I know I would win

[Redrunner]

I told you my 1999 HONDA CIVIC DX would beat that v6 Mustang Mustang it was a 1995 or 96 I smoked his ass. AND if you go to www.car-stats.com you will see that the mustang run 17s and I run 16.7 and that is also faster then the 1999 HONDA CIVIC EX even with its 20 more HP



so to all the people that said I would get my ass handed to me

[chris26969]

no one ever liked a bragger.

[Redrunner]

No bragging they talked mad shit on me about me not winning and my car sucks and shit and that I would get my ass handed to me so I had to let them know

[B16EJ1]

Okay, that site is so full of it just like you. If you look at the specs on the 96 Civic EX then yes the 96 DX is faster but then look at the 97 EX and it's faster than the DX. The funny thing is they have the same damn engine so how is this true? The 6th gen style did'nt change till 99-00 so there is no difference in weight at all between the 96 and 97. I find this site to be inaccurate and you to be the same. I think I speak for everyone on this site when I say, " Who gives a shit ? ". Like I said before, post this kind of BS in the forum made specifically for BS, Street/Track Racing Stories. Oh and I still don't belive your lying ass.

[Redrunner]

you have to be the biggest hater on the whole forums every time I see your name on the forum you are hating on people lol you need a hug or something

[civicHBsi91]

yea, lately youve been an ass, do you think your hott shyt cuz you still run 15's with that b16 or what?

[B16EJ1]

I admit, I do get flustered when people lie their ass off and claim to have and do things that are just unrealistic. I just need proof but if you look at all of my posts I help just as much as I criticize. Just keep the BS stories where they belong that's all. I'm am sure there are many people that can vouch for my help.........................



















and criticizm.

[Redrunner]

Now before I paste this this is from a MOD that IROC i raced was really really shitty lookin and also if you read what I said the GT may not how been a GT gay people add gay things like Gt and cobra sign to there car


For those of you calling up the flag for the thread starter, I think all of you should think about it first before you start doing so.

I for one believe him for many reasons.
__________________________________________________
______

1) He ended his post by asking if it's possible that the car has some internal work done by a prior owner without his knowledge, which though unlikely, is possible.
__________________________________________________
______

2) His car. I am sure that if it was somebody with an EX, even with just a SOHC, you'd all have an easier time believing him, since he'd have the almighty VTEC.

In car-stats.com (which I'm using since it is tangible and easy to confirm by you guys), it states that the the 1996 Civic DX (essentially the same car) runs a 16.7 quarter stock. In the same site, the 1996 Civic EX runs a 17.6...almost a second slower.

How can that be? How can two similar cars...except one has 127HP and the other has 106HP...be so unequal, with the advantage going to the one with less HP? Easy. It's called OPTIONS. All the standard equipment available on a Civic EX but not on a DX (i.e., ABS, PW, PDL, MNRF) adds about 200-300lbs on to that chassis.

We all know how power-sapping that much weight difference can be. Anyone that has tried to race with and without a passenger can attest to that.

But wouldn't the extra power make-up for it? Maybe in the extreme top-end. Since both powerplants (d16y7, d16y8) put out similar torque, the weight difference is very noticeable when both take-off from a light.
__________________________________________________
______

3) The cars he challenged.

Let's look at them:

a) 1986 RX-7 == Stock and without a turbo, these cars run a best of mid-low 16's in perfect tune. Don't forget, this is a 17yr-old car.

b) 1998 Accord LX == A high 16, low 17-second car, though capable of low 16's bone stock with a capable driver...so's the DX.

c) 1990-1991 240SX == Mid 16-second car in good tune.

d) Celica GT == He never mentioned what year. For all we know, it's an older model GT, which were low 17, mid 16-second cars too. Heck, even the new GTs (not GT-S, GT) are mid/low 16-second cars.

e) 1990-1991 EX Accord == Another 17-second car. Oh, that's also in good tune.

f) Old Camaro IROC == Hardest one to swallow out of all the line-up. These category of cars. The old IROCs (1985-1990), ran between a mid-14 to mid 15-second quarter, depending on year and trim.

Two things, either he mistook a Camaro RS...with the 305 and running high 16's...for an IROC, or he caught one in really bad tune, which is more than possible.
__________________________________________________
______


In any case, it's bad enough that everbody and their grandma's would stomp on and bash Honda drivers with any chance they get, and here you guys are ready to pounce on a fellow Honda driver without considering all the facts...AND the people replying are hating on each other too...damn.



So hmmm.... I guess I was right and also I always have the HORN I like the ADV.

[kittedb18bt]

the celica GT is the slower model of the two. the GTS is quite quick, my roommate has one and it can beat my car.


chris

[Redrunner]

I want to clear up what you just said if you read it says "even the new GTs (NOT GT-S, GT) are mid/low 16-second cars" not getting smart just want you to know what the mod was sayin

[eckoman_pdx]

Okay, I normally don't get involvoed in shit like this but geez. First off, a Mustang GT like what your talkin bout has a SOHC 16 Vavle V8 Engine....sure, it a V8 4.6L, but i has 2 friggen vavles per cylenderler. Since 92, only the friggen 5th gen CX hatchs had 2 vavles per cylender, and that was weak shit. The GT mames power cuz of displacement, not good engineering. A engine that size should be waaay faster...like the Cobra or Roush. Beat one of those, then we'll talk...a GT is shit, almost any friggen 4-banger has 16 vavle engine, some like VW have 20. The GT has 16, in a V-8?? SO the GT's not that great. Secondly, the word Corba is etched into the friggen bumper on Corba's so if the damn badbe says Cobra and the friggin etched word in Mustang? you get the drift. 2nd, if it wasn't a GT, like you said is possibvle...even worse....those have a friggen OHV 12-valve V-6. SO as you see, low -end mustangs arn't all that, from them it's just a friggen name. I ment a guy who works at a dealership...he said they LOVE to sell GT's cuz after a few years max, ppl get sick of them, cuz they don't have the power expected, etc, and the nostalga of the name wears off. His opinion was it's a waste of $$ to buy any Mustang thats not a Mach 1, Cobra, Roush, or Saleen. So if you wanna brag about beaten a stang? Come back when you beat one of those...Oh yea, and bring some proof and post it, cuz talk is just talk unless you can show otherwise.

[sageuvagony]

hell freaking yea! lol... damn this has gotten kinda carried away but proof is always nice... hey I beat a McLaren... sure it has a V12 and 600+ HP but weight is what matters! (to redrunner)

[B16EJ1]

Originally posted by B16EJ1
If you look at the specs on the 96 Civic EX then yes the 96 DX is faster but then look at the 97 EX and it's faster than the DX. The funny thing is they have the same damn engine so how is this true? The 6th gen style did'nt change till 99-00 so there is no difference in weight at all between the 96 and 97. I find this site to be inaccurate and you to be the same.

This is what I think of the site Carnutt and you used to prove your point. As I've stated before, I drive my girls hatch all the time and I am perfectly aware of the limitations of the engine in a lighter car even. He may be a MOD but that means nothing when using an inaccurate website. Post more links to different sites that say the same then I'll be satisfied. As even Carnutt himself said I just find it hard to swallow.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

Originally posted by kittedb18bt
the celica GT is the slower model of the two. the GTS is quite quick, my roommate has one and it can beat my car.


chris

yea rite quick? I've driven one and i've beaten one with a Volvo thats how quick they are ..........


My volvo was a T5 236hp

[carrrnuttt]

Originally posted by B16EJ1


This is what I think of the site Carnutt and you used to prove your point. As I've stated before, I drive my girls hatch all the time and I am perfectly aware of the limitations of the engine in a lighter car even. He may be a MOD but that means nothing when using an inaccurate website. Post more links to different sites that say the same then I'll be satisfied. As even Carnutt himself said I just find it hard to swallow.

As I mentioned, I used the site because it'll be easier to verify the information I was being given.

The 1997 EX you quoted that was faster than the DX...


...you do know that this site culls its info from different magazine sources, right?

I know that's "magazine racing", but I don't have the time to gather images of time-slips from wherever.

I can tell you, however, that I saw a 2001 Civic LX with I/H/E/ignition mods run a 15.6 pass here at Speedworld and the same night a 2002 EX with similar mods run a 16.2.

The 1997 Civic EX ran a better time because it had either a) a better driver b) better conditions c) a combination of both. It doesn't mean that the actual car is faster than say the 1996 EX. If the same driver ran the same track with a DX right after the 1997 EX run, do you think he would've posted better times for the same year DX as well?

I'm not just talking out my ass here, as I just recently owned a 1997 Civic LX 4-dr. The LX has all the disadvantages, since it has the base 106HP motor, with some of the EX's weight (power options). Yet, I have beaten similarly-equpped EX Civics as mine was (I/H/E, ignition). You're probably not going to believe this, I even pulled on a Civic Si on the freeway (It was a co-worker, he didn't believe it either).

Oh, did I mention I was running a 1999 motor in the Civic? (Blew the old one). Maybe that helped, dunno.

For the longest time, I NEVER posted any of my kills in the Civic, because of people like you. I didn't have time for it.

You talk about tangible proof, why do we believe that you have a b16 Civic, because we do, and because we have no reason to not believe you.

With that said, if you, redrunner, are using my helping hand to spout b.s., then we'll find out sooner or later...otherwise, you haven't said anything unbelievable yet, as far as I'm concerned.

All I can say is, when I speak, I speak from experience, and from YEARS of street-racing (started in Sacramento in 1992, with a brand-new GS-R).

You seem to think in terms of what you think should and should not happen, as opposed to what you know.

Lastly, read my sig.