Beautiful Car

ha pwned. And yes anarchy, the mroe you talk, the more you sound like you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

Not only would a stock CRX NEVER put out 160whp, it was also pretty old. And I don't know of too many '88 CRX that are in very good shape, without being modded or swapped. Engine from 88 is gonna be so tired, I would bet money that any STOCK 88 CRX isn't going to pull what the manufacture even lists. let alone, 160 at the wheels. give me a break.

And also, why the FUCK would a car ever have more HP than listed by the factory. Why waiste money and materials to build a more powerful car, and then hide it's power and lie to people. If anything the companies blow up their numbers bigger than they actually are.
 
sorry bud..... palin old e36's like yours get OWNED on the daily by a 16v vw's, "don't hate me, its science"
 
there is truth in what MALONE said about companies listing it a little lower, but when you are running on a dyno, NEVER. Companies list hp at the flywheel, before it is transfered through the drivetrain. the general rule is that with FWD cars, you lose 18% of the flywheel horsepower when comparing it to what you would find on a dyno. the only possible way a CRX could have anywhere near that much hp is if it was a JDM release which would of meant it has a b16 motor. That would be a dual dohc vtec motor as opposed to the d16 soch vtec motor or d15 soch non-vtec motor that were released stateside
 
eh theyre ok i guess :) i think i am like the only mustang fanatic on the site though. if he had been talking about lexus' or something i wouldnt have had so much to day.

and i agree with brodeo. if the crx has a b16 in it then those numbers would be more realistic. and the b16 is a very popular motor to swap into crx's. because they are such ridiculously light cars get them near 200 hp and they are actually very quick. but if your refering to a non imported completely stock crx youd be lucky to squeeze 100hp out the wheels.
 
OH YEA? OH YEA?

Well I drive a 1995 DODGE NEON. Stock, it goes 120 on the spedometer... I got it up to 90 once.
 
my car is faster then a VR6 GTI. maybe not a new one, but 1998 model year. thats just science. modified is a different story. although it depends on the degree of modification for both cars of course.
 
How about from now on, we dont have car threads on here, Its just too frustrating to listen to little kids spit out useless LIES and nonsense about cars, after constantly pointing out the fact that there wrong.
 
Ok a list of my favorites

Saab AeroX Concept - Probably won't be released but i can dream

Imagen_2_-098-copy.jpg


Ascari KZ-1

5_Ascari_KZ1_2405.jpg


Aston Vanquish V12

Aston%20Martin%20Vanquish%20V12%20S%202.jpg


Ferrari Superamerica

FerrariSuperamericaSide.jpg


Jag ALC - I admit i love the way this car looks until im in Fort Lauderdale and see some 90 year old bag driving it...

2005-Jaguar-Advanced-Lightweight-Coupe-Concept-S-1280x960.htm


Morgan Aero 8 - Once again going out on a limb with this one but i find it remarkable looking

Morgan-Aero-8-City-Night-1024x768.htm
 
you are the one who has been quite clearly owned in this thread. its a fact, a VR6 is .1 seconds slower 0-60 then my E36. stock, that is. and never the less, even if it is faster, my E36 have better handleing and is rear wheel drive, making it a better car.
 
upgrades are a totally different issue then stock. if I did something similar to my car, it would still blow that VW out of the water. there is always potential. It is what is stock, and/or with similar modification that counts when in compairson.
 
haha hatter

alice26b.gif


oh btw my car has the STi johnson rod, some aftermarket power bands, and speed holes... I threw that thing on the dyno and you wouldn't believe the results, PM me for the plot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top