View Thread: The definition of a "Sleeper"


mustangdriver
Has it changed over the years, particularly in the age of rice?

My contention is that a riced out car that is actually fast is potentially the biggest sleeper around these days! I think the definition of sleeper has evolved a bit but still includes cars that really don't appear that fast of course. I almost think that because most riced out cars are typically slow, making one fast would make it a sleeper.

I think the classic definition of a sleeper is still present and Sia's S4 is a great example. People who aren't looking for the badge really wouldn't notice what it is. And especially when you look at the rest of the A4 lineup, you wouldn't expect to see one that fast.

This all came up because I notied that I write off pretty much all riced out cars I come across as slow and too much of a waste of gas to race. So I would be real surprised if one of them had a big snail under the hood at 20psi or so.

Dunno, just something to think about. Talk amonst yourselves :fro:

Sia Bani
I agree about the rice being a sleeper now a days, but no way we'll give them that credit!

The perfect sleeper was this 1.8t B5 A4 I raced last night on Wilshire. He had it chipped and had a few other bolt ons, and it was damn quick. I beat him the whole way, but when we slowed down at the light, I honked and had him roll down his window so I could praise his ride. Asked if he had chipped it and he replied "HELL YEAH." Then we exchanged praises for one another's rides and went about our business.

Oh ya, gonna post some pics of an XLR I spotted today..low quality, camera phone.

scubie02
I think my cars still a sleeper, at least in this area. It amazes me how many people still have no idea what a wrx is, ;et alone an sti. Lots of people around here still have no idea there are any fast subaru's. One of the main points of appeal to me with the wrx was that it would be a sleeper comparatively.

Of course its been around long enough now that I'm somewhat suspicious when someone says "wanna race?". Like the guy w/ the z24--it seems so ludicrous for him to offer I have to be suspicious. Of course he's still a loser if he DID mod it to be that fast--its one nasty vehicle.

But there are so many idiots around that THINK they have fast cars and can take anything on, I should probably be less suspicious. All the folks w/ monte carlo's and such seem to think they are badass, and I had one person tell me how fast their lumina was. I just usually go "oh yeah?" or whatever and let them live in their little dream world...

2200SLS
I sort of miss my Sleeper :crying:


Omni GLH turbo ;)

But oh well, Buicks, LT1 Roadmasters, Regal GS (sc ones), and Turbo Dodges are still some of the best Sleepers around in my opinion.

Fearing a Voyager with Woody sides while you set in a V8 Mustang :thumbsup:

scubie02
Yeah, but tell the truth, you see a guy in a caravan and you still think "I wonder where his wife keeps the jar with his nuts in it...", right? I like a sleeper, but it can't be TOO demeaning.

911GT2
Yeah, but tell the truth, you see a guy in a caravan and you still think "I wonder where his wife keeps the jar with his nuts in it...", right? I like a sleeper, but it can't be TOO demeaning.

Yeah. Minivans don't permit testes within.

EMAXX
My definition:
Any car that appears to be stock, but could smoke your ass! :devil:

RedLine
Ok, up untill this point in my life I havent owned anything without a V8 and RWD. But, Im old now so I've landed myself into auto FWD land. :banghead: What I've noticed is that ANY car, has the potential to be fast. I know that I've lost more than one race because I didnt floor it and had to play catch up. Most people dont think twice about the GTP that looks stock that is sitting next to them and then it blows there doors off. Even to some extent the E55 AMG, goddamn fast, and some people, may just brush it off as another heavy Bendz. There are cars out there that look like they have more hp that an ocean liner, yet are running the factory V6 without any exhaust. I guess my take on it is this, if you have a car that can stand being raced, and someone wants to race you, GO FOR IT!!! If its from a light and you dont even talk to the guy, you arent going to loose anything. You're going to win some, and you're going to loose some. No big deal.

Bullet
I really beleive a "Ricer" are the biggest sleepers of anything bran new.
90% of them have some kindof exterior mod done to them, 99% of those have exhaust tips and performance mufflers to make them sound big and powerful when they arent much faster then stock.... but that 1% that actually have mod'd and tuned their engine are going to be quick, theyre going to catch you off gaurd at the very start and theyre gona hit 160 mph by the end making it extremely hard to catch up, especially in a big heavy muscle car.

To make it worse that 1% is growing.

Mr.Dave
Here's what I think of a sleeper.

mustangdriver
Go England! :eek:

Mr.Dave
That was the first thing to show up on google.

RedLine
That was the first thing to show up on google.

Google? I thought that was a frame from Dave's home videos.

jimbunting
Google? I thought that was a frame from Dave's home videos.


Now fellas, I'll tell you what a sleeper is, by the definition from the golden days of street racin.

A sleeper is a car that has no outwards signs of modification, no big and bad decals, no obvious stuff like a GMC blower sticking out of the hood, B U T it does have a completely "done up" motor, and the balls to haul all the way to the point where the other guy says " I'm beat ".

A good example of this style.........A four door Ford Crown Victoria, just like your local Police force drives, but with a full house 460 V-8, with turbo and intercooler, and the trick tranny and bullet proof 9 inch rear axel. No outward sign of what lurks within.....................That's a sleeper!

Or this one, from long ago........A 64 Studebaker Lark, with a Ford 310 V-8, with a factory supercharger kit, a real life 350 horsepower, wrapped in a completely vanilla disguise.

Or this one, that I owned in 1967. A 1958 Morris Oxford body, on a shortened and re-inforced 57 chev frame, with a 409 V-8, with double four barrel Holleys, and a full race solid Isky cam. Front seat was removed, due to the big block engine compartment, it had an extended steering column, and I drove it out of the back seat. Had a roll cage and the tires sat outside the fenders by about 4 inches. Painted flat black with no chrome, except the wheels. Hedders and three inch hollow drive shafts for the exhaust pipes. It was licensed and plated in Ontario. I built it with the help of two friends, in the winter of 1966/1967. No ignition key, had a hidden series of switches, under the drivers seat, with a electric fuel pump switch. One time I frorgot to kill the fuel pump at a gas station, and it caught on fire. Lucky me, the guy had a fire extinguisher at the station and he saved the car.

Not really a sleeper, as the car was well-known in the Toronto area in that time period. It is still around, now owned by a guy in Port Credit, with a 454 in it, and a orange paint job, with green tinted windows.

I guess the days of guys building their own car, from the frame up are gone, right? So much easier to reach into your pocket and pay a shop to "bolt it on".

I've been reading this site for a while and wonder where the art of actually building cars has gone, apart from the few people I know who build oval track race cars, or street rods. The majority of the "modified" cars I see are simply ones that have had superficial "add ons'" or "bolt ons. Any one can put decals on a car, or a tomato can exhaust tip, but not many here seem to have any understanding of basic engine operation, or how to get power without buying a chip.

Jim Bunting. Toronto. Ontario. Canada.

mustangdriver
Damn Jim, you are definitely getting the record for most words produced in your first two posts! Keep it up, good stuff! :tp:

I agree but I was out driving one night nad I began wondering about whether or not the definition has been modified a bit. For example whenever I see a "riced" out car with all the superficial appearance modifications I pretty much shrug it off and assume it's slow.

Now if one of these kids actually has a turbocharger under the hood he is going to surprise the crap out of me. So in some sense he's got himself a sleeper. I still tend to lean towards the more traditional definition. It actually says some bad things about the import community if 95% of the modified cars only have appearance mods which is unfortunate.

scubie02
I've been reading this site for a while and wonder where the art of actually building cars has gone, apart from the few people I know who build oval track race cars, or street rods. The majority of the "modified" cars I see are simply ones that have had superficial "add ons'" or "bolt ons. Any one can put decals on a car, or a tomato can exhaust tip, but not many here seem to have any understanding of basic engine operation, or how to get power without buying a chip.


Well, the thing is, basic engine understanding isn't going to cut it these days. When I was a kid and had my first car, it was pretty simple to do just about anything that might be required on them yourself, because they were simple and straightforward. You didn't have computer's to deal with and you didn't need particularly specialized tools, etc. Now half the time you go to do something and you don't have the right tool and you don't have the place to do it and you'd need an electrical engineering and computer degree to even get started. People did it back in the day because it was easy. Once upon a time in antiquity there were people who had supposedly read every book written at the time. Today that would be impossible. Its called the march of time and technology.

Mr.Dave
Google? I thought that was a frame from Dave's home videos.

Whoa, I just read this. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was just finishing up a scene with your mom. :boobies:

mustangdriver
Whoa, I just read this. Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was just finishing up a scene with your mom. :boobies:

This might be a more appropriate smiliey for that situation:

Mr.Dave
Oh Lord, is that pants and a penis Will?

mustangdriver
Oh Lord, is that pants and a penis Will?

You tell me

http://www.autoworldforums.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=1270&stc=1

scubie02
I'm not sure, RL, but I think someone's saying your mom is a hermaphrodite! :wow:

Hmm, nice tits though...

mustangdriver
I'm not sure, RL, but I think someone's saying your mom is a hermaphrodite! :wow:

Hmm, nice tits though...

He says as if considering a trip up to Canada...

Mr.Dave
Why the hell would you wanna go up there? :D

jimbunting
Well, the thing is, basic engine understanding isn't going to cut it these days. When I was a kid and had my first car, it was pretty simple to do just about anything that might be required on them yourself, because they were simple and straightforward. You didn't have computer's to deal with and you didn't need particularly specialized tools, etc. Now half the time you go to do something and you don't have the right tool and you don't have the place to do it and you'd need an electrical engineering and computer degree to even get started. People did it back in the day because it was easy. Once upon a time in antiquity there were people who had supposedly read every book written at the time. Today that would be impossible. Its called the march of time and technology.



I wasn't suggesting that it required a person to read every book ever written, only the ones that teach the Basics about how to "hot rod" any engine that burns gasoline.

Real power comes from knowledge.

Reduce weight, everywhere, and get a horspower increase.

Increase compression, increase air flow, maximise valve flow, increase swept volumn, decrease rotating mass, decrease engine heat, all get you more power.

Remember that only ONE strole out of every four is a POWER stroke.
Balancing every valve and then the entire valve chain, along with the pistons and rods, and the crank, and the cam/s is a way to more power.

Friction is your enemy. Smoother is better. Heat robs power. Get the heat out fast and the cool in faster.

For every one unit of gas, the engine needs at LEAST nine units of air. Cool gas and cool air are the best mix.

Move all moveable weight to a lower positon in the car, if you can, and that includes the driver! Batteries and fuel tanks can be moved lower, so can the driver. Lower the whole car, too.

Unsprung weight is bad. Wheels and tires are unsprung weight, make em lighter, not heavier.

Computers are not infallible, otherwise why would they screw up so often?

Have a plan, don't just buy stuff cause......."Donny has one of those".

Look at what others are doing, if it works, MAYBE try it.

Finally, just because a car has a computer control system, does NOT mean it can't be made better thru simple, tried and true stuff, such as shaving the head to increase compression, or a triple-angle valve grind to max the flow, or stuffing more air into it, thru a better intake.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.

Mr.Dave
Real power comes from knowledge.




Damn skippy!

st5150
For every one unit of gas, the engine needs at LEAST nine units of air.



Actually you got it backwards, at most you want a 9:1 ratio, but even that is way too rich for a gasoline powered engine. 12:1 for a power adder engine and 13:1 for a NA engine is more in the neighborhood.

jimbunting
Actually you got it backwards, at most you want a 9:1 ratio, but even that is way too rich for a gasoline powered engine. 12:1 for a power adder engine and 13:1 for a NA engine is more in the neighborhood.


Please clarify your last post..............

I say that for optimal power, you need at LEAST a nine parts air to one part gas ratio. What do you say? Remember that the fuel/air mixture can be "played with" thru carb ajustments, or thru increased intake pressure, but if you don't have enough air flow, you won't make max power.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.

A-Tech
Jim, that takes alot of freakin time and money, its so much cheaper to just go out and buy a chip and up your boost and annihilate almost anyone on the street. Gone are the days of big v8 hot rods, they are awesome and all but with insurance and gas prices and such, its nearly impossible for a young person to hot rod a car from the ground up.

NightRider
gotta remember that most of us are young guys with not alot of money. I'd wager 70% of the people here are under 25 years old. that means alot of college students who want to go fast, for very little money. which means 1 car that you have to hot rod out, AND drive every day, and it has to be really reliable, which kind of means reprogramming the computer, and tried and true bolt-on stuff.

st5150
Please clarify your last post..............

I say that for optimal power, you need at LEAST a nine parts air to one part gas ratio. What do you say? Remember that the fuel/air mixture can be "played with" thru carb ajustments, or thru increased intake pressure, but if you don't have enough air flow, you won't make max power.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.


Where to begin?

The whole least/most concept is fundamentally flawed when it comes to air fuel ratios.... air fuel ratio is more of a 'range' or 'window' for optimal power, not a least/most. It is not a case of "less is better" or "more is better". It is one of those "just right is better" things.


"Remember that the fuel/air mixture can be "played with" thru .... increased intake pressure"

Increased intake pressure? As in turning up the boost? Actually for EFI cars you "play with" the air fuel ratio by either having the injectors stay open longer for a given cycle, or you increase the fuel pressure to the injector.


So back to the original statement.....

"at LEAST a nine parts air to one part gas ratio."


9:1 is pig rich. No one runs this rich. Even 10:1 is very rich and undesirable. This isn't the "least" amount of fuel you want to run, this is the "most" you want to run... actually 11:1 is the most you want to run for a power adder gasoline engine, and most boosted cars make optimal power in the 11.5:1 to 12.5:1 air fuel ratio range.

NightRider
Where to begin?

The whole least/most concept is fundamentally flawed when it comes to air fuel ratios.... air fuel ratio is more of a 'range' or 'window' for optimal power, not a least/most. It is not a case of "less is better" or "more is better". It is one of those "just right is better" things.


"Remember that the fuel/air mixture can be "played with" thru .... increased intake pressure"

Increased intake pressure? As in turning up the boost? Actually for EFI cars you "play with" the air fuel ratio by either having the injectors stay open longer for a given cycle, or you increase the fuel pressure to the injector.


So back to the original statement.....

"at LEAST a nine parts air to one part gas ratio."


9:1 is pig rich. No one runs this rich. Even 10:1 is very rich and undesirable. This isn't the "least" amount of fuel you want to run, this is the "most" you want to run... actually 11:1 is the most you want to run for a power adder gasoline engine, and most boosted cars make optimal power in the 11.5:1 to 12.5:1 air fuel ratio range.

I think the difference in opinion comes from a misunderstanding in the syntax of the sentince. Note that a higher ratio would mean that there are more parts oxygen to one part gasoline, and a lower ratio would be less parts oxygen to one part gasoline.

jeez i'm gonna go look at some p0rn or somethin

A-Tech
higher ratio would be more air to the same amount of gas....

the ideal a/f ratio is like 14.7:1 stochiometric or something.

jimbunting
I think the difference in opinion comes from a misunderstanding in the syntax of the sentince. Note that a higher ratio would mean that there are more parts oxygen to one part gasoline, and a lower ratio would be less parts oxygen to one part gasoline.

jeez i'm gonna go look at some p0rn or somethin


NIGHT RIDER:

I meant this.........The more air you get into the engine the better, therefore my point about nine parts air to one part gas was as a base minimum of air. Obviously going higher on the air flow will improve things. i was thinking of a stock air flow filter and intake, being changed to a modified system, to allow better "breathing".

Most small capacity engines, as they come from the factory, have restictive air flow characteristics, due to the need for the makers to " cover all the bases of weather and dust conditions "

Most young drivers, when trying to get more power, are smart enough to "open up the air flow", evidence the big sales of K&N filters and "long arm" intake pipes, on Japanese street cars.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.

NightRider
NIGHT RIDER:

I meant this.........The more air you get into the engine the better, therefore my point about nine parts air to one part gas was as a base minimum of air. Obviously going higher on the air flow will improve things. i was thinking of a stock air flow filter and intake, being changed to a modified system, to allow better "breathing".

Most small capacity engines, as they come from the factory, have restictive air flow characteristics, due to the need for the makers to " cover all the bases of weather and dust conditions "

Most young drivers, when trying to get more power, are smart enough to "open up the air flow", evidence the big sales of K&N filters and "long arm" intake pipes, on Japanese street cars.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.

yes