SVT in for service, and the rental is... - Page 2

blee · 10-28-2004, 05:00 PM

Got my car back today. For you local guys, Springfield Auto Body does great work. My bumper looks excellent.

As for the 3, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a 5-door version, which comes with the more powerful 2.3L engine putting out 160hp, 17" wheels, and random other stuff. It's a roomy compact car with a useful hatch and enough performance to keep my entertained. The slushie REALLY killed some of that enjoyment, so I have to limit my critique somewhat in that respect.

That said, I think the Duratec engine in that car -- while a philosophical improvement over the Zetec -- is a little disappointing. I can't really comment on acceleration, except to say that it's slow with the auto. What I can comment on is that the engine runs out of breath well before redline. It seems to hit peak torque at some point, then kinda peter out. Disappointing, especially when it takes time before the engine winds up to that sweet spot from a stop. This is certainly not uncommon among I4 engines. I believe that only the VW/Audi 1.8T provides any sort of appreciable thrust down low. I would definitely want more top-end in this car.

The suspension was comfortable. It was also quite nimble, owing as much to the car's weight as its geometry. The car felt very confident in tight curves, and the manumatic feature allowed me to hold 2nd gear through some of the more interesting road snippets around here. I think that Mazda engineers decided to tune the suspension in favor of slightly more comfort, though, and it shows as a somewhat vague feel for the road and a sense of floatiness in bumpy or aggressive situations. The car comes with 205-something 17" tires, compared to the 215/45 on the Focus.

Finally, the car is very quiet inside. It's certainly way more quiet than my Focus, and probably even more quiet than our Civic. In fact, it's quite civilized itself. The stereo display reads "Hello !" when you start the car, followed by a little blinking-light show that reminds me of some of those bookshelf stereo systems before they got ridiculously tacky. The IP cluster is laid out well but illuminated very poorly IMO. It's one of those setups where everything must be illuminated from behind to be seen, which is fine at night but can be annoying in bright light. I guess it makes for a cool effect, sort of like the Vibe/Matrix gauges. The seats feel thin but rigid. They put on airs of being firm and supportive, and I guess they're about 75% right on that.

What I find interesting is that my main niggle with the 3 are "corrected" in my SVTF -- more power up high, tighter suspension, less tricky gauges. I will say that the Mazda feels more substantial and more "family friendly," to the extent that my wife vastly prefers the 3 over the SVTF. And if the SVT Focus were not available -- as is the case today -- I probably would've bought the 3. On top of that, the Duratec seems to have a lot of tuning potential and I wouldn't be surprised to see modded Duratecs putting out some impressive numbers in a few years.

Bottom line: Good, solid car for the money. Family friendly. Not the most sporting, but sporting enough to get by for most folks.

blee · 10-28-2004, 05:04 PM

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. In the lot at Springfield was a '64 Sting Ray convertible with some NCRS emblems on the front license plate area. The car was a gorgeous black and had Zora Arkus-Duntov's signature in silver paint pen just above the crossed flags badge on the left fender. There were very few miles on it, and the hood was removed because it was being painted in the shop. My jaw dropped when I saw the 350 sitting in that huge expanse of an engine bay, complete with side pipes. The car even had a tag hanging from one of the radio dials, explaning that optimum reception may be had 25 miles away from airports or some such thing (ostensibly printed at the factory and placed in there prior to delivery in 1964).

God, it was beautiful. I want one.

*clyde* · 10-28-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blee

'64 Sting Ray

My jaw dropped when I saw the 350 sitting in that huge expanse of an engine bay, complete with side pipes.

My jaw would have dropped too since the 350 wasn't used until 1969 and side exhaust wasn't an option until 1965.

lemming · 10-28-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyde

Quote:

Originally Posted by blee

'64 Sting Ray

My jaw dropped when I saw the 350 sitting in that huge expanse of an engine bay, complete with side pipes.

My jaw would have dropped too since the 350 wasn't used until 1969 and side exhaust wasn't an option until 1965.

what a freaking wisea$$.

B: i don't think you should take that from our rotarian, Snyde.

blee · 10-28-2004, 08:55 PM

Hmm, interesting. The engine said 350 on it and the car definitely had side pipes. It also won awards in 2001 and 2002 from NCRS. This has a few implications:

1. It isn't a 64 Corvette.
2. The numbers don't match.
3. Clyde is wrong on at least some counts.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that it isn't a '64, but I have a hard time believing that a low-mileage Vette with NCRS honors would go around with the wrong engine and an incorrect option. At the same time, options availability is very well-known among Vette enthusiasts.

It's also possible, I suppose, that the owner pulled out the 327 in favor of a 350 for some reason. Why he would do that to a fully restored period correct Sting Ray is beyond me, however, considering the cost involved in restoration.

It's also possible that I misread the valve covers on that engine, but I doubt that. But now you've got me really intrigued.

blee · 10-28-2004, 09:00 PM

More info:

http://www.actions.com/corvette/64.html

What is an "off road exhaust system?"

Furthermore, more research shows that Clyde is right on the engine option. I don't know wtf is in that thing, then. Maybe I was just fooling myself when I saw 350. It was definitely in fully restored trim, down to the "NOTE TO DEALER" tag on the soft top. I don't think the owner would've gone through those lengths only to stuff the wrong engine in there. Got any photos of the optional engines from '64?

*clyde* · 10-28-2004, 11:45 PM

The "off road exhaust" was not a side exhaust system. I can't remember exactly what it all entailed, but it made more noise than the standard. I think it had mufflers that didn't do as much muffling and may have included headers instead of an exhaust manifold.

No photos.

Some people will do truly nutty and bizarre things when restoring a car. For Corvettes, though, matching numbers is EVERYTHING. Anyone that was trying to put together a car that might otherwise stand a chance at Bloomington with the wrong engine blew a LOT of money that he'll never, ever see again.

blee · 10-28-2004, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clyde

The "off road exhaust" was not a side exhaust system. I can't remember exactly what it all entailed, but it made more noise than the standard. I think it had mufflers that didn't do as much muffling and may have included headers instead of an exhaust manifold.

No photos.

Some people will do truly nutty and bizarre things when restoring a car. For Corvettes, though, matching numbers is EVERYTHING. Anyone that was trying to put together a car that might otherwise stand a chance at Bloomington with the wrong engine blew a LOT of money that he'll never, ever see again.

That's the thing. NCRS awards are not handed out willy-nilly, and most people who aspire for such honors are absolutely crazy about matching numbers on everything. The owner is either faking NCRS honors, or the car was modified after 2002 (but why?!), or I'm just nuts.

Damn. Makes me want to go back there.

10-28-2004, 11:45 PM	#17
clyde Chief title editor Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 26,599	The "off road exhaust" was not a side exhaust system. I can't remember exactly what it all entailed, but it made more noise than the standard. I think it had mufflers that didn't do as much muffling and may have included headers instead of an exhaust manifold. No photos. Some people will do truly nutty and bizarre things when restoring a car. For Corvettes, though, matching numbers is EVERYTHING. Anyone that was trying to put together a car that might otherwise stand a chance at Bloomington with the wrong engine blew a LOT of money that he'll never, ever see again. __________________ OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11 Team WTF?! What are you gonna do?

10-28-2004, 05:00 PM	#11
blee Doctor Mudgeon Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,433	Got my car back today. For you local guys, Springfield Auto Body does great work. My bumper looks excellent. As for the 3, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a 5-door version, which comes with the more powerful 2.3L engine putting out 160hp, 17" wheels, and random other stuff. It's a roomy compact car with a useful hatch and enough performance to keep my entertained. The slushie REALLY killed some of that enjoyment, so I have to limit my critique somewhat in that respect. That said, I think the Duratec engine in that car -- while a philosophical improvement over the Zetec -- is a little disappointing. I can't really comment on acceleration, except to say that it's slow with the auto. What I can comment on is that the engine runs out of breath well before redline. It seems to hit peak torque at some point, then kinda peter out. Disappointing, especially when it takes time before the engine winds up to that sweet spot from a stop. This is certainly not uncommon among I4 engines. I believe that only the VW/Audi 1.8T provides any sort of appreciable thrust down low. I would definitely want more top-end in this car. The suspension was comfortable. It was also quite nimble, owing as much to the car's weight as its geometry. The car felt very confident in tight curves, and the manumatic feature allowed me to hold 2nd gear through some of the more interesting road snippets around here. I think that Mazda engineers decided to tune the suspension in favor of slightly more comfort, though, and it shows as a somewhat vague feel for the road and a sense of floatiness in bumpy or aggressive situations. The car comes with 205-something 17" tires, compared to the 215/45 on the Focus. Finally, the car is very quiet inside. It's certainly way more quiet than my Focus, and probably even more quiet than our Civic. In fact, it's quite civilized itself. The stereo display reads "Hello !" when you start the car, followed by a little blinking-light show that reminds me of some of those bookshelf stereo systems before they got ridiculously tacky. The IP cluster is laid out well but illuminated very poorly IMO. It's one of those setups where everything must be illuminated from behind to be seen, which is fine at night but can be annoying in bright light. I guess it makes for a cool effect, sort of like the Vibe/Matrix gauges. The seats feel thin but rigid. They put on airs of being firm and supportive, and I guess they're about 75% right on that. What I find interesting is that my main niggle with the 3 are "corrected" in my SVTF -- more power up high, tighter suspension, less tricky gauges. I will say that the Mazda feels more substantial and more "family friendly," to the extent that my wife vastly prefers the 3 over the SVTF. And if the SVT Focus were not available -- as is the case today -- I probably would've bought the 3. On top of that, the Duratec seems to have a lot of tuning potential and I wouldn't be surprised to see modded Duratecs putting out some impressive numbers in a few years. Bottom line: Good, solid car for the money. Family friendly. Not the most sporting, but sporting enough to get by for most folks.

10-28-2004, 05:04 PM	#12
blee Doctor Mudgeon Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,433	Oh, I almost forgot to mention. In the lot at Springfield was a '64 Sting Ray convertible with some NCRS emblems on the front license plate area. The car was a gorgeous black and had Zora Arkus-Duntov's signature in silver paint pen just above the crossed flags badge on the left fender. There were very few miles on it, and the hood was removed because it was being painted in the shop. My jaw dropped when I saw the 350 sitting in that huge expanse of an engine bay, complete with side pipes. The car even had a tag hanging from one of the radio dials, explaning that optimum reception may be had 25 miles away from airports or some such thing (ostensibly printed at the factory and placed in there prior to delivery in 1964). God, it was beautiful. I want one.

10-28-2004, 08:55 PM	#15
blee Doctor Mudgeon Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,433	Hmm, interesting. The engine said 350 on it and the car definitely had side pipes. It also won awards in 2001 and 2002 from NCRS. This has a few implications: 1. It isn't a 64 Corvette. 2. The numbers don't match. 3. Clyde is wrong on at least some counts. I'm perfectly willing to believe that it isn't a '64, but I have a hard time believing that a low-mileage Vette with NCRS honors would go around with the wrong engine and an incorrect option. At the same time, options availability is very well-known among Vette enthusiasts. It's also possible, I suppose, that the owner pulled out the 327 in favor of a 350 for some reason. Why he would do that to a fully restored period correct Sting Ray is beyond me, however, considering the cost involved in restoration. It's also possible that I misread the valve covers on that engine, but I doubt that. But now you've got me really intrigued.

10-28-2004, 09:00 PM	#16
blee Doctor Mudgeon Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,433	More info: http://www.actions.com/corvette/64.html What is an "off road exhaust system?" Furthermore, more research shows that Clyde is right on the engine option. I don't know wtf is in that thing, then. Maybe I was just fooling myself when I saw 350. It was definitely in fully restored trim, down to the "NOTE TO DEALER" tag on the soft top. I don't think the owner would've gone through those lengths only to stuff the wrong engine in there. Got any photos of the optional engines from '64?