Ford Aerostar

360rider · Jan 31, 2004

My mom's got a 96 Ford Aerostar XL Sport and I was just wondering if anyone here can tell me whats actually in this crapbox. For example, engine type, horsepower...any other numbers you can run by me. By the way, Im just doing this out of curiousity...don't expect me to plan on shoving a STAGE 2 TURBO :lol:

in there.

Also, I you can, information on a 97 Ford F-150 would be nice too (my dad's truck) Ill try and get an exact model for the truck.

Bahbo · Jan 31, 2004

Specifications

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1996 Ford Aerostar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Model Lineup: N/A
Engines: 160-hp 4.0-liter ohv V6
Transmissions: N/A
Safety Equipment (standard): Driver's airbag, rear ABS
Safety Equipment (optional): N/A
Basic Warranty: 1 year/12 months
Assembled In: St. Louis, MO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specifications as Tested

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Model Tested (MSRP): XLT
Standard Equipment: Air conditioning, AM/FM radio, storage bins
Options as Tested (MSRP): High capacity air conditioning, AM/FM/cassette sound system, power windows, power locks, power mirrors, map lights, privacy glass, limited slip differential, child restraint seat
Destination Charge: N/A
Gas Guzzler Tax: N/A
Price as Tested (MSRP): $20,489
Layout: N/A
Engine: 3.0-liter ohv V6
Horsepower: 140 @ 5000
Torque: 160 @ 2750
Transmission: 4-speed automatic
EPA fuel economy, city/hwy: 17/22
Wheelbase: 118.9
Length/Width/Height: 174.9/61.5/72.9
Track, f/r: 61.5/60.0
Turn Circle: 37.2
Seating Capacity: 7
Head/Hip/Leg room, f: 39.5/60.1/41.4
Head/Hip/Leg room, m: 38.7/60.1/37.5
Head/Hip/Leg room, r: 37.3/62.9/37.5
Trunk Volume: 139.3
Payload: N/A
Towing Capacity: 4400
Suspension, f: Independent
Suspension, r: Live axle
Ground Clearance: N/A
Curb Weight: 3500
Tires: P215/70R-14 all-season radials
Brakes, f/r: disc/drum
Fuel Capacity: 21.0

After less than 30 secs. on google.

VIPFREAK · Jan 31, 2004

160hp? Really damn... that's more than mine... :banghead:

audiracing · Jan 31, 2004

Originally posted by 360rider
My mom's got a 96 Ford Aerostar XL Sport and I was just wondering if anyone here can tell me whats actually in this crapbox. For example, engine type, horsepower...any other numbers you can run by me. By the way, Im just doing this out of curiousity...don't expect me to plan on shoving a STAGE 2 TURBO in there.

Also, I you can, information on a 97 Ford F-150 would be nice too (my dad's truck) Ill try and get an exact model for the truck.

Look it up your self you lazy bass turd.

hanker · Jan 31, 2004

Here, why dont you check for yourself

240Z freak · Feb 1, 2004

There is a reason Google exists, contrary to what some might say.

hanker · Feb 1, 2004

He's just lazy, give him him a break :odd:

360rider · Feb 1, 2004

Exaclty...I am lazy...cut me some slack. The second one sounded about right though. The first one seemed odd.

FC3S5 · Feb 1, 2004

my mom has a 03 odyssey. 240hp. pretty farking fast for a van

360rider · Feb 1, 2004

I didnt know they had that much HP.

1X83Z · Feb 1, 2004

Originally posted by VipFREAK
160hp?

According to that, 140bhp. Go back and read it again.

Nevertheless, it's inaccurate. First, it quotes two different engine sizes, 3.0L and 4.0L. The 3.0L engine, the only one available on the XL, got 135bhp throughout its life. The 4.0L engine got 152bhp but significantly more torque yet similar fuel economy.

All aside, kudos to Ford for cancelling the Aerostar when it was due - General Motors still hasn't cancelled the ridiculous Astro/Safari duo despite "an American revolution."

neanderthal · Feb 1, 2004

its a pice of crap. so is your dads truck.

fords suck.

360rider · Feb 2, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal
its a pice of crap. so is your dads truck.

fords suck.

That was a bit...unexpected, and very ignorant. The truck does the job it was meant to do and I can't understand how it could suck if it is doing its job.

Drifting Thunda · Feb 2, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal
fords suck.

Must be another dumb kid? :confused:

No you silly fool, Dodge and GM suck. Mostly Dodge.

Originally posted by 360rider
That was a bit...unexpected, and very ignorant. The truck does the job it was meant to do and I can't understand how it could suck if it is doing its job.

As I said he's just plain stupid. Is F-150 not repeatedly called the best truck in the world? It is, and for a reason. This kid's obviously a band-wagon Ford hater or somethin. :lol:

neanderthal · Feb 2, 2004

nothing ignorant about my statements. fords do suck. they are poorly engineered, badly designed and put together in a shoddy almost haphazard manner. just coz it does its job doesnt mean its not a piece of crap.

and no, its not called the best truck. its called that by ford. thats called marketing. its when you try to sell a product that you make. you dress it up and call it someting its not.

just because its the number one selling nameplate in the country does not mean its the best. mcdonalds sells millions of burgers more than in and out. but in and out sells superior burgers. get it straight.

oh, and i havent been called kid for almost twenty years. ive forgotten more than you could ever hope to know.

Drifting Thunda · Feb 2, 2004

F-150 is the best truck in the WORLD.

My Thunderbird doesn't seem to be engineered at all shoddy or half-azzed... My engine bay looks very well organized and well-thought out, in fact, after comparing the way Ford goes about its engineering in the vehicles we've owned and comparing it to some other crap like some of Chevy's trucks, Hondas, and hell even my friend's 5-series Bimmer looks under par under the hood. So I am forced to believe you have no idea what you are talking about, which puts you in a very peculiar position as a bandwagon Ford hater.

The F-150 was called the best truck by Ford because it is, they have pride in it and rightfully so, it's a damned fine azz truck with serious bang for the buck, and it's been called best in the world by many before Ford had paraded it.

Is the F-150 SVT Lightning crap? If you think so you must drive some serious chit cuz it's the quickest production truck in the world, and in saying that I can freely mention it's able to outpace a lot of sporty cars in stock trim.

Aerostars are no doubt some of Ford's lesser vehicles, my dad had his and drove it for over 220k miles without any real problems before we decided to sell it! The worst thing about it was the small amount of rust on the side, WHOOPTIE-F'IN DO!!!

Back to my 'piece of crap,' I drive this car fairly hard during almost any commute, and it sees track time. Still runs better than anything you'd drive I'd bet.

Your little burger example isn't a good one. McDonalds sells their burgers for 99 friggen cents, no chit they sell more, don't be an idiot, Mickey D's IS better value, that's all there is to it. Hell I've never even heard of In and Out, they sure don't exist around here.

You can say Ford sucks but it's just futile and lame.

F-150 = best selling vehicle in the world, period.
Explorer = best selling SUV in America.
Lightning = world's fastest production pick-up truck.
V6 Mustang outsells all Camaros.
Ford GT. <---(yes that's a period that's it's own sentence)
Ford made the Thunderbird.

Which is the longest enduring car I know of I dunno about you, it was produced for 43 consecuative years, that's more than the Corvette even.
'03/'04 Mustang Cobra is the second best bang for the buck machine there is.
Carroll Shelby is with Ford.
Focus RS is currently beating out the competition in WRC.
Ford made the first specialty performance vehicle division, that means SVT came first biotch! Not TRD, not Mugen, not MazdaSpeed, not Nismo, SVT!
Ford [Lincoln/Mercury] owns Aston martin, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, and parts of Mazda even.

Ford does not suck, period! If you don't like it maybe you should just become an all-out anti-Ford ricer or something because Ford will only become even better in '05. It came first, it will go last. It simply cannot be denied that Ford does not suck.

"ive forgotten more than you could ever hope to know." Sure... :lol:

F0rd H474h5 f0r 1if3!!!!!11

1X83Z · Feb 2, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal
they are poorly engineered, badly designed and put together in a shoddy almost haphazard manner.

Almost exactly like your posts.

and no, its not called the best truck. its called that by ford. thats called marketing.

I challenge you to find a better one. It's not the best truck for sale, it's the best truck ever made.

it's the quickest production truck in the world,

I don't know why Ford people think this is something to be proud of.

The worst thing about it was the small amount of rust on the side,

Not the fact that by its fourth model year it was about a decade behind most competitors?

V6 Mustang outsells all Camaros.

That could be because the Camaro was cancelled two years ago.

it was produced for 43 consecuative years, that's more than the Corvette even.

The Thunderbird was made between 1955 and 1997 for a consecutive total of 42 years, where the Corvette was made from 1953 to the present, for a total of 51 consecutive years. The Corvette would win on total model years also, 51-45.

'03/'04 Mustang Cobra is the second best bang for the buck machine there is.

It's the best, and I even consider it the best new vehicle for sale.

Ford made the first specialty performance vehicle division, that means SVT came first biotch! Not TRD, not Mugen, not MazdaSpeed, not Nismo, SVT!

Nice but also untrue - SVT's first product debuted in 1993; BMW's M division dates back to at least 1988.

360rider · Feb 3, 2004

Atleast I'm not alone in here :lol:

. But yes, all of his statments were very ignorant and completely biased. And about me calling you a kid, you proved that statement correct with YOUR OWN posts.

neanderthal · Feb 3, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by neanderthal
they are poorly engineered, badly designed and put together in a shoddy almost haphazard manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost exactly like your posts.

and much like your family tree.

good thing this aint an english class innit?

actually there was no corvette for 1982 so it has not been in continuous production.

the OG vw beetle was in production longer than the thunderbird. production only ceased last year.

the silverado/sierra is a better truck. as is the titan.

fastest truck in the world huh. with a 500 lb payload? (or something like that!) that makes it pretty much useless as a truck. besides, as someone else has already mentioned thats not really indicative of how well a vehicle is built/ designed/ engineered.

im curious as to how my opinion of the entire ford line puts me in the "peculiar position of being a bandwagon ford hater" especially in reference to your cars engine bay. i wasnt aware that you, and in particular your cars engine bay, are the arbiter of all things automotive.

i dont know if your tbird runs better than my benz. i doubt it does. especially since mine is not abused at a track. does it drive better than my old 1976 bmw? i dont think so. (see this works both ways. you can boast all you want to about your ford piece of crap and i can boast all i want to about my cars. doesnt make yours any better than mine. whereas mine are actually better than yours.)

you havent heard of in and out? you havent lived.

oh, and not all mcds burgers are 99 cents so if you compare the price of their big mac vs a double double from in and out then you have a favorable comparison. which brings up back to the original point; that leading seller does not the best product equate.

F-150 = best selling vehicle in the world, period. that means nothing.
Explorer = best selling SUV in America. if you had half a clue you would not have mentioned this vehicle at all.
Lightning = world's fastest production pick-up truck.and that proves what exactly?
V6 Mustang outsells all Camaros.that could be because its a better car.
Ford GT. <---(yes that's a period that's it's own sentence) what about it?
Ford made the Thunderbird. Which is the longest enduring car I know of I dunno about you, it was produced for 43 consecuative years, that's more than the Corvette even.not longer than the original beetle
'03/'04 Mustang Cobra is the second best bang for the buck machine there is.thats a dumb statement. depends who is measuring tha bang and what they are measuring it against. you do have to consider the dodge SRT4 when you talk bang for the buck you know.
Carroll Shelby is with Ford.no he aint. get your facts straight. he may work with them but he is not with them. its a very subtle difference
Focus RS is currently beating out the competition in WRC.coz it came right off the assembly line with other foci right? its not a standard car twit.
Ford made the first specialty performance vehicle division, that means SVT came first biotch! Not TRD, not Mugen, not MazdaSpeed, not Nismo, SVT!when was SVT formed? coz BMWs M division was formed in the late sixties/early seventies. that would give it a huge headstart dont you think? just how clueless are you?
Ford [Lincoln/Mercury] owns Aston martin, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, and parts of Mazda even. your point being what? if it wasnt for those other companines ford would be posting huge losses each year. get a hold of the wall street journal sometime.

so what can we conclude.
you are a ford fanboy.
you equate such things as best sales or performance as indicative of how good a car is.
you know some facts but not all.

360rider · Feb 3, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal
and much like your family tree. good thing this aint an english class innit?

So now we're onto family insults?

Originally posted by neanderthal
you havent heard of in and out? you havent lived.

oh, and not all mcds burgers are 99 cents so if you compare the price of their big mac vs a double double from in and out then you have a favorable comparison. which brings up back to the original point; that leading seller does not the best product equate.

And now we're onto arguing(sp?) about fast food?

Originally posted by neanderthal Ford made the Thunderbird. Which is the longest enduring car I know of I dunno about you, it was produced for 43 consecuative years, that's more than the Corvette even. --- not longer than the original beetle

Weren't we just comparing it to the corvette? How'd the beetle come into this?

Originally posted by neanderthal
'03/'04 Mustang Cobra is the second best bang for the buck machine there is. --- thats a dumb statement. depends who is measuring tha bang and what they are measuring it against. you do have to consider the dodge SRT4 when you talk bang for the buck you know.

The difference between the SRT-4 and the Cobra is magnanimus. The Cobra is in a whole league of its own. He was comparing it to other cars in the same category as the Cobra.

Originally posted by neanderthal Ford made the first specialty performance vehicle division, that means SVT came first biotch! Not TRD, not Mugen, not MazdaSpeed, not Nismo, SVT! --- when was SVT formed? coz BMWs M division was formed in the late sixties/early seventies. that would give it a huge headstart dont you think? just how clueless are you?

So now that's Ford's fault? All he was saying is that they made the first performance division.

Originally posted by neanderthal Ford [Lincoln/Mercury] owns Aston martin, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, and parts of Mazda even. --- your point being what? if it wasnt for those other companines ford would be posting huge losses each year. get a hold of the wall street journal sometime.

Now how do you think they managed to create/purchase all of those companies in the first place? They must of been doing something right if they could afford to manage those other companies. How could you possibly say those are the only thing's holding Ford up?

neanderthal · Feb 3, 2004

see the smiley. read that to mean thats a lighthearted attempt at humor. if i meant it i would not have put that smiley there.

And now we're onto arguing(sp?) about fast food?

no were not. im arguing against the simpleminded argument that if something is the bestseller its the best. the ford truck may be the best seller, but its not the best. you argued that it was. my example used was to counter that line of thought. but i can see that it still didnt seep through to your cranial contents. so i will simplify it.
you said "the ford truck is the best coz it sells the most." (paraphrased) where you see ford truck in that last sentence, remove it and insert big mac and ask yourself if that statement is true. see im using an allegory to counter what you said. if i cant get you to understand that it explains why im having to do this in the first place.

Weren't we just comparing it to the corvette? How'd the beetle come into this?

no we werent comparing it to the corvette. at that point we were discussing the vehicle that was in production longest. which would be the original beetle. follow the argument please.

The difference between the SRT-4 and the Cobra is magnanimus. The Cobra is in a whole league of its own. He was comparing it to other cars in the same category as the Cobra.

really. what category? domestic? rear wheel drive? price range?
no parameters were mentioned which would mean that the catergory is open to any entries. when you mention "bang for the buck" you are implicitly talking about geting the most performance for your dollar. so then you have to consider stats (cant be bothered to look em up for you.) compare them and evaluate them against price. considering the srt4 is just over half the price of the cobra r and has very good numbers for the basic performance stats (skidpad, 0- 60, braking, slalom etc) then you can certainly see why i would think its a viable competitor in an undefined "bang for buck" contest.

BTW i didnt say it is the best bftb, i just said you have to consider it. the best bang for your buck will always be an open class sportsbike.

oh, and wrong spelling of magnanimous and improper usage to boot. but im not here to check your grammar spelling or proficiency.

So now that's Ford's fault? All he was saying is that they made the first performance division.

no they didnt. all he was saying is he dont know ****. BMWs M division was formed in the late sixties/ early seventies. that means ford did NOT have the first performance division by a long way. its an irrefutable fact.

Now how do you think they managed to create/purchase all of those companies in the first place? They must of been doing something right if they could afford to manage those other companies. How could you possibly say those are the only thing's holding Ford up?

im not here to discuss fords business acumen. it was obviously a wise decision, one that is certainly paying off right now, to purchase jaguar way back when and land rover and volvo more recently. as for how i could possibly say those things, do some research. keep yourself appraised/ informed. thats how.

and for your own information many of fords forthcoming cars are heavily based on mazda engineering. not fords, but mazdas. and that applies even to the MZR (i think) line of engines that are soon to populate a bunch oa cars. by having those subsidiaries ford can count on volvo to engineer cars from a safety point of view, mazda from production etc and use economies of scale.

Fenrir51 · Feb 3, 2004

This thread really needs this.

Drifting Thunda · Feb 3, 2004

What's the problem with using Mazda equipment in Fords? So Ford is willing to admit Mazda does some things better, and they are using Mazda equipment to aid them. Since Mazda is now under Ford, it's one in the same to me. Keep in mind Ford also does this because GM does, and so does DaimlerChrysler, that's just how it is, you have to use every advantage you might have!

I admit some of my info was wrong (I read all that crap somewhere... I also admit some of it is less useful. But to say that the F-150 is crap when clearly it is not, all sales set aside, the F-150 is clearly an awesome truck. You mentioned the Titan, also a very commendable truck, but that doesn't lessen the F-150 any.

The Lightning is not useless. You're getting the idea that it can't haul much and that's true, but that doesn't mean it has no use as a truck. You also can't say it being the fastest production truck is meaningless. The damned thing runs 13s and can easily play with your M3s and whatnot... A truck that can play with your M-Division is noteworthy IMO, no matter how you look at it.

When I said V6 Mustangs outsold all Camaros that was while Camaros were in production. <---make sure you read that.

You can say your car runs slightly better than mine, but considering what I do to mine and how much less expensive it was than yours I think you get a

.

Thunderbird was produced for 43 years, you have to include '55 f00.

Was the original Beetle really produced longer? I didn't know that.

Corvette had a small break in production, which means it wasn't consecuative.

"im curious as to how my opinion of the entire ford line puts me in the "peculiar position of being a bandwagon ford hater" especially in reference to your cars engine bay. i wasnt aware that you, and in particular your cars engine bay, are the arbiter of all things automotive." It doesn't, but ya see, when you say something that is obviously not true, it can lead me to believe you make up reasons to hate Ford.

I don't think you even understood the whole Aerostar thing. See, whether it's behind in anything or not, it was a good van, that's all.

A lot of this arguing (now reading some of it again) is lame and stupid on both of our parts. I just don't see how Ford sucks. My Ford doesn't suck, none of our previous Fords have sucked.

Ford Fanboy :lol:

Maybe I am, but I know I found what car make I like and since it's carried my family and I reliably through thousands upon thousands of miles I see no reason to say it sucks, even if they are 'poorly engineered.' Oh, and it did so at much lower prices than your BMW has.

360rider · Feb 3, 2004

Once again I agree with him. Though I don't quite feel like having this argument anymore. Getting boring. All in all, our family's Ford's have been reliable and cost-efficient and the fact that someone comes up to another and says they suck can just push a couple buttons. No hard feelings man...it was just a reflex.

Drifting Thunda · Feb 3, 2004

Yeah, same here. And nothing against BMW, my undisputed favorite German make.

neanderthal · Feb 4, 2004

lets see.
my BMW (1976 BMW 2002) cost $1800 cash. jan 1995
my mercedes (1990 mercedes 300E 2.6) cost $3900 cash. dec 2003.
not really expensive are they? so perhaps you might want to squash the "expensive" noises youre making. its all about recognising value.

there is no problem with ford using mazda know how. i wanted to point out that mazda did such a good job engineering their mazda 3 and mazda 6 that ford chose to not build thier own platforms and duplicate what mazda had already done. some have whispered that ford had already done most of the engineering for the next taurus (soon coming as the ford 500) but the result was not as good as the mazda. what does that say about fords engineering prowess? translate that to manufacturing. cost control. inventory management. and so on and so on. but lets not belabor the point. mazda is a subsidiary of fords, ford can use whatever assets it has to its own benefit.

as for whether or not its crap, my experience with cars comes not from just driving them, but from working on them as well. i have been a mechanic and still work in a car related field. so i speak from experience when i say fords are crap. now thats my opinion, and is subject to change depending on wheter or not the mood hits me. but from my observation of how the cars are put together (assembly; fit and finish, tolerances, continuity etc) designed (engineering, cost cutting, quality of materials, durability, experiences of family, friends and customers vis a vis mechanical breakdowns etc) etc then pretty much all fords are crap.
to give you an example. when dodge introduced the ram about ten years ago, it was leaps and bounds better than the ram it replaced. it introduced new ideas and thinking to the segment. it bested the current trucks in many parameters (not durability for that first year or two) same thing when chevy introduced the silverado about 4 years ago. ford has just recently introduced a brand new (not worked over) truck and it is just barely better than the others.
in comparisons it has been beaten (titan) or barely won. check out the magazines. thats not from me thats from people who criticise cars for a living. for a NEW truck that ford spent so much money (800 million i think!!) on? it wins because its interior is quieter/ nicer etc? thats pathetic for a ground up new truck. and theres talk about decontenting it already :eek:

the lightning really has about as much use as a truck as a mercedes station wagon. they can carry about the same load and tow about the same. i think some of the small trucks might even have better payload and towing numbers than it. im not saying its not a great performance vehicle, im saying its a nigh on useless "truck."

did you read the part where i said "perhaps the mustang outsold the camaro because it was a better car." <------- make sure YOU go back and read that. this goes to my earlier follow the argument point.

Thunderbird was produced for 43 years, you have to include '55 f00.

considering the beetle was in continuous production from 1945 to 2003 i think it bests the thunderbird considerably.

Was the original Beetle really produced longer? I didn't know that.

its **** like this that makes me think youre more than forrest gump dumb.
the sentence right before that said "tbird was in production..... 55 f00." whats the purpose of calling me a fool when you dont know the facts. and then commenting that you dont know the facts, right after you called me fool. you follow my thinking here?
a quick google would have led to the facts.

Corvette had a small break in production, which means it wasn't consecuative

I POINTED THAT OUT FIRST!!!! :mad:

dude. you seriously seriously seriously need to consider what youre going to say. and edit it forty times before you post. and follow the damn argument.

im not saying the cars you have are crap. thats for you to decide, based on whatever parameters you choose. im saying as a brand they suck, based on my experiences and observations.

1X83Z · Feb 5, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal

the silverado/sierra is a better truck. as is the titan.

The Titan is the worst full-size truck for sale. You claim he's wrapped up in the adverts for the F150, but anybody saying the Titan is a better truck than the new F150 is clearly wrapped up in the hype. It's not a good vehicle, and I consider it Nissan's worst of the last two years.

Silverado/Sierra is debatable. On paper, at least, the GM twins lag.

as someone else has already mentioned thats not really indicative of how well a vehicle is built/ designed/ engineered.

Plus... who the hell cares about fast pickup trucks?

F-150 = best selling vehicle in the world, period. that means nothing.
Explorer = best selling SUV in America. if you had half a clue you would not have mentioned this vehicle at all.

One of the things that does mean something is return buyers - both have industry-high returning buyer numbers, which speaks to reliability.

thats a dumb statement. depends who is measuring tha bang and what they are measuring it against. you do have to consider the dodge SRT4 when you talk bang for the buck you know.

Easily defined, 'bang for the buck' is a plain division problem - base price divided by horsepower. Numbers under 100 are pretty spectacular - the old Trans Am/Camaro used to be the best in America, but the SVT Cobra takes it now for $86.09 per horsepower. The SRT-4 has a hugely respectable $88.91 per horsepower, but it's not as much bang. Other top cars are typically low-priced Korean cars.

Drifting Thunda · Feb 5, 2004

Originally posted by neanderthal
blah blah blah

Oh, I'm so sorry I didn't follow the VW bug's production years around like a little doggy. It's not like you know every car's production years. :rolleyes:

I am not exactly a fan of that car you obviously hadn't figured out.

No, the expensive crap still stands. I'm talkin new cars, why the **** would used cars count for anything? The price of used cars is too much a variable. How much can you get an M3 for? How much can you get a Cobra for? How much can you get a 5 series for? How much can you get a Mark VIII for?

'Nuff said, you're used cars don't count for chit considering if I looked hard enough I could find equally good deals.

I have every damned right to say you're a fool because you can't even count years. I acknowledge the beetle is produced longer in plain simple English but your retarded self must insist I didn't! '55-'97 is 43 years, not 42, learn to count you Euro freak!

The Lightning is clearly an awesome machine, it can beat a lot of stock sports cars and has a decent sized aftermarket. You'll understand when it beats you. Ever been beaten by a pick-up truck? Well, it sure feels funny! A high performance pick-up like the Lightning is just the thing some people look for, if it wasn't and the truck wasn't successful why would there be more performance trucks under development? It's a successful truck, and it can match up with LS1s, M3s, Mustang GTs, C5s, Supras, VR-4s, etc. in drag, though obviously not road courses.

I don't think neanderthal is ever gonna meet half-way with this, he's just too arrogant about his used cars being better than those 'pieces of crap' that are often rated better and sell so much better than his.

Dorifto · Feb 5, 2004

Originally posted by Fenrir51
This thread really needs this.

Ha ha I was just about to post that!

Drifting Thunda · Feb 5, 2004

Originally posted by Dorifto
Ha ha I was just about to post that!

That's old, and not even true.

But it reminds me of a pic of that kid photoshopped into a pic with an STi Rally Car in such a way as to make it look as though he's going to be inevitably clobbered. :lol: