Well, I can tell you right now that it doesn't way anything close to that 4700 lb. turd station wagon.
As for the second comment, I don't care if your station wagon is faster than my stock Vette (which was made in 1985 BTW). If you want to make a fair comparison it WOULD smoke a stock or lightly modded 85 Stang in the 1/4.
You are equally stupid if you believe that a vette (regardless what year ) has the same 1/4 mile time as a civic.
Id be willing to bet my bone stock 95 gts is faster than the 85 automatic vette in the 1/4.
Hell I bet my 89 Honda Civic/CRX is faster too....it even has a stock 89 Engine in it (note stock engine from dif model crx same year though) hmmm wtf does that mean????
I like the look of later lt1 c4's...Hell I even considered a older 80's c4 but I have a kid and knew a sn95 or aero fox would be a better choice
I dont even think I care about speed anymore guess thats why I want a yota 4x4 for dd again
First off, I was NOT comparing my car to the magnum. If you read his earlier post you can see that is was 85 GT who brought my car into the mix.
Second , there were many Vettes that were "weaker and slower" than mine most notably, the C1 Vettes (53-62) and the C3 Vettes produced from the mid 70s to early 80s (i.e around the same time the mustang II was being produced) in which HP ranged from 165 - 200hp. The 1984 Vette with the L83 Crossfire was also a complete dog. 1985 was actually the year in which power went up for the Vette with the new L98 engine and TPI.
Well considering an 85 Vette weighs about the same as an 85 GT and has 20 more hp and about 60 more lb. of torque, I would say that the Stang would have to be more than lightly modded to have a chance at beating a the Vette. stock for stock, the Stang would have no chance.
Gonna have to disagree here, bud. The CRX's top of the line engine was the D16A6 from the Si, yet it still had only 108 HP and less than 100 ft. lbs. Yes it weighs 2000lbs, but it's still very underpowered. We're talking 16+ seconds slow. Even a limp C4 could do better. Now if the engine you speak of is from a JDM 1989 CRX SiR, it's a different ballgame. It would probably be faster (135ish WHP vs around 90), but in my humble opinion, a stock B16 in whatever vehicle sucks balls (usually less than 100 ft. lbs @ the wheels - holy lack of torque!). My humble opinion also says that C4s are overrated and overpriced, and should be sold to free up equity to buy useful stuff.
Yes I said stock CRX engine...didnt say it was a the JDMSiR engine/Trans....Car Weighs 1900lbs...It lacks torque no biggie...trust me its not holy ***** fast but its faster than a stock older c4 and alot of other cars of the era...and the b16a is correct engine of the era. I dont really care to get in a pissing contest. And my d16 that was in ran mid 15's all day long with just bolt ons. There are a lot of "factory freak" d16's...
Redfox should just :Track: and video tape it. Post it up and Prove to everybody what it runs.No more ghey pissing matches on the internet that way.
A friend of mine before modding his str8 was running consistent 12.9's with it at the track so i'd say put your fox on a major diet and throw some bolt ons to it and learn how to not miss a shift and launch good with some dr's and your good
For what? Just to prove some dumba$$ ricer wrong?
Sorry to say this but nothing honda put out from the factory is even in the same league as a Corvette . So unless your pu55y crx can run significantly better than low 14s in the 1/4 I wouldn't call it "waaay faster" than a C4.
Well i think your wrong on that count buddy...Honda has a few cars that can smoke you slow ass vette....Take my Dads yes i said my Dads new 2008 Honda accord it does low 14's and like 100 mph..in the 1/4 and its a family car pretty said to see a 4dr smoke your vette huh? And like you said you would never own a wagon or something like that...Well to each his own but see i wouldnt own a vette that was slow either...so i guess were even....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?