Mustang vs. Civic
- Thread starter NiM130
- Start date
- Status
-
Sponsors (?)
Enzora
The member formerly known as Nazgul
Thanks Integraholic. Side by side pics, and there's still hardly any difference. Amazing how far Ford has come with their small cars since then.
AP1995V6
Member
Domesic hot dogs kick import hot dog ass
My aunt has an 80-something T-bird... that thing is a tank.
My aunt has an 80-something T-bird... that thing is a tank.
5-SpeedStallion
Founding Member
mustangcoupe said:
Well, he deserved it. Anyone who drives around with the Fast and the Furious theme blaring should have their licence revoked immediately, cause if they're dumb enough to like the movie/song as a whole, they're probably dumb enough to think its like real life.
BTW, saw a 40 year-old guy w/ a mullet rolling in a early-90's Celi w/ fart can and racing stripes BLARING 2F2F theme by Ludacris
Integraholic said:
You do drive a Civic. An Integra is built on a slightly modified Civic platform.
Civic over a V6 Mustang? Hmmm... Although I agree with the reliability part, I'm gonna have to say I'd honestly rather have the Mustang. I'd rather drive a boat than a go-cart with not enough power to get out of it's own way. I know, my second car IS a go cart... but it has more power than a base Civic. Not by much... but..
The title of this topic looked like "NSX vs. ZX2", but only the reverse.
Civic and Mustang have nothing in common, except stupid kids putting on stupid looking wings and 5 inch diameter pipe/pipes on both.
Integraholic said:
PEAK HP... no replacement for displacement.
Even in the "ricer" world. Take a built 2.0 against a built 2.4 4 cyl even if you got the same peak HP out of the 20 as the 2.4 it is likely the 2.4 would have more torque, a flatter torqueband and more average HP.
4 cyl like what's in the S2000 are nice, but... why go with that when you can build a much larger engine the exact same way?
aznzebra
New Member
gold289 said:
Maybe he needs driving lessons, if he didn't drive it like an ass he wouldn't need a new clutch!
BTW I own both a civic and a mustang!
And a whole lot of folks here are stereo typing people on both sides of the issue, myself included.
Yes I own a civic, no it's not modded, no it's not fast, no I'm not some little ol'lady or some new wet behind the ear driver with my first car, no it doesn't have a vtec sticker on the rear bumper, nor am I anything else you people find so annoying about Honda owners.
Yes I own a V6 mustang rag top, and no its not fast either! no it's not modded, nor am I some cocky little prick!
This whole issue is a waste of band width! a civic is a civic, small, cheap
on gas realiable car. Remember guys it wasn't all that long ago you could buy a 2.3 L econo box that had a Mustang label attached.
If you must compare a Mustang to a Civic, compare those years when both Ford & Honda went head to head in the econo box market for these models. At least it will be apples to apples.
I like lots of cars. Not just Hondas. I just bought a Nissan, and I own a Toyota. I like old notchback 5.0's, early 70's mustangs, Chevelles, Chargers, and so on. You're all still looking around the fact that I was ACTUALLY correcting. Someone stated more cylinders = faster. And NO ONE can argue with that because it's not always true.
00StangV6Coupe
Founding Member
dastang2 said:
If you'd rather have an old impreza over an s2000 you have issues. Until recently the subarus were not exactly well powered. Heck one of my friends has a new 2.5 RS impreza and it still only comes with 160 hp. And as for being bullet-proof, i'd have to disagree I've seen subarus with bullet holes in them before.
As for the sports car subaru you're referring to, was it maybe the SVX? I didn't think they had a twin turbo but then again, its the only car subaru ever made in the early 90's that turbos would make a little sense in.
The SVX's (in the US anyway) were all auto non turbo. They look awesome, but are severely underpowered and have the wrong tranny.
- Status
