Street Racing
Talon007
07-24-2003, 02:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Syde Racer
....DSM is a "higher educated group of car owners"
DSM motto: "Go fast with class"
I'd like to see anyone of you try to post on TeamNABR, they would be banned in the process of typing their first post :rolleyes:
As for the moderation, what moderation? this thraed is going nowhere and shoulda been closed monthes ago :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dark Syde Racer
....DSM is a "higher educated group of car owners"
DSM motto: "Go fast with class"
I'd like to see anyone of you try to post on TeamNABR, they would be banned in the process of typing their first post :rolleyes:
As for the moderation, what moderation? this thraed is going nowhere and shoulda been closed monthes ago :rolleyes:
RockinWRX
07-24-2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by RedNeck383
LandoAWD hows that Crank of yours doing? Walking on ya?? How about that Head Gasket?... say How's that transmission of yours doing?
Yeah, you DSM owners are usually more educated. You've got to be to have a good enough career to fund your sports cars.
You're talking all this praise about your ultimate DSM car. Yet you state Z06's are a challenge. :eek7:
Friendly Bashing aside. I personally like the Eclipse and its brethren.
But I dont see whats the hype...
'92 Acura GSR
0-60: 6.8
1/4: 15.4
'92 Mitsu GSX
0-60: 7.0
1/4: 15.3
I'd say stock for stock they're pretty even. I mean... how can a economy car keep up with a sports car? Egad. The sky is falling!? :lol:
The GSR would never be considered an "economy " car. Both of them are sports cars in their own right. At 195 Hp and a touch lighter in weight , its a good match for a stock DSM. Pump up the Hp , though , and the GSR will fall behind. You just can't beat AWD traction and the massive Hp potential of a turbo 4G63. The GSR just needs a lot more money to get to 400 Hp than a DSM does .
LandoAWD hows that Crank of yours doing? Walking on ya?? How about that Head Gasket?... say How's that transmission of yours doing?
Yeah, you DSM owners are usually more educated. You've got to be to have a good enough career to fund your sports cars.
You're talking all this praise about your ultimate DSM car. Yet you state Z06's are a challenge. :eek7:
Friendly Bashing aside. I personally like the Eclipse and its brethren.
But I dont see whats the hype...
'92 Acura GSR
0-60: 6.8
1/4: 15.4
'92 Mitsu GSX
0-60: 7.0
1/4: 15.3
I'd say stock for stock they're pretty even. I mean... how can a economy car keep up with a sports car? Egad. The sky is falling!? :lol:
The GSR would never be considered an "economy " car. Both of them are sports cars in their own right. At 195 Hp and a touch lighter in weight , its a good match for a stock DSM. Pump up the Hp , though , and the GSR will fall behind. You just can't beat AWD traction and the massive Hp potential of a turbo 4G63. The GSR just needs a lot more money to get to 400 Hp than a DSM does .
-The Stig-
07-24-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by RockinWRX
The GSR would never be considered an "economy " car. Both of them are sports cars in their own right. At 195 Hp and a touch lighter in weight , its a good match for a stock DSM. Pump up the Hp , though , and the GSR will fall behind. You just can't beat AWD traction and the massive Hp potential of a turbo 4G63. The GSR just needs a lot more money to get to 400 Hp than a DSM does .
By LandoAWD's definition the GSR isn't a sports car. It's still an econobox.
And bump up the HP and the GSR would lag behind. Well, Yes. Thats true with any car comparison between two cars that are fairly equal in performance stats. Add power to one of them and of course it'll be faster. Which then defeats the purpose of stock vs stock.
Both cars have equal performance opportunities. The Honda cars are generally lighter than the DSM AWD models.
A '92 GSX weighs in at 3093lbs. A '97 GSX weighs in at 3130lbs. As opposed to a '97 GSR's 2667lbs and a '92 2643lbs.
Obviously the less weight of the Acura's help them out. They dont need the bigger motor... Well a 1.8 isn't the biggest thing in the world but neither is a 2.2 when you come from my point of view haha.
Also, LandoAWD seems to think a Civic Del Sol or Si can't be considered a sports car. Well, As always thats personal preference but I'd like to point out that not all sports cars are made equal. Porsches are definately not the same performance as a Ferrari... As Hybridsol says many a time.
Different strokes for different folks.
If you like the AWD grip of a DSM sweet, if they like the light weight with a good power to weight ratio then good for them. All that matters that we all have fun doing whatever it is you do with your car right? Whether its AutoX or 1/4 mile maybe even open road racing. Every car has its potiential it just takes the right knowledge to uncork it.
Ok time for :sleep: :sleeping:
The GSR would never be considered an "economy " car. Both of them are sports cars in their own right. At 195 Hp and a touch lighter in weight , its a good match for a stock DSM. Pump up the Hp , though , and the GSR will fall behind. You just can't beat AWD traction and the massive Hp potential of a turbo 4G63. The GSR just needs a lot more money to get to 400 Hp than a DSM does .
By LandoAWD's definition the GSR isn't a sports car. It's still an econobox.
And bump up the HP and the GSR would lag behind. Well, Yes. Thats true with any car comparison between two cars that are fairly equal in performance stats. Add power to one of them and of course it'll be faster. Which then defeats the purpose of stock vs stock.
Both cars have equal performance opportunities. The Honda cars are generally lighter than the DSM AWD models.
A '92 GSX weighs in at 3093lbs. A '97 GSX weighs in at 3130lbs. As opposed to a '97 GSR's 2667lbs and a '92 2643lbs.
Obviously the less weight of the Acura's help them out. They dont need the bigger motor... Well a 1.8 isn't the biggest thing in the world but neither is a 2.2 when you come from my point of view haha.
Also, LandoAWD seems to think a Civic Del Sol or Si can't be considered a sports car. Well, As always thats personal preference but I'd like to point out that not all sports cars are made equal. Porsches are definately not the same performance as a Ferrari... As Hybridsol says many a time.
Different strokes for different folks.
If you like the AWD grip of a DSM sweet, if they like the light weight with a good power to weight ratio then good for them. All that matters that we all have fun doing whatever it is you do with your car right? Whether its AutoX or 1/4 mile maybe even open road racing. Every car has its potiential it just takes the right knowledge to uncork it.
Ok time for :sleep: :sleeping:
RockinWRX
07-24-2003, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by RedNeck383
By LandoAWD's definition the GSR isn't a sports car. It's still an econobox.
And bump up the HP and the GSR would lag behind. Well, Yes. Thats true with any car comparison between two cars that are fairly equal in performance stats. Add power to one of them and of course it'll be faster. Which then defeats the purpose of stock vs stock.
Both cars have equal performance opportunities. The Honda cars are generally lighter than the DSM AWD models.
A '92 GSX weighs in at 3093lbs. A '97 GSX weighs in at 3130lbs. As opposed to a '97 GSR's 2667lbs and a '92 2643lbs.
Obviously the less weight of the Acura's help them out. They dont need the bigger motor... Well a 1.8 isn't the biggest thing in the world but neither is a 2.2 when you come from my point of view haha.
Also, LandoAWD seems to think a Civic Del Sol or Si can't be considered a sports car. Well, As always thats personal preference but I'd like to point out that not all sports cars are made equal. Porsches are definately not the same performance as a Ferrari... As Hybridsol says many a time.
Different strokes for different folks.
If you like the AWD grip of a DSM sweet, if they like the light weight with a good power to weight ratio then good for them. All that matters that we all have fun doing whatever it is you do with your car right? Whether its AutoX or 1/4 mile maybe even open road racing. Every car has its potiential it just takes the right knowledge to uncork it.
Ok time for :sleep: :sleeping:
Your confusing me a bit. Are you agreeing with me or not? :confused:
I have repsect for any well built fast car. I've seen Del-sol's in the 11's up here with B18C's and a turbo. And they also rock in the twisties. Si's? I've seen stock looking CRX's in the 12's , and Civic's in the 11's. I don't discount any vehicle simply because its a certain brand. We all have different tastes , and if its built well and fast , who cares what it is..........:cool:
By LandoAWD's definition the GSR isn't a sports car. It's still an econobox.
And bump up the HP and the GSR would lag behind. Well, Yes. Thats true with any car comparison between two cars that are fairly equal in performance stats. Add power to one of them and of course it'll be faster. Which then defeats the purpose of stock vs stock.
Both cars have equal performance opportunities. The Honda cars are generally lighter than the DSM AWD models.
A '92 GSX weighs in at 3093lbs. A '97 GSX weighs in at 3130lbs. As opposed to a '97 GSR's 2667lbs and a '92 2643lbs.
Obviously the less weight of the Acura's help them out. They dont need the bigger motor... Well a 1.8 isn't the biggest thing in the world but neither is a 2.2 when you come from my point of view haha.
Also, LandoAWD seems to think a Civic Del Sol or Si can't be considered a sports car. Well, As always thats personal preference but I'd like to point out that not all sports cars are made equal. Porsches are definately not the same performance as a Ferrari... As Hybridsol says many a time.
Different strokes for different folks.
If you like the AWD grip of a DSM sweet, if they like the light weight with a good power to weight ratio then good for them. All that matters that we all have fun doing whatever it is you do with your car right? Whether its AutoX or 1/4 mile maybe even open road racing. Every car has its potiential it just takes the right knowledge to uncork it.
Ok time for :sleep: :sleeping:
Your confusing me a bit. Are you agreeing with me or not? :confused:
I have repsect for any well built fast car. I've seen Del-sol's in the 11's up here with B18C's and a turbo. And they also rock in the twisties. Si's? I've seen stock looking CRX's in the 12's , and Civic's in the 11's. I don't discount any vehicle simply because its a certain brand. We all have different tastes , and if its built well and fast , who cares what it is..........:cool:
89B18C1CRX
07-24-2003, 08:15 AM
I think what he is trying to say is that Lando's facts were very off. He was calling the civic and gsr both econo cars and say how stock for stock they cant hang when Redneck threw the facts on the table it actually could. The only place where the gsx would get the gsr would be in traction you cant mess with the awd i totally agree. But then you have the turbo of the gsx to help it out but thats towards the lower rpms where the gsr has vtec at the higher rpms to help it out. I think that if the gsr could get some decent grip off the line and when it hits second then it woudl be a pretty tight one. Notice Lando shut up lately.
LandoAWD
07-24-2003, 08:46 AM
No, Lando worked on his car, went to sleep, and came to work. Your little club buddies came in to help out....awwwww. If those are the HP specs on a GSR, I owned a lemon. Period. The car was nowhere as balanced, nor as quick as the Laser when I bought in, much less now. Since when does a turbo only help in the lower end? Its obvious you guys know as much about DSMs as I care about Hondas...not alot. Crankwalk in a 92...I suppose anything is possible, but that dosen't make it likely. Transmission lasted till 110k, thanks. As for the guy that questioned my knowledge of what drivetrain I have....piss off troll. You just thought you'd get a piece of what you saw as an easy discussion. Its a shame that the only one that provided any useful info came in to the discussion so late. RedNeck383: Good info. The rest of you are still bandwagon trolls talking out of your asses. And for what its worth, Dark Syde wouldn't last long on a DSM forum with that attitude.
RockinWRX
07-24-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by LandoAWD
No, Lando worked on his car, went to sleep, and came to work. Your little club buddies came in to help out....awwwww. If those are the HP specs on a GSR, I owned a lemon. Period. The car was nowhere as balanced, nor as quick as the Laser when I bought in, much less now. Since when does a turbo only help in the lower end? Its obvious you guys know as much about DSMs as I care about Hondas...not alot. Crankwalk in a 92...I suppose anything is possible, but that dosen't make it likely. Transmission lasted till 110k, thanks. As for the guy that questioned my knowledge of what drivetrain I have....piss off troll. You just thought you'd get a piece of what you saw as an easy discussion. Its a shame that the only one that provided any useful info came in to the discussion so late. RedNeck383: Good info. The rest of you are still bandwagon trolls talking out of your asses. And for what its worth, Dark Syde wouldn't last long on a DSM forum with that attitude.
He obviously has never had a turbo car. Turbo's are good for midrange / top end. He may be thinking of superchargers , which can be low to midrange to top end , depending on the setup. The Acura GSR's were supposed to be one of the better track cars , impressive considering the FWD layout. As well balanced as a Miata , according to SCC.
I notice you didn't mention me. Unless I'm a "bandwagon troll" :eek7:
No, Lando worked on his car, went to sleep, and came to work. Your little club buddies came in to help out....awwwww. If those are the HP specs on a GSR, I owned a lemon. Period. The car was nowhere as balanced, nor as quick as the Laser when I bought in, much less now. Since when does a turbo only help in the lower end? Its obvious you guys know as much about DSMs as I care about Hondas...not alot. Crankwalk in a 92...I suppose anything is possible, but that dosen't make it likely. Transmission lasted till 110k, thanks. As for the guy that questioned my knowledge of what drivetrain I have....piss off troll. You just thought you'd get a piece of what you saw as an easy discussion. Its a shame that the only one that provided any useful info came in to the discussion so late. RedNeck383: Good info. The rest of you are still bandwagon trolls talking out of your asses. And for what its worth, Dark Syde wouldn't last long on a DSM forum with that attitude.
He obviously has never had a turbo car. Turbo's are good for midrange / top end. He may be thinking of superchargers , which can be low to midrange to top end , depending on the setup. The Acura GSR's were supposed to be one of the better track cars , impressive considering the FWD layout. As well balanced as a Miata , according to SCC.
I notice you didn't mention me. Unless I'm a "bandwagon troll" :eek7:
LandoAWD
07-24-2003, 04:36 PM
Damn bandwagon troll. LOL.
I should have mentioned your stable,informed answer as well.
I should have mentioned your stable,informed answer as well.
carrrnuttt
07-24-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by LandoAWD
Damn bandwagon troll. LOL.
I should have mentioned your stable,informed answer as well.
Talon007: Yes, you are right, there is no moderation in here, and I will be asking Igor to look into it. If I had closed this thread after I came in (very late), Lando, with his intelligent musings, would've interpreted it as misabuse of power (me getting the last word in), and me siding with my "boys".
LandoAWD: {sarcasm}Yes...yes you are THE one that has the right to evaluate what's stable and what isn't.{/sarcasm} Especially since you can't seem to see past your own regard for your vehicle.
Also, about me and my "boys". They are no more my "boys" than you are. I met them the same way you did. On AF. It just so happens that we frequent the same forums, and have had occasion to exchange thoughts on the same subjects, be they be about cars or something else. Even if they were my "boys", that equation had nothing to do with the argument. You were ready to concede to my (dictionary) definition of sports cars, but reversed it when you thought that I was here to back my "boys".
I am here, because as a moderator, they wanted me to view the carnage you are laying in here to the brotherhood of car owners...and for a good laugh. At your expense, albeit, but it still is funny.
The next step up this ladder of comedy is you arguing to a '68 Jaguar XJ owner that yes, your car is a sports car like his...by your definition.
You can always quote that dictionary reference I gave that encompasses your car as a type of sports car...but you would have to acknowledge that a lot of Hondas and Acuras fall in the same definition.
Please...stagger me with your intelligence, oh DSM owner.
Damn bandwagon troll. LOL.
I should have mentioned your stable,informed answer as well.
Talon007: Yes, you are right, there is no moderation in here, and I will be asking Igor to look into it. If I had closed this thread after I came in (very late), Lando, with his intelligent musings, would've interpreted it as misabuse of power (me getting the last word in), and me siding with my "boys".
LandoAWD: {sarcasm}Yes...yes you are THE one that has the right to evaluate what's stable and what isn't.{/sarcasm} Especially since you can't seem to see past your own regard for your vehicle.
Also, about me and my "boys". They are no more my "boys" than you are. I met them the same way you did. On AF. It just so happens that we frequent the same forums, and have had occasion to exchange thoughts on the same subjects, be they be about cars or something else. Even if they were my "boys", that equation had nothing to do with the argument. You were ready to concede to my (dictionary) definition of sports cars, but reversed it when you thought that I was here to back my "boys".
I am here, because as a moderator, they wanted me to view the carnage you are laying in here to the brotherhood of car owners...and for a good laugh. At your expense, albeit, but it still is funny.
The next step up this ladder of comedy is you arguing to a '68 Jaguar XJ owner that yes, your car is a sports car like his...by your definition.
You can always quote that dictionary reference I gave that encompasses your car as a type of sports car...but you would have to acknowledge that a lot of Hondas and Acuras fall in the same definition.
Please...stagger me with your intelligence, oh DSM owner.
LandoAWD
07-24-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
Lando, with his intelligent musings, would've interpreted it as misabuse of power (me getting the last word in), and me siding with my "boys".
LandoAWD: {sarcasm}Yes...yes you are THE one that has the right to evaluate what's stable and what isn't.{/sarcasm} Especially since you can't seem to see past your own regard for your vehicle.
Also, about me and my "boys". They are no more my "boys" than you are. I met them the same way you did. On AF. It just so happens that we frequent the same forums, and have had occasion to exchange thoughts on the same subjects, be they be about cars or something else. Even if they were my "boys", that equation had nothing to do with the argument. You were ready to concede to my (dictionary) definition of sports cars, but reversed it when you thought that I was here to back my "boys".
I am here, because as a moderator, they wanted me to view the carnage you are laying in here to the brotherhood of car owners...and for a good laugh. At your expense, albeit, but it still is funny.
The next step up this ladder of comedy is you arguing to a '68 Jaguar XJ owner that yes, your car is a sports car like his...by your definition.
You can always quote that dictionary reference I gave that encompasses your car as a type of sports car...but you would have to acknowledge that a lot of Hondas and Acuras fall in the same definition.
Please...stagger me with your intelligence, oh DSM owner.
You really have no clue do you?
You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence. You are a hypocrite. I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator.
I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster?
You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator. This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever.
You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves. If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments.
I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere.
How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned. That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action.
Moderator my overweight, white ass. Troll is more like it.:lol:
Lando, with his intelligent musings, would've interpreted it as misabuse of power (me getting the last word in), and me siding with my "boys".
LandoAWD: {sarcasm}Yes...yes you are THE one that has the right to evaluate what's stable and what isn't.{/sarcasm} Especially since you can't seem to see past your own regard for your vehicle.
Also, about me and my "boys". They are no more my "boys" than you are. I met them the same way you did. On AF. It just so happens that we frequent the same forums, and have had occasion to exchange thoughts on the same subjects, be they be about cars or something else. Even if they were my "boys", that equation had nothing to do with the argument. You were ready to concede to my (dictionary) definition of sports cars, but reversed it when you thought that I was here to back my "boys".
I am here, because as a moderator, they wanted me to view the carnage you are laying in here to the brotherhood of car owners...and for a good laugh. At your expense, albeit, but it still is funny.
The next step up this ladder of comedy is you arguing to a '68 Jaguar XJ owner that yes, your car is a sports car like his...by your definition.
You can always quote that dictionary reference I gave that encompasses your car as a type of sports car...but you would have to acknowledge that a lot of Hondas and Acuras fall in the same definition.
Please...stagger me with your intelligence, oh DSM owner.
You really have no clue do you?
You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence. You are a hypocrite. I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator.
I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster?
You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator. This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever.
You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves. If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments.
I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere.
How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned. That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action.
Moderator my overweight, white ass. Troll is more like it.:lol:
LandoAWD
07-24-2003, 06:43 PM
Just wanted to add that I REALLY AM done on this thread, so respond, laugh at how I don't answer your brilliant posts (certain parties excluded...not all of you have been as on sided as I and others have been), whatever. You wan't to continue? PM me, e-mail me, or catch me on AIM. I'm off to get a few beers in my car that can't outrun busloads of kids:rolleyes:
hybridsol
07-24-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You really have no clue do you. You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence. You are a hypocrite. I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator. I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster? You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator. This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever. You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves. If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments. I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere. How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned. That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action. Moderator my overweight, white ass. Troll is more like it.:lol:
Everone tried to handle your comments nicely, your the one being crude and sarcastic. No one was asked to post in this thread and defend me. Everyone can see that all you want to do is flame, this is usually when carrnuttt shows up in any thread on this forum.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
A DSM sports car......Eclipse/Talon/Laser.
A DSM "econobox":Galant VR-4 (though technically not a DSM, they share characteristics)
I don't see your point. A sedan is not a sports car. 100bhp is not a sportscar. 8000 dollars in mods to run 13s is not indicative of a sportscar. 210bhp out of the box, turbocharged, 2 door= sportscar.
These are the DSM's you give the label "sports car", yet the only honda sports cars are the s2000 and the NSX?
No one tolerates trash talking of another persons (or ppl's) vehicle of choice, in these forums.
Due to the title of this thread, it could have been easly moved to where most of us commonly post, and your right you woulden't have lasted long there. As for you conceeding I'll believe it when I see it.
You really have no clue do you. You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence. You are a hypocrite. I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator. I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster? You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator. This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever. You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves. If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments. I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere. How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned. That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action. Moderator my overweight, white ass. Troll is more like it.:lol:
Everone tried to handle your comments nicely, your the one being crude and sarcastic. No one was asked to post in this thread and defend me. Everyone can see that all you want to do is flame, this is usually when carrnuttt shows up in any thread on this forum.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
A DSM sports car......Eclipse/Talon/Laser.
A DSM "econobox":Galant VR-4 (though technically not a DSM, they share characteristics)
I don't see your point. A sedan is not a sports car. 100bhp is not a sportscar. 8000 dollars in mods to run 13s is not indicative of a sportscar. 210bhp out of the box, turbocharged, 2 door= sportscar.
These are the DSM's you give the label "sports car", yet the only honda sports cars are the s2000 and the NSX?
No one tolerates trash talking of another persons (or ppl's) vehicle of choice, in these forums.
Due to the title of this thread, it could have been easly moved to where most of us commonly post, and your right you woulden't have lasted long there. As for you conceeding I'll believe it when I see it.
carrrnuttt
07-24-2003, 07:19 PM
Alright. A long one.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You really have no clue do you?
You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence.
I might not have a clue, according to you, but you're the one that's acting narrow-minded in here.
I pick and choose definitions? LOL. YOU'RE the one that has chosen to go with what you YOU have CHOSEN as a definition. Well, in fairness, I did pick one...the OFFICIAL definition, in the DICTIONARY.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are a hypocrite.
I'm a hypocrite? When you're sitting there belittling Hondas for not being sports cars, yet are ready to call your JapanAmerican concession to cheap and profitable, a sports car over them? Because of a turbo? When was the last time you saw a normally-aspirated, street-legal DSM in the 12's, 13's even?
Now, what takes more thought? turning up the boost, or making an already high-strung car even faster?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator.
LOL. I'm not arguing. I stated valid reasoning based on an official term, gathered from an official book. YOU'RE the one arguing that it is not what it is, CLINTON, but something I chose as MY definition.
As a matter of fact, I even agreed that, though a LOT of Hondas would've been covered by my definition, I would not necessarily call them sports cars, as per MY definition, which incidentally the same as yours. The only thing you have against the OFFICIAL definition is that it is being used against you by a group of "homies".
You're probably one of those Republicans that wouldn't accept anything a Democrat says...even if they are true, just because he's a democrat (or vice versa).
IF they were my "boys", does that make my DICTIONARY definition any less right? Right:rolleyes:
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster?
You acknowledged what you claim to have acknowledged only because you were finally presented with facts. If not, you'd still be clinging to your distorted views of what defines cars.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator.
Yes, yes...you are right. You have defined who I am to a T. Now, where do I send my bill...signed to...Sigmund Freud, is it?
Son, sarcasm is simply polite rebuke. If I just went out and said that I think you are a moron, because you argue a pointless, losing battle, because you feel you're being bullied, wouldn't that just add even more fuel to the fire?
Oh wait...there, now you've gone and made me say it.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever.
You're right. It is off-topic. With that, you'll be following this thread in the Off-topic section, for everybody else to see. Just follow the link...
I am on a side. I'm on the side that's against your narrow-minded ass, that would tout your tired, old machine as a sports car before even a base Civic DX that would probably make a lot farther than yours in a Cannonball race.
You don't like that? How do you think it feels for somebody that's worked so hard on their cars to be belittled by the likes of you? You're even sitting there defining what's level-headed, and what's not. Right.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves.
One-sidedness? Of course. There's always one side that's wrong, and one side that's right. I have the dictionary to back me up...what have you got?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments.
Like I said, I'm not here to argue for anybody, but myself. I was just sent to this thread because a lot of people find you funny. I chose to respond on my own.
Since by the time you read this, it will be in COT, and there are a lot of moderators that frequent there, a more neutral mod can lock this. I don't like feeling abusive of my mod abilties by locking a thread I've been responding to like this.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere.
You decided to air your opinion in public, which you thought was cool, since you were in an Eclipse forum. But once people came in to dispute what you've said, you now decide it needs to be done in private?
I disagree with people coming in to harass fellow car-owners in their make/models own forum but, the responses you were given were nothing short of polite, and you and YOUR "boys" took it here. Where's that guy that claims that DSM owners are smarter?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned.
You're right. But nobody came into the Eclipse forum looking to pick a fight with you. They were browsing forums and came upon your intelligent discourse, decided to respond, and you got defensive.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action.
I have never paid attention to the "American Club", until this week, when somebody made a thread pertaining to it in the forum I frequent.
Besides, to reiterate a point, what does that have to do with the bagging of leaves in France?
A point, when right, will be right, regardless of how many people say it, or ignore it. Same when wrong.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
Moderator my overweight, white ass.
Was that necessary? Ugh...
Originally posted by LandoAWD
Troll is more like it.:lol:
Define troll...
Come on...bring it with the awesome DSM intelligence...
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You really have no clue do you?
You pick and choose definitions as you please, but if I add ANY personal bias to one, you come in and make weak attempts to insult my intelligence.
I might not have a clue, according to you, but you're the one that's acting narrow-minded in here.
I pick and choose definitions? LOL. YOU'RE the one that has chosen to go with what you YOU have CHOSEN as a definition. Well, in fairness, I did pick one...the OFFICIAL definition, in the DICTIONARY.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are a hypocrite.
I'm a hypocrite? When you're sitting there belittling Hondas for not being sports cars, yet are ready to call your JapanAmerican concession to cheap and profitable, a sports car over them? Because of a turbo? When was the last time you saw a normally-aspirated, street-legal DSM in the 12's, 13's even?
Now, what takes more thought? turning up the boost, or making an already high-strung car even faster?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I could tell you what that means, but you would whip out a definition that is slightly different, and argue that what you say goes since you are a moderator.
LOL. I'm not arguing. I stated valid reasoning based on an official term, gathered from an official book. YOU'RE the one arguing that it is not what it is, CLINTON, but something I chose as MY definition.
As a matter of fact, I even agreed that, though a LOT of Hondas would've been covered by my definition, I would not necessarily call them sports cars, as per MY definition, which incidentally the same as yours. The only thing you have against the OFFICIAL definition is that it is being used against you by a group of "homies".
You're probably one of those Republicans that wouldn't accept anything a Democrat says...even if they are true, just because he's a democrat (or vice versa).
IF they were my "boys", does that make my DICTIONARY definition any less right? Right:rolleyes:
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I already acknowledged that SOME Hondas/Acuras are sports cars. Who defines alot? You? Me? Webster?
You acknowledged what you claim to have acknowledged only because you were finally presented with facts. If not, you'd still be clinging to your distorted views of what defines cars.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are a sarcastic little keyboard jockey, and a poor moderator.
Yes, yes...you are right. You have defined who I am to a T. Now, where do I send my bill...signed to...Sigmund Freud, is it?
Son, sarcasm is simply polite rebuke. If I just went out and said that I think you are a moron, because you argue a pointless, losing battle, because you feel you're being bullied, wouldn't that just add even more fuel to the fire?
Oh wait...there, now you've gone and made me say it.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
This isn't even the original topic, yet you not only egg it on, but choose sides. Whatever.
You're right. It is off-topic. With that, you'll be following this thread in the Off-topic section, for everybody else to see. Just follow the link...
I am on a side. I'm on the side that's against your narrow-minded ass, that would tout your tired, old machine as a sports car before even a base Civic DX that would probably make a lot farther than yours in a Cannonball race.
You don't like that? How do you think it feels for somebody that's worked so hard on their cars to be belittled by the likes of you? You're even sitting there defining what's level-headed, and what's not. Right.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
You are right, I was ready to conceed the argument, but saw the one-sidedness, and decided to make waves.
One-sidedness? Of course. There's always one side that's wrong, and one side that's right. I have the dictionary to back me up...what have you got?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
If you had locked it, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't PM you and bitch like 'your boys' because I can't handle my own arguments.
Like I said, I'm not here to argue for anybody, but myself. I was just sent to this thread because a lot of people find you funny. I chose to respond on my own.
Since by the time you read this, it will be in COT, and there are a lot of moderators that frequent there, a more neutral mod can lock this. I don't like feeling abusive of my mod abilties by locking a thread I've been responding to like this.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
I suggest, if you have more shots to take at me, you do it by PM. This isn't going anywhere.
You decided to air your opinion in public, which you thought was cool, since you were in an Eclipse forum. But once people came in to dispute what you've said, you now decide it needs to be done in private?
I disagree with people coming in to harass fellow car-owners in their make/models own forum but, the responses you were given were nothing short of polite, and you and YOUR "boys" took it here. Where's that guy that claims that DSM owners are smarter?
Originally posted by LandoAWD
How would you like it if I went into another forum and picked fights because, god forbid, someone doesn't like my car's make/model/color? I would probably get warned or banned.
You're right. But nobody came into the Eclipse forum looking to pick a fight with you. They were browsing forums and came upon your intelligent discourse, decided to respond, and you got defensive.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
That is exactly what the 'American Car Club Whatever' boys did here, but with them being 'your boys', you decided to get a peice of the action.
I have never paid attention to the "American Club", until this week, when somebody made a thread pertaining to it in the forum I frequent.
Besides, to reiterate a point, what does that have to do with the bagging of leaves in France?
A point, when right, will be right, regardless of how many people say it, or ignore it. Same when wrong.
Originally posted by LandoAWD
Moderator my overweight, white ass.
Was that necessary? Ugh...
Originally posted by LandoAWD
Troll is more like it.:lol:
Define troll...
Come on...bring it with the awesome DSM intelligence...
RockinWRX
07-24-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by hybridsol
These are the DSM's you give the label "sports car", yet the only honda sports cars are the s2000 and the NSX?
No one tolerates trash talking of another persons (or ppl's) vehicle of choice, in these forums.
Due to the title of this thread, it could have been easly moved to where most of us commonly post, and your right you woulden't have lasted long there. As for you conceeding I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm also lost about what I saw in your quotes that the Galant VR4 is not "technically" a DSM. Whoever said that is definitely wrong.The GVR4 was imported as a DSM , and has a DSM tag under the hood , which also lists its production #. The GVR4 has the exact same drivetrain as the 1G , in fact all parts are swapable between the 2 , except for some of the ECS suspension pieces and the AWS system , but most GVR4 owners in the know remove both of those anyway. It saves about 200+ lbs off the car. In fact a 1G exhaust system will fit , I've already proved that on my car. The exhaust had to be extended 6 inches because the rear overhang on the Galants is longer than the E/T/L cars , but otherwise the hangers were in the exact same place.......
Whoever said the Galant VR4's are not DSM's is an idiot.....:loser:
These are the DSM's you give the label "sports car", yet the only honda sports cars are the s2000 and the NSX?
No one tolerates trash talking of another persons (or ppl's) vehicle of choice, in these forums.
Due to the title of this thread, it could have been easly moved to where most of us commonly post, and your right you woulden't have lasted long there. As for you conceeding I'll believe it when I see it.
I'm also lost about what I saw in your quotes that the Galant VR4 is not "technically" a DSM. Whoever said that is definitely wrong.The GVR4 was imported as a DSM , and has a DSM tag under the hood , which also lists its production #. The GVR4 has the exact same drivetrain as the 1G , in fact all parts are swapable between the 2 , except for some of the ECS suspension pieces and the AWS system , but most GVR4 owners in the know remove both of those anyway. It saves about 200+ lbs off the car. In fact a 1G exhaust system will fit , I've already proved that on my car. The exhaust had to be extended 6 inches because the rear overhang on the Galants is longer than the E/T/L cars , but otherwise the hangers were in the exact same place.......
Whoever said the Galant VR4's are not DSM's is an idiot.....:loser:
carrrnuttt
07-24-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by RockinWRX
Whoever said the Galant VR4's are not DSM's is an idiot.....:loser:
You're right that they share the same underpinnings, and same motor, but the reasons DSMs are called what they are is because of a joint venture Chrysler and Mitsubishi had. They produced the Eclipse, Talon and Laser cousins in a plant in Normal, Illinois, which was bought out by the venture from a company called...Diamond Star Motors.
They kept the designation because it was appropriate to their venture, with Chrysler having a star for a symbol, and Mitsubishi having three diamonds for one.
The only true DSMs are the first generation Eclipses and Talons, and the Laser. After '94, Mitsubisih became the sole owner of the DSM plant, so all 2G Eclipses and Talons are plain Mitsubishi.
The Galant VR-4 was never a DSM because it was never produced in the U.S., it was imported from Japan, much less built in the DSM factory that gave the heritage.
Whoever said the Galant VR4's are not DSM's is an idiot.....:loser:
You're right that they share the same underpinnings, and same motor, but the reasons DSMs are called what they are is because of a joint venture Chrysler and Mitsubishi had. They produced the Eclipse, Talon and Laser cousins in a plant in Normal, Illinois, which was bought out by the venture from a company called...Diamond Star Motors.
They kept the designation because it was appropriate to their venture, with Chrysler having a star for a symbol, and Mitsubishi having three diamonds for one.
The only true DSMs are the first generation Eclipses and Talons, and the Laser. After '94, Mitsubisih became the sole owner of the DSM plant, so all 2G Eclipses and Talons are plain Mitsubishi.
The Galant VR-4 was never a DSM because it was never produced in the U.S., it was imported from Japan, much less built in the DSM factory that gave the heritage.
RockinWRX
07-24-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by carrrnuttt
You're right that they share the same underpinnings, and same motor, but the reasons DSMs are called what they are is because of a joint venture Chrysler and Mitsubishi had. They produced the Eclipse, Talon and Laser cousins in a plant in Normal, Illinois, which was bought out by the venture from a company called...Diamond Star Motors.
They kept the designation because it was appropriate to their venture, with Chrysler having a star for a symbol, and Mitsubishi having three diamonds for one.
The only true DSMs are the first generation Eclipses and Talons, and the Laser. After '94, Mitsubisih became the sole owner of the DSM plant, so all 2G Eclipses and Talons are plain Mitsubishi.
The Galant VR-4 was never a DSM because it was never produced in the U.S., it was imported from Japan, much less built in the DSM factory that gave the heritage.
Yeah but you missed my more important point that GVR4's have DSM tags under the hood. I beleive that GVR4's bodies were imported here and shipped thru the factory where the rest was installed. Look under the hood of any GVR4 or GGSX (like mine) and there will be the same DSM tag as is on the E/T/L cars.............
You're right that they share the same underpinnings, and same motor, but the reasons DSMs are called what they are is because of a joint venture Chrysler and Mitsubishi had. They produced the Eclipse, Talon and Laser cousins in a plant in Normal, Illinois, which was bought out by the venture from a company called...Diamond Star Motors.
They kept the designation because it was appropriate to their venture, with Chrysler having a star for a symbol, and Mitsubishi having three diamonds for one.
The only true DSMs are the first generation Eclipses and Talons, and the Laser. After '94, Mitsubisih became the sole owner of the DSM plant, so all 2G Eclipses and Talons are plain Mitsubishi.
The Galant VR-4 was never a DSM because it was never produced in the U.S., it was imported from Japan, much less built in the DSM factory that gave the heritage.
Yeah but you missed my more important point that GVR4's have DSM tags under the hood. I beleive that GVR4's bodies were imported here and shipped thru the factory where the rest was installed. Look under the hood of any GVR4 or GGSX (like mine) and there will be the same DSM tag as is on the E/T/L cars.............
Dark Syde Racer
07-25-2003, 01:26 AM
well melt..you were a dick to me in the 4th gen forum...go through the ollld posts...when i still posted there....as for SRT its still a neon to me....granted its quick but still a neon..and will loose its value within 2 years and you will be pickin them up dirt cheap...as the the BMW comment.... you give me the $ he spent on his car (exact amount) and ill take a 1/4 of that and my car will hand him his ass (not a flame here just a statement) then i got the other 30K to invest in a house, IRA (retirement), or if i really wanted to go all out and make him look like a idiot...i could drop 20K into a motor (doubtfull you could even do that to a 4g63 lol but just keep the idea) and own damn near anything on the road...and still have 10-20k to toy around with....HMMMMMMM yah ill stick to old eclipse's and just beat up on the old guys driving the nice cars... :biggrin: :bigthumb:
Melt
07-26-2003, 02:15 PM
well whatever ... most of the people there still wanna know where the fuck the great carb setup is or any of the other shit you did ... and all you did was post pics of your mammas lexus and hundai tiburon so :thefinger
taranaki
07-26-2003, 04:04 PM
can I ask who dumped this poll in OT? It's a bit lame,because there is no category for those of us who see street racing as stupid and dangerous.I'd add one,but the thread has gone to ten pages already.
oh well......It has reached 10 pages,gone off topic,and turned into a pissing contest.
That's good enough reason to close it.:smile: That and the fact that street racers are wankers.:biggrin:
oh well......It has reached 10 pages,gone off topic,and turned into a pissing contest.
That's good enough reason to close it.:smile: That and the fact that street racers are wankers.:biggrin:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026