kill? tie? watever

i was at a stop light wit my buddy beside me (btw drivin a old '89 buick park avenue 3800) so next to me comes a gaurantee 2k+ 626 chronos. So me and my buddy always like to just gas it on ppl once it turns green, not to race, but for fun...sooooo, when the light turned green this 626 gased it as well, and me and the mazda were neck and neck till about 100km/h where she shut down, b/c she wasnt able to go on my lane since she wanted to beat me to the next stop light b/c she wanted to turn on it first.
well ya thats my lil story, pretty surprising that even a pretty new 626 couldnt dust my dads old buick, quite shame if u ask me.

well later :D

Hmmm....sounds like it was fun, that sounds odd that a newer 626 wouldn't take the buick, but maybe it was a 4 cyl?

I dunno enough about Mazdas. :screwy:

na the 626 is a v6, hence the 6 in the actually model name.

LOL, me being stupid again....thanks!

The 626 for 2000+ runs roughly 8 second 0-60mph and 16 second 1/4 mile. Sounds like it would be about accurate to me....the old 3.8s in those cars were fast, cuz if i remember the buicks from that bodystyle they were not heavy cars.

The 3.8 is a great motor....nice kill!

na the 626 is a v6, hence the 6 in the actually model name.

If you think about it that doesn't make any sense at all. While I will give you that the new 626 in all likleyhood had a V6 under the hood, by your reasoning the 323 would bave a 3 cylinder (which is doesn't) and the 929 would have a 9 cylinder (again it does not). Not to mention that older 626's and MX-6's came with standard 2.2 liter 4 cylider engines. I know I had the pleaseure of driving the crap out of one.

AND as one final slap in the face, after doing a minimal amount of research on www.cars.com one clearly can see that in 2002, the final year of the 626 it came standard with a 4 banger.

Please don't comment if you don;t know what you are talking about and if you are sure you do know check it anyway with someone who knows more than you do. Like Cars.com for example.

DoubleTap

If you think about it that doesn't make any sense at all. While I will give you that the new 626 in all likleyhood had a V6 under the hood, by your reasoning the 323 would bave a 3 cylinder (which is doesn't) and the 929 would have a 9 cylinder (again it does not). Not to mention that older 626's and MX-6's came with standard 2.2 liter 4 cylider engines. I know I had the pleaseure of driving the crap out of one.

AND as one final slap in the face, after doing a minimal amount of research on www.cars.com one clearly can see that in 2002, the final year of the 626 it came standard with a 4 banger.

Please don't comment if you don;t know what you are talking about and if you are sure you do know check it anyway with someone who knows more than you do. Like Cars.com for example.

DoubleTap

lol :1: for double tap

k dont get too technical on the 626 reasoning ok.
well if u knew anything of what i posted this 626 was keaping up wit my dads buick, and i doubt a 4 banger would keep up like that one did.
plus i didnt mention anything about older 626's/mx-6 and such, but thx for a quick waste of a fact.
therefore , we dont need no smartasses commenting

If you think about it that doesn't make any sense at all. While I will give you that the new 626 in all likleyhood had a V6 under the hood, by your reasoning the 323 would bave a 3 cylinder (which is doesn't) and the 929 would have a 9 cylinder (again it does not). Not to mention that older 626's and MX-6's came with standard 2.2 liter 4 cylider engines. I know I had the pleaseure of driving the crap out of one.

AND as one final slap in the face, after doing a minimal amount of research on www.cars.com one clearly can see that in 2002, the final year of the 626 it came standard with a 4 banger.

Please don't comment if you don;t know what you are talking about and if you are sure you do know check it anyway with someone who knows more than you do. Like Cars.com for example.

I think you read a little too far into this one. No need to be nasty.