the auto's by the way are 15.0 1/4 mile and im sure the convertible is even slower just wait until somone races a 5 speed hard top so we all get the true results i already know them but just to prove to a few people that refuse to believe that there cars can be beaten.
Im new but here are some kills
- Thread starter 03.5YellowMSP
- Start date
- Status
jersey_emt
Member
- :
- 04 MSM #1089
I wasn't trying to make you look stupid; I apologize if you thought that I was. I was simply trying to point out that you attacked boostisgood without knowing all of the facts..if you read his post he says the GT's have 240BHP, which leads you to believe that he is talking about the older GT's. A MSP could easily take an older GT.
It's not that I'm refusing my car can be beat. The MSP is NOT a fast car, we all know that. But my final point is this: The newer Mustang GT and the MSP are very close in performance. The Mustang has an advantage, but could still lose to an MSP. I've seen it, and other people have seen it too. I've also seen it the other way around. But it's always a close race.
It's not that I'm refusing my car can be beat. The MSP is NOT a fast car, we all know that. But my final point is this: The newer Mustang GT and the MSP are very close in performance. The Mustang has an advantage, but could still lose to an MSP. I've seen it, and other people have seen it too. I've also seen it the other way around. But it's always a close race.
i really dont think that you understand! they are not close at all performance wise. dont get me wrong i would much rather have an msp than a mustang but in know for a fact that they are superior to our cars, thats just how it is. all im saying is i hit 14.5's in my boosted mp3 on 8.5psi right now and my brother still beats me and this is not from a stop its from like a 30 mph roll on so i have no taction issues, so i know first hand that they will beat msp's easily i kill stock ones on the road even my freind justin who is running 8 psi in his msp still doesnt come close to me.
tritonheat1
Banned
- :
- 06 MS6, 98 A4 1.8T Rebuilt
Iv'e seen GT's (Stick) get beat by a 2003 Civic SI with a K20A motor swap with I/H/E. The mustang got ***** by 2car's. BTW: this is a 2002 Mustang GT 5-speed with a chip. Vs. a 2003 Civic SI with a K20A motor swap with I/H/E.
So for the record are all of KYLENLS' posts just calling BS on other people? Stop you just look like a dick.
The front drive statement just makes you look dumb. There are no absolutes in racing. One example and I'm out. My 96 Impala Vs. My fathers 98 STS. I got jumped by this car all the time!!! Come up with some excuse to explain this I don't care but fact is the are similar in weight and torque and the Caddy only had me by 11 Hp at the wheels. Again I state I got jumped by this car EVERY time FWD out launced my RWD. PERIOD
The front drive statement just makes you look dumb. There are no absolutes in racing. One example and I'm out. My 96 Impala Vs. My fathers 98 STS. I got jumped by this car all the time!!! Come up with some excuse to explain this I don't care but fact is the are similar in weight and torque and the Caddy only had me by 11 Hp at the wheels. Again I state I got jumped by this car EVERY time FWD out launced my RWD. PERIOD
how do you figure? power to weight ratio plays a role in this also. with the car weighing about 500lbs less and under by 60hp, the mustang ratio is about 12.4:1 while the civic is about 13.7:1. this in itself should tell you it would come down to the driver....from a roll. off the line, that's a different story, but again could come down to the driver. it's not like we're comparing a civic ex to a z06....
i personally don't care either way, i'm just saying that it's possible.
i personally don't care either way, i'm just saying that it's possible.
this osolo is how i figure here are a couple of facts that i have pieced together for you so listen up and pay attention this time.
ok here goes curb weight for a civic si is 2612lbs
the curb weight for an rsx is 2778lbs
wich therefor means that it dropped roughly 170lbs right?
wrong again osolo, the 2.0 litre engine then makes up for that difference and then your left with probably a slightly lighter or heavier car.
the curb weight of a gt is 3208 so you were right about the 600lbs difference.
now on to ho and torque ratings the rsx at a respectable 200 crank hp and 142 ft lbs of torque.
and the mustang gt at 260 and 302ft lbs of torque. thats 160 ft lbs of torque differnce and 60 hp difference.
now for the 1/4 mile times.
rsx hits a 15.2
mustang hits 14.6
now i know that the times of the civic would improve from the stock times but not almost a whole second not weighing the same. not to mention you said the gt had a chip wich means he probably added anywhere from 20hp to the wheels all of the way up to 40hp depending on the chip. and you didnt mention that the rsx had anything. all of this leads me to believe that no, osolo it is not possible unless a 5 yr. old was driving the mustang and a pro driving the rsx even then its very close.
ok here goes curb weight for a civic si is 2612lbs
the curb weight for an rsx is 2778lbs
wich therefor means that it dropped roughly 170lbs right?
wrong again osolo, the 2.0 litre engine then makes up for that difference and then your left with probably a slightly lighter or heavier car.
the curb weight of a gt is 3208 so you were right about the 600lbs difference.
now on to ho and torque ratings the rsx at a respectable 200 crank hp and 142 ft lbs of torque.
and the mustang gt at 260 and 302ft lbs of torque. thats 160 ft lbs of torque differnce and 60 hp difference.
now for the 1/4 mile times.
rsx hits a 15.2
mustang hits 14.6
now i know that the times of the civic would improve from the stock times but not almost a whole second not weighing the same. not to mention you said the gt had a chip wich means he probably added anywhere from 20hp to the wheels all of the way up to 40hp depending on the chip. and you didnt mention that the rsx had anything. all of this leads me to believe that no, osolo it is not possible unless a 5 yr. old was driving the mustang and a pro driving the rsx even then its very close.
listen up huh? if you're going to spit facts, then find out how much the the rsx 2.0 motor weighs compared to the si 2.0 motor. i'm just not seeing a 170lb difference. either way, track numbers are useless when racing on the street. just because some guy at a magazine or your best friends friend ran such and such at the track, doesn't mean that he can beat cars with slower track times ON THE STREET, but you probably already knew this. also, this awesome torque the mustang produces compared to the si/rsx starts to mean less when approaching the upper rpms. you probably already know that at 5252rpm, torque and hp cross, so torque is no longer a result of the motors work, but hp. now, we established that the mustang with a chip and the si/rsx with i/h/e are running about a 60hp difference with the si being lighter. also, the si has a slightly higher redline so it has more use of the upper rpm band, where hp is greater than torque. again, i personally don't really care, but you're know-it-all attitude is a lame front. stop pretending you have it all figured out, and accept the fact that on the street, you're treasured motor trend track times mean jack.
03.5YellowMSP
Member
- :
- 2003.5 MSP
wow I stepped away for a bit and the s*** hit the fan. Well I know what I beat so that is what counts. Ill post my time slip from work tommorrow showing my 15.1 at the track. The 15.1 sucks to cause i was paired up with a Lighting spraying about a 100 shot and dragslicks. He ran a 12 something.
but you also have to realize that until the honda hits a certain point on the rpm gauge it has about 110 ft pounds of tourqe and thats why they rev so high because they are so lame before v-tec or i v-tec in this case hits. dude your wrong, im sorry if your going to get upset maybe you shouldnt be racing at all because there are alot of stock cars that will spank our modded ones, i have excepted that but its seems that your in denial. and the 170lb difference is between the curb weight of both cars the si being slightly lighter. and the 2.0 ka20 has to be heavier due to the size of the motor compared to the 1.6 litre b16a stock. its not that i think that i know everything but it seems like you dont know enough to be aurguing the point your just another mustang hater and i am by no means a lover but i can at least admitt to be beaing bested every once in awhile maybe you should accept it to man.
this doesn't upset me. i don't let things on the internet get to me. i actually enjoy debates. i think it's funny when people take this stuff too serious. i understand some stock cars can beat modified ones. in this case, i have both cars covered. i fully understand differences in curb weight, but the civic si that they are referring to is the '03 si hatchback which also has the 2.0 engine...where's the weight difference between motors? FYI, the difference in curb weight between the '03 si and the rsx is roughly 35#. now, the older si(2000 model) weighs in about 2600#, but that's not the car we're talking about. for you to say that i don't know enough to argue my point is humerous. sounds like the pot calling out the kettle to me. all i've been trying to say is that it is POSSIBLE...not GARAUNTEED, that the motor-swapped si could beat the gt. again, street racing is completely different than track racing. it helps to be a bit more openminded to situations that you don't have personal experience with. to be honest, i like mustangs. i have for a long time....though i'm more a fan of the 302 than the modular motors. so for you to slap a stereotype on me as being a "mustang hater" is unfounded.
Last edited:
- Status
