God intended us to have V8 coupes. Nothing less. Today's mass epidemic of pigfat, turbo 4 pot shitpiles is proof of our fallen world.
I sold that exact car to buy a turbo 4 pot kekIt's significantly more fun
>>28117132Are you driving a Lotus or Caterham?
>>28117135No and noI sold my c5 and bought an sti
>>28117121>God intended us to have V8 coupes.It's not the 70's you Neanderthal. Cars have a 5 year life span. Make 7 figures or take the bus.
>>28117162Cars from the 70s didn't stop existing.
>>28117162They still make V8s today, saar
>>28117121sheeesh das a clean rx7 tho
>>28117121quality thread
>>28117121Where do you fit the turbo?
>>28117561(You) personally, you don't since you're a wrenchlet faggot. Stick to discussing LED interior mood lighting and your faggot glue on lips and wings.
>>28117564I do fit turbos though, which is why I'm an inline patrician - leaves space for the turbo.
>>28117565>I do fit turbos thoughPost your toolbox
>>28117570Why would I post my toolbox when I could post my turbo you fucking retard
>>28117572>chink chong turbocome back when you get a efr
>>28117576Goalpost status?>SHIFTED
if god intended man to drive a modern v8 he wouldn't have given it cylinder deactivation and cams made of cheese
>>28117587Use a crate engine
>>28117121>2 doors 3 seats on the bench>Longitudinally mounted turbo V8>6 speed manual transmission>RWDfeels good keeping the dream alive
>>28117576Wow you're sad.
>>28117671What car?
>>28117667>just replace the entire powerplant of your car with one made by fuck knows who>just let another man fuck your wife
>>28117121>america makes shitty cars>trucks that are too big>big sedans with horrible low quality construction>they all handle like shit, have awful reliabilitythen they make the fucking corvette. So you can make good cars, you just choose not to?
>>28117681F350
>>28117121>V8 coupes*V12 biturbo high performance edition coupesfix'd
>>28117121Democrats broke that but Trump will fix it.
>>28117139Holy shit lol
>>28117139KWAB
>>28117739It's a better car in basically every way
>>28117815really? share with the class please
>>28117827Faster, lighter, better handling, worth moreCorvette is a better car for cruising, but the sti is a better sports car.
>>28117830can I get some of that copium you're huffing because holy shit
>>28117830...Aren't C5s like 2400lbs? I'm pretty sure the Corvettes kerb weight has been miniscule ever since they started using plastic for the body. The STI is a 4-door sedan, not hating, I like STIs, but I think objectively, the Corvette is a lighter car.
I nominate v8 only fanboys as the worst type of car person>>28117844Yes, and it also makes 699 horsepower... Try adding an extra thousand pounds and you're close.
>>28117690im pretty sure chevrolet makes crate engines but what do I know, they’re just irrelevant nobodies
>>28117844>Aren't C5s like 2400lbs?nigga what? you're off by almost 1000. >I'm pretty sure the Corvettes kerb weight has been miniscule ever since they started using plastic for the body.every single corvette has used some type of fiberglass/carbonfiber for the body. I don't remember the terminology for the plastic they started using in I think the c4, but it's still plastic reinforced with glass fibers. my sti is 2744lbs
>>28117860>my sti is 2744lbsWhat year? A Hawkeye is almost 3400lbs.
>>281178641998I meant 2755* not 2744it was weighed at the port and clocked in exactly 1250kg
>>28117830>my understeering tin can that's geared taller than the empire state building is better because weebs overpay!!!@!Lol, lmao even.
>>28117873what are you even talking about?
>>28117874>Subaru's understeer >shit quality>only accelerates so quickly because of retardedly tall gearing that sucks on the highway>you claim it's gud because weeb retards like yourself overpay for such things So stupid you can't even read? Makes sense.
the car gods intended for light weight, naturally aspirated 4 cylinder, convertibles.The Miata is God's chosen
>>28117884someone's mad his dad's automatic c5 got destroyed by a subie
>>28117891>y-y-you're mad because I have no cogent rebuttalLol, lmao even.
>>28117898I mean, you're just spewing random bullshit, what is there to rebut? you just sound extremely mad for no apparent reason
>>28117902>they don't understeer>it doesn't have 4.+ gearing >it doesn't lack sound deadening >this is good because it's more expensiveNow you're just being outright delusional Anon.
>>28117561No need, cam+tune will be comparable for less
>>28117912I'm happy my car causes you so much anguish, but you should really work on communication skills. you're very bad at making a coherent point.
>>28117916>akshually I didn't want a turbo anywaySaid no car enthusiast ever
>>28117921>Rod Millen on the Sti: "I found the STi somewhat unpredictable and a big understeerer throttle-off:">4.44 diff ratio>implying STi don't have less sound deadening and that GC8s aren't tin cans in general>implying that it's worth more means that things suddenly aren't issuesAnon, I don't think you understand me laughing at you is not equivalent to being mad. You have a cool car, I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that a GC8 is a tinny, understeering shitbox compared to GT like a Corvette.
>>28117942turbos are shit for throttle response
>>28117988they're fun though
>>28118008they're fun but they can also be finicky, difficult to tune. I personally preferred having my powerband available from idle instead of having to wait for it
>>28117139Based.
>>28117576Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes. Now everytime I'll see your pathetic "you don't have tools" posts, I'll know you're nothing more than a little uppity bitch in heat looking to stir shit up for no reason and ready to move goalposts at a moment's notice. Sale petit pd.
>>28117701Lmao kill yourself.
>>28118039jmen calice dtoé, osti cave
>>28118025don't care, they're fun
>>28117139Basado
>>28118074making more torque at idle than your turbo car makes at peak boost is more fun
>>28118089I disagree, but that's what's cool, both can exist.Personally I prefer an engine that revs to the moon and doesn't really give you anything down low.
>>28117870A 1998 STi is NOT faster than a Corvette C5. You're delusional.>>28117891Even an automatic, I'm pretty sure.
>>28117587The manual versions don't have cylinder deactivation or start/stop. >get v8>don't get stickYou hate freedom?
>>28118246about the same 0-60 and quarter mile but faster around tracks because better handlingthey're very comparable cars performance-wise
>>28118325Maybe if you were talking about a 2006 STi I'd agree, otherwise absolutely not. If you're the owner you're coping.
>>28118401gc8s make about 20hp less while weighing 600 lbs less than an 06. The wrx is a car that's gotten slower literally every generation. first gen stis and c5s both have around 4.5s 0-60 and mid-high 12s quarter miles.
>>28118414GC8s make 330hp stock? I'm gonna need a source on that.Also I don't believe that C5s and STIs were ever that fast. They were low 5s-high 4 0-60 and low 13s quarter miles at the time. Maybe tire improvements since the late 90s pulled them up but then I'd say Corvette's extra gear and aerodynamics are gonna pull it ahead.
>>2811844706 stis don't make 350hp stock.like brother, why the fuck are you fighting easily googleable information as if it's 1996 and you can't just take 3 seconds to find you're wrong? and what the fuck is an extra gear going to do for a corvette in the quarter mile??
>>28118325>>28118414>>28118465Have you even tried to launch your STI? AWD is a bitch to get off the line quickly unless you're going to rape your drivetrain.
>>28118501it's okay to just say>I was wrongor not say anything at all even.
>>28118516>no bro....I can totally do a sub 5s 0-60 in my 30 year old scoobyThe cope is immeasurable at this point.
>>28118516Are you implying he's wrong? If you don't slip the clutch enough you bog, if you slip it too much you fry the clutch. Or you do a high rpm clutch dump which shocks the whole drivetrain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcpiZiHN_Mw
>>28118551>Are you implying he's wrong?no, there's no implication. I'm flat out saying he's (you're) wrong, but keeps changing the goal posts to try to avoid just admitting it and moving on. the original post was that c5s and gc8 stis were very similar performance. then anon claimed>06 stis are faster (when they're measurably slower than both cars)>06 stis made 350hp (when you can just google and see they don't)>c5 corvettes and stis are low 5s and low 13s in the 1/4 (when again, just fucking google it)>c5s are going to be faster in the 1/4 because they have 6 gears (when you won't get out of 3rd, MAYBE 4th at the very most)
>>28118568>he thinks I'm the same guy he was talking to earlierI was just pointing out that YOU can't pull those magazine times Anon. >06 stis made 350hp (when you can just google and see they don't)I'm going to assume he thought you meant it made 20hp less than the C5 you were comparing it to in the same sentence Anon.
>>28118401>Maybe if you were talking about a 2006 STi>>28118593>gc8s make about 20hp less while weighing 600 lbs less than an 06.is the c5 in the room with us now?
>>28118414>gc8s make about 20hp less>first gen stis and c5s both have around 4.5s 0-60>>28118604You were talking about GC8s and C5s in that same post. Again, I'm just pointing out where that guy might have got confused unless he actually thought a 300hp STI had 350hp. We'll have to wait for him to chime in to know for sure.
>>28118568I'm that anon, let's go over this.>06 stis are fasterYes, I generally assume a next generation of sports car is faster then the previous if we're not talking about the malaise era, if not by sheer power, then by improvements in tire/suspension/transmission/aero technology. If I'm wrong on this that's fine, I'll admit it.>06 stis made 350hpNO! C5s made 350(more like 345-350 depending on MY), that was my claim.I guess there was a misunderstading.>c5 corvettes and stis are low 5s and low 13s in the 1/4 (when again, just fucking google it)Just fucking googled it andhttps://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15140145/subaru-impreza-22b-sti-archived-test-review/ (it's a 22B so should be faster than a regular STi)"Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 101 mph"https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45012637/1997-chevrolet-corvette-archive-preview-test/"1/4-Mile: 13.4 sec @ 108 mph"These contemporary reviews seem to support my claim of> They were low 5s-high 4 0-60 and low 13s quarter miles at the time>c5s are going to be faster in the 1/4 because they have 6 gears (when you won't get out of 3rd, MAYBE 4th at the very most)I wasn't necessarily talking about only the 1/4mile when I meant "faster" but yeah, having an extra gear can help in optimizing gear ratios for drag races too.I'm pretty sure the C5 will be faster generally, but probably also in the 1/4 mile because it has a more powerful engine, a better transmission and better aerodynamics. I'm super confident it's faster in 1/2 and the standing mile, though.>>28118611Yeah, you're right, I got confused. Thanks for pitching in.
>>28118039He reposts toolbox photos he stole from craigslist, what did you expect?
>>28118628>I generally assume a next generation of sports car is faster then the previousyou'd think, huh? sadly subaru managed to fuck it up and has gotten slower and uglier with every subsequent release. >all that other stuffI can find sources that claim my numbers as well as yours. 13.1s on shitty 90s tires would without a doubt result in mid or probably low 12s on todays rubber.ultimately none of it matters, because the point still remains that both cars are pretty evenly matched, with most lap times favoring the subaru. The only place it undeniably loses is top speed, subies doing around 150, and corvettes topping out around 170 iirc. And all of this is arguing over literal tenths of a second. none of this shit matters in the real world. they're both fast and fun cars.
>>28118653>none of this shit matters in the real world. they're both fast and fun cars.True!
>>28117988>no I don't want a turbo!!! It will ruin my throttle response!!!said no car enthusiast ever
>>28117139fucking retarded weeb LOL
