Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 20705   By: ricerocketboy   Comment: "DJ KHALED!..."
Car: 97661   By: Skid   Comment: "They're not the worst, but there are quite a few w..."
Car: 97661   By: DiRF   Comment: "They're like polished, oversized versions of what ..."
Car: 97661   By: ricerocketboy   Comment: "those wheels are awful, especially on here...."
Car: 33317   By: ricerocketboy   Comment: "Before the Ineos Grenadier, there was this. I reme..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=47564
Submitted by: Adambomb
Comments: 13  (Read/Post)     Favorites: 2  (View)
Submitted on: 12-13-2005
View Stats Category: Car
Description:
'73 Javelin 401.


   Comments

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]

#1
12-13-2005 @ 03:52:15 PM
Posted By : DA_MAISTA Reply | Edit | Del
Somebody around here once stated that AMX engines "sucked". Can this somebody (or another) explain to your humble european ignorant what exactly made them "suck"?

#2
12-13-2005 @ 04:09:45 PM
Posted By : Adambomb Reply | Edit | Del
Something to do with them not being made by the big 3 *rollseyes*

#3
12-13-2005 @ 04:11:20 PM
Posted By : ricerocketboy Reply | Edit | Del
was it ambient? I happen to like these cars. A member on another forum Im on has a Javelin which he wants to drop a turbo'd 350 into.

#4
12-13-2005 @ 04:15:00 PM
Posted By : Adambomb Reply | Edit | Del
#3, T'is blasphmey I tells ya.

#5
12-13-2005 @ 04:16:19 PM
Posted By : ricerocketboy Reply | Edit | Del
#4, t'is ThumperZ.

#6
12-13-2005 @ 04:16:25 PM
Posted By : DA_MAISTA Reply | Edit | Del
#2, So it was like... lack of aftermarket-parts?

#7
12-13-2005 @ 04:27:00 PM
Posted By : Adambomb Reply | Edit | Del
#6, Would be my best guess. Anyway here's the HP of the top engines for diffrent 1973 ponycars:
Javelin: 255
Mustang: 156
Camaro: 245
Challenger/Cuda: 240


#8
12-13-2005 @ 04:29:56 PM
Posted By : DA_MAISTA Reply | Edit | Del
#7, May have been too little too late after they were hp-wise behind during the "good years".

#9
10-07-2008 @ 03:41:36 PM
Posted By : wannabemustangjockey  Reply | Edit | Del
#1, They do suck. They suck a lot. Air and gas.

#10
10-07-2008 @ 04:31:58 PM
Posted By : Skid Reply | Edit | Del
#1, AMC never quite reached the same level of performance (at their peak) as the big three did, but they still produced some crazy cool performance cars.

#11
10-07-2008 @ 04:50:07 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
AMC didn't have the performance, but they made up for it in styling. They had less to lose by letting their designers have fun... it's kinda what set them apart.

#12
10-07-2008 @ 04:54:30 PM
Posted By : Adambomb Reply | Edit | Del
The 390 apprently had 325 hp and the 401 330, that's enough for me :P

#13
10-07-2008 @ 05:14:57 PM
Posted By : Skid Reply | Edit | Del
Their most powerful stock engine was the 390 in the 1970 Rebel Machine, which made 340 hp. Unfortunately, the car weighed 3900 lbs.

The AMXs and Javelins, however, were light enough to be sufficiently fast with the slightly less powerful version 390. Plus, the engine incredibly managed to make over 400 ft. lbs. of peak torque.


Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]


Login to leave a comment

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Saturday, November 23, 2024 02:23:23 AM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Ricecop. All rights reserved.