Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: V6 holden VS. WRX, suck it SEXREX

  1. #11
    Maximum Bitrate SjLucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi
    Posts
    750
    you know this shouldnt even be in this thread...

    But good kill man even if no one else will give your props I will
    the More Ricers that Die the Better the world will be I should know I drive a nissan and they talk to me all the damn time.
    Quote Originally Posted by menudude View Post
    thank you all for your help minus the useless post by sjlucky...

  2. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    10
    Why was he a ricer?

  3. #13
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Elgin, IL
    Posts
    373
    oddcomp if you wanna get a fast station wagon, trade in for a 2004 Forester 2.0 XT. That thing's freakin fast for a wagon! Off the showroom floor runs 13.9!!!

    hehe

  4. #14
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    10
    Not to be picky, but the Forester XT has a 2.5 litre engine. Thats's why it runs a 13.9.

  5. #15
    Registered User SWYZ721's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by FortyTwo
    Not to be picky, but the Forester XT has a 2.5 litre engine. Thats's why it runs a 13.9.
    how does the internal volume of the engine determine what the 1/4 mile time is?

  6. #16
    Constant Bitrate SOBIL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    131
    <my opinion>A vehicle becomes rice when it is modified to look like it is a performance car, without actually change the performance of the vehicle.</my opinion>

    SWYZ721 -> As one of my trade school teachers once told me "At the end of the day there is no substitute for cubes".

  7. #17
    Registered User SWYZ721's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by SOBIL
    <my opinion>A vehicle becomes rice when it is modified to look like it is a performance car, without actually change the performance of the vehicle.</my opinion>

    SWYZ721 -> As one of my trade school teachers once told me "At the end of the day there is no substitute for cubes".

    Yes there is no replacement for displacement but that typically stands for maxing out an engine. And ci. only really bottlenecks cars when HP is over 600+. Stating that a certain vehicle runs 13.9 (which is damn fast rollin stock AND under $25K AND a station wagon). Hell there are 2.0 Litre engines making 1000+HP. I just don't see why he would rationalize that a car would run 13.5 because it has a 2.5 liter engine, as a LOT of other factors come into play when determining what 1/4 time a car will have.

  8. #18
    Constant Bitrate SOBIL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    131
    2.0 stock motors dont put out 1000+ hp. Infact I'd like to see a modified 2.0 that does +1000hp. 3.5L turbod 6's require a fair bit to reach that.

    Don't quote me cos this is quess only. but a 2.5L motor built the same design as a 2.0 is almost garanteed to but out a bit more oumph. however At a guess id say the forester does as well as it does so well would be to do with its gearing, being a x-over type of vehicle I would think it to have taller ratios. guess only. both but together would contribut to a better quarter.

  9. #19
    Registered User SWYZ721's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by SOBIL
    2.0 stock motors dont put out 1000+ hp. Infact I'd like to see a modified 2.0 that does +1000hp. 3.5L turbod 6's require a fair bit to reach that.

    Don't quote me cos this is quess only. but a 2.5L motor built the same design as a 2.0 is almost garanteed to but out a bit more oumph. however At a guess id say the forester does as well as it does so well would be to do with its gearing, being a x-over type of vehicle I would think it to have taller ratios. guess only. both but together would contribut to a better quarter.
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...ar.mv&num=1666


    But my argument stands (even though it's not with you) the volume of the combustion chambers ie/2.5 has little effect on what 1/4 time it will run or how much HP it has. My moms Ford Taurus is a V6 3.8 puts out 140HP, my brothers Dodge Neon is a I4 2.4 puts out 240HP. So the smaller engine has more HP. Why because it has a turbo. Displacement isn't a determining factor in how much HP a specific vehicle can spit out or what the 1/4 time will be.

  10. #20
    Maximum Bitrate carabuser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by SWYZ721
    how does the internal volume of the engine determine what the 1/4 mile time is?
    the bigger the displacement the more power it should have, although it is not always true. the more power the car has, the quicker it should be (although that is not always true also - depends on weight of the car also)
    Current Status: For Sale

    Specs
    - 1.5Ghz Toshiba Laptop (available - no screen)
    - Indash Motorized 7" VGA TS
    - DeLorme GPS (sold)
    - Power Inverter (sold)
    - Pioneer HU (sold)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •