Originally posted by Tavis426:
Demon,
1. You have a 3L SVT that is low compression because there is a turbo huffing positive pressure into that intake, correct? I know you just forgot to mention the hairdryer under the hood.

2. Your 2.5L with just bolt-ons was a second faster. How many bolt ons? LOL. One second?

3. (or, more easily, any iteration of the Cavalier), and if that driver isn't at the VERY top of their game, she can take them. While sipping on her latte'.

4. Or the fact that the fit & finish puts the Ford's to shame. Or the cupholders you don't have to MODIFY to get them to hold cups. Or the better safety ratings.

5. It's just threads like these that make me realize how closed-minded people are.


1. I sure wish I did!

Also then I'd be embarrassed by only 13.9's at nearly 102 instead of proud of it.

2. 14.6x @ 95 vs 16 flat @ 87 None of my times are corrected and our track is bad. The 16 flat @ 87 is corrected.

Yes I had a lot of bolt ons by that point.

3. The wife's Cavalier is an ATX and it would probably hit high 15's. (stock is 16-16.2 @ 87) Hence the comparison.
That's just 2.4 liters of 4-banger power to boot.

4. Oh yeah the fit and finish of plastic body panels. I won't argue looks as either one of us could not likely convince the other. 'nuff said.

5. It has nothing to do with that. Mainly it had to do with the statement a 16 @ 87 car could beat or equal a 15.2 @ 91 car.
Yes out of the hole both may be side by side. After the 1-2 shift the race would be over though.

2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.