C5Z vs Evo 8
#65
This argument just proves how ignorant some of the people on this forum are. On the street it would be hard to beat a well setup Evo and this one is not that fast. The Lsx is a great platform and so is the Evo so why can’t we all just respect each other’s choice in car and say it was a good clean race between friends but the Evo did win. And yes stirring the pot is fun.
#66
#67
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nw suburbs chicago
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supra (being able to put down 1000hp plus hp on a stock bottom end)
GTR
STI
are all above
do euros count cuz technically an import
this 92 guy is obviously biased thus the DSM= dick sucking motors
GTR
STI
are all above
do euros count cuz technically an import
this 92 guy is obviously biased thus the DSM= dick sucking motors
#70
I don't think I even need to respond to this.
#71
STi's mod for mod will get fucked up by an Evo, and blow up in the process.
Supra is a good call, but on a track the Evo is better for cheaper
#72
^^^^ Are u Fing kidding me a supra from a hundred roll and GTR is well out of most peoples price range and a STI has nothing on an Evo. You seem very biased against Evos you must have been beat, is that why you are so but hurt over the little 2ltr V8 eater.
#73
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Burbs, IL
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry hondatard, but the 4g63 has proven to make big power and take lots of abuse. Last time i checked the fastest 4cyl in the world is bret rau's car going high 6's in the 1/4. Dsm's and evo will destroy tons of **** from a roll and especially from a dig.
#74
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nw suburbs chicago
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never was beat by one.....
to did not say sti were faster they look meaner, sound meaner and do not have shitty eclipse interior with recaro seats.
Supras are under 50k, will rape an evo on the highway all night long and at the strip, idc about handling that is what M's are for, I would much rather have an 04 m3.
to did not say sti were faster they look meaner, sound meaner and do not have shitty eclipse interior with recaro seats.
Supras are under 50k, will rape an evo on the highway all night long and at the strip, idc about handling that is what M's are for, I would much rather have an 04 m3.
#75
lol. you should get a sticker of that on your car...oh wait...
#76
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nw suburbs chicago
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and 2 of my cars were honda and those, were when I was under 18, and had a budget, still do now since I have kids, but had limited one then since was still in hs
#78
never was beat by one.....
to did not say sti were faster they look meaner, sound meaner and do not have shitty eclipse interior with recaro seats.
Supras are under 50k, will rape an evo on the highway all night long and at the strip, idc about handling that is what M's are for, I would much rather have an 04 m3.
to did not say sti were faster they look meaner, sound meaner and do not have shitty eclipse interior with recaro seats.
Supras are under 50k, will rape an evo on the highway all night long and at the strip, idc about handling that is what M's are for, I would much rather have an 04 m3.
Also, your one valid point w/ the supra is about a straight line...buttttttt...again overall I would stay the Evo would take the supra (breaking, corning, interior, comfort ect.) in a comapo w/ professionals.
I love supras tho, so I would take one over an Evo FWIW.