destroying an RX-7 at 141 MPH
09-13-2005, 03:03 PM
#42
STF Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shawnmce2
what I meant by newer was about a 93 RX-7....and yes it wasn't impressive on how fast those cars are stock.....and by the way whoever it was that said they have a friend with a rx-7 that would walk all over an LS1 let him try to disgrace my Lingenfelter LS1 parked in my garage...lol
09-13-2005, 03:04 PM
#43
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: STL Metro Area
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
LOL @ camaro owner calling another car ugly. That made my day.
shawn, you're still an idiot. Stick to repeating other people's insults.
shawn, you're still an idiot. Stick to repeating other people's insults.
09-13-2005, 03:14 PM
#45
STF Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SporkLover
You have to agree... if the EVO wasn't AWD or had the Turbo.... everyone would call it an ugly POS
STi isn't that attractive either while we're on the subject.
1g DSMs looked so much better. so did 3000gt/stealths and so did rx-7s. japanese designers been drinking the wacky koolaid lately? Even the boxy Skylines looked worlds better than the evo/sti.
That's not to say i don't like the cars, i respect them and admire their potential... they're just ugly.
at least they have the ***** to back up the styling, unlike the celica.
09-13-2005, 08:23 PM
#47
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Shore, MA
Posts: 1,713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
LOL @ camaro owner calling another car ugly. That made my day.
"
09-13-2005, 10:50 PM
#48
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central jersey, nj
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by necrocannibal
well since he said he could hear the BOV Im assuming he means a newer, like 93, RX7 since RX8s would have a tough time making a BOV noise.
Originally Posted by SporkLover
Rx7's are t3h suck because of these.....
No matter how fast they are..... it's just a matter of time
I work with a guy that had a 500 RWHP RX7. He had a Ginormous turbo on that car. However.... in one year he had to have it rebuilt twice.... seems that the Apex seals couldn't take all the abuse and eventually the car would smoke bad.....
Amazingly though... the STL area does have an amazingly fast RX7 and it has held together for a while. It belongs to Eric Chetam. At Gateway Raceway he ran a mid 10 @ 129mph..... he lifted at the end of the track to try and slow down, because he didnt have a cage, and wasnt legal to run that fast..... well they wouldnt let him run anymore because of it...... Also St Louis' fastest import...
I did hear once that he lost a turbo to his own fault.... on the dyno he ran with out a filter on the turbo inlet..... blew a vaccum hose and sucked it in the turbo. First.... Zip tie those damn vaccum lines..... second... bwhahahahaha
No matter how fast they are..... it's just a matter of time
I work with a guy that had a 500 RWHP RX7. He had a Ginormous turbo on that car. However.... in one year he had to have it rebuilt twice.... seems that the Apex seals couldn't take all the abuse and eventually the car would smoke bad.....
Amazingly though... the STL area does have an amazingly fast RX7 and it has held together for a while. It belongs to Eric Chetam. At Gateway Raceway he ran a mid 10 @ 129mph..... he lifted at the end of the track to try and slow down, because he didnt have a cage, and wasnt legal to run that fast..... well they wouldnt let him run anymore because of it...... Also St Louis' fastest import...
I did hear once that he lost a turbo to his own fault.... on the dyno he ran with out a filter on the turbo inlet..... blew a vaccum hose and sucked it in the turbo. First.... Zip tie those damn vaccum lines..... second... bwhahahahaha
Last edited by BrandonDrecksage; 09-13-2005 at 10:55 PM.
09-14-2005, 08:07 AM
#49
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know it's ugly, i never said it wasnt. Still doesn't change the fact that you are calling the kettle black by calling other cars ugly.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
09-14-2005, 08:14 AM
#50
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
rx7 or rx8? they stopped making rx7s over 10 years ago. rx8s are slow and peaky...a stock rx7 against your a4 should be a closer race.
oh, you mean an rx7 turbo.
non-turbo wasn't exactly quick either.
09-14-2005, 08:47 AM
#51
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shelby Twp, MI
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
you could HEAR how cool he thought he was?
interesting talent you have there. better be caerful there at 141 mph.
i like your little picture, but how does "no traction" = all go? i mean, arent big smoky burnouts all show? Isnt a powerslide all show? wouldn't you say that 4 exhaust tips is a bit of overkill, and actually considered ricey?
think about that.
interesting talent you have there. better be caerful there at 141 mph.
i like your little picture, but how does "no traction" = all go? i mean, arent big smoky burnouts all show? Isnt a powerslide all show? wouldn't you say that 4 exhaust tips is a bit of overkill, and actually considered ricey?
think about that.
why are you even on this site....
09-14-2005, 08:51 AM
#52
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shelby Twp, MI
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
i know it's ugly, i never said it wasnt. Still doesn't change the fact that you are calling the kettle black by calling other cars ugly.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
personally, I think Camaros are attractive.... they look bad ***
09-14-2005, 09:23 AM
#53
Originally Posted by EvilDylan
i know it's ugly, i never said it wasnt. Still doesn't change the fact that you are calling the kettle black by calling other cars ugly.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
there really are few cars out there now that are considered attractive, and those are usually exotics.
09-14-2005, 09:24 AM
#54
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central jersey, nj
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wickedwarlock
actually, not quite 10 years. I think the last rx7 was 1998. I believe it was one year after nissan pulled the 300zx out of the US do to lack of sales. The supra was the same (1998), ended one year after nissan pulled out.
oh, you mean an rx7 turbo. non-turbo wasn't exactly quick either.
oh, you mean an rx7 turbo.
non-turbo wasn't exactly quick either.so in the us...it was 10 years ago roughly...all together...3 years in japan.
no **** the non turbo is slow...take away the supercharger from the mustang or lightning...are those cars still gonna be fast?
09-14-2005, 10:16 AM
#55
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Davenport, Iowa
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
no **** the non turbo is slow...take away the supercharger from the mustang or lightning...are those cars still gonna be fast?
09-14-2005, 10:46 AM
#56
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central jersey, nj
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TransAm52804
Lightning: no. Mustang: yes. These cars don't need FI to be quicker than economy shitboxes. Take away the S/C's and the Stangs are still running 13-14's: trucks... well, they're trucks. 4bangers really heavily on that damn metal snail to get moving, otherwise they're enjoying the 15+ second 1/4's, which is not necessarily a bad thing, because after all: they're economy cars. It's just the ricers think they're race cars.
what makes a car an economy car? because its supposed to get good gas milage? my SS gets about 27mpg a tank...does that make it an economy car because it gets better gas mileage than a srt4, rx7...ect.
09-14-2005, 12:14 PM
#57
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Davenport, Iowa
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes it an economy car? Well gee, I dunno, the fact that they came out of the assembly plant... as an economy car! 
Take the turbo off an SRT-4, and you have a Neon: economy car. Turbo (and suspension) off the EVO and you have the Lancer: economy car. Non-turbo DSM's: economy car.
I'm sure by now you get my point since my first post obviously went over your head. Reguardless of their looks: they're economy cars. Meant to get from point A to point B with lost cost of the car, good gas mileage, low power, tiny engine, cheap parts, cheap to insure, etc etc etc.
I don't care if they were modified like all the sub-15 second Civics and other shitboxes with aftermarket turbos, cams, etc to get them to be quick: they are economy cars that were later modified to be quick, but are still economy cars.
The main point I was implying in the previous post is that without FI, these cars are nothing but typical economy cars from the factory.
MPG has nothing to do with it. A Ferrari could get 30 MPG (which it obviously doesn't), so with your theory on my previous post, you're saying I think it should be considered an economy car?
Take the turbo off an SRT-4, and you have a Neon: economy car. Turbo (and suspension) off the EVO and you have the Lancer: economy car. Non-turbo DSM's: economy car. I'm sure by now you get my point since my first post obviously went over your head. Reguardless of their looks: they're economy cars. Meant to get from point A to point B with lost cost of the car, good gas mileage, low power, tiny engine, cheap parts, cheap to insure, etc etc etc.
I don't care if they were modified like all the sub-15 second Civics and other shitboxes with aftermarket turbos, cams, etc to get them to be quick: they are economy cars that were later modified to be quick, but are still economy cars.
The main point I was implying in the previous post is that without FI, these cars are nothing but typical economy cars from the factory.
MPG has nothing to do with it. A Ferrari could get 30 MPG (which it obviously doesn't), so with your theory on my previous post, you're saying I think it should be considered an economy car?
09-14-2005, 12:29 PM
#59
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: STL Metro Area
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Sticker Price, Relatively good gas mileage, and Low Sticker Price = Economy Car.
My Scion tC is an Economy car.... My SRT-4 was an Economy car.... it got 22mpg when I treated it bad around the city.... Power doesnt necessarily have to be a factor althoug it will ultimately affect the price....
Dylan good point.... Evos are ugly Looks are subjective...though, and I happen to think catfish are sexxy...... Oh and despite the looks factor of an Evo... I'd still rock one.
My Scion tC is an Economy car.... My SRT-4 was an Economy car.... it got 22mpg when I treated it bad around the city.... Power doesnt necessarily have to be a factor althoug it will ultimately affect the price....
Dylan good point.... Evos are ugly
Looks are subjective...though, and I happen to think catfish are sexxy...... Oh and despite the looks factor of an Evo... I'd still rock one.
09-14-2005, 12:39 PM
#60
Originally Posted by BrandonDrecksage
actually...rx7s were pulled from the us market in 1995...but were still amde in japan till 2002...in 1999 they recieved an update..slightly bigger twin turbos that boosted their output for torque and hp.
so in the us...it was 10 years ago roughly...all together...3 years in japan.
no **** the non turbo is slow...take away the supercharger from the mustang or lightning...are those cars still gonna be fast?
so in the us...it was 10 years ago roughly...all together...3 years in japan.
no **** the non turbo is slow...take away the supercharger from the mustang or lightning...are those cars still gonna be fast?
as for the blower, not always, the 4v cobra is still pretty quick. It only added 90hp to the mustang, why do you think that after market is so big, lol. (600hp kennebell setup)
as for the lighnting, they never put 300hp motor in a standard cab until 2004 with the new design which is heavier, but I hear they run low 15s stock. Really not bad for over 5k pound truck. (old design 300-500 pounds lighter depending on model).