What do honda fanboys smoke?
09-29-2011, 03:35 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
huh, I guess that my old 06 gt was a gt500 then. They must have mis-badged it then. My mis-badged gt500 ran 13.501 as the best time ever. I only ran it that hard a couple of times which means power-shifting.
Big mouths you just say, lets put some money on it and not $5 either. $100-$200 usually shuts down the excuses.
Big mouths you just say, lets put some money on it and not $5 either. $100-$200 usually shuts down the excuses.
09-29-2011, 07:17 PM
#33
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
That old power to weight thing gets me every time too. I mean sure, an S2000 makes 248 HP out of 2.0 or whatever it is, but it does so at 7-9k RPM. Funny how the whole power band thing gets left out of those arguments, lol.
09-30-2011, 12:31 AM
#34
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: iowa
Posts: 1,626
i like s2k's also, what i dont like is a economy car that some one somewhere thought was fast. sure with money they can be, but so can the boat anchor of a v6 that my car has. i saw on youtube someone had a bolt on, spray versa. I own the same versa thats in the vid, and honest to god i think it has all of 115 bhp. why? oh god why?!?
09-30-2011, 10:24 AM
#35
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,278
slight tune and removed cat. that's a basically stock 1.6L B16.
09-30-2011, 10:36 AM
#36
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
Not much tq. Heres my Cobalt, http://www.cardomain.com/ride/330850...lity-4d/page-5
Last edited by Stone629; 09-30-2011 at 11:08 AM.
09-30-2011, 05:10 PM
#38
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302
It is flat, but it also flat sucks. 
Having to rev to 4k just to get 108 ftlbs is rough, imo. I'm not saying their gearing and high revs don't help some, and yes, technically that one you posted has a flat TQ curve but still, it never made any TQ to begin with.
Here's an S2000 showing a little more about what I meant by less than desirable curves. http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/gallery/im...00-w65k-miles/
as opposed to my previous Mach..
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_...0089_large.jpg
So that whole HP per liter thing can be argued, but its clear which car has the superior power band.
Having to rev to 4k just to get 108 ftlbs is rough, imo. I'm not saying their gearing and high revs don't help some, and yes, technically that one you posted has a flat TQ curve but still, it never made any TQ to begin with. Here's an S2000 showing a little more about what I meant by less than desirable curves. http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/gallery/im...00-w65k-miles/
as opposed to my previous Mach..
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_...0089_large.jpg
So that whole HP per liter thing can be argued, but its clear which car has the superior power band.
Last edited by Stone629; 09-30-2011 at 05:13 PM.
09-30-2011, 08:04 PM
#39
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 2,374
09-30-2011, 08:12 PM
#40
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,302