Mustangs Suck!!!
Mach I Section Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,140
From: round abouts these parts
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
ORIGINAL: Chillwolf
Because my wife insisted that my mistress had a name. So I picked the name of an old girlfriend that she hated 
ORIGINAL: drhoward
why the **** would you name your car? Thats retarded
why the **** would you name your car? Thats retarded
Mish-ogynist
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,784
From: Helena, MT
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
I thought all evolutions were turbo'd? 2.0L turbo. My usually reference KBB doesn't list hp/tq/weight but the always wrong wikipedia lists the latest ones as 291hp/300tq.. and everything listed is in future-tense.. like.. it hasn't come out yet.. bleh.. wiki ftl.. (he said new evos, so 2008 is what im looking at)
edmunds claims 0-60 4.9secs curb weight at 3517 and 291hp/300tq
letsee.. we are 0-60 5.5secs 300hp 320tq at 3483 according to the info I got..
doesn't really add up unless they are geared for 0-60.. although AWD is always good for launching...
edmunds claims 0-60 4.9secs curb weight at 3517 and 291hp/300tq
letsee.. we are 0-60 5.5secs 300hp 320tq at 3483 according to the info I got..
doesn't really add up unless they are geared for 0-60.. although AWD is always good for launching...
Mach I Section Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,140
From: round abouts these parts
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
ORIGINAL: Mishri
I thought all evolutions were turbo'd? 2.0L turbo. My usually reference KBB doesn't list hp/tq/weight but the always wrong wikipedia lists the latest ones as 291hp/300tq.. and everything listed is in future-tense.. like.. it hasn't come out yet.. bleh.. wiki ftl.. (he said new evos, so 2008 is what im looking at)
edmunds claims 0-60 4.9secs curb weight at 3517 and 291hp/300tq
letsee.. we are 0-60 5.5secs 300hp 320tq at 3483 according to the info I got..
doesn't really add up unless they are geared for 0-60.. although AWD is always good for launching...
I thought all evolutions were turbo'd? 2.0L turbo. My usually reference KBB doesn't list hp/tq/weight but the always wrong wikipedia lists the latest ones as 291hp/300tq.. and everything listed is in future-tense.. like.. it hasn't come out yet.. bleh.. wiki ftl.. (he said new evos, so 2008 is what im looking at)
edmunds claims 0-60 4.9secs curb weight at 3517 and 291hp/300tq
letsee.. we are 0-60 5.5secs 300hp 320tq at 3483 according to the info I got..
doesn't really add up unless they are geared for 0-60.. although AWD is always good for launching...
5th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,445
From: Jersey
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
ORIGINAL: SpecterGT260
i dunno about that..... depends on whats done to it
i didnt see a mention of a turbo, so im guessing the result would have been about the same even if the guy didnt stall it
i dunno about that..... depends on whats done to it
i didnt see a mention of a turbo, so im guessing the result would have been about the same even if the guy didnt stall it
Mach I Section Moderator
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,140
From: round abouts these parts
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
ORIGINAL: Projectquick
HUH? stock for stock with equal drivers an evo should beat an S197 from a dig and a roll, and if he had an exhaust its safe to say he had a little more power over stock. Oh and the evo X is going to be slower than the IX and the VIII.
ORIGINAL: SpecterGT260
i dunno about that..... depends on whats done to it
i didnt see a mention of a turbo, so im guessing the result would have been about the same even if the guy didnt stall it
i dunno about that..... depends on whats done to it
i didnt see a mention of a turbo, so im guessing the result would have been about the same even if the guy didnt stall it
5th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,445
From: Jersey
RE: Mustangs Suck!!!
I said that a while ago but nobody seemed to agree with me. Also you have to remember that theturbo is going to make a nice torque curve, and I have seen EVOs outrun S197 on almost all rolls under 60 mph, over that though it's a different story.