Been lovin my G25...probably the best bang for the buck. Heel-toe is a breeze once you figure out a rhythm.
I personally wonder why more people (good drivers at least) don't bump draft more often. Everybody wants to just jump out and pass ASAP when it actually slows you down more than anything; tucking up behind the car in front of you is faster and will help catch the car further ahead. And no it isn't cheating; it's a commonly used tactic in real life racing.
Look around (ebay and such) and you can find DFPs for very cheap. Way more worth your time and money.
Sorry, no matter how you try to downplay it, you lose.
So I suppose this isn't S14's first failure, as several have mentioned in this thread.
It's such a shame that some people just can't bare to look at things with an open mind. There are so many awesome cars to build, compete against, and admire...everything from huge land yachts with huge engines to cars that are basically go karts with a 4 cylinder strapped to them...
Last edited by kingcars, .
Typical online hotshot...when you get beat, just say you weren't trying.
If it is such an easy argument, you shouldn't have to do lots of research and study it. Having a general understanding of cars and the situations surrounding them goes a long way. You even needed someone else to point out your failure and used that as a scapegoat.
Heck, I even opted not to mention how the S2000 is a 2 seater while cars like the Mustang and my Tbird are all 4 seat cars. I was being generous, and you still lost.
Ooooo no, I'm shaking! :rolleyes: . In order to do that, you need to rely on more than personal experience with TWO American cars and one book.......and you need to know at least the SLIGHTEST bit about what you're talking about as opposed to just regurgitating what people/magazines/books tell you (ie how you believed the publication that claimed only a 15.6 for an 88 Mustang, while I myself and many others have proven that horribly wrong).
If it is such an easy argument, you shouldn't have to do lots of research and study it. Having a general understanding of cars and the situations surrounding them goes a long way. You even needed someone else to point out your failure and used that as a scapegoat.
Heck, I even opted not to mention how the S2000 is a 2 seater while cars like the Mustang and my Tbird are all 4 seat cars. I was being generous, and you still lost.
Ooooo no, I'm shaking! :rolleyes: . In order to do that, you need to rely on more than personal experience with TWO American cars and one book.......and you need to know at least the SLIGHTEST bit about what you're talking about as opposed to just regurgitating what people/magazines/books tell you (ie how you believed the publication that claimed only a 15.6 for an 88 Mustang, while I myself and many others have proven that horribly wrong).
Last edited by kingcars, .
Wrong.
Look who's the one making excuses...I haven't spent nearly 5 or 10 mins total doing "research" during this argument, and have clearly backed up my points with proof and you just skip around them and twist the argument elsewhere, with no proof in sight. If you can be "arsed" to type these long posts, you can surely spend just 5 mins trying to make yourself not sound like a complete moron.
Don't recall where I said they magically stop working, but over the years, they do slowly deteriorate, causing things such as compression loss and oil blowby.
Good thing because that has A LOT to do with cars :rolleyes:
Riiiiiiiiight
Oh, you wanna know stock? Back in 1988, yeah, 20 years ago, a stock 2.3L Thunderbird Turbo coupe was putting out 190hp.
S2000 is still being made to this day, and uh....they still haven't changed it hardly at all. Talk about not moving forward. At least the Mustang has had quite a few upgrades over the past 10 years. Car and Driver has been quite impressed by it...I was just reading one of their articles on it the other day.
http://www.caranddriver.com/bu ... 010_ford_mustang_gt_video
Guys that have done it in the real world and have proof. Both things that you obviously lack.
Hey look, an excuse. You shouldn't HAVE to do a lot of research to at least put up a decent argument.
Last edited by kingcars, .
Oh really? Lets take a look...
Care to explain?
Because you obviously STILL don't understand the difference, as you show here:
Fact is, genius, if you've been reading, IM PUTTING OUT 70 MORE RWHP THAN A STOCK MUSTANG (70 more whp than what I had at the time of the 14.6 run, in case you have problems remembering). My lord, you are DENSE. This also goes along with the fact that you ARE saying that 70rwhp/~40rwtq doesn't yield any difference. You need to not only READ, but COMPREHEND.
Piston rings don't last forever.
Funny, American obesity wasn't an issue back in the 60s, when American torque was really starting to take hold. More stereotypes.
No because I don't think my car is the best thing out there. In fact, it's still very low on the totem pole every time I go to the dragstrip. However, it will hand a stock S2000 its @$$ on a silver platter. With that said, I have had MY @$$ handed to me a few times by some very stout 4 cylinders, so I know what they're capable of. I've seen them running 9s and trapping 160+ mph in the 1/4 mile. Extremely impressive and fun to watch. I have NOTHING against small engines, I only have a problem with people who think they're the best thing ever and that V8s are crap. Would you like to see what an American 4cyl car can do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPQGO-RFOd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... DtWoc&feature=related
So yeah...we can play that game too.
If 2 tenths over a relatively slow 20 year old V8 is what helps you sleep at night, so be it. Compare a stock S2000 to something like a brand new 2010 Mustang and it's not even a contest; I'm giving you the benefit of 20 years of technology and the fact that auto manufacturers were JUST starting to recover from the strict emissions regulations of the 70s...and you still only have a couple of tenths, which is hardly a fender.
I've actually been the one showing my dad stuff about my car. He taught me the basics. There is a huge thread on a Mustang forum where I ask guys with REAL WORLD experience what kind of combo would get me my goal. Guess what? It worked.
I never argued with you about it. I never thought of it that way, but you brought it to my attention. Anyway, as I said, I suppose AMERICAN V8s specifically have the attributes you mentioned that create good low end torque. That's really all I said; can't go deeper into it since I don't know much about it.
Agreed...even though I said I was done with the arguing, he left way too many holes and contradictions in his argument for me to just leave alone
.Mmmmmmm, Caterham.... *drool*
Last edited by kingcars, .
Unfortunately, due to personal experience, I would have to agree with you. I have to deal with such people at work and out of work every day.
You're right, that's something I've never really looked into, hence why I barely touched the subject. I think BAMBO is the one who was talking about that stuff.
I thought I explained it pretty clearly from my end; not sure where you're saying I went wrong. I'm curious to see what I messed up; always eager to learn
.306ci (a 302 bored .030 over) is actually 5.0L. The stock 302ci is 4.9xxL. Also, saying that an engine can go over 6k isn't an approximation if you've actually done it on a regular basis (and that's talking about my dad's 385ci...on a funny note, during the 2nd test drive, the first time dad got to drive the tbird with the 306, he was late on the 1-2 shift and did accidentally take it to 6k hahaha. But that's waaaaay out of the car's power band so I never take it that high. 5500 is its redline.)
I don't recall using that phrase...I was the one telling S14 that the tires helped my car's handling a lot.
Haha now that's funny. I really didn't feel like fighting much over handling since that's an area I don't know a whole lot about yet. I plan to very soon though
.Haha yeah, hence why my reply to that was a sigh
Thank you! Glad I'm not the only one that caught that.
Yeah...and I do apologize for being a bit heated at first in this thread, but for the last few pages I've been doing my best to stick to the argument.
Care to go into this a little more? I thought acceleration was the rate of speed increase. Unless you're trying to get at something totally different, but I have a KILLER headache right now
.Yeah I was wondering about that...forgot to look it up.
Agreed totally.
On that note, I'm pretty much done with the argumentative part of this...but some more intelligent discussion about engines is more than welcome.
Last edited by kingcars, .
You're trying to tell me that going from ~185whp (the stock 5.0 that was in my car) to ~255whp (306) doesn't yield any acceleration difference? rofl
That's a 21% drivetrain loss, definitely not unheard of (505/638 = 0.79). The S2000 dyno chart that I previously posted shows 193rwhp at peak. Divide that by 240 and you get 0.8. That's a 20% drivetrain loss. Also, just for fun, lets account for a 20% drivetrain loss on my 240rwhp dyno sheet. The answer is 288bhp. So what was that about me trying to make my engine seem more powerful, when in fact, the numbers are one in the same?
Some mileage is good for hp, but you don't seriously think that an engine is running at optimum power after 155,000 miles, do you? It really differs from case to case, honestly. Some cars will lose compression, others wont...stuff like that. Just depends.
Too bad VTEC doesn't provide any torque.
2-3 tenths of a second is a door to door race and can be easily be affected by a slightly bad shift, altitude difference, weather conditions, etc. Lots of variables; so like I said, the winner of such a race will vary.
Nope, don't have to. It feels better every time it annihilates a snobby hotshot driving a 4cyl.
The 14.6 was with the stock 5.0. After the so called "boltons" (since when are things such as forged pistons considered boltons, anyway?), my car is set up to lay waste to the aforementioned 2 litre convertable for FAR less money and without that extra 20 years of technology advancement. How pathetic.
And btw, I didn't get my setup from a magazine, I got it from the experience of tried and true combinations - combos used very often in the real world, not in magazine tests.
Last edited by kingcars, .
If you say so.
I'm not the one losing track of the argument at hand.
I wonder what the chassis has to do with interior quality.
You're the one asking what the "deal" is over a 70rwhp difference...
But you're impressed by a 14.20 run by an S2000? A car with the advantage of 20 years of technology advancement and all it can muster is 4 tenths more than my car with 155,000 miles that I had less than $2000 in total, including purchase price? What a joke.
Like I said, there are stock Mustangs that have run 14.1s and 14.2s stock, so not really. Also refer to my above comment.
On another note, take a look at that S2000's trap speed in relation to the ET. 14.2 @ 96. Now, take a look at yet another stock Mustang making a pass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsEZRfFmug&NR=1
14.4 @ 98. The S2000 is losing steam on the top end oddly enough (or it could be the other way around...you'd have to look at the timeslip), and 98mph is way high for 14.4, meaning there are a few tenths left to be had in the ET. Whether you like it or not, a 1/4 pass with a stock 1988 Mustang and a stock S2000 is a driver's race...and the Mustang is 20 years old.
Oh yes, let me just drop the entire argument that I've built and provided proof for. Great idea :rolleyes: . That's like if I were to say "Don't mention how the S2000 is lighter! Thats not fair!" You can't just revoke advantages. This whole argument started with someone talking crap about my 306, so that's what will be the center of the argument, plain and simple. Next time, try to have a real argument in your arsenal instead of constantly having to change the focus of the discussion to suit your needs.
Last edited by kingcars, .
Nope, they wouldn't be biased. Never. :rolleyes:
This discussion has been about small engines vs American V8s for quite a while now. Try to keep up!
Fail.
HAHAHAHA are you really this stupid? We were JUST comparing my 306 to an S2000 engine. So what does it have to do with anything? Oh, idk...maybe the fact that the stock 5.0HO has 70rwhp/30-40rwtq less than my 306 might make some difference; the difference between my car running a 14.6 and a 13.5. Seriously dude, get a grip on reality here. :rolleyes:
Official testing my @$$. 15.6 is absolutely absurd, especially since you wholeheartedly believe it. My HEAVIER TBIRD with the SAME ENGINE running a FREAKIN AUTOMATIC ran a 14.6. I did it MYSELF. And I'm not CLAIMING it, I've got the timeslip right there for you to look at (take a long good look at it http://img.photobucket.com/alb ... gcars/QuarterMileTime.jpg ). Proof is an area that your argument lacks severely in. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
EDIT: Here's even more proof in case you're still clinging to that pathetic "official test": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnKNGOGveqM
And before you even try to do the "but that's a 93, not an 88!" argument, let me assure you that the Mustang did not change hardly at all from 1987-1993. The only difference is that it lost ~20hp when Ford went to Mass Air Flow in '89.
OMG I can't believe it!
Last edited by kingcars, .
Fixed
Care to say that again?
Good job, you based an opinion on millions of cars based on personal experience with just 2. Perfect example of ignorance.
If you think I'm the only person to do such a swap, you're badly mistaken.
Strangely enough, that was my timeslip with the STOCK 5.0 engine, NOT my recently built 306 (didn't even have the 5 speed then either). Big difference. Learn to READ.
http://jansontech.com/motivationals/objection.jpg
Last edited by kingcars, .
Agreed, FI is great...hence why I plan to keep it on my Tbird.
*sigh*
Yeah because you've been in every American car ever made and you are the all knowing expert on American car interiors.
Shame that you discriminate based on that fact alone, cause I'm making that power for a lot less money than you 4cyl guys.
So you've been in even a MAJORITY of American cars? My 155,000 mile interior has hardly a rattle; it's very solid.
And the fact that I swapped the automatic out of my car in exchange for a 5 speed obviously doesn't go against that ignorant stereotype :rolleyes:
You're not helping your argument at all.
HAHAHAHAAH 15.6 for a stock Mustang. What a joke. I have a timeslip that begs to differ:
http://img.photobucket.com/alb ... gcars/QuarterMileTime.jpg
From last year when I ran my car...100% stock Mustang 5.0L engine, 100% stock AOD tranny, AND my Tbird is heavier than a Mustang. No wonder you're so ignorant if you believe that junk. Do some real research and you'll find stock 5.0 Mustangs running as low as 14.2.
That musta been cool. Not quite what I'm talkin about though.
Last edited by kingcars, .
Dang, I like how everybody here seems to be manual fans...the majority of stuff here is automatic . A little piece inside me dies every time I see a muscle car or sports car with an automatic (which is horribly common here).
. A little piece inside me dies every time I see a muscle car or sports car with an automatic (which is horribly common here).Sorry, didn't get around to replying to it. Since you mentioned it, I'll do it just for you!
Yes, I misinterpreted your post. Your point was not made clearly, IMO:
Please clarify more next time.
Maybe if they actually existed.
See above. Misinterpretation, I apologize. Also, the argument is mainly about American V8s, which I suppose have the specific characteristics for torque that you refer to.
You have no idea how badly I would love to have a Caterham. I think those cars are awesome and I definitely respect their straight line speed and agility. I doubt it could beat ANY American V8 in a straight line, but probably a good number of them...it's a very light mofo.
Also, I wasn't the one that started the S2000 comparison.
Well then I apologize for misinterpreting your post. However, you could have brought it up in another manner...maybe just ask me why the power dropped off there instead of calling it sad.
Yeah I'm finding this out very quickly. And I think for the first time ever in my life, I have gotten tired of debating such a topic.
I'll stick with my 306 which doesn't burn any oil
(not nearly enough to where the levels drop off, at least)I know a few people that would say otherwise. But yet again, I'm sure there are plenty of people in the opposite spectrum as well. Like I said, it's more stuff that CAN go wrong, not that it actually WILL go wrong.
And I showed you how pathetic the S2000's power was compared to a cheap, bottom-of-the-totem pole American V8 build...
Blah blah blah, more stereotyping.
couldn't get more obvious(:
Hmmm, last I checked, my engine was 5.0L. Nah, you must know more about it than I do!
Yet another stereotype aside (wow I would love to keep count of all of them...), I will agree that I don't know everything about cars, hence why I keep my arguments within the realms of stuff I do know about.
I would actually love a 6 speed; just don't have loads of money to blow on one. And once again, a stereotype.
I'm very family oriented.
True, but the fact remains that the tires made a huge difference for me.
They run, what...low/mid 14s stock in the 1/4 mile last I checked? Stock 225hp/285ftlb 1988 5.0 Mustangs run that.
rofl
Nah, I'd prefer to stick to the discussion at hand.
How about in a car?
I see what you're getting at, but it's not considered an excuse when I'm proving a better point with what I'm making the "excuse" about (ie how my Tbird put down much better power than an S2000, even with its problems at the time). All of those things are 100% true, whether you believe them or not. And actually, there was no "excuse" about the carb, only the throttle cable in relation to the carb.
Good point.
Last edited by kingcars, .
Obviously if that was the case, nobody would have brought it up. It's quite known that they burn MORE OIL THAN NORMAL. Not the typical small amount.
Oh ok, ONLY Honda then :rolleyes:
Ok, Mr "OMG look at how much power an S2000 makes" :rolleyes:
Please find where I referenced my car in road course racing and get back to me. Lets not forget the huge price gap between my car and an S2000. Give me the same money and I'll run circles around it on any track.
So why in the world are you trying to compare a car with 240bhp/160ftlbs to a car with 240RWhp/300rwtq? You are an expert at contradiction.
Learn to read:
I never mention BHP on car forums where people know what they're talking about. When I say 240rwhp/300rwtq, they know what it means and don't try to compare cars like stock S2000s to it.
I can afford that luxury since my car doesnt need a close ratio gearbox to stay in a miniscule power band.
More ignorant low blows, very nice. Real men must build engines 100% by themselves, and including a close father must mean they're stupid (/sarcasm). Great proof that your argument is failing so you must look somewhere else. If you really want to know what I did, I'll just name a few things off the top of my head: Completely disassembled the original engine, brought the block to the machine shop for complete refresh, installed the crank, piston rings/pistons (and checked all clearances during that process), installed and degreed the camshaft, assembled and torqued down the heads, adjusted the rockers, installed the lower intake/fuel injectors/fuel rail....I can go on, but I hope you get the point.
Have you ever gone from 14x7 rims with crap tires to 17x8s with very nice tires? The difference is huge. It may not change the car's overall characteristics, but it hangs corners surprisingly well; way better than it did before.
Surely your sarcas-o-meter isn't THAT far gone
Thats fine, some people do.
obvious troll
Really? Your great argument has to resort to this? How pathetic. At least I clearly explain my points and give examples. You just use cheap personal insults and stereotypical claims.
Thats the thing...you obviously DONT know the difference since you're the one trying to compare cars that have a 50whp and 150wtq difference. Funny thing, you still haven't actually responded to my S2000 dyno argument. And hey look, another low-blow attack using a cheap stereotype...I didn't see that coming!
Did you read what I said? This is the engine in my dad's Chevelle, which has seen over 6k many times. And obviously we're never gonna upgrade any part of the engine from now on, so that whole "room to grow" thing is...wait...nevermind, you conveniently didn't read that part so I won't even bring it up.
I would insert a cheap personal insult...but nah...I'll just stick to my real argument, since it actually has substance.
I said that the speed is made in a completely different fashion between bikes and cars. Bikes easily have crazy power/weight ratios right off the bat...it's a lot tougher to do with full bodied cars, and requires the use of more cylinders, cubic inches, and much more overall power. Trying to compare cars and bikes in acceleration is horrible; even a relatively slow bike is going to lay waste to some pretty fast cars...but yet again, you're the king at horrible comparisons so I wouldn't put it past you.
Making excuses as to how my car still put down more power than a "high tech" stock S2000 can dream of for a fraction of the price? Guess that speaks volumes for the S2000. Either way, your argument fails. Hilarious.
Low end torque is good for getting out of low speed corners in road racing, among other things (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, my car is a daily driver. I built my engine accordingly; great for stop light to stop light power and good drag strip times. Though I plan to completely revamp the suspension in the near future and hit the road course. Unfortunately, the nearest one is a few hours away (VIR). And you may not buy a sports car for around town driving, but in most cases that's what it will be doing the majority of the time.
How about you enlighten us, Oh Master of Car Knowledge :rolleyes:
Last edited by kingcars, .
So calling my engine "sad, to say the least" isn't an insult? Sorry for the confusion....?
BTW - the power dropoff is just where I let off the gas. I didn't build it with the intention of high rpm. For a street car going stop light to stop light, low end power is where the fun is. So it's not a diesel...just a stock cammed Mustang 5.0L V8 with heads, intake, and 1.7 roller rockers. The stock cam is known for great low end power and nice power curves (but not high rpm obviously haha), though we did set the cam at 2 degrees retard to give it a little bit more top end; when degreed stock, they start to lose power around 4500ish. Oh, and a ~3300lb car isn't really a boat anymore by today's standards
.
Last edited by kingcars, .
Doubt it would kill me off the line. While I'm putting over 250ftlbs of torque to the ground at 1650rpm he's...wait......his dyno graph doesnt even start until 3000rpm.
Even then, he doesnt get to 100ftlbs until 5000rpm. Yes, they are light cars, but even that can only do so much.
Last edited by kingcars, .
The actual purpose is to allow for any type of car debate; guess I should clarify more in the OP (EDIT: I have clarified in the OP now). For example, there was one on another forum about automatics vs manuals.
You don't have to be to get good performance out of a RWD car...
And you shouldnt have to be constantly dumping more in...
You have repeatedly referred to the "better" reliability of 4cyls, which is a load of bull.
And failed at it.
Not very comparable, especially in torque, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's very peaky...hey look what I found! A stock S2000 dyno graph:
http://hondaswap.com/~mike/s2k ... /s2k_dyno_graph_stock.jpg
Look at that! Even at 8500rpm it's only putting 193hp to the rear wheels. It's only putting 125hp or less to the rear wheels up until 6000rpm. I'd be freakin GONE by the time the car got there, and still be pulling away. And hows that torque lookin? Hmmm, 147rwtq max? Not even CLOSE to what my engine put out, my friend; that car is down 47rwhp and a whopping 153rwtq. And unlike the S2000, my engine is making that power throughout its powerband. Like I said, REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER AND BRAKE HORSEPOWER ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Stop trying to compare a car whose bhp is close to my rwhp and torque that isnt even in the same galaxy.
To further the argument, keep in mind that in order to keep that S2000 in its power band, you're going to need a close ratio gearbox and a short rear end gear, which is highly unpractical for the street. My car uses a 3.27 rear end gear with a stock tremec 5 speed transmission, which has a .067 overdrive; she cruises down the highway at 2000rpm and still climbs hills with ease. And I don't have to rev the snot out of it just to get to my power band.
Here you prove how pathetic and sleazy you really are. I put more hours into that build than you could imagine. Even though it's a somewhat heated debate, I've found it to be a rather solid debate, but come on dude...that's just a low blow and totally unnecessary. I thought you'd at least be better than that.
Actually, with the 245/45/ZR17 tires I put on the Tbird, she corners much better than you think. Another ignorant assumption.
Power curves are approximately 5,489,548,954 times more important than the peak power you blab on about all the time.
No, but it sure does help a whole lot!
It's not to make my car sound more powerful, it's to try to ensure that we make fair comparisons. I have to do this because the people here, like you, have no idea what 240rwhp actually means. See the S2000 comparison above, which you tried to make because its Bhp is close to my rwhp, when in reality, its power is nowhere NEAR where mine is.
No, it doesnt. That would mean that the engine has no room to grow...so when we go to do more to it, we'd have to tear the whole bottom end back apart. You've obviously never done an engine build, which you, funny enough, accuse me of not doing.
Yes, but it's done in a completely different fashion. Even you must recognize this.
EDIT: Oh, and referring back to my "wiped out bearings" excuse...here's how the bearings looked after driving the car home from the dyno:
http://img.photobucket.com/alb ... ct/wipedbearingssmall.jpg
Hint: they're supposed to be a flat grey/silver color.
Last edited by kingcars, .
The RPM on the sheets are a bit off; HP drop off was at 5500, not 5000. Note that on the 240rwhp run, it shows the decline at "5000" but on the 300rwtq run it drops at "4500." I took the car to 5500rpm and 5000rpm on those runs respectively; during the calibration part at the beginning, I messed up so thats why the RPMs are slightly off. Also, this is using a stock 1988 Mustang cam. Besides, keeping the power band low means more fun on the street. Getting a bigger cam or degreeing the stock one more could yield higher rpm band, but wouldn't be quite as fun from stop light to stop light, where it sees most of its use. Also, this is a budget build. And for a very mild build, it makes great power. Overall power curve on those sheets is very good. People like you are, well, sad to say the least.
You were just saying how it's easier for regular "enthusiasts" to drive AWD cars...
Then that's fine.
I've heard from many people that wankels (mostly the older ones) suck oil like nobodys business. Theyre fine if you keep up with them, but if you miss a step, you can kiss it goodbye.
Where did I say my car was special? All I was saying is that it has been greatly reliable for me and everyone that has used it, which you seem to think that every American car is gonna break down after 3000 miles.
Oh wow, I totally didnt see the hp/liter argument coming :rolleyes: . Once again, talking peak power instead of full power curves. Also, the price argument equals this out, so stop before you get to far into it.
Oh, so what youre saying is...when 4cyls get up to comparable power numbers, the fuel mileage starts to equal out!?!?! NO WAY DUDE!! Thank you for proving my point.
Sweet, I need to go there someday then
.Here we go again with peak power and saying 250Bhp instead of Whp. Oh, and I didn't buy it...I built it with my own hands. With my dad.
You're right. My car has all those except for the sunroof, and it's all fine so far. Has nothing to do with my argument.
Actually, my car only weighs ~3300lbs; no weight reduction. Comparable to a new Civic. New cars are way too loaded with crap, imo.
Yes, but that book doesnt tell you the WHOLE story. It's not always about peak power. You need to realize this.
Hahahah 160ftlbs...and you say my stuff is nothing special.
There are quite a few awesome European V8s...all of which have nothing to do with our argument. And yes, the whole GM ordeal was retarded. They couldn't have handled it worse.
Hahahahaha seriously? Really? I'm making excuses? It's not excuses...just explaining the situation around things. For a fraction of the price and non-optimal scenarios, my car and my dad's car lay waste to price comparable imports. That's not making excuses, just showing how stupid your argument really is. Just wait, it wont be long (maybe a month or 2) before my car is back together and I'll be posting dyno sheets of 255-260ish whp (which is very close to 300BHP).
Hence why my dad's engine was BUILT for 7k, and we run it to the low 6k.
Bikes are totally different from cars...dont even try to compare.
Get your stererotypes out of here. I'm a tiny guy; 5' 4" and 110lbs. No obesity here, nor anywhere in my family kthxbye. I'm ashamed of all the lazy obese people in this country.
If you dont like the thread, dont click on it. It's better than cluttering current threads.
I agree. It's the generalized statements about "archaic" and "unreliable" American cars (specifically V8s in most cases) that really irk me.
Last edited by kingcars, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG