|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716 |
Originally posted by Massiv:
Thing that sucks about owning either car, is that they're both SLOW! Big deal! So you did all the bolt-ons, and you're lucky to break into the 14's? Low-to-mid level cars today are WAAAY faster than either. Crap, my old 5 liter ate everything thrown at it for lunch (except two C5's), and it was *barely* modified. The power response and punch on that thing was awesome.
Sad truth? The Neon SRT-4 would beat it. As it will probably beat the current generation Mustang GT.
Who wants to talk about a boring 15-sec quarter? Or a 14? How about 13's? 12's? 10's!!!. Geez...
For all the money we dump into our cars, they're still just commuters with a bit of pep. I can enjoy the light peppiness of my car, but never should I make the mistake of thinking it's fast.
In that sense, to talk of a CSVT destroying an RSXS, or vice versa is like talking about two fat kids running a marathon... who cares? Bah...
I think I should flip this car and get back into something with some power!
V8 power baby...
/rant off
Massiv.
i just bought another 95 zetec MTX on friday. and today on the way home from the store, i was driving it and i realized just how fast these things are BONE stock...IF they are taken care of. they arent by any means slow cars...you want slow, drive a 1988 Geo metro ATX...the best quarter i did with that biatch was 28.6@ 62 mph  it was my friends car, i just wanted to see if it was as slow as it looked...and yes it was a wagon.   then i got in the tour to run a quater and it felt the tour had warp drive   needed  holding on to the wheel.
95 GL MTX Zetec, Carbon Fiber hood:
*neoprene seat covers
*new SVT rear bumper
*Proud Owner of 1962 Chevy Corvette 427
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,291
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,291 |
While I dunno about running 12s (not calling you a liar, just haven't seen proof) I do agree with your message Importslayer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 117 |
aah.... No snow for my old 5L. That's a death sentence for that car (without serious snow tires anyway). Drove an old 89 SHO instead...
Massiv.
P.S. The mileage wasn't TOO bad. Just drinks it faster if you get on it more than would happen in a 6, or even a 4.
1999 Mercury Cougar V6.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
i drove my lx in the snow many of times when it was in the low 13's(it was my daily driver)did just fine,if you know how to drive(2nd gear starts)no problems whatsoever....
That was not directed to you; you are in Tennessee. He is in Toronto, BIG difference.
Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
and it actually got decent mileage too....alot better mileage than most of these d!!kheads in suburbans and tahoes get....so i'm not really seeing a point at all to your post....
Who was talking about Suburbans and Tahoes? The point of my post is that a car may excel in one area, and be weak in another. That every car has its strengths and weaknesses. That there is no absolutely better car.
Originally posted by chrisilversvt:
and it just has bolt ons no artificial aspiration.....
Because you do not need it, it is a 5.0 for a reason. If it was a 2.0 you might see a need for some "artificial aspiration"...
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,023 |
Originally posted by Massiv:
P.S. The mileage wasn't TOO bad. Just drinks it faster if you get on it more than would happen in a 6, or even a 4.
That is nice that it responded; my friend's just drinks no matter how he drives the damn thing. You can imagine how he drives. 
-Giovanni
One turbocharger. Two intercoolers. All love.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631 |
05 Legacy GT Turbo 5speed
99 SVT GRN/TAN (sold)
06 Ford Explorer EBv8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 463
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 463 |
Originally posted by SeR Guy1:
(Flame suit on)
as I am the only person who has owned both,
err....not quite. i traded my E1 on an '02 RSX-S in oct. of '01; traded the RSX-S on a jeep grand cherokee 4x4 last november. 
i'll agree with the more reasonable concensus that it'll be a driver's race - the RSX-S is slightly quicker and, imho, responds better to a cold-air intake + ECU reprogram than the CSVT does to intake/exhaust/chip, but stock to stock, i'd give a slight nod to the RSX-S with all else being equal.
just my .02...and fwiw, i'm looking at getting another CSVT as a 2nd car now. i had enough of the RSX-S - bad ride quality (especially when lowered) and not very practical....but it's a sweet car for what it is. just didn't work too well for me.
blake
--former CSVT owner--
MINE: 2002 jeep grand cherokee limited 4x4 - stone white/taupe
HERS: 2005 acura TL 5AT non-navi - satin silver/quartz
GARAGE ORNAMENT: 1962 chevy C10 fleetside pickup - tan/rust
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,163 |
Well Ausgedient the Ninja where do you rate the Yugo??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 157
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 157 |
Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Originally posted by tomtoursvt:
I value a car that handles well and that is comfortable to sit in and one that doesn't kill you with insurance premiums. Being able to keep up with the uncomfortable "fast" coupes is just a plus .
The RSX is a very comfortable car? 
I was talking about my Contour SVT!!!!!!!!!! 
The RSX might be comfortable for your average midget, but not for my 195lb a$$.
I could barely fit my lats in the Honda S2000.
98 SVT E0 T-Red
E1 engine
resonator removed
K&N w/ MAF adapter
20% tint
Ford Trans. cocktail
Ford 9mm Racing Wires
DMD
|
|
|
|
|
