Do you hate ricers?

[SnipeMasterJ13]

Originally posted by: zoiks

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: Vic
Automatic is fine for performance if your car has an ample amount of horsepower and low-end torque. A 100 bhp torque-less 4-banger with an automatic and screaming loud exhaust is poor taste, however, which was my point.

Get over yourself.

A 100 bhp 4-banger is just as bad in automatic or manual, yet you felt the need to italicize 'automatic' like it is a bad thing. Take your own advice.

Matt

I have a G35 w/auto and have also driven a coworkers manual G35 as well.
I have to say the response of the manual is instantaneous and damn fast. My G35 does not always have an immediate response when shifting gears when I floor it.
I'd say there is a difference b/w auto and manual transmission performance with manual clearly on top.

That depends on what you are using it for. Personally I drive a 6 speed because of the "fun factor". However, built automatic transmissions are NASTY at the track, especially with a stall converter. Manual cars CAN be just as fast, but that is all up to the driver. Not near the consistency. Manual cars, however, are a lot better suited for road courses. That being said, I could never drive with an automatic transmission in a performance vehicle.

 

[melchoir]

While I love the old school muscle as much as the next person, there were VERY few running low 13 and almost none running high 12 second passes stock.

I can respect a properly done up import, but highly prefer an american V8.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
so if I mod my VW, that's kraut, right?

beer :beer:

I saw this gorgeous clean modded S4 wagon this morning on the way to work. I was in love :heart:

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

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.

The tires back in the '60s were worse than the temporary use spares that cars carry today. Hard and narrow with stiff sidewalls. If you could take a set of drag racing slicks back in time you could trade them for a Shelby Daytona Coupe.

Oh God... I knew someone was going to bring up the tires. Seriously, that's just representative of the overall primitive technology that was in 60s muscle cars in general. You may as well argue that they could have hooked up better for faster times with modern transmissions, diffs, and suspensions too (let's not even talk about the brakes :Q ).
The fact of the matter is that none of them were running below 13's except some rare limited-production and/or dealer-specialty models (i.e. Yenko).
Otherwise, just like today's 4-bangers, if you were pulling 14's or better down at the track, you had a fast car.

Um youre very very wrong...
ive seen STOCK 1967-1969 SS Camaros run into the 12s with slicks...
Ive also seen SS Chevelles with the 454 bigblock run well into the 10s with tires.. and nothing else..

Tires were the main reason a 500hp can cant get the power to the ground.
there was nothing wrong with the trannys a shiftkit/stall wouldnt fix.
comparing high horsepower muscle cars with Rice is flat out embrassing you...
very stupid comparo..

ricers are flat out junk.. to get a ricer into the same horsepower-1/4 mile brakets you have to spend ALOT more on that POS 4/6 banger than the American V8 that just smoked you..

now I like Supras and gen 3 Rx7s but to build one that runs 10s would cost a fortune compared to a $5k V8 car...Ford/ChevyDodge
hell for 3K I can build a 318 duster that will run 10s all day long..

 

[Preyhunter]

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
so if I mod my VW, that's kraut, right?

No, that's ghey.

 

[fenrir]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fenrir
A 100 bhp 4-banger is just as bad in automatic or manual, yet you felt the need to italicize 'automatic' like it is a bad thing. Take your own advice.

Matt

Taste, dumbass, we're talking about taste. A 100 bhp 4-banger can still be tasteful provided it has excellent handling abilities or some other kind of "fun to drive" factor, i.e. the kind that require (at the very least) a manual transmission.

What you're getting a pissy about was not MT snobbery on my part. Some times an MT is good, some times an AT is good. It's crucial IMO to know the difference.

So, now a 100 bhp 4-banger cannot be tasteful because it does not have an MT? Keep digging dumbass.

Matt

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

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.

The tires back in the '60s were worse than the temporary use spares that cars carry today. Hard and narrow with stiff sidewalls. If you could take a set of drag racing slicks back in time you could trade them for a Shelby Daytona Coupe.

Oh God... I knew someone was going to bring up the tires. Seriously, that's just representative of the overall primitive technology that was in 60s muscle cars in general. You may as well argue that they could have hooked up better for faster times with modern transmissions, diffs, and suspensions too (let's not even talk about the brakes :Q ).
The fact of the matter is that none of them were running below 13's except some rare limited-production and/or dealer-specialty models (i.e. Yenko).
Otherwise, just like today's 4-bangers, if you were pulling 14's or better down at the track, you had a fast car.

Um youre very very wrong...
ive seen STOCK 1967-1969 SS Camaros run into the 12s with slicks...
Ive also seen SS Chevelles with the 454 bigblock run well into the 10s with tires.. and nothing else..

Tires were the main reason a 500hp can cant get the power to the ground.
there was nothing wrong with the trannys a shiftkit/stall wouldnt fix.
comparing high horsepower muscle cars with Rice is flat out embrassing you...
very stupid comparo..

ricers are flat out junk.. to get a ricer into the same horsepower-1/4 mile brakets you have to spend ALOT more on that POS 4/6 banger than the American V8 that just smoked you..

now I like Supras and gen 3 Rx7s but to build one that runs 10s would cost a fortune compared to a $5k V8 car...Ford/ChevyDodge
hell for 3K I can build a 318 duster that will run 10s all day long..

An SS 396 was a 14-flat car on bias-ply's. Put slicks on ANY car and you're not running the street legal drags at my track (PIR) no matter how fast (or slow) it is.

I'm not at all embarassing myself. It was said that stock muscle cars ran 11's and I countered that -- correctly. What they can do today with today's technology doesn't count.

And have you ever considered that building a muscle car today is so cheap because they're 40 year technology that (in stock form) is extremely inefficient by today's standards? It wasn't cheap back then. In fact, most muscle cars of the 70s looked like (and were looked at) the same way we look at "rice" today. Loud exhaust, covered in primer, and (instead of lowered) the ass end would be jacked up to the sky.
Granted you don't see a lot of that today. Why? Because collectors who can afford it have restored them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fenrir

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fenrir
A 100 bhp 4-banger is just as bad in automatic or manual, yet you felt the need to italicize 'automatic' like it is a bad thing. Take your own advice.

Matt

Taste, dumbass, we're talking about taste. A 100 bhp 4-banger can still be tasteful provided it has excellent handling abilities or some other kind of "fun to drive" factor, i.e. the kind that require (at the very least) a manual transmission.

What you're getting a pissy about was not MT snobbery on my part. Some times an MT is good, some times an AT is good. It's crucial IMO to know the difference.

So, now a 100 bhp 4-banger cannot be tasteful because it does not have an MT? Keep digging dumbass.

Matt

Did you fscking miss the part where I was talking about TASTE and an AT 4-banger with screaming loud exhaust?? Obviously.

STFU troll.

 

[n19htmare]

I'd take a Suburu WRX STi over a Mustang GT ANY DAY OF THE WEEK....

 

[fire400]

racist, ban this weak thread

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: n19htmare
I'd take a Suburu WRX STi over a Mustang GT ANY DAY OF THE WEEK....

As would I (but then again, I already own a WRX). However, I test-drove them back-to-back a couple of months ago and was extremely disappointed by the performance of the Mustang GT. But the GT's exhaust sound! Ah, a thing of wonder and beauty. I could own one just to listen to that everyday.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: xtreme26

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

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.

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

it's not all about a straight line nowadays:roll:

most people want a fast car.. and by fast car, they mean fast for racing on a 1/4 mile. i realize it's not ALL about 1/4 mile, and that's why the miata, the elise, etc. kick so much ass.

 

[railer]

fenrir stop making a fool of yourself. Some tool in a riced out 100 hp civic with a fart can....AND an automatic for the icing on the cake. We're all so happy that you can drive a MT too......now stop being offened and go to bed.

 

[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.....

 

[RiDE]

I don't like ricers. I also don't like all the morons who think all japanese cars are ricers.

 

[intogamer]

no matter... we all know its POS under

 

[SVT Cobra]

Give me a Mustang any day of the week over a WRX.

 

[melchoir]

Um youre very very wrong...
ive seen STOCK 1967-1969 SS Camaros run into the 12s with slicks...
Ive also seen SS Chevelles with the 454 bigblock run well into the 10s with tires.. and nothing else..

You've been lied to. The 12s with slicks, perhaps.. the 10s on the 454 Chevelle with tires only, not a chance.

I was brought up on muscle cars, and own, daily drive, and take to the track an American V8 of my own. (LS1).

 

[RedArmy]

Well, good thing I drive a tuner now and not a ricer anymore :thumbsup:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Tought one ....

I laugh at ricers that are stupid. Like putting a wing on the back that is way to big. Those that lack any sense of taste or knowledge of hte word proportion.

Havign said this ... I was young once to. And had a $3K stereo in my truck. It was great at the time and I loved it ... but looking back a total waste of money.

So, I don't really hate them ... I just feel sad for those that are not imporving their rides.

What made me laugh? Seeing somoene trying to sell a riced car at a premium thinking there are alot of people out there that care about a 4" muffler.

 

[Jawo]

Toyota has the best manufacturing system in the automotive industry. The cars are very efficient and are meant to be that way. By putting giant spoilers, NOS, etc is just ridiculous! The cars are meant to be efficient, not fast!

 

[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.

 

[dbk]

not hate, but pity.

 

[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...

 

[AdamK47]

I love ricers!