Do you hate ricers?

[Zenmervolt]

The Beach Boys captured it perfectly:


No-go showboat no-go showboat (no-go showboat)

Well I got a wild custom that wins every show
But it's a no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
Yeah but everybody knows that she just don't go
She's my no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
White wall slicks with racing mags
She's just for looks, man, not for drags
'Cause it's a no-go showboat (no-go showboat)

No go
No go

Well the guys all dig it they've got no complaints
About my no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
And the chicks really flip for that metal flake paint
On my no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
It really rates fine in the custom clan
With hand-formed panels, tuck-and-roll rear pan
'Cause it's a no-go showboat (no-go showboat)

No go
No go

Well the engine compartment's filled with all chrome goodies
In my no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
Yeah but everybody takes me even old Ford woodies
In my no-go showboat (no-go showboat)
When it comes to speed, man, I'm just outa luck
I'm even shut down by the ice cream truck
'Cause it's a no-go showboat (no-go showboat)

No go
No go
No-go showboat (no-go showboat)
No-go showboat (no-go showboat)
She's just my (no-go showboat)
She's just my (no-go showboat)

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: Vic
He waves at me at puts into the floor, the automatic transmission kicking down a gear,

God, I am so sick of the people on this board that think they are so much better because their car is a manual. I am sorry, but you are as bad as the ricers that think a fart can makes them cool.

I have both manual and automatic cars by the way.

Matt

For a sports car an automatic is a poor choice. I see nothing wrong with an automatic in most cars, but if you're trying to be "sporty", an automatic just doesn't cut it.

ZV

 

[Scarpozzi]

Maybe.

 

[Maxspeed996]

Link of 1st gen Eagle Talon absolutely BLOWING THE DOORS OFF some american muscle.
I absolutely love this when happens. (Biased opinion as I have a 1st gen Talon with 5k in the motor) Not riced btw..18" rims and carbon hood and tinted windows....keep it clean.
By the way there are time slips in the link that put the proof up too.

http://www.forcedperformance.com/shepherd_norwalk.aspx

I'll still agree , I do love the sound of a big V8...one with some sweet cam lobe separation , enough to give you that nice "lope" at idle.... but there is nothing like a 4-cylinder just wasting a big V8 car...it shatters ego's.

 

[eits]

yes. i very much do. i hate any fast and furious type of car. frigging ridiculous... they're not "sick"... they're not "tyte"... they're not "xtreme"... they're retarded.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: railer
Mustang GT posts better 1/4 mile times than wrx sti or EVO. Maybe worse 0-60 owing to the lack of AWD.....but the WRX and STI are also 30k+ cars.....

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 1/4-mile in 13.8@102
Text
STi: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.4@102
Evo: 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6@104
Text

A Mustang GT starts to push the $30k mark once you start to load it up with basic options (base price is stripped to say the least). Plus the stock suspension is IMO way too soft for the track.

thank you. not to say the stang isn't a good value, just don't go saying its faster without numbers...

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.5. Link

Numbers fluctuate quite a bit in magazine tests. I believe the STi and Evo would still edge out the Mustang, but it's not exactly like it's no challenge. And on the right day, the Mustang stands a decent shot at pulling out a surprise win.

I drove off the lot (tax, title, license included) for $28K with a fully loaded (only missing options were the red seats and the automatic) '06 Mustang GT. You can work very, very good deals on them. That puts the Mustang GT at around $26K in price fully loaded in the real world. It's not that hard to get an American car for less than invoice price.

That said, the Mustang really doesn't compete with the STi or the Evo, it's not designed to. The STi and Evo are great cars that I drool over quite a lot, but they're not the same type of car as a Mustang. The Mustang isn't "better", just different, and most people who want a Mustang wouldn't consider an STi or Evo (and vice-versa). I do think that the Mustang's styling will age better, but that's nothing more than personal opinion.

ZV

 

[LeadMagnet]

The cars or people driving them no - I do not hate them. I just hate the sound they make - and all other loud vehicles.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Koing
No.

I don't like the needlessly loud exhaust with w@nk performance.

Koing

Exactly...

if you want a performance car, buy something with a V6 or V8...

in fact we should outlaw the 4 cylinder car in the US all together.

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
It's not the cars, it's the kids I hate.

word. i feel bad for the cars that get the altezza's,the spoilers, the incredibly loud exhaust's, etc.

the term " rice burner " or " ricers " is not really something i use. ive seen plenty of american cars with " ricer " attributes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Koing
No.

I don't like the needlessly loud exhaust with w@nk performance.

Koing

Exactly...

if you want a performance car, buy something with a V6 or V8...

in fact we should outlaw the 4 cylinder car in the US all together.

The number of cylinders does not determine performance. Or even reliable performance. And V6 for performance???
Your post is ridiculous.

 

[batmang]

:\

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: railer
Mustang GT posts better 1/4 mile times than wrx sti or EVO. Maybe worse 0-60 owing to the lack of AWD.....but the WRX and STI are also 30k+ cars.....

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 1/4-mile in 13.8@102
Text
STi: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.4@102
Evo: 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6@104
Text

A Mustang GT starts to push the $30k mark once you start to load it up with basic options (base price is stripped to say the least). Plus the stock suspension is IMO way too soft for the track.

thank you. not to say the stang isn't a good value, just don't go saying its faster without numbers...

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.5. Link

Numbers fluctuate quite a bit in magazine tests. I believe the STi and Evo would still edge out the Mustang, but it's not exactly like it's no challenge. And on the right day, the Mustang stands a decent shot at pulling out a surprise win.

I drove off the lot (tax, title, license included) for $28K with a fully loaded (only missing options were the red seats and the automatic) '06 Mustang GT. You can work very, very good deals on them. That puts the Mustang GT at around $26K in price fully loaded in the real world. It's not that hard to get an American car for less than invoice price.

That said, the Mustang really doesn't compete with the STi or the Evo, it's not designed to. The STi and Evo are great cars that I drool over quite a lot, but they're not the same type of car as a Mustang. The Mustang isn't "better", just different, and most people who want a Mustang wouldn't consider an STi or Evo (and vice-versa). I do think that the Mustang's styling will age better, but that's nothing more than personal opinion.

ZV

I don't know about STIs, but evos also go for basically invoice these days. 28K OTD on an EVO RS is probably also real easy to do.

With the turbo cars, more power is always just a boost controller away.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: railer
Mustang GT posts better 1/4 mile times than wrx sti or EVO. Maybe worse 0-60 owing to the lack of AWD.....but the WRX and STI are also 30k+ cars.....

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 1/4-mile in 13.8@102
Text
STi: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.4@102
Evo: 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6@104
Text

A Mustang GT starts to push the $30k mark once you start to load it up with basic options (base price is stripped to say the least). Plus the stock suspension is IMO way too soft for the track.

thank you. not to say the stang isn't a good value, just don't go saying its faster without numbers...

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.5. Link

Numbers fluctuate quite a bit in magazine tests. I believe the STi and Evo would still edge out the Mustang, but it's not exactly like it's no challenge. And on the right day, the Mustang stands a decent shot at pulling out a surprise win.

I drove off the lot (tax, title, license included) for $28K with a fully loaded (only missing options were the red seats and the automatic) '06 Mustang GT. You can work very, very good deals on them. That puts the Mustang GT at around $26K in price fully loaded in the real world. It's not that hard to get an American car for less than invoice price.

That said, the Mustang really doesn't compete with the STi or the Evo, it's not designed to. The STi and Evo are great cars that I drool over quite a lot, but they're not the same type of car as a Mustang. The Mustang isn't "better", just different, and most people who want a Mustang wouldn't consider an STi or Evo (and vice-versa). I do think that the Mustang's styling will age better, but that's nothing more than personal opinion.

ZV

Exactly. It wasn't the straight-line speed, styling, or price of the Mustang GT that I (personally) found lacking. Frankly, I didn't like the handling and feel. To me, it seemed soft, big, heavy, and unconfident. Cars are very personal things (to me at least) and I just didn't feel "one" with the Mustang. That's why I was so disappointed, because otherwise I really liked it (and prior to, had been looking for an excuse to buy one). I also hated the MT shifter with a passion. Like a bus. Oh, but that glorious sound!

 

[batmang]

the cheapest evo ive seen in tucson new is selling for 33k dunno how the hell you are seeing them for 28k.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: batmang
the cheapest evo ive seen in tucson new is selling for 33k dunno how the hell you are seeing them for 28k.

Evo RS is the stripped down model. Kind of like the WRX TR.

 

[ViviTheMage]

look at that, i already voted yes.

hate those 3 foot wings!

 

[TUKIN18S]

European>Japanese>*

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Koing
No.

I don't like the needlessly loud exhaust with w@nk performance.

Koing

Exactly...

if you want a performance car, buy something with a V6 or V8...

in fact we should outlaw the 4 cylinder car in the US all together.

Ban the SRT4!?

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: goku
I'm trying to understand why all the hate for ricers, rice burners yes but ricers, well it can vary greatly but I don't see anything wrong with japanese cars. I've noticed students in my autotech class are extremely biased and believe that american cars are not only better built than japanese cars but that japanese cars are garbage etc. Personally I think that they're stupid and are stuck in the past. While the muscle cars of the late 60s and early 70s are nice, they're vastly overrated. I thought people only cared about performance and not looks, hence the reason why people hate rice burners.

All Japanese cars don't = ricers. I drive a damn fast mazda 626, I ain't no ricer. I don't try to street race every POS car that comes along, in fact I've only soptlight raced once. I save my stuff for the track. I'd classify ricers as people with udnerpowered (predominanltly asian cars) that think that they have a 9 second car.

 

[Maxspeed996]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: railer
Mustang GT posts better 1/4 mile times than wrx sti or EVO. Maybe worse 0-60 owing to the lack of AWD.....but the WRX and STI are also 30k+ cars.....

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, 1/4-mile in 13.8@102
Text
STi: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.4@102
Evo: 0-60 in 4.8, 1/4 in 13.6@104
Text

A Mustang GT starts to push the $30k mark once you start to load it up with basic options (base price is stripped to say the least). Plus the stock suspension is IMO way too soft for the track.

thank you. not to say the stang isn't a good value, just don't go saying its faster without numbers...

Mustang GT: 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 in 13.5. Link

Numbers fluctuate quite a bit in magazine tests. I believe the STi and Evo would still edge out the Mustang, but it's not exactly like it's no challenge. And on the right day, the Mustang stands a decent shot at pulling out a surprise win.

I drove off the lot (tax, title, license included) for $28K with a fully loaded (only missing options were the red seats and the automatic) '06 Mustang GT. You can work very, very good deals on them. That puts the Mustang GT at around $26K in price fully loaded in the real world. It's not that hard to get an American car for less than invoice price.

That said, the Mustang really doesn't compete with the STi or the Evo, it's not designed to. The STi and Evo are great cars that I drool over quite a lot, but they're not the same type of car as a Mustang. The Mustang isn't "better", just different, and most people who want a Mustang wouldn't consider an STi or Evo (and vice-versa). I do think that the Mustang's styling will age better, but that's nothing more than personal opinion.

ZV

I don't know about STIs, but evos also go for basically invoice these days. 28K OTD on an EVO RS is probably also real easy to do.

With the turbo cars, more power is always just a boost controller away.

This is not true. Boost controllers aren't going to add horespower to a stock car by allowing you to turn up your boost pressure. Doing that will get you VERY LIMITED gains. Before you start messing with boost controllers , you need an accurate Boost gauge , bigger fuel injectors at the very minimum to keep things safe.
A twist of a boost contoller knob will have your engine blown up faster than most people even realize.

 

[MasonLuke]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
some production cars of the 60's were running STOCK 11's on the quarter mile. how many cars do that today, particularly ricers?

Name one.

Waiting...


Even a 426 Hemi Road Runner -- one of the fastest of all the muscle cars -- ran mid-13's. A Tri-power or Ram-air GTO would do mid-14's. And these were 2 of the fastest. Your average muscle car of the 60s was in the 15's.

Hey kids, performance isnt measured only by how fast it goes 0-60. Dont forget the braking and handling of the cars. All these kids talking about muscle cars, where are they now? THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Get with the times, we in the 21 century.

Dont hate for no reason.

for the record, i drive a stock 5 series.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
some production cars of the 60's were running STOCK 11's on the quarter mile. how many cars do that today, particularly ricers?

Name one.

Waiting...


Even a 426 Hemi Road Runner -- one of the fastest of all the muscle cars -- ran mid-13's. A Tri-power or Ram-air GTO would do mid-14's. And these were 2 of the fastest. Your average muscle car of the 60s was in the 15's.

Hey kids, performance isnt measured only by how fast it goes 0-60. Dont forget the braking and handling of the cars. All these kids talking about muscle cars, where are they now? THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Get with the times, we in the 21 century.

Dont hate for no reason.

for the record, i drive a stock 5 series.

The ultimate driving machine

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS
With the turbo cars, more power is always just a boost controller away.

Oh, the 951 and I know that one well.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Maxspeed996
This is not true. Boost controllers aren't going to add horespower to a stock car by allowing you to turn up your boost pressure. Doing that will get you VERY LIMITED gains. Before you start messing with boost controllers , you need an accurate Boost gauge , bigger fuel injectors at the very minimum to keep things safe.
A twist of a boost contoller knob will have your engine blown up faster than most people even realize.

A chip, a boost controller (pre-set to 18 PSI), and a higher pressure fuel regulator will take a 951 from 217 hp and 243 ft-lbs torque (at the crank) to 275 RWHP and 300 ft-lb RWTQ. No need to change anything else to keep the power safe. It's about a $500 setup all-told.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic
Exactly. It wasn't the straight-line speed, styling, or price of the Mustang GT that I (personally) found lacking. Frankly, I didn't like the handling and feel. To me, it seemed soft, big, heavy, and unconfident. Cars are very personal things (to me at least) and I just didn't feel "one" with the Mustang. That's why I was so disappointed, because otherwise I really liked it (and prior to, had been looking for an excuse to buy one). I also hated the MT shifter with a passion. Like a bus. Oh, but that glorious sound!

It definitely does understeer stock, but adjusting the tire pressures takes care of some of that. And power oversteer is always just a pedal away.

I like the shifter actually, heavy, solid. Very different from the 951, which I love as well. I just like too many different styles of cars.

ZV