boy cars are quick

[killramos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


But.... I live my life 50 feet at a time

Maybe in Vancouver traffic

[R!zz0]

Fast cars? Honda?

My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes

[Sugarphreak]

...

[killramos]

Lol I just bought my car to listen to the V8

Also reading > SP

https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehic...-C/model-C63WS

But who's counting...

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by R!zz0
Fast cars? Honda?

My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes

If your lug nuts require more than 250 ft lbs, I want to know what you're driving.

Always thought that was a strange saying as most wheels are torqued to a max of what 100 ft lbs? Even the lowly civic makes more than that and has for quite awhile.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[JustinL]

Another factor that hasn't been touched on in this thread yet is tire technology. I don't know what tires came with a '94 Vette, but I'm pretty sure they would be considered junk by today's standards. I'd bet an F40 with modern tires could demolish it's 1987 0-60 time.

I have the same problem with 'ring times. The new civic set a fast time, and they made all kinds of lists of iconic cars that it's faster than... but they've never put those same tires on say a 2002 996 GT2 and re-run the older cars to see what they can do today.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Oh... my bad, I didn't realize you had a US one and not the slower Canadian version.

Mercedes-AMG C 63 S Sedan (2017)MSRP* $84,100.00
General technical data
Fuel type: Premium
Net power (503 hp)
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 4.0 s
Top speed: 290 km/h
Fuel economy
Fuel consumption - city 13.4 l/100 km****
Fuel consumption - highway 9.6 l/100 km****

Leave it to a drafter to screw up the units



I really don't care, but at least get your burns right man

[Sugarphreak]

...

[killramos]

You live in Vancouver now. Just buy a tesla and be done with it

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Sonic]

Originally posted by ercchry


There is nothing "fast" about 0-60.... you're only doing 60 at the end of it! The word is quick... cars are quick these days, you can be quick with the right gearing and power band, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a fast car

Tell that to every Honda Civic coupe, Kia Forte, Dodge Dart, and Chevy Cruze owner in this city ...a lot trash talk about BMW drivers overcompensating, but I find the owners of those 4 cars much worse especially the Dodge Darts, wtf is with those owners?!?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by jwslam

Considering a 0-60 on a 1992 Civic Si is 8.4 while the EX was 9.3, yes that is fast.

There is a huge difference between "fast" and "fast for a..."

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Sonic
Tell that to every Honda Civic coupe, Kia Forte, Dodge Dart, and Chevy Cruze owner in this city ...a lot trash talk about BMW drivers overcompensating, but I find the owners of those 4 cars much worse especially the Dodge Darts, wtf is with those owners?!?

Yeah, I agree on Dodge Darts. I have a buddy with horrible credit who has one and that was all he could get. He's upgraded the exhaust and has also done all sorts of other questionable cosmetic mods to it. It sounds terrible.

[Sentry]

Originally posted by ercchry
There is nothing "fast" about 0-60.... you're only doing 60 at the end of it! The word is quick... cars are quick these days, you can be quick with the right gearing and power band, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a fast car

This. Also quoting magazine times on an NA car doesn't mean shit for Calgary's 3500ft elevation.

Originally posted by JustinL
Another factor that hasn't been touched on in this thread yet is tire technology. I don't know what tires came with a '94 Vette, but I'm pretty sure they would be considered junk by today's standards. I'd bet an F40 with modern tires could demolish it's 1987 0-60 time.

I have the same problem with 'ring times. The new civic set a fast time, and they made all kinds of lists of iconic cars that it's faster than... but they've never put those same tires on say a 2002 996 GT2 and re-run the older cars to see what they can do today.

Also this. 94 Vette probably had some 480 treadwear Goodyear Gatorbacks or some shit.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Sentry

This. Also quoting magazine times on an NA car doesn't mean shit for Calgary's 3500ft elevation.


Also this. 94 Vette probably had some 480 treadwear Goodyear Gatorbacks or some shit.

Goodyear eagle GS-3's. 220 treadwear. I mean, we are not talking old school white wall tires here.

If you're comparing one N/A car to another, elevation is irrelevant.

[Jonathanl10]

Well... Considering how the new Civic pulls equally if not faster compared to the 9th gen Si and gets 50% better fuel economy doing it, I'd say that's an improvement that is relevant to this thread. Also, my 2014 1.8 CVT took like 8.5 seconds so it went from 'dangerously slow' to 'pleasantly surprised'.

But wait, it's Beyond and therefore everyone circlejerks over their AMG and how 'quick' is defined as 3 seconds... Which 90% of people on this planet don't have the benefit of.

[Jonathanl10]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
If your lug nuts require more than 250 ft lbs, I want to know what you're driving.

Always thought that was a strange saying as most wheels are torqued to a max of what 100 ft lbs? Even the lowly civic makes more than that and has for quite awhile.

Well it's a joke, but to be perfectly honest, considering the new engine is practically making 200 ft lbs at the crank at 1700 rpm, the whole stereotype of Hondas that are torqueless is starting to fade. Hell, my car doesn't even have VTEC but it does shove me into my seat a little now, something past Hondas have never done. (Except the 6-6)

[max_boost]

Lol beyond.

It ain't the car. It's who's behind the wheel. - Dom

In a straight line give me launch control and PDK all day.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Jonathanl10


But wait, it's Beyond and therefore everyone circlejerks over their AMG and how 'quick' is defined as 3 seconds... Which 90% of people on this planet don't have the benefit of.

It's closer to 99.5%