here's why they should crush those stupid things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTFcKLm-6mg&mode=related&search=
crushed rice!
- Thread starter strtrcr50
- Start date
- Status
-
Sponsors (?)
hahaha I would have ran over it with the tractor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr9D5-u8PJ4&mode=related&search=
****ing ricers
lol http://youtube.com/watch?v=X7AG9n8MICs
fart fart fart fart... bang
lots of funny stuff on there : http://youtube.com/watch?v=huXKMhSjFT4&mode=related&search=
****ing ricers
lol http://youtube.com/watch?v=X7AG9n8MICs
fart fart fart fart... bang
lots of funny stuff on there : http://youtube.com/watch?v=huXKMhSjFT4&mode=related&search=
30mpg highway..around town, it's still a V8. Tragic in the rain and snow, too. I also lost to a 1990 Civic hatchback last year that was stock other than a $300 turbo kit. Winter daily driver, too.
Boss 351, for the love of God, shut up. We all know what a ricer is. We all have seen them. This is a discussion about real performance..there is no place for your childilsh and egotistical remarks.
You ran a 99.5 quarter mile? Whoop de doo. Even a stock SRT4 will turn 103-105. It's got a big wing and no muffler..embarassed? Your argument about displacement? Isn't it funny that an S2000 makes more power with 2.0L than our engines did in 1987 with 5.0L? Not to mention almost any car mentioned in this thread will annihilate you on any circuit. New Civic Type R..225hp, 149 ft.lbs torque...ran 0.2 seconds slower than an F40 at Tsukuba. A Fox would run oh say...30 seconds slower?
RS200, you got killed by a 13 sec civic with a procharged gt? What are your times? You seem to lose to a lot of civics. Do you really think an 03-04 cobra will get killed on a circut by a civic? Why not look up what class each car runs in? You might be suprised. What, say, 79 honda would you like to run against a fox(first year for the fox chassis I think) I wasn't aware you were now counting rain and snow performance, Also, what mileage did that solstice get around town? Do you know or are you talking out of your ass?
Jesus, kid. Give it up. This isn't an import worship site. It's a mustang site. But you certainly sound like an import fanboi. It's funny to see the people that saw fast and furious before getting their license. Being that I'm the thread starter, I'd say it IS a discussion about rice.
s2000 specs
Mechanical Specifications 1
Base
Engine Type Gas I4
Displacement 2.2L/132
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 237 @ 7800
SAE Net Torque @ RPM 162 @ 6800 <-- This one is important too. Do you know what torque is? Do you know how much torque the 5.0 has?
For 1987, the Mustang received E7 heads and a more capable intake manifold. Power ratings jumped to 225 hp and 300 ft·lbs of torque.
10 years later and honda can make almost half the torque!
Jesus, kid. Give it up. This isn't an import worship site. It's a mustang site. But you certainly sound like an import fanboi. It's funny to see the people that saw fast and furious before getting their license. Being that I'm the thread starter, I'd say it IS a discussion about rice.
s2000 specs
Mechanical Specifications 1
Base
Engine Type Gas I4
Displacement 2.2L/132
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 237 @ 7800
SAE Net Torque @ RPM 162 @ 6800 <-- This one is important too. Do you know what torque is? Do you know how much torque the 5.0 has?
For 1987, the Mustang received E7 heads and a more capable intake manifold. Power ratings jumped to 225 hp and 300 ft·lbs of torque.
10 years later and honda can make almost half the torque!
bluevenom867
I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
s2000 specs
Mechanical Specifications 1
Base
Engine Type Gas I4
Displacement 2.2L/132
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 237 @ 7800
SAE Net Torque @ RPM 162 @ 6800 <-- This one is important too. Do you know what torque is? Do you know how much torque the 5.0 has?
For 1987, the Mustang received E7 heads and a more capable intake manifold. Power ratings jumped to 225 hp and 300 ft·lbs of torque.
10 years later and honda can make almost half the torque!
Lol,and at that high of an rpm,usless on the streets,and on short tracks.Hmm,lets put a turboed (to make up for the lack of power) S2000 in a late model stock race on a 1/4 mile oval and see how one fairs.... torque coming out of the turns? I think not,lol.
Oh,and by he way,many of them are required to run powerglides (as in ONLY TWO GEARS),put one on with a solid circle track converter or clutch set-up,and I bet the 4 cylinder would stall out,LMAO.
RS200 fanboi'ing tundra trucks
RS200 fanboi'ing rx7's.
And RX200 admits the truth. He's an import fanboi
RS200 fanboi'ing rx7's.
And RX200 admits the truth. He's an import fanboi
Do it!! You obviously prefer rice.
bluevenom867
I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
RS200,you contridicted yourself on theoretical bench racing....
editied for a remark I made,I wont post it till you f**k up more....
editied for a remark I made,I wont post it till you f**k up more....
grey5.0beast
Cookies should never be DUNKED!!!
lol @ the civic Si being fast or fun. I smoked the **** out of an 05 civic si at the track and I only ran a 14.7w/ a 2.34 60ft that run... He ran 15.7.
I like imports(some) but you seem to just wanna glorify all imports. Come on man, civics are NOT fast... the FEW that are probably won't last...
I like imports(some) but you seem to just wanna glorify all imports. Come on man, civics are NOT fast... the FEW that are probably won't last...
bluevenom867
I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
crapola 
grey5.0beast
Cookies should never be DUNKED!!!
bluevenom867
I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in
jammer84_03
New Member
- Nov 30, 2003
- 468
- 1
- 0
i have one thing to say about ricers.
after being around them i have no respect.
now i do have respect for tuners. there is a huge difference between the two
ricers is a "lifestyle", tuning is taking what ya got and going full tilt boogie and making it respectible with out the body kit or wings or fart cans. alot of guys in our local area have gsx's or sti's or evo's really do know what they got and are constantly tweaking them. to me those guys are worthy enough to hang around once they have done their first engine rebuilt after pushing to much boost or whatnot. its just like racing another chevy without the muscle, and i still have no prob putting them back in their place everytime we run!
after being around them i have no respect.
now i do have respect for tuners. there is a huge difference between the two
ricers is a "lifestyle", tuning is taking what ya got and going full tilt boogie and making it respectible with out the body kit or wings or fart cans. alot of guys in our local area have gsx's or sti's or evo's really do know what they got and are constantly tweaking them. to me those guys are worthy enough to hang around once they have done their first engine rebuilt after pushing to much boost or whatnot. its just like racing another chevy without the muscle, and i still have no prob putting them back in their place everytime we run!
I don't own a Honda. I just respect their forum because it isn't built on hate of other cars.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. I hate riced cars, and the attitudes of most of the owners. There aren't many around here that are true ghetto rice $149 aluminum wings on automatic 4-door Cavaliers. Most of us know better.
My car isn't ProCharged. I parted the car two years ago thinking I was done. I then bought a turbo setup, and I just parted my car out again. I also don't worship all imports. In fact, I dislike alot of them. It might just be specific to my location (we have snow 7 months of the year), but there are few ricers and a lot of fast sleeper FWDs. I have been humbled many a time by cars I laughed at. That's why I don't laugh anymore.
A 2005 Civic is far different from a 2006. The 2005 hatchback looks like crap, it's underpowered, and overall a bad setup. That I agree with. The 2006 is much different..the local who ran 14.5 in a stock 2006 Si was still on break-in miles. I consider that impressive since it's on "the great disabilities" of FWD and 4-cylinder-ness. I don't see why anyone laughs at these cars either. I'm guessing the majority of 5.0s on this site are between 14.0 and 14.99...you know who you are. Stock for stock, it's a drivers race. That's just in a straight line. Everywhere else in the world builds cars for other purposes, such as twisties, or otherwise. I can't say that a 2007 Mustang will hold its own with a 2007 Civic on a circuit. Torque and HP numbers mean dick all if it underdog matches the "more powerful" car in every other aspect.
Me being a fanboy? Please. Maybe you just don't like my opinion, even though it is far more educated than yours. There are 3 5.0s in my immediate family. My build AOD car is not fun to drive. The 5-speed convertible..is not fun to drive. It's just point and stab. Neither can handle worth a **** despite the NT555s on both and few suspension modifications. Their purpose was just to go fast in a straight line. I bought mine when I was 15. I've grown up. My RX-7, no matter how slow it is, is still miles more fun than any Mustang I have driven. Revs are fun, and the RX-7 is a prime example. You can have all the gearing in the world with a stock 5.0, and it will still feel boring. Hell, my (****box) Neon is more fun. I find it terribly coincidental that the people who insult me have never driven the cars I use as examples.
Alas, I know I can't make most of you even see past the wings, mufflers, body kits and otherwise. My dad told me something while I was being stubborn one day. He said "There are none so blind as those who will not see". How right he was.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. I hate riced cars, and the attitudes of most of the owners. There aren't many around here that are true ghetto rice $149 aluminum wings on automatic 4-door Cavaliers. Most of us know better.
My car isn't ProCharged. I parted the car two years ago thinking I was done. I then bought a turbo setup, and I just parted my car out again. I also don't worship all imports. In fact, I dislike alot of them. It might just be specific to my location (we have snow 7 months of the year), but there are few ricers and a lot of fast sleeper FWDs. I have been humbled many a time by cars I laughed at. That's why I don't laugh anymore.
A 2005 Civic is far different from a 2006. The 2005 hatchback looks like crap, it's underpowered, and overall a bad setup. That I agree with. The 2006 is much different..the local who ran 14.5 in a stock 2006 Si was still on break-in miles. I consider that impressive since it's on "the great disabilities" of FWD and 4-cylinder-ness. I don't see why anyone laughs at these cars either. I'm guessing the majority of 5.0s on this site are between 14.0 and 14.99...you know who you are. Stock for stock, it's a drivers race. That's just in a straight line. Everywhere else in the world builds cars for other purposes, such as twisties, or otherwise. I can't say that a 2007 Mustang will hold its own with a 2007 Civic on a circuit. Torque and HP numbers mean dick all if it underdog matches the "more powerful" car in every other aspect.
Me being a fanboy? Please. Maybe you just don't like my opinion, even though it is far more educated than yours. There are 3 5.0s in my immediate family. My build AOD car is not fun to drive. The 5-speed convertible..is not fun to drive. It's just point and stab. Neither can handle worth a **** despite the NT555s on both and few suspension modifications. Their purpose was just to go fast in a straight line. I bought mine when I was 15. I've grown up. My RX-7, no matter how slow it is, is still miles more fun than any Mustang I have driven. Revs are fun, and the RX-7 is a prime example. You can have all the gearing in the world with a stock 5.0, and it will still feel boring. Hell, my (****box) Neon is more fun. I find it terribly coincidental that the people who insult me have never driven the cars I use as examples.
Alas, I know I can't make most of you even see past the wings, mufflers, body kits and otherwise. My dad told me something while I was being stubborn one day. He said "There are none so blind as those who will not see". How right he was.
QUICK91LX
Founding Member
Most intelligent post you have made in this entire thread, but you fail to acknowledge one very important point:
The 5.0's we are working with are now no less than 14 years old. The first aero-nose E7 equipped cars are now 20 years old. The chassis is 30 years old and the basic engine configuration is traceable back to 1963. The imports you speak of all utilize the latest technology in order to get the most performance out of what they have to work with in chassis configuration, engine performance and suspension geometry. Granted, there is a very strong aftermarket via which we can all build a Mustang that can literally do EVERYTHING well, but that costs $$, which is something not all of us have excessive amounts of. Unless every aspect of these cars has been re-done, of course they are going to be significantly lacking in certian areas. No one knew in 1978 that performance was going to become what it is today. The cars were built for their time, with the technology of the time. For the record, the 1980 Mustang with TRX suspension out-handled the Porsche 924 of the day. One could also make the argument that the imports are still 20 years behind when it comes to affordable performance. The newest offerings from across the pacific are just now matching the numbers laid down by the trusty 5.0 twenty years ago. Sure there have been plenty of imports that are much faster out of the box, but what was the price tag?
Point is that high rpm capability, high compression, multiple cams and intelligent computer systems make up for what the imports lack in displacement. The japanese also have their stuff together when it comes to designing suspension systems. These are the reasons you are able to make an argument for these cars.
All that being said, I dont see how anyone could ever say that a 5.0 isnt fun to drive. It may not be the best at much of anything, but there is a bit of giddy pleasure to be had in lighting up the rear tires, hanging the tail out and grabbing some gears. Not to mention embarassing the baggy-pantsed sideways-hat thug-life wanna be in the truly riced up car in the next lane...I'd guess that at a given time, even in a stock 5.0, one could honestly say that they are driving a car that is faster than 90% or more of the cars around them at that moment.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the original topic, but there has to be some defense of our beloved Mustang. It was the car to have back in the day and it is still the #1 target of most others out there who even 'think' they have a fast car
Quick91LX, I agree with everything you said. The Japs are progressing at a far faster rate than the Americans, and it shows. In 1987, the Mustang was king, without a doubt. Nothing in its price range could touch it. It handled well for its era, and went very fast in a straight line. It's just that everything else has caught up, and the Mustang hasn't really evolved much, yet some people still believe it's 1987.
I felt like Jesus when I took the first drive in my 5.0 when I was 15 (until the freshly painted, brand new hood unlatched and destroyed itself, along with the windshield and roof). I had a riot with that car. Something has changed in the past couple years that I've owned it, though. I've driven other things, and my 5.0 seems kind of insignificant now. I'm looking at an SRT4 tomorrow..see if I can get some domestic spirit back.
I felt like Jesus when I took the first drive in my 5.0 when I was 15 (until the freshly painted, brand new hood unlatched and destroyed itself, along with the windshield and roof). I had a riot with that car. Something has changed in the past couple years that I've owned it, though. I've driven other things, and my 5.0 seems kind of insignificant now. I'm looking at an SRT4 tomorrow..see if I can get some domestic spirit back.
Shakerhood
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Wow, Complete Turbo Kits for $300, thats freakin Incredible! No other Mods were needed to the Fuel System or Exhaust System, on the Civic? If its putting down that much Power its going to be eating Half Shafts and CV Joints over a VERY short Period of Time. Maybe this Kid can get us a Group Price for Complete Turbo Kits for our Mustangs!
It's not very hard. Get some piping, weld it together. Mitubishi T25 turbos are worth less than $100..get the rest of the setup such as wastegate, BOV, manifold (yes, it works!), and you're out maybe $250. Larger injectors, also DSM, are cheap, and you can tune with Uberdata, Crome, or other FREE software. Sure it won't be reliable at 14 psi all the time, but it's a fantastic banzai car.
Want to turbo your car cheap? Check this out. If you are a true DIY'er you could replicate it, around the same price.
BTW, please don't call me "kid".
Shakerhood
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Well I stand Corrected as you made it sound as if the Guy just went out and bought a Complete Turbo Kit for $300, I didnt realize you stopped and spoke with him after he beat you and explained how he assembled a Turbo set up from other Vehicles.
Shakerhood
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
For the Winter Beater Civic you lost to, we could say an old Pinto or Maverick with a Junkyard 460 shoehorned in would kill it for next to nothing!
- Status
