fastest car under 80K $

[alexbib]

Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest stock car (quarter mile, lap time) under 80k canadian$ (new)?

[Lennon]

Mine.

I have no idea man, try a google search.

[Moe Man]

vett

['02SiR]

Originally posted by Lennon
Mine.

I have no idea man, try a google search.

we werent talking 80 bux HAHA J/K!!!:thumbsup:

[rage2]

I believe the Z06 would take top honors.

[Moe Man]

told ya

[C4S]

Pretty Sure the Z06 ! and it is even under $70K ! (before taxes)


:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Again .. lots of people will start posing whatever car with whatever upgrade will be fastest .... such as spend $3000 to buy a 1988 Mustang .. then spend $75,000 on it ...

I think you want to know the fastest Brand New cars .. right ?

Also... rounder up will be : Lotus Elise, STi, M3 manual, C55, Vette, SVT Corba ... those are some other cars can do under 5 second, and around 13 sec in 1/4

What do I miss ?

[rage2]

slk 32 amg ;). $76,900.
c32 amg. $67,900.

[ZorroAMG]

Originally posted by C4S


I think you want to know the fastest Brand New cars .. right ?




Originally posted by alexbib
Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest stock car (quarter mile, lap time) under 80k canadian$ (new)?

Ummm yep...

[Moe Man]

Originally posted by rage2
slk 32 amg ;). $76,900.
c32 amg. $67,900.

are those faster than the Z06?

[Lennon]

Originally posted by '02SiR


we werent talking 80 bux HAHA J/K!!!:thumbsup:

Ahhhhhh hahaha... ha......ha.......shutup.

[C4S]

Originally posted by Moe Man

Originally posted by rage2
slk 32 amg . $76,900.
c32 amg. $67,900.


are those faster than the Z06?

No ..

but for under $80K SLK AMG is probaby one of the Quickest roadster can buy ...

and for under $70K C32 is also one of the quickest sedan to buy .. ( with decent options .. probaby add 5K )

[Skylinelover]

The 2004 Pontiac GTO isn't that close to the vet?

[googe]

gto runs high 13s, even though both use the LS1, the corvettes are significantly faster

gto weighs like 3700 lbs, pretty heavy

nothing under 80k is going to beat a z06 on anything its tires can stick to :)

[Skylinelover]

Lol. well I figure the GTO is nice but that is IMO

[africano]

Originally posted by googe
gto runs high 13s, even though both use the LS1, the corvettes are significantly faster

gto weighs like 3700 lbs, pretty heavy

nothing under 80k is going to beat a z06 on anything its tires can stick to :)

Z06 have the LS6, base corvettes have the LS1. LS6 rated at 405hp, LS1 350hp. Corvette according to chevy can do the 1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds stock (prob lies).

[googe]

Originally posted by africano


Z06 have the LS6, base corvettes have the LS1. LS6 rated at 405hp, LS1 350hp. Corvette according to chevy can do the 1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds stock (prob lies).

i know this, but i was intending to say the base corvette with the ls1 is faster than a gto also with the ls1.

the z06 with the ls6 is alot faster than both of course. ive heard of high 11s on slicks.

[africano]

Using the good old 1/4 mile et calculator it turns out:

Corvette Z06: 3118 lbs, 405hp= 12.402 @ 115.88mph
Pontiac GTO: 3761 lbs, 350hp= 13.634 @ 104.37mph


Only sad news is it looks like the C6 is gonna be slower according to this http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/corvette05.asp


And I thought chevy was gonna bump the displacement and increase hp to 460 :whipped:

[africano]

Originally posted by googe


i know this, but i was intending to say the base corvette with the ls1 is faster than a gto also with the ls1.

the z06 with the ls6 is alot faster than both of course. ive heard of high 11s on slicks.


Misunderstanding.........meh!

[googe]

Originally posted by africano


Only sad news is it looks like the C6 is gonna be slower according to this http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/corvette05.asp



naw man, now the BASE model C6 is 400hp (up from 350) and the z06 is still unannounced, some places are reporting that its going to be around 500 for the c6 z06 (or whatever they change the z06 name to)

so...its not really slower :D

[africano]

That's what I thought, Hot Rod was talkin' 460hp but that was a while back. Still engine bumped up in displacement like they said, so I was like WTF!?


Still with the added torque in the curve, should be about the same.

[Tilly]

is a viper under 80k? seriously though, perhaps it could beat a corvette..

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by Tilly
is a viper under 80k? seriously though, perhaps it could beat a corvette..

A Viper is slightly more than $125,000 new, and the ZO6 and Viper are about the same for performance.

[89coupe]

There was a Z06 at Racecity on Friday, a black one. It ran 13.8 not sure what the mph was. I believe they run around 110mph with a good driver here in Calgary. A GTS Viper runs mid 12's around 115mph. You can pick up an 04 Z06 for around $65 plus tax right now.

Z06 is defintely best bang for your buck. Next in line would be a Mustang Cobra.

[JCX]

Originally posted by Skylinelover
The 2004 Pontiac GTO isn't that close to the vet?

As mentioned, a z06 would eat a GTO's lunch, then come back to steall it's dinner. We don't get GTO's in Canada either btw. :cry:

For the price range, the z06 is a crazy bargain. Make mine silver with heads / cam package. :bigpimp:

[Speed_Dreams]

is the srt-4 anywhere close to these? it seems like it would handel realitivly well and its got balls

what about the S2000??

[ACS-e36]

Originally posted by Speed_Dreams
is the srt-4 anywhere close to these? it seems like it would handel realitivly well and its got balls

what about the S2000??

not a chance

[Javein71]

take a 30grand ford SVT cobra and put a compatable blower(supercharger) on it and you got an est 9sec car

[Mike_man44]

you could also take a 400$ car and put 79 000 into it :thumbsdow

we're talking stock.

[Z_Fan]

I think we should exclude the Z06 because it costs more than $80K. :rolleyes:

They list at $77,440. Doesn't include extended warranty. GST alone puts them at $82,860.00. And that's BASE Z06, no further upgrades.

I guess the point is if you only had 80K to spend, you'd not be picking up your Z06. You'd work a couple more weeks, and THEN pick it up!

[C4S]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
I think we should exclude the Z06 because it costs more than $80K. :rolleyes:

They list at $77,440. Doesn't include extended warranty. GST alone puts them at $82,860.00. And that's BASE Z06, no further upgrades.

I guess the point is if you only had 80K to spend, you'd not be picking up your Z06. You'd work a couple more weeks, and THEN pick it up!

Sort of right, but GM offer huge discount and rebate on today Vette, since new 2005 is coming.

Even 3 yrs ago, I looked at the Z06, the dealer offer me reasonable discount as well, I couldn't remember how much, but from low $70K plus tax reatail to high $60K (just under $70K)plus taxes.

Still, best power/performace for the buck !

[Skylinelover]

I think we should exclude the Z06 because it costs more than $80K.

They list at $77,440. Doesn't include extended warranty. GST alone puts them at $82,860.00. And that's BASE Z06, no further upgrades.

I guess the point is if you only had 80K to spend, you'd not be picking up your Z06. You'd work a couple more weeks, and THEN pick it up!
You could also put the 80k as a down payment and pay the rest next paycheck.:thumbsup:

[NotbadSTi]

Will STi be the second quickest for under $80K ? :D

[HillBilly]

Too bad the 2004 E55 AMG comes in at $114,150.00...

In my opinion, a much better daily driver than a Z06 and almost as fast.

I think I'll get one. Right after I sell my house.

http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/020403163640.jpg

[chevydude52]

my guess....68 gto judge with a 455 and 390 hp....or the 65 camaro with the 302...only thing is thats a very very rare car...it had a 350 crank...very hard to find only about 100 where ever produced....could take a vette any year no prob...

[hjr]

Originally posted by chevydude52
my guess....68 gto judge with a 455 and 390 hp....or the 65 camaro with the 302...only thing is thats a very very rare car...it had a 350 crank...very hard to find only about 100 where ever produced....could take a vette any year no prob... no, i dont think so.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by hjr
no, i dont think so. :werd:

[googe]

Originally posted by NotbadSTi
Will STi be the second quickest for under $80K ? :D

Actually, I think the base C5 corvette coupe would be next, haha

STI/SVT Cobra arent far down the list though, if we are talking 1/4 mile times.

[chevydude52]

Originally posted by hjr
no, i dont think so.


....you dont think so...and i know so...there for im right...ive seen it happen i have one...thats how i know...ight? rebuilt fully stock...and it runs high 11's if you dont believe it come see it....

[googe]

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

after snipping the ones over 80k...
Year Make Model Engine HP 1/4mile(seconds) 1/4 mile speed(MPH) Source

1968 Plymouth S/S Barracuda 426 Hemi V8 425 ** 10.5 130 MCR
1968 Dodge S/S Hemi Dart 426 Hemi V8 425 ** 10.5 129 MCR
1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 427 V8 430 ** 10.9 132 PM
1964 Ford Fairlane T-bolt 427 V8 425 ** 11.76 122.78 CC
1997 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C 427 V8 488 11.8 121.0 MT
1963 Dodge Ramcharger 426 V8 425 12.0 117 MCR
1966 AC / Shelby Cobra 427 V8 425 12.2 118 CC
2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 LS6 350 V8 405 12.29 116 CD
2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 LS6 350 V8 385 12.57 113.96 MT
2001 Shelby Cobra 289 FIA 5.0L V8 350 12.7 108.1 MT
1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 427 V8 430 12.76 107 MCR
1990 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 LT5 350 V8 375 12.8 113.8 MT
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra 4.6L V8 S/C 390 12.8 113.2 CD
2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.4L V8 385 12.8 112.7 MT
1966 Chevrolet Corvette L72 427 V8 425 12.8 112 CD
1969 Plymouth Road Runner 440 V8 6-pack 390 12.91 111.8 SS
1999 Chevrolet Corvette LS1 350 V8 350 12.98 108.85 MT
1997 Pontiac Firebird / Hurst LS1 350 V8 350 12.99 103.11 MCR
2003 Chevrolet Corvette convertible LS1 350 V8 350 13.0 109.6 MT
1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS L78 396 V8 375 13.0 108.6 SA
1970 Plymouth Cuda 440 V8 6-pack 390 13.0 105.74 MCR
1995 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 LT5 350 V8 405 13.1 112 MT
1970 Plymouth Cuda 426 Hemi V8 425 13.1 107.12 CC
1970 Dodge Challenger SE 426 Hemi V8 425 13.1 107.12 CC
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS LS6 454 V8 450 13.12 107.01 CC
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 4.6L V8 305 13.13 105.51 MM
1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula LS1 350 V8 320 13.15 108.27 MT
1991 GMC Syclone 4.3L V6 T/C 280 13.16 100 PHR
1999 Chevrolet Camaro SS LS1 350 V8 320 13.2 108.8 MT
1991 Pontiac Firehawk 350 V8 350 13.2 107 CD
1969 Pontiac GTO Judge 400 V8 370 13.2 104 MCR

69 GTO Judge is quite far down on the list...I dont see 68, either the list isnt complete or the 69 is faster and they didnt include the 68

I think the poster was wondering about current cars though

[chevydude52]

i dont know how fast the 68 judge was...but i was talking about the 65 camaro....last time i ran mine it was 11.7....but ive only ran it 2 or 3 times so im not that great so it really is faster...im horrilbe out of the gate....i never get it right when the lights green...so its probably a high 10 second car...i dont know if it could take a hemi cuda though....very fast car though....and very rare so its probably nto n your list and the 69 vette gets killed by the 65 camaro so maybe it could take a hemi cuda....really dont know

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by chevydude52



....you dont think so...and i know so...there for im right...ive seen it happen i have one...thats how i know...ight? rebuilt fully stock...and it runs high 11's if you dont believe it come see it....
LoLlets see some slips chev dude because the numbers posted in googe's list sure aren't z06 fast

[chevydude52]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2

LoLlets see some slips chev dude because the numbers posted in googe's list sure aren't z06 fast

i jus bought the car...so send be 400 bucks for a video camera and ill get ya some...like i said ive raced it 3 times....it was in the low 12's first tiem and the 2nd and 3rd i was high 11's and i suck....and did you check on the correct 65 camaro? ill get more engine specs tomarrow then you can see if you did

[chevydude52]

oops slips.....i miss read it as clips...ill get some once i get a scanner

[hjr]

am i the only one who realizes that the camaro's first year of production was 1967, not 1965 as this fellow wants claims? Seriously ban this idiot for strait out lying.

Im sorry to do this, but it has to be done. The camaro was not even given the green light to begin development until late (august) 1964 (when it would have had to have been released to be a 1965 model), and it was introduced an amazingly short 24 months later, in fall of 1966 (as the 1967 model year camero).

In terms of engines, the 1967 camaro DID had a 290hp (thought to be underrated) 302ci engine available (to homoligate for trans-am racing) in Z28 trim (which is pretty rare for the 1967 model year). Car and Driver tested a '68 Z/28 at an amazing 5.3-second 0-60, 13.8 seconds at 107 mph for the quarter-mile, but hardly a high 11 run as claimed. A 65 "302" camaro did not exist.

[googe]

Well, keep in mind these are bone stock, off the lot...if youve done any tuning at all, or are even using slicks for that matter, it doesnt really apply

Some cars on here can jump several positions with only a couple grand put into them, so in that sense its not going to be totally accurate with real world performance

Theyre only magazine-tested times, on different tracks, even years apart, so its only good for a ballpark figure

[googe]

Originally posted by hjr
am i the only one who realizes that the camaro's first year of production was 1967, not 1965 as this fellow wants claims? Seriously ban this idiot for strait out lying.

Im sorry to do this, but it has to be done. The camaro was not even given the green light to begin development until late (august) 1964 (when it would have had to have been released to be a 1965 model), and it was introduced an amazingly short 24 months later, in fall of 1966 (as the 1967 model year camero).

In terms of engines, the 1967 camaro DID had a 290hp (thought to be underrated) 302ci engine available (to homoligate for trans-am racing) in Z28 trim (which is pretty rare for the 1967 model year). Car and Driver tested a '68 Z/28 at an amazing 5.3-second 0-60, 13.8 seconds at 107 mph for the quarter-mile, but hardly a high 11 run as claimed. A 65 "302" camaro did not exist.


ahahaha, busted...

[chevydude52]

like i said its very rare...what part of that do you not understand...its a 65 camaro...ever seen one? didnt think so cause there fucking rare my dad had a friend that bought on brand new took it to a chevy dealer taht and they said thats not a real car...explain how he bought this if it didnt exhist? please try...assholes

[hjr]

you got scammed. that simple. though if it is an 11sec car then your not totally up shite creek, at least the car is fast.

[googe]

so now you and your dad know more than chevrolet, who supposedly made it, and the whole internet (face it, if something exists, its on the internet)

easy way to settle this, why dont you tell us the VIN number? :D


June, 1966. The Camaro name.

Just weeks before production began, the name "Camaro" was decided on. General Manager Elliott M. "Pete" Estes announced the name publicly, quipping, "I went into a closet, shut the door and came out with the name." Camaro is French for "comrade, pal, or chum," according to an obscure 1935 French-to-English dictionary.

September 21, 1966. Camaro for sale.

The 1967 Camaro hit dealer showrooms and was eagerly accepted by the public. The basic sport coupe had a standard six-cylinder engine and three-speed manual transmission with a base price of only $2,466. More than 80 options, including a V-8 engine, SS-350 Package and RS Package, among others, were available, which brought the price of delivered cars to over $3,500.

chev dude is fired

[hjr]

because im an anoying guy, i have done more research. here is a site listing production numbers for all camaro's up to 1981, in their forms. http://www.yearone.com/updatedsinglepages/Id_info/camaro/camaroprodnums.html

Note this # : 1967 - Z/28 - 602 units produced.

So they only produced 602 302ci camaro's in 1967, and yet 2 years earlier, they released 2500 of them, before they had even begun the promotion blitz that put them in trans-am racing that was the purpose of producing the 302 camaro???

1 more thing, though i can find the exact time frame for the development of the 302, i know that it was developed specifically for the camaro to compete in the trans-am series. They took a 327 block and used a 283 crank to shorten the stroke to get the displacement down and the revs up (not a 350 crank like you claim). But what im saying is that they most likely didnt even have 2500 of these engines produced in 1965 to be able to put them in your mystery camaro's.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

[saiyajin]

hah owned :drama:

[NickGT]

Originally posted by hjr
because im an anoying guy, i have done more research. here is a site listing production numbers for all camaro's up to 1981, in their forms. http://www.yearone.com/updatedsinglepages/Id_info/camaro/camaroprodnums.html

Note this # : 1967 - Z/28 - 602 units produced.

So they only produced 602 302ci camaro's in 1967, and yet 2 years earlier, they released 2500 of them, before they had even begun the promotion blitz that put them in trans-am racing that was the purpose of producing the 302 camaro???

1 more thing, though i can find the exact time frame for the development of the 302, i know that it was developed specifically for the camaro to compete in the trans-am series. They took a 327 block and used a 283 crank to shorten the stroke to get the displacement down and the revs up (not a 350 crank like you claim). But what im saying is that they most likely didnt even have 2500 of these engines produced in 1965 to be able to put them in your mystery camaro's.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

Good show :thumbsup:

Impressive list of domestic's googe. So much power all in one list :drool:

[chevydude52]

....ok maybe its not a 65 im still pretty sure it is but anyays if its not fine me a 67 camaro with a 302 that puts out 325 hp thats derated so taht it actually puts out 390 hp.....find me one then ill believe you

[hjr]

Originally posted by chevydude52
....ok maybe its not a 65 im still pretty sure it is but anyays if its not fine me a 67 camaro with a 302 that puts out 325 hp thats derated so taht it actually puts out 390 hp.....find me one then ill believe you to give you an out, the 67 z/28 camaro with the free-reving 302ci small block was factory rated at 290hp, but actual wheelhp of 360-400 was found on the dyno. The problem was that the engine needed to be reved up to 7500rpm, and didnt have much low end torque (by 1967 standards). It was not a great drag car due to this reason, yet still set some amazing 1/4 times ranging from mid-high 13-s to mid-high 14's. With some engine work it is possible to get it to high 11's, but difficult. The 67 though is still a very rare car, considering only 602 (or 609 depending on source) were produced.


but this is way off topic, and the question has been answered, so we can let this die now.

[syeve]

I think there were only like 70 ss barracudas ever made?

[Skylinelover]

The guy that say's it is a 65'.. Someone probally took a screw driver to the side and put in 1965 and his dad got ripped off.

[Wildcat]

Originally posted by chevydude52
....ok maybe its not a 65 im still pretty sure it is but anyays if its not fine me a 67 camaro with a 302 that puts out 325 hp thats derated so taht it actually puts out 390 hp.....find me one then ill believe you

go buy a ford you clown your pissing on the good name that is chevrolet.

[NickGT]

Originally posted by Wildcat


go buy a ford you clown your pissing on the good name that is chevrolet.

Woah woah woah, we don't want him either. :rofl:

[Wildcat]

Originally posted by NickGT


Woah woah woah, we don't want him either. :rofl:

LMAO :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[chevydude52]

ok guys ill admit my mistake on the 65 now...the car is a 66 1/2...but ive never heard of such a thing before.....its like a prototype or something i took it over to the local chevy dealer and they look at it and looked up the VIN and tahts waht it came back as...still not sure about this whole situation but i did get fucked on the 65 thats what the guy told me it was and my dad said that that seemed fine he know somebody taht had one well my dad was wrong it was a 67 that the dude had but still this is my car not my dads jus so you know....if any one has any info on these prototype cars could that send me so info please

[HillBilly]

Originally posted by alexbib
Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest stock car (quarter mile, lap time) under 80k canadian$ (new)?

I am assuming he meant currently in production. 2004/2005 only.

He also said fast lap time. The old muscle cars of 60's and 70's were meant for going fast in a straight line only. AutoX was not their specialty.

14" bias-ply tires and sponge like suspension are not a good road course setup.

[Inzane]

Something else people are forgetting. All those old classic late-60s/early-70s muscle cars were designed to run on high-octane LEADED fuel. Tuned for today's normal unleaded pump gas they won't be nearly as fast as when they were tested in their heyday.

Sure you can run race gas, but that's not what this original thread was asking.

[Ferrari owner]

Originally posted by chevydude52
ok guys ill admit my mistake on the 65 now...the car is a 66 1/2...but ive never heard of such a thing before.....its like a prototype or something i took it over to the local chevy dealer and they look at it and looked up the VIN and tahts waht it came back as...still not sure about this whole situation but i did get fucked on the 65 thats what the guy told me it was and my dad said that that seemed fine he know somebody taht had one well my dad was wrong it was a 67 that the dude had but still this is my car not my dads jus so you know....if any one has any info on these prototype cars could that send me so info please
:english:

[heavyD]

Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR. Case closed.

:closed:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254

If you read the full magazine article, the 0-60 time for the car is 4.3 seconds which is in Porsche 911 turbo territory. Plus not many cars in the world period can handle with the EVO at any speed. The car is coming to the US, not sure about Canada. We'll be happy just to get the regular EVO VIII up north.:cry:

[That.Guy.S30]

Originally posted by heavyD
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR. Case closed.

:closed:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254

If you read the full magazine article, the 0-60 time for the car is 4.3 seconds which is in Porsche 911 turbo territory. Plus not many cars in the world period can handle with the EVO at any speed. The car is coming to the US, not sure about Canada. We'll be happy just to get the regular EVO VIII up north.:cry:

do you know if this lancer is better than a EVO VIII GSR? ..
doin some bench racing lol

[hjr]

Originally posted by heavyD
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR. Case closed.

:closed:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254

If you read the full magazine article, the 0-60 time for the car is 4.3 seconds which is in Porsche 911 turbo territory. Plus not many cars in the world period can handle with the EVO at any speed. The car is coming to the US, not sure about Canada. We'll be happy just to get the regular EVO VIII up north.:cry: granted its cheaper than the vette, but the vette still outperforms it.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by heavyD
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR. Case closed.

:closed:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254

If you read the full magazine article, the 0-60 time for the car is 4.3 seconds which is in Porsche 911 turbo territory. Plus not many cars in the world period can handle with the EVO at any speed. The car is coming to the US, not sure about Canada. We'll be happy just to get the regular EVO VIII up north.:cry:

32 999 british pounds = 80 380.75 candian dollars

:D looks like the EVO's out

[Orbie]

Originally posted by 962 kid


32 999 british pounds = 80 380.75 candian dollars

:D looks like the EVO's out

Yeah if only currency exchange on cars was that exact lol! A better estimate for how much a car will be in Canada is with USD as they're right across the border and more likely to impact market cost in Canada.

From the article heavyD posted:
"And best of all, according to Sam Mitani, the MR is bound for the U.S. “This baby is definitely headed our way,” says the editor of SPEED. Look for the MR to sell for around an amazingly low $33,000."

33,000 USD => 43,440.67 CAD

Even accounting for price deviation between the US and Canada, the car is a far cry from $80,000 CAD, so it does qualify.

[donz]

it does qualify for the under $80k... It is priced around $33k USD, but I doubt it would be faster than z06. The MR is pretty light, and 4wd... who knows

[Arthur Dent]

I'd suspect the Westfield Megabusa is by far the fastest stock production car for that price.

http://www.westfield-sportscars.co.uk/gfx/megabusa.jpg

http://www.westfield-sportscars.co.uk/megabusa.htm

http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=111&i=5733

[heavyD]

Originally posted by 962 kid


32 999 british pounds = 80 380.75 candian dollars

:D looks like the EVO's out

Has someone taken their stupid pill today?:werd:

[googe]

Originally posted by heavyD
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII MR. Case closed.

:closed:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=39&article_id=1254

If you read the full magazine article, the 0-60 time for the car is 4.3 seconds which is in Porsche 911 turbo territory. Plus not many cars in the world period can handle with the EVO at any speed. The car is coming to the US, not sure about Canada. We'll be happy just to get the regular EVO VIII up north.:cry:

you are silly

z06 outperforms it with only 2 wheel drive even.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by googe


you are silly

z06 outperforms it with only 2 wheel drive even.

Spoken like a true STi owner.

[el_fefes]

hey did that list only take into account american cars? or is there no import cars that are that fast?:dunno: