derogatory term.

Actually, you are stupid and pathetic. It isn't my argument. Like I quite clearly stated, it is from the link I provided, one of the oldest riceboy sites around, written by an asian guy who hates 'ricers'. Learn to effing read. Also, the definition I gave says, quite clearly, in the first sentence, "The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory"

I'll repeat it a few more times since you're apparently too dumb to comprehend anything:

"The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory"
"The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory"
"The term "Rice-Boy" is meant to be a derogatory term. But not racially derogatory"

Also, here are a few links, which I will provide a few of, because again, you can not read, and you accuse me of making opinions when I clearly stated they were from another webpage.

http://www.riceboypage.com/what_is_riceboy/
http://www.riceboypage.com/what_is_riceboy/
http://www.riceboypage.com/what_is_riceboy/

Dumbass.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by ghporter

And SuvsareRetarded, I think the WRX gets a lot of help in the pep department from both NOT being a diesel and using a computer-controlled injection system.

Exactly my point. Saying that turbocharger suck because you've driven a 1980s turbo diesel mercedes is a pretty stupid statement.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

But they have no 'net' loss. It's a win-win situation.

I will have a reply for you, but not tonight. If I start doing thermodynamics calculations I'll be up until 1 AM. More to come...