Wrote Off The Red Ford Ranger (well brownish red...)

All the same family. The Integra and Civic even share the same Hanes manual!

hmm so they do… either way civics are not performance automobiles, and thats why you have to spend so much money basically building them into a NEW car in order for them to be fast.

[quote=“jesus”]

hmm so they do… either way civics are not performance automobiles, and thats why you have to spend so much money basically building them into a NEW car in order for them to be fast.[/quote]

I beg to differ, There are lots of civic ( honda ect ect Brands ) mainly import brands being raced and are performance cars… being you joel and knowing nothing about cars and admitting it i would just chill on your crap your spueling out…

[quote=“jleaman”]

hmm so they do… either way civics are not performance automobiles, and thats why you have to spend so much money basically building them into a NEW car in order for them to be fast.

I beg to differ, There are lots of civic ( honda ect ect Brands ) mainly import brands being raced and are performance cars… being you joel and knowing nothing about cars and admitting it i would just chill on your crap your spueling out…[/quote]

ok mr ricer… and how many of these “performance cars” have stock honda civic engines? honda civics are not sports cars, plain and simple. just so you know fast and the furious was fake, and honda civics arnt fast unless you spend thousands of dollars on them

[quote=“jesus”]

hmm so they do… either way civics are not performance automobiles, and thats why you have to spend so much money basically building them into a NEW car in order for them to be fast.

I beg to differ, There are lots of civic ( honda ect ect Brands ) mainly import brands being raced and are performance cars… being you joel and knowing nothing about cars and admitting it i would just chill on your crap your spueling out…

ok mr ricer… and how many of these “performance cars” have stock honda civic engines? honda civics are not sports cars, plain and simple. just so you know fast and the furious was fake, and honda civics arnt fast unless you spend thousands of dollars on them[/quote]

ok smart ass what do you call the Honda S2000? Or a Acura RSX ? stock cars both 200hp and way nicer and faster than your car… NOt saying your car is slow but these cars are performance cars… From factory…

Hahahahahahaha!.. One second, im still not done laughing, hahahahahahahaha! performance in the sence that they have a little bit more hp then the rest of the honda lineup. Theres no significant improvements in these 2 cars that deam them worthy of a performance sports car. If you look at the tread of the cars coming out in the last couples years, these cars are cheap economy cars. SRT 4 isnt even consitered a sports car, though it does have a performance package, and could tare apart the honda and acura anyday of the week… stock.

Id love to see you prove me wrong on that… A S2000 would kill a srt.

A srt is 214hp and Weighs 2900 lbs
a S2000 is 245hp and Weighs 2850 lbs

Not much in difference in weight but some in power.

Srt front wheel drive with turbo
S2000 Rear Wheel drive with no turbo

Srt redlines at 6000rpm
S2000 redlines at 8500rpm

My bets are on the S2000.

If you put a good driver in the S2000 and a typical kid who thinks he’s the shit because he has a decent car, and race them head to head, the driver in the S2000 has a chance because they have both comparible hp, but the S2000 is low on torque in comparison.

Head to head with equal drivers, I’d bet on the Neon, but at the end of the day, they both lose, because the S2000 only seats two and has shitting cargo room, and all Neons are butt ugly.

[quote=“jleaman”]

hmm so they do… either way civics are not performance automobiles, and thats why you have to spend so much money basically building them into a NEW car in order for them to be fast.

I beg to differ, There are lots of civic ( honda ect ect Brands ) mainly import brands being raced and are performance cars… being you joel and knowing nothing about cars and admitting it i would just chill on your crap your spueling out…

ok mr ricer… and how many of these “performance cars” have stock honda civic engines? honda civics are not sports cars, plain and simple. just so you know fast and the furious was fake, and honda civics arnt fast unless you spend thousands of dollars on them

ok smart ass what do you call the Honda S2000? Or a Acura RSX ? stock cars both 200hp and way nicer and faster than your car… NOt saying your car is slow but these cars are performance cars… From factory…[/quote]

I thought Jesus was talking about Civics like yours, not the Honda S2000 or Acura RSX.

If you’re talking straight line racing, I would put my money on the SRT-4. If you’re taking these cars to a windy track, the S2000. Only becuase it scored better in skidpad and braking numbers… Other than that, Jason your S2000 costs about ~12K USD more than the SRT-4, it’s smaller, uncomfortable and produces disgustingly low torque numbers. For the money, you can build an SRT-4 to drive circles around that S2000, period. (pats myself on back for grabbing actual times and ratings…)
*
[size=18]2003-2005 Dodge Neon SRT-4[/size]
*
Created by Dodge’s PVO team, the SRT-4 powered by a 2.4L turbo engine. The engine, underrated at 215 hp in 2003, is now rated at 230 hp and comes standard with an LSD for 2004. Numerous Mopar upgrades are also available.

Base price : $18,970

Engine : 4 cylinder, turbocharged, DOHC, front engine FWD
Displacement : 2,429 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 5-spd manual
Fuel economy : city - 22 mpg / highway - 30 mpg

Suspension : F - Independent MacPherson strut
R - Independent multilink
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs

Horsepower : 230 hp @ 5300 rpm
Torque : 250 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm
Redline : 6750 rpm

Top speed : 153 mph
0-60 mph : 5.6 sec.
0-¼ mile : 14.2 sec @ 102.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 120 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.85 g

Curb Weight : 2970 lbs
Overall length : 175.7 in.
Wheelbase : 105.0 in.
Overall Width : 67.4 in.
Height : 56.5 in.

**
[size=18]2004-2005 Honda S2000[/size]**

Honda’s best roadster since the release of the S800 many decades ago, this high-revving VTEC two-seater, introduced in 2000, gets an increase in displacement for 2004, along with a mild facelift inside and out.

Base price : $32,800

Engine : 4 cylinder, DOHC, front engine RWD
Displacement : 2,157 cc
Valve : 16 valves, 4 valves per cylinder
Transmission : 6-spd manual
Fuel economy : city - 20 mpg
highway - 26 mpg

Suspension : F - Independent double wishbone
R - Independent double wishbone
Brakes : F - Vented discs
R - Solid discs

Horsepower : 240 hp @ 7800 rpm
Torque : 162 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
Redline : 8200 rpm

Top speed : 150 mph
0-60 mph : 5.5 sec.
0-¼ mile : 14.2 sec @ 98.0 mph
60-0 braking distance : 116 ft
200 ft skidpad : 0.92 g
**
Curb Weight :** 2835 lbs
Overall length : 162.2 in.
Wheelbase : 94.5 in.
Overall Width : 68.9 in.
Height : 50.0 in.

[quote=“jleaman”]Id love to see you prove me wrong on that… A S2000 would kill a srt.

A srt is 214hp and Weighs 2900 lbs
a S2000 is 245hp and Weighs 2850 lbs

Not much in difference in weight but some in power.

Srt front wheel drive with turbo
S2000 Rear Wheel drive with no turbo

Srt redlines at 6000rpm
S2000 redlines at 8500rpm

My bets are on the S2000.[/quote]

You better get your numbers straight, first off the srt has 230 hp at the wheels where as the s2000 has **240 **hp at the crank, and if you wanna play numbers, the srt has 265 hp at the crank, plus with it front wheel drive, it gets better traction (ie. more weight over driving wheels). srt4 0-60 5.3 and the real redline is 6800rpm… s2000 0-60 6.2. So there you have it, the real numbers.

Also, according to this site, which is probably fairly unreliable…
albeedigital.com/supercoupe/ … times.html

Tyler’s
2003 Dodge SRT-4 5.6 14.1
2004 Dodge SRT-4 5.3 13.9
Jesus’
1994 Eagle Talon TSi AWD 6.6 14.6
1995 Eagle Talon TSi 6.4 15.1

2003 Honda S2000 6.3 14.9 (Manual)
Orangetang’s
1991 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.5 14.8
Jason’s
1994 Honda Civic del Sol VTEC 7.4 15.8

:unamused: This being the FASTEST 0-60 time from any Honda Civic, CRX or otherwise, we should all point and laugh at Jason for now. I’m sure Tyler’s would be more than happy to cream any of our rides in any form of race… The SRT-4 wins, OK?

no way my mazda b2200 would beat tyler’s car(ok now im dreaming). Horsepower is such a misinterpreted number, its your torque the makes the most differnce. srt-4 is the best bang for your buck, and if you were to spend $32,000 on the srt-4, you would be upto a stage 3 in mods from mopar which includes suspension, and engine upgrades, and will produce 380hp with high octane fuel.

Screw all your cars… I’m getting this one.

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/advice/standardart.aspx?contentid=4022689&src=home&pos=editlead

I bet you are :stuck_out_tongue: I have seen some prety nice Ferrari’s driving around in town here, but the Carrera GT2 I saw about a month just blew me away. Argue away guys, I’m off to the beach ot worsen this sunburn.

Porsche Sux over priced CRAP… If i were to buy a car like that it would be Toyota Supra Twin turbo witch would kill the Porsche…

If you could afford a Porche, why would you buy a used car?

Have to admit, Ive always been partial to Ferrari myself. I like the look of them better than a Porche, plus I think they are faster too…though I dont much care about how fast they go.

That and older (like '58-'60) Corvettes…those are sharp looking cars.

I’m not much of a car guy really though, but there are some cars that i do like.

[quote=“alistair”]

If you could afford a Porche, why would you buy a used car?[/quote]

Because the Supra would be faster :smiley:

[quote=“jleaman”]

If you could afford a Porche, why would you buy a used car?

Because the Supra would be faster :smiley:[/quote]

Yes, but it would still look like a Supra. Besides, where you going in such a hurry?