Celica GT-S VS 1994 GT mustang - Page 3
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

This is a discussion on Celica GT-S VS 1994 GT mustang within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally posted by The Cyndicate There is NO TT NSX. You are full of crap. With the valve design of ...

  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    62
    Originally posted by The Cyndicate
    There is NO TT NSX. You are full of crap. With the valve design of that car, a turbo is almost useless. An engine swap with what?! Its a mid engine HONDA! WTF are you going to put in it?! Its just a BS lie some civic driving, "Fast and Furious" kid said to impress people.

    I have a TICKET from the gatlinburg police department for outrunning a Celeca GTS and a Chevy Cav w/nos with my Nissan Minivan at 110 MPH.

    I hate Mustangs, but this is a STUPID post.
    bro im sorry to bust your bubble but ive seen the NSX. This kids dad makes a lot of money being one of the best doctors in oregon. If the guy said he dropped in an engine I believe him. He doesnt have to brag. He has a new M3 and 3 other cars which I haven't seen and neither has his son although one of em is supposed to be a collectors edition e-class jag. Oh yeah, and a ferrari 360 spyder.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Originally posted by STiguy
    i just looked it up, a 94 mustang GT with a manuel transmission runs a 15.2 in the quarter and a 2002 Celica GT-S runs a 15.6 with a manuel transmission, if u ask me its a drivers race.
    yes, but like i said several times before... the gts is one of those low torque high reving cars that needs to be driven properly to attain its best times just like type R, gsr, rsx-s.
    mid 15's is a mag time, and i know several people that run high 14's with that car stock. 14's are quite common with it, just check times at a celica board. the mustang is easier to race than the celica, but even 15.2 is a little high, more than likely a 14.9-15.1

    MIND YOU.. MY NUMBERS ARE FROM REAL EXPERIENCES

    but yes, stock for stock it is a bit of drivers race. the shorter the race, the better chance the stang has to win.... the higher the speeds, the more the celica will pull.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  4. #33
    Registered User StoplightWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,364
    Originally posted by ilivas
    those old mustangs are slow in stock form. I beat my buddy's 96 mustang gt auto in my dad's 98 isuzu trooper.
    that is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

    I hope you were joking.
    2003 SRT-4

  5. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    No, I'm dead serious. That really happened. We raced from 0 to about 65.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  6. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    61
    I know the valve design of the car, it can not produce ANY power with twin turbos. It just was not done.

    Now if he swapped engines like he claimed, with another engine, it might be true, but its a MID ENGINE HONDA, what engine would be swapped?

  7. #36
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Originally posted by ilivas
    No, I'm dead serious. That really happened. We raced from 0 to about 65.
    i am not saying you are a liar, but stoplightwarrior is right.. thats rediculous. that was a total fluke. although the 96 auto GT was slow as ballz it would not USUALLY lose to a trooper. i dont know much about the trooper, but i could imagine it would run anything better than high 16's or something.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  8. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    It's certainly not fast. The trooper only ran a 7.9-8.3 sec 0-60 on the g-tech pro. The mustang was also a convertable which should be a little slower than the coupe. He had one more passenger than me. Honest to God, it happened.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  9. #38
    Registered User DTR rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chi-town, IL
    Posts
    27,076
    Originally posted by ilivas
    It's certainly not fast. It only ran a high 7 sec 0-60 on the g-tech pro. The mustang was also a convertable which should be a little slower than the coupe. He had one more passenger than me. Honest to God, it happened.
    i dont doubt that it happened. stanger things have happened. i am just saying that on average it wont usually happen.
    but an auto conv mustang with that extra passenger makes it more believable. that can only be good for low 16's at best.
    Just call me Clark Kent
    ---------------------------------------
    Offical Body Guard for the Bugeye Mafia.

  10. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    Originally posted by The Cyndicate
    I know the valve design of the car, it can not produce ANY power with twin turbos. It just was not done.

    Now if he swapped engines like he claimed, with another engine, it might be true, but its a MID ENGINE HONDA, what engine would be swapped?
    Ferrari motor maybe? or something else mid-engined.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  11. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    Originally posted by DTR maxima
    i dont doubt that it happened. stanger things have happened. i am just saying that on average it wont usually happen.
    but an auto conv mustang with that extra passenger makes it more believable. that can only be good for low 16's at best.
    That trooper had a freakishly strong first gear too. I guess it's extremely torquey for towing stuff. MAybe he would of passed me if we went for the whole quarter, but it may have been clost to a quarter cuz the trooper probably doesn't trap too much more than 70 mph.
    Last edited by ilivas; 04-15-2004 at 09:59 PM.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  12. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    61
    If you put a Ferrari engine in an NSX, it would have to be matched with a Ferrari tranny as well. MOST Ferrari mid engines are 12(TWELVE) Cyl. How in the **** is that going to fit in an NSX? You obviously havent owned, built, or seen much of a NSX. I am not trying to insult you, but I have built them, ordered them, drove them, lived with them, and I know them. A supercharger? That would work. Nos? That would work. Not a turbo, it dont work. Engines dont fit in it, and I know this for a fact. I would take a MAJOR overhaul that would cost MORE then a brand new Ferrari. Why would you do that?

    You can get a twin kit for a NSX, it IS possible, but they dont make hardly ANY HP, and they dont spool that well, even for a Twin. I was playing Socom II tonight, and this guy come in, with Civic something as his name. He kept claiming he had a 600 HP Honda Civic with a Type R Engine in his car. I told him to give me an address and I would piss on him with my minivan. He wouldnt do it, they are ALL liars, so I shot him in the ****ing head over and over until he left, GOD that felt GOOD!

    I am sorry if I came across harse, but I just dont believe in internet BS I read. Doctors are NORMALLY logical, and would spend the money on a NSX, when they could own a NEW Ferrari. Why would he be racing with a CELICA? He claims to have access to the NSX. Wouldnt you just take out the big dog if someone is talking SO much ****? Put two and two together, it ALWAYS equals FOUR!

    Peace

  13. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    Please explain in detail why a turbo won't make power on an nsx.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

  14. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    62
    I don't know anything about that car cyndicate and it obviously seems like you know alot about the NSX. But this doctor which is my friends step dad isn't restricted by money and is a SPEED freak. He scares the **** out of me when he drives. Now I think I heard something about a lotus engine one time but i could be wrong. You didn't come off hard at all man, on the internet almost 98% is exagerated or is just a plain lie. Although I could prove to you he exists if I had the mag. But I don't buy many zines like that

  15. #44
    Registered User StoplightWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    2,364
    cyndicate: you seem to know as much about cars as Christopher Colombus did.
    2003 SRT-4

  16. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    960
    All i've heard is that you can't put a turbo on an nsx because of the valves. For some reason you can put a supercharger on when a supercharger and turbo do exactly the same thing. It's not a small motor, I'm sure it could spool a rather large turbo.
    Mods

    Armed with a rotated Precision 6265 turbo at 35psi and a built 2.5 liter.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •