No they didn't, I have said this at least 100 times, chevy used a full on racing block, one that they did not produce. Its NOT A CHEVY BLOCK in the zl1. Why can't people understand this?
It's not that they don't understand it, it's that to them you have no credibility because you're so often wrong.
Holy **** I started of page 14 to get a feel for what is said and I see cheavy in a ford site again. Don't you people get tired of talking about chevy in ford sites. Don't you have your own sites made for just cheavy fans? WTF... anyways I don't even care anymore I'll just kill two birds with one stone. First of all BMW, your cars are okay I was never much of a fan for BMW or Audi but I'll give them credit when it's due. First of all your good cars really are M3-M5 and the convertable versions the Z models. My opinion is they are over priced. Do I really need to go buy a car for 20+K for the stupid name? Here's the Stats for the M3: 50K for an M3 Coupe and 60 for the Convertible, it's horse power is 333 (11.5 compresion ratio, that's an engine tunded to hell for the record) all the 333 horse is reached at 7900 rpm and it's 262 pounds of torque is reached at 4900 rpm. Oh it's BMW got to have one right? Please, an SVT coupe is 36K and a convertable is 41K. 390 horses are made at 6000 rpm and 390 tourqe is made at 3500 rpm. (8.5 compression ratio which means it could improve a bit and i've no idea the psi wich I'm sure could improve a lot, since the super charger is adding about 70 horses only is you compare it to a 2001 SVT which made 320 with out a super charger) An SVT would rape an M3 on the track, yes it doesn't even have to be a drag strip. The 03 SVT has good handeling too due to it's independent suspension. Maybe the M3 is still better but if so it's not by much and the stang is much faster. As far as cheavy fans go, I don't even care for them anymore. Your Camaros were good congradulations for the times they out did the stangs. It's to bad that the sales on your cars sucked so much they were are no longer in production. But you have your corvette. The bad boy car of cheavy the legend that would get raped by a gt 40 as if the vette was standing still. Actually the hell with the gt 40 with minor mods under a grand the svt cobra would take your vette too. Let me see buy an SVT, put new pullies, and take the vette or spend the extra cash for the name Corvette. Yeah tough choice. Hell with that one mod you could take a vette. with a grand I could buy some better tires, pullies, and well i'd buy decals that say cheavy sucks put them on the back window so you can read it when i'm in front of you. God damn people talking about how the zl1 was remade to take on the boss again? What the hell? you lost the first time so just admit it. Or would it scar you for life if you lost to ford? What ever all you haters out there can think what you want but fact is fact and one day you will come to reality, Ford does do a good job, and their cars can handle the competition in it's price range and even out of it so shut up and accept it.
I proved your ass wrong too many times to count, so maybe you shouldn't be the one talking. Just got o Car and Drivers website and look it up.
Actually you proved me wrong once (no it wasn't the WRX thing, I'll get to that in the other topic). All the other times you thought you proved me wrong because I quit posting, when in actuality I had already proved you wrong, yet you kept going on with your FOS statements I got sick of it and quit posting because it's pointless to argue with an ignoramus who refuses to accept facts.
The cobra handles better, brakes faster, more power and torque available on tap; all in all it's a heck of alot cheaper and more fun to drive than an M3. Next thing; you pull up to a light, somebody is sitting there in a brand new M3 and you come up in a 03 Cobra. Do you think they are going to race? NO! Because their stuck up punks who only got a BMW for the sake they can say they have one. Once again the ford is a race machine and the BMW is for the lawyer who wants an extension to his penis. You can say ford sucks all you want...Just so long as you know that BMW SWALLOWS!
Well, this is an ignorant post. You are far from the truth my genetically lacking friend. Viper = Pecker compensation, Vette = Pecker compensation, Stang = Pecker compensation, Camaro = Pecker compensation, Ferrari = well designed Pecker compensation, Lamborghini = kick ass Pecker compensation, M3 = performance for driving enthusiast or pecker compensation for Lawyer, NSX = beautiful car and performance for driving enthusiast or nice looking car purchased for pecker compensation, EVO = performance for off-road and on-road driving enthusiast, STI = same as EVO but for driver who is far better than you could ever hope to be. The Cobra does not handle better, and I dunno where you get the idea that it has better braking ability, but I'm sure you used a reliable indicator, the BMW is far more reliable, and BMW has far more class. Using your analogy, you could say that the BMW M3 is the High priced $10,000 a night hooker that comes with the escort service, while the SVT Cobra is the Cheap whore you find on the corner of Hastings and Collingwood. You know you're going to get off with the cheap whore (cobra), but you also know that although you might not get off with the high priced hooker (M3), if you do get off with her it'll be the best BJ you ever had.
All I'm saying is this. I drove the Cobra, and my friend has an M3 and I drove that. From EXPERIENCE I can say that the Cobra is all around a better car. Another is that all BMW enthusiast are the same. Your next arguement is that the car is more luxurious. That's not the arguement. The topic is which car is better? Let's get this out of the way right now. If Bmw is so great as a company why do the constantly get their a$$ kicked by Ferrari in F1? Why does the M3 turn lap time 2.5 seconds slower than the Cobra and Maserati in a track test done last year by Car and Driver. If the M3 is so great then why is it losing in areas where it suppose to be superior? I tell you what in 2 months I'll have a Cobra. Come get me with a M3 and we'll see who the winner is.
2003 SVT Cobra Mustang Vs. 2003 BMW M3 Cobra Stats: 0-60: 4.5 Secs 1/4 mile: 12.8 (C&D) Skid Pad: .98g Road Atlanta TT: 1:36.2 HP: 390 TQ: 390 Price: Base $35,000 Coupe M3 Stats: 0-60: 5.0 Secs 1/4 mile: 13.1 (C&D) Skid Pad: .89g Road Atlanta TT: 1:38.8 HP: 333 TQ: 262 Price: Base $47,500 Coupe Now which car is better? I'll give credit where it's due. BMW has astoundingly beautiful cars but in my personal OPINION they are not great cars. IF! I wanted more luxury I might get the M3. But the Cobra has what NO BMW WILL EVER HAVE: ATTITUDE! BALLS! SHEER POWER! The day I see an M3 with any of that I'll buy one out right.
And some people prefer to drive an early nineties Mustang over a much faster early nineties Rx-7, even for rally racing, that doesn't mean the Mustang is better (in fact the Mustang is noted for being a horrible RWD rally car, while the RX-7 on the other hand is noted for being an exceptional RWD rally car) it just means that some people prefer the feel of it. I never said BMW is "so great as a company", and they (along with every other manufacturer in F1) are constantly getting their a$$ kicked because Ferrari has an excellent, well rounded car, and some of the best drivers in F1. Peugeot is also dominant in the WRC right now, does that mean the 206 is any better than the Impreza WRC or the Citroen Xsara WRC? Anyone who knows anything about Rally racing will readily tell you that it isn't. There are a number of championships in which the M3 is doing very well, but that aside, it is losing because it's not as fast as alot of its competitors, however it handles very well, and most drivers will tell you that the handling is better than that of the Mustang. A good example of why you can't rely on magazines is the NSX-R, it's been tested by a number of magazines and by some on Nurburgring, coming up with lap times of over 8 minutes, however in tests performed by people who really know how to drive, lap times for the NSX-R have been as fast as 7:56. I've driven a mid 90's Mustang GT that was modded to the teeth and I would estimate the performance to be near that of the SVT Cobra. I admit it was quite fast, and the feel of the torque was rather impressive, however in all honesty I found the car overall to be quite unimpressive, steering was about as numb as that of the two TA's I've driven, steering response was very poor, it was very easy to overcorrect when pushing it hard and end up spinning out, braking was underdeveloped, etc. however that's just my opinion.
You can't compare a rigid rear-axle car to an independant rear suspension vehicle in terms of handling, genious. Car and Driver compares the '03 Cobra's handling to the race-ready Cobra R's, a vehicle which has taken many race cars, including the M3 and GT3, to the cleaners in Grand Prix races all over Europe.
Very true this is an ingorant post! going from pecker compensations to over priced hookers, um we can get you some help cause it seems to me like you need it. How is a camaro, or a mustang a "percker compensation" anyways, the damn cars cost on average of 20K used while your bmw with worse performance is going for 30K used? And if you spend 10,000 ****ing grand on a hooker and you don't get of then again you have a major problems
Lmao very true, can't argue facts. Oh PasswordPlease, did you metion that even though the magazines gave the NSX-R somewhere in the 8.00s+ and the BEST time the car got was by somebody doing 7.56 that the magazines came with in like .08 seconds somewhere around 8.04 so it's not that far of especially for a course time. Also magazines don't cheat cars. If the driver sucks and gives the car a bad time the bad times are gonna go for all the cars tested by that driver and rated on that magazine. SO if one of the cars performance isn't as well as you could do most likely the rest of the cars tested will be the same, in the end it's gonna come down more to the car then the driver.
You missed the point, it was an ignorant post in response to an ignorant post. Camaro and mustang (at least around here) are commonly considered to be pecker compensation for somebody who feels he needs to prove something, just because someone doesn't have enough money to buy an exotic car doesn't mean that they don't have something to compensate for. Basically, saying that only expensive cars are for pecker compensation is like saying that only rich people have small packages. Haven't you ever heard of an Escort service? The highest class ones can cost upwards of $10000 (I thought this was common knowledge) and as with any Escort service their services are purchased for accompaniment as a date, though often the evening ends with an entire night of wild monkey sex, 10-30% of the time the client doesn't get laid at the end of the evening (the higher class the service the higher percent chance of not getting laid).
When did I say that any magazines were as fast as 8.04?, I know times were higher than 8.04, they still got fairly good times, yet I haven't heard of many times in the NSX-R that were quicker than 8.20 minutes, yet 7:56 has been achieved (keep in mind the NSX-R has not been tested much), and there are very few production cars that can lap Nurburgring that fast. You missed my point about driving some cars well, and others poorly. First of all the driver might not necessarily be a bad driver, he just may not be able to drive a more responsive car well, or he might not be able to shift well in a high revving vehicle. Second, do you honestly think the same driver drives all the cars that magazines test? Unless you've never driven before, you should know that different cars require different driving styles, someone who is used to driving North American cars might be able to drive a Mustang very well, however the difference between a Mustang and say an NSX is huge, with the Mustang it's very forgiving when you change gears, you can change at pretty much any rpm, as long as you're below say 4000rpm, meanwhile in an NSX it's important that the driver remain above a certain rpm, (about 6000 if he wants good acceleration) and shift at precisely the right time to get optimum performance out of it. The driver who is accustomed to driving North American cars will get decent acceleration out of a Mustang with little difficulty, however on the other hand he will tend to shift gears at a lower rpm in the NSX and as a result won't get nearly as good acceleration out of it as possible. With the exception of the 2003 Mustang SVT Cobra (which has a 0-60 time .2 seconds faster than the NSX-R), the NSX accelerates a fair bit quicker than the Mustang, however with the guy who is used to American cars he will get better acceleration out of the Mustang, that doesn't mean the Mustang is faster, just that He's faster when He drives the Mustang. The same goes with handling, if someone is used to the more "floaty" handling and less responsive steering of the Mustang, then although he won't be able to go through the turns very fast, he will likely do it faster than in the NSX because while he's driving the angles he expects in the Mustang, it will be easier for him to go through the corners, however in the NSX he will likely find the steering too "touchy" and the weight too balanced, and as a result will find he's oversteering the corners too much which will not only slow him down (and possibly cause him to lose control), but it will also make him lose confidence so he will be taking the corners much more slowly than he could. And do not try to tell me that the handling of the Mustang is even remotely as good as the handling of the NSX, cause that's simply not true. As a result the Mustang will look faster because it posts better lap times and have better results, which is not actually case. There are many other factors that would have an effect on the results but these are the two most important. Moral of the story? If you want to get realistic performance out of a high revving, well handling import (such as an NSX, Ferrari, Porsche, etc.) you cannot drive it in the same manner in which you drive any North American car, yet some North American Magazines are most often going to have drivers who really only know how to drive North American cars, which is a large part of the reason their tests show slower lap times and acceleration with imports than Magazines, or reviewers from other parts of the world. I know this may seem like a dumb example, but the handling differences of cars are representative of the real thing, and it's the only possible hands-on example you might have experienced, so bear with me. Did you ever play Gran Turismo? Do you remember how you were able to do alright with say the Viper or the Corvette, yet when you tried the NSX you just couldn't seem to avoid spinning? That's because it's a difficult car to drive. Now, if you spent time with the game and got used to driving the NSX then you would find out that once you knew how to drive it, it was the best car in the game(at least for me, I beat all the most difficult challenges with it). The point is, someone who knows how to drive a Mustang better is going to be faster in the Mustang, yet somebody who drives an NSX better will be faster than even the guy in the Mustang, and he'll be able to do things in the NSX he couldn't possibly do in the Mustang. btw I never said magazines "cheat cars"
This a car forum, stop talking about escort services, we don't care if thats the only way you can get laid. It's not common knowledge since most people don't need an overprced hooker to get sex. And stop talking about pecker compensation, the mustang and camaro are never talked about for that reason. That is used when somebody buys a $200,000+ car and is ugly. He buys something nice since he can't have a realationship with somebody nice. Moron, you're such a moron.
Ooooohhh that was so low, well at least I'm going to the good, "clean" hookers rather than paying for a $5 BJ from some 12 year old heroin addict unlike some *ahem*amcnhp*ahem* so apparently seem to be. Dolt, when you can give as spectacular face as I, you don't need hookers, you have the women clawing at your door. Seems to me you're a bigger moron than I could ever hope to be. lol...Mini Cooper S = Schlong compensation<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> Where I come from, people who buy a Mustang or Camaro almost always act as if they need to prove something, and it's a commonly held opinion that those that own them ARE compensating for something...or lack thereof. n e way, I'm not the one who brought up "pecker compensation"
How am I FOS? Hell, there was an ad campaign in the late 60's or early 70's that focused on that very concept, "the guy that drives the Mini has nothing to compensate for and is very well endowed". If you like I can give you a description of one of the commercials, it's really quite humourous. btw - the new Mini has more interior space than the current Mustang line. p.s. that was very disgusting, do you talk to your grandma like that when you're licking her pet beaver?
Again you show your total lack of knowledge of vehicles. The new mini is just that, mini. It has no space unless you fold down the back seats, and it has a lot less interior room then the mustang. God, do you post what ever you think sounds better to make yourself look good? You're a moron. People with downs syndrome should not be allowed on the net (in case you're to dumb to realize it I'm talkin to you password).
lol...you're so pathetic. American cars have always had poor interior space in comparison to their exterior dimensions. Elbow room? not likely. foot room? well let's just say that the rear of my 90 civic has twice as much foot room as the rear of a cavalier, and the front has 3 times as much foot room as the front of a cavalier. Now lets look at some interior dimensions shall we? Interior Dimensions Mini Mustang Standard Seating No Data 4 Optional Seating No Data No Data Headroom - front (mm) 986 968 Headroom - rear (mm) 955 901 Legroom - front (mm) 1049 1062 Legroom - rear (mm) 795 759 Hip Room - front (mm) 1440 1328 Hip Room - rear (mm) 1080 1041 Shoulder Room - front (mm) 1293 1361 Shoulder Room - rear (mm) 1088 1052 Ok, so the mini has more headroom front and rear, more hip room front and rear, less shoulder room in the front, but more shoulder room in the rear, less legroom in the front but more legroom in the rear. Now who's showing a total lack of knowledge of vehicles? lol...and that's just the seating room, imagine how much more cargo volume it has with the seats folded down (a hatchback has far more cargo volume with the seats folded down than a car with an exterior trunk). No, a Mustang is for speed, NOT practicality. lol, even a car named for its lack in size has more interior space. BTW, if you don't believe me, all figures were obtained from: http://en.carpoint.msn.ca/homepage/default.asp you should be able to figure out how to get to the specifications of each car from there. Give it up, your mindless insults are not making you look any less foolish.
lol...you're so pathetic. American cars have always had poor interior space in comparison to their exterior dimensions. Elbow room? not likely. foot room? well let's just say that the rear of my 90 civic has twice as much foot room as the rear of a cavalier, and the front has 3 times as much foot room as the front of a cavalier. Now lets look at some interior dimensions shall we? Interior Dimensions_________Mini________Mustang Standard Seating____________No Data_____4 Optional Seating____________No Data_____No Data Headroom - front (mm)_______986_________968 Headroom - rear (mm)________955_________901 Legroom - front (mm)________1049________1062 Legroom - rear (mm)_________795_________759 Hip Room - front (mm)_______1440________1328 Hip Room - rear (mm)________1080________1041 Shoulder Room - front (mm)__1293________1361 Shoulder Room - rear (mm)___1088________1052 Ok, so the mini has more headroom front and rear, more hip room front and rear, less shoulder room in the front, but more shoulder room in the rear, less legroom in the front but more legroom in the rear. Now who's showing a total lack of knowledge of vehicles? lol...and that's just the seating room, imagine how much more cargo volume it has with the seats folded down (a hatchback has far more cargo volume with the seats folded down than a car with an exterior trunk). No, a Mustang is for speed, NOT practicality. lol, even a car named for its lack in size has more interior space. BTW, if you don't believe me, all figures were obtained from: http://en.carpoint.msn.ca/homepage/default.asp you should be able to figure out how to get to the specifications of each car from there. Give it up, your mindless insults are not making you look any less foolish.
Oh I know, btw you can quit being sarcastic, I was thinking the same thing when I first read the post, just didn't bother saying it.