cars I hate!

[Melis]

There are way more cameros and mustangs than 3000GT's.I think even the base model of the 3000GT is still better than any base model mustang or camero (i wouldn't call a 3000GT "cheap lower end" considering its a $35,000 car and the vr-4 is over $40,000). The 3000GT brand new even the base model is worth twice what Mustangs and Cameros are v6 or v8s. I don't have to throw money into my car-I can hang with Mustangs GT's and other v8's just like yours. From 30 mph street race or more you'll be suprised at the SL. Whats sad is ford made a V8 that V6 can beat! Don't get me wrong I used to own a LS1 Trans Am modded with over 400hp so I m not completely against it But I have been able to race and hang with the best of them with my SL including a few LT1's and turbo eclipses. My 3000GT ...turbo no its not .....but we are talking about an 'SL' model with DOHC 5 spd and 222 plus hp and over 205 torque with minor mods, I have walked many v6 cameros and mustang's stock heck the only thing worth racing is THE V8'S! You may have seen many 3000GT sl's but have you raced them? You should check out www.3si.org for more information on the 3000GT-they are not to be underestimated

Btw-why did you get a convertible ??? More weight less hp??

melis-

[Tinseltown349]

No, I bought convertible because I wanted the top to go down on hot, and steamy sunny days. Are you upset because of the overabundance of SL's messing up 3000GT name? Why did I get power door locks? Or leather seating? Or have them keep a CD player in it? Why do I need remote-entry? Because, it's a daily driver, not a race car. Although, I suppose it would seem more like the latter.

[Tinseltown349]

Oh, and by the way. My 2000 Mustang GT convertible has roughly a curb weight in the vicinity of 3450lbs. While the 98 VR4, non convertible, had a curb weigh of 3810 lbs. 320-hp stock in those, and good for a 14.2 in the 1/4 with 3.83 gears was it? I don't know, but higher acceleration gear ratio than mine even. So. If you're beating mustangs and camaros, they best all be v6's in that sl of yours. :alien: If you're beating mustangs that are 8's, it's possible, but they have to be pre-99, when they had 225hp instead of 260 stock. Have a nice day. I'm not trying to bash, I like vr-4's, but, just stating some facts here since you're complaining about my convertible adding SOOO much weight.

[Tinseltown349]

HEHE...one more for you...I was disturbed to think that you believe that a convertible robs you of hp....Tell me it ain't so! You did say, "More weight, less hp." Right? And for even another stab at you, if you want to compare coupes versus convertibles, C5 vettes with convertible actually have been capable of out-accelerating the hardtops. In 2000, the three Vettes offered (coupe, convert, and hardtop) the acceleration went in the following order from fastest to slowest..."Coupe, Convertible, Hardtop." And most specs I read up on 1/4 times, somehow, places a 95 3000GT VR-4 Spyder slightly ahead or at least equal to that of a 98 3000GT VR-4 in 1/4 times and 0-60. Mustangs don't work that way, but, just know it happens.

[Tinseltown349]

Phew! :hehehe: :badass:

[fade_to_black]

Originally posted by Tinseltown349
HEHE...one more for you...I was disturbed to think that you believe that a convertible robs you of hp....Tell me it ain't so! You did say, "More weight, less hp." Right? And for even another stab at you, if you want to compare coupes versus convertibles, C5 vettes with convertible actually have been capable of out-accelerating the hardtops. In 2000, the three Vettes offered (coupe, convert, and hardtop) the acceleration went in the following order from fastest to slowest..."Coupe, Convertible, Hardtop." And most specs I read up on 1/4 times, somehow, places a 95 3000GT VR-4 Spyder slightly ahead or at least equal to that of a 98 3000GT VR-4 in 1/4 times and 0-60. Mustangs don't work that way, but, just know it happens.

Just to let you in on a little information...I could see why C5 verts can and do out accelerate the coupes...They don't have electric tops and therefore don't have the added weight of the motors, therefore they are lighter. That is the reason why the mustang verts aren't faster than the coupes. Just thought I would inform you of that.

[Tinseltown349]

And I quote from an above post I made:

"And most specs I read up on 1/4 times, somehow, places a 95 3000GT VR-4 Spyder slightly ahead or at least equal to that of a 98 3000GT VR-4 in 1/4 times and 0-60. Mustangs don't work that way, but, just know it happens. "

Should I bold the Mustangs don't work that way for you?

[Cbass]

Usually convertables are heavier and less rigid than coupes. Myself, I prefer the refined closed cockpit feel, while hammering through a corner at excessive speed.

[Tinseltown349]

Dear lord, you've all taken my post and completely turned it around to make it seem like I've stated all convertibles are faster. I was only making a point that not every convertible is heavier than stock, and thus, can potentially show more respectable acceleration times. I'm sorry for any confusion. I did state though that this was not the case on Mustang's, because, yes, they have a mechanical top and not hand-operated. Sorry that everyone reads way too far into my posts...

[Cbass]

I don't know who has been smoking what, and who has gotten into the glue, but a C5 convertable does 0-60 in 5.2 or so seconds. A C5 coupe does 0-60 in a shade under 5. A C5 hardtop does in in about 4.7

The mustang has got to be the sole example of a convertable accelerating faster than a coupe. I suspect this is probably due to tuning more than body structure.

[Tinseltown349]

Ok, let's stop this silly nonsense right here and now. Nobody's reading every post in this forum obviously...hehe...i can tell because everyone's going on and on about their own stories about this convertible and that...mustangs aren't the story, because the convertibles ARE slower. C5's with convert have been capable of beating other c5's non-convert, but, again, this is based driver/driver in my theory, and they're not auto-top up/down...it's a hand-manual...let's get back to cars we hate...shall we? lol...got a new one...well, an old one, but based off a new one of an old one i saw...and it is as follows:

PT Cruiser with blue neon front license plate, tuner stickers,and Coffee-can exhaust...woof...but, he was driving it like it was pumping out an extra 5-hp...:silly2:

[boingo82]

Actually, I DID read every post in this forum....

Contrary to 100% of the people here, I kinda like PT Cruisers. But don't flame me for it.

Cars I hate:

Anything by Kia. Especially since they've started naming them so they rhyme with Nissans. I.E. Optima=Altima, Spectra=Sentra, etc.

Many, many Fords. But not all. Seriously, can't they pick car names that aren't so easy to make fun of? F*ckus, Mustank, Expire, Exploder, Explosion, etc.

Any car that has a mullet in it.

Any car made so you can't point the air vents at your legs. (I live in a warm climate.)

The Asstek. But then again, does anybody like this car? I've only seen 1 on the road, ever.

The Camry. Why has every Camry driver I've ever met (except 2 on this forum) tried to run into me or cut me off?? Why???

The Toyota..oh, I can't remember the name but they only came in stanky colors like sea mist and desert rose. You know, their entry-level car. Not the Echo, though I hate that one too.

Cars I like:
Any car that has a standard clock on the dash or instrument panel. No, the radio doesn't count.

[Cbass]

I hate PT Cruisers. I hate Azteks. In fact, I hate this whole "crossover" thing. For Christs sake, get a van! Get a sports car. Drive the sports car for fun, and to commute. Drive the van when you need to carry a lot of people, or a lot of cargo. It's not rocket science.

I think the crossover trend is engineered with the sole purpose in mind of offending the automotive enthuasiast. People who like sports cars are offended by a crossover commercial flaunting the monstrosity as part sports car, part truck, all fun or something ridiculous like that.

On the other hand, the people who like trucks are offended by the very same commercial, because they hate to see that thing called a truck.

The wagon people are offended because suddenly, the whole automotive industry completely shuns the wagon, in favour of a abhorration like the Matrix.

The van people just say, "Get a fucking van!"

Excuse my language, but it had to be literal quote to get the point across.

BTW, Fords rock.

[Ssom]

OK I hate:

Anything boy-racers like (Except Skyline and Civic)

Anything where engineering took the back-seat

Anything that doesn't provide an enjoyable drive

Anything that comes out of America that wasn't designed before the fuel crisis

Pontiac Aztec/Buick Rendezvous

BMC cars after the Morris 1100

Anything with a Rotor (Except the JC Cosmo)

Anything from Eastern Europe that wasn't designed by a big-brother (ie I like Skoda's because VW do most of the designing)

Old FIAT's

[Cbass]

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
OK I hate:

Anything boy-racers like (Except Skyline and Civic)

Anything that comes out of America that wasn't designed before the fuel crisis

Anything with a Rotor (Except the JC Cosmo)

Old FIAT's

How can you be against rice and like the Civic? It is the focal epitomy of rice!

After both gas scares, great cars were still made. Pontiac was making big block Trans Ams(which were the fasted musclecars 12 second cars),
In the 80s, Buick made the GN series. Ford made the SVO, and put a Windsor V8 in quite a few things. Chrysler... well, there's no excuse for Chrysler.

The Cosmo has a 20B rotary. Triple rotor, good for 1000 hp with adequate porting and boost. The RX-7 has a 13B rotary. With same porting and boost, capable of 600hp or more. The only bad things about these motors, they burn oil, not the best fuel economy. The only thing I don't love about rotaries, they have a really high powerband. No low end torque.