STi vs. 88 camaro

  • Thread starter Thread starter spike10h
  • 118 comments
  • 5,927 views
Originally posted by Monster7
Happy B-day nissan300zx -


Essential%20English%20Dictionary.jpg
Click to expand...

I think he meant.

Simple. We have the torque but you have the power. :rolleyes: A muscle car might be really strong, but I for one, wouldn't know how to use the power, which is how they win. I saw a '92 Honda Civic Hatchback beat a '96 Corvette. Why? The Corvette had no traction and low end torque.

How the hell would a Corvette have no low-end torque? It doesn't seem that the Corvette would hurt on torque, at all.
 
My first post, only joined to try and support the muscle car fans out there.

SUre you saw a 92 civic beat a STOCK C5 Vette. Now tell me, honestly, was the Civic stock. NO WAY!!! THat civic has weight reduction, turbo, more turbo, some nitrous, no suspension cause the idiot cut his springs, bit dumb wing on top of the car cause it's a hatchback, a wing that does more good hanging up his laundry to dry than provide downforce. A stock civic anything cannot, I repeat, CANNOT beat a C5 Chevrolet Corvette, ever. Just does not happen.

Now that does not take into account the driver's skills behind either wheel. But you can rice out a civic and make it pull 9's, wow, good for you, your engine needs to be rebuilt every 1000 miles. Dumb morons, you want a fast car, buy a vette, or a Camaro.

I own a 1987 IROC Z-28 with nearly 200k miles on the original engine. Stock it had 190 HP with the tuned port injection. With the 5 speed Hurst factory shifter, the orignal stats were 0-60 in anywhere between 6.8-7.5 seconds, depending on what you read. Can any stock Civic beat that? Or do you gotta pour on the rice?
 
a stock civic may be able to beat a vette..........a chevette!!! ha ha ha:lol: actually it would be lucky if it could do that.......
 
Originally posted by F-Body
My first post, only joined to try and support the muscle car fans out there.

SUre you saw a 92 civic beat a STOCK C5 Vette. Now tell me, honestly, was the Civic stock. NO WAY!!! THat civic has weight reduction, turbo, more turbo, some nitrous, no suspension cause the idiot cut his springs, bit dumb wing on top of the car cause it's a hatchback, a wing that does more good hanging up his laundry to dry than provide downforce. A stock civic anything cannot, I repeat, CANNOT beat a C5 Chevrolet Corvette, ever. Just does not happen.

Now that does not take into account the driver's skills behind either wheel. But you can rice out a civic and make it pull 9's, wow, good for you, your engine needs to be rebuilt every 1000 miles. Dumb morons, you want a fast car, buy a vette, or a Camaro.

I own a 1987 IROC Z-28 with nearly 200k miles on the original engine. Stock it had 190 HP with the tuned port injection. With the 5 speed Hurst factory shifter, the orignal stats were 0-60 in anywhere between 6.8-7.5 seconds, depending on what you read. Can any stock Civic beat that? Or do you gotta pour on the rice?
Click to expand...

Why the hell are you comparing stock vs. stock a sports car to an economy car???

Also, if someone get's a Civic to run 11 second quarter miles, it most likely won't have a huge wing on it. Not all fast imports are riced out, they're probably in the hands of an intelligent person.

Also, 6.8 second 0-60mph isn't anything astonishing. A stock WRX does it in 5.6 seconds. If you want to pick on cars with huge wings, go after the STi. 0-60mph in less than five seconds.

My god. It's like Zamataki invited all of his friends here too.
 
Originally posted by Goomba
Why the hell are you comparing stock vs. stock a sports car to an economy car???
Click to expand...

Because hes an idiot. :) Think of the HP difference.

Originally posted by Goomba
Also, if someone get's a Civic to run 11 second quarter miles, it most likely won't have a huge wing on it. Not all fast imports are riced out, they're probably in the hands of an intelligent person.
Click to expand...

I agree, look at cheesefrog, he runs 10s beating out vipers and corvettes and look clean no "rice"

Originally posted by Goomba
If you want to pick on cars with huge wings, go after the STi. 0-60mph in less than five seconds.
Click to expand...

:D around 4.6 seconds for a STi. Subaru claims that the wing helps the STi so i guess its not all for show. It is huge.

My aunt ask my cousin if the car was meant to fly, because the rear spoiler was so huge. It was really funny because she said it in chinese. :lol:

Also the hood scoop on the STi, since my cousin is really short, she ask him "tim, can you see over that box on the hood?" :lol:!!!

Anyways back on task.

Originally posted by Goomba
My god. It's like Zamataki invited all of his friends here too.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Originally posted by F-Body
SUre you saw a 92 civic beat a STOCK C5 Vette. Now tell me, honestly, was the Civic stock. NO WAY!!! THat civic has weight reduction, turbo, more turbo, some nitrous, no suspension cause the idiot cut his springs, bit dumb wing on top of the car cause it's a hatchback, a wing that does more good hanging up his laundry to dry than provide downforce. A stock civic anything cannot, I repeat, CANNOT beat a C5 Chevrolet Corvette, ever. Just does not happen.

Now that does not take into account the driver's skills behind either wheel. But you can rice out a civic and make it pull 9's, wow, good for you, your engine needs to be rebuilt every 1000 miles. Dumb morons, you want a fast car, buy a vette, or a Camaro.
Click to expand...

Except the Civic with all its parts probably still costs less then a brand new Corvette :rolleyes:

Not everyone has the funds to go buy a Corvette or the outdated, overweight lawn dart that is the Camaro.
 
Is it just me, or have we stopped talking about the sti and the 88 camaro, or am I blind.
 
apparently not. if I can be typing this.
 
Then why did you ask if you was blind?!
 
Goomba, your a tool guy.

6.8 seconds 0-60 is not impressive, now. In 1987 my IROC Z-28 was the third fastest car made, PERIOD!!! The Corvette and Grand National were faster, and thats it, so yes, in 1987 6.8 is very fast.

My point is you can take a civic and make it faster than a vette, for a total price less than that vette. BUt what are you left with, a extremely ugly polished turd. It's still a piece of crap Civic. And if it has a turnbo charger, it is RICE! If it had an engine that was worth a damn to begin with it wouldn't need any more work. Just buy a fast car to begin with instead of a little 1.5 liter beater. Civics are such a joke, and their drivers, all except people looking for a good economical car, are all complete tools. They can't handle a real car. Front wheel drive will always lose out to a rear drive car that has torque. Sure, your little crapbox 9 second civic has alot of horsepower thanks to your nitrous and turbo, but it still has under 200 ft. lbs/ torque. And torque is EVERYTHING.
 
Well, let's see...

The Bugatti EB110 has four turbo chargers, so I guess that makes it rice, and it costs more then your outdated Camaro, and it also completely kicks the crap out of it in nearly ever single performance category out there.

So why didn't you pay a little more and get a real car? :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by F-Body
Goomba, your a tool guy.

6.8 seconds 0-60 is not impressive, now. In 1987 my IROC Z-28 was the third fastest car made, PERIOD!!! The Corvette and Grand National were faster, and thats it, so yes, in 1987 6.8 is very fast.
Click to expand...

A, In 1987 there were more than three cars in production faster to 60 than an IROC.

B, This may be remotely meaningful if it were still 1987.


Originally posted by F-Body
Sure, your little crapbox 9 second civic has alot of horsepower thanks to your nitrous and turbo, but it still has under 200 ft. lbs/ torque. And torque is EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

What do gears do?


M
 
///M-Spec

In 1987 my IROC WAS the third fastest American car. Sorry, but this is fact.
 
Originally posted by F-Body
///M-Spec

In 1987 my IROC WAS the third fastest American car. Sorry, but this is fact.
Click to expand...

Oh? But you wrote this.

In 1987 my IROC Z-28 was the third fastest car made, PERIOD!!!
Click to expand...

Duh. :dunce:

Now answer my question --its a simple one that anyone who knows anything about cars can answer: what do gears do?


M
 
Originally posted by F-Body
///M-Spec

In 1987 my IROC WAS the third fastest American car. Sorry, but this is fact.
Click to expand...

In a straight line, maybe, but that was the 80s. Saying anything American from the 80s was fast nowadays is kind of moot...
 
No wonder you're such a slow developer:lol:
 
Originally posted by F-Body
///M-Spec

In 1987 my IROC WAS the third fastest American car. Sorry, but this is fact.
Click to expand...

Good for you. This is 2004, not 1987. Break Dancing was cool in 1987.

Now, much like your car, it sucks.
 
The car doesn't suck as much as the degenerate driver.

Seriously, the only way people like this guy learn, is by getting their ass handed to them time after time on the strip or probably his preference, the street.


Originally posted by F-Body
And if it has a turnbo charger, it is RICE! If it had an engine that was worth a damn to begin with it wouldn't need any more work.
Click to expand...
1. What's a turnbo charger?

2. The 5.0 liter which only made 190hp - laugh - and the biggest engine option that year - the 5.7 liter making a whopping 220hp and running mid-high 14's would fall under the category of "needing engine work". I guess you're right, "If it had an engine that was worth a damn to begin with it wouldn't need any more work."
 
Ok. can we stop bashing?!?! all f body says is imports suck. azndrifter says domestics suck. they both have their highs and lows. lets just shut up about who sucks more. sounds like something askia 47 would post. soo...... I think this is pointless. where is thread when you need him?
 
Your right. Ill stop . Lets just go back to what our topic says. I dont think bashing other manufacturers will do any good on going back to this topic . Anyways I think the STi would win.Cuz of its great handling , great power, and its AWD which gives it better pick-up
 
gawd how this kind of people (read F-body) helps the dommestic crew get some credit, no? hell, in a forum full of import lovers, we need fine people liking what the american cars do, and then in comes this guy. bleagh :crazy:
well, he's been banned. lets hope it wont repeat in the future.

Cano

as for ricing a car with a turnbocharger, I think I'll rice out my Ford Fairont when I get it back. hey, it has a V8 engine, but a turbo is too tempting (: this thread really got to be real fun. We need more threads like these, but not wit this kind of people. It was easy from the beggining, an 80s stock Camaro, ANY 80s stock Camaro has absolutely no chance of beating in ANY way a new WRX. we could really kill this thread now.
 
Thanks for the humor here. . . I believe gears are what helps in the moving of the car, although, I am unsure if they are necessary for this camaro. . . :lol:
 
Originally posted by miata13B
Thanks for the humor here. . . I believe gears are what helps in the moving of the car, although, I am unsure if they are necessary for this camaro. . . :lol:
Click to expand...

GEARS MULTIPLY TORQUE. An S2000 puts plenty of torque to the ground because of GEARING. I think I've asked this very question at least 4 times whenever some clueless meathead goes on about how this car or that makes no torque. I've yet to get a single response.


M
 
Originally posted by Cano
gawd how this kind of people (read F-body) helps the dommestic crew get some credit, no? hell, in a forum full of import lovers, we need fine people liking what the american cars do, and then in comes this guy. bleagh :crazy:
well, he's been banned. lets hope it wont repeat in the future.

Cano

as for ricing a car with a turnbocharger, I think I'll rice out my Ford Fairont when I get it back. hey, it has a V8 engine, but a turbo is too tempting (: this thread really got to be real fun. We need more threads like these, but not wit this kind of people. It was easy from the beggining, an 80s stock Camaro, ANY 80s stock Camaro has absolutely no chance of beating in ANY way a new WRX. we could really kill this thread now.
Click to expand...


I'm a fine person. I like what american cars do. vote for me! actually I think if the driver in the camaro knows what he is doing then it would be pretty close.
 
i always miss out on the fun, now hes banned
 
Back