2010 m3 gts..wow
-
DrifterExtreme;293509 wrote:
Really, yugo, smart, renault, alfa romeo, ect.... couldn't hold it's own with a factory ford taurus......dude you don't even get it, the euro cars that are very abundant are for the most part shitty as far as "sporty" driving is concerned. Yet you don't understand that.
Shit even euro cop cars are pathetic compared to us cop cars
or lets look at white vans which are pretty much there version of the f150 or chevy 1500, wre pathetic and would get stomped.
Lol. You must of not read my previous post
Keep the info relevant to our region/country
In AMERICA European cars are for the MOST PART Faster than JDM cars.
Youre all in denial
-
Eurofan;293512 wrote:
Lol. You must of not read my previous postKeep the info relevant to our region/country
In AMERICA European cars are for the MOST PART Faster than JDM cars.
Youre all in denial
nope i'm just taking your retarded logic and using it against you.
-
Eurofan;293512 wrote:
Youre all in denialyes you are correct EVERY MEMBER posting is completely wrong... we are all car newbs dont cha know.... you should be an admin with your vast knowledge of everything! we shall all learn from your greatness..... READ SOME BOOKS!
-
Eurofan;293522 wrote:
Duh???But does this make my original statement false???
No....
European cars are better on the track
um no there not, you have yet to prove that is anything buy an opinion.
-
Eurofan;293452 wrote:
Lol.. You guys are not looking at this right...I am not talking about just the big hyped up cars...
I am talking about the base model cars vs base model cars
The Audi a4
The BMW 128/328i
The Merc c-class
The Saab 9-3's
VS
The Honda Civics
The Toyota corollas
The Nissan altima 2.5's
Ect ect.Dude are your reh-tarded?
Comparing BMW's might be fair if your talking about Lexus or Infinitis, but wtf? comparing them to civics and altimas?
ihaveaids;293514 wrote:
How does your almighty overly price m5 etc. compare to say the new GTR or Z06 vette???? Comparing a luxary sports sedan with borderline super car coupes?
Cobra Rob;293533 wrote:
i rather have a modded sti or evo over a undependable BMW
what about the Supra or NSX are they very sucky cars in the 90's? compaired to Euros and they are still kicking ass today and are still worth $LOL a modded STi or Evo is more dependable then a BMW?
:icon_cheers:
Either way, this thread is full of fail, and I own Euro cars.
BTW Cobra Rob you are a FAN BOY on the opposite side. $300 oil changes? err how about not.
-
There's a lot of fail in this thread
The average german car is designed to sustain its top speed [which in some cases is very low] for exteneded periods of time, as that is what the german national highway system calls for... with 30% of the on-road miles being unrestricted speed. When Lexus first introduced some of its models to Europe there were rampant engine failures.. [on the GS series, i beleive] because there was no other venue in the world where normal bozos were frequently running them wide open for half hour or whatever.
The Germans have a different set of design criteria, and one of those is extended high speed operation. This tends to manifest itself in ways like setting up the suspension for high-speed understeer, and in fitting oversized factory brakes. These two attributes tend to conspire to make the cars easy to drive fast at the track, which is the only real situation in the US where you are going much over 75mph and then scrubbing off as much speed as possible as fast as possible.
The base model Audi A4 has 200hp these days. It hasn't been 140hp... ever. The introduction of the A4 to US shores happened in 95/96 (MY 96) and that was the 150hp 2.8 V6. The 1.8T engine had the same power when it was introduced. Both received power upgrades within a few years... to 190hp for the V6 and 180hp for the 1.8T.
As far as comparing the E30 M3 to the Ford GT... The E30 M3 was the winningest touring car in history. The Ford GT nameplate has a racing pedigree but the modern ford GT inherits it in name only. I've not kept up on domestic road racing but I'm not aware of a modern Ford GT racing effort.
Every generation of BMW 3 series and BMW M3 has had a factory [and privateer] backed racing program.
The nice thing about track driving is that its really more about the driver than the car. In my wimpy 250hp sedan I have passed Z06's [in the rain], STIs [in the dry], and some kind of Shelby/GT500 new mustang, to name a few cars that are obviously paper-supercars. The key is that all of the drivers ran out of commitment long before their machines ran out of capability.
I think the contention has been that on a US spec BMW or P-car, you can drive to the track, drive, and drive home, and at most you are changing the brake pads or tires for track duty. There is a lot of capability pre-built into those cars and that is absolutely NOT the case in many other cars available in the US. You'll note that the fast Hondas [the S2k and the NSX] are also the expensive ones. There are no fast stock Civics... not even with the "R" badge.
If I wanted a bone-stock car where I could drive it to the track, party, and drive home, and then drive it to work Monday, the BMW 3 series is extremely hard to beat. Very few people are as good as BMW at making a suspension that doesn't embarass itself on the track yet doesnt' shake your teeth out or piss off your wife driving around town.
The plain fact of the matter is that everything in the BMW catalog can and has been driven around racetracks in the US. Part of their branding mythos is this idea that they are "sporty" yet practical cars.
If you want more "sport" than what you get out of the box, you get an M version or you get a Porsche [and in the latter case, you expect to pay more up front and lose your back seats and trunk capacity].
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Ford have no such attribute in their branding message and their product lineups reflect that.
I don't think anyone disputes the innovation Honda has brought to racing when it has chosen to direct its energies in that direction. That it so infrequently does so in its US product lineup is disappointing.
-
thrash i'm not saying euro cars suck, i'm only saying eurodoushe is making shit up like ALL euro cars are the best on track.
it is a rediculous thing to try and say.
-
thrash;293570 wrote:
There's a lot of fail in this threadThe average german car is designed to sustain its top speed [which in some cases is very low] for exteneded periods of time, as that is what the german national highway system calls for... with 30% of the on-road miles being unrestricted speed. When Lexus first introduced some of its models to Europe there were rampant engine failures.. [on the GS series, i beleive] because there was no other venue in the world where normal bozos were frequently running them wide open for half hour or whatever.
The Germans have a different set of design criteria, and one of those is extended high speed operation. This tends to manifest itself in ways like setting up the suspension for high-speed understeer, and in fitting oversized factory brakes. These two attributes tend to conspire to make the cars easy to drive fast at the track, which is the only real situation in the US where you are going much over 75mph and then scrubbing off as much speed as possible as fast as possible.
The base model Audi A4 has 200hp these days. It hasn't been 140hp... ever. The introduction of the A4 to US shores happened in 95/96 (MY 96) and that was the 150hp 2.8 V6. The 1.8T engine had the same power when it was introduced. Both received power upgrades within a few years... to 190hp for the V6 and 180hp for the 1.8T.
As far as comparing the E30 M3 to the Ford GT... The E30 M3 was the winningest touring car in history. The Ford GT nameplate has a racing pedigree but the modern ford GT inherits it in name only. I've not kept up on domestic road racing but I'm not aware of a modern Ford GT racing effort.
Every generation of BMW 3 series and BMW M3 has had a factory [and privateer] backed racing program.
The nice thing about track driving is that its really more about the driver than the car. In my wimpy 250hp sedan I have passed Z06's [in the rain], STIs [in the dry], and some kind of Shelby/GT500 new mustang, to name a few cars that are obviously paper-supercars. The key is that all of the drivers ran out of commitment long before their machines ran out of capability.
I think the contention has been that on a US spec BMW or P-car, you can drive to the track, drive, and drive home, and at most you are changing the brake pads or tires for track duty. There is a lot of capability pre-built into those cars and that is absolutely NOT the case in many other cars available in the US. You'll note that the fast Hondas [the S2k and the NSX] are also the expensive ones. There are no fast stock Civics... not even with the "R" badge.
If I wanted a bone-stock car where I could drive it to the track, party, and drive home, and then drive it to work Monday, the BMW 3 series is extremely hard to beat. Very few people are as good as BMW at making a suspension that doesn't embarass itself on the track yet doesnt' shake your teeth out or piss off your wife driving around town.
The plain fact of the matter is that everything in the BMW catalog can and has been driven around racetracks in the US. Part of their branding mythos is this idea that they are "sporty" yet practical cars.
If you want more "sport" than what you get out of the box, you get an M version or you get a Porsche [and in the latter case, you expect to pay more up front and lose your back seats and trunk capacity].
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and Ford have no such attribute in their branding message and their product lineups reflect that.
I don't think anyone disputes the innovation Honda has brought to racing when it has chosen to direct its energies in that direction. That it so infrequently does so in its US product lineup is disappointing.
1998 AUDI A4 SPECS
Turbo compressor- 1,781 cc 1.8 liters 4 in-line front longitudinal engine with 81 mm bore, 86.4 mm stroke, 9.5 compression ratio, cast iron block, light alloy head, double overhead cam and five valves per cylinder
- Premium unleaded fuel
- Fuel economy EPA highway (l/100km): 8.1
- Multi-point injection fuel system
- 60 liter fuel tank
- Power: 112 kW , 150 HP @ 5,700 rpm; 155 ft lb , 210 Nm @ 1,750 rpm
TAKEN FROM INTERNETAUTOGUIDE.COM
<u>150 FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER</u>
YOUD BE LUCK TO SUSTAIN 105 MPH FOR 10 MINUTES WITH THAT MOTOR TRYING TO MOVE A 3500 LBS CAR. BLOW ME REFLECT THAT RACE INSPIRED BULLSHIT
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
Holy shit i was wrong that car weighs 4300lbs, good god
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
i bet ken block could beat your 3 series around the track in a malibu.
or even a genesis.
/end thread.
-
There has never been a 4300 lb audi A4. And i told you right in the post that the A4 started at 150hp.
I've driven small european market cars in europe on the autobahn. Have you? The 2 liter non-turbo diesel had no problem sustaining 130mph, and the 1.6l inline 4 gas [non turbo] also had no problem sustaining that speed. Infact, it hit the rev limiter in top gear.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login