Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
-----------------------------------------------
"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Muscle cars
Posted by:
Smokey
()
Date: March 21, 2011 02:44PM
I used to have this beauty.. sold her because I couldn't afford restoration at the time and wanted her to go to a better home, I miss her..
Any muslce car owners on here? Post up your pictures
Attachments:
Any muslce car owners on here? Post up your pictures
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
merc
()
Date: March 21, 2011 02:52PM
nice car, i've been recently looking for one of those. or an old camero
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Thanks
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:17PM
Flemming Ultimate Garage has a nice variety of collector cars.. they even have had bandits like this one in the past. Check out the website.
I actually saw this car parked in front of a house and would pass it on my way to and from work until I got the nerve to write on a piece of paper a note telling the owner to sell it to me and can you believe that he called me.
I actually saw this car parked in front of a house and would pass it on my way to and from work until I got the nerve to write on a piece of paper a note telling the owner to sell it to me and can you believe that he called me.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Type R Muscle
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:20PM
-
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Joking right?
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:35PM
Type R Muscle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I respect Jap muslce but this is a joke unless this is one killer engine swapped, twin turbo, nitros, sleeper.
-------------------------------------------------------
I respect Jap muslce but this is a joke unless this is one killer engine swapped, twin turbo, nitros, sleeper.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Jerry
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:52PM
merc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nice car, i've been recently looking for one of
> those. or an old camero
Repeat after me...
It is spelled "C-a-m-a-r-o".
No soup for you!
-------------------------------------------------------
> nice car, i've been recently looking for one of
> those. or an old camero
Repeat after me...
It is spelled "C-a-m-a-r-o".
No soup for you!
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
More Complete
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:55PM
Problem with muscle cars is they only go straight. Most roads have a turn or two in them so I have never wanted one the way some of my friends did. Over the years they have gotten better. The newer Corvettes for instance can handle okay. That said, those old muscle cars are a lot of fun to work on and fast as shit off the line.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Hmm
()
Date: March 21, 2011 03:57PM
I was thinking about the new Camaro SS but not too sure about the interior and handling. I most def would lower it partly for looks but also for handling.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
VTEC Winner
()
Date: March 21, 2011 04:18PM
-
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
mopar
()
Date: March 22, 2011 07:28PM
1973 Dodge Challenger 340/4-barrel!!!
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
American Type R
()
Date: March 22, 2011 07:35PM
-
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
AUTOMOTIVE ATTROCITY
()
Date: March 22, 2011 08:10PM
JOKINGLY OR NOT, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE DRIVES THAT THING AROUND.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
HOMOBILE
()
Date: March 22, 2011 08:12PM
LOOKS LIKE A CANDY CANE FAG MOBILE.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Gonzo
()
Date: March 22, 2011 08:12PM
Hmm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking about the new Camaro SS but not too
> sure about the interior and handling. I most def
> would lower it partly for looks but also for
> handling.
I wanted to like the new Camaro, but that interior is just horrible. It's like sitting in a rowboat with no seat. My personal favorite of the modern musclecars is the Challenger. It's the slowest and most expensive, but it's freaking gorgeous and feels the most like a true old musclecar with the big size and relatively soft suspension (in R/T form)
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking about the new Camaro SS but not too
> sure about the interior and handling. I most def
> would lower it partly for looks but also for
> handling.
I wanted to like the new Camaro, but that interior is just horrible. It's like sitting in a rowboat with no seat. My personal favorite of the modern musclecars is the Challenger. It's the slowest and most expensive, but it's freaking gorgeous and feels the most like a true old musclecar with the big size and relatively soft suspension (in R/T form)
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
sumguy
()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:34PM
This is what I'm working for. I think it should handle those turns and honda with no problem. All for about 50k.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
mopar
()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:36PM
Go Challenger!! Even the V-6 is 305HP!!
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
fasterthenyou
()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:48PM
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
laskdj;asd
()
Date: March 22, 2011 09:55PM
fasterthenyou Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.americanwaytopfueler.com/
Cool...?
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.americanwaytopfueler.com/
Cool...?
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Weeeeeeee
()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:02PM
mopar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go Challenger!! Even the V-6 is 305HP!!
That's nothing special. Mustang has 305hp and Camaro has 312hp. Nice looking car though...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go Challenger!! Even the V-6 is 305HP!!
That's nothing special. Mustang has 305hp and Camaro has 312hp. Nice looking car though...
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
FREE-ADbot
()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:02PM
305 hp ?
THAT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THE PROJECTED DYNO NUMBERS FOR THE PENSTAR ENGINE
WAS AROUND 280. THAT'S A BIG NUMBER GAP TO HAVE AT THE LAST SECOND.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY INFLATED THOSE NUMBER WITH A LITTLE GM BOLOGNA.
BESIDES I MUCH RATHER HAVE THE LUXURIOUS RELIABILTY OF THE NEW
2011 ACURA RL. WITH IT'S 300-hp, 3.7-liter VTEC® V-6 engine
and BONUS Super Handling All-Wheel Drive.
STARTING $35,605 USD
http://www.acura.com
NOT EVEN THAT LONG BLUE DING-DONG LOOKING CAR ABOVE CAN TOUCH THIS
CARS ADVANCED HANDLING SYSTEM ALL WHILE GETTING 30mpg !
THAT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THE PROJECTED DYNO NUMBERS FOR THE PENSTAR ENGINE
WAS AROUND 280. THAT'S A BIG NUMBER GAP TO HAVE AT THE LAST SECOND.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY INFLATED THOSE NUMBER WITH A LITTLE GM BOLOGNA.
BESIDES I MUCH RATHER HAVE THE LUXURIOUS RELIABILTY OF THE NEW
2011 ACURA RL. WITH IT'S 300-hp, 3.7-liter VTEC® V-6 engine
and BONUS Super Handling All-Wheel Drive.
STARTING $35,605 USD
http://www.acura.com
NOT EVEN THAT LONG BLUE DING-DONG LOOKING CAR ABOVE CAN TOUCH THIS
CARS ADVANCED HANDLING SYSTEM ALL WHILE GETTING 30mpg !
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:08PM
I prefer my penis-mobile.
-
Attachments:
-
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:20PM
FREE-ADbot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BESIDES I MUCH RATHER HAVE THE LUXURIOUS
> RELIABILTY OF THE NEW
> 2011 ACURA RL. WITH IT'S 300-hp, 3.7-liter VTEC®
> V-6 engine
> and BONUS Super Handling All-Wheel Drive.
> STARTING $35,605 USD
> http://www.acura.com
>
> NOT EVEN THAT LONG BLUE DING-DONG LOOKING CAR
> ABOVE CAN TOUCH THIS
> CARS ADVANCED HANDLING SYSTEM ALL WHILE GETTING
> 30mpg !
2011 Acura RL gets 24 mpg hwy, starts at $47,200, and looks like something an old fart would drive... The current V6 Stangs have 305hp and get close to 30 mpg hwy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> BESIDES I MUCH RATHER HAVE THE LUXURIOUS
> RELIABILTY OF THE NEW
> 2011 ACURA RL. WITH IT'S 300-hp, 3.7-liter VTEC®
> V-6 engine
> and BONUS Super Handling All-Wheel Drive.
> STARTING $35,605 USD
> http://www.acura.com
>
> NOT EVEN THAT LONG BLUE DING-DONG LOOKING CAR
> ABOVE CAN TOUCH THIS
> CARS ADVANCED HANDLING SYSTEM ALL WHILE GETTING
> 30mpg !
2011 Acura RL gets 24 mpg hwy, starts at $47,200, and looks like something an old fart would drive... The current V6 Stangs have 305hp and get close to 30 mpg hwy.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
OOPSbot
()
Date: March 22, 2011 10:46PM
I MEANT TO WRITE THE "TL"
SPEAKING OF "PEE ON YOUR FACE", THAT SLOPPY-JOLLOPPY STANG WOULD
GET PISSED ON AND HAMMERED INTO THE GROUND ON THE SLALOM COURSE BY
THAT OLD MAN'S SUPER HANDLING ADVANCED ALL-WHEEL DRIVE SYSTEM THAT
THE 2012 ACURA TL & RL COME EQUIPED WITH.
STARTING @ ONLY 35,605 usd
http://www.acura.com
SPEAKING OF "PEE ON YOUR FACE", THAT SLOPPY-JOLLOPPY STANG WOULD
GET PISSED ON AND HAMMERED INTO THE GROUND ON THE SLALOM COURSE BY
THAT OLD MAN'S SUPER HANDLING ADVANCED ALL-WHEEL DRIVE SYSTEM THAT
THE 2012 ACURA TL & RL COME EQUIPED WITH.
STARTING @ ONLY 35,605 usd
http://www.acura.com
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Many Old Parts Are Reused
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:22PM
WELL WITH AN INTERIOR THAT LOOKS INCREDIBLY CHEAP, AND
A WILD UGLY CHEAP LOOKING GRANDPA-EXTERIOR TO MATCH,
I WOULD HOPE IT WOULDN'T DRAIN MY WALLET TOO MUCH.
ALTHOUGH I DO LIKE HOW THE TAILIGHTS LIGHT UP @ NIGHT TIME.
IF YOU DO DROP 22 GRAND ON ONE AND LIKE DRIVING IN THE FAST LANE,
GET USED TO SITTING IN THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE LANE.
A WILD UGLY CHEAP LOOKING GRANDPA-EXTERIOR TO MATCH,
I WOULD HOPE IT WOULDN'T DRAIN MY WALLET TOO MUCH.
ALTHOUGH I DO LIKE HOW THE TAILIGHTS LIGHT UP @ NIGHT TIME.
IF YOU DO DROP 22 GRAND ON ONE AND LIKE DRIVING IN THE FAST LANE,
GET USED TO SITTING IN THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE LANE.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:26PM
OOPSbot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I MEANT TO WRITE THE "TL"
>
> SPEAKING OF "PEE ON YOUR FACE", THAT
> SLOPPY-JOLLOPPY STANG WOULD
> GET PISSED ON AND HAMMERED INTO THE GROUND ON THE
> SLALOM COURSE BY
> THAT OLD MAN'S SUPER HANDLING ADVANCED ALL-WHEEL
> DRIVE SYSTEM THAT
> THE 2012 ACURA TL & RL COME EQUIPED WITH.
>
> STARTING @ ONLY 35,605 usd
> http://www.acura.com
Starting at ONLY $35,605? Acura's TL may display superior handling in certain situations but you sure as hell pay for it. Mustang V6 starts close to 22k and you get better gas milage + acceleration. Bottom line: you're comparing a $36,000 AWD luxury/sport sedan that utilizes complex technology to a much less expensive, simple, RWD sport coupe.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I MEANT TO WRITE THE "TL"
>
> SPEAKING OF "PEE ON YOUR FACE", THAT
> SLOPPY-JOLLOPPY STANG WOULD
> GET PISSED ON AND HAMMERED INTO THE GROUND ON THE
> SLALOM COURSE BY
> THAT OLD MAN'S SUPER HANDLING ADVANCED ALL-WHEEL
> DRIVE SYSTEM THAT
> THE 2012 ACURA TL & RL COME EQUIPED WITH.
>
> STARTING @ ONLY 35,605 usd
> http://www.acura.com
Starting at ONLY $35,605? Acura's TL may display superior handling in certain situations but you sure as hell pay for it. Mustang V6 starts close to 22k and you get better gas milage + acceleration. Bottom line: you're comparing a $36,000 AWD luxury/sport sedan that utilizes complex technology to a much less expensive, simple, RWD sport coupe.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:31PM
Many Old Parts Are Reused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF YOU DO DROP 22 GRAND ON ONE AND LIKE DRIVING IN
> THE FAST LANE,
> GET USED TO SITTING IN THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE
> LANE.
Have you ever owned one? How do you know that they are unreliable?
-------------------------------------------------------
> IF YOU DO DROP 22 GRAND ON ONE AND LIKE DRIVING IN
> THE FAST LANE,
> GET USED TO SITTING IN THE DEALERSHIP'S SERVICE
> LANE.
Have you ever owned one? How do you know that they are unreliable?
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
U = PISS4BRAINS
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:40PM
YOU GET BETTER GAS MILAGE THAN THE TL's 29 hwy ?
KEEP DREAMING.
YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
KEEP DREAMING.
FACTS :
2012 Dodge Challenger curb weight.... 3834 lbs
2012 Ford Mustang curb weight........ 3750 lbs
2012 Acura TL curb weight............ 3447 lbs
KEEP DREAMING.
YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
KEEP DREAMING.
FACTS :
2012 Dodge Challenger curb weight.... 3834 lbs
2012 Ford Mustang curb weight........ 3750 lbs
2012 Acura TL curb weight............ 3447 lbs
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:49PM
I have to agree with the AOL troll on this one. American pony cars are for straight line performance only, whereas European and Japanese cars provide a blend of speed and handling. Just look at the Mustang, it still uses a live rear axle. That was considered an old fashioned setup 30 years ago!
Also, the new Challenger and Camaro both put T rated tires on their base models, so enthusiasts can applaud the 300 or so horsepower in their $22k car, but what good is it when the manufacturer slaps on some tires that are rated only for 118 MPH? A four cylinder Corolla can do that speed.
Also, the new Challenger and Camaro both put T rated tires on their base models, so enthusiasts can applaud the 300 or so horsepower in their $22k car, but what good is it when the manufacturer slaps on some tires that are rated only for 118 MPH? A four cylinder Corolla can do that speed.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
U = PISS4BRAINS
()
Date: March 22, 2011 11:50PM
> "Have you ever owned one?"
HA !
GOOD ONE.
> "How do you know that they are unreliable?"
I HAVE A FRIEND THAT WORKS IN THE SERVICE LANE AT A CHRYSLER DEALERSHIP.
HE SAYS ALTHOUGH AMERICAN CARS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER OVER THE LAST DECADE,
THEY ARE STILL BEHIND THE JAP-CURVE IN RELIABILITY
-ESPECIALLY IF YOU DRIVE THEM HARD.
HE DRIVES AN OLD SCHOOL TOYOTA SUPRA BY THE WAY.
I MYSELF HAVE ALSO HAVE NOTICED ALOT OF THE OLDER STYLE CHARGERS
BROKEN DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I HAVE ALSO EVEN NOTICED
BRAND NEW ONES WITH LIGHTS OUT DUE TO THEM OBVIOUSLY USING CHEAP BULBS.
HA !
GOOD ONE.
> "How do you know that they are unreliable?"
I HAVE A FRIEND THAT WORKS IN THE SERVICE LANE AT A CHRYSLER DEALERSHIP.
HE SAYS ALTHOUGH AMERICAN CARS HAVE GOTTEN BETTER OVER THE LAST DECADE,
THEY ARE STILL BEHIND THE JAP-CURVE IN RELIABILITY
-ESPECIALLY IF YOU DRIVE THEM HARD.
HE DRIVES AN OLD SCHOOL TOYOTA SUPRA BY THE WAY.
I MYSELF HAVE ALSO HAVE NOTICED ALOT OF THE OLDER STYLE CHARGERS
BROKEN DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I HAVE ALSO EVEN NOTICED
BRAND NEW ONES WITH LIGHTS OUT DUE TO THEM OBVIOUSLY USING CHEAP BULBS.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:04AM
U = PISS4BRAINS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOU GET BETTER GAS MILAGE THAN THE TL's 29 hwy ?
> KEEP DREAMING.
Mustang V6 gets 29 hwy (manual) and 31 hwy (auto)
> YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND
> LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
> KEEP DREAMING.
Motor Trend tested the Mustang V6's 0-60 time as 5.1 seconds
Acura TL's 0-60 time is 5.6 seconds (manual) and 6.7 seconds (auto)
> FACTS :
>
> 2012 Dodge Challenger curb weight.... 3834 lbs
> 2012 Ford Mustang curb weight........ 3750 lbs
> 2012 Acura TL curb weight............ 3447 lbs
Mustang V6's curb weight is under 3,500 lbs. Maybe you were looking at the GT?
-------------------------------------------------------
> YOU GET BETTER GAS MILAGE THAN THE TL's 29 hwy ?
> KEEP DREAMING.
Mustang V6 gets 29 hwy (manual) and 31 hwy (auto)
> YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND
> LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
> KEEP DREAMING.
Motor Trend tested the Mustang V6's 0-60 time as 5.1 seconds
Acura TL's 0-60 time is 5.6 seconds (manual) and 6.7 seconds (auto)
> FACTS :
>
> 2012 Dodge Challenger curb weight.... 3834 lbs
> 2012 Ford Mustang curb weight........ 3750 lbs
> 2012 Acura TL curb weight............ 3447 lbs
Mustang V6's curb weight is under 3,500 lbs. Maybe you were looking at the GT?
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:21AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with the AOL troll on this one.
> American pony cars are for straight line
> performance only, whereas European and Japanese
> cars provide a blend of speed and handling. Just
> look at the Mustang, it still uses a live rear
> axle. That was considered an old fashioned setup
> 30 years ago!
>
>
> Also, the new Challenger and Camaro both put T
> rated tires on their base models, so enthusiasts
> can applaud the 300 or so horsepower in their $22k
> car, but what good is it when the manufacturer
> slaps on some tires that are rated only for 118
> MPH? A four cylinder Corolla can do that speed.
Explain this then...
Mustang GT vs BMW M3: Difference in their lap times was less than a tenth of a second and the M3 costs over 25k more.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with the AOL troll on this one.
> American pony cars are for straight line
> performance only, whereas European and Japanese
> cars provide a blend of speed and handling. Just
> look at the Mustang, it still uses a live rear
> axle. That was considered an old fashioned setup
> 30 years ago!
>
>
> Also, the new Challenger and Camaro both put T
> rated tires on their base models, so enthusiasts
> can applaud the 300 or so horsepower in their $22k
> car, but what good is it when the manufacturer
> slaps on some tires that are rated only for 118
> MPH? A four cylinder Corolla can do that speed.
Explain this then...
Mustang GT vs BMW M3: Difference in their lap times was less than a tenth of a second and the M3 costs over 25k more.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Ahmed.
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:23AM
I dont get the point of dropping 50k+ on a fast car. Wanna go fast? get a bike!!!> Cool so you dropped 60k on your corvette but my 10k bike will slap you silly in first gear, I mean whats the fucking point
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:29AM
Ahmed. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont get the point of dropping 50k+ on a fast
> car. Wanna go fast? get a bike!!!> Cool so you
> dropped 60k on your corvette but my 10k bike will
> slap you silly in first gear, I mean whats the
> fucking point
I can't afford to pay insurance on a car and a bike at the same time. I would love to own a Gixxer at some point though...
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont get the point of dropping 50k+ on a fast
> car. Wanna go fast? get a bike!!!> Cool so you
> dropped 60k on your corvette but my 10k bike will
> slap you silly in first gear, I mean whats the
> fucking point
I can't afford to pay insurance on a car and a bike at the same time. I would love to own a Gixxer at some point though...
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:37AM
LOL @ 7:23 "whoa you try that in a Mustang and you'll be off the track." Reconfirming that the Mustang is for straight line performance, and this video showed that.
Also, it would be interesting to see how the two compare at 100+mph speeds on a straight track, guarantee you the Mustang is geared strictly for 0-60 times.
Also, it would be interesting to see how the two compare at 100+mph speeds on a straight track, guarantee you the Mustang is geared strictly for 0-60 times.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Ahmed.
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:38AM
PeeOnYourFace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahmed. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont get the point of dropping 50k+ on a fast
> > car. Wanna go fast? get a bike!!!> Cool so you
> > dropped 60k on your corvette but my 10k bike
> will
> > slap you silly in first gear, I mean whats the
> > fucking point
>
> I can't afford to pay insurance on a car and a
> bike at the same time. I would love to own a
> Gixxer at some point though...
Shop around, get USAA if you can.
my 0-60 is as fast as I can shift gears.....literally
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahmed. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont get the point of dropping 50k+ on a fast
> > car. Wanna go fast? get a bike!!!> Cool so you
> > dropped 60k on your corvette but my 10k bike
> will
> > slap you silly in first gear, I mean whats the
> > fucking point
>
> I can't afford to pay insurance on a car and a
> bike at the same time. I would love to own a
> Gixxer at some point though...
Shop around, get USAA if you can.
my 0-60 is as fast as I can shift gears.....literally
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:39AM
Yo Ahmed, what do you think about the Can Am?
-
Attachments:
-
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Ahmed.
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:42AM
superman gay! I dont understand why you even need a motorcycle endorsement for one of of those things
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:54AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL @ 7:23 "whoa you try that in a Mustang and
> you'll be off the track." Reconfirming that the
> Mustang is for straight line performance, and this
> video showed that.
>
> Also, it would be interesting to see how the two
> compare at 100+mph speeds on a straight track,
> guarantee you the Mustang is geared strictly for
> 0-60 times.
If the Mustang was strictly for "straight line performance" it would not have been able to achieve a nearly identical lap time to the M3.
Why is it that a car that costs over 25k more and utilizes modern technology couldn't stomp the Stang with it's "dinosaur live-rear-axle"?
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL @ 7:23 "whoa you try that in a Mustang and
> you'll be off the track." Reconfirming that the
> Mustang is for straight line performance, and this
> video showed that.
>
> Also, it would be interesting to see how the two
> compare at 100+mph speeds on a straight track,
> guarantee you the Mustang is geared strictly for
> 0-60 times.
If the Mustang was strictly for "straight line performance" it would not have been able to achieve a nearly identical lap time to the M3.
Why is it that a car that costs over 25k more and utilizes modern technology couldn't stomp the Stang with it's "dinosaur live-rear-axle"?
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:02AM
PeeOnYourFace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the Mustang was strictly for "straight line
> performance" it would not have been able to
> achieve a nearly identical lap time to the M3.
>
> Why is it that a car that costs over 25k more and
> utilizes modern technology couldn't stomp the
> Stang with it's "dinosaur live-rear-axle"?
Do you really think these results could be reproduced in every situation? Clearly, the Mustang had a torque advantage that pulled it through, and this track had quite a few opportunities for the straight line performer to shine.
Also, that $25k extra cost of the BMW isn't solely because of performance upgrades...build quality, interior features, etc. factor in.
These cars are in very different categories, and aimed at two very different buyers. The Mustang is about performance on a budget, the BMW M3 is about a luxury sedan/coupe that has been upgraded with performance modifications.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If the Mustang was strictly for "straight line
> performance" it would not have been able to
> achieve a nearly identical lap time to the M3.
>
> Why is it that a car that costs over 25k more and
> utilizes modern technology couldn't stomp the
> Stang with it's "dinosaur live-rear-axle"?
Do you really think these results could be reproduced in every situation? Clearly, the Mustang had a torque advantage that pulled it through, and this track had quite a few opportunities for the straight line performer to shine.
Also, that $25k extra cost of the BMW isn't solely because of performance upgrades...build quality, interior features, etc. factor in.
These cars are in very different categories, and aimed at two very different buyers. The Mustang is about performance on a budget, the BMW M3 is about a luxury sedan/coupe that has been upgraded with performance modifications.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
U = PISS4BRAINS
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:18AM
I THINK THE SH-AWD SLOWS IT DOWN A TAD, BUT THE PHENOMENAL
DRIVE QUALITY FAR OUTWIEGHS A COUPLE TENTHS OF A SECOND.
The 2011 model ONLY HAD **280- horsepower V6 in the FWD and does
0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec,
est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg
DRIVE QUALITY FAR OUTWIEGHS A COUPLE TENTHS OF A SECOND.
The 2011 model ONLY HAD **280- horsepower V6 in the FWD and does
0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec,
est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:25AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you really think these results could be
> reproduced in every situation? Clearly, the
> Mustang had a torque advantage that pulled it
> through, and this track had quite a few
> opportunities for the straight line performer to
> shine.
Because of their almost identical test results, it would most likely be a driver's race in repeated evaluations. So you're implying that the Mustang had an unfair advantage due to an abundance of straights on the track? There were plenty of curves as well for the M3 to shine.
> Also, that $25k extra cost of the BMW isn't solely
> because of performance upgrades...build quality,
> interior features, etc. factor in.
I guess my main point was the Mustang's live-rear-axle vs the modern IRS on the M3. If the live axle is such a hindrance to the Stang's handling performance, then why was it able to keep up on the track?
> These cars are in very different categories, and
> aimed at two very different buyers. The Mustang is
> about performance on a budget, the BMW M3 is about
> a luxury sedan/coupe that has been upgraded with
> performance modifications.
Exactly. Why was AOL troll comparing his 36k Acura to a 22k Mustang? It's a ridiculous comparison...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you really think these results could be
> reproduced in every situation? Clearly, the
> Mustang had a torque advantage that pulled it
> through, and this track had quite a few
> opportunities for the straight line performer to
> shine.
Because of their almost identical test results, it would most likely be a driver's race in repeated evaluations. So you're implying that the Mustang had an unfair advantage due to an abundance of straights on the track? There were plenty of curves as well for the M3 to shine.
> Also, that $25k extra cost of the BMW isn't solely
> because of performance upgrades...build quality,
> interior features, etc. factor in.
I guess my main point was the Mustang's live-rear-axle vs the modern IRS on the M3. If the live axle is such a hindrance to the Stang's handling performance, then why was it able to keep up on the track?
> These cars are in very different categories, and
> aimed at two very different buyers. The Mustang is
> about performance on a budget, the BMW M3 is about
> a luxury sedan/coupe that has been upgraded with
> performance modifications.
Exactly. Why was AOL troll comparing his 36k Acura to a 22k Mustang? It's a ridiculous comparison...
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:34AM
U = PISS4BRAINS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I THINK THE SH-AWD SLOWS IT DOWN A TAD, BUT THE
> PHENOMENAL
> DRIVE QUALITY FAR OUTWIEGHS A COUPLE TENTHS OF A
> SECOND.
I win :-)
> The 2011 model ONLY HAD **280- horsepower V6 in
> the FWD and does
> 0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec,
> est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg
Check again: http://www.edmunds.com/acura/tl/2011/
Scroll down to "Powertrains and Performance".
-------------------------------------------------------
> I THINK THE SH-AWD SLOWS IT DOWN A TAD, BUT THE
> PHENOMENAL
> DRIVE QUALITY FAR OUTWIEGHS A COUPLE TENTHS OF A
> SECOND.
I win :-)
> The 2011 model ONLY HAD **280- horsepower V6 in
> the FWD and does
> 0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec,
> est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg
Check again: http://www.edmunds.com/acura/tl/2011/
Scroll down to "Powertrains and Performance".
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
U = PISS4BRAINS
()
Date: March 23, 2011 02:18AM
> "I win :-)"
SURE YOU DO, IF DRIVING AN UGLY UN-RELIABLE AMERICAN MADE CHEAP PIECE OF CRAP
THAT IS 1/10 OF A SECOND FASTER ON A STRAIGHT AWAY IS CONSIDERED
WINNING IN YOUR BOOK.
> "Check again: http://www.edmunds.com/acura/tl/2011/
> Scroll down to "Powertrains and Performance".
YEAH I ALWAYS HAVE THOUGHT THAT EDMUNDS SUCKS ASS.
HERE, READ IT AND WEEP :
http://www.acuraworld.com/forums/f157/2012-acura-tl-reviews-99405/
Mar 9, 2011 … 2012 Acura TL An AW Flash Drive What is it? … 0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec, est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg (mfr)
SURE YOU DO, IF DRIVING AN UGLY UN-RELIABLE AMERICAN MADE CHEAP PIECE OF CRAP
THAT IS 1/10 OF A SECOND FASTER ON A STRAIGHT AWAY IS CONSIDERED
WINNING IN YOUR BOOK.
> "Check again: http://www.edmunds.com/acura/tl/2011/
> Scroll down to "Powertrains and Performance".
YEAH I ALWAYS HAVE THOUGHT THAT EDMUNDS SUCKS ASS.
HERE, READ IT AND WEEP :
http://www.acuraworld.com/forums/f157/2012-acura-tl-reviews-99405/
Mar 9, 2011 … 2012 Acura TL An AW Flash Drive What is it? … 0-60 MPH: 5.2 sec, est. Fuel Economy: 29 mpg (mfr)
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
NOTE :
()
Date: March 23, 2011 02:20AM
(mfr) IS NOT AN ACRONYM FOR MOTHER-FUCKING-RETARD
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Navigation-Cruise-HeatedLeather-BackupCam-XM
()
Date: March 23, 2011 09:16AM
> "Exactly. Why was AOL troll comparing his 36k Acura to a 22k Mustang?
> It's a ridiculous comparison..."
YOU'RE RIGHT.
ONE IS A CHEAP 22,000 DOLLAR PIECE OF CRAP, AND THE OTHER
IS A HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE FOUR-DOOR-LUXURY-SPORT-SEDAN.
> It's a ridiculous comparison..."
YOU'RE RIGHT.
ONE IS A CHEAP 22,000 DOLLAR PIECE OF CRAP, AND THE OTHER
IS A HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE FOUR-DOOR-LUXURY-SPORT-SEDAN.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: March 23, 2011 09:37AM
When I was in high school I drove one of these for a while...
...And in my 20s, I had one of these...
...I can still smell the gasoline, vinyl and metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
...And in my 20s, I had one of these...
...I can still smell the gasoline, vinyl and metal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
DH
()
Date: March 23, 2011 09:58AM
1969 SS Nova
When times were Good!
Attachments:
When times were Good!
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 11:37AM
Navigation-Cruise-HeatedLeather-BackupCam-XM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Exactly. Why was AOL troll comparing his 36k
> Acura to a 22k Mustang?
> > It's a ridiculous comparison..."
>
> YOU'RE RIGHT.
> ONE IS A CHEAP 22,000 DOLLAR PIECE OF CRAP, AND
> THE OTHER
> IS A HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE
> FOUR-DOOR-LUXURY-SPORT-SEDAN.
If Mustangs are pieces of crap then why do they continue to sell so well? Why is it able to match your Acura in performance and fuel economy? Seems to me that you're jumping on the "American cars suck" bandwagon. Keep in mind that we've been comparing the V6 Stang to your Acura. The V8 would blow it's doors off and still cost less ($29,145). The Acura is a nice car but to say that it is "better"...? That really is relative. It depends on what you want out of the car.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Exactly. Why was AOL troll comparing his 36k
> Acura to a 22k Mustang?
> > It's a ridiculous comparison..."
>
> YOU'RE RIGHT.
> ONE IS A CHEAP 22,000 DOLLAR PIECE OF CRAP, AND
> THE OTHER
> IS A HIGH QUALITY RELIABLE
> FOUR-DOOR-LUXURY-SPORT-SEDAN.
If Mustangs are pieces of crap then why do they continue to sell so well? Why is it able to match your Acura in performance and fuel economy? Seems to me that you're jumping on the "American cars suck" bandwagon. Keep in mind that we've been comparing the V6 Stang to your Acura. The V8 would blow it's doors off and still cost less ($29,145). The Acura is a nice car but to say that it is "better"...? That really is relative. It depends on what you want out of the car.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
ACURA NSX
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:02PM
> "If Mustangs are pieces of crap then why do they continue to sell so well?
AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS ?
JUST KIDDING, DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS I GUESS.
> "Why is it able to match your Acura in performance and fuel economy?
BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME SIZE V6 ENGINE AND RELATIVELY THE SAME WEIGHT.
> "Seems to me that you're jumping on the "American cars suck" bandwagon.
I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
> "Keep in mind that we've been comparing the V6 Stang to your Acura.
SEEMS FAIR TO ME EVEN THOUGH I AM LUGGING AROUND LEATHER SEATS,
TWO EXTRA DOORS, MORE WINDOW GLASS, AND A BIGGER CAR IN GENERAL.
WHAT BOGGLES MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT A 4 DOOR SEDAN WEIGHTS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOUR AMERICAN 2 DOOR SPORTS CAR.
> "The V8 would blow it's doors off and still cost less ($29,145).
THE V8 WOULD DO EVEN POORER ON THE SLALOM COURSE DUE TO IT'S
POORLY BALLANCED FRONT END HEAVY-LARGER MOTOR.
ALTHOUGH ACURA MAKES THE AWESOMELY SCULPTED NSX FOR THE ULTIMATE IN
A LUXURY SPORTS CAR EXPERIENCE, AND NISSAN MAKES A GT-R THAT GOES 0-60
IN A REPORTED 2.7 SECONDS. THE 2012 Nissan GT-R IS POWERED BY A
3.8L TWIN-TURBO V6 THAT PRODUCES 530-hp and 488 lb-ft OF TORQUE.
> "The Acura is a nice car but to say that it is "better"...?
> That really is relative."
I LIKE IT BETTER, MAINLY BECAUSE I LIKE 4 DOORS AND THE LUXURIOUS AMMENITIES.
> "It depends on what you want out of the car."
INDEED.
AMERICANS ARE IDIOTS ?
JUST KIDDING, DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS I GUESS.
> "Why is it able to match your Acura in performance and fuel economy?
BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME SIZE V6 ENGINE AND RELATIVELY THE SAME WEIGHT.
> "Seems to me that you're jumping on the "American cars suck" bandwagon.
I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
> "Keep in mind that we've been comparing the V6 Stang to your Acura.
SEEMS FAIR TO ME EVEN THOUGH I AM LUGGING AROUND LEATHER SEATS,
TWO EXTRA DOORS, MORE WINDOW GLASS, AND A BIGGER CAR IN GENERAL.
WHAT BOGGLES MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT A 4 DOOR SEDAN WEIGHTS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOUR AMERICAN 2 DOOR SPORTS CAR.
> "The V8 would blow it's doors off and still cost less ($29,145).
THE V8 WOULD DO EVEN POORER ON THE SLALOM COURSE DUE TO IT'S
POORLY BALLANCED FRONT END HEAVY-LARGER MOTOR.
ALTHOUGH ACURA MAKES THE AWESOMELY SCULPTED NSX FOR THE ULTIMATE IN
A LUXURY SPORTS CAR EXPERIENCE, AND NISSAN MAKES A GT-R THAT GOES 0-60
IN A REPORTED 2.7 SECONDS. THE 2012 Nissan GT-R IS POWERED BY A
3.8L TWIN-TURBO V6 THAT PRODUCES 530-hp and 488 lb-ft OF TORQUE.
> "The Acura is a nice car but to say that it is "better"...?
> That really is relative."
I LIKE IT BETTER, MAINLY BECAUSE I LIKE 4 DOORS AND THE LUXURIOUS AMMENITIES.
> "It depends on what you want out of the car."
INDEED.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
CONTRODICKbot
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:34PM
ACURA NSX Wrote:
> > "Seems to me that you're jumping on the
> "American cars suck" bandwagon.
>
> I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST
> PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
Then why do you drive a chevy then smart guy??
> > "Seems to me that you're jumping on the
> "American cars suck" bandwagon.
>
> I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST
> PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
Then why do you drive a chevy then smart guy??
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:40PM
ACURA NSX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME SIZE V6 ENGINE AND
> RELATIVELY THE SAME WEIGHT.
Remember that claim you made last night? I see some inconsistency...
"YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
KEEP DREAMING."
> I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST
> PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. What Ford car did you own?
> SEEMS FAIR TO ME EVEN THOUGH I AM LUGGING AROUND
> LEATHER SEATS,
> TWO EXTRA DOORS, MORE WINDOW GLASS, AND A BIGGER
> CAR IN GENERAL.
> WHAT BOGGLES MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT A 4 DOOR
> SEDAN WEIGHTS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOUR AMERICAN 2
> DOOR SPORTS CAR.
Yeah, who knows...
> THE V8 WOULD DO EVEN POORER ON THE SLALOM COURSE
> DUE TO IT'S
> POORLY BALLANCED FRONT END HEAVY-LARGER MOTOR.
Meh, I could care less about stalom scores. During my daily driving I never spend any time lurching around in ridiculous zig-zagging patterns.
> ALTHOUGH ACURA MAKES THE AWESOMELY SCULPTED NSX
> FOR THE ULTIMATE IN
> A LUXURY SPORTS CAR EXPERIENCE, AND NISSAN MAKES A
> GT-R THAT GOES 0-60
> IN A REPORTED 2.7 SECONDS. THE 2012 Nissan GT-R IS
> POWERED BY A
> 3.8L TWIN-TURBO V6 THAT PRODUCES 530-hp and 488
> lb-ft OF TORQUE.
And they also cost a fuck-load...
> I LIKE IT BETTER, MAINLY BECAUSE I LIKE 4 DOORS
> AND THE LUXURIOUS AMMENITIES.
And I like inexpensive performance. We can agree to disagree. Acura makes some nice cars though.
> INDEED.
Word
-------------------------------------------------------
> BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME SIZE V6 ENGINE AND
> RELATIVELY THE SAME WEIGHT.
Remember that claim you made last night? I see some inconsistency...
"YOU GET BETTER ACCELERATION WITH A HEAVIER CAR AND LESS HP to WEIGHT RATIO ?
KEEP DREAMING."
> I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY LAST
> PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. What Ford car did you own?
> SEEMS FAIR TO ME EVEN THOUGH I AM LUGGING AROUND
> LEATHER SEATS,
> TWO EXTRA DOORS, MORE WINDOW GLASS, AND A BIGGER
> CAR IN GENERAL.
> WHAT BOGGLES MY MIND IS THE FACT THAT A 4 DOOR
> SEDAN WEIGHTS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOUR AMERICAN 2
> DOOR SPORTS CAR.
Yeah, who knows...
> THE V8 WOULD DO EVEN POORER ON THE SLALOM COURSE
> DUE TO IT'S
> POORLY BALLANCED FRONT END HEAVY-LARGER MOTOR.
Meh, I could care less about stalom scores. During my daily driving I never spend any time lurching around in ridiculous zig-zagging patterns.
> ALTHOUGH ACURA MAKES THE AWESOMELY SCULPTED NSX
> FOR THE ULTIMATE IN
> A LUXURY SPORTS CAR EXPERIENCE, AND NISSAN MAKES A
> GT-R THAT GOES 0-60
> IN A REPORTED 2.7 SECONDS. THE 2012 Nissan GT-R IS
> POWERED BY A
> 3.8L TWIN-TURBO V6 THAT PRODUCES 530-hp and 488
> lb-ft OF TORQUE.
And they also cost a fuck-load...
> I LIKE IT BETTER, MAINLY BECAUSE I LIKE 4 DOORS
> AND THE LUXURIOUS AMMENITIES.
And I like inexpensive performance. We can agree to disagree. Acura makes some nice cars though.
> INDEED.
Word
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:43PM
CONTRODICKbot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ACURA NSX Wrote:
> > > "Seems to me that you're jumping on the
> > "American cars suck" bandwagon.
> >
> > I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY
> LAST
> > PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> > ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
>
> Then why do you drive a chevy then smart guy??
This guy is NOT me by the way...
-------------------------------------------------------
> ACURA NSX Wrote:
> > > "Seems to me that you're jumping on the
> > "American cars suck" bandwagon.
> >
> > I HAVE BEEN ON THAT BANDWAGON SINCE I SOLD MY
> LAST
> > PLANNED-OBSOLETION-FORD PRODUCT WITH AN ANEMIC
> > ENGINE AND EXTREMELY SOFT TRANSMISSION.
>
> Then why do you drive a chevy then smart guy??
This guy is NOT me by the way...
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
GETOFFMUHBALLZbot
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:48PM
> "Then why do you drive a chevy then smart guy??"
YOU'RE LIKE MY LITTLE NUT RIDING BITCH AREN'T YOU ?
WHY ?
BECAUSE IT IS *BIG* AND FITS THE ENTIRE FAMILY WITH PLENTY
OF EXTRA SPACE FOR GROCERIES.
YOU'RE LIKE MY LITTLE NUT RIDING BITCH AREN'T YOU ?
WHY ?
BECAUSE IT IS *BIG* AND FITS THE ENTIRE FAMILY WITH PLENTY
OF EXTRA SPACE FOR GROCERIES.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
FAGbot
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:53PM
GETOFFMUHBALLZbot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Then why do you drive a chevy then smart
> guy??"
>
> YOU'RE LIKE MY LITTLE NUT RIDING BITCH AREN'T YOU
> ?
> WHY ?
> BECAUSE IT IS *BIG* AND FITS THE ENTIRE FAMILY
> WITH PLENTY
> OF EXTRA SPACE FOR GROCERIES.
Okay so you think american cars suck and you drive one.. haha. and you're a fag.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Then why do you drive a chevy then smart
> guy??"
>
> YOU'RE LIKE MY LITTLE NUT RIDING BITCH AREN'T YOU
> ?
> WHY ?
> BECAUSE IT IS *BIG* AND FITS THE ENTIRE FAMILY
> WITH PLENTY
> OF EXTRA SPACE FOR GROCERIES.
Okay so you think american cars suck and you drive one.. haha. and you're a fag.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
BUCKET-O-BOLTS
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:54PM
> "What Ford car did you own?"
YOU READY ?
A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
YOU READY ?
A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
U = LIMP WRISTED
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:57PM
> "Okay so you think american cars suck and you drive one.. haha."
WRONG, I DRIVE AN AMERICAN MADE TRUCK.
> "and you're a fag."
WRONG AGAIN, YA DUMBASS SISSY-BOY.
WRONG, I DRIVE AN AMERICAN MADE TRUCK.
> "and you're a fag."
WRONG AGAIN, YA DUMBASS SISSY-BOY.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
WRONGbot
()
Date: March 23, 2011 12:58PM
BUCKET-O-BOLTS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "What Ford car did you own?"
>
> YOU READY ?
> A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
Wrong buddy,never owned a ford. I drive a honda. Had a toyota,infiniti, and the first car in the thread is mine.
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "What Ford car did you own?"
>
> YOU READY ?
> A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
Wrong buddy,never owned a ford. I drive a honda. Had a toyota,infiniti, and the first car in the thread is mine.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:05PM
BUCKET-O-BOLTS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "What Ford car did you own?"
>
> YOU READY ?
> A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
Ewww I hate those haha. Ugly as fuck...
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "What Ford car did you own?"
>
> YOU READY ?
> A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
Ewww I hate those haha. Ugly as fuck...
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
SNIFFLES
()
Date: March 23, 2011 01:24PM
> "Ewww I hate those haha.
> Ugly as fuck..."
I USED TO CALL IT A ROLLING KLEENEX BOX.
> Ugly as fuck..."
I USED TO CALL IT A ROLLING KLEENEX BOX.
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
PeeOnYourFace
()
Date: March 23, 2011 02:31PM
SNIFFLES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Ewww I hate those haha.
> > Ugly as fuck..."
>
> I USED TO CALL IT A ROLLING KLEENEX BOX.
Shit-box 80's Mustang leveled up! It's evolving...
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > "Ewww I hate those haha.
> > Ugly as fuck..."
>
> I USED TO CALL IT A ROLLING KLEENEX BOX.
Shit-box 80's Mustang leveled up! It's evolving...
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Ahmed.
()
Date: March 23, 2011 10:29PM
PeeOnYourFace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BUCKET-O-BOLTS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > "What Ford car did you own?"
> >
> > YOU READY ?
> > A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
>
> Ewww I hate those haha. Ugly as fuck...
The hatch and convertible sucks, the coupe is hot. They are fairly light and have a lot of potential. I wouldnt call them ugly
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BUCKET-O-BOLTS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > "What Ford car did you own?"
> >
> > YOU READY ?
> > A LATE 80's BOX STYLE 5.0 MUSTANG.
>
> Ewww I hate those haha. Ugly as fuck...
The hatch and convertible sucks, the coupe is hot. They are fairly light and have a lot of potential. I wouldnt call them ugly
Attachments:
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
Pinhead the Cenobite
()
Date: March 23, 2011 10:47PM
-----------------------------------------------
"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"
Re: Muscle cars
Posted by:
poor man
()
Date: March 25, 2011 10:45PM
I had one of these it's a poor mans mustang lite and fast.
Attachments:
Attachments: