|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
22 |
| Average Score |
1.91 |
| Verdict |
Good
|
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=12696 |
|
| Comments: 49 (Read/Post) Favorites: 1 (View) |
Submitted
on: 10-14-2002
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Photoshop/Art |
|
|
Description:
Is there a Q? |
Showing page: 1 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
 |
| #2 |
10-15-2002 @ 12:43:06 AM |
| Posted By : CRacer25 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
not for me.what's "gay" is getting 5 miles to the gallon plus rust and shit.Now that I find funny.Oh,we can't forget the fact the si has a hundred horses per liter.can you guys say the same thing?
|
|
| #3 |
10-15-2002 @ 12:48:41 AM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2, A SVT Mustang gets 16/22 mpg, not terriffic, but not abysmal
Are you saying Hondas are immune to rust?
the hp/lt. is the lamest excuse next to gas mileage that riceboy uses
|
|
| #4 |
10-15-2002 @ 12:59:59 AM |
| Posted By : CRacer25 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
it's only lame to you because you can't say the same thing.A honda can run 10's and it won't affect the mpg all that much compared to your V8's.And no,I'm not saying hondas are immune to rust.
|
|
| #6 |
10-15-2002 @ 01:10:44 AM |
| Posted By : Lebo |
Reply | Edit | Del |
bah. I thought we rid this site of petty domestic-import bashings... =/
|
|
| #7 |
10-15-2002 @ 01:34:44 AM |
| Posted By : cams116 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2, So fucking what, a 10a can have up to 400hp per litre, as it is only a litre.
|
|
| #9 |
10-15-2002 @ 01:37:12 AM |
| Posted By : cams116 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#8, Yes I know, but its just as stupid a comment.
|
|
| #10 |
10-15-2002 @ 05:45:36 AM |
| Posted By : Sonicman |
Reply | Edit | Del |
bah hp/l pisses me off
'oh my civic has 100hp per litre' yeah too bad it still runs 16's
|
|
| #12 |
10-15-2002 @ 05:49:14 AM |
| Posted By : Sonicman |
Reply | Edit | Del |
yeah i know, i was just saying what hp/l means to me(not much)
i think that outright power/torque and weight are more important figures, but the real figures are the 0-100km/h times and 400m times
|
|
| #13 |
10-15-2002 @ 07:53:54 AM |
| Posted By : Low-Tech Redneck |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, it's only lame to you because you can't say the same thing
No, it's lame because it's irrelevant, typical riceboy, you don't like my car? Must be jealous of it..... no, I just don't fucking care how much HP per lt you can make, the car is still slow okay?
|
|
| #14 |
10-15-2002 @ 08:01:33 AM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
also - peak horsepower is fairly meaningless unless you know what the torque/hp curve looks like.
It is nice to have all the torque down at the bottom and in the middle. It is just some senseless engineering exercise to make an engine with X hp per liter as your goal - what is more important is how it drives.
Also - living in the rust belt here - I see a lot more domestic cars that have lasted through the winter ravages than imports. I have driven many many imports - and they were all rust buckets in the end.
|
|
| #16 |
10-15-2002 @ 08:06:27 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
CRacer25 has been the official Ricecop whipping boy for quite some time now. It's nothing new. Every once in a while, he'll come on here, post some misinformed garbage, and then complain when he's flamed unmercifully for it.
|
|
| #17 |
10-15-2002 @ 08:09:46 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#14, I must say that I agree with you there. It's very nice to have a car with good low/midrange torque. I had a Thunderbird with a 3.8 once. 3600lb car with only 140hp. But it had around 215 lb-ft at 2200 RPM, so it was actually driveable. The V6 in the current Mustangs is a variant of that, except they've done a lot of intake work. It hits 225 lb-ft at 2800, and 193hp at 5300 (redline). So, from torque peak to redline, it stays around 200 lb-ft--practically a dead flat torque curve. Not super-fast, but certainly manageable.
|
|
| #18 |
10-15-2002 @ 08:12:02 AM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
The good old push-rod 3.8. Torquey little beast even in the FWD taurus. The new generation of v6 mustangs are pretty good - about as fast as the '96 GTs actually! Faster than my monte to be sure.
|
|
| #19 |
10-15-2002 @ 08:15:27 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Actually, frighteningly, the current 3.8 supposedly will outrun the earlier 4.6 GTs. The first-gen SOHC 4.6 only made a little over 200hp, it hit its torque peak later, and the car weighed a bit more. The 1999+ V6 Mustangs actually have better acceleration, and if it's V8/auto vs. V6/T5, it's probably no contest.
|
|
| #20 |
10-15-2002 @ 09:34:17 AM |
| Posted By : mr_mcmunkee |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I cannot believe someone can actually think that the crap in #2 is true and actually believe it. This world is "chock full o' nuts".
|
Showing page: 1 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
